First thing is to define the mission for your vehicle. Your choice must fulfill 95% of that, or else you are going to be renting something, which gets expensive.

Second thing is to select a vehicle that fulfills the mission, which *also* provides the lowest total operating cost (TCO). If you value low pollutant emissions, you must figure that in, too. TCO includes depreciation and maintenance, which (incidentally) have proven to be very low for gas/electric hybrids. Historically reliable non-hybrid used vehicles may compete, so keep an open mind.

Third thing is to operate and maintain the vehicle in a way that keeps TCO low. It's your money, after all.

In the sedan and small&mid size SUVs, options will include hybrids. If the way the vehicle 'looks' or where it is made, or how you feel about the mfr. matters to you, then your choice might well be different from mine. That's OK

Tochatihu, out.

DAS

 

To even suggest that someone should purchase 2 hybrid vehicles to fill the need of an SUV is ludicrous. You can't truly believe this is a realistic solution. Puchasing and maintaining 2 vehicles is better than owning an SUV? Some of you all have just gone of the deep end and your hate for SUV owners is blinding you to reality.

 

Read my post again Chestarkl. The part about learning to play hockey on a pond. It would fit, his sister just doesn't want to try.

I don't hate SUVs Chilly or the people who drive them, as I know several owners. Everyone can drive em all they want. Just stop telling the rest of us its a need to take kids around to hockey rinks or commute with during the week or to feel safe. More convenient or easier, maybe. Until you have to stop 3 times as often for gas. As far as your point about buying 2 hybrids I agree. That was dumb suggestion.

But my next paragragh is on the mark. 3 pairs of skate, 3 helmuts, some pucks, and even goalie padding (kid size) will fit in the back of a Prius easily. And let em hold their sticks and the friends parents take them to the rink.

I here you about SUV forums too, but that's what they are there for. To let owners voice their views like we do here. I am not trying to convince any SUV owners of anything directly. The 90% of owners who just want them will sell em eventually at that magic point where disposable income crosses the cost of operating one. It is happening and will continue to happen as fuel prices escalate higher and higher.

 

Chilly,
I don't hate SUVs or their owners. In fact, I own one

Trying to convince us ,though, that most everybody NEEDS an SUV - now that's off the deep end.

 

Huh? I don't see anything about a pond in any of the above posts or in the article - where did that come from? Did this come from another thread? Not sure where you're going with that.......

And, no it all would not fit if they had 3 kids playing organized hockey with all of the padding. If it's just recreational with just skates and helmets and no padding (which is what I'm assuming you were trying to refer to) then yes, that would probably fit. But not if they were in a league of any sort, which is what the story alluded to for her purposes, because the kids would be required to have full gear (shin pads, breezers, shoulder pads, gloves, etc) if they played in a league. Those bags with the full gear are BIG. Only one bag would fit in the trunk of a Prius, the others would have to go in the back seat - taking up the room of one person each. Sticks are too long to get them into the trunk - so they would have to go inside anyway no matter what.

 

I spent many years stopping pucks, so I have a lot of 1st hand experience on what it takes to transport goalie equipment I can GUARANTEE you that once my equipment gets loaded in a Prius, there MIGHT be room for one other player. Unless you're talking LITTLE kids (12 and under) or you don't mind not being able to see out the back window, the rear seats will need to fold down. Once you get into adult sized gear (ie teen-agers and up) the shots get harder, so the pads get bulkier and the bags get bigger.

Just had to get that in there......back to topic

FWIW - I think the article author's point was NOT necessarily to lift up his sister as the quintessential SUV needer, but to point out that you don't have to look far to find people whose lifestyle choices are better served by one type of a vehicle over another. It also points out my main contention that most people who buy SUVs buy them as People Haulers, not work trucks or off-road vehicles, which SOME people seem to believe SHOULD BE their only purpose.



Peace,

Martin

 

But that hasn't been my point. I have never said most everybody NEEDS and SUV. I have simply said that the majority of SUV owners have a need for them, even if only occasionally, which is why the purchased them.

I assume that is why you own one, correct? Do you never ride around in your SUV alone, or is it always used for it's max capacity? According to this site if you don't use it to it's full potential 100% of the time then you should not own it. You should instead rent one or buy 2 smaller vehicles to replace it.

 

I have two points to make:
1) I have an FEH. Do I need a large vehicle 100% of the time? No. However, the 30-40% of the time I need the extra capactiy makes this a worthwhile vehicle for me. I also live in an area where snow flies frequently, and while the snowplows do pretty good job, I still need the vehicle clearance to get out of my neighborhood. Some of you may understand how embarassing it is to call into work to say you're stuck in your driveway!
2) Biodiesel does not work everywhere. I noticed the person who suggested this was from LA. Biodiesel works great there because (drumroll please) it doesn't get below freezing! Biodiesel became a mandate up here two years ago. The first winter, they lifted the requirement two weeks into the cold because the "Bio" part (mostly soybean oil) was gelling and clogging the fuel filters on big rigs and buses. They lifted it about a month into this year's winter. And, in order to keep the soy from gelling in the vehicles, they have to run the engines constantly when it gets subzero (a rather common occurance considering this is Minnesota!), thus wasting fuel and pouring millions of pounds of pollutants into the air.
Our best hope is to have people who want hybrids get hybrids, switch to low sulphur diesel fuel for diesel engines, and continued work on fuel efficiency and emissions reductions in gasoline powered cars. The world will never become all electric. (Besides, if it did, we'd have to find a way to get all the electricity for our plug-ins!)

 

My apologies Chestarkl. I edited out the hockey on a pond reference and then forgotten I had done it. But that's where I learned to play. I guess the bone I have to pick is the use of personal anecdote by the writer to attempt to prove macro facts. It's too easy to pick apart, whatever your point of view.

I do agree with the article about getting improvements wherever they come from and as marginal as they may be. It really depends on what its worth to us as a society to be energy independent. Most everyone thinks that's a good idea but there are a lot of differences of opinion about how to get there, how soon to get there, what steps to take to get there, and what to spend to get there. Those are the questions really.

I am of a mind that it should be done as soon as possible. I don't think we can rely on the oil companies as they have a direct, vested interest in a particular outcome (complete control of the means of energy production). The U.S. auto companies talk a good game but I am reserving my opinion for another 30 months (Volt, etc). The government also talks but has done very little in terms of concrete action toward solving the problem.

My view is that a true crash course in energy independence be broadly instituted right away. This means 10 to 100 times what is being spent right now. If private investment won't or can't do it then govenrment should do it, as this is a true national security issue to me. I know there are a lot of anti-government people on the forums but except for a few most of us just argue which is better, guns or butter. I don't want my grandchildren to have to invade Mexico in 2025 to get what's left of their oil, especially so kids can go to hockey practice in an SUV. And if that means taxing gasoline and diesel, taxing low mileage, personal use, vehicles (SUVs, sports cars, etc), putting higher CAFE stds on U.S. fleets of manufacturers, mandatory higher mileage for trucking fleets, lowering the speed limit, and LOTS of gov't funding of alternative fuel research, to get it done then so be it. I'm even okay with drilling for more oil here. But ONLY if the above have all been done first or concurrently. I don't want another American soldier putting his life on the line so we can all do 85 mph wherever we go, or race from one light to another, or sit with the engine running while we go into 7/11 or watch soccer practice without a thought to the impact or consequences. If we can afford to do those things today energy is still too cheap.

I doubt I will get my way on all of these and that may be a good thing on some of them but I believe that market forces cannot get it done alone. There are too many vested interests pulling against each other. And besides, laissez faire economics hasn't existed here since the end of the Gilded Age with passage of the Sherman anit-trust act in 1892.

 

Aha - whew, I thought I was losing it for a minute there looking for that and that I missed it somehow.

You know, I think I would tend to disagree with that somewhat. I think market forces would get it done - if gas prices would push up high enough to change the thinking (and the government wouldn't try to intervene with politics and try to "look out for the consumer"). If gas would get up to $5 or $6 per gallon (and stay there) - I think THAT would create enough of a paradigm shift to start changing the minds of a lot more people. Right now there still isn't enough pain at the pump to change the majority of the public's mind. I seriously don't think anything will happen until the price of gas gets to a point where everyone will have to change their way of life - and we aren't there yet. I don't think even $4 gas will really do it, but it'd be close.

If gas were to get to that point, everyone would be demanding the products that were more efficient and that would fuel (no pun intended) a dynamic expansion of money and effort into the research and development of these technologies. Right now they're saying "eh, it's nice and if the price is relatively close to what I can get for something similar I'll consider it, but it's not a necessity". It's all still going to be driven by supply and demand, and the real demand just isn't there yet. I think we're just starting to see a little bit of it show up, but not the multi-fold increase in demand that would be needed to change people's minds.

Obviously that would throw the whole economy into a tizzy, but I don't think we can get that paradigm shift that's needed without it.