When I was seventeen, a neighbor invited me to drive his metallic black 1982 Porsche 911 SC. I stalled the engine twice before leaving the driveway. Then the owner slid behind the wheel. Within seconds we were ripping through the Texas hill country at 140 mph. Since that fateful day, my tastes have broadened to include off-roading, mountain biking, backpacking and skiing. But I’m still a bonafied pistonhead, and I’m disgusted by the hypocritical anti-SUV remarks I’ve read in the automotive press and right here on TTAC.
Most automotive journalists have decided that the average American shouldn’t own a gas-guzzling SUV because they never drive it off-road. And yet these same scribes have no problem taking passenger cars onto a race track for high-speed evaluation. In fact, I’d wager that there are more SUV drivers who take their vehicles off-road than sports car owners who set rubber on a racetrack. Why, then, is it okay to buy a car based on its theoretical extreme performance, while purchasing a four wheel-drive SUV for its unused off-road abilities is considered a crime against nature?
Of course, many SUV drivers do go off-road. I recently packed my family and luggage into our Jeep Liberty for a two-week vacation in Colorado and Utah. The SUV was spacious and comfortable. Its 3.7-liter V6 engine hauled us up the frequent seven percent grades with ease. When we arrived, I used the Jeep's off-road capabilities to explore off-road and ATV trails. The little SUV took me to out-of-the way places to fish and view the deer, elk, moose and pronghorn. The weight of the Liberty’s frame and suspension components (derided by some for making the vehicle seem ponderous on road) gave it sure-footed control and provided protection while crawling over oil pan hungry rocks.
SUVs are frequently purchased for their off-road abilities– however infrequent. Nearly eighty percent of SUV owners told pollster R.L. Polk that they count on their SUVs for severe weather. The same survey showed that fifty percent regularly haul heavy or bulky items to their homes, while twenty-four percent pull boats or carry bicycles, and fifteen percent use them for off-road sport. I guess soccer moms are busier than some people thought.
Aside from their alleged "inappropriateness," SUV’s are usually vilified on safety grounds. Supposedly, their top heavy nature renders them prone to rolling over in certain types of accidents. While SUV’s certainly have a higher center of gravity than passenger cars, are they really more dangerous? As pointed out on this very website, the vast majority of rollover deaths and injuries are attributable to non-compliance with seat belt legislation. Besides, as simple common sense suggests, road safety is largely a reflection of a driver’s abilities– not the vehicle’s. Perhaps that’s why insuring a new Corvette costs roughly five times more than insuring a similarly priced Chevrolet Suburban SUV.
Car aficionados that criticize SUVs for poor gas mileage are also skating on thin rhetorical ice. Unless they bicycle everywhere (I give bicyclists a pass on chain oil and the methane they release when exerting themselves), they are like vegans that wear leather shoes. What are our favorite sports cars? Does reading any of these letters get your heart pumping: GTO, SS, HEMI, SC, RS, GT, S? As emotive as all these high performance tags sound, they’re all shorthand for “crappy MPG.”
Of course, the SUV is a far more practical conveyance than a dedicated sports car. The vast majority of pistonheads' dream machines seat two people, offer limited trunk space, are tail happy in the rain and can’t tow worth a damn. Obviously, sports cars aren't designed for extreme weather or as a U-Haul alternative. By the same token, an SUV wasn’t designed for high-speed cornering. Yes, you pay the price at the pump, but both genres are suited to their respective tasks.
According to environmentalists, the SUV is the root of all evil, belching filth into the air, destroying our air quality and warming the planet. In truth, all American cars and light trucks produce approximately two percent of all man-made greenhouse gasses worldwide. Emissions from a modern mid-sized SUV are cleaner than that of the average new car built three years ago. As of 2004, SUV’s produce 99% less pollutants per mile than cars manufactured in 1967 (prior to federal emissions standards). All ongoing emissions improvements split the remaining fraction of a percent.
There will always be poseurs that buy SUVs just to look outdoorsy and adventurous. And there will always be consumers who buy sports cars simply to pose and preen. Though distasteful to true enthusiasts, as long as we live in a free country, we can’t stop pathetic pretenders from buying the vehicles we love. As my wealthy neighbor demonstrated all those years ago, all we can do is drive our cars how they were meant to be driven. That includes SUV’s.
t's certainly a free country. I've personally never taken issue with the gas mileage of SUV's, as my car is no sipper… I just take issue with the people who buy them thinking "thank god, I'm not driving a minivan, I still look kinda cool" which of course isn't true at all. SUV's and minivans now exist on the same plain of coolness.
Thats forgetting, of course, that an SUV fails to have the practicality of a wagon, has sloppy handling that makes it much more likely to get into an accident, obscures road visibility for other users, and that most if not all SUVs are poor off road machines, for starters. Here in Canada, once the snow starts to fly, you can be assured that the drive home will pass atleast a dozen of these ponderous machines in the ditch. Severe weather capabilities is a joke, my front wheel drive sedan will run rings around an SUV when the weather worsens.
SUVs were an ill conceived fashion statement which worked out wonderfully for the manufacturers financially for a time. Anyone who is going to spout off about the practicality of an SUV has obviously never driven a wagon, and a sensible person would have an economical vehicle to take them and there lunch box to work, and just rent a vehicle for those few times real hauling is needed.
What a disappointing editorial.
First of all, you should never listen to environmentalists. I hate those guys. They are more like an evil religious sect. And you are right, that sports cars are at least as bad as SUVs. SUVs however are a mass phenomenon and that's where many people feel that something has to be done about that.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Trucks & SUVs, but I'm also for freedom of car and therefore won't ever lecture anyone about the right choice of car.
I think however, that the posers are in the majority of the SUV customers. Not that I have a problem with it. This trend will fade out sooner or later and the posers will find another car to pose in. I mean isn't a owning Prius just as much about posing?
I liked SUV’s before they became a fad. I begged my dad to get a
pathfinder (he was a Nissan guy at the time) back in 86. I loved
Blazers. But I, Like William, used mine. I do not know where the poll
got its responders from, but I have never seen any 5 foot blonde woman
out on the trail, or hauling anything from Lowe’s, or doing anything in
their SUV’s that could not have been done in a minivan. It was all the
cool factor. I don’t hate SUV’s, I hate what FADs did to them. This
article is dead on in many ways as well. I am a big fan of clean air,
and the air quality aspects are very true. Gas is the only thing
keeping me out of one. As in a previous post, I am now pulling a
trailer behind my Honda when I need to haul stuff from Lowe’s, instead
of my Chevy. But the honda doesn’t provide the enjoyment (or the
ability) of driving up a trail in the mountains here in WV (the only
thing going for this state) to do any of the activities William describes. Between my preggo wife, and gas prices, I won’t get to do
any this year at all. I hope next year is better. Fasten your seatbelts
America! I don’t sympathize with morons who dont buckle up and get
flattened by their own vehicle rolling over their ejected butts. Way to
put things in perspective Robert! – Shawn
Amen, to the article, not lizthevw. Liz's response is exactly the shortsightedness and irrational prejudice people have towards SUVs that the article seeks to expose. Instead of an insightful comment on the comparison of high perforamce sports cars to SUVs, we get "[s]evere weather capabilities is a joke, my front wheel drive sedan will run rings around an SUV when the weather worsens." How can you seriously say that? Any competent driver can drive circles around a FW drive car with 4wd. That being said, I do agree that 4wd does give certain drivers a sense of security that surpasses their driving abilities.
High speed track testing is about testing the performance envelope of the vehicle. If it can handle an extreme situation very well (on the rack) then it can most likely handle more mundane, day-to-day driving situations that most people will encounter. So, i have no problems with manufacteurs and/or journalists testing Civics and Corollas at the track.
To Hutton:
As much as I don't like driving SUV's, I have to admit I'd rather own one when the weather gets bad down here. As great as a wagon may be in snow, AWD included, it still cannot ford 2 feet of water in a flood. I'd rather the clearance than higher-speed prowess in bad weather.
Anyone who drives in severe weather like they do in dry deserves to learn otherwise.
William C Montgomery, thank you…..
Hear, hear. Nothing like a champion for the underdog, eh? But…
(rant)
Across from my office we have a high-end "lifestyle
center" and everyday at 11, the rich housewives start to show up for
their lattes and scones and in what do they arrive? Excursions.
Navigators. QX4s. Escalades. How many kids pile out with Mommy? Two at
the most. How many trailer hitches in the parking lot? At a nickel per,
the whole parking lot would be hard pressed to come up with the price
of a stick of gum. How much 'stuff' has been hauled in these monster
trucks? Please. You really think Mrs. Rich is going to let hubby put a quarter ton of mulch in the back of her mommymobile?
(/rant)
RF's points are well taken, though. When I bought my Jeep, the first thing I did was pick up a friend. The second was to take the thing into the woods and scuff the hell out of it and bounce it off some rocks (dumb? probably; fun as hell? definitely). In 4 years, though, I've taken it off-road less than a dozen times, and in all but 3 or 4 of those times I didn't even need to put it in 4wd.
But why did I really buy it? So I could have a convertible that also had 4 wheel drive to help me deal with the ever-unpredictable New England winters. Snow bank at the end of my driveway? No problem.
There IS a place for SUVs in this world, as RF nobly points out. Bad weather, towing, hauling, people moving. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to agree with him to the hilt, I think the bad rap SUVs get is somewhat deserved.
Sorry. Just my early-morning-angry 2 cents.
Saying SUVs are a "fad" is like saying internal combustion engines are a fad. SUVs have been around longer than metal bodied station wagons (1935 vs 1946.) My first vehicle (bought in 1979) was an SUV – it was built in 1957 (IHC Travelall, 4×4.) People in the midwest and Rocky Mountains were using SUVs as daily drivers long before people on the coasts caught on to the "fad." If SUVs are no longer hip, trendy or cool, that's one thing, but to write off the SUV as obsolete only makes sense if you live in Los Angeles or Miami and never leave the city limits.
Poorly written, poorly reasoned.
I'm a Miata driver, and I ride a bicycle for everday transportation, but having Land-Rovered through Africa and grown up on a farm, I'm no 'fraidy-cat when it comes to trucks.
My favourite argument for "needing" an SUV? "I need this huge-ass vehicle to tow my huge-ass speedboat around." Some people really ought to take a second look at their overweight, vulgar, big-gulp lives.
Tom,
A Ferrari Enzo has a 6.0 L V12 engine. A Chevy Suburban has
a 6.0 L V8… how many Suburban’s do they sell a year and how many Enzo’s do they sell a year?
Jon.
As a former SUV owner (2 Suburbans and a Tracker) and current sports car owner (Corvette) I'd like to offer counterpoints to some of your assertions:
1. "Why, then, is it okay to buy a car based on its theoretical extreme performance, while purchasing a four wheel-drive SUV for its unused off-road abilities is considered a crime against nature? "
The "theoretical extreme performance" of a sports car gives it a decided edge in braking, steering, and handling in day-to-day driving (read: accidence avoidance). The "unused off-road abilities" of an SUV only add weight and increase height, producing worse gas mileage, poorer braking performance, and tippier handling.
2. "nearly eighty percent of SUV owners told pollster R.L. Polk that they count on their SUVs for severe weather"
The only "severe weather" advantage an SUV would have over a passenger car would be in snow IF the SUV had 4WD, and 80% of SUVs certainly don't have that! The increased size and height of an SUV would make it a lot more sensitive to winds, decrease its handling ability, and increase its braking distance in the rain. The only "advantage" the SUV has over a passenger car in that situation is the ability to run over it.
3. "Perhaps that’s why insuring a new Corvette costs roughly five times more than insuring a similarly priced Chevrolet Suburban SUV. "
I don't know where you buy your insurance, but my experience is that the insurance on my Corvette is much less than it was on my Suburbans (adjusted for inflation). In fact, it's less than the insurance on my Audi A4 Avant for the same coverage. Incidentally, the Audi is all-wheel drive which, combined with its weight and height advantages, make it much safer than those SUVs that 80% of owners rely on in "severe weather."
4. "What are our favorite sports cars? Does reading any of these letters get your heart pumping: GTO, SS, HEMI, SC, RS, GT, S? As emotive as all these high performance tags sound, they’re all shorthand for “crappy MPG.”
I notice you conveniently omitted the Corvette from this list. Based on real-world experience, my Corvette gets about the same gas mileage around town the EPA says your Liberty gets, and blows it out of the water in highway cruising (where I consistently get 30 MPG cruising at highway speeds in 6th gear).
5. "The vast majority of pistonheads' dream machines seat two people, offer limited trunk space, are tail happy in the rain and can’t tow worth a damn. "
The VAST majority of SUVs I see on my daily 60-mile round trip commute contain only ONE person and nothing in that apparently unlimited "trunk space". And I can guarantee you with the traction control and active handling standard on my Corvette, it'll do a lot better in the rain than your average SUV. Every SUV I've ever owned has been prone to hydroplaning and didn't handle in the rain worth a crap.
6. "As of 2004, SUV’s produce 99% less pollutants per mile than cars manufactured in 1967 (prior to federal emissions standards)."
So does every other vehicle produced in the same time frame. What's your point?
Now, having said all that, I'll also say it's a free country and you can buy and drive anything you want. Just please don't get in my way and slow me down while I exercise my freedom to enjoy my choice of daily transportation!
Perhaps in other parts of the country, SUV use is different from that which I observe in the Northeast. Here, the SUV is more typically a commuter vehicle for the driver alone or it's a suburban runabout, also often with just the driver present. It strikes me that the switch from sedans and wagons to SUVs is largely a fad that will soon to pass, but it does, I fear, reveal something more worrying: the apparent inclination of people to mindlessly follow along without a great deal of thought. A different kind of environmental pollution, if you will!
This is a great rebuttal. Thanks for writing.
SUVs are also great in high water conditions…in a city like Houston, the SUV comes in handy at least once a year for this reason alone. You're not gonna hear any PR department promote that, but its a reassuring fact when the weather gets bad.
Not to mention the big-dog ride, cargo carrying, towing and cool factor that "Crossovers" can't touch.
In the end the market will decide the SUV's fate, gas prices shall certainly weed-out the part time SUV lovers.
Mr. Montgomery is right that a lot of car guys and environmentalists are quick to criticize SUVs and even their owners. They are so big they make an easy target. And as he points out, SUVs and light trucks do have their uses. For hauling a load and towing they can be nice to have around. I sorta miss my old Chevy S10 or '96 Exploder when I need to haul a ton of whatever in my trailer.
But you know something? Either my Saab 9000 or 9-5 wagon can easily haul the same load. And as for people buying SUVs for winter, I think it's just an excuse. I live in Northern New England and having used the Exploder both on and off road
and in extreme winter conditons, I can think of just two situations in 8
years in which it's "off-road" or winter capabilities were truly useful. In fact,
I could do just about anything the Ford would do in my beater of the
time, an '84 Saab 900. For winter conditions the average SUV is in truth only mediocre. FWD or AWD cars with traction control and good tires are better suited to anything other than deep snow. That's not a helluva lot of "utility" in my estimation.
Like tailfinned cars of the Fifites, SUVs are going away.
The day I stopped SUV bashing was the day I accused a friend of being anti environmental. Once I did that, I realized that I am a much worse violator than he was.
He owns a small printing company, about 15 miles away. My company did some printing for him that his shop couldn't do, and he drove his 7.5L Chevy Suburban 4X4 SLT over to pick up what amounted to six boxes of paper (8.5 x11 size).
We were discussing the then high price of gasoline (at that time $2.25/gal) when we diverged into the high cost of driving such a large vehicle. I and another person here at the shop started deriding our old friend for purchasing such a large tank of a vehicle. He became indignant and reminded us of his 4 kids he takes camping, the boat he pulls to the big lake and the fact that his personal vehicle was big enough to be useful to his small business without him having to fork out the money for a dedicated delivery van.
He then went on to ask me about the mileage of my cars, including my (then) Grand Marquis, which actually got roughly the same mileage in city driving, which at the time was the only kind of driving I was doing with it. Plus the fact that I had two other cars, while he and his family only owned one.
When he reminded me that my three cars burned much fuel than his one car (SUV) in an average month, the scales fell from my eyes. I apologized for being so damned insensitive, but the damage had been done.
Ever since then, I have been trying to imagine what it feels like when the shoe is on the other foot. But, I'm sure that fate will find another way to remind me. Just don't judge me too harshly when I go off the deep end.
I'll add my amen to everything Frank Williams said above, with this addition: Many SUV drivers and most of the soccer moms can't drive the things. The number of these behemoths idling along below the limit in the left lane demonstrates that the soccer moms piloting them don't know where the right side of the vehicle is, so they hug the left edge of the road. My proof of concept is that you can witness the same dumb behavior in England, where they hug the right lane edge, instead. QED.
SUV's are fantastic at doing what SUV's are designed to do, and if they were purchased for those reasons, that would be great, and nobody would care. If you need a boat-towing, rock-crawling, river-fording workhorse, by all means, get an SUV. You wouldn't have much choice. If you don't need to accomplish these things, you can still buy whatever you want, but if you bought an SUV, that would be silly.
I also would like to add in a question…
SUVs get a lot of criticism, but how come Pick-up Trucks don't? They have almost all of the same drawbacks, and are also driven by many people who don't need or use them as they were inteded. Lot's of people get them for the image, and never put anything in the bed. And extended cab trucks are basically the same as SUV's, only with an open cargo area.
Amen and halleujah! This editorial is something LONG overdue in a publication about cars. And the kind of allowable attitude that keeps me coming back to this website.
The anti-SUV attitude goes a lot deeper than just the reasons you gave. The SUV's biggest sin is that it is (one of) the preferred car of the average guy. You know, the poor boring souls who all those who think they are special consider to be the height of absolute mediocrity. The ones who 'deserve' to be sneered at for being so ordinary.
Unfortunately auto journalists are a jaded lot. When you get to drive Ferrari's or even Miata's as part of the job, you tend to look down on anything that doesn't pump the adrenaline at that level. And judge all cars by that standard, even if it is completely inappropriate to the vehicles intended use.
It ain't just cars, either. When was the last time you saw a cruiser get a fair shake from a motorcycle journalist, most of whom are complete sportbike freaks? Once again, the ride of the 'great unwashed' gets slagged.
I ran into this attitude 30 years ago, SCCA autocross in Erie, PA. Lord help you if you drove something American in B Sedan (real autocrossers drove 2002's!). Ended up getting my first motorcycle, saying goodbye to the SCCA and never looking back.
At least the poseur in his Hummer H2 isn't as obviously trying to pick up 21 year old hardbodies as the pathetic, fattening middle-aged guy with the combover and 350Z.
Syke
Deranged Few M/C
“The ‘theoretical extreme performance’ of a sports car gives it a
decided edge in braking, steering, and handling in day-to-day driving
(read: accidence avoidance).? The ‘unused off-road abilities’ of an SUV
only add weight and increase height, producing worse gas mileage,
poorer braking performance, and tippier handling.”
The added performance of your corvette also turns it into an unguided cruise missle? capable of hitting 100mph in a couple of blocks when what’s her name from the lifestyle center pushes the pedal a little too hard… or when retired dentist guy decides to turn off the electronic nanny to show off his car to a light standard (hopefully that’s all that gets in the way)…?
Anyway I agree, most people shouldn’t be idling giant SUV’s or thristy sports cars on their way to work or to the gym to ride a bike that doesn’t go anywhere… But what are you going to do about it…?
And you could do all of that in a Subaru Outback or Forrester.
When I bought my Murano I wanted AWD for snow and knew I would never be off-road in anything more than a car could handle. It wasn't labeled the "Urban SUV" for nothing.
For those that occasionally go hiking and camping and even if it's once a year it's perfectly fine to have a vehicle with off-road capabilities. Where however is the need for an Escalade, Navigator, or Jeep SRT8?
The main gripe people have is that the majority of BoF SUV's are bought by people who do not need that kind of capability. Whereas if you buy a 350z, RX-8, Mustang GT you can utilize a portion of it's abilities on any country road with no traffic.
Lizthevw,
I have no problem with wagons. Personally I think they are a better option for someone who wants the room and has no aspirations of ever driving off-road. Even better are AWD wagons from Subaru, Audi and Volvo.
A ‘sensible person’ would also never buy a Corvette or a Porsche 911 but we love them anyway’ its all nonsense.
Normally being a from Texas I would defer to a Canadian with regard to winter driving but in this case I cannot. I suffered through nine Utah winters driving a FWD Camry. Several times I risked my life jut to drive to work. Driving with 4WD, ABS, higher-clearance (so as not to get high-centered in the snow), and deep-treaded tires is incomparably better than a FWD sedan with M/S tires. The vehicles you see piled up in the ditch during a storm are there as a result of driver error not deficient equipment.
a lot of people hate them for a reason. some suvs can handle bad weather, but alot can’t as lizthevw pointed out. people think they handle better than they do and end up in a ditch when the weather gets bad. then there’s the way people drive them. everybody’s experienced the bad suv driver, people who can’t handle the size or sightlines of the thing. think about it, nobody ever critisized 4×4 jeeps or trucks on the road. that’s because those people got them for what they were designed for and generally knew how to drive them. there’s probably not too many people who would mind suvs if they weren’t driven by so many ignorant posers.
Amen to that message William. But just as Phil Hartmann said, “Dont try to confuse me with the facts!” this message cannot cut through the dense fog of feel good thinking. Some people just cannot stand happiness..and to them, its everyone else’s fault. The irony is that these same people like to talk about tolerance. AL-righty then….
It is a free country and I don’t care what anybody drives as long as they are responsible. I am sure there are many reasons for the SUV phenomenon. I have always found it interesting that the rise of the SUV mirrored the growth of obesity in America. SUV’s are the perfect compliment to a gluttonous lifestyle. But gluttony is a right too.
The real damage done by the SUV was inflicted on those that produced them. Pick-ups and SUV allowed manufactures to use old technologies and manufacturing techniques far longer than they should have. They became depended on the huge profit margins this allowed. Even without high fuel prices, the SUV was bound to destroy these manufacturers. It allowed them to ignor the future that was so obvious to others.
I disagree with many points in this editorial, but applaud TTAC for including a balancing opinion to the anti-SUV comments here.
I hope we see more diversive opinions in the future.
An SUV used off road, now that's a joke. I used to work as a geologist with projects in the backwoods of northern Ontario or New Brunswick. I've been off road and I'll believe your average SUV goes there when I see one covered in brush scratches. Until then it's just a fashion statement. As for carrying gear, we used to own a Sable wagon – every bit as practicle as an SUV for camping or lugging the retreiver around.
As for winter weather, any decent front wheel drive car, with a good set of winter tires, will have no trouble most of the time. If the climate is too much for that set up, a Subaru Legacy or Forester (or other AWD car) will almost certainly do the job.
Regarding safety, quite frankly I don't give a damn if they kill one another in single vehicle roll overs. Darwin in action and all that. As for fuel inefficiency, after September 11, I would have thought the idea of sending even more money to King Abdullah would be offensive.
I disagree with the Canadian too.
Having driven 4wd SUV's and FWD cars in the Canadian winter, I can agree that 4wd SUV's kick butt over the FWD cars, but only if you compare both with snow tires. My FWD civic with snow tires was better than a 4-Runner with all-seasons.
That being said, my Civic provided a more comfortable ride, better handling, better stopping, no-tippy-feeling at highway speeds, for about one third the price, whenever the snow wasn't deep.
That was when I realized that if I had the cash for a limited 4-runner or similar SUV, that I'd put it into a great car 9.9 times out of 10.
The SUV is merely the continuing trajectory of the Station Wagon. The Boomer’s parents drove them, and boomers can NOT accept anything their parents saw as “practical”… hence the minivan craze of the 80s, and the now widespread use of SUVs today. The vast majority of these things are Grocery Getters and Mom Taxis. The only time I see them filled to the brim with stuff is on the weekend; my daily commute sees 99% of them filled with one latte-sipping driver. There have always been vehicles designed for off-road use, as long as there have been vehicles… the difference now is that most of these behemoths are being used ON-road, as an ill-advised fashion substitute for the frumpy station wagon of days gone by.
I live in the rural fringes of the Puget Sound area, in the Cascade foothills, and my house is at the end of an unpaved road. I see my share of deep, wet, slippery snow and floods… but really don’t feel the need to arm myself with an Urban Assault Vehicle for the handful of days a year when it would be required. Careful driving of my FWD “daily driver” (A Jetta TDI) will get me through most, and if it is really bad… I’ll just stay at home, thanks. My family of four fits in the Jetta fine, and the trunk has enough space to swallow two hockey bags and have room left over. If I had a Jetta wagon, I could carry twice as much. Given that, I really doubt that the majority of SUV owners really “need” the capabilities of their vehicles. Certainly not the majority of the time.
The real problem of SUV’s is not their owners, but the fact that the manufacturers have become so addicted to them and have been standing still and not developing CARS to keep moving forward after the SUV fad dies. The Europeans and Japanese are going to kill off the domestics, sooner rather than later because they have kept their eye on the ball. Developing clean Diesels, reasonable small hatches and sedans (and “gasp”… station wagons!) that we’ll all be clamoring to buy as fuel costs continue to gouge holes in our credit.
–chuck goolsbee
I’m really tired of the BS Spewed by the likes of people who share the opinion Lemmy-Powered and others. You need to realize that you are in the minority, riding a bike to work. And you also need to realize that most of your peers also ride like they own the road, and in most cases are more of a threat to cause an accident with their utter disregard for traffic laws while pedalling away, making people go around them and into oncoming traffic.
There are several types of SUV drivers, and I think most of you pointing a critical eye to this are missing that – yes, there is the overpriced trophy wife bitch driving around in a hulking, sickening Excursion, Escalade, Navigator, or Hummer, that someone like me, who drove small and mid-size SUVs for a decade, absolutely hated. I’m single, young, and I loved my Trailblazer. At least once a week, there was a full load in the back, whether it was rocks, paint, furniture, a crew of guys on our way to a game, or a well planned shopping trip. I drove it responsibly, and well, better than most of the thrifty Prius drivers who look like scared deer on a 45mph road. For every vehicle on the road, I can give you an example of a certain demographic that shouldn’t be driving it or doesn’t need it.
I’d also like to point out that a lot of the “SUVs are evil” argument never takes into account that MPG is relative to several things, including upkeep of the car. Sure, I averaged 15mpg in the Trailblazer, but I got the same mileage as my father’s DTS. And not everyone is driving new cars or even compact thrifty ones for that matter. How many late 80’s/early 90’s name-a-sedans do you see chugging around on the road? You think that it was getting better gas mileage and putting out less pollution than my ’03 Trailblazer – you’d be dead wrong.
And god forbid people actually like driving an SUV around town. I did. I still wouldn’t mind it, but right now, I want sporty. I don’t think I necessarily needed and SUV, but it certainly came in handy in several situations that a price tag can’t be put on – severe weather during a work emergency or family emergency, and in a few traffic mishaps where certain econobox drivers fall asleep at the wheel with their foot on the accelerator and slam into you doing 30 while you sit at a red light.
The problem isn’t just SUVs. I don’t see anyone nailing BMW to the wall for all the suburban people driving a 3 series that never do more than 10-15 miles of highway in any given week, and they’re only getting 19mpg.
Sure, there was a fad, and more people that wouldn’t have purchased SUVs in other circumstances happily plunked down cash to do just that, and yes, it’s ending, but to damn a whole car segment based on the glaring exceptions in that segment is folly. It’s easy to pick on the targets like so-called soccer moms. I’m even guilty of it. But for every soccer mom, there is someone like me (well, formerly) that hated them just as much as you did for giving me a bad name just because of the vehicle type they drive. It’s like saying everyone that drives a civic within a certain age bracket is a ricer. Or everyone that rides a harley is an asshole.
So I guess…hate the SUV all you want. The numbers will roll off and they’ll go back to pre-craze levels, where it will be a niche vehicle, but be careful what you wish for – when everyone is driving a little hybrid car, there will be something to bitch about – I gaurantee it. It’s already starting, I see it every morning. People are driving in these little Kias and Hyundais (not that I have anything against them, far from it), and babying the thing like it’s a toy car. Point is – bad driving is bad driving, and it’s dangerous and annoying no matter if they’re in a 1966 Lincoln, 2006 Prius, or a fugly H2.
Comments this far down are rarely read, I’m sure, but column is the first one I’ve read on here that seriously just left me wondering what I’m reading anymore.
Lampooning straw-men environmentalists is fine. I’m not really a fan of dredlocks, but is the concern really that stupid?
Long before people were worried about global warming, in places like Southern California, where I grew up, people were simply worried about smog. Yes, the vehicles today are somewhat cleaner than older ones, but there are many, many more today, and average commutes are much much longer.
Besides, isn’t it simply too facile to act like we “fixed” that problem?
If the same percentage of people who bought poseurish sports cars that cost in excess of $50k had SUVs, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s the fact that they are the primary car anymore.
Also, if you’re so sure that so many people use them for offroading, go see how many people actually by the 4×4 option when there’s a 4×2.
???I don’t know where you buy your insurance, but my experience is that the insurance on my Corvette is much less than it was on my Suburbans (adjusted for inflation).???
Progressive Insurance quotes $949 to cover an ???06 ???Corvette for 6 months of collision coverage and $150 to cover the ???06 Suburban (married male, homeowner, owner of vehicle w/loan payments). I excluded all other auto insurance charges not related to the indemnification of a traffic accident (i.e. comprehensive, theft, rental, loan payment, etc.) because the point of this comparison is to demonstrate real world safety as manifest by the collision premium.
My problem with SUVs is that most people, myself included, use them in ways that other types of vehicles would be much better suited. I bought my SUV because, at the time, I was windsurfing. It was great for carrying all the gear, but a wagon could have done just as well. It would have been great for going on beaches IF I ever did that. I think that has happened once in the 8 years I’ve owned the car. I’ve used the 4WD for snow, but I would have been better served by an AWD vehicle.
Too many drivers become obnoxious behind the wheel of a SUV so try to drive at ridiculous speeds in bad weather conditions because they are driving an SUV. In Boston on a snowy day, I could count on most of the vehicles stuck on the side of the road being SUVs because they thought a SUV substituted for common sense (ie slowing down when the weather is bad).
People can and should buy what they want. And if you actually use an SUV off road, more power to you. But if many SUV owners, including myself, looked at how they really use their SUVs, another vehicle type would simply make more sense. For me, an AWD wagon or hatch-back just makes more sense.
A friend bought a Toyota Sequoia a few years back; she lived in a rented urban apartment, single with no kids or dogs, didn’t ski, camp or boat, and didn’t even realise it was 4WD. She bought it because she was intimidated by all the other SUV drivers on the road and couldn’t see around them in her Honda. Now I’m intimidated by and I can’t see around her, so I think I’ll get myself an 29′ U-Haul as my daily driver; at least it’ll get used for its intended purpose once every 3-4 years when I move house.
One of the things I hate about SUVs (and pickup trucks) is that they created an arms race on the highways. A lot of people feel they need an SUV just to protect themselves from other SUVs. When the Wash Post had an article about the dangers car occupants face in crashes with SUVs, a week later local dealers reported a surge of SUV sales.
On top of that, big SUVs handle so badly that they can't get out of their own way and they can't brake as well as cars. Thus, an SUV driver is more likely to crash into a car driver. And unfortunately, Americans focus far more on safety after the crash, than what they can do to avoid the crash in the first place. If people focused a little more on the latter, they would avoid SUVs more.
The thing that drove me to hate SUVs in the first place was having my view of the road ahead blocked.
But as I think I said before, the real culprit in the rise of the SUV was the government, for leaving the light truck loophole in the CAFE standards. In other words, light trucks have a different, much lower gas mileage standard than cars. That drove the companies to push SUVs.
Excellent reading on SUVs: Big and Bad: How the SU ran over automotive safety, by Malcolm Gladwell, New Yorker, Jan 12 2004.
I found Mr. Montgomery's article weak on logic. For example, he says the SUV is far more practical than the dedicated sports car. The dedicated sports car isn't made to be a family car. But the big SUV is far less practical than traditional family cars, with its gas guzzling ways, its lack of agility, its outsize size, and its lack of safety compared to cars of similar size (for example, go to informedforlife.com). For interior space and carrying stuff, a minivan is a better vehicle than an SUV.
You will never stop people from buying what is trendy. How many pseudo “fuel efficient” hybrids, Ford Escape and Lexus GS for example, that get marginal MPG gains are sold to eager buyers that are more concerned about image than actual fuel efficiency? The mainstream SUV is a trend that will slow down and slowly drop off, leaving only the serious outdoor enthusiasts driving them. And those people don’t really care what you think about them and their transportation choices anyway.
sitting@home,
if your friend intimidates you in her Sequoia, maybe you should look into one of these…
http://www.internationaldelivers.com/site_layout/XTFamily/cxt.asp
http://www.monroetruck.com/GM/index.html
^ A woman I work with, after having a baby, traded in her Jetta for an Explorer because “It’s not safe to have a baby in a car. What if you crashed?” I couldn’t believe it. The idea that anything less than the absolute biggest thing you can afford is unsuitable for the safety of your family is absurd, but unfortunatly typical. This woman isn’t stupid either. So it was hard to believe she actually said that.
The arms race is on.
I completely agree that there are as many sports car posers as SUV posers. You know, people that drive gas guzzling sports cars as a fashion statement and never explore the car’s potential.
However, there is an important difference between sports car posers and SUV posers: SUV posers tend to drive like complete assholes. Trust me, I know – I live in the SUV central of the USA: Houston, TX. People that drive SUVs feel invincible on the road; and they are. Occasionally, I drive my uncle’s Suburban. And, to be honest, I do feel like the king of the road. When I’m in my Focus, I’m very careful when changing lanes; looking around, checking blind spots, double checking to make sure nobody’s in the next lane. However, when I’m in the Suburban, I offer a careless, quick glance to the next lane before moving over. I know that if somebody is in the next lane, they WILL slow down for an SUV. It’s this feeling of power that leads SUV operators to drive carelessly.
That is the difference between SUV drivers and hypocritical sports car drivers. End rant.
Frank Williams,
Yes, the Corvette gets better gas mileage than the other cars I alluded to in my list of acronyms. By the way, I commute to work every day in a 5-speed Honda Accord that beats your Corvette for gas mileage and emissions. Does my ownership and use of my Honda make me morally superior to you in your Corvette? No. It just means that I am less fortunate. One day…
One thing I hate about SUVs (and pickups) is that they have created an arms race on the road. People buy them in self-defense against other SUVs. The week after the Wash Post ran an article on the dangers car occupants face in crashes with SUVs, local dealers reported a surge in SUV sales.
The other thing is that there are two components to car safety: crash avoidance, and protection once the crash has happened. SUVs threaten their occupants and others because they handle and brake badly. Compared to cars, they can’t get out of their own way, or anyone else’s. Part of the problem here is that Americans are so focused on protecting themselves in the event of a crash that they don’t even think about what they can do to avoid one (like taking an advanced driving course).
(For an excellent article on this, see Malcolm Gladwell’s Big and Bad, in the Jan 12, 2004 New Yorker).
Of course, the ultimate culprit in the rise of the SUV is the light truck loophole ijn the government CAFE standards. In other words, light trucks have a much lower mileage standard than cars, so the car companies drove millions of light trucks through that loophole.
As for this article, I found it long on rhetoric but weak on logic. For example, the comparison of the practicality of SUVs with that of dedicated sports cars is bogus. There are few dedicated sports cars on the road, and nobody is trying to use them as family cars (except perhaps for the RX-8!). And compared to family CARS, SUVs are gas guzzlers, parking spot hogs, they block the vision of drivers stuck in back them them (which is why I started hating them in the first place), and they are unsafe compared to similar sized cars, even after the crash (see informedforlife.com).
And, for the record, cars and light trucks on American roads contribute slightly less than 4% of the world’s annual burden of greenhouse gases (not 2% as per the article) and about 20% of the U.S. burden. While the contribution from US light trucks is still not that big on a percentage basis, the world is going to be hard pressed to reduce greenhouse gases enough to avoid disastrous consequences for civilization. According to John Holdren of Harvard, one of the leading thinkers on this issue, just 3 degrees of warming will have dangerous consequences for agricultural production worldwide, and that if we keep going as we are, we may have 20 degrees of warming by the end of the century.
Hutton,
A July 2005 NHTSA study found that retrained children in an SUV are 2x safer than restrained children in passenger cars in accidents.
See:
http://www.suvoa.com/media/newsreleases.cfm?showcomment=1&article_id=110
There are idiots aplenty piloting all manner of internal combustion machines.
I’ve had hits and near-misses both on my motorcycle and in my F150 with cell-phone gabbers, tailgaters, CD changers, crossword puzzle solvers, newspaper readers, makeup appliers, Big Mac eaters, Starbucks sippers, and plain old daydreamers. Teenagers with fart-cans. Mrs. Rich and her big ‘ol Lexus SUV. The old man peering over the steering wheel in his Crown Vic. Recognize any of these? SUV’s do not own a monopoly on idiot drivers. A Yaris that runs my motorcycle off the road is just as deadly to me as a Suburban. A year ago, a twenty-something lass left a stop sign and T-boned me in her Sentra. She told the cops she didn’t see me (in my big, red F150 crew cab 4×4!)
Face it folks…the American Road is a hazardous place to spend your time. That’s why I ride my bike in the country and drive my F150 in traffic. When one of these idiots hits me in my (much-despised) truck, I’m going to be much better protected than the guy saving nickels in his Prius. He might feel better about himself for saving the environment and conserving precious fossil fuels. I feel better knowing I’ve got more sheet metal between myself and the clueless.
William:
If the C.A.F.E. loophole for “light trucks” is eliminated, SUVs won’t be criticized by environmentalists.
SUVs aren’t fighting fair, because the Uncle Sam is “picking winners.”
Nice to hear good words about the Liberty (KJ) every now and then.
If anybody wants to see examples of people taking their Liberties offroad, you can always check out National L.O.S.T. (Liberty Owner Special Team) Website. This is a website that discusses all things Liberty-related (and sometimes CJ/YJ/TJ/XJ/ZJ/WK as well).
I think the author is trying to be a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and I am sure he knows the days of SUV as a “me too” car is over. I, for one, like reading TTAC for the rational discussion about what we are all passionate about, but not this kind of non-sense, and provacation.
The comparison to sports car is wholy inappropriate. The point here is that the SUV is so UNNECESSAY. There are some many other options out there that does exactly, or more than if not better than, what the SUV does, without posing UNNECESSARY danger to the driver/passenger/other dirvers, AND damaging the environment. This cannot be said about the sports car.
So, SUVs are NOT a-okay, they are a-passe.
You mean I can take the Corvette out to Hell’s Revenge trail in Moab? I did not know this …
Yeah. Just like I can take a Jeep autocrossing.
Whoa brother, whoa!
There are some heavy helpings of ill-logic happening here.
You state that your experience is not atypical but then state that 15% of SUV owners take their vehicles off-road — while not atypical, 15% is not common. Also, please consider that the Escalades of the world will never go off road and your 15% claim gets more suspicious. I???d buy 15% of Jeep owners, but what about Lexus RX owners? Once, on accident, perhaps while understeering like crazy.
SUVs are less safe than other vehicles. This is not in dispute. Driver skill is one thing, but I wager that your average SUV driver is exactly as skilled as your average sedan driver ??? so, that factor being equal, top-heavy SUVs are more dangerous. And their stopping distances are greater, their needlessly high-profile tires do not perform as well and their handling characteristics are automatically compromised because of hundreds of pounds of useless lard. They also do not have to meet passenger safety car standards — so they don???t.
As far as bad weather goes, are you talking low speeds or high? Because if you are talking highway speeds in an SUV during a storm, they are the least safe vehicle you could be in, as four-wheel drive goes out the window the second you take your foot off the gas and get on the brakes.
I like SUVs. I???ve owned three Jeeps in my life. But denying the fact that most people buy SUVs because they like how they look and how high they sit is simply disingenuous. And the gas-mileage sucks.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
% of new car registrations that are SUVs: close to 50.
% of same for sports car: less than 5.
I’d wager the total numbers of posers in SUVs outnumber posers in sports car 10 to 1.
Seen any Suburban on the off-road trail lately? Was it driven by that 110 lbs blonde on a cell phone? Did not think so.
SUVs are the cool minivan. Face it, people buy them because they can. And they don’t have to face the stigma of soccer mums (or so they think, it’s a little too late now)
Probably like a lot of other TTAC readers, my problem with SUV’s can be summed up in 2 or 3 words. Yukon Denali or Ford Excursion Limited.
I really liked the Yukon Denali, until I drove one. I used to look at it and think it was the ultimate luxury vehicle and it really is quite comfortable for it’s occupants. The problem is that it is dangerous to everyone OUTSIDE the vehicle. When a Miata pulled up next to me at a stop light, I COULD NOT SEE IT FROM THE DRIVER’S SEAT. I was able to angle the passenger’s side wing mirror to get a view but that limited my ability to see behind me very far. Couple the handling and brake problem to this and I see a problem. But this is the problem with all large SUV’s and in the hands of a capable driver it’s not a problem.
Bringing me to a second point. What exactly is a “Luxury SUV” for? Used to be, a Range Rover took you off road in style. They were still very capable vehicles. The average Denali is only capable of hauling people.
I admit that SUV’s have their purpose and I like them for that purpose. I don’t ever look at an old C/K Blazer, Jeep Cherokee or Jeep Liberty and say “Damn SUV” but I seem to say it every time I see a Denali.
statistics shmatistics. I recently read a study that claimed that 60% of all studies were incorrect. In any case isn’t it enough that the SUV is a vehicle that inspires such hatred? There has never been a vehicle type that was so despised by so many. That alone indicates that there is a problem. That being said, I like that there is a balanced opinion offered on the topic.
Re: winter driving
Alright, admittedly “run rings around an SUV” is going too far, but, SUVs are not the winter machines you seem to imagine.
Firstly, the tires are too wide, which in effect gives an “aquaplaning effect” over snow. If you don’t believe me, simply look at the thin tires they use in the World Rally Championship during snow events. You need the tires to cut through the snow to the underlying roadway.
Secondly, 4000+ lbs in the snow is simply too much inertia in low traction conditions at road speeds. Its fine off road, but not on it.
Thirdly, softly sprung SUVs are susceptible to severe lurching as traction conditions vary all over a snow covered highway, which is exasperated by…
Fourthly, a high centre of gravity which tips said lurching SUV over.
My Honda Civic has narrower tires, a lower weight, proper suspension design, and a low centre of gravity, which makes it safer to handle, and it will only understeer in the snow.
I’ve driven an Explorer, Cherokees and Grand Cherokees, and a CRV, and I wouldn’ have any of them. A nice WRX Wagon is far preferable.
^ It’s funny that even though the Jeep Wrangler is the definitive SUV, it doesn’t even cross people’s minds when they are talking about “damn SUV’s”.
The reason you hate Yukon Denali or Ford Excursion Limited is the same reason the rest of world seem to hate us now.
Darwin will take care of the SUV and SUV drivers.
I hear a lot of complaints about how a 4wd SUV is better in the snow than a FWD car. Someone mentioned deep-tread tires, and that really hit a hot button for me.
Most “blinged out” SUVs have summer performance tires, or all season tires. Really, when you’re in snow country (I grew up in Utah) it doesn’t matter so much what you drive as what rubber is attaching it to the ground. My whole family drives BMWs (no X3s or X5s, thank you very much) and when winter rolls in, we switch out the summer tires for winter snow tires. And with snow tires on, my Dad’s RWD 323 becomes a perfectly adept winter car.
Buy what you like, SUV or otherwise. But don’t forget that the tires are the most important thing sticking you to the ground.
Goodyear Wrangler MT/R here :-) Dirt, mud, sharp rocks, slickrocks, boulders, rain, snow … it’ll take it all.
Hutton –
As a proud wrangler owner, I can tell you there’s a reason why that is.
Wranglers are pretty small. One of the reasons I like ’em so much is that they can fit into almost any parking space no matter how small, and are a dream to parallel park. They’re not especially wide. Also, unless you get a big lift kit on there, they’re not that high off the ground, and consequently give other drivers better around-the-car visibility than one of the big boys.
The gas mileage isn’t great. I think I get around 18 to 20 mpg on my 99 on the highway (mpg would be better if I didn’t drive so fast). But it seems to be on par, or just below most sedans and trucks.
Most importantly, the a*holes who drive SUVs for all the wrong reasons tend not to get wranglers. They’re small, have very little cargo capacity, and they’re pretty spartan as far as the amenities go.
I have a Jeep precisely because it is (as you say) the definitive, original SUV and try to use it as such…I think most Jeep owners buy them for the right reasons, unlike the jerks we seem to be railing against in this thread.
It’s pretty amazing how short-sighted and biased people are about this topic.
You do realize that not every SUV wights 6000lbs, has a v8, and is driver by a soccer-mom/arm-candy-wife/crappy-driver, with 20″ rim and slick tires, right?
I live in PA. We had a flood a month ago. I had to help family. Emergency services were overstretched. I’ll be sure to let my brother, and the families in the 3 houses near him that you people would have prefered to let him wait a bit longer to be rescued. I’d sure like to see one of your FWD cars ford the 3′ of water I had to cross to get to their houses.
My v6, 26mpg HW, Jeep liberty had no problem making the trip several times.
I made it because I am a skilled driver (even though I am a married man in an SUV)
I made it because I have 14″ a ground clearance, yet still have a footprint no larger than the average sedan and quite a bit smaller than most luxury cars.
I made it several times because my v6 (the average # of cyliders even among cars) is as fuel efficient as any other v6 car.
it helps when the whole underside of your car’s body isn’t dragging, or stuck in high snow. if my honda had some LSD up front instead of just traction control, maybe I wouldn’t get stuck in most of the situations that stop us in Nicholas county, WV in winter with its 10″ snow over the road. trust me, i would rather take teh smooth riding honda, with room for my family including the dog, instead of cramming into a chevy 4×4, with locking diff, and the necessary height, just to crawl over the top, guzzling gas every second i drive slow to be safe. maybe if we had a minivan that at a push of the button, inspector gadget style, it could raise 10 inches and clear this stuff. awd minivans are a joke, as the have no clearance. im no suv worshipper or hater. i hate the “Fad” that people that were driving in minivans had to get them to stay cool. im one of the 6 men on the planet that love minivans, but I can’t get my wifes head out of an suv’s butt. good thing i refinanced the car so that i can postpone any suv purchase until she finds something else she would rahter buy.
Gris: You, sir, sound like a capable driver, driving a capable SUV.
I have no problem with you or your vehicle. In fact, I can see myself in your shoes one day (possibly).
as touching as your story is, jeep liberty’s air intake is not above a 3′ height the last time i looked, negating your ute’s ability to swim. minus the exaggeration, people do not buy vehicles based on a once in a lifetime possibility either. glad they got out safe though.
My daily driver is a 1st generation 4runner. Why? With my rattle can paint job, I never worry about it getting hit in the parking lot. It gets the same gas milage in my daily commute (22-25mpg) as my ’99 Subaru Legacy. And when the snow comes, I never even have to worry about getting to work. I’m not talking slippery conditions on the highway, I admit my Subaru wins that competition, and I’ll take it if I’ll be driving on the highway. I’m talking about snow so deep that even my jacked up truck leaves tracks in the snow from the differentials dragging. I use my SUV at least once a week in the winter in these conditions. And I also use it once or twice a week in the summer traversing dirt roads you dare not take your sedan on so that I can go hiking or biking. I love my SUV, it gets me where I need to go and I don’t need hippy environazis judging me.
Having taken many car control schools, snow & ice driving clinics (and living in the Great White North!) I can tell you that the best bang for your buck in adverse driving conditions isn’t 4WD, or AWD… but good tires. My 2WD pickup, equipped with new Blizzaks, outperformed SUVs with worn all-seasons.
At a winter driving day put on by Chrysler a couple of years ago, we drove several of their vehicles in every configuration and with several tire combos – and hands down, the best performing and safest vehicles were those clad with good winter tires (and NOT all-seasons, or as they’re known up here, no-seasons).
I’ve met a few SUVs that I’ve liked (V10 Touareg comes to mind). My opinion is that, like mini-vans – much of the problem lies in the way that they’re driven. A big, strong, AWD vehicle isn’t infallible when piloted by a careless driver.
To me – driving is a privilege, not a right.
i can’t even find snow tires, and i am in a snow state. they say that regular tires are just as good nowadays. but i can’t even get regular tires. they don’t keep anything in stock. im driving a standard honda, not pimpy 17-22″ rims. I have to wait 4 days for tires to come in. who makes a good snow tire for cars?
I hate SUVs, and ‘hate’ isn’t a word I often use. I don’t hate them because they are impractical and wasteful (cool sports cars are too); I don’t hate them because they are not driven off-road, their intended purpose (cool sports cars aren’t typically driven for their intended purpose, either); I don’t even hate them because they are faddish (what’s so wrong with fads?)
So why do I hate SUVs so much? Well, two reasons, and the second is the more important of my two points:
1. SUVs are too damn big and get in the way, even when they are driven ‘properly.’ I just can’t see around and over them to get a clear picture of the traffic/road conditions. It’s bad enough NA roads are clogged with so many trailer trucks – now we have SUVs in our way too?
2. More SUVs means fewer CARs. Back in the early- to mid-90s, because of SUVs’ growing demand and ubiquity, car manufacturers certainly delivered customers what they wanted – more and more SUVs. Because of newfound focus on SUVs, many manufacturers left their car lines out to rot away, and as a consequence North American buyers had fewer and fewer car choices. The market for cars – particularly sports cars – declined as there was no business case for these vehicles (e.g. Alfa, Rover, Peugeot, Supra, 300ZX, Prelude, SHO, CRX & all those small hot hatches). So as a CAR fan, I take great offense to the buying public who shaped today’s lackluster automotive landscape, because interesting, fun-to-drive cars seems to becoming an extinct offering. What are all us car guys out there supposed to drive? An SUV with a more powerful engine?
I also take great offense to cynical non-forward-thinking manufacturers who developed SUVs with apparently little concern for technology and quality. A $60,000 Escalade with $20,000 Silverado components and cheap interior trim is unacceptable and an embarrassment to any company. Put another way, I couldn’t imagine anyone wanting to buy a $60,000 CAR with the same paucity of engineering sophistication and interior quality as that $60,000 SUV.
But beyond that little rant, for years I have been wondering what was going to happen to manufacturers when customers finally grew tired of SUVs’clumsy handling, uncomfortable ride, and high purchase and maintenance price. I guess we’re finally finding out: huge decline in SUV sales – over $2 billion in losses at Ford for example due to a sharp decrease in Explorer and Expedition sales. But – worst of all – in the midst of this crisis, there are few spectacular CAR offerings (Five Hundred? Fusion? Focus?) to hedge these dying SUVs. And this is not just Ford’s problem. Look to GM and Chrysler for similar trends.
In sum, I don’t think the SUV should be vilified, but I do think maybe it’s time North American customers and manufacturers re-think their SUV offerings and return to CARs. Who knows, maybe we’ll rediscover that we actually like driving ’em.
As Certified Pistonheads, we’re all seen as well qualified within our familes and circles of friends/co-workers to make automotive recommendations, right?
I’d no more recommend a Corvette to someone who would polish it and keep it in their garage or was unprepared to drive it recklessly on public highways than I would recommend an SUV to someone who lives in a temperate climate, will drive to the mountains once every three years (and even then not go off-road), usually commutes alone, or feels the need to drive a tool for their aggressiveness.
SUV’s have a place in the automotive landscape, it’s true. What we’ve seen over the past 10 years, however, has been an increase in less than responsible choices made by those who have been shoved by fear, profit-motivated US auto manufacturers and a government which failed to properly regulate the genre. The results are that we’re using more fuel than we need to (pushing demand to where we have bought ourselves $3/gallon gas), emitting more pollutants than we should, and have made highways more dangerous for those of us who chose out.
I would never advocate removing SUV’s as a choice from the market, because it’s a free market, and there are legitimate uses for these vehicles. I’m just disappointed that too many people still get suckered, and as a result, the US auto industry made little investment in other market segments and is wholly unprepared for the market shift they now face.
I went out to measure my Liberty’s air intake, and you’re right, Schmu. My Liberty’s air intake is not 3 feet above the ground. It’s more like 3 feet and four inches. My Liberty is lifted, and so is Gris’ — his is equipped similarly to mine, so I suspect our ground clearances are about equal. Trust me, that’s no exaggeration, Liberties like to ford water.
Excuse me if I offend you as you listen to NPR while munching on your veggie burger and hammering your Prius with your Birkenstock-shod right foot, but while there are many valid reasons to dislike SUV’s, much of the anti-SUV sentiment is pure sanctimonious piffle, spewed by those who are anti-choice except for those that they prefer, and which usually fall into the PC category.
I feel lucky to live in the US, where I can think, say, eat, and even drive whatever I want (and can afford). So can you.
I will not tell you what to think or say or drive. I might disagree with your opinions or other choices, but I do not criticize you for having or saying them (politicians aside, of course).
So, if I want to drive a Hummer or a bicycle, or if you want an Expedition or a Civic, it is fine.
We are not appreciably harmed by these choices we and others make. And to take away that freedom would be a great harm and loss.
So, live and let live. Quit complaining! Those who live in glass houses and all that.
Albnyc, you may want to review your post before you hit that “Submit Comment” button, since we are trying to have a rational discussion here. Indeed, there are “many valid reasons to dislike SUV’s”, and that’s the reason people dislike them, if you read all the posts HERE. I don’t believe most posters here are calling for an out-right ban of SUVs. Perhaps you are giving the “listen to NPR while munching on your veggie burger and hammering your Prius with your Birkenstock-shod right foot” crowd too much credit.
well, i didn’t say definite, because i didn’t know that one to be a fact. I stand corrected. Im man engouh to admit. just remember, im not a basher. i love good off road capable utes, just not to be used as a minivan substitute though. my aunt in law has a liberty…i wish there was more aftermarket for it. lets start a topic on how many people are not even capable of changing their tires! gasp!
There are tons of aftermarket parts for the liberty Schmu. Did you ever check out Lostkjs.com? Many lifts, lockers, skids, rims, and bumpers are now available for the libby. Check it out sometime. Also, my intake is the same as Dirty KJs’, hehe. I also have a lift though… :-)
I have to wait 4 days for tires to come in. who makes a good snow tire for cars?
I use Nokians. I have no trouble in Massachusetts winters.
I have to wait 4 days for tires to come in. who makes a good snow tire for cars?
I use Nokians on my Accord (15″ wheels). I have no trouble in Massachusetts winters.
never heard of em, i will look for them though, thanks!
I use my SUV at least once a week in the winter in these conditions. And I also use it once or twice a week in the summer traversing dirt roads you dare not take your sedan on so that I can go hiking or biking. I love my SUV, it gets me where I need to go and I don???t need hippy environazis judging me.
For your purposes it sounds like an SUV is a reasonable choice. But could you refrain from the name-calling?
Hey Schmu – I drive an ’05 Liberty with 17″ of ground clearance. I can promise you that my air intake is higher than three feet! I routinely (every few weeks on average) am out in the Sonoran desert from where no AWD wagon would make it out alive despite the Paul Hogan commercials. But even if I didn’t use my Liberty for off-roading … to each their own I say. If someone wants to ride from their gated community to their kids’ private school to the local mall and back in a bling-ed out Hummer getting single-digit mileage hooray for them. And hooray for you in your “standard Honda”. Of course, the biggest ‘hooray’ is for me; I drive an SUV that crawls over some of the most rugged terrain on earth but is still civilized enough to take clients to lunch in. :-)
If we are talking about matching expected usage against automotive capabilities, then the vast majority of SUV drivers ought to check out a Subaru (for the practical types), Volvo (for those so worried about safety), or an Audi (for those wanting something expensive) wagon. Try them, you might really like how they drive compared to a Ford Excursion.
I drove one of these Chevy SUVs last year to drive from Tennessee to Texas and back. The braking on it was really below my expectations. Frankly, it was frightening at times. These things really call for an experienced and alert driver.
For the kind of guys who own several rod and reels and tacklebox, firearms used for hunting, and those who roam deep in the wilderness, an offroad vehicle could make sense. Most of the guys I know that fit that category drive some older Jeeps that LOOK like they have seen some serious offroad use. What baffles me is why the soccer mom / trophy wife crowd ever would want the kind of vehicle these good old boy, outdoorsmen fellas drive, all blinged out as a Navigator or Escalade.
SethX9 – I have both, i wasn’t saying that my honda was superior being standard, i was stating how my standard honda was hard to find tires for. I have a honda and a 4×4, im not one of the bashers here…except for those that use utes as ‘im cool’ status symbols.
and what kind of lift do you have with 17″ clearance? All i ever see is 3″ lifts. not being a smartass, i really want to know waht kind of lift.
In 1941 they did not use a sedan to help win any wars. For those of you that don???t know the significance of this date, it is when they introduced the Jeep. The same vehicle you would classify as an SUV and would bash at a moments notice. I have yet to hear of a sedan that played a role in any major battle. Owning an SUV because you think you look good in it is no different than owning your BMW, Caddy or other classy expensive car. I have owned many small Hondas while they do well in about in inch of snow I have never seen one make it to the top of my parents driveway in the winter. I too am a member of LOST Liberty Owners Special Team and my air intake was over 3??? also.
Too many people argue against SUV ownership without thinking of economics. We can’t all afford to have our daily runabout/commuter car and then just keep the SUV for the occasional weekend fun. Many of us can only afford one car. An SUV allows us to do the most with one vehicle, whether we ever do or not. No, a 25-40% improvement in gas mileage isn’t enough to cover the expense of an extra vehicle, unless you drive eleventy-billion miles a year. Wagons can come close (I used to drive a Subaru), but they do not fulfill everything. I caused $900 of suspension damage trying to drive on the beach in NC in my old Sube. The same beach I have traversed in my 98′ Blazer ZR2 without a hint of struggle. I could probably haul my small boat with a Subaru, but feel more comfortable doing it with a capable truck that has the ground clearance to handle the boat launch without sinking the rear end to float the boat.
Oh yeah, and AWD wagons don’t get that great mileage, either.
How often do I need the capabilities of my vehicle? Not much, probably 5-10 times a year, max. But at least it’s there, so I can dream up as many uses as I want, regardless of whether or not I ever pursue them. There’s a freedom in that thought that SUV owner’s like. And in owning one vehicle that handles everything. If populist lemmings don’t like that, they can kiss my ass.
I’m confused – are you recommending that we use war-winning ability as a criterion for choosing which vehicle to purchase?
That limits the modern-day field to Wrangler & H1 if you support the Americans, the G-Wagen if you support the Germans, and Toyota/Nissan/Mitsu pick-ups if you support Al-Qaeda.
“I have yet to hear of a sedan that played a role in any major battle.”
Here’s another date for you… September 5 to September 12, 1914
Well, off the top of my head I’d say the Renault taxi cabs commandeered by the French to ferry about 6,000 reinforcements from Paris to the Marne River. This was where the French stopped the German advance on the Western Front, after which trench warfare set in.
See The Battle of the Marne at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
I’m not saying these taxis “won” the battle. The story did boost morale, and they did bring reinforcements when things looked iffy. I just felt the urge to stick up for sedans, which you imply have never played any roles in transporting troops to and from battle.
dalava: I suggest you do the rereading…The irrational thing is the belief that the American public needs self-righteous nannies to tell them what choices to make. SUV’s were “in” because they fit the individual needs of millions of people, not because some Big 3 marketing svengalis hoodwinked an entire nation of mindless sheep, as many critics (and posters here) imply.
I stand by my point that much of the criticism here, and against SUV’s in general, is the typical, pious, anti-(fill-in-the-blank) crap.
Albnyc says: ‘not because some Big 3 marketing svengalis hoodwinked an entire nation of mindless sheep’
Well, speaking as something as a svengali myself, and having made a study of marketing svengalism for the last ten years or so, I think there’s more there than you want to admit.
SUV’s have been marketed very, very, VERY aggressively since they came out. As far as automotive choices go (and perhaps this is market-tailored, creating a possible skew or bias) nothing I’ve seen has been as heavily hyped and pushed as the SUV segment.
Many people here suggest wagons will fill many of the ‘needs’ that justify an SUV. While, sure, there are needs that only an SUV can fill, you can’t seriously believe that all those people NEED SUVs. The vast majority of people seem to be buying SUVs because they are COOL. They are HIP. If you watch enough commericals, you have to wonder how you’ve gotten by without one for so long (or, if you own one, how you ever lived without one!)
You have been marketed! The last thing any ‘not mindless sheep’ should do is discount the power of marketing & advertising. Hell, I studied this crap in school and use it on a daily basis and you know what? I *still* ran out and bought a jeep wrangler as soon as I could afford one. Why? Not because I *need* one, but because THEY’RE. SO. FREAKING. COOL. Of course, I’ve tried to make a point of using it as intended (off-roading, etc) but nontheless, I’ve been marketed, too. Everyone has – especially the anti-SUV people who make a point of saying their Honda’s are better for society than your SUV…
Infamous: Point taken. I am part svengali too, and I don’t discount the marketing at all. Of course we have been marketed to…. but, but, but, (and again but) unless the marketing hits an untapped need, desire, or wish, it will not be effective; it will not move product (see GM). Most new products fail…in autos and in general. No amount of marketing can make something succeed that the public does not want. The public decided it wanted SUVs…and now it is deciding that it doesn’t. No amount of marketing will resurrect the past (again, see GM).
There’s nothing “pious” about it whatever. When we had limitless frontier, people were self-sufficient and had little or no impact on their neighbors, then a hands-off attitude to others made perfect social sense.
Those days are over. Pollution and global warming effects aside, the Hummer is a colossal waste of resources. One of the goals of society should be to survive and a society should make – and be empowereD to make – the decisions necessary to ensure the survival of that society as a whole. Use the free market to allocate resources effectively, sure, that’s a win, because it’s very efficient. However, when the free market breaks down and doesn’t allocate resources strategically, then the free market should be curbed.
And your Hummer (or whatever you have) does have effects on me. It enables oil-fueled terrorism, increases our national reliance on resources located abroad and commits us to a larger military to ensure ready access to those resources and, since the highway tax does not even begin to address road and bridge maintenance, your use of a colossal road hog inflates my tax bill unnecessarily. IIf you want to drive a colossal road hog, you should be willing to pay for it, road maintenance and defense budget included.
Further, accidents happen and sometimes the colossal road hog is at fault (and, considering that’s usually what I see blowing through red lights late, it’s more often tnan not that the colossal road hog is at fault). Your decision to drive a colossal road hog affects my survival in the use of a common resource. It’s reasonable for all users of the common resource to set usage limits.
They’re an anachronism. They reflect an era of cheap oil that never really existed.
NN writes:
How often do I need the capabilities of my vehicle? Not much, probably 5-10 times a year, max. But at least it???s there, so I can dream up as many uses as I want, regardless of whether or not I ever pursue them. There???s a freedom in that thought that SUV owner???s like. And in owning one vehicle that handles everything. If populist lemmings don???t like that, they can kiss my ass.
Have you thought of renting an SUV for those times?
dhathewa –
Remember the George Bush Tax Cut? That $300 check we got a few years ago? I called my congressman and asked where I should send the check if I wanted used to repair roads, bridges, and to beef up our electrical infrastructure. His staff took my number and (ha ha) said they’d get back to me.
There’s a lot more to the story viz. terrorism, reliance on foriegn oil, larger militaries, and road damage than just SUVs. Last I checked, EVERY single vehicle on the road – including bicycles and rollerblades – require petroleum in some form or fashion. So do your clothes, the packaging your food comes in, and most of your other household goods. Maybe not your soapbox, though.
If you want commonly-agreed-upon ‘usage limits’, then what you really want is a legislative response (ie, ban or inflated, penalizing tax) on SUVs. Good luck with that. What people need is common sense, and your revolutionary screed (while obviously well-meaning) could probably use a dose of that as well.
dhathewa – Sorry, but I don’t own an SUV. Did for quite a while, because I had a need that they filled, but now there are more options available that better meet my needs. And more of those options are becoming available. If they are good ones, the public will respond. Better that option than more misguided regulatory or legislative “fixes.”
Gee, isn’t this a wonderfully polarizing discussion? Does SUV versus cars have to be an us verus them issue?
There are certainly reasons for owning one that make sense, some of them noted above. What doesn’t make sense is using one as a grocery-getter, which is the predominate use of the average SUV. Why anyone would buy one to look cool, stroke their ego or impress the neighbors is beyond me.
Somebody mentioned pickup trucks earlier, and noted there was a lot less animosity about them than SUVs. As it happens, I don’t especially like big pickups either, but for tradesmen they are clearly essential. What is dumb are the boneheads who use one to commute to an office and use it occasionally to bring home a stuff from Home Depot that could just as easily go on a roof rack on a car or in a $600 utiliity trailer.
Each to his own. But I wonder how the vehicle mix on the roads will shift 2 or 3 years hence when gas is $5 or $6 per gallon?
Lot of hatred in this thread. Hatred of environmentalists, obese drivers, dim-witted wives (do any of you people love your wives?), bicyclists, people with unpopular beliefs, people with popular beliefs, people who tow boats, people who can’t afford boats, people who drink lattes, drivers who aren’t as skilled as “we” are…boy, what is this country coming to, that we hate each other so much?
Yah, really… think I’ll head over to grassrootsmotorsports board for a while to remind myself why I love cars (and car guys)…
I see a lot of “you really don’t need this capability or size, you could rent it when you need it” line of thinking in the comments to this editorial. So lets put the shoe on the other foot. Who really needs high powered cars like GTO’s and vettes? Won’t a sporty 1.8 liter Civic do the job? Does anyone really need a 400hp V8 to race from stop light to stop light? There are few people who get the opportunity to drive a vette at anywhere near it’s limits, but yet lots of people buy them. So who’s to say it’s not satisfying to these people to know that if they really wanted to go 160 mph, they can? And to SUV owners to know that if they need it, they have the capability to go where they want to?
I didn’t finish reading the entire article because I wanted to say one thing regarding the gas usage:
As an owner of an exotic car in San Francisco I am lucky to put 2,000 miles a year on my car whereas a soccer Mom puts 15,000 on her SUV. I take the train into the office M-F and am only late when there is a lame problem. Who is using more gas?
Bring gas up to $6 – $8 a gallon, then Toyota will for sure take over and the American bull headed car makers will be in the dust.
As someone who owns a sports car, and regularly attends (and participates) in races, on track or autocross, who sees dozens (even hundreds) of other people like me, I take offence to the idea that sports cars aren’t used for their purpose.
Uno, sports cars can be enjoyed legally on all roads (even if that might not maximize enjoyment) so there is no way to proove they are not being used for their purpose.
Secundo, sports cars driven as any other vehicle don’t pose as much of a safety hazard as SUV’s which will always have more energy (thus destructive potential) at the same speed, and have a higher propensity to cause damage to other drivers and pedestrians in a crash due to their physical size.
Tertio, sports cars are less likely to be purchased by people who don’t really need them because they create unavoidable compromises: seating for 2 (possibly with insurance-rate-dropping rear seats), limited storage and trunk space, limited capability in snow, ice, and inclement weather, as well as a generally harsher, noisier ride. SUV’s offer fewer compromises in terms of practicality so the decision to buy one purely for appearances, style and image is much easier, as it won’t affect other uses of a vehicle (carrying cargo, human or otherwise) as much as using a sports car would.
Quattro, I know plenty of people into off-roading, and they aren’t driving garden-variety SUV’s, they are using vehicles with true off-road capability which have now become lumped into the SUV category, without distinction as to “SUV” and “off-road vehicle”. Obviously every vehicle has some off-road capability, but there IS a difference.
And that is ignoring the whole environmental aspect of things, regarding which it’s difficult to argue with the fact a bigger vehicle with bigger mass uses more ressources to accomplish a job that in many cases a midsize sedan with a trailer hitch can usually do. I have no problem with people buying SUV’s when they really need them, no problem paying a premium for them (just like I pay an insurance and fuel premium for that sports car), but let’s be honest, despite all the shoddy rationalizations, most people out there don’t need an SUV – life went on just fine before the SUV craze, which has more to do with what people would want to drive than anything else. Now the reality of limited ressources (85M bbls a day of oil, refining capacity) and fashion trends set in, I can only think “finally!”.
Commuter- You are absolutely right, but then again SUV’s outnumber 400HP vettes and GTO’s (even just Mustangs), significantly. Having a sports car doesn’t have to mean a 350hp beast; the Miata is a sports car…there are plenty out there with small motors and less than 200hp (a threshold that is thrown around all the time nowadays).
Sports cars sales are probably in the hundreds of thousands. At its peak (and even now), SUV sales are in the millions – at least 10 times more. And you know what, for a lot of people, a “sporty Civic with a 1.8L” IS a sports car.
So the justification (by many) for owning an SUV is bad weather driving and load carrying?
Sweden, famed for some of the worst winter weather in Europe managed just fine for many years with 2WD Volvos and Saabs…
David Holzman – you’re right, I’m sorry for the name calling (I guess i godwined the thread). I just spend so much time defending my vehicle choice that i get defensive. The funny thing is that where I live, there are tons of radical environmentalists who all drive Subarus who tell me that I shouldn’t drive my 4runner because it wastes gas. But I know from experience that my Subaru gets the same milage.
zipper69 – yes, the sweeds did very well with the Saabs. I own an ’87 900 classic (i.e. before GM). It’s amazing in the winter, even without winter tires. The trouble is that if the snow is deep you end up getting bogged down. Also when you need to climb icy 7% grades you really need 4wd to keep from slipping, you just can’t get enough traction to the ground with two wheels.
An aside: do you know why Saabs (old 900s) are so good in the snow? The engine is in backwards (not longitudnal like a normal FWD) so it sits low and back giving a great weight distrobution and low center of gravity. Contrary to popular opinion, you do need weight over the back in a FWD car so that you can get some brake to the back without locking the back wheels (same reason you shouldn’t run snow tires on the front only on a FWD).
SUVs.Are.Unsafe.Vehicles.
They’re poor braking and cornering AND poor acceleration means they don’t avoid an accident very well if at all. Their huge stature affords its driver a commanding view, it blocks the view of other drivers close to it. And if an accident can’t be avoided, the big heavy frame spells trouble for anyone in the ‘other’ vehicle and they don’t do as well in crash tests as many people give them credit for.
My “crappy MPG” sports car (Spec V) gets night-and-day better gas mileage than even a Jeep Liberty, doesn’t need 3.7 litres and two extra cylinders to handle 7% grades, and can turn and decelerate much more effectively when (deer) hoof comes to shove. And it’s a hekcuva lot more fun in the twisties.
ps- I wonder what percentage of people who make fun of Honda 4-bangers and their owners’ enthusiasm for them have ever driven one. They’re light so they don’t need as much motor to begin with, plus Honda gets more out of their displacement/torque/horsepower than even my beloved torque-monster QR25DE. They’re velvety-smooth, whisper quiet at idle and probably gonna be running much longer too. And don’t forget the gas mileage they’re famous for either.
pps- I still hate those damn brraapp canister coffee can mufflers too. Noisy eff’n %$#@#suckers…
Commuter writes:
>>I see a lot of ???you really don???t need this capability or size, you could rent it when you need it??? line of thinking in the comments to this editorial. So lets put the shoe on the other foot. Who really needs high powered cars like GTO???s and vettes? Won???t a sporty 1.8 liter Civic do the job? Does anyone really need a 400hp V8 to race from stop light to stop light? There are few people who get the opportunity to drive a vette at anywhere near it???s limits, but yet lots of people buy them. So who???s to say it???s not satisfying to these people to know that if they really wanted to go 160 mph, they can? And to SUV owners to know that if they need it, they have the capability to go where they want to?
I don’t see the analogy here. You don’t need to push a fine sports car to its limits to enjoy the responsiveness of the engine, or the feedback in the steering. Its like enjoying really good anything–coffee, chocolate, scotch, a great stereo system. I would enjoy driving even on 25 mph city streets much more if I had a Porsche. Conversely, if I had, say, my best friend’s old Geo Prizm, I wouldn’t enjoy driving at all. I think more SUV owners want to look like they can go off road than really want to do it. Otherwise, as someone said earlier, there would be a lot of brush-scratched SUVs, or else they’d put plastic panels on them, like Saturns.
miked, I’m surprised nobody ever told you the Great Saab Secret: go backward up steep, slippery hills. A Saab in reverse can pretty much climb the side of the Empire State Building, because then you get the weight transfer of a rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive car. (I’ll let you think about it…) Hundreds of times, it’s the only way I got up my steep, quarter-mile-long driveway in the snowy Hudson River Valley. But then you have to know the secret Saab handshake before somebody tells you that…
Another Amen to Frank Williams.
Also, I’d like a source on that “all American cars and light trucks produce approximately two percent of all man-made greenhouse gasses worldwide” remark.
I had a 99 Wrangler; when I got it, I believe it was classified simply as a ‘utility vehicle.’ No ‘Sport,’ which I didn’t get. It made me consider the SUV moniker, and I wondered how any SUV got classified as such. Here was my Jeep, clearly remarkable off road even in its basic iteration. Then there’s the Expedition and its ilk, which doesn’t seem to tout ‘Sport’ to me, but rather something more akin to ‘Luxe’.
Land Rover and Jeep are the obvious exceptions to the rants here, with their consistent proven prowess off-the-paved-road (The Jeep Compass the exception to the exception, it isn’t even ‘Trail-Rated.’).
The initial appeal of SUV’s, aside from their carrying capacity, was once likened to cars of the 40’s (or so), where you could comfortably, elegantly get in and out without even taking your hat off of your head. Now there was style! (Not that people wear hats like that nowadays, other than the sideways baseball cap of a stereotypical blinged-out Escalade driver) But as they bloated, SUVs got harder to get into to the point where they need automagic stepping bars.
As an aside, talking of 1.8L Civics – I have a 2.0L Civic! But even the Civic is bloated (as I opine) as it works to meet Fed regulations, my Si is sitting around 2800 US lbs.!
I would never want the government, or anyone else for that matter, to tell people what we can or should drive. If someone wants to drive an SUV that gets 9 miles to the gallon, that is his or her perogative. This is America, the land of the free. What I do disapprove of, however, is SUV drivers and their lack of knowledge as to the physics of driving them. I drive a sports car, and on those instances when I drive an SUV (usually my sisters Ford Exploder) I am conscious of the higher center of gravity, the longer braking distances, the large blind spots, etc, and drive accordingly. How many times have we seen SUV’s driving too fast for the road conditions, with the driver secure in his belief that since he has an SUV, he has the capability to drive in that fashion. I have been a passenger in SUV’s where I can feel the loss of traction due to weight transfer, or the tires slipping in the rain, yet the driver thinks he is driving safely. I know this does not apply to all SUV drivers, and in fact I can make the same argument about a lot of car drivers. But, a car driver does not have the center of gravity or long brake issues an SUV driver has.
At least we can all agree that three people love SUVs: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud and Hugo Chavez.
Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan, Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah and Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani are also rumored to be big fans.
I believe it was Cervantes who wrote “Tell me thy company, and I’ll tell thee what thou art.”
The comment above about how polarization on every little issue, even SUVs, is tearing this society apart, is dead-on.
My point above (waaay above) was not to suggest that SUV drivers are obese or that powerboats are bad. It was just to say that the “needs” quoted by many SUV buyers are sometimes silly. Really, all you “need” in life is clean water, nutrition, health, and some friends/family.
Now, having said that, I have always had a soft spot for Chev Suburbans.
Are body-on-frame SUV’s responsible for our Deathwatch columns? After all, their existence were the path of least resistance for the Detroit 3 back in the late 80’s onwards, putting cheap big bodies on the backs of pickup trucks, reaping huge profits which were not wisely reinvested for a rainy day. Marketing dollars were spent cultivating the “Me” philosophy to the extreme, with the prime example being the Hummer H2. Big profits, bonuses, rising wages with the UAW, and more b-o-f SUV’s, rather than investing in more efficient technologies and refined passenger cars.
Now, gas prices are on the rise with no end in sight, profits are a distant memory, SUV’s are piling up on lots, and GM fans are left defending less efficient OHV engines in their mainstream passenger cars. A race is on to see who runs out of cash first, GM or Ford, with Chrysler long ago being bought out by Daimler. Maynard postulated in her book, The Death Of Detroit, that by the end of the decade one of the Detroit 3 would no longer exist the way it does today, and she may very well be correct.
I’m all for freedom of choice. Far be it from me to tell ANYBODY what to do or what they can drive. But since SUVs are lifestyle vehicles, don’t complain about gas prices to maintain that lifestyle. I hear complaints everyday from drivers of big SUVs with dubs on them ranting over how the oil companies are screwing them so they can’t afford the gas.
I agree that SUVs have their place. But it’s foolish to ignore the fact that the majority of SUVs are bought because they make their owners look “cool”, even though other “reasons” are given to justify the purchase.
My favorite reason for buying an SUV was from a female friend of mine who is so small, she could make a luxury apartment out of a kitchen pantry cabinet, tell me she needed her Ford Expedition because she felt “cramped” in her regular car.
Certain types of people do seem to harbor great hatred toward SUV owners. Strangely, these same folks somehow fail to notice the kjillions of trailer trucks which account for most of the wear on roadways and bridges, kill and maim people in all sorts of unnecessary traffic accidents, and blast horrendous quantities of burned diesel fuel into the atmosphere, in the course of delivering innumerable tons of plastic Chinese crap to big box stores across the United States. It’s as if SUV-haters fixate on one very, very small tree, and miss the forest entirely! If “responsibility” is at issue, perhaps we should be asking why the Europeans use trains for both personal and cargo transport, yet we do not. It was economically feasible, when population density was a small fraction of what it is today. Why can’t we reconsider a viable rail system? In the meantime, my German Shepherd and I are going to continue to use our (Dodge Ram and Chevy K5 Blazer) 4x4s, off the road, and to haul a Zodiac boat and its very thirsty outboard motor. And we’re going to feel fine about it.
The “kjillioins” of semis on the road are generally as fully loaded as possible. They don’t “deadhead” the way SUVs do.
Jeep Liberty
– External dimensions: overall length (inches): 174.4, overall width (inches): 71.6, overall height (inches): 71.1, ground clearance (inches): 9.4, wheelbase (inches): 104.3, front track (inches): 60, rear track (inches): 59.7 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 35.9
– Weights: gross vehicle weight rating (lbs) 5,600, curb weight (lbs) 4,032, gross trailer weight braked (lbs) 5,000 and max payload (lbs) 1,151
Subaru Forester
– External dimensions: overall length (inches): 175.2, overall width (inches): 68.3, overall height (inches): 65, ground clearance (inches): 7.5, wheelbase (inches): 99.4, front track (inches): 58.9, rear track (inches): 58.5 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 34.8
– Weights: gross vehicle weight rating (lbs) 4,321, curb weight (lbs) 3,135, gross trailer weight braked (lbs) 2,000 and max payload (lbs) 1,186
So here is a no BS comparison if you would like to see them here are the links http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/jeep/liberty/specifications/index.html
http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/subaru/forester/specifications/index.html
For all of you that claim that can’t see the road because ao my monster is in the way the Liberty has less than 10″ of height on the Forrester and less than 4″ of width. If you are going to do away with SUVs than I guess we will have to shut down subaru also.
Mr. Montgomery or anyone,
I’ve found credible sources that say the U.S. produces 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. According to your article then, U.S. cars/trucks account for only 8% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (or as you state 2% of the world’s emissions).
This is counterintuitive to me. I would guess that cars/trucks in the U.S. must account for 15-30% of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
stanshih – i tend to believe the numbers in the article (but i have no independant research to back it up right now). people tend to think that cars are the biggest green house contributors, but that’s because you see them everyday and have a “gut feeling” that cars are bad. but you get much bigger emissions from things like all the coal powerplants in the east where coal is cheap (i’ll skip my rant on why we should be using 100% nuclear power). or unregulated (or at least loosely regulated) factories. or probably a bunch of other things i can’t think of right now. cars are surprisingly clean, it’s just that the media keeps saying cars are bad so everyone thinks that’s the truth.
Superstition6:
Certain types of people do seem to harbor great hatred toward SUV owners. Strangely, these same folks somehow fail to notice the kjillions of trailer trucks
Do you know this for a fact ? have you talked to these “Certain types of people”
Freight will be shipped the cheapest way possiable
Europeans use trains for both personal and cargo transport, yet we do not. It was economically feasible, when population density was a small fraction of what it is today
For this reason the united states
Freight rail by tonne-kilometer per capita
is 7312 vs 641 for the EU.
Mike D,
My qualtitative reasoning isn’t merely a gut feeling. I KNOW that there are over 100 million light vehicles in the U.S. and I KNOW people drive them.
some data: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
I don’t think I have enough data here to deduce the amount of emissions from petroleum-powered vehicles, but an estimate puts the contribution of U.S. cars as being larger than 2% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
FACT 1: U.S. produces ~ 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions
FACT 2: Sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions:
42% Petroleum
37% Coal
21% Natural Gas
THEREFORE: ~ 10% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions stem from U.S. petroleum burning.
More later…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/transport.html
“Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994”
Regretably, this report is over 10 years old (whcih predates much of the surge of discretionary SUV purchases in the U.S.)
“The transportation sector contributes about one-third of
total carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and
other countries that belong to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Annual
worldwide carbon dioxide produced from motor
vehicle use is…about 20 percent of total carbon
dioxide production.”
It appears that U.S. autos contribute somewhere between 5-10% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions (assuming cars/LTs are roughly 50% of our “transportation sector”). But clearly the emissions of motor vehicles is significant accounting for 1/5 of world-wide greenhouse gas emissions. And we all know that Americans account for more than our share of motor vehicles and SUV motor vehicles.
editorial: I’m an ardent free trader/free marketer. I believe that people can do what they want within legal boundaries. However, there are behaviors that are legal, but stupid. For example, you can go into McDonald’s, buy 50 hamburgers, and then throw them in the trash. Similarly, you can go into a car dealer, buy an SUV and then drive 20 miles to your office everyday.
In both cases, you’re well within your rights as an American citizen, but it is wasteful and is creating a bit of a mess for other people.
If you’re buying 50 hamburgers ‘cos you’ve got a party, go for it. If you’re buying an SUV for your work, go for it. I’m with you.
If you’re buying an H2 or FJ for discretionary reasons, go for it. Just don’t expect me to stand by, smile, and give you a thumbs up.
Mr. Farago and Mr. Montgomery,
Please consider finding a solid source for that 2% figure or editing it. I believe the figure to be misleading at best and possibly grossly inaccurate.
It doesn’t reflect well on The Truth About Cars when you can’t find the err.. truth about cars here.
Here are some numbers. I got them from nrel.gov which is a reasonably reliable source, I know 4 scientists who work there and they do great work. The only issue is that NREL (National Renewable Energy Labratories) relies on getting it’s funding by playing up the doomsday aspect of global warming and running out of oil. I’m not saying that it’s not true, but all scientists (including me) have a bias (whether they know it or not), so I tend to view anything I see at NREL as a worst case senario.
Here’s a powerpoint presentation that says that cars and light trucks are 20% of the U.S. greenhouse gasses. (http://search.nrel.gov/cs.html?charset=utf-8&url=http%3A//www.nrel.gov/analysis/seminar/docs/2005/ea_seminar_feb_10.ppt&qt=site%3Awww.nrel.gov+site%3Awww.sst.nrel.gov+site%3Arredc.nrel.gov+||+greenhouse+automobiles&col=eren&n=1&la=en) And if we go with stanshih’s numbers of U.S. is 25% of the greenhouse emissions (I was too lazy to look up what NREL says about that), then we can estimate that U.S. cars and light trucks are 5% of the world’s emissions, which is on the same order of magnitude as the article’s estimation of 2%. I’d say that those two numbers are the same within all the uncertanties in the estimation.
Gaaaah, that URL was too long to get pasted right. I’ll try doing a real link and see if it works.
Hopefuly this gets submitted right (I don’t see the preview button anymore – so I can’t test it).
Mike,
I think that we can agree on the 5% figure. But I disagree on your take that 2 and 5% are equal in this particular case. Some things are hard to measure, but the number of barrels of oils being consumed by the U.S. and where the oil is going (vast majority to cars, light trucks, heavy trucks) is concrete. By extension, the source of emissions can be nailed down very tightly too.
If we could in fact bring car emissions down from 5% to 2%, that would be a huge change. Reasonable measures we as a nation can take to accomplish this include purchasing and driving less SUVs. One of the measures we can NOT take is to continue with the status quo and just pretend that we’re already down to 2%.
Another thing: regardless of the exact percentage, in absolute terms the emmissions are large. Our contributions as a percentage of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions is probably going to go down even if we do nothing because China, India, etc will be producing much more emissions. This doesn’t mean we should stand idly by…
Whatever the size of auto emissions, the reason why it’s so heatedly debated is that it is one source of emissions that we as INDIVIDUALS have the most control over.
I promise not to post anymore re: this article ‘cos Mr. F might put a smackdown and start cuffing us with a word-limit or something =)
MikeD – nice back’n’forth. Will be reading what you have to say in the future.
Can someone explain the CAFE loophole in a little more depth?
My source for the 2% statement was SUVOA. However, due to the interest in this stat I have searched the official governmental statistics. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2003 human activity generated 25,664.14 million metric tons of GHGs. Of that the EPA says that American passenger cars produced 654.6 MMT or 2.55%. Light trucks, which include all SUVs and trucks weighing less than 8,500 lbs, produced another 496.3 MMT for 1.93% of the worldwide total. Combined, American cars and light trucks account for 4.48% of the worldwide total. This source, however, does not distinguish Passenger Vehicles and Light Trucks used by private citizens (the subject of this rant) vs. those used by government and commercial industries.
While I think that segmenting private vehicles from government and commercial vehicles would probably not get the stat down to the 2% put forth by SUVOA, this doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming majority of manmade greenhouse gasses are not generated private US drivers. Global warming could hardly be curtailed if every SUV-owning American traded in their baby for a conventional car.
Original SUVOA source:
http://www.suvoa.com/issues/mythsandfacts/suvfacts01.cfm
EPA report of transportation-generated emissions of GHGs (see Appendix A for figures):
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420r06003.pdf
Energy Information Administration of total GHG emissions by country:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
Which loophole?
1) Vehicles with GVWR > 8500lbs are completely exempt, i.e. Hummer H2, heavy duty pickups & SUV’s. (There’s also a $25k tax deduction for vehicles GVWR > 6000lbs for self employed folks which was temporarily $100k earlier this decade)
2) E85 loophole, where trucks and SUV’s which run E85 are rated by the amount of gas burned per gallon, resulting in EPA ratings in the 30’s as opposed to the low-mid teens.
3) The CAFE loophole I think you’re asking about is that SUV’s are primarily used as passenger vehicles, but are averaged under a carmaker’s CAFE requirements for trucks/SUV’s/minivans, rather than for cars. A car fleet currently (I think) must average 27.5mpg, where a truck fleet 20.7mpg.
3a) Also, cars that fall below a certain mpg (i.e. BMW M5) are assessed a gas guzzler tax, but SUV’s of the same or worse mileage are exempt due to the way the laws are written.
Did I miss any?
Thanks starlightmica, that I think sums it all up….
The important thing to understand about the E85 loophole is that you can buy an E85-capable vehicle–a Ford pickup truck, say–and never in your or its lifetime put a drop of E85 into the fuel tank, yet Ford gets an mpg credit (against its CAFE total) based on the assumption that you are burning nothing but E85. Virtually nobody who buys a greenie E85-capable car or truck has any idea where the nearest–or any–ethanol fuel station is.
a_d_y_a:
I hope Darwin introduces you to the front end of my 06 Ram Megacab before he takes any hardworking SUV owner who is trying to make it and support their families. That goes for anyone wishing harm on someone just for their vehicle choice.
BTW i’d like to see a Subaru tow my 20 foot enclosed racecar trailer. The drivetrain would be sitting beside the car as soon as you tried to move.
BTW if you can’t afford $5 a gallon gas, you should of stayed in school longer.
Cars used to be fun. Now we have cigarette-dicks driving around in Megapenises telling the world to get outa their way.
By the way, if you stayed in school that long, how come you didn’tyou learn grammar?
Yeah Stephan you really know my situation What is it you drive? I also own an 04 RX-8 GT and a 500bhp Eagle Talon TSi. I go in all directions when it comes to my vehicles. From 10mpg to 19mpg in the Renesis and up to 30mpg in the 2800lb 2.0 liter Eagle.
Now what was it you owned again? Believe me I have no problems down there My situation has to do with needing a vehicle that can handle a 6000lb fully loaded trailer with a racecar, air tools, and a grill/paddock setup. Yet some of the comments here, like a_d_v_a’s and yours show no class and no respect for others and their situations.
Grow up.
“I hope Darwin introduces you to the front end of my 06 Ram Megacab before he takes any hardworking SUV owner who is trying to make it and support their families.” – IronEagle
Never mind the lovely sentiment and implicit belief that putting someone else in danger is not the SUV drivers’ problem; I got a newsflash for you. That “hardworking SUV owner” is working hard to support that SUV. The per-mile costs for one of those “compensators” is about a third more than a typical NICE sedan.
If he had his family’s best interests at heart, he’d sell the Dominator and put the money saved into college education funds, investments and term life insurance.
If it was all about ME, I’d have a really sweet ride (not a Dominator but a nice sports machine) instead of 2 kids out of college debt free with savings accounts and good jobs of their own.
“It’s too big, and I can’t see!” I hear this comment a lot.
This started about the time the Avalanche came out.
I don’t know about statistics, but where I live, I’m seeing fewer and fewer SUVs on the roads and in the parking lots.
This began a month or two ago.
But I still see people sitting in their cars and SUVs with the engine running and the AC on; waiting for people, sometimes for as much as an hour! So I don’t believe that fuel economy alone is the reason for the decline in SUV sales and/or ownership.
Only time will tell, of course.
In the meantime, I am very happy with my Prius. Not because of fuel economy alone, either. It’s been a great car, dependable, and very versatile.
And I go “offroad” three times a week! Okay, so I only park it on the lawn. But I’ve never had trouble getting it over those big tree roots!
Miked:
Dude, the cure for long URLs is http://www.tinyurl.com
I use it quite a lot. Here’s that ppt link:
http://tinyurl.com/ewddl
Virtually nobody who buys a greenie E85-capable car or truck has any idea where the nearest–or any–ethanol fuel station is.
True dat — I was interested to discover an E-85 pump being installed in my town (currently a big hole in the ground with yellow gear parked by the side); so I immediately looked up exactly which flex-fuels models are currently available from those US auto companies who keep yapping about them.
And I was appalled at the very limited choice of absolute crap that is actually available. Just some of the ugliest nursing-home crowd boats and most gas-guzzling land behemoths. Disgusting, I wouldn’t take any of that garbage for free.
I think we can get serious about E85 only when Toyota and Honda get on board.
MikeD writes
>>stanshih – i tend to believe the numbers in the article (but i have no independant research to back it up right now). people tend to think that cars are the biggest green house contributors, but that’s because you see them everyday and have a “gut feeling†that cars are bad. but you get much bigger emissions from things like all the coal powerplants in the east where coal is cheap (i’ll skip my rant on why we should be using 100% nuclear power). or unregulated (or at least loosely regulated) factories. or probably a bunch of other things i can’t think of right now. cars are surprisingly clean, it’s just that the media keeps saying cars are bad so everyone thinks that’s the truth.
Home heating is a substantial source of greenhouse gases, and one that could be reduced if the gov’t would subsidize heating conservation measures. I use similar amounts of oil to heat my house and fuel my car. But for the homeowner, it doesn’t make economic sense to do a lot of conservation (insulation retrofits, modern energy efficient windows etc.) unless you are going to be in your home for years, and I think the average American moves about every five years. But it is dfinitely in the best interest of the United States to put money into reducing home energy use.
Great article Mr. Montgomery!
And it fits TTAC perfectly. Finally, someone with the cojones to actually speak the truth about SUV’s.
The tons of comments by the emotionally wounded anti-SUV crowd trying to justify their unreasoning hatred of… a… VEHICLE, is hillarious. Of course, it’s not really the vehicle, it’s the vehicles owner, and lifestyle, that they actually hate. Just like the Islamic terrorists hatred of America… and for the same reasons. They just can’t stand other peoples personal freedom.
There are a lot of reasons not to like SUVs for the car enthusiast:
Their heaviness and high bumpers have forced other cars to step up safety measures to the point where a Mini weighs a ton, thereby impeding handling gains that could be gained for sport cars and sedans. Also making it harder to get better mileage for those cars as well.
So you went off-road? Wow! That is just great… except it is not like you couldn’t have rented your SUV for the one week that you needed it. They block the view of other drivers which is just annoying. Sure they get terrible mileage, so much so that auto manufacturers classify them as trucks to avoid ruining their average mileages. The real problem is that they generally handle like pigs, their high center of gravity means they couldn’t slalom worth a damn, and frankly, what fun is that? And why would a car enthusiast want to even get behing the wheel of a big floating barge anyway? I am including the Jeep and Porsche in that assessment, they might be fast, but they still will never compare to a nice sports wagon.
As the former owner of a Porsche Cayenne, I couldn’t agree more.
akatsuki:
I’m not saying that all car enthusiasts should like SUVs, everyone is entitled to their preferences, and I certainly don’t think that everyone should own one. I do condemn the double standard used by many sports car elitists that attack SUVs for having some of the same problems that sports cars have: gas mileage, lack of practicality, underutilization by the driving public of the vehicle’s designed tasks, and safety. If Ralph Nader and his ilk ran the world no one would be enjoying sports cars or SUVs. Why encourage them.
Perhaps you should be the one renting a sports car every time you feel the urge to drive a slalom course. Otherwise you should be condemned to drive a car that conforms to an idealized standard of fuel economy, safety, handling, comfort, and practicality.
I agree with you in regard to the ridiculous SUV aberrations such as the Grand Cherokee HEMI, BMW X5, et al. SUVs make really bad street racers for the reasons you cite. To gut SUVs of their off-road sport prowess in an effort to make a street racer robs them of their raison d’être. Makes no sense to me.