| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2006/1/11-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:41344 Activity:high |
1/11 Wow, Ford introducing an even BIGGER SUV!
http://csua.org/u/el8
It reportedly also comes with a brandy rack!
\_ Not really. It's smaller than the Excursion that Ford killed, and
the Chevy Suburban.
\_ Whatever. People should be able to guzzle as much gas as they can
afford. On the other hand, I think they should be taxed/charged/
whatever based on their emissions. (including CO2)
\_ emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption. -tom
\_ Catalytic converters, diesel filters, diesel refinement tech..
all of this only happens when it's legislated. If people
actually paid less when they had a cleaner car, we'd have
even better tech.
\_ This unlikely in my opinion. CARB already discourages
many changes to cars that would improve emissions.
I believe that the current bureaucracy, is based more
on making money and expanding the empire than anything
else. I'd love to see testing based just on emissions,
but we are far away from that. --jwm
\_ Reread what I put; I phrased it badly. I agree with you.
-pp
\_ I see what you're saying now, in the context of
"I think they should be taxed/charged/whatever based
on their emissions", I was saying that I don't think
the goverment is capable of doing this. But as you
say if we payed for emmisions, things would probably
clean up fast. --jwm
\_ No, they should be charged based on emissions, fuel use (like
now) and weight, with discounts for whether the above actually
go towards some use--so Fred the gardener in his big pickup
doesn't pay anywhere near what Bob the lawyer in his Escalade
has to shell out. I drive a sports car, which uses a lot of gas
compared to, say, a small hybrid, and I'm willing to pay
accordingly. It also burns relatively clean for a gasoline
engine, and does not tear up the roads nearly as much as a big
SUV. Although to be honest, I've never seen a formula that
does a nice, fair and unexploitable job of actually allocating
costs for driving where they belong... -John
\_ people should pay for whatever the cost of driving is,
period. Trying to implement something that penalizes
people for being able to afford SUVs is like trying
to tax the riches a lot more in Socialism. Evil.
\_ There is already a gas guzzler fee slapped on a car's purchase
price at the dealership by the state of CA. The amount and
the type of vehicle's they target aren't rationally chosen,
but such a thing is already going on. I paid $1400 extra for
my car even though the SUV next to it got worse gas mileage
because my car has a bigger engine. Why would we give Fred
the gardener a freebie to drive his black smoke spewing truck
to tend your grass while Bob's cleaner burning higher gas
mileage Escalade gets tagged with a fee on his way to court
carrying several boxes of papers and his staff in an attempt
to save a dozen old ladies from yet another unfair ED case?
\_ Like I said, I've never seen a system that fairly deals
with this. Wasn't there some massive tax loophole for
SUVs in the US, as well as a CAFE exemption, or have I
been living under a rock? -John
\_ There was something about a tax break for buying a
"work" vehicle over a certain price or size or something
which happened to include Hummers.
\_ gas price is going down again, of course they're gonna sell like
hot cakes again.
\_ I don't know about that. Crude is still hovering around $64
per barrel. Granted, at these prices, Canadian oil sands
and Brazilian style sugar cane ethanol are cost effective.
China and India will still be trying to gobble up the next
Unocal.
\_ I still think slap $1 per gallon of Federal taxes to fund
hybrid/fuel cell technology is a good idea. It will discourage
people from driving cars that is excess in size, and it will
actually cut down on our dependency on Foreign oil so we don't
have to invade another country to control it.
\_ Who is to decide what "excess in size" means? Anyway, new
water sources and arable land are harder to find than new
oil and are running out faster. Worry more about what you'll
eat and drink tomorrow than what car someone else drives.
\_ Stop watering your lawn. If you want to enjoy green grass,
go to a park.
\_ Go look up how much water is spent by people in CA and
how much goes into farming silly things like alfalfa.
You're very flip for someone who might not have anything
to drink in 30 years but at least you'll get some nice
fluff on your burger today.
\_ Erm, alfalfa is a feed crop. If you want that burger,
you shouldn't think alfalfa is silly.
\_ Farming in CA is mostly silly. Farming what they
farm here where they farm it is ridiculous. Yes,
alfalfa is mostly a feed crop but it isn't
efficient and if the central valley farmers had to
pay anything close to the real cost of water,
alfalfa wouldn't be grown by many, if any, of
them in CA. |
| 5/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/el8 -> www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051212/AUTO01/512120355/1148 Get Home Delivery DEARBORN-- Two months after it pulled the plug on the massive Ford Excursion, Ford Motor Co. is trying to find a delicate way of introducing a new super-size SUV without undermining the greener image that Chairman and CEO Bill Ford Jr. Essentially a stretched version of the Ford Expedition, the new SUV goes into production at Ford's Michigan Truck plant in Wayne next summer, according to analysts who track future car and truck products. A longer version of the Lincoln Navigator will also debut next year. The launch of the new vehicles will coincide with refreshed versions of the standard-size Expedition and Navigator. Ford's new super-size SUV has been referred to internally as the "Ford Everest," a name Ford uses in some markets outside the United States. But that moniker vanished into thin air once Ford's marketing division recognized it would only draw attention to the SUV's size. If there is one lesson Ford learned from its ill-fated Excursion, it was the importance of staying on message. The titanic Excursion was launched in 2000, not long after Bill Ford outlined his vision of a more environmentally friendly Ford. Critics within the environmental movement quickly renamed the new vehicle the "Ford Valdez" and said the behemoth symbolized Ford's hypocrisy. While the Excursion really symbolized surging demand for big SUVs at the time, the timing of its introduction nonetheless dented Ford's image. Ford quietly ended production of the Excursion earlier this year, about the same time gas was topping $3 a gallon. However, while demand for big SUVs has diminished, it has not gone away entirely. And Ford believes it needs to compete with General Motors Corp. trio of extra-large SUVs -- the Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon XL and Cadillac Escalade ESV. GM enjoys a virtual monopoly on that still-lucrative, though shrinking segment. It went overboard," said Joe Langley, an analyst with CSM Worldwide in Farmington Hills. But company spokesman Jon Harmon said the automaker sees a growing separation between traditional truck-based SUV customers and consumers who prefer car-based crossover utilities. "We are going to have the right vehicles for both such customers," said Harmon. Ford's new entry will be over 19 feet long, about 15 inches longer than the Expedition, and will boast significantly more cargo room behind its third row of seats, analysts say. Unlike the Excursion, a 20-foot SUV built on a heavy-duty truck frame, it should be able to fit in most garages. Even so, Ford's new SUV poses a significant marketing challenge in an era where SUVs have become symbols of gas-guzzling excess. Earlier this year, Bill Ford redoubled the automaker's commitment to environmental leadership, launching a plan to build 250,000 hybrid vehicles a year by 2010 while simultaneously developing a host of other alternative powertrain options. "It's a pretty big vehicle that kind of runs counter to their hybrid approach," said Erich Merkle, a brand analyst with IRN Inc. The introduction next year is likely to be low-key by auto industry standards. Instead of being marketed as an entirely new vehicle, the SUV will now appear in showrooms as a high-end version of the Expedition. Ford is expected to call it the Expedition EL, for extended length. Other names Ford considered included Expedition Max and Expedition XL. The Lincoln version will be rolled out as larger version of the Navigator and possibly dubbed the "Navigator L," analysts said. "That's probably the best way to go about it -- short of putting a hybrid powertrain in it," Langley said. Ford will not show either vehicle at the North American International Auto Show in January, but it plans to show them at venues more appropriate for the target customer. When they are unveiled, Bill Ford isn't likely to be anywhere in sight. The company also plans little publicity for the new SUVs, at least in the traditional automotive press. However, both will be pitched hard to boating and horse magazines, as well as other media outlets geared to outdoor activities that require hefty towing capacity. Jim Hall, an analyst with AutoPacific in Southfield, said Ford is only giving its customers what they want. "This gives them something to counter the Suburban," Hall said, adding that environmental responsibility is not the only message Ford needs to convey today. is getting ready to launch a new full-size Tundra pickup that will be among the thirstiest vehicles on the road when it hits showroom floors late next year. Most analysts see demand for large SUVs continuing, albeit at a reduced rate, for the foreseeable future. And, as long as people want to buy them, Detroit will continue to make big SUVs. There's just too much money on the table," Langley said. |