looked like it was tested for frontal crash, and not off-center, which according to Toshi's link is a more prevalent occurrence.N8 said:Here... I'll help you.. the 2004 GMC Yukon is rated: http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/2796.html
Ford ends production of the Excursion
- Thread starter Zark
- Start date
How many kids do you have? We have 2 but watch our neice a few days a week, that means we have 3 car seats. That would be impossible to get three car seats in a Subaru or Saab, Have you ever driven a Denali? Actually would be supprised how they handle (Believe me I've owned better handleing cars than the ones you mentioned). Have I takin it off road, no, but like I said I drive it to the snow, which is 3 hours aways so once again the Denali is more comfortable for long trips over the cars you mentioned. The Denali has some aftermarket wheels but the stock 17" size for the snow purpose. Say what you will, but our SUV serves a purpous for our familys needs, and cars CAN'T tow boats very well either.BigHit-Maniac said:
I have a small penis too, so whats the point? Did I mention that we have hills here in CA? Taking a boat to 6000 ft is easier with a V8.narlus said:
So how many of you bitching about SUV's have ever owned or driven one?
Brian HCM#1 drive whatever the hell you want and be happy. Or you could be miserable all the time like narlus.
i drive a pathfinder. it was given to me, not my choice. i could get by with a much smaller car + roof or hitch rack, and certainly would appreciate the increase in mileage. it's also surprisingly small inside compared to a minivan of equal external dimensions, since the floor is so high off of the ground.Brian HCM#1 said:
The reason the govt wrote rules that were based only on GVW is that trying to discriminate between what constistutes "unnecessary personal" use and legitimate "farm/industrial" use would be a nightmare. Enforcement would be impossible and we'd therefore have one more piece of useless legislation weighing down the country, to be applied unevenly and unfairly by bureaucrats across the land.
IMHO, market forces should be at play here, in the sense that there should not be special tax breaks for these vehicles. If they want to give businesses tax breaks, they should find a better way. Give them a tax break on something that can not be used for non-industrial uses like tractors, combines, animal feed, or even transportation costs. The explosion in non-commercial use of 6000+lb. vehicles should be recognized and the higher cost of owning and operating a truck should return to being a cost of doing business (or carrying groceries if that is what you choose to do with the thing).
Whether the hippies ever admit it or not, these big trucks are more than just status symbols (OK, so the H2 is only a status symbol
). They are incredibly practical due to their versatility and cargo carrying capacity. You may not use all of its potential most of the time, but when you do have to take a soccer team somewhere, want to bring some lumber home without having to wait for a delivery truck, or want to carry six bikes on a road trip to NC, it's nice to know you have the option sitting in your driveway.
For the record, I don't own a big truck; I own a Ranger and an Odyssey. I just don't think it should be up to the govt. or some "environmentalist" to make that choice for me.
IMHO, market forces should be at play here, in the sense that there should not be special tax breaks for these vehicles. If they want to give businesses tax breaks, they should find a better way. Give them a tax break on something that can not be used for non-industrial uses like tractors, combines, animal feed, or even transportation costs. The explosion in non-commercial use of 6000+lb. vehicles should be recognized and the higher cost of owning and operating a truck should return to being a cost of doing business (or carrying groceries if that is what you choose to do with the thing).
Whether the hippies ever admit it or not, these big trucks are more than just status symbols (OK, so the H2 is only a status symbol
). They are incredibly practical due to their versatility and cargo carrying capacity. You may not use all of its potential most of the time, but when you do have to take a soccer team somewhere, want to bring some lumber home without having to wait for a delivery truck, or want to carry six bikes on a road trip to NC, it's nice to know you have the option sitting in your driveway.For the record, I don't own a big truck; I own a Ranger and an Odyssey. I just don't think it should be up to the govt. or some "environmentalist" to make that choice for me.
so if i have a differing opinion from you, i'm miserable 24-7?zod said:
i've driven a few. my dad and stepbrother both had explorers, my mom-in-law has a yukon or an aviator (which i drove recently in fla), and i've had some rental cars too. i like the feel of a car, and although i don't drive the minivan all that much, it drives alot better than the SUVs i've driven. that article gave a good insight about passive vs active safety.Brian HCM#1 said:
we were gonna get another wagon, but decided on the minivan for the same reasons brian listed (hauling around more than 2 kids) as well as not having to fight the space battle. the thing is roomy beyond belief. bonus points were the much cheaper price and better mileage, as compared to yr average SUV (not the mention the room).
Thats a pathfinder though, when you are married and have a family it might be different.Toshi said:
Bottom line to each his own, you drive what you like and I will what I like, thats the beauty of this country, we get to have choices. Your mini van serves your purpose and my suv serves mine so everything is good.narlus said:
to quote toshi:BurlyShirley said:
is it clear enough? or do i have to sound out the word to you? do you move your mouth when you read? :love:
Ok, so your against tax cuts for small businesses because you dont like SUVs because people get tax cuts for them.narlus said:
And on emissions, SUVs emit no more than trucks, vans or older cars. Sound out whatever you like. It still wont make sense.
BurlyShirley said:Ok, so your against tax cuts for small businesses because you dont like SUVs because people get tax cuts for them.
And on emissions, SUVs emit no more than trucks, vans or older cars. Sound out whatever you like. It still wont make sense.
Sorry BS... but I think they all have you beat on this one.
1) The tax break is not designed for "small business." Actually it was not a "tax break" it was just something written into the IRS code that these vehicles fit into and someone discovered it.
2) except for "older cars" none of the vehicles you mentioned above are subject to CAFE.
1. Either way you put it, it still makes sense. Its help for small businesses in one way or another. That's good.Mtb_Rob_FL said:
2. If someone can prove that an Expedition with the EXACT SAME ENGINE as an F-250 is somehow worse, Ill buy that.
Sorry MTBRob, but you're not exactly judge and jury for the politcal debate forum either.
I didn't say I was, but I can certainly add that your argument holds NO water.BurlyShirley said:
Its NOT "help for Small Business." It was written with agriculture in mind, not exactly SMALL in any sense of the word. The fact is that anyone purchasing a qualifying vehicle (or a piece of agricultural equiptment for that matter) can write off the purchase price in one year as apposed to 3-5.BurlyShirley said:
That's hardly a reliable or objective source. Did Arianna Huffington write the preface?narlus said:
Do you really have so much stuff that you need folding seats, a dozen cupholders and storage nooks on every surface? Sounds like you got hooked by Madison avenue on the convenience of the minivan. The minivan has probably been subjected to more focus group analysis than any other vehicle in automotive history.
Agriculture in TN is generally small businesses, but that's beside the point. Are you saying that ANYONE in the US regardless of whether they own a small business or not can claim this on their taxes? Cause if so, me and everyone here have completely misunderstood what's going on.Mtb_Rob_FL said:
well i can fold down the 3rd seat, take the two captain chairs out, and now i basically have a pickup truck bed. this was useful for loading plywood the other day. if i want to drive 7 people and still have space in the back for stuff, no problem.
the focus group claim is speculation, and we can argue all day and night about it. however, $ talks, and this quote from Toshi's link would suggest that money was spent to make money:
"Before long, the Michigan Truck Plant was the most profitable of Ford's fifty-three assembly plants. By the late nineteen-nineties, it had become the most profitable factory of any industry in the world. In 1998, the Michigan Truck Plant grossed eleven billion dollars, almost as much as McDonald's made that year. Profits were $3.7 billion."
the focus group claim is speculation, and we can argue all day and night about it. however, $ talks, and this quote from Toshi's link would suggest that money was spent to make money:
"Before long, the Michigan Truck Plant was the most profitable of Ford's fifty-three assembly plants. By the late nineteen-nineties, it had become the most profitable factory of any industry in the world. In 1998, the Michigan Truck Plant grossed eleven billion dollars, almost as much as McDonald's made that year. Profits were $3.7 billion."
One beast down, a lot more to go ...I love when I go down to long island to visit relatives and I see soccer moms in their SUV's (which are totally justified because of the demanding loads they need to pull, and the high snowfall there......yeah right). If you need to haul serious stuff or get into really hard to reach rough places (even though I doubt that most SUV's do well on the trail) than perhaps I could see the need. But for the soccer mom hauling 4 kids and 8 soccer balls traveling to a field 10 minutes away in a mild 1 inch powdercoating of snow I say shame on you for making me have to deal with your nonschalant driving attitude (because if you hit me in my small car or on my bike I stand no chance) and your wasting of gas which will only help further the push for a need to drill domestic oil in pristine wildlife habitats. Hrmm well that was a bit more of a rant than intended, but being an outdoorsman and almost getting ready to graduate from an environmental science backround can do such things to a man.
Yes that is what I am saying. ANYONE can write of business expenses wether they own a small business or not. You have to ITEMIZE your deductions (like most homeowners do anyway).BurlyShirley said:
sweet!narlus said:
no, that's not what he is saying. here it is in a nutshell:BurlyShirley said:
"These changes to the tax code, which were originally intended to spur capital investments by farmers and small businesses that rely on heavier vehicles, have made the purchase of heavy SUVs extremely lucrative for any small business owner, whether or not the vehicle is necessary in their work."
the typical minivan is undeniably a better people mover than a typical suv. a large suv is better at towing, and has 4wd for those snowy roads to vail and tahoedan-o said:
. honda odyssey: 19/25 mpg, seats 8, 40.8/41.1 f/r legroom to pick an arbitrary stat, 171.4 ft^3 volume for passengers, 147.4 for cargo
gmc yukon denali: mpg not listed on automotive.com, but reported elsewhere for a slightly older version as 12/15 mpg, seats 8, 41.3/38.6 f/r legroom. interior volume also isn't on automotive.com, but this link that wants to print itself shows cargo volume as 104.6 or 131.6 ft^3 depending on whether you choose large or xl varieties.
so the odyssey can't tow a boat, and doesn't have 4wd. in exchange you get 10 more mpg on the highway and more room inside than even the suburban-sized variant. and yet drivers of minivans are those who have been "hooked by Madison avenue on the convenience of the minivan"?
like most things here, it looks like we were debating needlessly, and common sense has taken over:
http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-changes.htm
http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-changes.htm
Well that toonarlus said:
hmm....the info i posted from http://www.selfemployedweb.com/ seemed to suggest that only small business owners could take this deduction, and not joe schmoe. maybe you have to deduct it on a different tax form, one which business owners would submit?Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I use my full sized truck to haul lumber to build North Shore stunts.........can we as mountain bikers all at least agree that is a worthy excuse 
Well uh..narlus said:
WTF MTB ROB?
i would, but i'm miserable.zod said:I use my full sized truck to haul lumber to build North Shore stunts.........can we as mountain bikers all at least agree that is a worthy excuse
just don't hit a tree in yr full-size pickup.
Narlus, I'm not intending to rail personally on you, just furthering the debate.
I understand that minivans are flexible and meet the needs of most people, but there is a big difference between space and payload. When buying beer and water for a BBQ we overloaded a rental ford minivan to the point that the suspension bottomed completely and it could barely pull the load. My chevy truck wouldn't have even felt it.
My uncle has worked as a bean counter at Ford for 30+ years. My cousin is head weld engineer at the factory you reference. There is no doubt truck based SUVs are profit machines. Why? Because the truck platforms they are based on have been evolving for decades and required very little new engineering, just refitting of the interiors etc.
The introduction of "crossover" SUVs, basically minivans with flannel shirts on (and the real Madison avenue product...) changed the playing field and will eventually erode sales of truck based SUVs to the point that only those needing their capability (towing, severe loads/conditions etc) will buy them.
If people want to live with the compromises of 6000+lbs vehicles simply for the tax credit, so be it. My crew cab 4x4 chevy is only driven when we need it's capability, otherwise we use the wife's wagon.
I understand that minivans are flexible and meet the needs of most people, but there is a big difference between space and payload. When buying beer and water for a BBQ we overloaded a rental ford minivan to the point that the suspension bottomed completely and it could barely pull the load. My chevy truck wouldn't have even felt it.
My uncle has worked as a bean counter at Ford for 30+ years. My cousin is head weld engineer at the factory you reference. There is no doubt truck based SUVs are profit machines. Why? Because the truck platforms they are based on have been evolving for decades and required very little new engineering, just refitting of the interiors etc.
The introduction of "crossover" SUVs, basically minivans with flannel shirts on (and the real Madison avenue product...) changed the playing field and will eventually erode sales of truck based SUVs to the point that only those needing their capability (towing, severe loads/conditions etc) will buy them.
If people want to live with the compromises of 6000+lbs vehicles simply for the tax credit, so be it. My crew cab 4x4 chevy is only driven when we need it's capability, otherwise we use the wife's wagon.
dan-o, this is the political forum, i take nothing personally (hell, that's good advice for the interweb in general). i agree w/ most of what you are saying, but this quote is key:
"The introduction of "crossover" SUVs, basically minivans with flannel shirts on (and the real Madison avenue product...) changed the playing field and will eventually erode sales of truck based SUVs to the point that only those needing their capability (towing, severe loads/conditions etc) will buy them."
my informal study shows that *most* of the SUV drivers wouldn't need it for the towing/conditions. they just want the image, and they are misled into thinking they are safer.
clearly, if you are pulling a lot of stuff or loading a lot of gear, a passenger-style minivan isn't the right choice.
"The introduction of "crossover" SUVs, basically minivans with flannel shirts on (and the real Madison avenue product...) changed the playing field and will eventually erode sales of truck based SUVs to the point that only those needing their capability (towing, severe loads/conditions etc) will buy them."
my informal study shows that *most* of the SUV drivers wouldn't need it for the towing/conditions. they just want the image, and they are misled into thinking they are safer.
clearly, if you are pulling a lot of stuff or loading a lot of gear, a passenger-style minivan isn't the right choice.
This is where I say I am not a Tax expert, so if you have a very specific ? please consult 1. However you do not need to be a business owner to have business expenses. Nor do you need to be incorporated to be considered a "business owner." Hence anyone could use this deduction.BurlyShirley said:
The "CrossOver" is what we in the industry like to call... THe reintroduction of the Stationwagon. (however most consumers wouldnt find that nearly as sexy). Personally I would prefer to "Drive" a wagon, however I find my SUV much more convenient for MTB purposes. My bike can fit inside standing up with front wheel off and not even have to lower the seat post. That makes taking my bike to work hella convenient. I could care less about ground clearance, off road capability or towing capacity since I do no off-roading or towing. Something you will also start to see. As the "CrossOver's" become the flavor of the month the SUV's will start to drop in price making them even more attractive to the value oriented customer.narlus said:
And continue
Just so you know about the tax break on large SUV's, you have to pay it back when you sell the vehicle.
A good example of the image selling you speak of is the VW Toureg. They ran an ad showing one towing a 30ft Airstream trailer. After someone bought one for that exact purpose, and made VW buy the vehicle back because it couldn't handle the load, they pulled the ads and admitted to exaggerating the capacity.
dan-o said:
Please in a recent Chevy ad the guys hooks his truck up to a freakin DINER!
Well that, coupled with this:Mtb_Rob_FL said:
and contrasted with this:
...doesnt really lead me to believe you. Im not saying YOU are matter of factly wrong, since Im no tax expert either, and I know people who write off business expenses, but Im guessing that this "loophole" or "break" is something extra.
If you tried it with the wrong truck setup, the same thing would have happen. I did that with a old nissan pathfinder. You could not drive over 40-45 with out dangerous wobble in the suspension when it was loaded with lots of suitcase and 4 other people - nothing outrageous. Its all a matter of the right tool for the right job.dan-o said:
They make minivans that have a 6000 lbs. capacity too - that would have probably worked for either of us...
Most cargo companies don't use pickup trucks for their smaller trucks, they use dodge/freightliner sprinter diesel vans - mercedes vans in Europe. They get about 25 mpg in the city (same as most mid-sized gasoline sedans) and only need an oil change every 10000 mi.
