Cars are losing their status as "status symbol"

[coreybv]

The latest trend in car advertising is rebrand the SUV as a "crossover".

It's more than a rebranding, they're quite different beasts.

The "crossovers" are (mostly) built pretty much the same as mini-vans, just shaped to look like an SUV.

The traditional SUV is built on an actual frame, like a truck.

These new uni-body based crossovers aren't nearly the "utility" vehicle that an SUV is. I couldn't tow my boat behind one, for example (or the camper we're planning to buy in the summer). For that you need a real SUV or a pickup (something with a frame).

[HenrikOlsen]

So you have a car that signals "I don't give a damn about the environment/I'm afraid of everything bigger than me", without having the practical applications that can excuse the cars they imitate, while being too flimsy to really protect against the big heavy cars?

How can that be expected to succeed?

[coreybv]

So you have a car that signals "I don't give a damn about the environment/I'm afraid of everything bigger than me", without having the practical applications that can excuse the cars they imitate, while being too flimsy to really protect against the big heavy cars?

How can that be expected to succeed?

Two words. Soccer moms.

It's more a question of fashion than it is of practicality.

I'd expect them to sell quite well. They have the (currently) fashionable appearance of an SUV, but are lighter weight with smaller engines, yielding better gas mileage.

How many SUVs do you see running around without a trailer hitch? Quite a few in my neck of the woods. A large portion of SUV drivers bought them based on the "looks cool" factor, rather than the "I need at least this much GVWR" factor. These people would be the target market for the "crossover" vehicles.

(That said, they do have all-wheel drive and inherit a high ground clearance from their need to superficially resemble an SUV, so they would still provide some advantage to people in snowy climates.)

ETA: Unfortunately, by becoming fashionable, SUVs now come with all the bells and whistles of a luxury vehicle. People who actually need them for their functional benefits are forced to pay much higher prices than should be necessary. A contractor who needs to haul a trailer can't go out buy a bare-bones SUV anymore, even though he doesn't have any use at all for the rear seat DVD player. Pickups are a good substitute in some cases, but there are other cases where having your cargo area enclosed wins out.

[LotusExcelle]

Er, I am not sure if you've noticed, but a side-effect of higher speed is lower travel times, which many of us appreciate.

I also take my cars and bikes to the track, and I can tell you, if I ran into a limiter at only 100mph on the main straight at the Nurburgring, I'd not be very happy at all.

Over a distance of, let us say, 30 miles... going at an average speed of 60mph (and of course barring traffic, etc) would take you half an hour from point A to B. Seems obvious. Let us say you get up to 90mph and sustain it. No traffic. Now you saved 10 minutes.

Lets add some reality in to it and say that you simply can't sustain 90mph. Lets say you average 75 dodging and weaving. You saved 6 minutes. Are you telling me, seriously, that you'd risk 75mph for 6 minutes?

My commute, just for reference, is 6 hours. That's at an average of about 64 mph or so over the entire trip. Even over that distance 10 up or 10 down on average does *very* little to my drive time. In fact if I don't stop for lunch the difference on the slower speed disappears. If I were to average 10mph higher it would simply mean I could stop a few more times and arrive at the same usual time.

The difference in MPG of 10 up is DRASTIC, however. Not to mention safety. The only reason, I contend, for allowing cars to go faster than, say, 75-85 is so people can feel the warm fuzzies of speed. Or *knowing* they can go that fast. For disclosure I have done 146 mph on public roads in my younger, crazier, Saab-with-psychotic-turbo days. There is utterly no point.

I did not reference racing for a reason - and your 'Ring reference is an example why. That is essentially a single car on a closed circuit (though on the 'Ring you really can't afford to rent the whole track for just yourself). Much different than millions of cars on public roads.

Oh and having just come off a 16 hour work day my math above may be incorrect. Feel free to correct me.

[danscope]

As speed doubles, air resistance squares. 90 mph does no one any good really. You speed at your peril.
If 65 mph isn't good enough, the mind needs a reset.
And the times...they are a'changin.

Dan

[Larry Jacks]

As speed doubles, air resistance squares. 90 mph does no one any good really. You speed at your peril.
If 65 mph isn't good enough, the mind needs a reset.
And the times...they are a'changin.

It doesn't surprise me that someone living in Rhode Island would think that way. The county I live in is about twice the size of your state. Take a look at a map of the western states. It's big out here and places are a long way apart. Most of the speed limits out here on the interstates are 75 MPH and the average speed seems to be around 80. Sure, driving 65 will save you some gas but it can add hours to a trip of any length. Those extra hours mean greater fatique and an increased chance of accidents in the long run.

I generally dial in my cruise control at the speed limit so I don't have to worry about revenue-hungry police departments. As I get older, I don't make as many long road trips as I used to but on many occassions, I've made trips over 800 miles per day.

[danscope]

Hi Larry, I understand big trips. It's a way of life out in big sky country.
A couple weeks ago, I was coming home, my wife and I, 10 at night,
doing about 65MPH, left lane, traffic all around me. I saw the movement of
antlers about 90 feet in front going into my lane. I kept two tires on the road
and the car on the grass. Missed him by a playing card! It was all over in 4 seconds. If I was doing 90, I would have lost a radiator, 3/4 nose, windshield, tire, and mangled my abs brake system... basicaly totaled Subaru.
At 65, I managed control and avoided setting off two airbags...$1000 a pop.
My wife said..." I'm sure glad we weren't going faster. "

If I had my way, we would be flying our cars. That would work.
Best regards,
Dan

[SeanF]

If I was doing 90, I would have lost a radiator, 3/4 nose, windshield, tire, and mangled my abs brake system... basicaly totaled Subaru.

On the contrary, if you'd've been doing 90, you'd've been long gone before the deer crossed the road.

[danscope]

Hi, Well let's hope so. Hope is our state motto !!

A friend of mine hit a pheasant at 110 out in S. Dakota some years back.
Did some damage .
Round here, horses and cows sometimes get loose. At high speed? Not good.

Dan

[NorthernBoy]

My commute, just for reference, is 6 hours....

...The difference in MPG of 10 up is DRASTIC, however. Not to mention safety. The only reason, I contend, for allowing cars to go faster than, say, 75-85

You are commuting six hours, but are telling me that I am wrong to not be doing my 5,000 miles a year in a more fuel efficient manner?

I hope that you can see the hypocrisy in that stance.

[NorthernBoy]

Those extra hours mean greater fatique and an increased chance of accidents in the long run.

It can also be the case that the monotony of driving at a lower speed can lead to drowsiness much earlier than if you are driving at a speed that holds your attention.

As I've mentioned before, I've always moved house to be near to work, either on the underground, or, more normally, within walking distance. For most other trips on the road, I ride an 80mpg scooter, or a 60mpg motorbike. Because I do a few miles in something fun, though, some people think that they suddenly get to criticise me, despite my overall usage of fuel being very low, for being wasteful and dangerous.

I think that some people would prefer our laws to be like physical laws, the ultimate interventionist state, where whatever is not mandatory is illegal. We must recycle, by force of law (and force of neighbourly shame, even things that save no resources), we must drive the smallest engined car possible, and we must not, not ever, use our cars for fun. Whatever happened to the idea that other people may have different priorities, and that they might just be well placed to decide for themselves about how to live their lives?

Why do so many use idiotic "environmental" arguments as a disguise for what they really want to do, which is to ban people from doing anything that they don't want them doing?

[jokergirl]

Same reason other people use religious arguments, but that's neither the point of this thread nor a discussion allowed on this forum.

[Larry Jacks]

I think that some people would prefer our laws to be like physical laws, the ultimate interventionist state, where whatever is not mandatory is illegal. We must recycle, by force of law (and force of neighbourly shame, even things that save no resources), we must drive the smallest engined car possible, and we must not, not ever, use our cars for fun. Whatever happened to the idea that other people may have different priorities, and that they might just be well placed to decide for themselves about how to live their lives?

Why do so many use idiotic "environmental" arguments as a disguise for what they really want to do, which is to ban people from doing anything that they don't want them doing?

Many possible reasons come to mind such as the desire to tell others how to live their lives, a failure of imagination (I don't need something so no one else could possibly need it), and jealosy, to name a few. Whenever I hear someone make those kinds of arguments, it brings to mind the lyrics to an old song.

[danscope]

Four miles per gallon and taking out someone else's family head-on is not particularly many people's idea of fun.
If you are rich, buy an Aerostar and show them at 300 KTS !
I love speed too. (It's a wonder I am alive ). But it IS a new age.
Good mileage and the balance of payments are not bad things.
Go to the junkyard,sometime. It is a revealing experience.

[Larry Jacks]

I suggest you don't tell others how to live their lives and they'll be less inclinded to tell you how to live yours. Freedom of choice is a nice thing. Different people have different needs. "One size fits all" doesn't work.

[coreybv]

and taking out someone else's family head-on is not particularly many people's idea of fun.

Not at all. But what were they doing on the wrong side of the road in the first place?

[danscope]

Answer: Out of control...flat tire, armadillo, pothole, goat. I don't care what the reason is. When you are going 90MPH, you are buying into trouble.

[cjl]

90?

90 is not at all uncontrollable. As stated above, 75 is the speed limit on most major interstates around here, and 80 is the speed at which most people tend to cruise. Although I don't hit 90 except on rare occasions while passing, there's nothing uncontrollable about higher speed on a road designed for it in a decent car.

[TheOncomingStorm]

The other day I used the jeep to pick up a ladder and later went into the woods to pick up some items down there without a trailer hitch. There are practical uses for these vehicles. Most unfortunely are used as a status symbols.
Also when in the woods I carry my cell phone, mp3 player and digital camera all very useful.

[NorthernBoy]

Answer: Out of control...flat tire, armadillo, pothole, goat. I don't care what the reason is. When you are going 90MPH, you are buying into trouble.

Now that is just so wrong that I hardly know where to start. If the car is designed to be safe at that speed, and if the conditions are appropriate, then there is nothing dangerous about doing 90mph. Nothing at all.

May I ask, do you perhaps wear a hat while driving? I have a pet theory about a certain sort of driver, and an extra data point would be useful...

[Larry Jacks]

If you think 90 MPH is uncontrollable, I suggest you never try to drive on the Autobahn. When I was stationed in Germany (1978-80), there were no speed limits on most of the Autobahn. The car I drove was very comfortable cruising at 100 MPH and I had it to 120 on occassion. It felt a little sensitive at that speed so I backed my cruising speed back down to a sedate 100. My car was a Mercury Capri with a speedometer calibrated in MPH.

The traffic mix on the Autobahn was interesting. The heavy trucks all seemed to cruise about 55 MPH or so, there was me cruising at 100, and being passed by high end Mercedes and BMWs going well over 150 MPH. Getting stuck behind a truck was no fun at all because it was very hard to change lanes, accelerate, and get back in the right land before one of the screamers came up behind you.

After Germany, coming back to America where the nationwide speed limit was 55 was a drag, especially when I was stationed 1000 miles from home. That artifically low speed limit added many hours to each trip. Driving in America after 2 years in Germany was about as much fun as drinking American beer.

[coreybv]

Answer: Out of control...flat tire, armadillo, pothole, goat. I don't care what the reason is. When you are going 90MPH, you are buying into trouble.

OK, just so I understand what you're saying.

Some idiot gets drunk, loads his family into the car, and swerves all over the road.

But it's the guy moving just a little faster than the flow of traffic that deserves to die?

[SolusLupus]

If you think 90 MPH is uncontrollable, I suggest you never try to drive on the Autobahn. When I was stationed in Germany (1978-80), there were no speed limits on most of the Autobahn. The car I drove was very comfortable cruising at 100 MPH and I had it to 120 on occassion. It felt a little sensitive at that speed so I backed my cruising speed back down to a sedate 100. My car was a Mercury Capri with a speedometer calibrated in MPH.

The traffic mix on the Autobahn was interesting. The heavy trucks all seemed to cruise about 55 MPH or so, there was me cruising at 100, and being passed by high end Mercedes and BMWs going well over 150 MPH. Getting stuck behind a truck was no fun at all because it was very hard to change lanes, accelerate, and get back in the right land before one of the screamers came up behind you.

After Germany, coming back to America where the nationwide speed limit was 55 was a drag, especially when I was stationed 1000 miles from home. That artifically low speed limit added many hours to each trip. Driving in America after 2 years in Germany was about as much fun as drinking American beer.

From what I understand, you can still drive ridiculous speeds in the Autobahn legally, but if you're in an accident over 75 kph (or so, I'm not sure on exact number), you're always at fault, period, and you get a harsher penalty.

[SolusLupus]

OK, just so I understand what you're saying.

Some idiot gets drunk, loads his family into the car, and swerves all over the road.

But it's the guy moving just a little faster than the flow of traffic that deserves to die?

I don't see where he says they "deserve" to die. That's a lot stronger than stating that, at 90+ MPH, you're asking for trouble. (To put it another way, if I say that skydiving out of an airplane is dangerous and just asking for trouble, that doesn't mean that I think that those that do die from skydiving "deserved" to die).

Note that I'm not agreeing with Danscope necessarily, I just don't think that's what he was saying.

[LotusExcelle]

The German Autobahn and an American Highway/freeway are two entirely different beasts and, in my opinion, are only alike in that cars operate on them. Other than that its a bit like comparing the 'Ring to a NASCAR circle track.

The American highways are not designed for high speed (read: 100mph) travel. One factor here is smoothness. Where the Autobahn is kept absurdly smooth I think here in America we try to see just how bumpy we can make roads without completely losing a car into a pothole. Another factor is safety railing. While its fantastic in some spots others are devoid of it altogether. I personally would rather hit a barrier at 150 than a tree at 100.

Of course all of this assumes most drivers here are up to the task of operating a vehicle at triple-digit speeds. I contend that most are not. The German licensing system is considerably more difficult than it is here in America (and I have rather a lot of opinions about *that* but it might be for another thread).

Also most cars operate at peak efficiency at around 55-65 mph. Go over that and your fuel usage increases slowly at first then rather dramatically. As an extreme example the Bugatti Veyron, a slippery car for sure, at top speed consumes its entire 26 gallon tank in 12 minutes.

That's not an every-day kind of example but it illustrates what speed does and what it requires. At 65 you are not anywhere near full throttle. As speed increases it demands more of the engine until eventually your foot is to the floor and you can't accelerate anymore.

In a car I once had 0-120 was easy. The acceleration slowed dramatically after that and at 135 the acceleration was painfully slow. At top speed with my foot to the floor (not redlined) I was at 146. This car had a cd of .28. And at the time right around 215hp.

That same care averaged 32mpg at 65mph. At 85 it would get 27. That is quite a hit - especially for such a low cd car. Not worth it, to me. If I'm going 1000 miles, which I do every week, I'm sure as heck going to get the best mileage I can. Getting there 30 minutes quicker can take a flying leap.

[crosscountry]

Several years ago someone on BAUT (I failed to locate the post) said that real energy conservation will only occur when people start viewing their cars as appliances, and not as mating displays.

Well, this poster may get his wish. Back in July Boston Globe had a column about how college students nowadays express their identity. Cars were near the bottom of the list. All students interviewed were indifferent to what kind of car they drove as long as it worked and had good gas mileage. It is Blackberrys and iPhones that were customized every which way, and on which said students invested their self-expression; at least one girl explicitely said her Blackberry was her identity (she was perfectly happy driving her mother's 7-year old Camry).

Now if only good mileage cars became then next status symbol . . ..

I saw this today from a friend of mine still in College



and it made me think of this thread, especially the first two posts!

[Argos]

iPhone as a status symbol? Gee, people have lowered their standards...

[SolusLupus]

They have? I thought fashion fads were as old as the human race.

[NorthernBoy]

The German Autobahn and an American Highway/freeway are two entirely different beasts.

OK, so perhaps you were basing your observations on how it is in a country thousands of miles from me across the atlantic, but please don't imagine that what works well in the US also works well here.

I really don't understand why you want to ban me doing 100mph, when I'd be doing it legally, and while using less fuel than you. How can that be reasonable?

[cjl]

The German Autobahn and an American Highway/freeway are two entirely different beasts and, in my opinion, are only alike in that cars operate on them. Other than that its a bit like comparing the 'Ring to a NASCAR circle track.

The American highways are not designed for high speed (read: 100mph) travel. One factor here is smoothness. Where the Autobahn is kept absurdly smooth I think here in America we try to see just how bumpy we can make roads without completely losing a car into a pothole. Another factor is safety railing. While its fantastic in some spots others are devoid of it altogether. I personally would rather hit a barrier at 150 than a tree at 100.

Honestly, though that's true in some areas, I've been impressed with the interstates around here recently. They're actually in fairly good condition, and they just got done resurfacing I-25 south of Denver. They might not be autobahn quality, but they are smooth and comfortable at 80mph.