Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You'll be paying it at the gas station for the next however-long-you-can-afford-it. You don't really think gas will stay a buck and a half forever, do you? Silly boy. Now that they know we'll pay four bucks, it will be four bucks again before you know it. Trust me on this.
And a crossover is basically an SUV without four-wheel drive, a.k.a. the only reason anyone in their right mind drives an SUV in the first place. (which, come to think of it, leaves out the vast majority of SUV drivers) All the shitty fuel economy, none of the handles-good-in-the-snow benefits. Nice choice.
Well? Did you?
I just don't like the way the space is utilized in a minivan
really? please explain. why not? this is the CRUX of the decision. why does the author gloss over this issue? this the only practical reason given for not buying a minivan and yet he doesn't explain at all.
my guess is there was no practical reason for not buying a minivan. but i'm waiting to hear otherwise... :)
What is wrong is that SUVs (and similarly destructive large pickup trucks and vans) are a classic case of "privatize the benefits, socialize the costs"
--Given that oil/gasoline prices are massively subsidized, the more fuel a vehicle uses, the more it takes advantage of that subsidy.
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
--The relaxed emissions and safety standards for SUVs are borne by society in higher medical care costs and higher insurance premiums
--The much-desired higher seating position of SUVs comes at the expense of the view for other drivers.
--Etc., etc., etc.
It's not the SUVs that are the problem, it is our society's inability to rationally price energy and transportation costs.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp
This is a trick article. A ruse.
Environmentalists don't have 2 kids, and they don't get SUV's to haul them around in either.
Why are people suggesting that a minivan would be a better alternative than a Mitsubishi Outlander? The 4 cylinder Outlander got 22mpg in mixed driving, according to Consumer Reports. The two most fuel efficient minivans - Honda's Odyssey and Toyota's Sienna - got only 19mpg. So the SUV gets three more miles per gallon than the most fuel-efficient minivan.
Little "SUV's" like the Outlander aren't even real SUV's. They're typically based on car or car-like platforms, not truck platforms, and many of these smaller "crossover" vehicles get better mileage than any minivan. That's because they're nothing more than jacked up wagons.
If you want something that can haul a little cargo but gets good mileage, buy a Toyota Matrix / Pontiac Vibe - 27mpg in CU's testing (well over 30mpg on the highway).
Maybe everyone should get over the three letters "SUV" and realize that not all SUVs (or cars, or even hybrid cars) are created alike. (As just one example, why would this particular "SUV" cause more road damage than any other car in its weight class? Answer: It wouldn't.)
Why are you guys jumping all over this poor guy? If I do a side-by-side with the 2WD Outlander he bought, it gets better fuel economy than the Toyota minivan (17 city, 23 hwy), and the same fuel economy as a Honda minivan (20 city, 25 hwy). In fact, the only one that gets better gas mileage than the car (which is what a crossover is, guys, despite the "SUV" label) Mark Benjamin bought is the Mazda 5. Is that what you all drive?
If Mark Benjamin really rides his bike most places, and only uses the "SUV" to haul the whole family around when they go wherever -- camping, or to visit the grandparents -- then he really is doing less damage to the planet than he was when he was driving his Volvo, and honestly, isn't that worth something?
P.S. I hate to mention this, because it reflects more poorly on people like me (who commute 50+ miles to work), but the real number to focus on is MILES DRIVEN PER YEAR. MPG is meaningful mostly for the person paying for the gas in the tank; the environment could care less.
You successfully wrote yourself out of any real criticism by offering all the critiques yourself and then basically just admitting that you're not really concerned about anyone but yourself and your family, but what gets me about the story is that the only thing giving you pause in the entire purchasing decision were three letters on the contract. Can't you just look at that gigantic car and the gas mileage it gets and figure out that it's an SUV? What exactly do you think an SUV is, anyway? Is it a matter of what it's called, or what it actually is?
But don't listen to the people in the letters who try to convince you you're single-handedly destroying the planet. These are the kinds of cars available on the market for people with families. I'm sure it won't be long before every remaining automobile manufacturer offers cars that are both fuel-efficient and comfortable. The real problem is not the individual who does what he feels he needs to do for his own personal comfort, but the system that offers us only one real transportation option. So you bought a car with shitty gas mileage. We all contribute in our own little ways. The SUV is just an easily pointed-to symbol of a messed-up culture.
Under your Outlander's SUV body is the chassis of the Mitsubishi Lancer sedan.
Camel Trophy challenger it ain't, and the speed bumps at your local IKEA store will be the limit of this vehicle's off road prowess.
Score for the marketing men and women who have sold us on this crossover nonsense, but at least you can defend your green sensibilities by telling all offended environmentalists that you drive a boring, front-wheel drive, four cylinder Japanese station wagon.
I mean, my mom and aunts (one of whom had 6 kids) and dozens-thousands-millions of people seemed to manage just fine for the first 4/5ths of the 20th century without SUVs.
We had dogs, horses (so had to pick up hay and grain bags) and even friends ; my dad hauled boats, trailers and various building materials with the station wagon; we put chains on the tires for winter and rolled down the windows in summer (no AC).
I agree, if you live in a rural area or have a rural lifestyle, ONE truck or SUV is completely understandable and could even be argued essential.
But in suburbia? Please.
Or maybe you're one of those rare two parent families that only has one car (in the US; in Australia where I live now, there are many, MANY families that own only one car, including mine). If so, perhaps that makes up for the unmitigated solipsism of buying an SUV at this juncture in the planet's survival.
When I got my license I dreamed of a 1968 Camaro. Several years later, fate intervened and I got my dream car. I spent 1000s of hours and even more $$ restoring, re-painting, refitting, tuning, etc, that huge heavy chunk of Detroit steel, and I loved every minute of it. This was the 80s, however, and I often felt torn between my environmental activism (yes, Virginia, the 80s hosted an ENORMOUS environmental push) and my gas guzzler (it got 22 MPG on the highway as well, however. I thought that was just awful!), and when I smashed it in a rainstorm, rather than restore/rebuild it, I bought a Volkswagon.
Even though my passion for muscle cars has never completely waned, I have put it (as well as my love of tuna and other problematic/endangered food sources) firmly behind me and am trying to move on to a new ethic.
I find the sort of rich liberalism you exemplify to be, frankly, the biggest barrier to that new ethic.
And on a completely tangential but equally frustrating (to me) note, when did 30 MPG become HIGH mileage?
I remember in the 70s there was a VW Rabbit that got up to 80 MPG on the highway. There were LOTS of cars that got between 40 and 50 MPG.
When/why/how did we come to accept such low standards?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
