Forum Discussion
valhalla360 wrote:
I believe terryallan's point is they regulated cars that make decent tow vehicles out of existence and wound up pushing people to buying SUV's as they qualify as trucks which are not subject to the same rules.
There you go. Thanks- I believe terryallan's point is they regulated cars that make decent tow vehicles out of existence and wound up pushing people to buying SUV's as they qualify as trucks which are not subject to the same rules.
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Terryallan wrote:
carringb wrote:
The government isn't telling them what to make. They set the target (with input from the automakers) and the automakers decide how to meet that target. If FCA can't meet that target, which they've had a long time to plan for, that's nothing but poor planning on their part. If they put more effort into building desirable small cars (they've gotten better!) meeting CAFE targets would be achievable.
you do know The Gov outlawed the Station wagon? That's why everyone started driving SUVs. Now they want to outlaw SUVs.
I must have missed that law? :h Maybe a link to the law your talking about would keep me informed. :h
Regulations dude. They regulated then out of existence- I have a 66 Chrysler 300 with a 440 TNT. 375 HP, 480 Lb Ft. Gets worse mileage on premium empty than the truck in my sig does towing 10K.
Terryallan wrote:
carringb wrote:
The government isn't telling them what to make. They set the target (with input from the automakers) and the automakers decide how to meet that target. If FCA can't meet that target, which they've had a long time to plan for, that's nothing but poor planning on their part. If they put more effort into building desirable small cars (they've gotten better!) meeting CAFE targets would be achievable.
you do know The Gov outlawed the Station wagon? That's why everyone started driving SUVs. Now they want to outlaw SUVs.
I must have missed that law? :h Maybe a link to the law your talking about would keep me informed. :hcarringb wrote:
Terryallan wrote:
Talking about the real station wagons. Not the cross over wagon. Remember the Olds Vista cruiser. I remember the debate on Cspan when they regulated working station wagons out of existance. Remember those wagons could tow a real TT, as well as any of todays 1500 trucks, and haul the family along as well. None of those in your pictures can do that. On a lighter note. the real wagons are highly sought after. If you can find a Vista Cruiser, Or any of the real Station Wagons. You can turn a tidy profit.
Those in your pic look nice. But can't do half what a 9 passenger station wagon could do.
Really? You think a 70' barge wagon with underpowered oversized cast iron motors can tow better than today's half-ton pickups? Even the base non-turbo V6 in the Flex puts out more power than the old big-blocks used to. The Mercedes probably puts out double the HP.
The Flex has the same footprint (within 1") of the Expedition. And apparently families do tow with them.
I won't argue that regulation changes may have impacted wagons at the time, but fuel prices probably did too. I'm pretty sure there wasn't some law passed that said "no more station wagons". Their real death blow undoubtedly was a result of the SUV trend.
Their death blow CAUSED the SUV trend. "Soccer Moms" could not get real station wagons any more, and since the SUV was classified as a truck, and exempt from the regulations put on full size station wagons. They naturally migrated to SUVs. That caused the truck classed SUV to grow to accommodate more people, and then came minivans to haul kids.
Why do you guys NOT know this history? Do you never watch C-SPAN, or read?
BTW. A 454CI engine. Tows a TT pretty well, with no strain. BTW. That comes to 7.4 liters. And they had 400 to 500FT LB of torque. Compare that to the new truck engine, 6.2L and 417Ft LB of torque and you won't really be impressed with 40 years of "progress" Quite a towing machine. But the tree huggers didn't like them.
BTW2. The tree huggers also did their best to get the truck classification taken away for SUVs. Watched that debate, and vote as well.ib516 wrote:
The success of Ram trucks will hurt them. Seems silly, but that's the way it goes.
They have to build and sell more small cars. The new Chrysler 200 is a good start.
Kinda true, that's why Toyota will sell a Prius and make $500 so they can sell more Tundras and make 5 grand.- Once you drive a vehicle with a true big block and a towing gear you'll see how much better they tow! And it will be towing quite a bit more than what's in your pictures!
There is something to be said for an engine that can accelerate without downshifting! Terryallan wrote:
Talking about the real station wagons. Not the cross over wagon. Remember the Olds Vista cruiser. I remember the debate on Cspan when they regulated working station wagons out of existance. Remember those wagons could tow a real TT, as well as any of todays 1500 trucks, and haul the family along as well. None of those in your pictures can do that. On a lighter note. the real wagons are highly sought after. If you can find a Vista Cruiser, Or any of the real Station Wagons. You can turn a tidy profit.
Those in your pic look nice. But can't do half what a 9 passenger station wagon could do.
Really? You think a 70' barge wagon with underpowered oversized cast iron motors can tow better than today's half-ton pickups? Even the base non-turbo V6 in the Flex puts out more power than the old big-blocks used to. The Mercedes probably puts out double the HP.
The Flex has the same footprint (within 1") of the Expedition. And apparently families do tow with them.
I won't argue that regulation changes may have impacted wagons at the time, but fuel prices probably did too. I'm pretty sure there wasn't some law passed that said "no more station wagons". Their real death blow undoubtedly was a result of the SUV trend.- Those wagons were based on the day's huge sedans with big block engines. You can't buy them any more either and who would want to. Today's wagons are based on today's sedans.
