Conference ssdevo::4wd

>    I'd rather have a strech/3door cab pickup if the vehicle's mostly for
>    accomplishing work and occasional multi-pasenger use, and a conversion
>    van or minivan if mostly for schlepping the family and occasional 
>    trailer towing, and a sedan for commuting/people transportation use.

rah rah, I agree.

--roger

    re: .6
    
    If I checked back through the archives, I'll bet you said the same
    thing about minivans ;^)
    
    You're ranting against the wind, pardner. All you gotta do is take a
    look at all of the companies building (or rebadging) SUVs in the exact
    size/class/price you're upset about and you'll see that there is indeed
    a HUGE market for this class of vehicle...
    
    Cripes - even Mercedes is coming out with an SUV. Do you really think a
    Mercedes owner will ever take such a vehicle into serious  off-road
    stuff? For that matter, you are aware that fewer than 1 in 10 SUVs ever
    see real dirt in their lives, right?
    
    You can't swing a dead pickup without smacking a  boatload of SUVs, and
    just like everybody else, ChryCo would like an even bigger piece of
    than their current offerings are garnering...Big deal!
    
    I for one will be happy to see the Durango make it to market, if only
    to make the competition that much more interesting...
    
    /dave

    re. .8
    
    Dave,
    
    No problem... wanna take a wager on your statement re. my criticizing
    minivans?  How much are you prepared to lose?
    
    I could care less how many companies build or how many folks purchase 
    SUV's.  In fact, I think they're pretty neat-o, but I don't think 
    they're NECESSARY which means you missed my point entirely.
    
    I KNOW the market's FLOODED with SUVs and there's lots more to come...  
    Well done, grasshopper...you have mastered the obvious.  
    
    FYI, Mercedes has been BUILDING the "Gelandeswagen" SUV for YEARS...
    It just hasn't been available in `center of the universe' (U.S).
    Are Mercedes badges on SUVs supposed to impress or justify their
    presence to me?  Don't think so.  Lamborghini makes a HUGE and SCARY 
    SUV for rich macho-types with all the toys and more power than a TANK 
    from their RACING MARINE V-12 engine.  It's been sold in the U.S. 
    for over 10 YEARS. Am I impressed?  No.
    
    I'm sorry you missed my point which is: "SUV's are an unnecessary 
    commodity based on marketable product cues from Jeeps, Wagoneers, 
    Land Rovers, Suburbans, station wagons and luxury sedans" which their
    manufacturers have conjured up to attract Joe-Surburban into a 
    Walter Mitty dream and lighten his fortune by $20-50K. 
    
    I didn't say SUV's were bad or wrong, but you obviously took offense.  
    (Own one, do we?  Ego bruised, is it?  Awww...gee...what a shame.).  
    All I said was that they were an unnecessary creation designed for 
    one thing... making money for their constructors... which they are 
    doing VERY nicely, thank you very much.
    
    SUV's are an IMAGE PRODUCT which Manufacturers want us to believe make 
    our voices deeper, families live better, fill our lives with adventure 
    and health, and make trips to anywhere in any conditions safer.  
    Yeah, right.  
    
    The reality is that SUV's are fancy nether-Jeeps, nether-cars and 
    nether-trucks that are Waaayyy over priced compared to FWD sedans
    which serve as well and more economically in over 90% of the 
    applications SUV's are normally used for...all weather Point-A to 
    Point-B transportation.
    
    Another gent made a great point re Volvo Wagons... I'd put my money on
    the Volvo to outlast 80% of ALL SUV's built with a lower cost of 
    ownership and better passenger safety.  But it isn't on steroids, and
    doesn't wreak of testosterone, does it?
    
    Nuff said. 
    

	At the risk of continuing this line of nonsense, I submit my $.02...

	I think that the soaring SUV market is attributable to two main
factors. Snow and utility. Period!

	Snow, cuz the marketing departments of SUV builders have convinced
the world that 4WD is a requirement in any region that normally receives any
appreciable snowfall. This simply is not true. While it's nice to have when
6+ inches of snow is on that unplowed road that the previously mentioned
FWD car will not go through, a little (damn little) planning will negate this
need. For instance, just today I spoke with a co-worker that wants a new Dakota.
I asked "2 wheel drive?". She said "oh no, 4 wheel drive, definitely". Another
marketing win!

	The utility sales pitch rests with me a little better than the former.
There isn't much question that SUVs in general provide quite good people and
cargo space. With the extinction of the traditional station wagon in many
manufacturer's lines, the SUV's replacement of this beloved old wagon seems
logical.

	As for the aforementioned "steroids and testosterone" arguments for
SUV sales. I just don't buy it. There may be an infinitesimal number of SUV
owners in this category, but I doubt strongly enough to count. Afterall, those
"cases" would all be driving BMWs, wouldn't they? :-) Now, as a status symbol,
that would be an entirely different question!

RIck

    re: .9
    
    >I don't think they're NECESSARY which means you missed my point entirely.
    
    Even after a second reading, your tirade seemed to be totally without
    purpose, other than to aerate your spleen ;^)
    
    >I didn't say SUV's were bad or wrong, but you obviously took offense.
    
    1: It still sounds like you *DO* think SVVs are both bad *and* wrong
    2: Take offense? From what? Do I take offense when the wind blows? ;^)
    
    You can rant about "image products" and SUVs all you need to, but if
    you'd step back just a tiny step, you'd see that for all but the lowest
    tier cars sold in the 20th century (and most Chevys ;^) IMAGE has
    always been part of the marketing of cars. Period. End of story.
    
    After all, for that 90% you speak of, a Ford Escort would do perfectly.
    So why are there Lincolns, BMWs, and a few dozen other luxo-sleds sold
    today? The ads for these drip with IMAGE. So?
    
    Why single out SUVs for this alleged sin? Because *you* think they
    don't offer function beyond a Volvo Wagon? (btw: you got any clue how
    much one of those costs these days? Check it out - you can get most
    SUVs for less!)
    
    fwiw: I'd have *loved* to have had some poor bastid in a fwd sedan
    follow me over the last 7 years into some of the places I've gotten a
    Pathfinder into and back out of - safely and damage-free. But only if
    he had AAA - and lots of valid plastic - to  (a) extricate himself and
    (b) pay for all of the undercarriage damage...
    
    Marketing moves the world (now if DIGITAL could only figure this out). 
    Get over it, you'll feel better ;^)
    
    >Nuff said. 
    
    This I agree with!
    
    /dave (part of that 10% I guess)

    re .9
    
         No Mercedes is coming out with an all new SUV.  Unfortunetly, they
    don't look half as nice as the original concept vehicle, and their
    latest give-me is a 1"x1" scrap of sheet metal. What am I suppose to do with
    this? tack weld a leaking beer can??  I mean they started out mailing
    me luggage tags etc to get me to think about getting rid of my GC.
    
         Volvos cost LOTs more to maintain then SUVs. I have both and it is
    not even close. By the way, I read where Volvo is looking to market an
    SUV based on on the Mitsu. Montaro real soon. I'd just as soon wait for the
    S70 (850 wagon replacement) with full time 4wd and intercooled turbo due 
    out later this year.. 

                      
    re: .9 
    
    Interesting that you make the comments, "...not worth that kind of money...
    "Won't do any job well"...I truly can't see them as anything but `clothing'
    for `posing'in..." and then turn around and say "I didn't say SUV's were
    bad or wrong..." and "In fact, I think they're pretty neat-o". 
    
    I suppose you didn't actually use the words "bad" or "wrong", but from
    where I sit, you made plenty of *negative* comments back in .6 (which
    is fine with me). Have you considered a career in politics ;^).
        
    I got a real kick from the mentioning of Volvo wagons too. $27-40K and
    dripping with image (yuppy, safe, reliable). Don't get me wrong, I think
    they are "neat-o". I can't really afford one, and although I think they
    are a safe/reliable car, I wouldn't want to drive one to any of my favorite
    hunting or fishing areas...(especially in snow).
    
    I think we have all agreed that most folks don't "need" their SUV, and
    many could get by with a FWD wagon of some sort. To each their own...
    For carrying several passengers (in comfort!), where 4WD and/or ground
    clearance is needed, a club cab gas guzzling pickup used to be the only
    option...
    
    /Charlie
    
    P.S. I predict that the Durango will do quite well, even better if gas
         prices drop ;^). 
    

    re: .12
    
    That's the Merc I was thinking of...
    
    re: .9 (one more time - lest I forget)
    
    Next time I slip the PF into 4wd and drag 3000 pounds of
    boat/motor/trailer/gear up a steep, mud and seaweed covered ramp after
    a day on the Merrimack, I'll smile and think of you and your front
    wheel drive sedan ;^)
    
    /dave (It's the Bomb!)

    re .9
    If you really feel SUV's are a ripoff, but want to make money off
    SUV buyers, then consider Chrysler stock (NYSE:C).  They're just
    about a pure play on the SUV market as there is since their car sales
    suck and their SUV sales now account for so much of their business.
    
    This way you can continue to ridicule SUV buyers while laughing all
    the way to the bank on their money.
    K 

    ...this doesn't have to do with the argument at hand, or the Durango,
    but I was traveling this weekend and decided to stop in, I think it was
    CT, for gas...  well, regular unleaded was $1.50 and super was $1.70!!!
    Cost me $30 to fill my tank.  :(
    
    OK... as far as SUV's go, I think they are overpriced, but then most
    autos are... [altho' another argument could be had based on quality and
    technology as compared to auto's in the 70's and early 80's].  Most
    SUV owners [no facts, just guessing] are used by families and never
    leave pavement... and are more kids and groceries haulers than anything
    else, when a nice station wagon would suit just as well.  But SUV's
    tend to have stronger frames and can tow more, and have better cargo
    capacity [at least weight-wise] than cars.  My Blazer could tow 5500
    lbs and carry 1000lbs in cargo.
    
    ...Mike

    re. .14 & others
    
    This has been FUN!  :^)
    
    As you may have discovered, I like to stir debate.  
    
    Of COURSE I contradicted myself...LARGE deal... gotchya going, didn't
    it?  ;^J
    
    Moi? FWD sedan?  Nope...Dodge Dakota 4X4 with 160K that'll pull anything
    a PF will AND carry payloads of all sorts of icky stuff like cordwood, 
    dirt, bark chips, sand, muddy wet dogs etc.
    
    Of course, the Dakota lacks the seating capacity of a PF but one design 
    emphasizes `sport', the other emphasizes `utility'... See? even the 
    term "SUV" is misleading.
    
    I don't know what the Volvo owner pays for his service, but I 
    have owned 5 of them...ALL USED...ALL for MANY years and miles.  
    They were ALL CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP to own and run, and impossible
    to kill.  I SOLD every one of 'em still running fine...most were
    WELL on their way to the 300K mi. and not rotted out.
    
    I do all my own maintenance and mechanical work, so I guess that's the 
    major cost differentiator between me and Sam Surburbanite. 
    
    I NEVER considered ANY Volvo to be stylish or a "status symbol",
    (except maybe the P1800/1800ES or Bertone coupes with the pain-in-butt
    chopped roofs), but I guess `Upwardly mobile' folks who pay all the 
    money for 'em do.  Same thing with BMW's, Mercedes and Porsches, I guess.
    
    I do agree with the `BMW-Porsche = status symbols' opinion... Most models
    are considered somewhat `exotic' in the U.S. but not in Europe.  Most 
    Europeans use them as designed...as solid (but higher priced) daily 
    ROAD transportation for those who LIKE to drive and feel in touch with the road. A balanced
    mix of ability to eat lots of highway or have fun on back roads...
    not as `driveway jewelry'. 
    
    Milk crates and Volvos don't go OUT of style 'cause they're never IN 
    style.  They're just a sturdy hunk of machinery in my book. But frankly,
    the RWD ones STUNK in all but DRY weather unless they had at LEAST a 
    60-100lb worth of ballast in the boot in Winter.
    
    I also think the demise of station wagons and replacing them with SUVs
    was logical.  Murrican Wagons had become "Dinosaurus Detroitus" 
    leaning more toward the luxury sedans they were based on 
    instead of remaining the utilitarian vehicles they were originally 
    intended to be.
    
    If if ANY of you are old enough to remember `woodies', (...the
    VEHICLES!), they were more like today's SUVs with high clearance, 
    high seating, good visibility etc....but none had 4WD.  
    Starting with the Model T based delivery truck chassis, they were 
    literally a replacement for the horse drawn wagons used for 
    transporting people and luggage between railroad stations and 
    hotels, lodges etc. Thus the name `station wagon'.
    
    The EARLIEST "UV"s with 4WD (GM Surburbans, Dodge passenger power wagons,
    Jeep Wagons, and (pre-Scout) International crew vehicles, were all 
    more like converted panel trucks.
    
    The first classic SUV design as we know it today were from Willys 
    Motor Co. (Jeep) in the 1950's.  Jeep `wagons' were a covered utility 
    vehicle for private versus commercial use.  Station Wagons were selling
    well back then, but none had available 4WD.  Most Jeep wagon owners 
    back then lived out in the country or had seasonal homes there.
    The vehicles were typically driven to destruction.
    
    Anyway, I predict the Durango will sell like hotcakes too regardless
    of my opinions. 
    
    I do agree that SUV's are logical replacements for some vehicles, 
    but I don't HAVE to agree with the implications of where it 
    is taking us as a society...like the one gent who apparently likes 
    to `challenge' Mother Nature regularly in the `name' of sport, 
    (fishing, hunting etc.).
    
    Multiply that by "how many million?" 4X4 drivers, (including me), 
    and you've got a significant element `exploring' Nature's wonders 
    while tearing up some of it in the process.
    
    We are being lured into a rationalization that with ownership goes
    the right to do what we please with it, and I'm just as gullible as 
    the next guy on the point that: "It's there, I can HAVE one, so what's 
    the POINT in having one if I can't use it any way I wanna?" 
    
    That's the way the cookie crumbles, I guess...(sigh)
    SCORE: 
    
      	  Humans 		Earth 
    (With lostsa Machines	    
    
    	    1 			 0 
    (with lotsa zeroes)
    

    
        Yea...getting there.  The first 97% of the world can be got to with
    a Humvee, including commuting to work. But come vacation time, don't
    forget the modified CJ5 "type" vehicle in tow with 3 times the sticker
    price modifications to get you in the really tight spots. That takes
    care of the 99%. Now unload the Beta-Corsa trials machine out of the
    back and you can climb up waterfalls with slime covered rocks.
    (You cannot appreciate that last sentence unless you have seen one of
    these events).  Great...so now you can go that last 1% of the places.
    BFD!  So what do you do; snicker back at the world to prove you can?
    I don't understand this constant "upmans-ship" crap in the suv market.
    I really believe in a few years all this suv craze is gonna come
    crashing down around there collective Butts.
    
    -john
    

    re. .18
    
    John K,
    
    THAT'S what I'm TRYIING to say... 'cept you've put it more succinctly
    with concrete examples...
    
    It's not the machines so much as the `bozo factor' behind the
    sheer numbers and their potential use.
    
    THANK YOU, John.

    re: .18/.19
    
    At substantial risk of prolonging an otherwise nebulous thread...
    
    I'd wager that there's a much higher percentage of "bozos" driving 
    what we used to call "High Barrelled Godzilla" pick'em-ups than SUVs.
    
    Of course, *that's* OK ;^)

    ref .20
    
    Nope...the SUV's are out there in FAAAR greater numbers...thick as 
    FLIES here in NH. 
    
    "Stomper Trucks" are just waaayy more noticeable and leave a much
    more indelible impression like: "WTF does he pour money into THAT for?"
    
    Hey, it prob'ly keeps him broke and at home where Momma can keep an eye
    on him.
    
    J-

    re: .last
    
    My phraseology wasn't up to snuff: what I meant to say is that by my
    reckoning, a higher percentage of people driving "stomper trucks" are
    testosterone-driven bozos than those driving SUVs. Considering that
    most SUVs are being driven by testosterone-impaired "soccer moms" I'd 
    think this is an unavoidable ;^)

    Re: SUV's in General.... 
    
    I made the commute between Colorado Springs and Denver for about a 
    year.   During this time, summer and winter, the majority (probably
    70-80%) of the accidents were involving SUV's most going way too fast
    for the conditions at the time.  
    
    I find the SUV's usually are the ones that are setting upside down in
    the ditch.  The funniest one I saw was the one that the Jeep Cherokee
    or very like it, went off the road straight into the ditch, and flipped
    over onto its top ... end over.  Really cool accident, no serious
    injuries but to the wallet or pride.
    
    If these people would realize that the main purpose of 4/all wheel
    drive is to pull better in bad conditions, and they do not make one
    invincible the world would be much better.
    
    JMHO...
    
    Dave

What happened to the discussion of the Durango?  Please get it back on 
the topic.  Notes will be moved when I find time and an appropriate 
topic to stick them in.

Judy

    Any news on when the Durango will start shipping?  
    
    Brian (shamelessly looking for an SUV)

    
    I spoke to the dealer the other day and he said that the 1998 Durango
    wouldn't be comming out until the fall.  
    
    I can't wait to check one out with the 360 V8.  Thats a lot of torque
    for the Dakota frame.
    
    Rick