Except under no circumstances WOULD the SUV even be financially advantageous.
I vehemently disagree. Reword it to say usually, often, in most circumstances...but never? Saying "never" or "always" is very extreme. Which means I get to think of extreme examples that contradict that statement.
Let's say in your local area, you've found two vehicles that meet your needs (or, strongly-wants). One is a $1,000 SUV that gets 12mpg, the other is a $10,000 diesel truck that gets 25mpg. You drive an average of 30 miles per day (some days it's 0, others it's 300, we're just talking averages). 30 miles * 365 days in a year (you never, ever drive on leap day) is 10,950 miles in a year. We figure an average of $5/gallon for fuel (this can vary a lot, we've inflated it a bit to cover our butts in case there's another huge jump in fuel costs). The SUV at 12mpg would consume 912.5 gallons of fuel, costing $4,562.50. The diesel truck at 25mpg would consume 438 gallons of fuel, costing $2,190. The $10k truck "saves" you $2,372.50 per year...but remember it cost $9k more. That $9k would easily pay for four years of extra fuel costs. An extreme example, yes...but it can happen. And while the pricing may have been out of whack, so were the mpg figures (they do make SUVs that get more than 12mpg, you know).
MMM can afford to live in a large house if he wants with a gas guzzling car, so why doesn't he? Because he's wary of hedonic adaptation and recognizes luxury is a drug and satisfaction from it is fleeting at best. MMM's philosophy is NOT "if you can afford it and it makes you happy, then it's acceptable." Time and again, the message has been "If you can afford it and you think it will make you happy, think again. If it's a luxury and an extravagance, it almost certainly won't make you any happier." It's literally the complete focus of several of the main page articles.
I may disagree with that, or try to argue our definition of luxury (luxury means something very different to a homeless person in a third world country and to a multi-billionaire in a first world country); but there's really only one response that I feel is appropriate here:
Well played, sir. Well played.