Still, I wouldn’t say you’re STUPID, just… overprepared. If we’re honest with ourselves, the idea that our wife might go into labor at the exact moment we are receiving 15 inches of snow is a pretty remote one. About as remote, I might add, as the possibility that gas prices might go back down at some point. I imagine the Brits have something to say about that.

Admittedly, there was a lot less pressure to consider these things a few years ago…and it sure would be ludicrous for you to sell it at this point, when it’ll probably get you to 300,000. And it’s still your God-given right to put your priorities in whatever order you feel like.

xB’s, however, have defied depreciation – and there’s every indication that this engine will last just as long as yours. This is not true for most vehicles, but I hope you’re starting to see why this car made the list.

http://www.vehix.com/inventory/Search.aspx?zip=60005&radius=50&N=127%2B4294966811%2B4294966809

The cheapest one is $13K. I paid $15.5 for mine, new. Low-mileage examples routinely go for more than than they sold new.

You do have me on the luggage thing, however. Though you might want to keep an eye on the “green” fad – I agree that picking up your clients in a Land Cruiser says something about your advice, but perhaps it is not what you think it is. It scares me that the ‘in’ car is becoming the Prius – it’s getting ludicrous out there.

But you just did attack a whole class of drivers. You pretty much said all suv drivers are stupid.

Let me tell you something. My Landcruiser cost me less per year to own than your xB. That statement was true until last year, but the reason it changed was not the price of gas. Gas is still cheap. The reason is because maintenance and depreciation were much less. (I bought it well used). A new xB has little maintenance, but lots of depreciation. An older xB I suspect has about the same maintenance costs, though likely breaks more often.

The only thing that ruined the sweet deal I was getting has been the sudden depreciation caused by everyone now deciding that SUV’s are stupid. I suspect, that they will come around. However, failure to factor a complete change in the used car market place five years ago does not make me stupid. And though it should not be true, picking up a client in an xB and then trying to have a serious conversation on why he should take my advice on a six or seven figure deal just isn’t a good idea. It’s a shame, but that’s the way it goes.

I have been able to enjoy the comfort of the car, the ability to carry LOTS of stuff (no rentals), the security of knowing I could get myself out of a lot of snow, use as a virtual snow plow for my neighbors, as well as a vehicle that we all counted on in case of an emergency. All that for about three hundred and fifty dollars a year in maintenance, and a fuel bill an extra five hundred a year higher. Why would I worry about another five hundred a year of gas when buying a new compact would result in an extra couple thousand in depreciation? No one makes a compact that looks and operates so well after 125k miles as my Landcruiser, or I might buy one.

Nope. Your xB only looks like a good buy when gas is going up a buck a year. A change could make that go the other way quickly. Perhaps you might want to stop making fun, and calling people stupid. Especially since you might end up stuck in the middle of nowhere one day wishing for higher clearance and four wheel drive. It can happen.

LandCrusher: Wow, you weren’t kidding about a landmine.

Let me respond with an important distinction: for the record, I have never said that anyone shouldn’t be entitled to blow their own money on whatever idiot thing they feel like, regardless of need. I did, however, imply that, to do so, one might very well be stupid. :)

If you or anyone else wants to buy and maintain a vehicle for which they have NO pronounced need for, that is your God-given right as an American! All of us in this country are free to spend $714 a fillup to maintain a military-grade Humvee, if you feel like it, even if all we do is take paved, snow-free suburban roads to Applebees. But if you do, sweet mother Mary, am I going to make fun of you for it. :)

I never said anything about who should be able to purchase anything, and I never mentioned the Bentley (which I also happen to think is a pretty ludicrous investment) at all. I’m not attacking a vehicle class, only a class of people who spend WAY more than they could despite a pile of alternatives.
I realize that after the 400th or so internet debate they all tend to blend together, but don’t project the other 99 on me because you thought I was going after the Ram. :D

First, I successfully pointed out the hyperbole in your post. That was my objective. You caught my attention because you stepped on the “what people need” land mine.
The whole idea about what people need is rat hole that leads to a long political discussion about free choice. However, I will sum it up as quickly as possible:
Justin B just did a test drive on a Bentley that gets 3 mpg in his test. THREE!
In a world where it’s okay to buy a bentley, why pick on SUV owners for buying something they don’t, in your opinion, need? Why even try to make the case? The whole exercise is really pointless. Why do people really even need the size of the xB? Using your logic, all the people at the Mall or McDonald’s by themselves could just have easily owned a Yaris or Smart or Vespa or bicycle or shoes.
Here is the other rub. It makes sense for people to buy a vehicle that meets 98% plus of their needs. That leaves them with 2% of their needs causing them to rent. Anything more than a week total, or about four rental incidents, will quickly cost more. Run the math. Now ignore what you see on the street. It means nothing. For every person who “needs” an SUV for it’s size or other characteristics, only one in hundred will be using it for that when you see them.
I would agree with you that the xB was a design that did meet most needs for many people who otherwise might think they need an SUV. But don’t take the argument to defend your xB into the territory of attacking the SUV choice.
The anti-SUV rhetoric is almost all worthless garbage. The entire point is wrong to start worth. We don’t need anymore witch hunts. Identifying characteristics that need improvement is a worthwhile case, but attacking a class of vehicles is not. There is no characteristic that is both undesirable, and unique to the SUV.
I see, now, what you meant on the dodge ram. You can see how I would make that mistake when I thought you were simply attacking SUV’s?

Happy to.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004283-5,00.html
“While only 1% to 10% of SUV owners actually use their vehicles’ off-road and towing capacities, it’s wrong to say those extras are wasted on the majority.”

A source is not cited on that page, though you’re welcome to go digging for it in the appendix, if TIME and CNN don’t bear sufficient journalistic integrity for you.

This is, of course, a hotly contested point, but the most SUV-friendly stat I found (from a reputable source, that is) was from an R.L. Polk study presented by GM to the CAFE Subcommittee – and if ever you’d want to make SUVs look necessary, it would be there! GM cited statistics stating about 50% of owners used them for “hauling tools or appliances” (which you couldn’t do in a station wagon?), but only 15% truly required all their capabilities, as they used them for “towing or off-road use.” So I apologize – I should have said “85%-95%.”

Or, for further sourcing, you could go to the mall on a Saturday and, uh, look around. Or an elementary school. Try to picture any of those people – the women, especially – towing around a boat on the weekends. If you can, you’ve got a better imagination than me!

Though I say again: you’re not actually arguing that most Americans use their SUVs for activites for which no other car would be sufficient? Are you kidding me?

Also, now that I finally figured out what you were talking about: re-read my statement. THE SIDE-IMPACT TEST is designed to destroy anything without side airbags. The DODGE RAM is not (as far as I know, lol).

To rephrase my statement without the colorful imagery: “The IIHS test is designed to illustrate what happens when a 5′0″ driver is broadsided by a very large vehicle that happens to strike only the B-pillar. It is a demanding and, some would argue, unrealistic scenario, effectively designed to ‘prove’ the need for side airbags.”

Any further sourcing you require?

Could you source your 95% of SUV owners don’t need them factoid? If you are going to provide “food for thought” it shouldn’t stink. I would really be interested in what SUV’s these people choose, and their relative attributes to the alternatives that do meet their “needs”.

Also, any citations concerning the specific design intentions of the engineers at Dodge would also be nice.

It was only in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Doomsday Side-Impact Test that the xB scored poorly. The IIHS’ test represents what happens when a 5′0″ driver gets broadsided by a Dodge Ram, which only hits the b-pillar. It’s designed to destroy anything without side airbags.

I’d also like to point out that, because of higher riding height, the xB scored better in both tests than most vehicles on the road at the time. If your car lacks side airbags (as does every car in my work parking lot at the time of this writing), you’d have a better chance against that Tahoe in my xB.

Food for thought.

Stephen Lang: Sorry, but to me and many others ‘SUV’ implies a degree of ground clearance and towing capability that the Xb simply does not have.

You’re arguing semantics – what SUVs are capable of does not denote what they’re actually used for by 95% of their owners. No, the xB cannot climb a 45% grade while towing a horse trailer. But it can ferry the kids off to the mall just fine! Are you really going to argue that more Americans are going to be doing the former than the latter?

No, the xB wouldn’t be a great SUV replacement for YOU, but for an overwhelming majority of children-ferrying Americans, it would be just perfect. As for you…I hope your $80 fillup is worth the extra ground clearance.

BTW, my xB has ground clearance within 1.5 inches of my S-10 Blazer. Zoiks!

The main changes are fuel-injected engines, and a dashboard revamp a couple of years ago, otherwise it’s pretty much original. Critics pan it for not being up to modern safety standards (no air bags) but the public loves it. The best thing is the low price and low cost of spares and anyone can fix it. The worst thing is the dealer experience and quality control, a source of many complaints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_S-Series

Of course, GM won’t do it, because they despise people who drive small cars with the white-hot fire of a thousand suns. But still.

I had one of these with the 5 spd, and I can attest to the wonderful mileage. But they were also prone to burning oil. And I had to replace the differential at 50k miles. So, reliable it was not. But man was the mileage great. I NEVER got less than 33 mpg, no matter how hard I drove it.

ps: that 260 ford put in the mustang in the early 80s was junk. It wasn’t the same 260 from the 60’s, ford made some frankenstein engine from the 302 (same family I know, but not the same). Power was nonexistant. If you ever see a Mustang with that engine, run the other way as fast as you can.

Voila.

Coupes and sedans equipped with a manual transmission were among the most fuel-efficient cars available at the time, reaching 40 miles per gallon (17 km/L or 5.9 L/100 km) in EPA highway tests.

Of course, GM won’t do it, because they despise people who drive small cars with the white-hot fire of a thousand suns. But still.

City is about 21
High way is about 29

And it is as capable off road as many suv’s… I bet it will even trounce the current Ford Explorer!…That beast has become so wide and overgrown I’m surprised it can move at all!

its the weight! it weighs about …nothing!

SUBARU! BRING BACK THE PREVIOUS GENERATION IMPREZA! THE NEW ONE IS TOO BIG!

I would have a 1986 or later body (those were substantially stiffer than the early ones) and maybe a light pressure turbo on the 260 V8 to keep the torque numbers where the motorheads like them…

Slap a 1.8L bluetec diesel in a W124 (still available in Korea as a SangYung Embassador) and you have a car hard to beat in any aspect you may care to look at.