On Friday 14 January 2005 12:40, Graywolf wrote: > Anybody here aware that all SUV's are not large. > > My Blazer is under 15 feet in length and 5 feet in width and fits in > compact car spaces with no overhang. Furthermore the term SUV (Sport > Utility Vehicle), originally applied to S-10 Blazers and Jeep Cherokees > (both compacts as opposed to the fullsize Blazers, Suburbans, Broncos, > Wagoneers of the time)
The times they are a-changin', brother. Time was (and I can only imagine this, as I'm too young to have seen it myself) that everyone in America drove Ford Crown Victorias. Even though vehicles based on Chevy S-10/ Ford Ranger platforms are "light" trucks, they are still a lot taller, heavier, and longer than the average passenger car (A Toyota Camry, say). My Safari van is essentially an S-10 with a van body, and I wouldn't say it were a "small" vehicle at all! What I'm trying to say is a class may no longer be "big" by your ABSOLUTE measure, but has become big in comparison to other vehicles in the marketplace. > does not in my mind apply to big luxury trucks. > Anyone seen one of those International pickups based upon a 2-1/2 ton > diesel truck chassis? How about LMT (Luxury Monster Truck)? Those are...ridiculous. My observation is that SUVs are driven by people who in other eras might have driven minivans or station wagons. In my own, informal, comparisons, my van layout is a lot more efficient at moving people & cargo than the SUV layout. It certainly won't go slickrocking in Moab, but then, I never do that sort of thing, anyway. The van is perfect for hauling the portable studio setup I have to carry on the job (I'm a school photographer when I'm not wasting y'all's time with truck pictures)--lights, camera, background, sometimes props, etc. But for trips around town, I use shoeleather or my bicycle: I hate having to put a half-day's wages into the gas tank every week. -Luigi
