My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
about 50 mpg.  I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
get a "hybrid."

Maybe HX is too efficient.  Think about it, if a person only cares
about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid?  Just so he
can get 5 more mpg?

They certainly do.

But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.

Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.

American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.

Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.

I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).