Do you own a SUV?

California · Sep 19, 2005

Roz, not many of the Excursions in California have hitch receivers on them. I think more of them have the expensive ultra-low profile tires, those tires with 2 inches of sidewall. I hope you wouldn't criticise those owners!

I think anyone understands that for commercial use you need an adequate tow vehicle, but I've never seen an Excursion in commercial use.

beagdog · Sep 19, 2005

In your part of the country that's probably true. Where I live they are in use by nearly every type of business that also uses Crew Cab pickups. From construction companies to engineering firms and from Fire Departments to the State Highway department.

I too own an Excursion, 4x4 diesel. Don't drive it alot, basically just use it to travel. I have averaged over 20 mpg with it in the 9800 miles that I have owned this one (which replaced a 2001 7.3 diesel that averaged a little over 18 in over 30,000 miles).

To each his own.

HGM · Sep 19, 2005

Thats the thing that some younger single people dont understand. This would also put some of them in the greenie catagory because they are looking for a cause in life, something to stand behind.

The fact is that most people that own an SUV are family folks that travel. If you dont fit into that catagory or use it for what it is intended for, you really cant speak on the topic.

I did however see something I have never seen before today, it was a new Hummer wanna be (Yukon) towing a 19' travel trailer. Definitly different.....Not sure where I stand on the Hummer thing, it is a status symbol, I dont like them and dont consider them and SUV.

On the same ride home I saw another Excursion being used for work, see this alot. It was towing a tire trailer with a compressor mounted for 18wheeler repairs.

Sigarms · Sep 19, 2005

Look at the H1, not the H2 or new H3.

HGM · Sep 19, 2005

Certainly agree there, I just dont see a real Hummer on the road lately.

California · Sep 19, 2005

( On the same ride home I saw another Excursion being used for work, see this alot. )

Since my post I ran an errand and saw only one Excursion. All of them here are Gas, we can't buy the Diesel.

This one had a hitch receiver ... but had 'mag' rims that I think were 10 x 24, bigger than the rims on my tractor. The brake lights had decorative overlays that hid half of the lens area. Only one occupant, who was on the phone and delaying everyone who had to wait for him to start from a stoplight.

This was an example of the Profligate Consumption that Chuck was referring to - a legitimate commercial vehicle pimped to where most of its usefulness has been drained away and now the whole point is that it expresses an attitude. I'm with the Sierra Club on this one, that was not a reasonable one-passenger vehicle.

Attached - my SUV, my seventh 4x4. This Subaru got 30.22 mpg last tank. This rig (including trailer) will do anything I need for home or orchard, with one exception: I don't own anything that could trailer my tractor. I figure a couple hundred $ to UHaul would take care of that if I ever had to.

I don't mean to imply that my solution would work for anyone else, but I describe it as an example of a reasonable match between vehicle capability and actual need. I'm not convinced that many SUV drivers (TBN members excepted!) ever make that analysis.

HGM · Sep 19, 2005

/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif no offence, I think things are different out there on the left coast. Everything I hear about things out there you have explained yourself to be truse as well.

In the SE we do see quite a bit of regular need, though there are those that just need to have people look at them too..I cant explain them, I dont understand it myself... My favorite are the '84 Monte Carlo's with 26" rims that look like 4x4's, its a trip.......

RedDog · Sep 19, 2005

Do you own a SUV? 

Yes. 97 3/4ton Suburban 4x4, Diesel.

RedDog

Moon · Sep 20, 2005

( This was an example of the Profligate Consumption that Chuck was referring to - a legitimate commercial vehicle pimped to where most of its usefulness has been drained away and now the whole point is that it expresses an attitude. I'm with the Sierra Club on this one, that was not a reasonable one-passenger vehicle. )

...but that is the owners choice. Each of us decide for ourselves what is the appropriate vehicle. Sure, no matter what vehicle you have, sometimes it will just be one person. So, if you saw me in my one ton F350 dually, that looks like a work truck, I'm guessing that is okay, since it looks like a work truck. But it's also a crew cab ...so whenever just one person is in it, would it be looked down upon by the Sierra Club as an inappropriate one person vehicle?
If I didn't have the dually, I'd probably have an SUV. I like shiney mag wheels, so it might be what you'd call pimped. But, that is my choice and no one elses. I don't understand the targeting of oversized station wagons (SUV's). This is America. You can choose to drive what ever you like, as long as it's legal on the highway. Why should anyone else care?

Dargo · Sep 20, 2005

( ...a reasonable one-passenger vehicle.)

I don't think you'll have to worry too much about the gas version of the Excursions. The owners of those are being "punished" plenty not only by single digit fuel economy, but by the most extreme depreciation of any vehicle I've seen in recent history. As I've mentioned earlier, I personally know 3 families who own gas versions of the Excursion. In town, none of them get double digit fuel economy. One of them is nearly in financial ruins because they now owe more than twice as much on their gas Excursion than what it is worth. They want out of it. They made a mistake. Wouldn't you think they are being punished enough?
Also, for "single passenger" vehicles, it really depends on what service is needed from the vehicle. There are plenty of large gas guzzling single passenger vehicles that are in service. For example, here is a link to what my dad actually drives Truck . It only has room for one and has a 1200 gallon fuel tank.

Chuck52 · Sep 20, 2005

( </ Why should anyone else care? )

OK. I'll try. If petroleum is an Unlimited Resource, and burning it does no environmental harm, no one should care how it is used. If you wanted, and could afford to buy, several thousand gallons of gas and use it for a large bonfire, we'd all come and roast weenies with you.

Very few reasonable environmentally responsible people are unable to understand the need for work vehicles which are less than economical in their fuel requirements. Many people need a heavy duty towing vehicle to move loads of this or that around. There are indeed idiots who would assume anyone alone in a big truck, van, SUV, whatever, is simply wasting fuel, without considering the possibility that they are travelling between jobs, etc. However, consider the analogy to the availability of fresh water in many places. If you own land in one of those areas, should you have the absolute right to pump all the water from the aquifer under your land and use it to grow orchids? Would you tell your parched neighbors you didn't give the south end of a north travelling rodent what they thought of your actions?

Are we getting to that with petroleum? I guess that's the real question.

Chuck

HGM · Sep 20, 2005

What kind of mileage does he get out of that???? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Carefull they'l be putting him in a Prius with a trailer next week.. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

MikePA · Sep 20, 2005

Very few reasonable environmentally responsible people are unable to understand the need for work vehicles which are less than economical in their fuel requirements. 
What entity would sit in judgement of who does, and who does not, need a 'work vehicles which are less than economical in their fuel requirements.'?

Cityboyfarmer · Sep 20, 2005

( Very few reasonable environmentally responsible people are unable to understand the need for work vehicles which are less than economical in their fuel requirements. 
What entity would sit in judgement of who does, and who does not, need a 'work vehicles which are less than economical in their fuel requirements.'?
)

The Gas Gestapo? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Chuck52 · Sep 20, 2005

Mike,

I didn't, and don't, propose any regulation. I was pointing out that the expessed attitude that "what I do is no one else's business" falls apart when what you are doing uses up a limited resource. I also refrained from defining petroleum as a limited resource. I'm not trying to force my opinion about SUVs on anyone, and haven't even given my opinion, but I think it should be clear that very little we do these days has no effect on the other dwellers on this small rock, and it is counter productive to pretend otherwise.

If George Bush, Bill Gates, and a typical TBNer are trapped in a cave in, who gets the last breath of air?

Chuck

TOMLESCOEQUIP · Sep 20, 2005

( ( ...a reasonable one-passenger vehicle.) There are plenty of large gas guzzling single passenger vehicles that are in service. For example, here is a link to what my dad actually drives Truck . It only has room for one and has a 1200 gallon fuel tank. ) Does he have the California version without the trailer hitch ?? ( See attached pic of the california special)

mwechtal · Sep 20, 2005

Bob,
Wow, what a hot topic. Get away from the computer for a few days and look what happens.

The We don't have any SUVs, we have 2 Jeep Cherokees. comment was just a dig at other brands. After all, they are just imitators that had to make up a name. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif Everyone please look at the smiley before flaming!

So, I agree Cherokees basically defined the midsize SUV category, but think back. Before the Cherokee was the Wagoneer, and before that the Jeepster (though you did have to remove the back seat to haul a load I think). The lineage goes back to about '66 if I'm not mistaken. There were Willy's Jeepsters in the '50s, but they were a whole 'nother animal.

By the way, the 2005 Cherokee is a Grand with a 3.7l V-6. (You can get 4.7 or 5.7l V-8s, but in a vehicle this small, the Hemi would be WAY too much.) However, the last couple of years they did away with the real Grand, and fancied up the regular Cherokee and called it a Grand. They're about the same size and weight as the older regular Cherokees. If you want something bigger from Chrysler, you have to go to a Dodge Durango.

Mike

slowrev · Sep 20, 2005

hmm believe I need one of those to pull my 14 ft boat with /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I forget how many gollons to the mile those things get.....used to work on them about 15 yrs ago....Well actually Electra Hauls made by GE, had V16 detroits in them.
Ben

Dargo · Sep 20, 2005

Ohmygosh!! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif Do I have your permission to send my dad that pic? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I bet he will hang a copy of it up in the shop and tell them he wants his machine to look like that by the next shift. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

crown · Sep 20, 2005

Add me to the list of SUV owners..

I own a 2005 Chysler Pacifica and a 2004 Dodge Ram with the HEMI.

I have long day trips for work 125 miles plus the Dodge sure is a lot easier on by back and legs than the company vehicles I use to drive a Cavalier and Grand Am's.

I put a high value on my comfort and the big SUV's provide me with the comfort and utility I want so I will gladly pay the high gas prices verses the alternative.