There are few points that can be made here. The main reason GM, Ford, Chrysler make the "small peppy cars" is that you can drive the big SUV. Government mandated fuel efficiency averages over the whole fleet of vehicles, so any car manufacturer has to make fuel efficient cars (losing money in the process) in order to be able to sell gas guzzles at huge profits (over $10k per vehicle). In addition, SUVs are classified as "trucks" and are exempted from government mandated crash tests that apply to regular cars, so I guess the "soccer moms" are not that much safer in the SUVs after all. Do you still remember Ford Explorer-Firestone fiasco?
And what about the gus guzzling capabilities of the SUVs and Afganistan? If the cars were more fuel efficient we could cut Saudi Arabia and the rest of Middle East loose because we wouldn't need their oil all that much. They could stew in their own hatred juices riding their camels while we would watch from the sidelines. And who would than need huge military stationed over there just to prop up a bunch of old dictators without even a "thank you" note for Christmas? Who do you think pays for all that? Our taxes, that's who!
So we have a big geo political game played over the control of the oil fields in the Middle East in order for a soccer mom to burn tax subsidized gas and crash in a poorly designed SUV sold at huge profit margin. And all of this is caused by an outdated government regulations and greedy auto manufacturers that cannot or don't want to build a decent car that could compete with Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, etc. Has anybody noticed that Honda or Toyota doesn't have to offer incentives to push their cars?