I bet you could haul some lumber in the LeSabre,if it had the pass through feature on the rear seat and dont forget small panels .
I noticed a bunch of very new looking pickups sitting in driveways today in a small town near where I live and most of the places were scarcly the size of building lot.Most trucks are sold with 4 wd too ,when I was coming up a 4wd was rare ,a lot of folks didnt even have a pickup ,they used the bootend and put tire chains on .
No ,I hate glaring blue light ,the blue headlights blind me .
Whatever, guys
You âcan have itâ . . . since you are really going out of your way to prove you are correct
Yes I was around and driving and owned a station wagon from the mid 1970âs. Ever try and pull a trailer with a 80âs or 90âs minivan, in most cases it was recommended that you donât tow anything. And most station wagons were full sized rear wheel drive, V8 until the 1980âs. And while you state a minivan could easily haul several, that was only after you took the seats out, in my station wagon from the mid 1970âs, fold down the seat and load it up. I donât remember many compact station wagon before the 1980âs. So you had a big car, loaded with smog control, that didnât get good fuel mileage, and wasnât very profitable and it was replace by a van, based on the K-car platform, front wheel drive, small engine (all 100 hp) and good mileage. Remember we were just coming out of the âenergy crisisâ so people were looking for fuel mileage, then fuel prices went down people realized a mini van couldnât do everything a station wagon could and slowly they started being replace, with something that was a better fit the SUV, which would hold a lot of people, tow a trailer or boat, was cheaper in many cases than a mini van. So in the end the SUV replaced the station wagon.
What funny is we basically have the station wagon back, look at the Equinox, the gls63 and others and you basically have a station wagon, only they are calling it an SUV.
So what is an SUV really? Sport Utility Vehicle. In other words a sporty station wagon with a higher roof maybe or maybe not, but with no frame-sometimes.
What about truck-based SUVs, such as a Tahoe or Expedition?
Definitely NOT "a sporty station wagon with a higher roofâ
1 Like
I dunno. Maybe itâs a truck with a roof on it? It wasnât me that came up with the term. Maybe it should be a SUT (sport utility truck).
Just having fun. 
Stupid Useless Vehicle
I suspect that many of the configurations being produced were driven by the definitions and their effect on the EPA, CAFE, and safety requirements theyâd be constrained too. I seem to recall reading that vehicles exceeding a specific dry weight with full frames were characterized as trucks, while unibody vehicles were characterized as cars.
I havenât kept track, but have no doubt that these classifications have changed as time progressed. The feds had to keep up with the myriad of ways manufacturers were finding to avoid the mandates.
I admit, Iâve not kept track of any of this stuff. Perhaps someone here has, and can either correct or add to these comments.
My wife gets angry when I call our RDX a truck and not a car. Still a truck to me is when I need a stool to wash the windshield or the roof. Still Iâm careful to call it a car around her.
Cubs are having a hard time again.
Whatâs an RDX?
Acura. Step down from the full size MDX SUV, whatever they call them. But I need a stool for the windshield.
Iâm afraid my opinion differs from yours
In my opinion, they are quite useful vehicles, and there are millions of people that agree with me. Many families, actually. The Toyota Highlander is the perfect vehicle for my brotherâs family. It serves their needs very well.
Maybe tens of millions of people are stupid AND brainwashed . . . ?
Back on topic âŠ
The EPA ratings are a classic case of fallaciously using a single precise number to summarize what is actually an incredibly vague, unquantifiable process.
Basically, the CAFE standards are based on testing processes set up in the 1970âs, which have largely been discredited for providing reliable âreal worldâ fuel economy then or now. The published results are only as good as the arbitrary test. Every few years, the tests for the fuel economy that shows up on new-car stickers are revised, usually downwards, but the testing for the 56 mpg mandate remains the same. The EPA numbers, the real-world testing you see in auto magazines, or in your own driving may differ greatly.
This means that CAFE numbers reflect how a car does on a '70âs era test, but this number is NOT the number printed on the new-car stickers. It also means that manufacturers may be building vehicles to pass the CAFE tests, not necessarily to provide better actual fuel economy. Some cars do much better on the tests than in real-world experience. For example, many hybrid variations of standard passenger cars often claim 45+ mpg but you are lucky to get in the high 30âs, and even less if you equip hybrid cars with standard, safer tires (ever wonder why braking distances for hybrids are much longer than for non-hybrids in the same car model?). Turbo engines have the same problem â great on the EPA test, not so great in real-world comparisons.
Even then, fuel economy numbers can easily be manipulated by the government, to make it easier or more difficult to make the CAFE standard. For example, the relative weighting for types of vehicles sold can easily be manipulated by subtle changes in the complicated algorithm used, so the government can make things look better or worse at the swing of a bureaucratâs pen.
The end result? We are almost certain not to reach a âreal-worldâ figure of 56 mpg any time in the predictable future (which is itself kind of an oxymoron). Even if we go to electric cars, the effective fuel economy depends on many things like outside temperature, power plant efficiency, demand times for electric charging, etc. Nevertheless, thanks to the efforts and intelligence of vehicle designers, fuel economy has greatly improved since the CAFE standards were first set in the '70âs, even as safety and comfort have also improved. The government may have helped things along by passing mandates, but this is often no more effective than King Canute thinking he could roll back the tides by commanding them to do so.
1 Like
Yeah I agree with you but then I remember General Patton commanding the weather to clear, and it did. So whoâs to say? Actually he ordered a minister to come up with a commanding prayer that worked so he did have a go-between.
Itâs early in the morning and I just commanded the sun to rise. I think I already see signs that it worked.
1 Like
You completely missed the point. So what an SUV canât tow. 99% of station wagon owners never towed.
The point is SALES. People wee NOT buying SUVs in great numbers in the 80s. Thereâs a direct relationship between the decline in station wagon sales and minivan sales.
1 Like
Would there be any demand for the vehicles that would become available here if the âChicken taxâ were repealed?
This seems like a topic worthy of its own thread.
Docnick, donât despair! According to the EPA all is not lost. Rather than give you my own opinion, which is no more or less valid than the good ones in the thread, here is the EPAâs newest report released yesterday on the matter. Forgive me if another poster also attached it. Some bright spots: There are models on sale today that meet the goals now and despite increases in the percentage of large vehicles (SUVs and pickups) average MPG continues to climb.
1 Like