Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:02:26 -0700 From: B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM> Subject: Re: GM to increase SAAB lineup
On 4/16/03 9:05 AM, in article b7jv0l02msinopsams2.newsguy.com, "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenopsam.net> wrote: >> that there are a lot of people that are aware of the tax implications of a >> sedan v. SUV and still choose the sedan. > > The problem with trying to close all the loopholes is that it can't be done. > People always find new loopholes that cause unexpected results. Sure, I will agree that it is difficult. You can reduce the amount of loophole abuse to a minimum, rather than the gaping hole it is right now, however. (While not perfect, it certainly can hit the intent of it). >> Yes. I agree. But the 1976 station wagon that was my first car was about >> SUV level of mileage, quite frankly. The reason SUV's revived is that > they >> were not covered by the same CAFE standards. And we see that in the case > of >> Saab, Volvo and Mercedes - this ind of vehicle didn't have to be >> exterminated, it is just that the auto makers retreated behind loopholes >> rather than innovate. > > You can't compare a 1976 station wagon, from the era of the largest, least > fuel efficient tanks made, to a SUV from today. Sure you can! I think in this case when fuel inefficent cars were made, but had lots of power, they had lots of customers. In the wake of the CAFŠ Standards and a couple of oil shocks, we find ourselves with very good and powerful and inefficient trucks doing the hauling previously relegated to huge monster barge-cars. >With the advances in > technology, I expect that even the least fuel efficient current model SUV > gets better gas mileage than the 27 year old station wagon (depending on > which model it was). A little better perhaps, but they will usually amp up the horsepower to make it more powerful. I got 15 MPG in my station wagon in the city, and the EPA sticker on a V8 Explorer (its spiritual successor) is 15 in the city. > True, not everyone that has an SUV has those requirements, and some people > are more wasteful than others. You shouldn't punish everyone just because > some people live to excess. I wasn't proposing punishment, I was proposing enforcing the intent of the CAFE standards. >> Um, I said that, and I just bought a Saab 9-5 Sport Wagon over and SUV - > the >> SUV prices were about the same as the Wagon - at least the ones I was >> considering. And if you think Saab and Volvo are too expensive, there are >> always the Subaru Outback and Ford Taurus wagons to choose. Camry and >> Accord had wagons as well that were about the same price as their sedans - >> but got obliterated by SUV-itis. > > You forgot Saturn who has two models of wagons, but none of those aren't the > big vehicles that would take the place of an SUV. The Camry wagon was just > ugly and overpriced. I don't think its disappearance had anything to do > with competition from SUV's. I keep forgetting Saturn - perhaps a bad ownership experience with the SW2... Still, for 99% of what most people want to do with a SUV, a station wagon will do with more efficiency. I think the success of the tall-wagon class, oops, the "crossover" vehicles is speaking to that. Wagons will be back to the mainstream given 5-8 more years and a few more oil shocks... As long a Saab doesn't give up the 9-5 wagon and gives a 9-3 hatch eventually, I will be a happy Saab customer!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
