Car Lust--1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass
I love slick sports coupes and sedans, and high-horsepower, high-testosterone muscle cars get my blood churning, so my fixation with seemingly mediocre 1970s American cars must seem a little strange. Sports coupes, sports sedans, and muscle cars all tend to combine style, power, and athleticism; in the popular eye, 1970s American cars bring only gauche style and flabby, anemic performance to the table.
Certainly, it was a dark time in the automotive world, with tightening emissions restrictions, an awful fuel shortage, plunging power levels, and an odd predilection towards baroque styling elements. But when people give me a hard time about my 1970s car infatuation, I point to cars like the 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass as examples of why I find them so compelling.
It's easy to focus on the tacky cars of the 1970s, (I'm not immune) but what gets lost is the fact that there were a lot of strong, cleanly styled typical American cars during this period that looked good, ran reliably, and made a lot of people happy.
I find the '73 Cutlass particularly good-looking, with its scalloped fenders and delicate detailing. It's a distinctive look without crossing the line to busy. The Cutlass was also a sweetheart of a car mechanically--not a hot rod, but a comfortable, stylish cruiser with an plush ride and a torquey 350 V-8.
In a way, the Cutlass is a proud representative of a sweet spot in American car history. In the same way that Kleenex knows how to make facial tissue, Detroit just knew how to build large, V-8-powered, rear-wheel-drive cruisers. That knowledge was hard-coded into the DNA of every major American car company. The major disasters came when the Big Three had to step outside of that comfort zone to try something new.
The '73 Cutlass was more reliable, better-executed, and more satisfying to drive than the jumbled messes that came immediately after it when Detroit fumbled with small engines and front-wheel-drive. The Cutlass was a particularly good example of how good a typical American rear-wheel-drive car was before GM lost the playbook.
With its understated looks, its well-tested engineering, and throwback driving dynamics, the Cutlass would certainly be welcome in my garage--if only I could find one.
This particular example is owned by Frank Alfter, is in gorgeous like-new condition and is currently in storage.
--Chris H.
Steaming Pile on April 07, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I had a '73 Delta 88 coupe once. It was a clapped-out bomb of a car by the time I got hold of it, and it guzzled leaded gas (at 67 cents a gallon in 1988) at an appalling rate, but it was a real blast to drive, real people could sit in the back seat, and it started every day. It was a living room on wheels. The tranny quit on me, which made it guzzle even more gas because I had to run first gear up to at least 40 MPH, let up off the gas, and wait until what was left of the gearbox lunge into third. I had to let it go after a couple of months of that kind of abuse took its toll and I barely made it to where I got my next used car, a 1980 Chevette that was solid as a rock, but wasn't nearly as much fun.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 07, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I learned to drive in cars like this. I rode around in them growing up. My family favored Fords over GMs, but the overall theme was the same: big, lumbering pushrod V-8 of dubious durability, column-shifted slushbox, leaf-sprung live axle rear end, overboosted power steering and power brakes, unsupportive vinyl-upholstered bench seats, indifferent build quality that led to mysterious squeaks and rattles in odd places, cheap-grade steel that crumbled into oxide from Northeast Ohio road salt.
A car like that teaches you a lot. Trying to dock it in a crowded parking deck or a pre-WW2 detached garage teaches you the virtue of compactness. Caning it down an on-ramp to merge into a crowded freeway teaches you that a quick car beats a slow car. Taking it down the twisty roads in the metropark teaches you to appreciate little things like road feel, sway bars, and bucket seats--all the things you don't have as you wrestle with the laws of physics. Driving it on snow-covered streets teaches you how to steer out of a skid real fast, because once that rear end breaks traction--and it will!--the tail goes sideways. When the inevitable major engineering casualty occurs, you learn to appreciate reliability, even as you finance your mechanic's children's college education.
After a couple or three years of this, I knew what I wanted, and it wasn't a Detroit Wretched Excessmobile.
fixedgear on April 07, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Hideous. Now a '73 boat tail Riveria is a gorgeous car. This thing is just horrible.
Anthony Cagle on April 07, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Love it.
David Drucker on April 07, 2008 at 01:10 PM
What's especially wonderful, to me, about the '73 Cutlass is that it was considered a mid-sized car. If the 88 or 98 were too big for you, Olds would sell you a Cutlass. It's worth noting, I think, that the '74-77 versions of this body weren't nearly as pretty.
Me, I had a '72 Delta Royale convertible that was a true piece of crap by the time I got around to buying it. The highly touted scissor-action top mechanism was a nightmare, and almost as much water got in with the top up as when it was down. But none of that mattered. Being able to drop the top trumped any and all other considerations. Too bad GM dropped the drop-top option on the Cutlass (and Sklylark, et al) after the '72 model year. The '73 would have made a good looking convertible.
bigrig on April 07, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Now were talking....I've owned 3 of these cars, a 72(455cid),a 74 (455cid from the 72 car),and a 85(V-6 motor,we won't go there).They were comfortable, relieable, and in the case of the 1st two,"gutless" was never part of thier names. It was a travesty when they were made into gutless front drivers.
so it couldn't corner,big deal.It would however beat the (insert word here) out of the little cars in a straight line. Even today, they make a statement when seen or even better, HEARD......
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 07, 2008 at 06:25 PM
I should also mention the Northeast Ohio "Badass Street Machine" modification that a lot of people did on these cars. You started with a stock Cutlass or Monte Carlo with column-shifted automatic transmission:
Step 1: replace the stock muffler with a Cherry Bomb
Step 2: add longer shackles to the rear of the leaf springs to jack the rear end up.
Step 3: add decal hood stripes.
Step 4 (optional): replace the rear wheels and tires with the next largest size.
Step 5 (also optional): install an 8-track tape deck if the car did not already have one.
You now have a car that's no faster than stock, probably handles a little worse because the rear c/g is higher, but none of that matters because it "looks and sounds cooler."
bigrig on April 08, 2008 at 01:20 AM
TO COOKIE, if your going to bash these cars, a correction is needed. These cars and their siblings were not leaf sprung, they were factory 4 links on coil springs. Do we realy need to over 4- bangers with "fart cans" again?
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 08, 2008 at 05:02 AM
bigrig: I'm no fan of "tuner" cars either. Let's just agree to disagree about large Detroit iron and leave it at that.
bigrig on April 08, 2008 at 02:25 PM
not a problem cookie ............
Rob the SVX guy on April 08, 2008 at 03:50 PM
I feel bad for people who's automotive tastes are limited in only one genre. I like almost any genre of automobiles... imports, tuners, exotics, classics, muscle, obscurities, lowriders, VIPs, donks, almost anything and everything, as long as it's well done, cleanly executed, and intelligently modified. I hate SUVs with a passion though, freakin worthless vehicles.
David Drucker on April 09, 2008 at 09:44 AM
"I hate SUVs with a passion though, freakin worthless vehicles."
Not if you're towing 5000 pounds' worth of trailer across the country they aren't. I've done that four times, in 95-degree weather, and can think of no finer tool for the purpose than the '02 Navigator I was driving. (I especially liked the air-conditioned seats.)
Mochi Mochi on April 09, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Now things have just gone too far. If you really like SUV's do not read any more of this comment you will find it insulting, and I really don't want to offend anyone. But I have to vent. So my apologies in advance to one and all.
I have my preferences for what I kind of cars I like and what I consider tasteful. I can be open minded to those cars that fall outside my personal preferences. Am I a fan of big 1970's American V8 rear wheel drive cars - even those of the early 70's before things got really garish? No - but I can see the appeal of the 73 Cutlass, even if I do not share it. But SUV's go beyond the pale. They are an expression of the worse excess and lack of imagination that has ever been conceived. They are a plague and an abomination.
Let's put it this way. No matter how garish, no matter how excessive, no matter how incompetent, all cars that preceded todays SUV's seem by comparison to harmless, modest, and tasteful. The worst excesses of the past are now rendered "whimsical" oddities.
You want a fine tool for hauling 5,000 or 50,000 lbs of trailer? Try a Kenworth. That's a fine tool that I can appreciate.
From an economic perspective SUV's lose on every count. You can rent a fine tool for those 4 or 5 times one ever needs to haul anything really big. The cost of a rental or even space on a flat-bed is going to leave thousands of dollars left over. The point is, the economics of an SUV are terrible and can't be justified. I won't even get into the environmental costs of these monstrosities.
If you are buying air conditioned seats, you are wasting your money. I have driven across the southern US in my Civic in blistering heat. I was perfectly comfortable and happy with the basic A/C in that car. I drive throughout the South West and hardly ever use it. Some people get a high out of the status they ascribe to throwing their money out the tail pipe of their car. I guess their are some people who think that's pretty cool. But having a fan club comprised of drooling knuckle draggers who are enchanted by shiny objects and money burning is not the kind of fan club I would want to be associated with.
What about the situation where you need to haul heavy loads? Let's say you live in an AirStream, or have a race car, or a boat. Or perhaps you work in construction or agriculture. Get a truck!!! Old or new - get a solid truck and put it to work. Again we have the perfect tool for the task.
You want to travel across country in luxury. There is a perfect tool for that too. First class air fare or a nice cabin on a train is a wonderful way to travel to travel in luxury. Trains are the most efficient means of transport for large loads.
But what is this excessive need we have for excessive luxury? I know it's wrong of me to be so judgmental but it just seems soft, wasteful, and self-indulgent. There was a time when most cars did not even have A/C and we were fine with that. We were also more fit and tougher. Figures from the National Institute of Health indicate that we are becoming and increasingly obese society. Obesity is considered a disease. SUV's seem like an extension of this disease, an accommodation for our increasing national waistline.
Some look at SUV's and think tough, rugged, manly. I look at them and think fat, wimpy, candy-ass wanna-bees cars for sissies. I wont comment on the IQ I ascribe to the SUV set either. I'm sorry for thinking ill of SUV owners. Flame me if you like. I know this is a prejudice, but it is one that has been proven correct all to many times. If I saw a guy in a beat up but hard working 1985 PowerWagon and a guy in a brand new Escalade... the guy with the PowerWagon would get points for respect. I would assume the Escalade driver was a poser at best trying to impress me with bling.
I'm not a spartan, but I think we should be a little tougher and leaner. I think SUV's reflect a lack of toughness, good sense, and taste. Say No! to super-sized big-mac fat-burgers on wheels. Say No! to electric golf carts in supermarkets. Say no to wretched excess - it is sloppy and dissolute. The once great and mighty Roman Empire was defeated by the weight of its own fat. It fell due to abundance, self-indulgence, and sloppiness.
Give me an old Jeep Wagoneer, 69 Camaro, or a Lotus Super-7 any day. Every bump will be a badge of honor. Feeling hot? Roll down the windows and get in touch with the world around you.
There's my rant for the week, apologies again to all those I offend.
Steaming Pile on April 09, 2008 at 01:47 PM
@mochi - tell it, dude. When Cadillac decided to get in on the SUV craze, you know it had just jumped the shark. Big time. Buying a vehicle like that from a Caddy dealer kinda defeats the purpose, don't it? And it's always the people who drive those monstrosities who sport those asinine yellow ribbon magnets and voted for Bush in 2004 AFTER anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew he was bad news for the country. Support the Troops - bah! When these people put their conspicuous consumption vehicles in the garage and start driving less - and perhaps driving something smaller once in a while - then I'll put my chips in for supporting the troops. Meanwhile, I say to them, "you first, buddy."
The silver lining of $4 gas is that you don't see as many of those things on the road anymore. I've notice that lots of them take up valuable real-estate in used car lots. Good. They can rust there for all I care.
I also notice that people aren't buying those "jellybean" crossover vehicles, either. I can't think of anything more stupid looking than one of those bloated trying-to-look-compact pregnant compact cars rolling down the street, except perhaps the people who drive them. I hope manufacturers end up buying them back from the dealers and crushing them. It would serve them right.
We want cars that work, not what the industry thinks we'll fall for. Enough is enough.
End rant, and I don't give a damn if I offended anyone. If the shoe fits.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 09, 2008 at 03:38 PM
I think my previous comments here (including what's above) firmly establish me as a member of the small-and-light school. I do not like to drive a big lumbering unmaneuverable vehicle, be it an SUV, a monster truck, my wife's old Plymouth Voyager, or a mid-'70s Wretched Excessmobile Landau Brougham (Bill Blass Designer Edition).
That said, I don't get the intensity of the hate toward SUVs and their owners. I don't need or want an SUV myself. For some people, the four-wheel drive and ground clearance and cargo capacity may be a practical necessity. (I have farmer clients who fit into this category.) For the others, there's no practical need. They just want the manly big truck, for whatever irrational reason.
So?
As I see it, if someone's ride does what they want it to do, and the beast is mechanically reliable and complies with applicable safety laws, who am I to argue with their choice of wheels? It's their money -- including their gas money -- and it's a free country last time I checked. If I'm going to indulge my own passions with a turbocharged hot hatch, or "ooh" and "aaah" over Ferraris and Impala SS 409s and Jensen Interceptors, where do I get off telling someone else that they're morally deficient if they spend their automobile dollars in a different way?
This blog is living proof that cars don't just have to be practical--and that we don't *want* them to be just practical. Your car doesn't *need* two-tone paint, pinstripes, a vinyl roof, fake wire wheel hubcaps, a subwoofer, a turbocharger, alloy wheels, fuzzy dice on the mirror, a hood ornament, or even an AM radio in the dash. If practical need were the test, we'd all be reduced to driving government-issue primer-gray Trabants. Who'd want to live in that world?
I also think it rather unwise to generalize about someone's politics, intelligence, or moral worth based on their choice of ride. Not everyone in a Prius is a Birkenstocked granola-crunching eco-scold; not everyone in an SUV is addicted to conspicuous consumption; not everyone in a Mercury Marquis is a blue-haired old lady; not everyone in a Volvo is a latte liberal. The kid that did the Northeast Ohio Badass Street Machine conversion on his old man's '73 Monte Carlo? He was my classmate's brother, and he's the one who introduced me to Tolkein.
My father loved his big rear-drive slushboxed Yank tanks. Does that mean he was sloppy and dissolute, addicted to self-indulgence? Not really; he'd grown up in the Depression, and he liked his creature comforts now that he could afford them, but that was about it. (My CRX was incomprehensible to him. Totally incomprehensible. I'd swear that he was wondering what he'd done wrong as a parent, his only son buying a dinky Japanese sports car!) If you'd judged him by the vinyl roof on his LTD, and found him wanting, you'd have missed out on an interesting person.
This is a blog about interesting cars and irrational emotions. It's not about politics or the failings of our fellow men or how each of us would remake society if we were suddenly appointed emperor. I don't know who anyone voted for in the last election (except SP, who self-identified above) and I don't care--we can still have fun together ogling Mochi's canyon-racer Civic or laughing at Chris' SL2. May I suggest, in the spirit of friendship and shared enthusiasm, that we keep it that way.
See you on the twisty roads. I'm in the gray GTI that just passed you. :-)
Mochi Mochi on April 09, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Cookie The Dog's Owner is of course correct. I acknowledged that my rant was partially inspired by a personal prejudice. And knowing this I apologized from the start. However it was also fueled by a certain pragmatism. Aside from any politics, and I have tried to keep my politics out of these discussions, there is something inherently wrong headed about SUVs at this stage in the state of our union. Eco-friendly or not, the economic problems created by our dependance on oil is a problem that has weakened the standing of the US. In the face of that, if one chooses to still run highly inefficient cars that are capable of destroying smaller more fuel efficient cars (and the people who drive them) in a collision, well, that kind of bothers me. It places status and consumption above all else. And that is not a political preference, it is something that needed to be discussed and voiced.
Luxury is fine. Today's Accord is a luxury car to me. So is a Prius for that matter. So are any number of efficient and inefficient cars on the road. I don't begrudge anyone luxury. The car your dad loved for its comfort and luxury was well deserved and he earned it. We are in these instances talking about reasonable luxury. I consider my Civic Si a luxury and an indulgence, as are the tires, and gas I use. Every time I run to red-line I'm consuming for the purposes of indulging my personal pleasure. There's a certain questionable aspect to this, but I try to be aware of it and not over do.
My rant regards unreasonable excess and conspicuous consumption brought to an extreme. To me SUVs represent that. They are a flaunting of consumption. Who knows, maybe someone out there really needs air-conditioned seats and rear facing video monitor. But if I didn't have a really really good reason for those things, then I'd personally be a little ashamed of them as an expression of excess - you definitely wouldn't find me bragging about it. If you have to haul 5000lbs, sure you need a car that can do it. But do you need that car 365 days a year for 5 years? No. You need it for a total of about 5-10 days, and the rest of the time you need a reasonable vehicle. Rent a truck if you need to pull 5K lbs when you need it.
I agree, we discuss our love/lust of autos. But sometimes we also discuss our Disgust. Largely we are a community of enthusiasts and I relish the discourse. As such we are slightly eccentric - so please indulge me.
There are times when vehicles cross a certain line. Cars, as we have seen recently, bring out the best and worst in us. Here's a point that I've been considering for a while. Cars, when new, and in fashion, have status. This means they are making a statement or conveying some message beyond the basic materiality of their being. We all read these messages and on some level register the status associated with these vehicles. The basic physical difference between an SUV, an econobox, and a luxury sports car are not that great - they all have 4 wheels, with internal combustion engines, and they transport people and things - but they each have vastly different status which is partly due to their performance and their practicality. Strangely in our society cars that are wasteful and inefficient appear to have greater value and status than cars that are efficient or practical. It is all about showing off conspicuous consumption. As a friend of mine like to say: "well yeah that's true but it angers the gods and it brings down the wrath of the gods upon us."
Sometimes we like the message and its inherent status. Sometimes we don't. I take exception to the message and the status of SUVs. I don't like what it says about our society. I don't like what it says to our society. I don't like that SUVs insulate their occupants from the world around them. It reminds me of how impersonal it was to drop bombs on cities from high altitudes, its a lot harder to pull a trigger when your enemy has a face and is looking at you in the eye. I have heard time and again from SUV drivers that they in a collision competition. They want the big SUV to protect themselves. The flip side of that equation is that they don't care about the people on the other end of the collision. That's a message I don't like.
I don't like the message that says its ok to waste materials and squander oil. I don't like the message that says bigger is always better. I don't like the message our children get when all they see are bigger is better messages everywhere. I don't want kids eating super-sized MacFatBurgers then buying SUVs to drag their obese carcasses down to the driveway to pick up the mail or the newspaper. If you think this is not happening, think again, it happens every day. And its just not ok.
Here's the other side of New Car Status equation. When a car reaches a particular age it changes status - in fact it loses status. This happens when it is out of fashion. Old cars are survivors of time. They exist because someone loved them or needed them. They have exceeded their 15 minutes of fame and all the built-in obsolescence. The 1970's disco pimp mobiles are now harmless relics. Their presence on the road is an anomaly. The messages that these cars send is so different than when new. The messages are about history, love, conservation, or practicalities of what is affordable. So in the late 70's I would have held a certain disgust for the Lincoln Mark3. Today I think they are great. Not because I want them, but basically I see a car that was once about excess and incompetence, now I see a car that is about a gentler more innocent time gone by. And in their time there were relatively few. Unlike the burgeoning of SUVs everywhere.
Consumption is part of being a human. We all consume and create waste. We all want and need reasonable luxuries. But reasonable is the key word, and SUVs are anything but reasonable. Unreasonable consumption leads to problems. If the world were full of V12 Lamborghinis guzzling gas at a rate of 5 or 6 miles per gallon while sporting every imaginable luxury including a feeding tube for Filet Mignon, I would not like that message either. It is not about the shape. It is about the pragmatics of the vehicle, does it make sense, is the message a good one for society. If it is not then it is open to critique, and I think based on the impractical wasteful nature of SUVs, they are fair game for critique.
Rob the SVX guy on April 09, 2008 at 05:53 PM
I hate SUVs for many many reasons, and have even written 20 page research papers on how horrible they, at almost everything. Just a few fun things to mention, to throw out there:
1. Less than 5% of all SUVs ever go offroad. Ever. That less than 5% includes the people who go offroading once, and never again. 95% of them stay on the road their entire lives. So why get a vehicle design for offroad use? Because they're self-absorbed pricks with low self esteem and they want to look tough and impressive.
2. I care because they ENDANGER me. They have long stopping distance, and accident avoidance in a large SUV is a complete joke. They handle, accelerate, brake, and respond like complete CRAP. This makes them more likely to get into accidents, which is why the deathrate for SUVs is THREE TIMES HIGHER than that of a normal passenger car. The IHSA has also shown that SUVs, when crashing into said passenger cars, are 20X more likely to kill the occupants of the passenger car. Awesome. So those asshole drive something they don't really need, that makes it hard for them to avoid an accident, and I'm more likely to die.
Fucking sweet.
I've literally pooped on the hood of an H2 before. I will do so again. SUVs are a complete joke, my 89 accord with 98 hp is faster, handles better, brakes better, is safer, and is better for the environment than today's SUVs. I hate them. I really actually wish death on most people who drive them.
David Drucker on April 10, 2008 at 05:39 AM
In a world where Mariah Carey has more #1 records than Elvis, I find it hard to believe that you guys are so passionate about SUVs. Well, whatever. But keep this in mind: oil is a finite resource, and the sooner it's gone the sooner we'll get serious about finding alternative energy sources. That being the case, I feel a certain amount of guilt when driving my oh-so-efficient Accord. I get the sense that I should be doing more -- such as driving a Navigator -- to hasten the day when the pumps run dry. Of course, your mileage may vary!
OldCarGuy on April 10, 2008 at 06:04 AM
Generalize all you want, SUV haters. Just be aware that when one generalizes one will at times be dead wrong. At my house there are 2 vehicles: a '90s 4-banger coupe and a '90s 4WD SUV. They both are utilized to their full capability. The coupe is used for most daily driving and for 2-person roadtrips. The SUV hauls (at various times) a closed tandem trailer, a 20' boat and trailer, as well as several adults and two large dogs, along with luggage and camping gear. It routinely goes off road and is in 4WD mode. Now see if you can wrap your brain around this concept: There is no other type of vehicle capable of doing all of this. I bought it, I drive it, I maintain it, and I will continue to do so until a better alternative is available.
Oh, and it isn't a Hummer, but if I catch anyone defecating on its hood they'd better be able to run very fast, lest I assist them in defecating in their pants.
If you can stop hating, have a nice day. If not, good luck.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 10, 2008 at 08:42 AM
Rob: if owning an SUV is folly, it's the folly of the owner. On the bill of particulars detailing mankind's fallen nature, it's probably 'way down the list, but that's neither here nor there.
Vandalizing another's property, or wishing death on them, because you don't like their choice of ride? That's not healthy for you, my friend.
Steaming Pile on April 10, 2008 at 09:23 AM
My personal gripe about SUVs dates back to the days when gas was cheap - the 90s. Now, just about everyone with a driver's license in the 90s was old enough to remember a time when gas was not cheap. In fact, the situation regarding fossil fuels and the Middle East was well-known and well-documented for the past 30-35 years. The fact that fossil fuels were non-renewable has been well-known and well-documented for a lot longer than that. Still, people bought SUVs they didn't need in large numbers, mainly because General Motors told them, "it isn't more than you need, it's more than you're used to."
So buy them they did, and we ended up deeper and deeper with a group of people in the Middle East who we would never have given the time of day if there wasn't any oil under their sand, but since there is, we end up doing business with people who are just plain bad news. Like Saddam Hussein. Like the Saudi royal family, and by extension, the bin Ladens. Meanwhile, most SUV drivers were still deep in denial that their choice of personal conveyance had anything to do with national security, namely the monetary support of people who want to frickin' kill us. It was their God-given right to waste gas, goddammit! Ari Fleischer and Dick Cheney told them so.
These same people are crying and wailing and stamping their feet because it now costs upwards of $130 a week to fill one of these ridiculous monstrosities. Screw them. They can all DIAF. I'd laugh at them as they shake their heads while pumping another $150 worth of dead dinosaurs into their SUVs, but it's not funny anymore. These people are stuck just like the sub-prime homeowners. If you trade it in, you'll take a big loss. If you continue to drive it, it will continue to eat you out of house and home and drive the price of gas yet higher. Serves 'em right for buying shit they can't afford.
Steaming Pile on April 10, 2008 at 09:30 AM
@OldCarGuy - yes, you probably need your 4WD vehicle with the big-ass V8. I just hope you understand that there are probably nine other people for every one of you (at least), for whom their 4WD vehicle with the big-ass V8 is little more than a fashion statement. These people ought to piss you off as much as they piss us subcompact drivers off because they're making you look bad by association. I will not let up on the 90% who support terrorism by wasting gas just to keep the 10% happy.
Mochi Mochi on April 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM
OldCarGuy wrote: "There is no other type of vehicle capable of doing all of this".
My question is: "How in the world did we get by 30 or 40 years ago with out the SUV?" Simple we had trucks and station-wagons. And they did the job really well. My family were farmers and raised horses. That meant hauling trailers, kids, and a lot of animals all over Washington state. Their Ford station wagon with a small block V8 did the trick and got great gas milage - even by today's standards.
I hope I was clear about this. I really do understand that there are people who can make full use of an SUV. But how big does it have to be? How inefficient does it have to be? And how many people really put their SUVs to good use - to full use? The answer to the last question is: not many. And that's the problem.
I spend time between Los Angeles, Boston, and Alamogordo. I see more SUV's in downtown LA and Boston than I do in the rugged mountains and deserts of Southern New Mexico. In Boston they rationalize SUV's because of the snow ( I say get a Subaru if you need 4WD) - that's a pretty thin excuse honestly. In Los Angeles there's no excuse at all. That's my biggest gripe.
All the luxury garbage that goes into making SUV's into plush luxo-mobiles makes them just that much more inefficient. If you drive a tough old Bronco, my hat's of to you. If you drive an SUV built by Cadillac, Lexus, BMW, Porsche, or VW, well... I'll just hold my tongue. That goes for most of these over blown under-utilized fashion buckets made by Ford, GM, Honda, Saturn etc.
If you fully utilize and need 4wd, high ground clearance, and a lot of cargo space, and you really use it that's great. Again I have no problem with that. You probably one of the 5-10% of SUV owners who do.
The problem is under-utilized hopelessly inefficient cars. There were relatively few Lincoln Mark3s in the 70s. That's not true of SUVs. There are way to many. They are pervasive. The reason people most people (NOT ALL - most) buy these cars is status and vanity.
The design and marketing of these vehicles is purely geared towards "keeping up with the Jones'". I can say this with out fear of criticism because there are so many clear, credible, and more efficient alternatives.
I don't hate the people. I don't even hate the cars. I just think that there is a serious lack of imagination that surrounds the SUV. 90 to +95% of the owners can't actually justify them, and are purchasing them for status and vanity only. We did not have them 30 years ago - not in the current plushed_out form - and we did not need them then. I don't think they are actually better in any way than an 83 Malibu wagon. You can't tell me that life has changed so much in 30 years that city dwellers need to drive about in Land Rovers.
The environmental and economic costs of production of new cars is huge. The fact that we have been involved in several Middle Eastern wars that were/are associated with oil is an issue all its own. I think it is disingenuous to not think of the lives that are being lost in Iraq and the economic ruin that war is bringing on us when we look at the vehicles we drive.
I do not condone vandalism, prejudice, hatred, or vulgarity, and I don't condone waste, inefficiency, dishonestly, vanity, or lack of imagination. Carlust is a great place for critical discussions about cars - as well as joyous discourse about our love of our cars. Most of the time I swear like a sailor. I'll try to keep things clean here even if I'm critical. I have always appreciated the restrained and well mannered conversations that contributors have shown here. Passions flare about cars. But I think we can have good respectful dialogue no matter what.
The good news is that all these old cars, even the huge ones, are looking better and better to me.
Rob the SVX guy on April 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Maybe you guys didn't read what I wrote, but I'll try explaining again.
First off, my name is Rob, and I DO support vandalism, prejudice, hatred, and vulgarity towards SUV owners. I have defecated on the hood of an H2, and I will do so again in the future. I print out SUV poser tickets, and distribute them under SUV wipers. I seriously HATE them, and most people who drive them. I also flip off any luxury SUV I see, in any part of town.
Now the reasoning I do so, and hold such hatred: THEY ARE ENDANGERING MY LIFE. Maybe I didn't make this clear, but by driving an SUV, you are not only endangering your own life, but if you collide with a passenger car you are 20x more likely to KILL the people in it. If they have no respect for the life of my family and friends, why should I be nice to them? Why should I show any inkling of respect towards these assholes? I can show them statistics all day long that shows how they're more likely to die, and more likely to kill other people, I can show them performance graphs of cars and how the car will outperform the SUV in acceleration, handling, braking, mpg, and safety, yet they STILL do not concede to the fact that they do not NEED an SUV. Eventually, they say they like 'being up high'. Wow. So 'being up high' is a fair trade for risking your own life, the lives of everyone else on the road, ruining the environment, and poor performance? What a complete joke!
Again, studies have shown time and time again that less than 5% of all SUVs ever leave the road, EVER. So 95% of them stay on the road their ENTIRE LIVES. This means that 95% of all SUV owners should be driving a freaking minivan.
Also, to Oldcarguy: Your needs are very shallow at best. Station wagons can hold many adults and 2 large dogs just fine, and my dad used to tow his 35' boat with... wait for it... wait for it... a 1972 Cadillac Eldorado. You say you need to go offroading... for what exactly? Now see if you can wrap your brain around this concept: Most people have no need whatsoever for owning an SUV, and try to come up with reasons why the 'need it'. You don't need it. 30 years ago, people did tons of things, and most didn't have SUVs. You are full of shit.
Rob the SVX guy on April 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Also, spread the love with these babies:
http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs26/i/2008/101/6/2/SUV_Tickets_by_cash68.jpg
Really high res version available for printing here:
http://cash68.deviantart.com/art/SUV-Tickets-82444256