Jeep grand wagoneer is a crime against humanity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guarantee the wagoner people and the oversized 4k sf house people are the SAME people. How else will everyone know how much money they have? That is the whole point!

Well, yeah. Americans make money to live a more comfortable lifestyle. Space is comfortable. Legroom is comfortable. Big new SUVs are comfortable. A big new house in the suburbs with a big yard and big garage is comfortable. If you want to be some pinko living in a shoe box "flat" with no AC and driving some manual tiny car go move to Europe.

Ironically, the new McMansions you loathe with all new appliances are much more efficient than the average sh**shack future tear down you seethers probably live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new Grand Wagoneer is a total embarrassment to the vintage model from the 1970s-80’s. What started as a rugged, utilitarian vehicle to access remote areas and bring the family has become nothing more than a status symbol for people who like to think their life mirrors a Vineyard Vines photo shoot. Wannabe Instagram influencers have completely ruined the vintage models and the new model is a sad shell of its former self.

True. The original was a legendary and revolutionary car. (Incidentally, though, I recall reading that in its heyday the old Grand Wagoneer had the highest income earner owners of any car on the market -- so utilitarian and rugged, yes, but not "just" that.)

The growth and change in perception of SUVs is a weird thing that you could probably write a dissertation about. Take a look at what Suburbans looked like in the 1980s, and imagine telling a CEO or the President that someday that would be the "luxury" way for them to be chauffeured around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m just shocked that so many people would even notice this car, much less be upset about it. It’s big, but we all drive around delivery trucks and dump trucks every day. I don’t get the outrage.

Drivers of delivery and dump trucks have CDLs. Most of these stupidly sized SUVs should be requiring CDLs, but the govt allows their existence because of stupid loopholes the auto industry lobbied for. And it is killing Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are we having this conversation when like, the Cybertruck exists???

It's almost as if there are more than one bad vehicle possible. Gee, who knew? US addiction to stupid SUVs, in general, is stupid. You're just trying to deflect with whataboutisms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am admittedly not a car person but I do get annoyed by people who try to claim that having a giant car like this is a necessity for a three-kid family. It absolutely is not - it is a luxury, and that is fine, but don't pretend you you can't possibly have a family of five without driving a $100k vehicle to and from Costco and ballet.

You're seething with jealous rage. A gigantic SUV is necessary with 2-3 kids because you probably also have a dog or two... and you car pool, so maybe upwards of 5-6 kids in the truck... and the kids play travel sports, so there's a lot of equipment... and you have a second home, so you want to be comfortable going to and from, maybe two grandparents or a nanny ride with you to the second home.

P.S. There is a regular Wagoneer and a GRAND Wagoneer. They look nearly the same but the less equipped regular Wagoneers can be purchased for $50s-70s. Only the GRAND Wagoneer touches $100s.

Utterly r*traded logic. Gee, how did Americans ever exist and get around during the 60s, 70s, and 80s before SUVs ever became popular and cars were much smaller? Yet for many decades Americans with multiple kids and dogs were able to do it.

You are either an auto lobbyist or someone who drinks the r*tard Kool aid of the Auto industry.

99% of people aren't hauling 6 kids everyday, lol. Utter rubbish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am admittedly not a car person but I do get annoyed by people who try to claim that having a giant car like this is a necessity for a three-kid family. It absolutely is not - it is a luxury, and that is fine, but don't pretend you you can't possibly have a family of five without driving a $100k vehicle to and from Costco and ballet.

You're seething with jealous rage. A gigantic SUV is necessary with 2-3 kids because you probably also have a dog or two... and you car pool, so maybe upwards of 5-6 kids in the truck... and the kids play travel sports, so there's a lot of equipment... and you have a second home, so you want to be comfortable going to and from, maybe two grandparents or a nanny ride with you to the second home.

P.S. There is a regular Wagoneer and a GRAND Wagoneer. They look nearly the same but the less equipped regular Wagoneers can be purchased for $50s-70s. Only the GRAND Wagoneer touches $100s.

Utterly r*traded logic. Gee, how did Americans ever exist and get around during the 60s, 70s, and 80s before SUVs ever became popular and cars were much smaller? Yet for many decades Americans with multiple kids and dogs were able to do it.

You are either an auto lobbyist or someone who drinks the r*tard Kool aid of the Auto industry.

99% of people aren't hauling 6 kids everyday, lol. Utter rubbish.

Well, huge station wagons with poor gas mileage were a thing. Many cars, though not as tall as SUVs, were very large and got very poor gas mileage. Also, seatbelts weren't required.

[Anonymous]

A minivan is more comfortable and nicer to drive, and 2/3 to 1/2 the cost. This is purely about image, not comfort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A minivan is more comfortable and nicer to drive, and 2/3 to 1/2 the cost. This is purely about image, not comfort.

They get better gas mileage, too, but a nice minivan is still very expensive, just not quite as much as the Wagoneer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People buy these things for the tax writeoff. https://www.jeep.com/wagoneer/section-179-deduction.html

I don't understand.
I even clicked the link and I don't understand:
"Section 168(K) Temporary 60% Expensing
( Disclosure1)
Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer vehicles are generally considered qualified property for purposes of section 168(k) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. This means a taxpayer may elect to treat the cost of any qualified property as an expense allowed as a deduction for the taxable year in which the property is acquired and placed in service. Consult your tax professional to determine your vehicle depreciation and tax benefits."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A minivan is more comfortable and nicer to drive, and 2/3 to 1/2 the cost. This is purely about image, not comfort.

Yup, minivans make 1000x more sense than nearly every SUV. They often have more cargo space. They're better with gas mileage. They're also much safer for pedestrians because they have as high as a bumper. They drive so much better and don't have rollover issues. SUVs are the dumbest car design of all time..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am admittedly not a car person but I do get annoyed by people who try to claim that having a giant car like this is a necessity for a three-kid family. It absolutely is not - it is a luxury, and that is fine, but don't pretend you you can't possibly have a family of five without driving a $100k vehicle to and from Costco and ballet.

You're seething with jealous rage. A gigantic SUV is necessary with 2-3 kids because you probably also have a dog or two... and you car pool, so maybe upwards of 5-6 kids in the truck... and the kids play travel sports, so there's a lot of equipment... and you have a second home, so you want to be comfortable going to and from, maybe two grandparents or a nanny ride with you to the second home.

P.S. There is a regular Wagoneer and a GRAND Wagoneer. They look nearly the same but the less equipped regular Wagoneers can be purchased for $50s-70s. Only the GRAND Wagoneer touches $100s.

Utterly r*traded logic. Gee, how did Americans ever exist and get around during the 60s, 70s, and 80s before SUVs ever became popular and cars were much smaller? Yet for many decades Americans with multiple kids and dogs were able to do it.

You are either an auto lobbyist or someone who drinks the r*tard Kool aid of the Auto industry.

99% of people aren't hauling 6 kids everyday, lol. Utter rubbish.

Well, huge station wagons with poor gas mileage were a thing. Many cars, though not as tall as SUVs, were very large and got very poor gas mileage. Also, seatbelts weren't required.

Except station wagons don't have rollover issues and don't have front bumpers so high off the ground like SUVs, which is very lethal to pedestrians. Keep on drinking that auto industry Kool aid.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure it gets great gas mileage though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just shocked that so many people would even notice this car, much less be upset about it. It’s big, but we all drive around delivery trucks and dump trucks every day. I don’t get the outrage.

Drivers of delivery and dump trucks have CDLs. Most of these stupidly sized SUVs should be requiring CDLs, but the govt allows their existence because of stupid loopholes the auto industry lobbied for. And it is killing Americans.

hahahaha, no they don't. Please educate yourself. A CDL is not required for RVs either. SHOCKING, I know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am admittedly not a car person but I do get annoyed by people who try to claim that having a giant car like this is a necessity for a three-kid family. It absolutely is not - it is a luxury, and that is fine, but don't pretend you you can't possibly have a family of five without driving a $100k vehicle to and from Costco and ballet.

You're seething with jealous rage. A gigantic SUV is necessary with 2-3 kids because you probably also have a dog or two... and you car pool, so maybe upwards of 5-6 kids in the truck... and the kids play travel sports, so there's a lot of equipment... and you have a second home, so you want to be comfortable going to and from, maybe two grandparents or a nanny ride with you to the second home.

P.S. There is a regular Wagoneer and a GRAND Wagoneer. They look nearly the same but the less equipped regular Wagoneers can be purchased for $50s-70s. Only the GRAND Wagoneer touches $100s.

Utterly r*traded logic. Gee, how did Americans ever exist and get around during the 60s, 70s, and 80s before SUVs ever became popular and cars were much smaller? Yet for many decades Americans with multiple kids and dogs were able to do it.

You are either an auto lobbyist or someone who drinks the r*tard Kool aid of the Auto industry.

99% of people aren't hauling 6 kids everyday, lol. Utter rubbish.

Well, huge station wagons with poor gas mileage were a thing. Many cars, though not as tall as SUVs, were very large and got very poor gas mileage. Also, seatbelts weren't required.

Except station wagons don't have rollover issues and don't have front bumpers so high off the ground like SUVs, which is very lethal to pedestrians. Keep on drinking that auto industry Kool aid.

What car is not lethal to pedestrians when driven at speed? I'll wait.

Just quit your useless bit&&ing already. You sound pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A minivan is more comfortable and nicer to drive, and 2/3 to 1/2 the cost. This is purely about image, not comfort.

Yup, minivans make 1000x more sense than nearly every SUV. They often have more cargo space. They're better with gas mileage. They're also much safer for pedestrians because they have as high as a bumper. They drive so much better and don't have rollover issues. SUVs are the dumbest car design of all time..

Sure. Everyone knows that. A lot of people would rather drive an SUV. Most in fact.