Selling their soul?. It's what people want. So far as I know all major car
companies are publicly held. That means accountability for profit. As such
they do not have the luxury of "loyalty to the brand" or "soul of the
marque". It is a very real fact that SUVs are the craze. If I'm the CEO of
BMW I'm going to be saying "If they're going to drive an SUV at least let it
be a BMW". Ditto for any other mfr be it Cadillac or Ferrari.
That said, I agree that 79.908% of the people who own SUVs would be better
off if they replaced them with station wagons or mini-vans. Add to that the
fact that are another 23.2% of them are owned by single people or couples
who should be driving LBCs and you see that by logic there should actually
be a vacuum of SUVs. However, the buying public is rarely logical. Why do
you suppose that there are so many successful "snake oil" products out there
that make their creators wealthy?
<dnw>
1972 Midget (not an SUV, just a SV)
1998 Safari (not an SUV but has lots of space AND 4 wheel drive)
1999 9-3 (not an SUV but has a big trunk)
1964 (Me) (lets not even go there...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eddie Sheffield" <eddie@mediarchive.com>
To: "Max Heim" <mvheim@studiolimage.com>; "MG List" <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: MG SUV
> On Tuesday 02 October 2001 12:21 pm, Max Heim wrote:
> > I read the same thing at the time. I also feel that an MG SUV would be a
> > ludicrous travesty... but then, so are the Porsche SUV, the BMW SUV, ad
> > nauseam...
>
> I don't really have anything against SUVs per se, but I think that these
> companies are "selling their soul" to grab a piece of a pie they don't
really
> need, and it's disgusting.
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|