[LINK] O/t responsible consumers

[Scott Howard]

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:30 AM, <stephen at melbpc.org.au> wrote:

> Every year, the American vehicle makers sell FAR more light trucks, quite
> often used as suburban run-abouts, than they sell normal cars.  It's very
> good to read Yanks intend going-on doing their bit conserving fossil fuel:
>

That statement is misleading in a few ways.

Firstly, if you are only referring to the "America vehicle makers" as you've
stated, then that's more of a statement on the breakup of imported v's
domestic in each of the classes, rather than the actual breakdown of what is
purchased and driven.

In both 2009 and 2010 year-to-date, more "cars" have been sold in the US
than "light trucks".  The split isn't huge, but the cars do win.

The second problem is that the distinction between "Car" and "Light Truck"
isn't necessarily what people might think.  eg, in 2009, Subaru sold a total
of around 83k "cars" and around 61k "light trucks".  Now I don't know how
familiar you are with the Subaru lineup, but there's not much in there that
I'd consider a "light truck".  In fact, the (physically) "biggest" thing
they sell is a 3.6 litre 6 cylinder Tribeca, which gets far better economy
than, say, an Aussie Commodore SS.

The reason is that "SVU"s are considered "light trucks", so the Subaru
Outback 2.5i, with it's 27 MPG efficiency, is considered a "light truck",
whilst the Subaru Impreza 2.5i, with the same 27 MPG (and I'm guessing
probably exactly the same engine) is considered a "car".

That said, there are certainly parts of the US that have an over-fascination
with trucks and/or large SUVs.  In some cases these are areas that receive
substantial snow each year (something very rare in most of Australia's
population centres, but very common through much of the US) which somewhat
justifies them.  In other parts of the US, such as California, there are
probably similar numbers of "trucks" as there are in equivalent places like
Sydney.

  Scott.