Dan <dantheman98@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com:


>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?



People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
to make a social statement.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:41 +0000 (UTC), "TeGGeR®"
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>Dan <dantheman98@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com :
>
>
>>
>> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
>> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
>> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
>> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
>
>People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
>to make a social statement.

Make social statement with your votes, not your wallets.

It's more effective that way and last I check it's free to vote.

If we stop putting oil-friendly politicians in office we wouldn't have
an issue now would we?

 

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:41 +0000 (UTC), "TeGGeR®"
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>Dan <dantheman98@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com :
>
>
>>
>> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
>> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
>> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
>> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
>
>People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
>to make a social statement.

Make social statement with your votes, not your wallets.

It's more effective that way and last I check it's free to vote.

If we stop putting oil-friendly politicians in office we wouldn't have
an issue now would we?

 

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:41 +0000 (UTC), "TeGGeR®"
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>Dan <dantheman98@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com :
>
>
>>
>> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
>> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
>> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
>> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
>
>People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
>to make a social statement.

Make social statement with your votes, not your wallets.

It's more effective that way and last I check it's free to vote.

If we stop putting oil-friendly politicians in office we wouldn't have
an issue now would we?

 

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:23:19 +0000 (UTC), "TeGGeR®"
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>>
>> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
>
>
>
>
>They certainly do.
>
>But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
>Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
>*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
>
>Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
>safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
>when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
>
>American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
>explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
>what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
>defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
>those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
>American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
>
>Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
>SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
>traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
>just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
>
>I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
>their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).

You betcha. Nothing like having all that space, OR all the storage
room, ANd still being able to reach the roof easy enough to put stuff
there.

i only got my first van 18 months ago (previously, i've added a pair
of seats to a small commercial van like a rascal, hiJet or supercarry)
but I won't give them up any time soon. .

 

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:23:19 +0000 (UTC), "TeGGeR®"
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>>
>> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
>
>
>
>
>They certainly do.
>
>But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
>Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
>*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
>
>Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
>safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
>when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
>
>American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
>explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
>what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
>defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
>those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
>American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
>
>Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
>SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
>traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
>just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
>
>I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
>their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).

You betcha. Nothing like having all that space, OR all the storage
room, ANd still being able to reach the roof easy enough to put stuff
there.

i only got my first van 18 months ago (previously, i've added a pair
of seats to a small commercial van like a rascal, hiJet or supercarry)
but I won't give them up any time soon. .

 

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:23:19 +0000 (UTC), "TeGGeR®"
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
>news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>>
>> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
>
>
>
>
>They certainly do.
>
>But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
>Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
>*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
>
>Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
>safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
>when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
>
>American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
>explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
>what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
>defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
>those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
>American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
>
>Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
>SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
>traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
>just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
>
>I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
>their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).

You betcha. Nothing like having all that space, OR all the storage
room, ANd still being able to reach the roof easy enough to put stuff
there.

i only got my first van 18 months ago (previously, i've added a pair
of seats to a small commercial van like a rascal, hiJet or supercarry)
but I won't give them up any time soon. .