Now, for my two cents worth...
Pietia, Enker - you guys seem to be in the minority here; forgive me for singling you out of the crowd. I have played armies that contained vehicles, Vulkans/Viktors, vehicles and/or Vulkans/Viktors and armies that contained neither vehicles nor 'suits. I have had my share of defeats at the hands of armies with vehicles in them. I can say that when I looked back on those defeats, I can point to where I lost the games. It never had anything to do with the fact that the vehicles were present. I had simply to do with my own tactics with a bit of bad luck thrown in (sometimes it wasn't even the luck - just my own poor tactics).
I know nothing of either of your playing styles, so I will not even attempt to say that you need a change in tactics or strategy. However, in all of the negatives I've read, so far, about your opinions of vehicles, I have not seen what tactics you have tried to use to be more successful against them.
I know that when I am handed my bravado, I go back and look at what I could have (and should have) done differently. In doing so, I have learned. I have found weaknesses in not only my opponents tactics (and have used those against them, later) but found ways to make fighting vehicles easier, as well.
Joe mentioned some great ways to fight them. You poo-pooed his idea by saying that "Not exactly. This forces YOU to put a superior (in PC terms) force on wait in order to just deter a single model from doing harm to them. It is going to strike elsewhere. Seems that it is YOU, not the vehicle owner that loses the initiative - you're reacting to a threat with a much superior force." To me, that is a viable tactic. However, if you fall prey to letting the force get distracted by the vehicle, again, it is the tactics - not the rules - that might need review.
Forgive me if I've reiterated what's already been iterated, but it is my opinon (all well as some others, by the poll results) that vehicles are fine the way they are.