[JayHMorrison]

Link
DETROIT - High U.S. gasoline prices are hurting the sales of one of Ford Motor Co.’s highly profitable sport utility vehicles, the automaker said Wednesday.
Sales of the Ford Expedition, a full-sized SUV that gets about 16 miles per gallon, fell 23 percent in August and are down nearly 13 percent year-to-date despite heavy consumer incentives. Ford offers $4,000 cash back on the SUV, which received a major make-over two years ago.
“Expedition, of course, is down,” said Ford Division President Steve Lyons. “By and large I think that is a by-product of fuel prices.”
While Lyons only referred to the Expedition, sales of other big SUVS have also been disappointing this year.

Sales of the gas-thirsty Ford Excursion -- a lightning rod for criticism from environmental groups -- fell 44 percent last month and are down 20 percent year-to-date.
Sales of General Motors Corp’s bulky, gas-guzzling Hummer H2, which gets about 13 miles to the gallon, fell 11 percent in August, meanwhile, and are down 21 percent year-to-date.
The aging Chevrolet Suburban SUV, also from GM, saw its sales fall nearly 33 percent in August.
“Overall there has been a little pressure on the industry,” Lyons said, referring to the high gasoline prices.
Detroit’s Big Three automakers all make a major share of their automotive profits from sales of truck-based sport utilities and pickup trucks. And all have sought to play down the impact of higher fuel prices so far this year.

Ford, unions deal to save Land Rover
Ford and labor unions struck a deal Wednesday to save Land Rover, the British maker of off-road vehicles, hit hard by inefficiency, poor exchange rates and quality problems.
Up against a deadline imposed by the number-two U.S. auto maker to boost competitiveness at Land Rover's tradition-drenched Solihull plant in the West Midlands, employees made concessions on working conditions to save some 8,000 jobs.
"The trade unions have recognized the need for ongoing efficiency and productivity improvements which require the adoption of working practices already in existence in other Ford-owned plants," said Dave Osborne, the Transport and General Workers Union's national secretary for the car industry.
He said in a statement that unions now expected the company to keep investing in the business that Ford bought in 2000, but has struggled to make a consistent money earner.
"On the basis of today's agreement, we would expect that Solihull, which has been the home of Land Rover for over 50 years, to remain so for the next 50 years," Osborne said.
Mark Fields, head of Ford's Premier Automotive Group of luxury brands that includes Land Rover, said the detailed deal focused on operating improvements, work practices and the "culture, behaviors and beliefs within the plant."

"The longest journey starts with a single step. We have taken a very positive step, but we still have a lot of pavement in front of us," he told Reuters. "The real hard work of implementation starts now."
In May, Ford told Land Rover to put forward a detailed plan to improve quality and achieve world-class competitiveness in five years. It did not threaten to shut the plant, but had made clear it would slowly starve it of fresh investment.
"As long as we can implement that plan and as long as we can make the progress on quality, cost and productivity that has been included in that plan, then this plant will have a bright future," Fields said. "But at the end of the day, it is going to be customers who decide whether the plant stays open."
Land Rover languished at 28th place in the J.D. Power and Associates 2004 initial quality study, well below the industry average and badly trailing its sister company Jaguar, the British luxury car group, which was number 3 in the poll.
Fields said Land Rover had a long way to go to catch up to Jaguar, but even Jaguar has struggled. It said last month it would cut output by some 15,000 vehicles over the rest of 2004 due to a weak dollar and slack demand that swelled inventories, but no jobs were lost.

Fields repeated Ford's position that Jaguar was a concern.
"It is a business that is not as healthy as we'd like it to be and we are in the process of taking action that we need to take to make it healthy. As we said, were not ruling anything in or anything out," he said.
Ford's luxury car business is key to its goal of booking $7 billion in annual pre-tax profits by 2006.
The Premier Automotive Group -- which also includes the Aston Martin and Volvo brands -- and Ford's Lincoln brand are supposed to account for a third of that profit.
But PAG sank to a pretax loss of $362 million in the second quarter from a profit of $166 million a year earlier, hit by the strong euro, model changeovers and higher operating costs.

[Keith_McClary]

Funny thing, according to: Link
the Expedition (12.7 hwy, 17.8 city) is only slightly worse than the ubiquitous Explorer (11.2 hwy, 16.2 city).
That's litres/100km. if that means anything to you.

[k_semler]

The International 7300 CXT, which was unveiled on Sept 16, weighs in at 14,500 pounds, is powered by the International 466 diesel engine, has an Allison 2500 5 speed automatic transmission, is capable of towing 20 tons, comes with air suspension, and seats 5 persons. This engine has a displacement of 220 horsepower, and 540 ft-lbs of torque. It has been estimated by unofficial sources to receive 5-7 MPG. Retail price starts at $93,000 base. If you have wanted to own your own semi-truck, this is the vehicle for you. This vehicle uses the same chassis as International's commercial dump trucks and snow plows.

http://www.internationaldelivers.com/si ... asp?id=595

http://www.internationaldelivers.com/si ... re/cxt.asp

http://www.i4u.com/article2145.html

[DoctorDoom]

No one's gonna buy this just to one-up their neighbors. Most of these will be put to work! My problem with the H2 and similar 4WD SUVs isn't the vehicle per se, but the pure waste of using such a vehicle for grocery shopping and to take the kids to soccer practice.

[k_semler]

If anyone does buy this vehicle, it MUST be used for work. With the capability to tow 40,000 pounds, this would have no problems towing a mobile home, or half of a double wide to a new location to be set up. If this vehicle were just used by soccer moms, or for grocery store runs, it would be a waste of resources. I have a 1981 Oldsmobile Delta 88, and it performs very good for what I use it for. It has been rated to tow up to 2500 lbs, but I will never use that functionality. I use my vehicle for what it was designed to do, be a commuter vehicle capable of carrying 5 passengers, (or a lot of tools), I do not use the vehicle for what it was not designed to do, so why do people buy behemoths for vehicle when the heaviest load it will carry is the 120 lbs female that drives it? Hell, I have over 500 lbs of stereo equipment and tools in my vehicle, (which is why I probably get such bad MPG), and it is more than adequate. The only time I wish I had a truck is during the tri-monthly run where I cram ten 45 gallon trash bags of aluminum into the passenger cabin, and four 45 gallon trash cans of aluminum to recycle them. After fitting all of that aluminum into my car, there is only enough room for me to sit to drive it the 30 miles to town so I can recycle the cans. It is not to comfortable, but it does suit my needs fine.

I do not need a truck to haul fourteen 45 gallon bags of aluminum cans to the recycling facility every three months, so why do "soccer moms" need their commercial class truck to haul groceries, and act as a taxi for little Jimmy? I probably use my car, (which was built for passengers), for carrying more cargo then most people use their SUV's or trucks for carrying cargo. Yes, SUV may stand for "Sport/Utility Vehicle", but it seems that most people do not use their SUV for either sport or utility, they only use it for a passenger vehicle. The way most people use it, it is simply a station-wagon with a lift kit. Hell, when I had my mustang hatchback, I could fit in eight 45 gallon bags of aluminum, so it is not like the average car is short on available space for the average person. If a "soccer mom" were to trade me vehicles, it would be a far better fit, as I would use the vehicle for what it was intended, and they would use my car for what it is intended. That would be much better than me using my car as a truck, and them using their truck as a car.

[mgibbons19]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', 's')o why do "soccer moms" need their commercial class truck to haul groceries, and act as a taxi for little Jimmy?

[gnm]

Good point Gibbons, -well theres always the mini-van! Successor to the big ole ugly station wagons of the 70's

-G

[k_semler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', 's')o why do "soccer moms" need their commercial class truck to haul groceries, and act as a taxi for little Jimmy?

[mgibbons19]

All those are small cars, and they suck with even two kids sometimes. And those miniwagons are nice and all, but don't really replace the functionality of the old Vista Cruisers. Explorers do however, and it only took twenty years for the market to find a way around mileage restrictions of the 70s. The SUV thing to me seems like a great illustration of how well intended legislation can go horribly wrong.

I hate the SUV discussion. It mostly exists as a way for the moralist greenies to feel good about themselves while denigrating everyone else in the world.

Whatever is done needs to be done with respect to people. Let people make the choices in their own lives. The whole idea of a bunch of moral nitwits sitting around doing a needs-test for trucks aggravates me.

I can just see it: 'he doesn't need a full size pickup, he's only got ten acres. Let's let him have a toyota.

'she doesn't need a minivan, there are three seatbelts in a corolla.'

'really, they shouldn't have three kids anyway, that's only adding to the problem'

[k_semler]

Hauling 3 loads of aluminum cans to town in my vehicle is not exacly what I would qualify for entertainment either, but I make do with what I have available. If it is possible to haul a total of fourteen 45 gallon bags of aluminum per load in my vehicle, I would imagine it would be possible to saftly seat 3 passengers in a toyota corrola. It may not be comfortable, but niether is sitting in a car stuffed with aluminum cans that have been stored outside for about three months. I would imagine that two or three children would take up quite a lot of less room, and as for thier gear, that is why the automotive companies have invested in trunks. Also, I do not consider having 2 children a valid argument for the purchase of a $43,000 surburban primarily because this vehicle is designed to seat nine passengers. Given a family of four, this is a little over twice the amount of seating that is required to transport the family.

Yes, some families are large enough that the purchase of an SUV or full-sized van is justified for transportation. one family around here has 6 children, and they have a suburban. I can understand this, because the complete seating pattern allows for one driver and eight passengers. This vehicle allows the family to travel together, while only one seat remains unoccupied. There is another family that has twelve children, (yes, I think that is excessive), and they own a 15 passenger Chevrolet van. There is only one empty seat in this vehicle also when the family is under transportation. I would say that this is a perfect use for this van, as it is maximising it's capablities.

Although I do think it is pathetic that according to Washington state law they are required to have a CDL just to transport thier whole family, that is an entire different matter. I also do agree with your example statement of limiting the amount of offspring. If the parents cannot reliably provide adequate housing, clothing, and nutrition for thier (desired) offspring, they would be wise to limit thier activity in procreation. It is just common sense. People would not purchase a home for $1500.00 a month if thier income was only $1400.00. It is simple to figure out this, so why do people have more offspring than they can afford to support? To me, it is a simple formula along the lines of
[If{x>y}go; If{y>x}quit]. To do this would only make the children suffer, and almost ensure thier disease and mal-nourishment, if not death.

All biological aspects of reproduction are mute if the offspring perish before reaching age which they are capable of breeding. As far as a moral aspect of it, it is written in the eighth commandment, Thou Shalt Not Murder, and persons that purposfully endanger an individuals life, and cause the extermination of that individual have been found guilty of manslaughter in the past. Why should a death resulting from the direct result of not enough income to support the nutrition of a dependant child also not qualify as manslaugter, or at the very least, child endangerment?

[mgibbons19]

My point was simply that it is not up to me to tell anyone what kind of car they should drive. If we could build incentives into the market that prompted people to be aware of waste, they would make the choices that made the most sense for themselves.

[mgibbons19]

But see, why should we have to explain our vehicle choices to some unknown out on the internet somewhere? We shouldn't, and neither should he. Just because he's got a bender avatar makes him a qualified judge of whether or not your truck is reasonable?

Screw that. There's gotta be a better way.

[k_semler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', 'B')ut see, why should we have to explain our vehicle choices to some unknown out on the internet somewhere? We shouldn't, and neither should he.

[mgibbons19]

Guess you've got your post-peak literature covered.

[k_semler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', 'G')uess you've got your post-peak literature covered.

[NevadaGhosts]

NiKfUrY69,

Larger vehicles are usually not safer. In an accident, they are much more likely to flip over and cause serious injury or death than a car. SUV's being safer is just a myth. Sitting up higher doesn't make one safer. It's just a false impression.

And I remember a while back hearing about all of those SUV drivers here in the US whining and complaining when the price of gas went up from $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon. Gee, I wonder what all those SUV people will do when the price of gas rises to $6 or $7 per gallon due to peak oil shortages.

[lowem]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NevadaGhosts', 'L')arger vehicles are usually not safer. In an accident, they are much more likely to flip over and cause serious injury or death than a car. SUV's being safer is just a myth. Sitting up higher doesn't make one safer. It's just a false impression.

[mgibbons19]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NiKfUrY69', '
')'Sides that, whatcha think about the city "electric vehicle only" zones idea??

Be a better start than runnin' oil completely dry.

Later - NiK in Oklahoma

[larrydallas]

I grew up in the 1980's so I missed out on the station wagon craze but the modern ones are pretty cool looking to me. The old accord and camry wagons are nice alternatives to the pricey SUV and you can own 2 cars instead of one. That sounds bad but look at it like this. One suburban will get you about 14 mpg at best and cost about $35000 for the way most people get them optioned.

With that same money you can buy a $5K-$7K accord wagon and some smaller car which is fun and gets good mileage like a miata for example. You can drive your small car to work and run errands in it but your wagon can be for when everyone needs to go some place together. Your fuel cost would be cheaper this way. If you have children and are beyond 25 then insurance is not going to be sky high.

Aside from the toll the SUVs take on earth the reason I hate them is because they are a scam. Not all of them but most are built on cheap truck frames. The drivers of $50K Navigators and Escalades share 90% of their parts you can't see with the basic stripped out $13K Ford F150 and Chevy C1500 work trucks. You really do not get your money's worth.

If you must show off a better bet would be a sports wagon like a Mercedes E class or BMW 3 series based wagon with leather, wood, and a road hugging fine tunned chasis.

I plan to buy a station wagon if we still have cars after I have a family of my own (assuming we still have those post peak).

[NevadaGhosts]

I was wondering how long it will be before we see the death of the gas-guzzling SUV and pickup truck. I feel that within 3 years, gas will be too expensive for the average consumer to fill up their gas-guzzling vehicle. I base this on Samsam's prediction of fuel prices tripling within 3 years. $6-$7 per gallon of gas will virtually kill today's gas-guzzlers. In the near future, I can see a huge panic of SUV trade-ins as the price of gas suddenly spikes. The used vehicle market would then be flooded with used SUV's and trucks. People trading in or selling would get very little for them, because the market would be flooded. That is why I tell my family and friends to sell their gas-guzzlers right now, while they are still worth something. What is everyone else's prediction on this?