Living Car Free - New Mercedes SUV

THERE'S something peculiarly egregious, something antagonizing about the 2007 Mercedes-Benz GL, the company's new full-size, 15-mpg sport-utility vehicle, which might be described as a Cadillac Escalade with a hankering for Czechoslovakia. . . .

Mercedes-Benz executives offer this wholly meritless defense: Many of its customers leave the brand because the company does not offer a full-size SUV that meets their needs, which is to say, a seven-passenger, 17-foot 4x4 with a 9,300-pound towing capacity. At this point in the presentation in Napa Valley last week, execs showed slides of the GL pulling a 30-foot boat. So there you have it: Mercedes' audience of water-skiing polygamists is underserved.

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil15mar15,0,721214.story?coll=la-home-highway1

I don't get it?

(Mercedes SUV)

So what.

Fold the rear seats down and you can fit a few bikes inside.

Makes it a bike friendly SUV.

Fold the rear seats down and you can fit a few bikes inside.

Makes it a bike friendly SUV.

Strip off the body down to the frame, weld up some racks you can probably carry 25-30 bikes. More with a second level.
;)

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil15mar15,0,721214.story?coll=la-home-highway1


"Mercedes-Benz executives offer this wholly meritless defense: Many of its customers leave the brand because the company does not offer a full-size SUV that meets their needs"

How is that a "meritless defense"?

"Mercedes-Benz executives offer this wholly meritless defense: Many of its customers leave the brand because the company does not offer a full-size SUV that meets their needs"

How is that a "meritless defense"?

I think it's because the "defense" doesn't address the author's concern. I imagine this:

Reporter: Why are you being so socially irresponsible to make and sell gas guzzling monsters that are without any redeeming value to any who purchase them?

Mercedes: Because people who wanted to buy stupid, irresponsible gaz guzzling monsters weren't buying our stupid, irresponsible gas guzzling monsters, because we weren't selling them. Now we are.

I think it's because the "defense" doesn't address the author's concern. I imagine this:

Reporter: Why are you being so socially irresponsible to make and sell gas guzzling monsters that are without any redeeming value to any who purchase them?

Mercedes: Because people who wanted to buy stupid, irresponsible gaz guzzling monsters weren't buying our stupid, irresponsible gas guzzling monsters, because we weren't selling them. Now we are.

If their goal is to make money, then that seems to be quite a meritorious defense.

It's like cocaine. Who you going to blame?

If their goal is to make money, then that seems to be quite a meritorious defense.

I think you have the reason the author called their defense meritless. If someone charges you with being socially and environmentally irresponsible, it is not a meritorious defense to say "I want to make money."

It's like cocaine. Who you going to blame?

Well, it's not like cocaine, but I suppose I would blame the manufacturers and consumers of giant SUVs.

It's not like cocaine for many reasons. One of those reasons is that regulating SUVs would actually work. For example, no one will ever be caught smuggling a giant SUV into the country hidden in a body cavity.

Well, it's not like cocaine, but I suppose I would blame the manufacturers and consumers of giant SUVs.

It's not like cocaine for many reasons. One of those reasons is that regulating SUVs would actually work. For example, no one will ever be caught smuggling a giant SUV into the country hidden in a body cavity.
Well, when it comes to cocaine, the US government blames Columbian producers for supplying the commodity. The Columbian government says they've done everything they can and the real blame lies with the American consumers who place such high value on coke.

If nobody bought SUVs, the automakers wouldn't make them. (I don't totally buy the argument that advertising creates demand for products, although i guess it probably contributes.) The best way I can think of to decrease demand is to slap a big tax on them.

Re: morals...

A corporation's only moral responsibility is to enhance shareholder value. Anything that goes against that runs counter to the purpose of the company.

People work by different rules than companies, though.

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil15mar15,0,721214.story?coll=la-home-highway1

isn;t interesting that they could sell this behemoth only here in the US, could this monstrosity ever be sold elsewhere? not even in germany...i bet germans are laughing at us and to the bank for buying these 'panzers'

So you won't be one of ~300 Americans per month that make that their choice compared to 1,000s of trucks that are sold every day that use as much gas and are not ULEV2 compliant. So, what?

M-B already had a fine full-sized SUV... the G-Wagon. They're available in both SWB and LWB models and are great offroaders although many of the civilian models rarely ever see dirt. They're also some serious coinage as they start out around the US$80k mark. They're used by many military forces around the world. They also have an even more serious species of offroaders with their Unimogs.

I think the GL is pretty much a rebadged Jeep XK (Commander for the Jeep-challenged). The XK is also built on the same chassis as the WK (2005+ Grand Cherokee). It seems M-B has decided to consolidate their production by trying to standardise at least three of their vehicle products on the same chassis. Rumour has it they've hinted that they will retire the G-Wagon in favour of the GL although I think they'd lose much of their military/government customers if they did that.

M-B already had a fine full-sized SUV... the G-Wagon. They're available in both SWB and LWB models and are great offroaders although many of the civilian models rarely ever see dirt. They're also some serious coinage as they start out around the US$80k mark. They're used by many military forces around the world. They also have an even more serious species of offroaders with their Unimogs.

I think the GL is pretty much a rebadged Jeep XK (Commander for the Jeep-challenged). The XK is also built on the same chassis as the WK (2005+ Grand Cherokee). It seems M-B has decided to consolidate their production by trying to standardise at least three of their vehicle products on the same chassis. Rumour has it they've hinted that they will retire the G-Wagon in favour of the GL although I think they'd lose much of their military/government customers if they did that.

I suppose I could say that it's important to know one's enemy. On the other hand, I would be embarassed to know this much about SUVs. LOL

I suppose I could say that it's important to know one's enemy. On the other hand, I would be embarassed to know this much about SUVs. LOL

I never claimed to hate SUVs. I own a Jeep ZJ (1998 Grand Cherokee) and one of my hobbies is offroad driving/trekking so I do keep up on the topic of offroad vehicles. My point is that this is a business move by M-B. However, like 90% of most the SUVs out there, most of GLs sold will probably never go offroad. To a lot of people, it's going to be no more than a glorified station wagon. While rare enough to see the odd Jeep SUV offroad, I have yet to encounter one of those "prestigous brands" such as the BMW X-series, M-B M-series, Lexus RX/LX-series or Porsche Cayenne doing any rock-crawling. Granted many of those vehicles don't actually have the offroad capability anyways. Of course this phenomenon shouldn't come as a shock to the cycling world. The majority of MTBs sold are never taken offroad either.

While rare enough to see the odd Jeep SUV offroad, I have yet to encounter one of those "prestigous brands" such as the BMW X-series, M-B M-series, Lexus RX/LX-series or Porsche Cayenne doing any rock-crawling.

One reason, I'm sure, is the risk of damage. Many owners of non-luxury SUVs would be proud to have their vehicle look like it had taken the wear and tear of real off-road use. (Even though the majority of non-luxury SUVs also stay exclusively on-road/maybe with some driving on flat beaches, i think.) Luxury SUVs are usually all about a clean image and an appearance of wealth. Dirt, scratched paint, dents from where you glanced off of a rock or tree... these things are not what people want on a luxury SUV. They don't want to look like they can't afford a new vehicle whenever the old one shows signs of wear.

Granted many of those vehicles don't actually have the offroad capability anyways. Of course this phenomenon shouldn't come as a shock to the cycling world. The majority of MTBs sold are never taken offroad either.

In fact, just as many SUVs are specifically designed with on-road-only driving in mind, if you buy a department-store bike in the U.S. you're almost certain to buy one that looks like a mountain bike and comes with a warning like this: "this bicycle is not suitable for off-road use."