Nashton
On 12-03-26 8:14 AM, -hh wrote:

On Mar 26, 7:06 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca>=A0wrote:

On 12-03-25 10:45 PM, -hh wrote:

...

An unfounded opinion based on no data. =A0It was a Suburban with optional engine upgrade, optional fuel tank, towing package, etc=

outclassed the Toyota of its day in every category...well, excep=

fuel pump reliability :-)

so you were saying something about suv's and overcompensation but you had one with the engine upgrade, tow package... =A0something you trying to admit there... =A0 =A0:)

Its called "right tool for the job", and when the job went away, s=

did that class of vehicle.

Of course - everyone else is overcompensating but you, =A0you were just being smart. =A0 ;D

Alan Baker
That actually is a possibility, isn't it?

I'll leave it up to Ed to commit to picking a date for when SUVs became a fad.

-hh

Nashton
What in heaven's name are you mumbling about? SUVs never went out of style and their sales continue to climb in spit=

of the costs of fuel.

Wrong way there bub: =A0SUV's had been ~5% of the market for decades ..=

but then suddenly took off in marketshare...

And how does this clash with what I'm saying?

...despite *NO* increase in sales of camping trailers, despite *NO* increase in sales of boats (boating trailers), despite *NO* increase in family size, *NO* huge shift in global warming causing worse winter blizzards, etc, etc, etc.

What did change is the manufacturer's marketing.

Of course ;)

...oh, and the manufacturer's profits along with them.

Which has nothing to do with why sales of SUVs took off.

=A0 =A0I recall that at one point in the 1990s, Ford's per-unit profit on the Ford Explorer "Eddie Bauer" edition was 15x that of a Detroit sedan - - =A0numbers along the lines of $15K/unit vs $800/unit.

That's nice.

I still own a Sequoia Plat and you don't.