"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Yes, it makes sense to not have the 4WD in theory, but even
that is arguable in areas that see much snow etc, particularly
for the sort of woman driver that drives so many of the SUVs.

You can make a case that they are quite a bit safer in those
in the worst driving conditions of snow and icy roads etc.

Skill and the correct tires trump drive train features, always. I live in
the kind of climate you describe, and we see see loads of 4WD vehicles in
ditches. They produce a false sense of confidence, something I learned in my
first half hour of driving in snow with my 4WD pickup. That's why I feel the
feature is a silly one to base a purchase on ***FOR SOME PEOPLE***. If
you're a half-assed driver, the feature will do very little for you in snow.



And they are basically prepared to pay for that in the substantially
higher cost of the vehicle and the cost of the fuel it wastes while
ever the cost of fuel is affordible, and it obviously still is.

And that's the problem! ***IF*** you believe that it's a useful strategy for
this country to buy less oil, and ***IF*** you can make a contribution in
that direction, then whether you can afford the fuel is not the issue.

I don't think we disagree that much. My thoughts come from lots of
conversations with my grandparents, who, along with millions of other
Americans, made some significant sacrifices during other times of shortage,
such as WWII. To them, it was a very matter of fact thing - just something
did for your country. And, it still happens today. When we first went to
Iraq, people in one of the gun newsgroups commented that they were unable to
order enough of certain rifle ammo. Someone pointed out a news article
indicating that two manufacturers were running 3 shifts at full capacity. No
big deal. People waited a bit.



The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers choosing
fuel efficient cars is to let the price of fuel increase until the cost
of the fuel has a real impact on consumer's car buying decisions.

I'm not so sure about that, but...oh well.



That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they
should be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil
supply which we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped
up in the kinds of cars we drive".

Iraq wasnt about the price of oil.

Iraq wasn't even about Iraq, and still isn't.