"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior?
Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those
will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.

So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it,
or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It
has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of
SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over
bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in
snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate
those.

Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most of
tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can
comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without
contorting my body.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior?
Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind,
for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those
will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.

So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it,
or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It
has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of
SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over
bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in
snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate
those.

Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most of
tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can
comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without
contorting my body.

I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the SUV
in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on the
radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain some of
what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers: Size.

What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's under
the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive train.
Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors from
better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have no need
for 4WD or towing capability.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior?
Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind,
for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those
will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.

So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it,
or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It
has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of
SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over
bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in
snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate
those.

Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most
of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can
comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without
contorting my body.

I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the SUV
in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on the
radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain some
of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers: Size.

What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's under
the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive train.
Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors from
better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have no
need for 4WD or towing capability.

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for people,
why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle I want.
If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it of yours?
It is my money?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior?
Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind,
for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those
will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.

So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see
it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something
better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast
majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or
clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space
and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can
safely eliminate those.

Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most
of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can
comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without
contorting my body.

I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the
SUV in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on
the radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain
some of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers:
Size.

What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's
under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive
train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors
from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have
no need for 4WD or towing capability.

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle
I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it
of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that when
Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original variety.
If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where I've said
this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't need the
truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior?
Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind,
for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of
those will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.

So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see
it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something
better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast
majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or
clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space
and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can
safely eliminate those.

Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most
of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I
can comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without
contorting my body.

I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the
SUV in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on
the radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain
some of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers:
Size.

What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's
under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive
train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major
detractors from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented
buyers have no need for 4WD or towing capability.

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where
I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't
need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of
where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people
don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.


Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them
why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually:
They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's
safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not
seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never
mind that for the moment.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams,
like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between
a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy
up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less
fuel.

As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs
did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were
paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy dealers
here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly trades for
smaller cars.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..


You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of
where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people
don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.



Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them
why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually:
They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's
safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not
seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never
mind that for the moment.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams,
like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between
a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy
up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less
fuel.

As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs
did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were
paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy dealers
here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly trades for
smaller cars.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.



I'm sure most 'city drivers' would be happy with something like a Subaru
Forrester. Car like handling, boxier compartment..although a bit
cramped, and AWD in case you get a dusting of snow.
My sister is on her 2nd. Had a plain 2004 and just upgraded to fancier 2006.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of
where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people
don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.


Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually
dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close
personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to someone
based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They
just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a
vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD
might be interested in hiring you.

As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs
did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were
paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens
at used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy
dealers here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly
trades for smaller cars.

Never leased a car and never will. I buy new and keep them for a long time.
The shortest period I have owned a vehicle is four years and the average is
somewhere around eight years. The last two vehicles that we got rid of were
a large sedan and a 1/2 ton truck, both donated to charity, the sedan was 8
years old when we donated it and the truck was 7 years old. I currently own
a full size truck and a mini-van, the truck is 6 years old and the mini-van
is 10 years old.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car every
two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven years.
You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of money.