The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:18:53 -0700
From: B&D <NO_SPAMnopsamCOM>
Subject: Re: GM to increase SAAB lineup


On 4/16/03 7:04 AM, in article b7jnsr05u6nopsams4.newsguy.com, "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenopsam.net> wrote: > I don't think we are as far apart on this as you think. All the examples > you cite (including CAFE, which is not a pollution topic; I am of the > opinion that fuel economy became a separate issue from pollution at least a > decade ago) are an evolution of existing laws. Sure, make adjustments in > the standards over time on an evolutionary - not revolutionary - basis. > That doesn't mean we need more laws. > > While many "trucks" are used as passenger vehicles, how would you actually > go about reclassifying them? What if they are used as child haulers during > the week, and a true work vehicle for projects on weekends? Or a work truck > during the week, and a family trip vehicle on weekends? I don't know how to classify them properly. If I did I would propose it. I do know that under standard rules for deduction of vehicles - the primary use of the vehicle must be commercial and weigh above a certain amount. A redefinition of "commercial" would probably be in order, and some clarification that if a vehicle is not used under this new definition that the passenger car emissions shall apply. But not being a legislator or lawyer I don't know about the proper wording that wouldn't generate a bunch of additional loopholes. > What if someone > buys a compact pickup truck because it is all they can afford? (I can go to > a nearby dealer today and drive home with a brand new GMC Sonoma pickup for > about $15,000 minus any rebates currently available. Final cost would > probably be about $12,000) Would reclassing this model mean that truck > manufacturers would only make and sell the more profitable big pickups > because the compact ones aren't worth their time and effort? I think currently there are rather large subsidies and tax breaks for vehicles ABOVE certain weights - someone told me the Denali SUV was designed specifically for this particular loophole. If the loopholes were closed, or all vehicles used primarily for commercial purposes would be tax deductible, it might be surprising to see that the real estate agents, and other self employed people that drive a lot for their job, might end up with fewer giant SUV's and more sedans (though leases are all deductible, the giant SUV's have a special class that is even more so). The fact that not everyone in this class is driving an SUV means that there are a lot of people that are aware of the tax implications of a sedan v. SUV and still choose the sedan. >I see this as > a place where CAFE standards caused the problem by exterminating full sized > station wagons that were economical compared to SUV's and good for hauling > people. 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. >An earlier posting pointed out that the Volvo wagon (and other > European estate models) cost about the same as a SUV. Big Volvos, wagon or > sedan, have always cost quite a bit more, maybe double the cost of a > stripped Chevy Caprice or Ford Crown Victoria, so that reasoning doesn't > apply in the US. 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 can't get a Crown Vic wagon, or Caprice Wagon, but your point is that you could get a big car for about $20-25k stripped down? See comments about Camry, Accord, Taurus, Outback, etc. >If the change you propose is made, then I predict that > the more economical SUV's would disappear and people would be forced into > bigger, gas guzzling, road hogging Suburbans and there would be even more to > complain about. I would predict that station wagons would make a very big comeback - and that the "crossover" market would grow faster. People now are switching to more efficient better driving vehicles as gas prices continue to rise and the giant SUV's are getting less popular. I do agree that the mid-range (Ford Explorer) would contract, and the really expensive ones (Caddy Escalade) would stick around because the owners are affluent enough to not give a toss about the cost to keep them on the road. But the middle class buyer would buy other things.

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]