AHC: much lower trajectory for SUVs ("Sport Utility Vehicles") in the United States.

upload_2019-6-28_14-50-42.png


https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report

" . . . because cars and trucks are subject to different GHG and fuel economy standards. . . "

GHG = Greenhouse Gas

Notice that there are a lot more "truck SUVs" than "car SUVs." Yes, regulation makes a difference.

Plus, a lot of people just plain like SUVs. I fully embrace the fact that we have a multiplicity of factors! :)

--------------------------------

Please paint me a timeline or two in which these vehicles have a much lower trajectory.
 
Downey & Co., LLP
CPAs

http://www.downeycocpa.com/new-depreciation-rules-provide-certainty-business-owners/

Vehicles Over 6,000 lbs.

Bonus Depreciation Limit: Not limited [!]
You have to use the vehicle more than 50% for business.

And then, vehicles over 6,000 pounds get sweeter tax treatment than those under.

* At the end of the day, accelerated depreciation (and/or bonus depreciation) is just a way to take an expense this year, rather than spread out over a number of years.

But people like lower this year tax bills! And thus, this has been another factor in the growth of SUVs.
 
Last edited:
People used to really like Station Wagons.

But by the mid '80s, EPA and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), as well as styling mistakes, best embodied
by this fictional creation, the Wagon Queen Family Truckster ( a '79 Ford Country Squire, near beat to death with the Ugly Stick)
pt2010_110.jpg


turned them into sluggish beasts with poor quality, pretty much ended Americas love affair with the Station Wagon

But there were was a new choices for 1980s

Lets look over at AMC, desperate to stay alive, and was willing to try almost anything, like making a 4WD Concord, and calling it Eagle

1987_AMC_Eagle_wagon_burgundy-woodgrain_NJ.jpg

And the Jeep Grand Wagoneer
1024px-1986_Jeep_Grand_Wagoneer_white-a_Mason-Dixon_Dragway_2014.jpg


That really was a 1962 Jeep Wagoneer at its heart, but loaded with options. The regular Wagoneer was the new downsize platform for the '80s

These were doing better than the Renault offerings for AMC with the buying public

Big Three took notice, and improved their Truck lines that also had the Blazer and Bronco, making them less truck like and added more features and options, while Chrysler introduce the Minivan, in the form of the Dodge Caravan
1024px-87-90_Dodge_Grand_Caravan.jpg


And didn't do much to change their RamCharger, more utilitarian than the Ford and GM offerings.

Chrysler ending up solving their Ramcharger problem by buying AMC, that had the profitable Jeep line.

People started to like the 4WD that were fulltime capable, unlike the earlier part time 4WD systems that were not happy on dry pavement


So to avoid the SUV, best way for that goal would be to change the SUV to have to operate under the same rules as regular sedans for safety and fuel economy.

That said, the Old Wagoneers crash tested well for the era

So EPA of mileage and emissions is the best way to strike. If the Wagoneer couldn't use its 160 Hp carburetored 360 V8, but the 258 six with Renault Fuel injection tacked on, and that turns out low powered and unreliable, that's another nail in the coffin
 
I had the (possibly mistaken) impression that a big part of the rise of SUVs was that the CAFE regs treated them as “working trucks” rather than “passenger cars” and so they were allowed to have bigger more gas guzzling engines than equivalent station wagons etc. without triggering penalties. If so, then write the regs so that station wagons and SUVs get treated equivalently and they will likely perform equivalently - both mechanically and in the marketplace.

Alternatively have gas at $2-3/gallon for most of the time period and no-one will buy SUVs.
 
I had the (possibly mistaken) impression that a big part of the rise of SUVs was that the CAFE regs treated them as “working trucks” rather than “passenger cars” and so they were allowed to have bigger more gas guzzling engines than equivalent station wagons etc. without triggering penalties. . .
I think that’s largely correct and is the lion’s share of it.

Secondarily, there was also the tax angle, in which Reagan’s (and Congress) 1981 tax law had really aggressive accelerated depreciation which was tailed back by the ‘82 tax hike (which didn’t raise rates, but did close loopholes as well as raise excise taxes).

Later edit: It was the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act which capped depreciation on luxury vehicles used for business purposes. However . . . this did not apply to vehicles over 6,000 pounds (three tons!).

And people who wanted luxury cars for business, like successful realtors, were one of the groups hit. For them, they could deduct a lot more off an SUV than a car.

And also what @marathag talked about, that SUVs didn’t have to meet the same safety standards.

—————

PS I understand that it takes about a year to start making any appreciable money in real estate and that many brokers do clip you on commissions. That is, getting the license is the easy part!
 
Last edited:
1280-608603-prisoners-dilemma.png


300px-Game_Theory_Strategic_Social_Alternatives.jpg


Prisoner’s Dilemma: If you have a big car, then I need a big car, too, for my own safety!

========

And plus, people just plain like SUVs. For example, being higher off the ground is a cool experience and a new experience. And then, I guess like anything it becomes the new normal.
 
And plus, people just plain like SUVs. For example, being higher off the ground is a cool experience and a new experience. And then, I guess like anything it becomes the new normal.
Before 'Longer, Lower and Wider'
1938 Ford Fordor Sedan
Wheelbase: 112 inches
Seats 5
Length: 179.5 inches
Height: 68.6 inches
Ground clearance: 8 inches
Wheels: 16-inch
Weight : 2750 lbs
Engine: 221cu.in V8 (3.6L) 80HP
Transmission:3 speed manual, rear live axle
Drum brakes, mechanical link, non-hydraulic
All Steel Body on Frame construction
MPG 18
$685-$900($12,350-$16,230, adjusted for inflation) Early tube radios cost over$100 to add in, oh, and heaters were still optional, too


2018 Ford Escape
Wheelbase: 105.9 inches
Seats 5
Length: 178 inches
Height: 66.3 inches
Ground clearance: 7.9 inches
Wheels: 18-inch
Weight: 3542 lbs
Engine: 152.6 cu.in. I4 (2.5 L) 168-245HP
Transmission: 6 speed automatic, FWD or AWD, independent.
Disk brakes, power ABS/Traction control
Unibody construction
MPG 24
$16,500 to $26,600
 
Avoid the post-1980 financialization of the US economy. Without an ascendent finance sector to force businesses to create lots of basically economically pointless middle management/bureaucracy jobs, there's no big pool of jobs for the you could them "clever silly" types so the biggest pool of potential customers for SUVs is gone.
 
Avoid the post-1980 financialization of the US economy. Without an ascendent finance sector to force businesses to create lots of basically economically pointless middle management/bureaucracy jobs, there's no big pool of jobs for the you could them "clever silly" types so the biggest pool of potential customers for SUVs is gone.
That's a different issue.

Those guys were buying luxury class autos, BMWs, Mercedes, and the new Japanese lines from Honda (Acura in 1986) Nissan (Infiniti in 1987)
and Toyota (Lexus in 1989)

The Luxury SUV came in later with Lincoln Navigator in 1998 and Cadillac Escalade in 1999, by time SUVs were well established
 
Avoid the post-1980 financialization of the US economy. . .
. . . Those guys were buying luxury class autos, . . .
I think SUVs definitely had certain macho traits which appealed to sales types, “investment” banker types, day traders, etc.

As well as soccer moms, dentists, teachers, etc. As we look at other factors, I’m trying hard not to under-estimate the appeal of these vehicles.

I think the financialization of the U.S. (not completely, by any means) but enough to make a big difference in a number of areas.
 

Marc

Donor
View attachment 468718



GHG = Greenhouse Gas

Notice that there are a lot more "truck SUVs" than "car SUVs." Yes, regulation makes a difference.

Plus, a lot of people just plain like SUVs. I fully embrace the fact that we have a multiplicity of factors! :)

--------------------------------

Please paint me a timeline or two in which these vehicles have a much lower trajectory.
View attachment 468718



GHG = Greenhouse Gas

Notice that there are a lot more "truck SUVs" than "car SUVs." Yes, regulation makes a difference.

Plus, a lot of people just plain like SUVs. I fully embrace the fact that we have a multiplicity of factors! :)

--------------------------------

Please paint me a timeline or two in which these vehicles have a much lower trajectory.

Fairly simple. Have NHTSA back in the 1980's hold light truck chassis based vehicles to the original fuel standards envisioned. Also require the same to fully implement all the safety features that were part of passenger cars.
 
^ This pretty much nails it. CAFE exceptions and tax law changes favored SUVs, and it didn't hurt that the large SUV market was (mostly but not entirely) dominated by the domestic manufacturers until the 2000s.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Having owned SUV's and normal sedans/coupes, I can truthfully say the most enjoyable rides were my 1973 Datsun 240Z and !985 Honda CRX Si. I presently own a Toyota Highlander. In the 1970's and '80's, I regularly swapped between big sedans, 3/4 ton trucks and sporty cars on a daily basis. I see the appeal of the SUV. Comfortable enough for all around travel, spacious, adequate (barely) fuel economy, reasonable agility and that high view. I will admit, without the rise (pun intended) of trucks and SUVs on our roads, I would have stayed with sedans. The only real advantage I see in SUVs for me as I grow older is the seat height of SUVs for vision and, because my wife has arthritis, entry and exit from the SUV seat is easier. Trucks have been ubiquitous on Louisiana roads all my life. However, the growth of obese and tall 'light' trucks was one of the causes of the move towards SUVs. The failure to rein in light trucks to passenger car rules remains a major failing in transportation law. Why have safety rules on bumper heights when you allow 'monster truck' wannabe's on the road. Rollover issues remain a problem. The inability of many drivers to adequately control the looonng crew cab trucks of today can be seen at every intersection and parking lot. Add the fact the roads of this country are deteriorating daily, while the fuel taxes have nor risen with inflation. Louisiana failed to raise its $.20 per gallon tax this year. yes, that is 20 CENTS per gallon. There is NO EXCUSE for such foolishness.

Okay, off my soapbox. Simple solution starting in 1970's. Index fuel taxes to inflation. This will need some adjustment over the years. Tie light trucks to passenger vehicles. If a vehicle carries more than three passengers, the vehicle is considered a passenger vehicle, truck or not, and must comply with ALL safety requirements and ALL fuel economy requirements. DO NOT grant special exemptions for business use. There will be political struggles to account for these.

EDIT: Don't enact the stupid chicken tax on smaller trucks!
 
^ This pretty much nails it. CAFE exceptions and tax law changes favored SUVs, and it didn't hurt that the large SUV market was (mostly but not entirely) dominated by the domestic manufacturers until the 2000s.
And Detroit manufacturers learned their lesson well—

Big cars mean Big profits, couple of oil crises be damned!
 
. . . The only real advantage I see in SUVs for me as I grow older is the seat height of SUVs for vision and, because my wife has arthritis, entry and exit from the SUV seat is easier. . .
Eminently reasonable, and I’m glad it’s better for your wife.

Throughout this thread I’ve tried to take the approach, market distortions notwithstanding, that there are all kinds of individual and personal readings for liking an SUV and should stay a matter of personal choice.
 
You might need to explain this one. Thanks. :)

It's the nickname for a 1960s-era tariff placed on imported light trucks. Primarily aimed at European models at the time but the Japanese makers ended up being the ones hit the most. It's still in effect today, which is why virtually all light trucks sold in North America are made there regardless of their manufacturer.
 
Big cars mean Big profits, couple of oil crises be damned!

To be fair, having said trucks be powered by modern turbodiesel engines starting in the 1980s would probably do a lot of good for their fuel consumption, but you are correct about the bigger car = bigger profit correlation.
 
Eminently reasonable, and I’m glad it’s better for your wife.

Throughout this thread I’ve tried to take the approach, market distortions notwithstanding, that there are all kinds of individual and personal readings for liking an SUV and should stay a matter of personal choice.

I think you hit with one of your previous posts - their is for a variety of reasons a cool factor with SUVs that does not exist with things like station wagons and mini-vans, particularly for men. I've never owned a SUV, years ago (back when Saturn still existed) we almost bought a Saturn SUV (I know, not a very high end one) but we bought the wagon instead because it was cheaper, the insurance was cheaper, it got better mileage, and it could HAUL MORE STUFF. In other words I could not really see much of a reason to buy the SUV other than the fact that nothing says middle aged, domesticated, hen pecked, suburban dad quite like a station wagon or a mini-van. Kind of a stupid reason to spend money IMWO but I am sure it is enough of a reason for many.
 
Top