Why are American Cars so BIG?

[crimefighter196]

funny

thought it seems that those cars accually that the suvs are made of fuel because of all the fuel they take, it is like the driver is drinking fuel.

I own an SUV, yet I do agree with your sarcasm.

I own an SUV because I haul workers to worksite. I also own a V8 Tundra truck. Also to haul equipment to sites.

What I don't understand are those Super Clean Behemoths that never really had to taste mud in their Flaps ??? , driving by themselves,, now that is just sheer Excess !!!

[brum]

My dad is 6feet tall , in fact my entire family line is at least close to 6.

I'm only 5'9 and I have the darnest time to squeeze in a corolla.

We also work almost all the time,, when you work you need your tools of the trade.

Just workaholics, call it inefficient, call it crazy,, but bottom line we kind of like it that way ..

In my case I drive a 4 door Truck,, I carpool people around,, if it was not for my truck, there would be 3 other vehicles out there.

Boy my V8 is more fuel efficient than 3 corollas :-)

plus GAS is soo darn cheap compared to everybody else in the world.

I do know there are Euro. Imports that are smaller and yet could be fuel inefficient. How about those V12 Mercedeses aye ?? The V8 Land Rover ,,

Suvs are a big target because they are common and use alot of fuel you cant compare them to a V12 Mercedes and THe V8 Land Rover.

In your case the SUV is a good alternative but they are also a target because you see them so often driving with only one or two people in them this is the argument.

[henk4]

I own an SUV because I haul workers to worksite.

That is laudable in itself, however in Holland we would use a minibus for that, capable of taking 8 passengers (room to expand your business!!) with the fuel consumption of an average mid size car and slightly bigger than the old VW bus. SUV's and trucks are mostly used by posers who have no intention of carrying anything but themselves.

[NAZCA C2]

Big country=big cars. Who wants to drive a small car in a country that has so many miles of roads? If you live in an area with a lot of mountains you don't want a 4-banger that will be sucking wind when going up big hills. Furthermore, the US is the richest country in the world and people own a lot of stuff so they need a vehicle to carry their stuff.

[NAZCA C2]

That is laudable in itself, however in Holland we would use a minibus for that, capable of taking 8 passengers (room to expand your business!!) with the fuel consumption of an average mid size car and slightly bigger than the old VW bus. SUV's and trucks are mostly used by posers who have no intention of carrying anything but themselves.

You are pretty much correct but most vans are'nt available with AWD which is a must if you are going to be driving in adverse conditions.

[Matra et Alpine]

You are pretty much correct but most vans are'nt available with AWD which is a must if you are going to be driving in adverse conditions.

we've covered this before.

There are few 'adverse' conditions that can't ( and have been ) handled by an ordinary car. Think Sweden - inside the arctic circle and VOLVO, all it takes is chains or studded tyres

Oh and some common sense when driving. ....oh, right, best buy an SUV

[Matra et Alpine]

Big country=big cars. Who wants to drive a small car in a country that has so many miles of roads?

No regard for the environment or the balance of payments then ???

If you live in an area with a lot of mountains you don't want a 4-banger that will be sucking wind when going up big hills.

Have you seen the alps ?? Plenty of those "sucking wind" 4s beat the pants of big-bangers that tried to do the Monte et al
Personally having struggled with a gutless 4 rental in Colorado it's more to do with the amount of steel and low octane fuel. You guys live on cr@p

Furthermore, the US is the richest country in the world and people own a lot of stuff so they need a vehicle to carry their stuff.

Why do you want to carry all you own around ?
Where's the logic to this point ??
oh and Luxemburg beats the US on GDP per capita.
Mind you only coz it's the population of a city

[DodgeNitroBIRM]

we've covered this before.

There are few 'adverse' conditions that can't ( and have been ) handled by an ordinary car. Think Sweden - inside the arctic circle and VOLVO, all it takes is chains or studded tyres

Oh and some common sense when driving. ....oh, right, best buy an SUV

It's illegal in the state of Virginia to use studded tires and chains.

[johnnynumfiv]

I'm only 5'9 and I have the darnest time to squeeze in a corolla.

thats pretty funny since i'm 6' 2" and 220lbs, and i fit into a racing seat in a mg midget.

That is laudable in itself, however in Holland we would use a minibus for that, capable of taking 8 passengers (room to expand your business!!) with the fuel consumption of an average mid size car and slightly bigger than the old VW bus. SUV's and trucks are mostly used by posers who have no intention of carrying anything but themselves.

That is true, a lot of people buy trucks and don't use them for anything but carrying people. But some use them for business or recreational or work needs. I think this whole arguement is what one is used to vs what the other is used to.

[Matra et Alpine]

It's illegal in the state of Virginia to use studded tires and chains.

Why ?

I think it's the same in the UK except when deep snow.
I've been told that it can tear the road up and cost more in repairs.

SO as always, a life is given a $ value

[brum]

Who wants to drive a small car in a country that has so many miles of roads?

It wasnt about a having a small car it was about not having such a huge one. I am sure a Large sedan would be more fuel efficient, smooth and safer because of roll-over risks.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Obviously my last comment fell on Deaf ears.

I said that It's big cars for a big country, and what response did i get? none.

Someone else says it, and it's all new all of a sudden.

Now i know how musicians feel when there work is " Sampled...."

Anyway. Australia is a big country, often sales reps have territories the size of switzerland to cover. Most choose a Falcon or Commodore, but i used to live in Alice Springs, in the Northern Territory. 16Km from the dead centre of Australia. We owned a Mitsubishi Pajero (Snigger....) while most other people we knew owned Landcruisers or the like. Simply because if you needed to get out of there, a car like a BMW or even a Daewoo, Even A Prius, would do a fat lot of good and shake themselves apart on the Corrugated roads.

When we moved to NZ, we sold both, and Bought an Honda Accord. We had no need for an SUV or even a hardcore 4WD, we were in the City.

Now we are in Canberra, we could still use a 4WD, and because it was a good buy, we bought a Jeep Cherokee.

WHat i find deplorable is people who live in the middle of the city, never leaving it, and if they do, only on the freeways, and owning an SUV or large car. YOU DON'T NEED IT!

THe U.S. Has big roads, which can accomodate these large cars, small fuel costs to keep them running, and a more-than-willing industry willing and eager to supply the needy public with a large car. Whats the problem?

It works here in Australia too, our Family car is a British LuxoBarge. And probably wouldn't fit in a parking spot in Italy, but there only mid-sized in the U.S.

These things are all relative.......

[Fleet 500]

That's not a ridiculous statement at all. Especially in Central America and Southeast Asia, the US has given weapons and finanical support that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in crimes of humanity. The US has also directly killed many hundreds of thousands more. This is the truth. You want some examples? What about the carpet bombing of Cambodia, and support of the Khmer Rouge, which eventually lead to millions of dead civilians? What about sending Indonesia all of the weapons that they needed to complete the East Timor Genocide, which resulted in the death of 200,000? What about the support and arming of the Nicaragua's government illegally put in place by the USA so that over 80,000 dissidents could be killed off, or the Arming and support of Guatemala's government death squads that killed nearly 300,000 people over the course of two decades, right into the late '90s? What about arming and supporting the rebels in Angola between 1974 and 1992, when they killed 650,000? What about the CIA-sponsored terrorism in Lebanon in the mid-80s that killed thousands? What about the training and financial backing for El Salvador's government death squads, which killed nearly 80,000? What about arming and financially supporting the Turkish regime that killed over 27,000 Kurds and dissidents in the mid-90s? What about the My Lai massacre? What about support for urban bombers in Italy during in 1980? What about carpet bombing the civilians of Vietnam and Laos in the '60s and '70s, resulting in over 2.5 million deaths?

As I said earlier, I'm here to offer a different side to the story, and that's why I'm choosing not to praise the US. I've enjoyed every time I've visited the US (except one when I went for a funeral), and I think that Americans as people are kind and welcoming. However, there's already lots of praise out there, and not enough is known about the gloomier apects of the US, especially historically. What I personally not like is the US government's foreign, humanitarian, and environmental policy. I like the US as a country, and they have done many great things for the world. I just want to make sure you see both sides of the picture.

It is a ridiculous statement. The examples you mentioned was the U.S. fighting a war (Vietnam) or helping other countries fighting wars because of a threat of communism or a madman dictator. This is not "supporting terrorism."

You will never find a perfect country. But the U.S. comes about at close to that as any other country.

[Fleet 500]

What happened to Fleet 500, Mr.Bill et al?

I'm still here. Have been working 12-hour days and Saturdays... not much time for the Internet.

[Fleet 500]

How do you reckon that is ?
There are few theatres of war and police action where there weren't other countries involved. Are you claiming them ALL as US ?? I'll give you Grenada

WRONG.
The US has a huge deficit on it's obligations to the UN missions around the world.
Too often US "aid" comes with handcuffs - so it's money to CHina to upgrade a telephone network as long as they buy AT&T switches. So please be careful making such sweeping "goodwill" statements.


The connection between Iraq and 9/11 was made in a propganda speech worth of the Nazi machinery at it's best/worst.
"Blind patriots" wouldn't see it just as ordinary Germans didn't "see" the call to cleansing.

How about giving us the dozens of Pacific islands we liberated in '44 and '45?

The U.N. has a huge deficit on their own obligations. They didn't do anything when Iraq/Saddam ignored the 17 resolutions.

When asked what the U.S. wants in return for fighting wars in foreign countries, as the saying goes, "Just enough land to bury our dead."

I think Iraq/Saddam definitely cooperated with terrorists, including 9/11 terrorists and al Qaeda. Why would Saddam pay $25,000 to the families of suicide (actually homocide) bombers? Someone who was well known as a member of al Qaeda was treated at a Baghdad hospital when he was wounded during the war with Afghanistan.