Mark,
While I will not argue your point that there are a lot of people who drive them that have no need for such a car, who is going to make that decision? Do you propose some sort of governmental agency which you would have to go before to prove the need for one? The free market will decide what prople drive, and people are fickle. Within another couple of years there will be some hot new fad as people tire of the fuel bills and the tough parking.

Once you say that it is not okay for someone to drive an SUV if they can't prove a need for it, then someone will propose to limit access to sports cars unless you can prove you race one, since as all good liberals know, a automobile is for for getting you from point A to point B and a Corvette obviously should be limited to race tracks only! And talk about dangerous! These plastic bodied menaces are obviously the most dangerous cars on the road, and do nothing but promote dangerous driving, and should be banned from production!

You state that a lot of people are just buying them for status purposes, and to that I say what is so wrong with that? People buy large houses, fancy Rolex watches, and fancy sports cars for status purposes, do we ban those purchases as well? Once we go down the road of feeling it is okay to take away someone's personal freedom because we don't like what they like, then it becomes easier to take away something you like in the future.

Regards, John Mc Graw

 

EXACTLY!!!! Especially the last sentence!!

 

Oh no, same day as our daughters ballet receital again this year. Better get these events in better sync before No Flight gets running (which only gives you a few years to get it right).

Don't feel too bad for your SUV, they are wimpering about boats supporting terror too. One gas stop with the boat will cover a whole lot of SUV's.

-Greg

 

These wealthy elitists who have never worked a day in their life and suddenly embrace "causes" are great hypocrites; Arianna Huffington's millions all came from the divorce settlement with her ex-husband - every dollar of which came from his oil business :yesnod: She lives in a 14,000 sq-ft. mansion, surrounded by servants and luxury; care to guess how many cars and chauffeured limousines she owns? These ******** rank right up there with the PETA ninnies and their current outcry over how KFC raises their chickens :lolg:

 

:iagree: :thumbs: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

 

I beg ur pardon sir - I think the rates at which we burn our natural resources are just as much my business as yours. I'm not insulting anyone here and I'd appreciate some mutual respect!

I think that everyone here is overreacting to what has been said about my and other's opinions of them versus the exemptions they enjoy because of their popularity and the gov influence of automakers' lobbyists. This includes bumper height restrictions, rollover tests, fuel economy exemptions, outdated truck/pass car classifications, no luxury taxes, no gas guzzler taxes, etc. that other models have to be designed against, marketed around, and sold under. All I'm saying is that it is not a fair playing field versus other vehicles and should not be allowed to continue. I think if the above rules were enforced/changed, these vehicles in their current states would be prohibitive to build, purchase, and operate. They would either be redesigned to conform or would not be available except for limited no-frills work trucks and RV/trailer haulers as I've mentioned above. Again, all of this is my opinion and if you don't like it, Tough!

BTW, I apologize Chuck - I didn't mean to get this thread off-road (:lol:) since your original point was the 'media attacks on SUVs/are classic vettes next?' theme. Back to C3 forum...... :seeya

 

Yep, got another one of them today, Monica Tyson got her divorce from Mike Tyson, she got the $4.7 million house in Connecticut with 38 bathrooms, the $2 million dollar house in Bethesda, Maryland and Mike's lawyer also said she stole another $17 million of his money and stashed it away in a private account. No wonder he's a moron and she is a doctor! :lol:

 

Right on the money!! :thumbs:

 

Well said, and I presented the same points earlier, but we both forgot to point out that SUVs/light trucks have looser emission standards than passenger cars. I'm not pleased that the anti-SUV lobby is being led by a bunch of wealthy, liberal elistists. I'd much rather seen the case carried forward with the rational arguments we have presented.

Regarding the several posts comparing our old Corvettes to SUVs in terms of fuel consumption, it's a specious argument, since the vast majority of our high emission gas guzzling vintage Corvettes accumulate low annual mileage because they are used for recreation, not normal transportation. The same applies to boats and airplanes. They guzzle fuel and have high proportional emissions, but compared to SUVs they are few in number and are used primarily for weekend recreation. In the overall scheme of energy consumption, and emissions, boats, airplanes, and vintage Corvettes total to noise level, but the nearly 50 million SUVS/pickup trucks out there that are accumulating 15-20K miles per year, mostly carrying one person back and forth to work have, signficantly increased our oil consumption (and air pollution)over what it would be if people drove sedans and wagons.

The only way the playing field will ever be leveled is if the Congress wakes up and defines new vehicle catagories based on their designed use - primarliy people, or primarily cargo, or increases the tax on gasoline, but I don't think they have the ***** to do either. In the meantime OEM/Washington bureaucrat/lobbyist axis will keep on playing their games.

Duke

 

Then don't be a hypocrite....get rid of that gas guzzling, non environmentally friendly beautiful Vette of yours and drive only vehicles that get excellent mileage and are "clean" to the environment!

And Mark....just remember that if anybody decides to outlaw or clamp down on vehicles that "burn our natural resources" as you put it....that big block Vettes just might be first on the list!

 

Last I checked this was still America and I don't think you need justification to purchase anything. As long as they build them I'm gonna buy them. I wish mine had 500HP though.

There are no "journalists" as they like to be called. They are simply reporters who are products of some of our socialist universities. (and they do a pretty poor job at that) Two sides to every issue? Only if it supports their cause or issue. They only question opposing issues. :(

 

I have to say that I'm surprised at some of the comments here, especially on a forum of automobile enthusiasts. Some I agree with, some I disagree with. Let me make several comments. I'm no "right winger" or "left winger". I'm sort of down the middle politically, maybe more fiscally conservative and more socially liberal. Maybe I'm more of a libertarian. :)

First of all, I'm reminded of the old agage, "Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it". I could care less what anybody else drives. Frankly, it's none of my business. Likewise, it's none of anybody else's business what I CHOOSE to drive. When one gets involved in more and more governent regulation, is it a "far reach" to think that those of us who own and drive highly impractical vehicles, two seat sports cars with WAY too much horsepower are next on the list? Who's to say that in the near future, some bureaucrat might say, "the average American family needs only 1500 square feet of living space. If you own a house larger than that, we're going to have an excess energy usage tax for every square foot over 1500". Far fetched? Not using the current "mind think" we're dealing with here regarding SUV's.

Secondly, I'm reminded of the so-called "law of unintended consequences". That's another old adage that states that there are unintended results of the most well intended actions, laws and regulations. Here' an example that I just heard on the news as I'm typing this. The US Navy has been under fire for several years about their base in Viequez, Puerto Rico. This is a base on a remote island off the PR mainland where the Navy has been practicing bombing since WW2. For the past several years, there have been numerous protests about the bombings. The Navy relented, and finally decided to close the base. Everybody is happy in Puerto Rico, right? Well, now they realize that the Navy base pumped 330 million dollars per year into the economy of PR. Everybody is NOT happy now. 330 mil is a TON of money to lose on a yearly basis. My point? The unintended consequences of government actions and regulations regarding SUV's will MOST likely filter down to us, the antique car enthusiast. How? We already have "car crushing" laws, energy credits for removing old cars from the highways, and probably a few more.

Be careful what you wish for, and be aware of the "unintended consequences" of all actions. :) Chuck

 

Your right Chuck. :yesnod: I heard yesterday that the luxo-tax instituted in the early '90's is coming to an end. What the lawmakers didn't realise back then was how the tax would affect certain industries----specifically the luxo-boat market & builders in NH. Because of the tax, fewer boats were sold, less tax money than anticipated was collected and it supposedly dessimated the luxo-boat building industry. Fewer people were buying boats, so fewer boats were built, resulting in a collapsed industry. The lawmakers were expecting $30mil a year in taxes but actually collected less than half. They sorta got a double whammy! :lol:

 

I have 3 things to say to you 68shark.
One, driving my classic SB vette less than 1000 mi a year is hardly being hypocritical. :rolleyes:
Two, I thought this forum was a place one could offer differing opinions and ideas without being flamed. :mad
Three, thanks for the complement on my car. :D

 

Ummm, gq82, I think you've missed something... like the boat. Unless I've misread what 68shark posted, it appears 68shark was testing your sense of humour with an ironic statement (ie: he didn't mean you're a hypocrite) and I don't think he was flaming you.

Flaming usually involves name calling and/or derogatory comments and there's no evidence of that in 68shark's post. I think you've over-reacted. Unless, of course, I'm misreading your post and you're.... oh never mind. :rolleyes:

 

:crazy:
I love my SUV. :steering: It's the most practical vehicle I've ever owned, gets better mileage than many other vehicles I've owned, is more comfortable, is far safer to drive in our sometimes snowy winters, takes me skiing without having to chain up, hauls groceries, shop supplies, and gramma better than anything else, is a real workhorse around Stump Ranch, and comfortable (easy on my back) to boot. :yesnod:
It is just what it is called, a utility vehicle, of the most practical sort, I might add. For an economy car I've got the Corvette! Gets a good 20+mpg. :chevy :steering: HAPPY MOTORING

 

We are a 2 SUV household, and there are a couple of reasons for this, first the weather, a couple of years ago some may remember a rolled my car on Valentines day actually, and ripped the roof off my car during and Freezing rain storm with my then 1 year old in the car, now she is 4 and we have another that is a year and a half, so between the weather and the amount of crap we have to take everywhere, it was either one of thoose or a minivan, and as my wife is even younger than me 26 she wouldn't go for the minivan, so wolla 2 SUV's.

Tom