I get real tired of the "cars Americans want". I am not sure it has anything to do with price, quality, fuel economy, etc.

A few years back I was at the PVD auto show. I believe Tasca had a Mercury Sable "special". A very fully equipped car, leather, sunroof, etc. IIRC $16,500. About $5,000 less than an equivalent Toyota. I did an informal survey about why would you prefer a Toyota. I got more excuses than a car thief going to jail. None of it held water, I left with the impression that a Toyota was more "correct". I think there is some social pressure to buy a Toyota that no one freely admits.

Then again, I always wonder about those 80K Range Rovers with all the "brush bars". I doubt they see a lot of "off road" time.

I think the auto marketing people know the truth and it is not what people will tell you.

Speaking of TV ads. I always recall the PBS SAAB ads from before PBS was really in the advertising business. A guy pulls up to his garage on a bicycle. The garage opens and there is a SAAB. The voice over talks about "when you really have use a car". Are PBS people particularly "green"?

Another tid-bit. GM had 14,000 deposits for a new Camaro, before it was officially "introduced". It could be that GM has a handle on the "cars that Americans want".

Let us not forget that the only President we have drove a Chrysler 300C (that is the "Hemi")before his election.

Car companies liked to build SUVs because they are more profitable (5-7X the profit they could get from a car); not just because people prefer them but because the government has a 25% tariff on foreign-built light trucks. As usual, whenever you see businesses making crazy decisions, it's usually because the government is screwing something up in the background. Never mind that one of the principle reasons people preferred SUVs in the first place was that they create the illusion of increased safety, no doubt brought on because fuel efficiency standards forced manufacturers to build all vehicles lighter and smaller.

Don't forget, umm, utility. As the father of a young family, I can testify that we probably would have opted for a sedan station wagon (maybe not with the wood paneling). Since fuel efficiency standards had driven those out of the market, we just moved on to SUVs and minivans.

While having the oil changed in my minivan (very efficient use of space) I spoke with a woman with an SUV. She told me that she used to have a minivan, but had "graduated" to an SUV. The terminology tells me something about the social positioning of the SUV (why won't people call them station wagons) and the more efficient minivan.

This is reinforced by the less courteous children of my friends making fun because I used a "mom van". My adult friends inquire why I don't have an SUV. Well friends, it is all about bang for the buck. I actually use it to move things and it has twice the space of an SUV. I am always amused by people who have an SUV because they "need the space". "It's for the children".

Tnis talk about "cars Americans want" reminds me of the origins of the SUV that became the environmentalists' chief villain and symbol of all that was wrong with the American auto industry - the Hummer. IIRC AMC was initially cool to the idea of marketing a civilian version of the HMMWV (High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle or Humvee) when interest in the vehicle rose after Desert Storm. A major action movie star paid a considerable sum to have a HMMWV custom made for him and AMC realized there was considerable demand for the vehicle. The rest is history. The movie star who bought the HMMWV was Arnold Schwarzenegger, now the CAFE raising governor of California. I wonder if he still flagellates himself nightly for the sin of releasing hundreds of thousands of these vehicles on the road.