Nissan blew it with me

Originally Posted by Inspector71

My use of the term chick is not from the 20s. History a tough subject for you? Judging by your concern with political correctness, I have no doubts you wouldn't need anyone explaining metrosexual to you at all.

Originally Posted by Inspector71

In my years I have found that people who jump to conclusions about others they don't know, in this case, you, often, not always but often project their own personality characteristics onto others. To wit, the majority of posters here, including the pms I received, suggested alternatives to the Pathfinder, understood the humor, and were no way offended. This is what leads people like you to misread my intent and jump to conclusions. As far as narcissim goes, it is you that impute all sorts of cliched motives to me, engage in ad hominem insults simply because I have a different perspective than you, claim to speak for the general public, and overreact to what was a post met mostly in jest. Everyone else but you and one other poster got it. Of course I'm in the minority. If you actually read my post, you would have realized that I tip my hat to the free market system and the fact that Nissan must chase profits in building what customers want. That does not change the fact that they are not always right, otherwise, why would they build what the majority did not want? or that there are millions who want an SUV without the gugaws that appeal to women not men. Many automotive industry writers have also lamented the chickification of cars, which by the way, automotive designers focus group test with female buyers, hence the term, and fortunately, there remain alternatives. Do you really believe that Nissan is omiscient in killing the Pathfinder? Can you say Rogue, Murano, Juke?

words words words

Originally Posted by Inspector71

In my years I have found that people who jump to conclusions about others they don't know, in this case, you, often, not always but often project their own personality characteristics onto others. To wit, the majority of posters here, including the pms I received, suggested alternatives to the Pathfinder, understood the humor, and were no way offended. This is what leads people like you to misread my intent and jump to conclusions. As far as narcissim goes, it is you that impute all sorts of cliched motives to me, engage in ad hominem insults simply because I have a different perspective than you, claim to speak for the general public, and overreact to what was a post met mostly in jest. Everyone else but you and one other poster got it. Of course I'm in the minority. If you actually read my post, you would have realized that I tip my hat to the free market system and the fact that Nissan must chase profits in building what customers want. That does not change the fact that they are not always right, otherwise, why would they build what the majority did not want? or that there are millions who want an SUV without the gugaws that appeal to women not men. Many automotive industry writers have also lamented the chickification of cars, which by the way, automotive designers focus group test with female buyers, hence the term, and fortunately, there remain alternatives. Do you really believe that Nissan is omiscient in killing the Pathfinder? Can you say Rogue, Murano, Juke?

Your semi-hysterical fear of not being "manly" even though I never suggested that, is obviously autobiographical. The only way, and pay attention this time, you could jump to such a conclusion, is if you have insecurities about your own masculinity. Otherwise, how could you and that other poster have jumped to screaming about what is a real man. No one, including me even posted anything suggesting that and yet this is how you to chose to inerpret what I posted. May I make a suggestion, innocence doesn't shout with cries of injury but the guilty do. Perhaps you like the new chickified Pathfinder and, me exposing this and you and that other poster liking the vehicle, have been exposed. Think about it before you engage in insult and ad hominem conclusions about someone you don't even know. Think about it before you indulge in your hackneyed politically correct cliches. They have the depth of intellectual integrity as the juvenile occupy wall street folks.

Originally Posted by Inspector71

At my age? I'm not dead yet but something got lost in the translation. I could care less whether or not chicks like my car or truck. That has nothing to do with my car buying choice. What I was commenting on is the trend in auto manufacture to chickify cars/trucks which I suspect explains why so many men are buying pick ups now days. Yes, I undertand the economics behind it. Women want a vehicle that sits up higher and they feel safer in. Their buying power causes manufacturers to produce a "softy" type vehicle that looks like an SUV but appeals to the feminine buyer and those of us who want something rugged, plain, and simple, lose out again. What can be done? Some great posts have given me ideas as to my next SUV. I once saw an automatic transmission in a Z at my Nissan dealer. An automatic! He said a woman bought it.

Originally Posted by Shamu

Aren't the Aramada and the Xterra and all the king cab trucks built on a "manly" truck platform? Given that 99% of people including men never use their SUVs for anything other than driving on suburban roads I think Nissan was very smart converting pathfinder to lighter weight unibody construction. Especially with now near $5 gallon gas prices!

I never understood the redundancy in having Armada and pathfinder. If you half the man you claim to be why not drive the manly Armada? After all that's a mans man SUV. Not a pretender like old pathfinder or what? Girls SUV from Toyota? That Toyota may be truck based but its a chick SUV for sure. It really can't hual anything other than chicks in the back seat.

Originally Posted by nuTinmuch

The problem is your argument is flawed -- cars have been long associated with masculine needs more than feminine (at least when it comes to advertising), and this is easily seen when you look at studies or data that genders vehicle purchases.

The Top 10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamu Aren't the Aramada and the Xterra and all the king cab trucks built on a "manly" truck platform? Given that 99% of people including men never use their SUVs for anything other than driving on suburban roads I think Nissan was very smart converting pathfinder to lighter weight unibody construction. Especially with now near $5 gallon gas prices! I never understood the redundancy in having Armada and pathfinder. If you half the man you claim to be why not drive the manly Armada? After all that's a mans man SUV. Not a pretender like old pathfinder or what? Girls SUV from Toyota? That Toyota may be truck based but its a chick SUV for sure. It really can't hual anything other than chicks in the back seat.

Most Popular Car Brands With Men and Women - Forbes

Yes, it's true that more women buy SUVs than men, but compare the percentages to the male-favored cars.

Basically, what I'm saying is the whole "chickification" argument is ********. I'm absolutely sure women have been part of the focus groups that these cars have passed through, but they haven't been the solitary factor in their development. The only car company you can claim that for is Volvo (who employees more women in their development process than any other manufacturer, iirc).

The reason SUVs are getting "softer" is more nuanced: fuel economy and a lack of interest in the traditional "sport" qualities that accompany SUVs. In other words, when was the last time you saw someone take an SUV offroad? Chance are if you have, it's been a Jeep or a purpose-built vehicle -- or maybe a SUV from the 90s with a bunch of retrofits.

The Juke doesn't exist because women. It exists because there's no longer a need to produce a vehicle that goes offroad. There's no want for that. There is, however, a want for "all-weather" (market perception -- not me) vehicles that are "capable" and are able to have the same utility that, say, the 90s wagons did (also why you're seeing a resurgence in wagons).

Now, you've said as much -- but you seem to be associating the changes with what women want when it's more what the market itself wants. That's why the term "chickification" is stupid. It's like calling the 50s/60s the "rockification" of music because everyone started using electric guitars, ignoring that those needs/wants existed ages before rock ever did.

But even if you were right, even if SUVs were being designed primarily for women... my answer, I guess, would be to deal with it. Cars have been primarily designed by/for men for literally a century. I'm sure the very existence of a few not-so-grr-tough SUVs won't hurt you.

Originally Posted by rooftop

<insert snarky, slightly condescending frost joke>