SUVs, what are they good for?

I'm not against people's right to drive what they want. What I'm against are policy decisions that favor one choice over another. For instance, there's a tax break now for anyone who buys a truck (or SUV) that he or she claims is used for business purposes. Though intended to help farmers, it also means that an attorney living, say, in Boston can buy a Navigator and get a big tax break.

That I'm against.

Actually, Slap, you're ignoring what i said about driving jeeps, vans or pick-ups. I was not defending SUV's, which i consider a ridiculous and dangerous trend. As for seeing further down the road, i've had any number of incidents in which properly reacting to stupidity taking place well in front of me allowed me to avoid the very real probability of being rear-ended by some idiot who was tail-gating me.

Dart-what is the tax break of that you speak? Im aware of truck framed SUVs getting a break on emissions, but so do little deisel cars.
Any car that is business is either scheduledor leased, so SUV or Pimpmobile, theyre all the same in the eyes of the IRS and the states.

Check it out, farmerman:

SUV tax break to hit $100,000

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/tax23_20030523.htm

What it comes down to, farmerman, is greatly accelerated depreciation.

I see. I have always driven bigass diesel trucks with crew cabs and 4WD. I never , ever figured that the luxury tax even applied to my vehicles. And , since the tax rules of 96 also allowed rapid depreciation, I guess I never noticed.
Thanks Dart, I never knew that the SUVs were in the same boat. No wonder almost all of my mining interest attorneys all drive Rovers. (and most of them live in Manhattan- lots of off road opportunities in Central Park)

4 mpg is a bit over exagerated but you're absolutely right about those high-end sport cars like the 2003 Ferrari Enzo The Lamborghini L-147 Murcielago (10 mpg) or the Ferrari 456 MGT/MGTA automatic at 12 mpg. But its not like the roads are packed with Ferrari, Lamborgini, Maserati, McClaren,..

Though not a mom and not always resident in the US, most of my cars have been station wagons (Peugeot, Renault, Subaru) until the SUV came along. As long as the SUV is reasonably aerodynamic in design and gets good gas mileage, I don't have a problem with it. Just bought a 2003 Honda CRV; before that (like Setanta) I had a Jeep Cherokee ('94), the only car I've owned since college that didn't get decent gas mileage so I always felt a little defensive about it! But boxy cars make sense to me. And I like the height, since I'm tall and have long legs. The Honda is a dream, gets 26 to 28 mpg (even though it's an automatic), has a very cleverly designed 4-cyl engine which has plenty of power for me. On a recent long trip I noticed that, whereas usually by the time I get home, the car is a total mess, it wasn't this time. The Honda is designed by anal people who believe in mega-organization!

Because I live in a city and really stray too far from cities, I have a juandiced view of SUVs. I live near an elementary school, for instance, and every morning and afternoon (when I'm around) I see long lines of SUVs dropping off and picking up little kids. It's crazy.

I know they make sense in other environments, and I know that not all SUVs get lousy mileage. But it would be hard to persuade me that most purchasers live or work in the back country, or drive through snow, or that many manufacturers are making much of an effort to make them more fuel efficient. They've become the vehicle of choice in the suburbs.

D'art -- I know a lot of people around my age with similar knee problems whose primary reason for getting an SUV (a compact, not a big one) is that they are high off the ground and not agonizing to get in and out of! Thank god they can make quite normal vehicles which are also comfortable for the oldies and the handicapped... It's also true of course that what one drives should and often does reflect a practical need (most of the population here in rural Texas has at least one large gas-gulping truck). It's the adoption of a car for its style or conformity with others, whether one needs it or not, which is kind of dumb, show-offy, and unnecessary, without even mentioning the gas mileage! The problem with the suburban moms having a Ford Expedition is that it's mostly used to take their kids a few blocks to school (even with four kids, a Corolla would do the same thing) and to get them to the supermarket, driving alone. "I feel safer," they'll say, but then they don't want to continue the conversation because they know where it'll lead!

I can see why having a higher vehicle would be good for those with knee problems, so, sure, that's a good reason for owning one. And it's not as though I want to be the arbiter of who should and shouldn't drive one. As if anyone would listen!

My major gripe is that the average US MV buyer has been seduced by the marketing campaign for these vehicles. Able-bodied urban and suburban drivers are, I'm willing to bet, the typical SUV buyers.

Well, there's a self-image thing too, D'art. The more lavish the car, the more prosperous one looks. I spent my childhood among people who were loaded but who hid their money very carefully (a New England attitude towards comfort). So people with huge cars sent a negative message. My first (second-hand old) college conveyance had automatic shift WHICH I WOULDN'T ADMIT TO!!

I agree completely, Tartarin. I'm not totally immune to this kind of thinking, though I do drive an '87 Toyota Tercel. If my ship comes in, though, I plan to replace it with a Prius. I coveted a Mini for a while, but I decided that I'm gonna blather about environmentalism all the time, I ought to put my money where my mouth is...

Love my Cherokee. I haul everything in it, from plants and dirt to groceries and treasures from the antiques fair. Don't want to even think about life in a sedan instead. Fuggitaboutit.

SUVs == well they are good for a laugh in city streets where there are no mountains, deserts, jungles, farms or dirt roads.
They loook like jazzed up Army trucks. All they need are a pair of machine guns & a camoflage net

My Cherokee is a honey--over 167,000 miles, has a four-cylinder, so no gas worries . . . and i can take out a whole string of pre-schoolers with nary a blemish on the grill . . .

One needs an SUV to haul groceries and kids? Didn't realize that. I recently helped a friend haul the lumber he needed to rebuild his porch steps. Managed to cram it (and us) into my dorky hatchback.

'Course, if we'd been t-boned by an SUV, we'd have been dead meat (and splinters).

I'd like a Prius, too, and some other wondercars Honda and Toyota are coming out with. However, I have to admit I used my Jeep (and will use my Honda) for serious hauling -- one really needs it in a rural situation. Yes -- though I don't think I could stand another sedan (low, squashy, not enough air), I think one really should buy a car which one can afford and which carries whatever one has to carry, no more, no less. So I'm a nut who'd take a truck over a Ferrari, an Element over a BMW. As for small low cars, my knees now would only bend for a 1970's Beetle with a tube of Ben-Gay in the glove box, and that's strictly for spiritual reasons!!

Do you drive a Honda Insight? No? You are a hypocrite.

Actually, get rid of your car completely & walk.

The new Prius looks like a suppository on wheels.