|   IMBA needs to end its relationship with Subaru | pghmountainbiker
Jan 14, 2004 8:54 PM | | WASHINGTON, DC (January 14, 2004) -- Subaru, the automaker that built its name marketing to skiers, bikers, kayakers and other outdoor enthusiasts is telling customers to take a hike. The company is about to skirt federal fuel economy rules by officially reclassifying the sedans and wagons in its popular Outback line as trucks, making small design adjustments to exploit a loophole that subjects the car to much weaker efficiency standards...
...Subaru's contempt for air quality and the environment runs sharply counter to the image promoted by the company. The story -- first reported in yesterday's New York Times -- will resonate most with the carmaker's core market: active Americans concerned with healthy quality of life and outdoor preservation, according to NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council). It also sets a poor precedent for the auto industry as a whole.
"Subaru has spent years building a reputation with people who care about a healthy environment. Cutting corners on fuel economy rules and increasing emissions gives buyers a big reason to think twice before walking into the showroom," said Dr. Dan Lashof, Science Director of the NRDC Climate Center. "Customers expect more responsibility from a car company that markets itself the way Subaru does."
Copied from:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/040114a.asp |
| Which car company would be a better option? Stick with Subaru! | smilycook
Jan 14, 2004 11:03 PM | | I own a subaru wrx and get about 27 on the highway and have really enjoyed my car. Fuel economy did play a part in my decision and that is why I went with a subaru. What other vehical can claim awd and fuel economy at that price point.
Subaru is a longtime IMBA supporter and I am happy to buy a subaru. When another car company takes as much intrest in the outdoors as they do then maybe IMBA should consider switching. Until then subaru and imba are great partners.
Seems like consumer demands to me! Consumers want turbos and more ground clearance, seems like the new york times is just putting a nice spin on the article. Just like the LA times does when they write about issues in the rockies. I find if the LA times writes an article on recreation make sure to read the Bozeman newspaper's same article on the topic or other local rocky mountain papers.
Chris
Boise, ID |
| Which car company would be a better option? Stick with Subaru! | dave54
Jan 15, 2004 11:02 AM | | The LA times stopped being a newspaper years ago. They are now nothing more than a second-rate yellow tabloid best suited for wrapping fish guts. |
| re: IMBA needs to end its relationship with Subaru | pghmountainbiker
Jan 15, 2004 6:31 AM | | Ford Escape Hybrid Summer 2004 35-40 MPG city, 30-35 MPG Highway
Why not associate IMBA with a company that is trying to change the trend of environmentally hazardous SUVs, not reclassify their CAR line so they can pollute more. If you want to associate yourself with such a company that is your choice, IMBA should show more respect to the outdoors.
Ford Ranger, Toyota Highlander and Rav 4 to name a few all get 27+ MPG on the highway. |
| "environmentally hazardous SUVs"? | dave54
Jan 15, 2004 11:09 AM | | Why not try to think for yourself instead of regurgitating the same old tired propaganda of the environmental industry?
I was thinking of buying a new car. Because of your post I have now made up my mind to buy another Subaru. I highly recommend others do the same. |
| Is there any other kind? | Fergie
Jan 16, 2004 3:51 PM | | Do you think that SUV's are good for the environment?
Wow! You are amazing! How did you get your head so far up there?
If I pst something, will you buy a different kind of car? |
| SUVs are certainly not a villain. | dave54
Jan 21, 2004 10:34 AM | | The light truck 'class' also includes pickup trucks and minivans besides SUVs. In the eyes of the EPA the Dakota, the Durango, and the Caravan all the same vehicle. When was the last time the environmental industry criticized a minivan? They won't. It will cost them donations. The light truck class averages 18 mpg, which is still better than 30-35% of all non-SUV class vehicles sold.
According to the contrived apples-oranges tests SUV's do roll over more. They roll over at the same rate as minivans and less than pickup trucks with campers. But the environmental industry won't say that. Neither will they admit a small compact car with a loaded cargo box on the roof is MORE susceptible to a rollover than an SUV with the cargo inside. Critics say SUV's are unsafe because in collisions with compacts the compact passengers are more likely to be injured. That tells me compacts are unsafe, not SUV's. As summarized by the local CHP commander "When a compact and SUV collide, the compact occupants are injured while the SUV's walk away. When two compacts collide, both are injured. When two SUVs collide both walk away." So I take my cue from local Highway Patrol, Highway Department crews, and local paramedic EMS squad -- they all buy SUVs for their families. I willingly spend a few more bucks on gas to protect my family.
So if SUV's are not really a villain, why are they so villified by the politically-correct crowd? Because they are a symbol. The SUV in the driveway represents middle-class values, capitalism, success, and wealth -- all the things the environmental industry loathes. They need a scapegoat and SUVs are a safe target in the urban areas. In rural communities like mine SUVs are a necessary fact of life.
True environmentalists know there are real problems to tackle and won't waste time and attention on symbology with no substance. Chasing after phantom bogeymen is not environmental progress. |
| Wellllllll....wait a minute.... | The Preacher
Jan 21, 2004 10:54 AM | | Yes, the SUV represents successful middle and even upper class. It's also a HUGE tax write-off if you have a vehicle over 6000 pounds, which is why many folks who are self-employed buy them. But does this really justify contributing much, much more pollution to the environment than say a compact or hybrid SUV? I mean where do you draw the line? I could show up at the trailhead with a Peterbilt rig, which I transported my family very safely in, and we could unload our 3 bicycles. Do my tax write off and bullet-proof safety rating justify my choice of transportaion? For me -- personally -- I have to say no. In fact, I will definitely be keeping my eye on hybrid choices over the next couple of years for at least one of our next vehicle purchases. Less pollution is better. I don't see how anyone can argue with that, unless you just don't care. |
| If you want to. | dave54
Jan 21, 2004 3:13 PM | | You can show up at the trailhead in the space shuttle as far as I care. Or have no car at all and ride your bike to the trailhead. Your choice. Just don't criticize others in different situations who need or choose different transportation.
The tax writeoff expired 12/31/2003. But if that is an issue with you what's your stand on the big Class A motorhomes at 6 mpg? The interest on RV loans is tax deductible but SUV or compact car loans is not. I look at the tax ramifications of any large purchase and make my consumer decisions accordingly. |
| But as mountain bikers... | The Preacher
Jan 21, 2004 5:06 PM | | ...people that enjoy wild, unspoiled places, shouldn't we care about how much pollution we are dumping into the air? I know I do. And I think all mountain bikers should. I'm sure my POV is a little skewed, since I've spent most of life living close to or in L.A., which is one of the smoggiest places in the country.
Again, I say where do you draw the line? Is it OK to drive a 6MPG land yacht but not OK to throw your Carl's Jr. trash out the window as you joy ride through places like Yosemite? Both are pollluting acts. Isn't it best to pollute less, no matter what the form of pollution? Are some forms of pollution OK but others not?
I don't know. Personally, I believe the term "tread lightly" should be a way of life, the way we treat the planet. Not just the way we behave on the trails. |
| SUVs are for going OFF ROAD! (and most suck at that as well) | Fergie
Jan 22, 2004 8:36 AM | | "The SUV in the driveway represents middle-class values, capitalism, success, and wealth"
That is pathetic!!! You buy that crap? You are a tool of the auto advertising industry!
It just represents that you paid way too much money for a jacked up station wagon, that doesn't even have to meet car safety or pollution standards, and handles like a heavy bath tub with 4 flat tires! SUCKER!
SUV's rollover more then cars (or minivans) because the tires are bigger, the suspension has more travel, the weight is greater, the center of gravity is higher, and the suspension is primitive. Also, for their size/weight, most SUVs have pathetic carrying capacity, in terms of carrying volume and weight. Also, adding weight raises C of G greatly. I'm not a huge fan of minivans, but they are usually lighter, have much more room, and handle much better. Pick-up trucks also serve a real purpose, therefore there is an honest reason to own one, not a BS symbolic one.
That "I'd rather kill your family" line just shows how short sighted you are! Don't back over your kid in the driveway in your rush to feel good about yourself. Your kid might ride in your SUV, but how are you going to feel when you lock up the brakes and plow into a car that your kid is riding in? You going to teach your kid to drive with that SUV? Yeah, that's real safe! SUV-SUV collisions are more likely to injure occupants because there is more force involved, and because as light trunks, they don't have to meet the same safety standards (although this is changing). Perhaps the officer said occupants walk away because most of the SUV crashes occur at speeds that cars could have avoided the same accident.
If you need a vehicle to go off road, by all means, get an SUV, (or an Outback wagon) but all those other reasons are CRAP!
Want the truth about SUV regulations, standards, etc.?
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/49cfrv5_00.html#800 |
| SUVs are for going OFF ROAD! (and most suck at that as well) | XTR
Jan 23, 2004 3:48 PM | | I have a toyota 4X4 (that gets 25pmg) now and you say I have no real reason to own it? So I guess I didn't need the 4WD two weeks ago when Portland had 3 inches of ice? I don't need it when my job requires me to travel cross country no matter what the weather and take a bunch of things with me that the airlines wouldn't let me bring along now? I know it sure isn't nice to have when I need to haul things around. You'd be suprised how popular puckup truck owners are in the spring time when all your friends decide to move. You'd be suprised how popular we are when people decide to do yard work or home improvments and need to haul things that won't fit in their minivans. You don't see people stuck in the ditch asking a minivan to pull them out. What chassis are minivans on anyhow? |
| SUVs are certainly not a villain. | XTR
Jan 23, 2004 3:38 PM | | A little off topic but your point about SUVs costing more for insurance reminded me of my college days. When I was in school I drove a Honda CRX HF that got about 42mpg. It was a small payment but the insurance was terrible because the car did poorly in crash tests. Now they want SUV owners to pay more because their vehicles cause more damage to cars like the CRX? I dunno...I guess to me it seems as if they are going for the almighty dollar and will change thier logic to whatever suits them best. |
| "environmental industry"? | Dwight Moody
Jan 18, 2004 8:51 AM | | How do a collection of non-profits and political activists qualify as an "industry"? They don't make money. There or some environmentalist companies (Ben and Jerry's, 7th Generation, maybe some others. And B+J's is owned by some German conglomerate.) but they are certainly small fries compared to Big Oil, Detroit, etc... |
| Two points... and sub points... | JmZ
Jan 15, 2004 6:35 PM | | 1) Subies are they competing on a level playing field? If all their vehicles are to be classified cars, are they NOT at a disadvantage against anyone who makes a truck?
The loophole is not Subies fault. They should be applauded for not exploiting it for years like the others. Just because their vehciles will be re-classified won't mean that they will HAVE to become gross polluting machines. It will mean that my taxes on one drop dramatically in Indiana though.
If you REALLY want Subie to go and re-think this, and reward the higher mileage vehicles. Strip away bogus truck uses and defintions, and increase effeciency standards for trucks (and cars too!) - by weight! Anything under 4000 pounds needs to get 28, or 30, or 42mpg.
2) IMBA is a Mountain Bike Advocacy organization, and they have a decided environmentalist slant - BUT that isn't their purpose. If this was the Sierra Club, or Earth First then um well... again Subies might be still better than a bunch of other ones... hmm.
Don't get me wrong, I think keeping the planet green is a great thing. But what are IMBA's priorities supposed to be? And if Subie still supports all the other aspects of an active lifestyle, and they can STILL keep the mileage high too (even if they are just trucks), why should we penalize them. Why jump to an over-reaction now? Give 'em till the tweaked, or new models, come out and see what they are actually doing.
And..."It sets a poor precedent?" There are few 'car only' companies now. How can it set a precedent if they are one of the last to have trucks instead of one of the first.
And Finally... is it really Subie's fault that the average car buyer is concerened with more than just fuel economy? That they have met the higest standard of 27.5 for ALL the vehicles including some that are growing larger, and other performance models isn't a bad thing at all! Performance, economy, safety are all concerns, and why should Subie penalize itself when few (if any) other car company has to meet those same stringent guidelines? Why take that competitive disadvantage?
I normally don't have too much of an issue with the NDRC, but this is pretty batant propaganda.
JmZ |
| Drive (ride) a horse... | Dances With Hornets
Jan 20, 2004 6:04 PM | | To all:
I suggest we return to the wild west and ride horses. A side benefit is if they turn lame, we can eat them.
Yum!
Problem solved! |
| Ben Hur on the Interstate | Fergie
Jan 22, 2004 9:46 AM | | I wonder if Thule makes an attachment to mount a bike rack on one of them horses?
Hitching posts at the trailhead...
Trying to change into bike shorts in the saddle...
Riding the horse home after a century? Ouch!
On the other hand, think of the benefit to the bike industry if they got into making horse draw carriages!
Mmmm, Horse, the other red meat. |
| |
