Speaking of sports utility vehicles, consider the philosophy developed by Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism identified pain and pleasure as the only absolutes and declared that “whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people” is, well, great (even if it isn’t so great for the people who don’t make the cut). By this standard, America’s gas-guzzling SUV’s were once a very good thing; the lumbering behemoths brought the majority of American motorists tremendous, not-to-say guilt free pleasure. And then, they didn’t. And now Detroit’s feeling the pain.
In July, GM’s truck sales slipped 31.2%, Ford’s fell 44.8% and Chrysler’s dropped 41%. Obviously, the whole SUV thing is on the skids. Sure, thousands of Big Three executives and middle managers continue to hold a candle for the genre, hoping against hope that America’s automotive “fickleness” resolves itself, so that the gold rush can resume. But any rational person knows that the winds of change have blown that candle out. Any car company with a truck-heavy sales mix, any automobile manufacturer without a competitive line of cars, is, as they say, shit out of luck.
Baby, baby, baby; where did our love go? The simple answer: gas prices went up and truck buyers bailed out. The more accurate answer: Americans were bored of their SUV’s long before triple digit refills. The rising cost of gas simply cranked-up the average SUV buyer’s automotive ennui. I mean, why pay a premium at the pump for something you’re not so crazy about in the first place– especially if it’s trying to kill you. Yes, there is that. I reckon SUV’s music died when the Ford Explorer burst tire rollover debacle debuted. The genre’s Marlboro Man image was revealed as something of a cruel joke. Customers started asking questions.
Like what the Hell am I doing driving an SUV? Take away the SUV’s mantle of invincibility and all you’re left with is a large, tippy-over feeling, fuel-sucking vehicle that’s not very good at carrying kit and caboodle and damn hard to park. Obviously, some buyers drove SUV’s because they were the best vehicle for the job, a cheap way to tow, ford (small f) and schlep through challenging terrain and conditions. But the majority of SUV owners were simply indulging in an automotive fad. When the vehicular fashion statement was [literally] up-ended by thoughts of death, it was only a matter of time before it completely lost its luster.
Even as the SUV boom boomed, the media and social groups sowed the seeds of its demise. They demonized SUV’s for their lack of safety (and killer prows), environmental damage and prodigious thirst. It was the anti-fur thing all over again: a small group of highly motivated activists forcing a sea change in public perception. The anti-SUV groups’ one-two-three punch set ‘em up, gas prices knocked ‘em down.
These days, the SUV’s owners face a new problem: how to ditch their trucks when everyone else is trying to do the same. Trade-in values on SUV’s are so low they’re laughable– unless you happen to hold paper on one. Which creates a vicious circle; if you get burned on your old SUV, you sure as Hell ain’t gonna buy a new one. As hard as it is to believe, Detroit has an even bigger problem than how to coax SUV buyers out of their old rigs into a new one without giving all the trucks’ profits away. Now what?
Now nothing. The Big Three’s mainstream products are on a three year development cycle. We’re not even a year into Detroit’s realization that yes, SUV sales have tanked and they ain’t coming back. (“We’re selling Tahoes as fast as we can make them” Bob Lutz. 3.1.06) While the automakers are rushing new cars and strange beasts (i.e. crossovers) into their lineups, hoping to catch the “next big thing” before they’re sucked into Chapter 11 or divestiture, these non-truck products must compete against lean, mean competitors who own the car market lock, stock and market share. And as much as they’re trying, the Big Three can’t simply shut off the SUV spigot. Inventories of unsold SUV’s will get a lot worse before they get any better.
What a travesty. While American liberals feel vindicated at the mere mention of the Bush administration’s “intelligence failure” in Iraq, few auto industry reporters have made much of Detroit’s abject failure to anticipate the shift away from SUV’s. This despite the fact that all three Detroit automakers shell-out tens of millions of dollars to Armani-clad consultants to detect, analyze and forecast consumer trends, to create forward planning. Clearly, Detroit no longer knows how to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of American consumers. And that means that they're not so great anymore.
State government here is trying to get state money for economic
development to support the GM stamping plant here that is slated to
close in the fall. The union refused to reduce pay, the
management/owners refused to keep their facility modern, GM sales
affected it…it was all a cocktail of disaster. A few tax breaks won't
save that local company…it is just a symptom of what is discussed
here daily. I don't enjoy seeing jobs leave, but it does make me smile
a bit when I read over and over from the union that any troubles are
made up by management to scare them away from their rightful pay and
benefits. They made the claim that they would rather see their plant
close, than to cave in on these made up demands. Now that it is all
happening, you don't hear a peep out of the union. The company gave up
all hope, and isn't even trying to find a way to get new business
anymore. The arrogance on all parties makes a man just want to slap
them all across the face once or twice, tell them to pull their heads
out of their butts and start thinking with a little logic. Management
should have been reinvesting in their facility. Every company that does
not reinvest has major problems. It defies all logic not to do so. As
far as the union, any high school graduate can read an excel graph
showing a line heading downwards. How can you say a problem doesn't
exist when all of us can see the graph showing sales dropping, profit
heading the other way, the cost of everything going up, etc. A smooch
of logic there should have shown that this wasn't blustering. That was
one of the few remaining manufacturing jobs here. As if WV needed more
ammo for the "we're all unemployed" stereotype. Sorry so long.
Great way of putting the whole SUV fad. I really don't understand why anyone in the Tubes or in Dearborn (or Auburn Hills, but they at least had a merger going on) couldn't see this one coming either. Fads are fads. They damn well knew that SUV sales were driven by fashion. Fashions change.
To have leveraged oneself so heavily on one type of vehicle is foolish and irresponsible. Granted, it's been coming a long time and took a *lot* longer to play out than I would have anticipated, but right around the time of the first cash back offers in 2001 it should have been loud and clear: Those who live by the sword can still die by bazooka.
Why they couldn't see it coming? They were blinded by greed, pure and simple.,
Fads are fads, but because of improvements, miniscule as they are, in domestic build quality, we are going to be stuck with these beasts for at least the next decade as they wind their way through the used car market, probably becoming even more threatening to their smaller road companions as over-loaded steering, brake, wheel and tire assemblies fatigue with age and neglect.
Every designer I know in Detroit says the same thing- they present small cars over and over again in sketch reviews. But management, STILL, even NOW, doesn't feel the urgency. It's egotism mired in complacency to the bitter end. And to the demise of, oh, everyone who works there, their families, and the economy of Detroit Metro, the economy of Michigan, and what, 1 in 9 jobs in the US?
Those Armani-clad coffee-sucking consultants aren't hired to tell their clients what the next fad will be. They're hired to tell how to manufacture the next fad. SUVs saved Detroit's bacon when their product pipelines had nothing else coming to save the business. The idea of selling a big body-on-frame truck as a Lincoln or Cadillac was brilliant at the time.
If you watch the retail world you'll find that toys only work through two Christmas seasons: once as the newest fad, and once for all the kids whose mommies didn't sell a kidney to buy one on eBay the first year. In the third Christmas season some other toy has the chance to become the next hot thing. SUVs are in their third Christmas now. Everyone who didn't buy one when they were a novelty has had their opportunity to buy one by now. New SUVs litter the dealer parking lots like so many unsold Amazing Amandas on the discount shelf at a Toys-R-Us.
Personally I'm asking Santa for a hot hatch this Christmas.
And meanwhile, over in the idiot's corner (autoblog.com) the commenters are busy tossing grenades at Toyota for building reliable, so-called boring cars. It's all Toyota's fault, all of it.
Yeah, right.
I'm glad I found TTAC, and I spend a LOT less time at autoblog. I'd rather be around people who post with some intelligence.
Thanks, Robert, for doing such a great site.
mixz1, nothing new under the sun. I recall thinking years ago, wow, it is going to take a LONG time for these mid-1970's Americanus Gashogius to wend their way through the used car lots as they get older, penalizing the poorer people the whole time – thank goodness when some sense began to prevail in the 1980s and smaller cars became more acceptable to the US public.
And then SUVs came along.
Deja Vu.
Detroit's addition to big-profit SUVs came at the expense of their car line's product development. Even as far backas 1998, the heydey of the SUV craze, I was talking to a manager at the Arlington GM plant (which produced Tahoes and Yukons) and he said that at the time, 90% of GM's profit came from these vehicles, and that the company lost money on just about every car they made. I asked what would happen if these trucks ever fell out of favor and his answer would violate FCC rules :)
SUV are trucks, not cars, and should be dealt with as such, which seems to be too much to ask for the soccer-mom crown that bought these things in droves. If driven properly, there are safe (at least smile as you pass under my bumper!)
The sad part is that Detroit never seems to learn its lesson about the high cost of shortsightedness. They should've learned it 30 years ago (replace "SUV" with "land yacht" and you get the idea). This tiime, they may not stick around long enough to apply their education.
Recommended reading: High and Mighty, by Keith Bradsher (2002). Warning: it's very anti-SUV.
I learned quite a bit from this book, such as why SUV's are boxy: post-WW II, Willys had to deal with the shortage of sheet metal and body stamping machines by resorting to appliance suppliers, who could only stamp out flat body panels. Jeeps have been boxy since, and the styling stuck when the 1984 Jeep Cherokee was introduced, followed by the Explorer a few years later. The psychological studies of SUV buyers were, well, interesting.
I think there is/was a financial reason for some of the SUVs' popularity for small business. Since they are classified as a truck, they have federal income-tax advantages that can not be accessed with a car. Safety issues: My mental poll of single car accident scenes I've driven by, gives the distinct impression that SUVs are over represented in "the rubber side up" category. I've seen too many, parked on their roof with no other damage, sitting strangley alone.
My wife drives an 03 JIMMY 2DR not a bad little truck.and more important she likes it. However she is gonna have to like it for a long time.GM discounted them out here for 03.04,05 model years and sold thousands of em.
This morning the price of gas is 1.08 a litre [roughly 3.90 US A GALLON ]3 G.M. dealers in my area each have 5 or 6 2dr JIMMYS /BLAZERS on the used lot .
I figure 3 maybe 4yrs of driving the JIMMY might recover some of my money.
I would have to think I am not the only one in this position, so I think the SUV
will be around for some time yet.
I was at a Ford dealership the other day test driving a Five Hundred and a Fusion. The place was a complete ghost town, 90% their inventory were trucks and no one was buying. The Honda dealership, on the other hand, was packed.
I for one am glad to see them go, I hate driving on roads dominated by SUVs that would probably crush the life out of me should anything bad happen.
The auto companies were drinking their own Kool Aid on SUVs. It's not that they should have seen the end coming and didn't–it's that they should have known from the very beginning that one day, like all bubbles, this one would burst, and a Plan B should have been ready.
You see, they were really good at tapping into this one particular persuasive weakness Americans have. It's the same one that causes poor people to vote for tax cuts for the rich (hint: it's not their thorough acceptance of the Laffer Curve): the belief that one day, they will fulfill that dream too.
No, it's not the house with the white picket fence, it's the cowboy off-road, driving to the top of mount everest and camping with no tent male fantasy. SUV commercials show their cars kicking up dust, slamming through snow banks, and… doing something that most people do at most once a year.
And even if these things actually REDUCED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would still be annoying. That same driver that couldn't comprehend the traffic laws in her 1989 Accord is now lurking in your grocery store's parking lot, while the body shop owner drools.
I have to say that I have always been bemused by the SUV craze. Even when gas prices were much lower than today, these were expensive vehicles to maintain and operate relative to cars or even minivans. They also handle poorly and are, simply put, boring as hell. I came to the conclusion that SUV drivers aren't car people, in that they don't understand or appreciate any type of vehicle propeled by an internal combustion engine. Recently I have noticed another phenomenon that I think should be explored further. I believe the rise of SUV's has paralleled the rise of obesity in America. Some of the people I see getting out of SUV's, and this often includes their children, couldn't be shoe-horned into my car (G35 Coupe) even after a liberal application of bacon grease to their corpulent selves. These people are being forced to abandon their SUV's because their fuel bill is begining to impede their caloric intake. They are being forced to choose between a gallon of gas or super sizing that #6 combo. Detroit can't compete against McDonalds. So in the future we can look forward to seeing Accords and Camrys lumbering down our roadways with seriously compromised suspensions and brakes no longer adequate to retard the momentum of their rotund occupants. Here is an idea for the big 2 1/2. Build a compact car with large door openings, reinforced seating, beefed-up suspensions and air brakes to retain these former SUV owners.
We've had several bad oil price shocks since 1973. Each time we experience one, the Japanese grab more market share off the lower end of the market.
Nobody at Ford or GM saw this one coming?
And Ford and GM sowed some of the seeds of their current discomfort through their own advertising. Remember the GM (Chevy, perhaps) ad which used trick photography to show their pickup as LARGER than heavy construction equipment? Remember the Ford ad that demonstrated the Ford pickup was LARGE enough to lift a semi? Ford and GM were attempting to instill a need – well, desire – on the part of the consumer for a BIG vehicle. To pump up demand for a BIG vehicle. They spent a lot of money trying to bend consumer demand.
Suddenly, it has occurred to the consumer that maybe he doesn't need a truck that's bigger than heavy construction equipment. That he has no need to lift a semi. But Ford and GM are now stigmatized as offering nothing but LARGE vehicles.
Gas today is $2.89. The price of ego has gone up.
Having trouble getting these comments to upload again.
So if this comment comes twice, apologies.
Anyway, mexz1, you're right. I recall years ago when smaller cars started becoming more acceptable to Americans (the 1980s) when I thought to myself, it is going to take over a decade to get these Americanus Gasohogus 1970s cars through all the used car lots, and they are going to do nothing but harm the poorest people in our society who rely upon aged carss.
I have to say that I was apalled when SUVs became popular.
Well, deja vu, because here wee are back at square one again.
Meanwhile, over on the autoblog dot com website, the less intelligent commentators are trashing Toyota for building such boring cars.
Thanks, Robert, for making this site possible and thanks, everyone, for your good and intelligent comments herein. I'm spending a lot less time at autoblog, I can tell you.
great editorial! My only wish is that it was in podcast form as well. It is easier for those of us playing from work to listen and work, than to read something and work. Plus, when I read these things, I imagine Farago reading them anyway (discovered this site through the podcast after all) and we might as well get the real thing.
No sweat. I'll record it later today…
There once was a time in America, when people loved station wagons with wood side panelling real or fake. (Shudder). That too, lasted for a couple of decades.
So, there was a precedent in the industry. I am too young to remember how the big three at the time managed the transition to the next trend. But clearly cars like the joy of all Soccer mom's, the Lexus RX 300 in itr first issue rang the death bell for the behemoth loud and clear. The current RX 350, the spin off's like Mazda's CX-9 etc fly off the shef!!
I am hesitant to name the Ford Escape, the Chevy Equinox in the same breath as the above mentioned crossover vehicles, since their departure from SUV'dom is not radical enough to (once again) stem the tide of the stylish asians. Looks like this is where the love has gone to. Even my wife after two A4 Avant is chomping at the bit for a cerain hybrid…. It might be an RX for disaster for daddy's plans to a bigger better boat, oh, well!!
It's funny how the media only mentions the rising cost of fuel as the catalyst for the SUV's eventual demise, and never the fact that its a fad that people have lost interest in. I didn't even really think of the fad angle until Farago hit on it, but it's totally true. The once "rugged" image of these trucks was obliterated once they became used (and eventually marketed as) surragate minivans and station wagons for people "too cool" for minivans and station wagons. The fad is over. Poseurs have moved on, and only the people who have a legitimate need for an SUV will continue to buy them. Unfortunatly for Detroit, the number of people with a legitimate need for an SUV is pretty minute compared with the number of people with a legitimate need for a Camry or Accord.
The really dangerous thing is that many of the used SUVs will be sold to those who can't afford to pay a lot, i.e. kids, endangering the rest of us all the more. Personally, I think the US Gov't should buy them up, and send them to Iraq.
Anyway, Mr. Farago, thanks for my morning fix.
I don't think there is any question that they knew this was coming. They just had such a short-term mentality that they didn't care. It is hard for them to understand that the low margin small car is the most important vehicle in their lineup. It is the first experience a person has with a new car and will forever influence their views of that make.
Anti-SUV groups rightly recognized tha SUVs were for people who just cared about image and nothing else. They were less fun to drive than a sedan. Less space efficient than a minivan. And less useful by any metric than any other vehicle out there. Their apparent safety is quesitonable as well. Sure they were environmentally unsound also, but the real issue for a car enthusiast is that an SUV is not an enthusiast vehicle in any sense of the word. Their steering is numb and they weigh too much. Plus when you finally do get a real vehicle, you can't see around them. Okay maybe the Tim Allen, more power and more steel, crowd likes them…
American car companies need to realize that most people would rather buy a Korean car. That their name is in the toilet. That the Chinese are coming and will eat them for lunch because they don't have a single product (besides the Corvette), that is tops in their class.
Well fine! I registered in order to comment about this subject.
We have a 2001 Tahoe which I love. Quiet, nice ride and I'm not on the ground feeling like a mouse under an elephant's foot. We'd like to get a car with better milage but my husband and I are retired and on a fixed income. We also have a 2000 Dodge Caravan. It gets good milage and that is what we are driving at the moment around town.
Perusing replacement for either or both is the problem. We don't want to be in a toy car and what we see available doesn't offer much in the way of better milage without going back into debt instead of paying a little more for gasoline and not paying interest on a new car. For example, we like the Murano. When you compare the milage, it isn't that much better than we get on a trip with the Tahoe and is insignificent compared to the Dodge.
What are we doing? Nothing at the moment.
For the record, Toyota's truck and SUV sales were up 1.5% in July.
As a recovering SUV Addict, all I can say is PREACH ON! I'm slowly admitting that perhaps I didn't need to own one over the past 10 years before I traded it earlier this year on a new Acura TSX. My main impetus was that I wanted something different and sporty, but the gas-mileage monster and falling value loomed in the background. While it was true that I needed 4WD in many situations (ahh…Pittsburgh weather), it just wasn't enough of a justification in the end. 2 things I miss though – being up higher, and the cargo space. There were many weekends that the back of my Trailblazer and preceeding Bravada had furniture, bricks, paint or whatever stuffed in the back and hauled around. Perhaps I'd have been better off with a small pickup (can we get a friggin TDI pickup in the US for this purpose, please? someone? anyone?).
But I don't miss the SUV as much as I thought I would. And driving is more fun now than it has been in quite a long time for me.
Part of the SUV hell was created by Domestic marketers seducing US buyers into what seemed like high content vs. price paid. Margins on sedans were dwindling and "trucks" didn't have to deal with as much of those pesky safety, emissions and mileage requirements. Trucks were cheap to fluff up, “power”-ize to make accessible to more drivers and returned killer margins to the dealers! Bingo – instant FAD.
Buyers bought into it because it seemed like they were getting a lot for their money and who cares about stuff like fuel economy? The chickens are sure coming home to roost now – but everyone has to suffer. SUV drivers seem to have no sense of their vehicle speed and dynamics and terrorize the rest of us drivers (at least in Houston!). The worst part is that we’ll have to live with these dinosaurs deteriorating before our eyes and on our roads for years to come.
Remember how long it took for those giant ‘70s boats to disappear?
Damn, how timely!
I was delayed 25 minutes today by a triple SUV rollover accident on the interstate. One of them, a Chevy Tahoe, was like this: /_/ instead of this: I_I after rolling multiple times. Someone was lucky to live (maybe – still not indicated on the web if the AG's office was called to investigate) after that one – no glass left on the greenhouse whatsoever. Reading the CHP info page, someone was thrown by another SUV there, the vehicle left unrecognizable on the shoulder, still on its side.
My wife drives a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and yeah, I was glad to have it to drive the rutted rocky road to Scout Camp the past two weekends. But otherwise, it scares the hell out of me. I don't like driving it because I KNOW what I'm programmed to do to avoid an accident – steer away from it. In an SUV, you're on a barstool with wheels, so that's not a healthy thing to do.
Why people – sorry, steroeotyping here – especially women, feel SAFER in these death traps, I cannot fathom. I'll be glad to see gas prices drive some of them to be roomy homeless shelters.
I believe most SUV owners are not car people, in that they don't understand or appreciate vehicles propelled by internal cumbustion engines. People passionate about vehicles focus on their interaction with automotive technology. The measure of a great vehicle is how much it allows the driver to be involved in the process of delivering the power created by the motor to the wheels propelling the vehicle. To enjoy such a vehicle you must be focused. The SUV's I've driven don't require much attention. This is keeping in mind that modern SUV's carry virtually none of the genetics of their off-roading ancestors. It is not difficult for people to abandon a vehicle that they chose primarily as a fashion statement.
There is another group of SUV owners that I find worrying. I believe the growth of SUV ownership mirrored the rise of obesity in America. Many of the people, and this includes children, that I see emerge from SUV's couldn't be shoe-horned into my
G35 Coupe if you liberally smeared them with bacon grease first. These people are now being forced to choose between a gallon of gas or a super-sized #6 combo. Detroit cannot compete with McDonalds. We can look forward to Accords and Camrys trundling down our roadways with seriously compromised suspensions and brakes not designed to retard the momentum of the corpulent occupants. To retain these customers, Detroit needs to design compact cars with larger door openings, reinforced seating, beefed-up suspensions and air brakes. Where there is a drive-thru there will be a way.
Those who don't learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them
The big 2.5 were either caught napping again or had their collective heads in the sand thinking SUV sales (and resulting profits) would last forever. The same thing happened in the 70's when they were selling V8 barges while OPEC turned off the taps.
The storm clouds for fuel prices were apparent to me as far back as 1999, when prices first started creeping up in my area. There are too many people being paid too much money not to see that the SUV party could end at anytime. Instead of buying up derelict companies, money should have been spent on building a strong full vehicle lineup, instead of buying boutique brands and more and more SUV's.
The fact is, the SUV was sucessful because of strong marketing, it is neither a "Sport" vehicle or possesses superior "utility" (unless you tow a trailer).
Being late to the party actually helped the imports, as they had no truck frames to build their SUV's off of, and resorted to use car platforms. The lighter "crossovers" are still in a position to grow, where as the bottom has fallen out for the big, bulky SUV.
I believe most SUV owners are not car people, in that they don't understand or appreciate vehicles propelled by internal cumbustion engines. People passionate about vehicles focus on their interaction with automotive technology. The measure of a great vehicle is how much it allows the driver to be involved in the process of delivering the power created by the motor to the wheels propelling the vehicle. To enjoy such a vehicle you must be focused. The SUV's I've driven don't require much attention. This is keeping in mind that modern SUV's carry virtually none of the genetics of their off-roading ancestors. It is not difficult for people to abandon a vehicle that they chose primarily as a fashion statement.
There is another group of SUV owners that I find worrying. I believe the growth of SUV ownership mirrored the rise of obesity in America. Many of the people, and this includes children, that I see emerge from SUV's couldn't be shoe-horned into my
G35 Coupe if you liberally smeared them with bacon grease first. These people are now being forced to choose between a gallon of gas or a super-sized #6 combo. Detroit cannot compete with McDonalds. We can look forward to Accords and Camrys trundling down our roadways with seriously compromised suspensions and brakes not designed to retard the momentum of the corpulent occupants. To retain these customers, Detroit needs to design compact cars with larger door openings, reinforced seating, beefed-up suspensions and air brakes. Where there is a drive-thru there will be a way.
This SUV craze is similar to the minivan fad of the late 1990's. At that time everyone wanted a van for its size and cargo capacity (remember the media labeled these owner's "soccer moms"). The introduction of the "new" Trailblazer as well as other SUV offerings from Ford and GM led to this new SUV craze. Like all fads, the "cool" stigma has worn off and gas prices are dealing the domestics their final knock-out blow. I remember Bob Lutz responding to a reporter at one of the auto shows a few years back. The reporter asked (to paraphrase) "What do you think about the imports (aka Toyota and Honda) steadily increasing their market share in car sales?" Bob's response was typical: "If they want to pursue a diminishing market, let them. We will continue to make profitable vehicles." Now the tide has turned on Rick and Bob, and they have no clue as to why. Keep in mind GM has already re-vamped their car line and they still can't play ball with the imports.
Every designer I know in Detroit says the same thing– small cars are presented over and over again in sketch reviews. But amongst the management class, there's STILL no sense of urgency. It's denial to the bitter end, apparently. And, it's to the demise of, oh, everyone who works at the OEMs, their families, the economy of Detroit Metro and Michigan, and what: 1 in 9 jobs in the US?
Well thought out, well said. This is the TTAC-goodness that initially caught my eye and got me writing again. Bravo!
I have been waiting for the day when the SUV craze finally met it's
maker. Living in the snowbelt has really made me come to hate the SUV,
and its "invincible" drivers.
This winter season I
just hope that they feel miserable driving their invincible SUV before
they put it into a ditch, rather than after.
Here's the door, "me too" SUV's. Don't let it hit you on the ass on your way out, lest ye tip over.
We are a fickle and stupid people. Or maybe just memory challenged.
In the '70's, I saw billboards with a picture of planet earth superimposed over a gas gauge pointing towards E, and the caption below read, "What now?"
As gas prices rose and gas lines formed everywhere, the common thinking was that cheap gas and large vehicles are gone, and they're never coming back.
So about 25 years later we get cheaper gas and SUV's on the road. 'What problem?' People will again be reactionary, and move towards the small, efficient cars like they did in the '70's which permitted the Japanese a large foothold in the US. This time, though, the fallout may be the death of some domestic auto makers, and maybe the UAW with them. In their weakened states, the stakes have gotten bigger.
OR – maybe it cycles back the other way in the next 10-15 years, with everybody in small mini-whatevers burning bio-whatever, until they get sick of that and we have some large version of what people have been convinced they need to drive. Until the next time…
OR – maybe we all decide that we're going to do what makes sense not only for ourselves, and our families, but for the community around us, other drivers on the roads, for our country, and for the air that we all breathe, and make reasonable decisions. The challenge isn't to do away with anything vehicular having a large mass and large carrying capacity – it's to just think of the larger picture and your place in it, and act accordingly. You can still make yourself happy while you're taking into account the larger picture.
Something about having a short memory and thinking short term and selfishly.
For the record, Toyota truck and SUV sales were 1.5% in July.
Take three…
This editorial was extremely timely. I was delayed on the way to work today by a TRIPLE SUV rollover accident on the interstate. The Chevy Tahoe on the left had no glass left, and the force of the rollover left the entire cab canted about 20 degrees. According to the CHP webpage, someone was thrown from the SUV on the right, still on its side and left unrecognizable. They were still on the scene almost two hours later, so there may have been at least one fatality.
My wife loves her Jeep Grand Cherokee. Yes, I was glad to have it to traverse the rutted rocky road to Scout Camp the past two weekends. Otherwise, it scares the Hell outta me because I know what I'm programmed to do to avoid a crash: Steer away from it. When driving a barstool with wheels, that's not a healthy thing to do.
I personally will be very glad to see high gas prices drive at least some of these beasts off the road to become the roomy homeless shelters they should be.
Lieberman: 1.5% up or down? Not that there's much of a difference with that little change!
Senator Lieberman:
1.5% up? Or 1.5% of their total sales?
And what about Honda?
How much of that 1.5% was the hybrid Highlander?
Up — Toyota truck and SUV sales were up 1.3%.
The article I read (an AP story) credited Toyota's perceived environmentalism as the reason for the jump.
Which… is sad because I believe Toyota's trucks and SUVs are more polluting and bigger gas hogs than GM's
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14136797/
Another BIG problem is going to happen because the resaleprices are so low. Tese oversized vehicles are about to become one of the main types of vehicles poorer folks can afford. And with the costs of gas and insurance they won't be able to properly maintain them. So we're going to have BIG HEAVY trucks with badly maintained brakes, shocks and tires – and the owners are going to crash them a lot because of the inherently poor vehicle dynamics and the poorer condition of them. Shudder…
Like overconfident SUV drivers, American automakers, never known for vision or thinking beyond the current model year (or even the next quarter), have SUV'd themselvesinto a spot they can't easily get out of. They don't have any cars thatrise above the crowd, build quality remains mediocre, and they have so conditioned the public to deep discounts that everyone knows if youdon't buy it this month another deal will be along before long. In not paying attention to changes in the market and only looking for immediate profits heyhave forgotten the First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
According to an Associated Press article I saw this AM, Toyota was the number 1 selling marque in June, taking the spot for the first time, primarily due to the large number of SUVs and trucks languishing on dealers' lots.
Having had an SUV, I admit they have their uses, but then so do 10-wheel dump trucks. But even though they'll be around for at least another decade while the used SUV inventory wears out and dies off, I look forward to not having to deal with them on the roads.
oh yeah. right on. btw, to the guy whose wife has a jimmy – those are really good trucks. better than most modern suvs. and they hold up really well (I have a friend whose has a still running strong 89 jimmy). I read a study somewhere that pointed out that if you already have an suv, it's much more cost-effective to drive it for its life, than to sell it and buy a fuel efficient car. it takes like 20 years of gas savings to cover the cost of a new purchase.
I agree with the Schmu – if the unions at GM don't start designing better cars, GM is in a world of hurt.
Unfortunately, as much as I despise SuchUneconomicalVehicles clogging our roadways and polluting our air, I don't see them as a fad. All the "retro-new" cars (new-Beetle, new-MINI etc.) are fads that will one day fade in popularity as quickly as last year's Gucci handbag. SlowUglyVehicles cater to the part of the American dream where everyone wants to be a cowboy, build a homestead, and give the finger to all around. In the real world of urban living, most homeowner associations won't let you tie up horses and there's only one parking slot in the apartment complex, so if you still want to carry the 2.2 offspring, pickup some lavender paint from Home Depot and let everyone know you don't give a damn what they think, a Safety'sUnimportantVehicle is the only way to go. I don't blame the auto manufacturers for catering to a need, I do blame them for making a wastefull product that is dangerous to those both inside and out.
In Europe, where the populace have been city dwellers since before the USA existed, the few owners of SeldomUsedVehicles are seen as a bunch of poseurs (or the equally derided landed gentry) $8/gallon gas doesn't help either.
Mr. Farago,
Thanks for my morning fix.
The most dangerous thing about the way SUV resale values are tanking is that testosterone poisoned kids are going to be buying them, although we can be grateful that the price of gas will limit how far they can drive them. I think the gov't should buy them all up and send them to Iraq for the insurgents. Then, either the insurgents will be so grateful they'll like us, and quit fighting, or they'll kill themselves off (nobody tell them to beware of Greeks bearing gifts).
One thing that's sad about the SUV craze is that we might have had some interesting American cars if it had never happened.
Showing off their arrogance, greed, and lack of vision beyond the next quarter's sales numbers, domestic automakers' love of high margin SUVs has gotten them–much like some SUV drivers–into a space that can't readily get out of. And with a preponderance of boring cars in their stables as alternatives they have once again encountered and ignored The First Rule of Holes: When you find your self in one, stop digging.
According to an Associated Press article I saw this A.M., Toyota sold more vehicles in the US in June than any other car maker. This is the first time this has happened and I doubt it will be the last. The article noted that domestic car companies' dependence on fuel thirsty SUVs and light trucks, along with periodic deep discount pricing (you can always wait for the next sale) are all part of the problem, and that while one month is not a trend, it could well be a harbinger of things to come.
Thanks Mr. F for another fine editorial. I agree with ctowne that GM and Ford simply put too many chips on SUV development. It isn't wrong to develop SUVs (Toyota came out with a bunch of new trucks and SUVs too), it's just bad business not to hedge a little.
Three or four or five years ago, Toyota hedged. They developed the FJ, Highlander, Tundra etc. But they also developed high MPG cars: Yaris x2, Scion x3, Prius and new Corolla probably coming soon.
If gas had remained cheap, GM and Ford might be doing OK. As it is, GM is hurting and I think Ford (the brand that depends even more on trucks than GM) as we know it will be done within a year.
I posted twice, too. Nada.
This reminds me of what I've seen/heard/read of the British Laylend downfall. Bad cars, shitty union antics, inter-competition, and better import products….
It really is sad how history tends to repeat itself.
I went to my local Ford dealer to look at a Focus wagon with side air bags. I took a test drive. The car goes fine and handles great. However, the interior even in the top trim package was cheesy.
They had just one!!!! With a bad paint job on the wagon hatch bottom (the #1 place for rust to start) and only seven Focuses total. They however had 171 SUVs and PUs in stock. They were also arrogant about "how much demand there is for the Focus".
I want a small wagon with side airbags but these assholes were too much for me-here I was ready to buy and this is the shit I get?
Maybe I'll try Saturn. I want some hauling capacity, good in town mileage, and side airbags. I drive a heavier vehicle for my long distance xway driving.
I do the gas math over and over ($3/gal versus $4/gal and up) and come to the same conclusion:
It's cheaper to buy gas for my SUV than to replace the SUV with a car. Why? Because I got a KILLER deal on a used Trooper and it's PAID OFF!!
Call me a contrarian investor in autos. But, hey, the world ain't going to end for me even at $5 gallon. Because I saved THAT much money buying a used top-heavy gas-sucking SUV!
What amazes me is the Ivory Tower the execs in Detroit have built around them. Anyone who has taken even a cursory look at the world oil situation would know that rising gas prices has only when a question of "when" for years!!! How could you not plan for the eventuality of rising gas prices???
As for their appeal, I must first confess I own a 4Runner and have entered a recovering SUV addiction program. As a recovering addict, I can now see that SUVs always conformed to an image that never reflected reality for most of us. A wagon, minivan or hatchback always made more sense. Car makers are now straddling the line between image and reality with CUVs, basically SUVs for people who never go off road. But the concept is still flawed. We don't need these beasts. High gas prices have just highlighted one of their many drawbacks for how we really live.
While my counselor would prefer for me to part with my 4Runner, he says I can keep my SUV as long as I use it like a truck (ie haul stuff), don't treat it too nice (it's a freakin truck!), and not act like a complete ass on the road because I'm driving one and it's is bigger than your car. He also says that my developing aversion to really big SUVs and high performance SUVs is an encouraging sign of recovery. TBut, the small CUVs still appeal to me, so I'm still not out of the woods. I just keep focusing on their poor gas mileage and try to be strong. The support group really helps when I get weak. One day I'll be cutoff by some obnoxious SUV owner and I'll think "That used to be me" or watch an Owner pouring his life savings into the tank of the truck. And be glad I got clean and stayed that way.
I read something interesting (frightening?) awhile back. When used SUVs depreciate to the point where teens and high-risk uninsured drivers are the dominant buyers, expect SUV-caused deaths to rise. We all know what happens when a big SUV T-Bones a car. It's not pretty for the auto occupants. Now imagine that big SUV in the hands of an inexperienced teen or an uninsured, high-risk driver.
I'm in the insurance business. I personally know several cases of people buying an old car from a corner used-car lot and they put 5% down and finance the rest. They don't buy the mandatory insurance, they don't give a c**p about the highly-leveraged car, they drive like maniacs, or loan the car to a friend who couldn't care less because its not his, they wreck the car and then just walk away and leave the mess to the finance company. And the poor schmuck they hit.
I'm not trying to stereotype low-income people who drive old cars. I was one of them several years ago. (You should have seen the Maverick rust-bucket I once owned.) But there is a sub-category that behaves as I described above. Put Expeditions, Tahoes and other large, old SUVs in their hands and you have a recipe for disaster.
**** ALERT ****
The reason that all your excellent comments got lost in the ether: a new spam filter. TTAC's comments section has been attacked by spammers. The new system holds all comments in a cache for approval. Did I know about this? No I did not. Now I do, and I've set your comments free!
In future, once you've commented once (and been approved), you're good to post. So all of you who were denied the oxygen of publicity will not face the same problem again. Conversely, those of you who haven't will experience a delay between posting and the words appearance here.
As for the bizarre word spacing found on other posts, we're working on it. Meanwhile, thanks for your patience and understanding.
Thanks, RF!
And, to make you want to scratch your head even more, have you seen the Hummer, "Get Your Girl On" ad? If not, it shows women in "loser" situations climbing aboard a big SUV to triumphantly show they can rule their world.
I think continuing to market SUV's squarely at women (heck, anyone) is more irresponsible than showing two Merc's laying scratch.
Looking at future powerplants, the 2007 Grand Cherokee 3.0 CRD is EPA rated 19/23, and the Mercedes CDI is supposed to average 26mpg in their 2007 SUV's and R-Class, but won't be sold in all 50 states. The GM dual-mode hybrid is supposed to result in a 25% increase which comes out to 20/27 by my calculator, probably less than what the Mercedes CDI SUV's. Given the increased cost of these drivetrains, will this be enough to save the big SUV? My guess: nope.
Of course, if you've already paid off your vehicle and can afford $3/4/5+ per gallon fuel, it's more economical to stick with your current vehicle for the short run.
Joe C;
I hate that commercial! Like buying a comically gargantuan SUV will some
how excuse socially unacceptable behavior? It’s BS! Some lady
barges in front of you in line, you buy a hummer? I think it’s a larger
problem of people being less and less courteous to one another, and has little
to do with an "empowering" feeling derived from buying H2.
So ridiculous!
Not just in the US. In Mexico Toyota, Ford, Mitsubishi, Suzuki and DCX sell more trucks than cars.
But here gas prices (a big % are taxes) are "frozen" to control inflation, so the SUV fever is still up.
There are two articles on MSN pertaining to GM and SUV sales. GM is basically rushing to get their refreshened GMC and Chevrolet 1500 series to the dealers 7 weeks ahead of schedule as part of their 'restructuring' plan.
At the bottom of the article is a link to another piece reporting that Americans are turning away from trucks and SUVs, and yet another piece discussing the Big 3s declining truck and SUV sales.
All in all, they paint a pretty grim picture of GM. They clearly show that GM is out of touch with the market.
Both the IIHS and NHTSA have conducted studies to tally the death rates for various vehicles.
The IIHS calculated driver fatality rates and the data is available here:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/03/15/sr4003.pdf
8 of the 14 deadliest are SUVs and small pickups. The Honda Civic has a lower driver fatality rate than the Chevrolet Tahoe.
The NHTSA calculated occupant fatality rates and found that midsize SUVs were 41% deadlier than midsize cars and 46% deadlier than minivans, mostly due to a rollover death rate over 300% higher than these classes of vehicles. That data can be found here:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/809979.pdf
The world will always NEED pickups and SUVs. But the market proved too tempting and we were glutted with big (read high profit margin) dinosaurs. Too bad the big 2.5 didn't pay more attention to the smaller sized end of the market.
Instead of behemoth Escalades and F-350s, what the market needs now is smaller SUVs and trucks. Where's a Geo Tracker or a S-10 when you need one? The Equinox is one size too big, and the Colorado/Canyon are mediocre.
Maybe Honda will release the next-gen Element as a sort of "mini-Ridgeline"… I bet that would sell like jello shots at the Betty Ford Clinic.
In the meantime, I'll be happy to by a dirt-cheap SUV to use as my winter 'beater'.
Just like Johnny Lieberman said, Toyota SUV sales are up. I am seeing more and more Toyota SUVs around my area (which is straight up middle class). Most of them with huge 20" chrome rims (mad ugly).
I am also seeing large amounts of brand new Escalades and other domestic SUVs around my area, brand new!
I don't think the SUV fad is over, I think its plateauing to be honest.
As much as I would like to see the SUVs to disappear, I don't think its going to happen anytime soon.
Vehicle trends:
In the 80's it was the station wagon. Followed by the mini van. Then the SUV. Is the "Crossover" type vehicle next?
I guess that I consider myself somewhat of a connoisseur of SUV’s since I have owned 17 Suburbans over 18 consecutive years. And all were 4WD. Did I need this size vehicle? Well, I thought I did. I owned a boat business and was always supplementing the company’s pickup trucks when needed. My company also bought twice that many GM pickups over the years. Now, in another life, I hauled clients around to look at property in comfort in my Suburbans. I had so much trouble with the 2 recent ones, a 2003 and a 2004, that I tried to have GM take them back under the lemon law. They did the first one, but whined. They treated me like a criminal and refused on the second one. Loyal GM and Suburban customer (and fool) that I was, I bought another. But I was slowly getting fed up at not only their treatment of me, but also 13 mpg. Further, they were starting to bore me, and I was starting to feel guilty driving around in one often alone. So, I sold the latest after a year for half what I paid for it and bought a Lexus hybrid, which I love. I seriously doubt that GM will never sell me anything again.
Today, even though I have no use for GM, I really can’t criticize it too much for producing all of those SUV’s. The job of management at a public manufacturing company is to produce and sell at a profit what the customer wants. And, boy did I/we want SUV’s. We bought them when gas was 0.29/gallon, when it was $1.00/gallon, $1.50, $2.00, and $2.29/gallon. Who knew where the cutoff point would be? To their credit, the big 3 brought out smaller, marginally more efficient models. And in an effort to boost fuel efficiency and to reduce the “truckiness” of these things so they would appeal to new buyers, they even invented something called a crossover. But we kept buying big SUV’s. And that is what kept the workers working and the dealers dealing and the profits coming. I can criticize them for not being further along with alternative vehicles. For not promoting alternatives like mini-vans. For not working on fuel efficiency. Heck, for not even updating the darn things into the 21st century. But if I were a stockholder, I would have called for the heads of management who tried to sell us what we needed rather than what we wanted.
So, we can criticize the GM’s for missing the market. They did, of course, but we have to cut them a little slack considering the long lead time needed for new product development. But we can’t criticize them for selling us what we wanted.
Ronin 317:
I too am a recovering TrailBlazer owner from the
Pittsburgh area, but I wasn't lucky enough to be able to trade mine in.
Back in January, Dad was driving and we hit a patch of black ice at
about 55 and it spun quicker than a Tilt-o-Whirl. It hit the
hillside and rolled 3 1/2 times (greasy side up). Dad and I came out
with bumps and bruises, but Mom was messed up pretty bad (she's made a
full recovery).
When I started considering what to buy next, I
did consider another SUV at first. That didn't last long. I ended up
test driving a VW Jetta TDI on a whim and loved it. I relentlessly
researched it for almost a month and finally bought one. Drives like a
dream , sticks to the road, and needs fuel once every 500 miles. I
don't miss the SUV.
I just got to ride in an Acura TSX last week
when a coworker bought one. Beautiful automobile, and it's now the envy
of everyone in the office.
I also agree that a small to
mid-size pickup with a TDI would be great and I would be the first in
line to buy if someone would just sell one already!
Praxis… First, did you bother to actually read your links? Or did you just ignore the facts and start spewing ANTI-SUV spin… ALL of the REAL SUV's, except the Ford Expedition, had death rates LOWER than the average for ALL vehicles. Since that didn't fit your ANTI-SUV bias, you included all the "pretend" Suv's so you could make your TOTALLY B.S. statement that 8 of the 14 deadliest are SUV'S and small pickups. In almost every category of vehicle, it was the SMALLEST vehicles that had the HIGHEST death rates. A blatantly clear fact that the enviro's just can't stand, and therefor, choose to ignore. I can't believe you actually put links to the actual data while purposely posting misleading information. Now that takes balls…
Robert… Were you trying to bring the I hate SUV's crowd out of the woodwork? Cuz you certainly succeeded, if that was the goal. Personally, I'll take a Chevy Tahoe over 95 percent of the "cars" sold in America. Let the small car fantasizers believe whatever they wish, they'll figure it out if we ever meet in an accident…
And for all you self righteously indignant world mommies that know what's best for everybody else… Guess what, America, much to your chagrin, is STILL a fairly free country. People can buy whatever vehicle they want. They can spend as much in gas as they feel like. It's none of your damn business. Shut up! Do the rest of us a favor, buy and drive your favorite toylet and move to some socialist country where you can dictate other peoples choices…
Joe, I saw those Hummer ads too. It seems they have a set aimed towards "empowered women" and "masculinity-challenged men." I hated those commercials at first, but then realized that they are perfect marketing. If you make people scared, they will do irrational things, things they wouldn't do if they were thinking logically. If you scare a woman into thinking everyone else is driving a big SUV and that you will lose in an accident, they will buy big SUVs. If you scare men into thinking they need to compensate for the loss of their manhood, they will buy big SUVs. The ads don't address anything about the environment, or operating costs, or actual safety. They completely ignore the reality and in doing so set the tone for how their products should be viewed. Some might say that the falling sales of Hummers is an example of the market correcting itself. I hope it is a sign that people are freeing themselves from fear.
While the domestics were milking their SUV cash cows, the UAW obviously took note and demanded more monies. Labour concessions? What are those?
No one thought that the money pouring in would dry up one day. Or, the UAW probably kne, but, took GM et al for everything they could while the SUVs were selling and money was coming in.
Now, their cash cow is drying up and GM and Ford seems lost with nothing to fall back on. Thats what you get for short sightedness. This is going to get a lot uglier.
And the idiocy in Detroit continues even today. Wednesday, GM showed off its redesigned full-size pickups with Rick Wagoner calling them “the most important part of our North American turnaround plan.” (http://tinyurl.com/kh5ob)
In that same NYT article, Bob Lutz (who I once admired) says this about fuel economy…
>>Despite higher fuel costs, Robert A. Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman and
chief of product development, remains confident that well-designed
pickups can lead the company back to prosperity.
>>“The effect will
decrease over time as people adjust to the thought of $3 a gallon, just
as they did when it was $2 a gallon and just as they did when it was $1
a gallon,” Mr. Lutz told reporters.
If GM is betting on fullsize pickups to save their asses, Toyota will be able to gobble up Chevrolet pretty cheap in just a few years.
mfaulkner – true enough, but manage is also paid to keep an eye on the future, and in the case of a company the size of GM or Ford, or Toyota, or Volkswagon, they pay you the big bucks to keep a diverse enough portfolio so that you can ride out the most likely future problems that you will encounter.
High demand for SUVs is a reason to convert more of your (hopefully flexible) plants to making them, but it is not an excuse for shirking R&D in the other volume leaders in your line up. It would be akin to Toyota deciding to let the Corolla and Camry languish because it was selling enough 4Runners and Highlanders to cover for them.
A computer algorithm can react to market and sales data. We pay and pay big bucks for visionaries and leaders that have the foresight to prepare for the future, the perception and flexibility to adapt to unforeseen obstacles, and the decisiveness and will to see through tough decisions.
Leaders have a lot of leeway because, well, they are supposed to be the ones that after weighing all the input they receive, know the best.
One bad CEO is an anamoly. A few decades of steadily rotting management is a disease.
Wait, wait, wait. I have an idea. Why not have competent products in most segments for the consumers to enjoy? Also, why not have flexible factories capable to produce more than one model at a time, adapting to demand?
I'm no big Toyoda fan, but with just 3 brands, they manage to fill from no frills cheapo echo, to 'the best selling mid size appliance' with a dash of hip-looking scion, plenty of heavy SUVs, and a load of mercedes rivalling luxury land barges.
GM has 10 brands and is master of nothing. Plus they can't differenciate from each other.
In the past15 years of rowing in the dough, they let all their other product rot (easy to do when you're on a 10 year product cycle) and now every competitors are rubbing their hands.
I think that what no one wants to admit about almost all SUVs is that they are really "Station Wagons." Most built on truck chassis and most having 4-wheel drive, but station wagons all the same. And now they're about as cool as car-based station wagons, too.
I think that what no one wants to admit about SUVs is that most of them are really "Station Wagons." Most built on truck-chassis and most built with 4-wheel drive, but they're still station wagons. And now people are starting to think of them as being about as cool as the car-based station wagons that they replaced for a while.
Very well stated Mr. Farago.
So much for learning from history!
It is really amazing how the supposedly sharpest (and best paid) minds in the business suffer from collective amnesia! It isn't all that long ago that the first fuel crisis hit – 1973 to be exact! How could these clowns forget the gas lines, the last-digit-on-your-number-plate versus date that some places decided whether you could drive at all, the "convert your 8-cylinder gas hog into gas-stingy 4-cyl conversion sets, the next-to-zero trade in values on "standard" cars (as full-sizers were sometimes referred to), dealer lots awash in full-size cars, and so on and so forth? These guys should sue the fancy schools they went to and demand their tuitions back, apparently, they didn't learn a thing! It is totally tragic to see the automotive locomotives of not only America, but the world, being run into the ground by these certified idiots! May I suggest some of the industry "leaders" write a textbook entitled "How to run the world's greatest companies into the ground, without really understanding why", or maybe "How to start with owning the world and end up totally humiliated in less than 30 years".
So – just prepare yourselves for streets filled with nothing but Japanese- and Korea-sourced inoffensive transportation modules, I fear it is too late for Detroit to retaliate!
I disagree, Johnster. They may be used like station wagons, but you can't tell me they are as cool as the Audi S4 Avant (http://tinyurl.com/cx9ve) or the Dodge Magnum (http://tinyurl.com/lerwf) or the C55 and E55 AMG wagons.
I'm a 35-year-old parent who thinks wagons are cool and that SUVs are definitely not.
Robert, isn't it time to do a Death Watch for Ford, too? They just restated their last quarterly losses and they have doubled, plus are now belatedly looking at offloading Jaguar, and other huge loss leaders which never made the British much if any money (they were, in fact money pits all along).
So, who will be willing to buy Jaguar, Aston Martin, Land Rover? Ford should actually hold onto Volvo (unless of course, they know that Ford is going to sink and take pity on their Swedish partners, and set them free in a lifeboat of independence, of course).
One thing that I think has been missed (although not completely) here is that SUV's have taken the place of large cars and station wagons in today's car market. There are mini-vans, but other than the Passat and Legacy/Outback who else makes anything approaching an affordable station wagon of useful size? The only real large cars on the market (at an affordable price) are the Ford Five Hundred (dullsville) and the older Grand Marquis or the Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum twins. Chevy doesn't make a large car, Nissan doesn't, the Avalon is a bit upscale, as is the Buick Lucerne. So where does a familly get a large vehicle? They're stuck with a Minivan or an SUV.
People are getting bigger and their cars are following. I'm not a proponent of the supersized Excursions, Hummers, or Escalades, but a small or mid-size SUV like a Pathfinder or 4Runner is still a viable and useful vehicle for a family of 4 or 5. And check out the "cross-overs" like the Pilot, Highlander and new GM Arcadia. All weigh as much as a mid size truck-based SUV.
Full disclosure: I recently bought a Nissan Xterra. It's reasonably decent to drive around town and although it could get better milage, it's got a 265 hp V6 and a slick 6 speed manual. What other station wagon offers a manual? But that's a tirade for another time.
To the folks who miss cargo capacity going from a truck/ute into a car:
I solved that by putting a hitch on my Accord. I have a 4×8 trailer I
put together from ebay for $250 + wood. It has a 2000lb capacity, which
matches my cars towing rate. OF course I never have to tow that
much….but now I get the cargo capacity of a fullsize truck (minus
boat towing) when I need it. It looks dorky, but I have the ability to
haul whne I need to. My full size chevy sits idle while my Accord can
haul all day with twice the gas mileage. If you have room for a
trailer, it is worth it.
Although I still see plenty of enormous Yukons/Denalis/Escalades, in my happy suburban neighborhood, they have started to fade away. As leases end, they are replaced by either Civic Hybrids, Volvos, Subarus, Mercedes wagons and even the XC90 (don't understand this one). A lot of people saw the gas price attack coming at the latest last August and a lot of people saw it a few years back. Did manufactturers really think people were just blindly filling up their tanks never noticing the increase in price?
There will always be people who buy SUVs for whatever reason, but manufacturers just missed this one. Remember that Bob Lutz (I think) quote from when the new Escalade came out and how gas prices don't affect their buyers? No matter who you are – it still sucks to fill up your tank for $100 instead of $40. It might not make economic sense to get a hybrid or trade-in an SUV earlier, but the money you are saving in gas feels a lot better than paying extra money for a hybrid or losing a little on your trade-in. There are so many alternatives for what people needed an SUV for and although E55 AMG may not be the most fuel efficient car, its not an SUV and that matters. They've suffered negative press due to design, bad for the environment, etc… and people just don't see the need. Especially when you consider that gas prices are going up – why pay more in the future if you don't have to?
K.
Commuter: What other station wagon offers a manual?
Well, let's see… Audi (A4, S4), BMW (325), Chevy (HHR), Mazda (Mazda6), Pontiac (Vibe), Toyota (Matrix), Scion (xB), SAAB (9-3, 9-5), Subaru (Impreza, Legacy, Outback), Suzuki (Forenza), Volvo (V50)
The "biggest" car/truck I own is an '89 Cherokee 2door. Totally "tricked out with 4" lift etc. When your other cars are various antique italian or british roadsters, the 'Rokee almost feels like a Ford Excursion.( Don't even ask what an Excursion feels like) One can say, the wife and I came over the SUV craze relatively unscathed. The wife won't even touch the Jeep with a 10ft. pole (the whole reason for owning it!! Lol!)
Yet she was perfectly happy ferrying our two brats to school, first with a "roomey" Triumph Dolomite Sprint (roomey by Triumph Spitfire standartd, lol) and later with a couple of A4 Avants. Our kids do not suffer from any physical deformities from being "crammed" in Audis, my 6'4' All American icehockey playing son rode "shotgun" though since he was 13 I think.
Now that the son's out of the house, the wife wants a crossover vehicle to ferry around GF's to various activities and has her eyes set on the RX Hybrid. It did not OCCUR to either of us, to get anything bigger ever and what for in the first place??
When I drydock my boat for the winter, I have plenty of neighbors and friends, ITCHING to lend a hand with their behemoth to tow the boat to my yard, to reciprocate for the fishing trips I take them with me .
Oh, the Irony!! Not one of them owns a trailer or a boat, but they are the ones riding the big boy's toys with the tow hitch!!! Lol!
Frank, you're forgetting the Mazda 3 wagon on that list as well.
I've been seeing a lot of compact wagons lately, especially Matrixs, and Mazda3's
Frank,
– You got me, there are a couple of wagons with manuals, but of the ones you mentioned (and I did almost buy the Outback), the BMW, SAAB, Audi, Volvo are all premium cars, not something we can all afford. I did miss the Mazda 6, but it's at the small end of mid-size and the HHR, Matrix/Vibe twins, and Scions are pretty small.
I also forgot the Mazda 5, which is actually a pretty slick package and affordable (considered this one as well).
Now if only the Magnum came with a 6 speed manaul….
Yeah, I always thought Dodge really screwed the pooch when they didn't offer a 6-speed manual with the Hemi in both the Magnum and the Charger.
It's rather amusing to read all of the posts on this particular subject, to see all of the hate directed at a former status symbol and fashion accessory. As if the very folks who willingly purchased (leased) these behemoths are now repudiating them as if it were forced upon them, like a drug dealer trying to hook an unsuspecting teen on narcotics…
I'm curious to see how people would feel if somehow the pariah-like status were applied to sports cars, sport sedans and hybrids. Would they defend their previous purchases or would they declare their behavior an abberation caused by some kind of marketing induced narcosis?
Luckily for me, I have a great excuse: Lack of funds.
I tried life with a pickup truck as a daily driver for a while, but even as a mid-sized truck, the enormous thirst of the little beast was incredible. After I completed the note on the truck, we got another smaller car. My experience with the truck was enough of a warning to stay away from the SUV (and this was in the day of $1.20/gal gasoline!), in so far as I wanted to retain a few dollars in my wallet.
Seriously, live and let live. It's a (semi-)free country, if people can afford it, so what?
So how do Bob F. and all of my fellow posters here explain Toyota adding 200k units of full size truck capacity as the market shrinks? I guess Toyota is just as shortsighted as Ford, GM and DCX.
The other question I have for all of you “SUV’s are dead” oracles is; why are minivan sales down about 10% this year? You’d think minivans would be selling like crazy considering their great utility and relatively good fuel economy. I guess the continuing sales slide of minivans proves American have not become nearly as sensible and boring as most of the posters hear believe.
By the way, subcompact sales are way up, but still a very small sliver of the auto market in the US. Most Americans are like me, we like bigger vehicles for the room, utility and comfort. I can see many people moving from a Tahoe to an Impala (and they have), but I don’t foresee millions of 250 pound American men folding themselves into a Yaris in the near future.
Evelyn writes
>>>Perusing replacement for either or both is the problem. We don't want to be in a toy car and what we see available doesn't offer much in the way of better milage without going back into debt instead of paying a little more for gasoline and not paying interest on a new car. For example, we like the Murano. When you compare the milage, it isn't that much better than we get on a trip with the Tahoe and is insignificent compared to the Dodge.
I get nearly 34 mpg in a 4 cyl manual trans Accord, with about 3/4 of driving on highways or rural roads.
Toyota wants to carve a piece of an existing market, not expand the market..
Minivan sales are down across the board, but, once again, "foreign" makers (Honda and Toyota) are doing extremely well in the segment.
All that aside, you're asking the same question vexing the entire industry: where will all the SUV refugees go?
RF
It's worth noting, in case no-one else has, the car companies started manufacturing SUVs in response to the truck loophole in the CAFE standards–trucks had and still have much less stringent mileage standards than cars.
mdanda writes:
I do the gas math over and over ($3/gal versus $4/gal and up) and come to the same conclusion:
It's cheaper to buy gas for my SUV than to replace the SUV with a car. Why? Because I got a KILLER deal on a used Trooper and it's PAID OFF!!
Call me a contrarian investor in autos. But, hey, the world ain't going to end for me even at $5 gallon. Because I saved THAT much money buying a used top-heavy gas-sucking SUV!
This is certainly accurate. One of my friends calculated that the cost of gas would have to rise close to $9/gallon before a Prius would save money over an equivalent Corolla.
RF,
Sorry, I ain't buying the 'carve an existing piece of the market'.
If GM is derided for releasing new pickup trucks at this time, Toyota adding 200,000 units of trucks to the market is equally short sighted.
Its strange how rabid SUV lovers (Wolven I'm speaking to you) can say these two statements simultaneously – "People can buy whatever vehicle they want…It's none of your damn business." and "Let the small car fantasizers believe whatever they wish, they'll figure it out if we ever meet in an accident… "
ummm I think you just proved a. that it IS my business and b. you're a total a**h*le
Crossovers.
For what it's worth,
Minivans in my opinion are they next to die. Atleasts GM's blundered
attempt to win over 1996 again, and Fords ill-fated 'Stars.
SUV refugees, in general if they really need the additional space will go to mini-vans, wagons and CUV's. They handle like cars, get better gas mileage and will carry the same amount while still giving you a percieved high seating postion (excluding some wagons).
Alot of families need at least one mini-van, CUV or wagon. Go to the beach for vacation with your 2.5 kids and all the stuff you want to schelp (if they are young like mine) and try to tell me you can do it easily in a Accord. I was barely able to fit everyone and everything into my wife's new Honda Odyssey. So glad that thing has a split fold 3rd row.
My next car will actually get worse mielage than my Nissan Murano. I average 22 MPG in the Mo and will move to an RX-8 and should average around 19-20 MPG. I drive a car for enjoyment, as long as it's more that 15 MPG I'll pay the extra $$$ at the pump. 9000 RPM redline here I come!
Its strange how rabid SUV lovers (Wolven I'm speaking to you) can
say these two statements simultaneously – "People can buy whatever
vehicle they want…It's none of your damn business." and "Let the
small car fantasizers believe whatever they wish, they'll figure it out
if we ever meet in an accident… "
ummm I think you just proved a. that it IS my business and b. you're a total a**h*le
posts not working
Did anyone think to look at the latest sales figures for the new 07' full-size GM SUV's BEFORE writing this article?
SUV's dead? No sir, not by a long shot.
"I guess the continuing sales slide of minivans proves American have not become nearly as sensible and boring as most of the posters hear believe." – airglow
I beg to differ. Americans are exceedingly sensible. When gas was cheap, people migrated from minivans to SUVs. Now that gas prices are high, Americans will:
1. Those that can afford it or need the power and capacity and ground clearance will stay with large SUVs.
2. Those that realize that the only cargo they ever have behind the driver's seat is air will switch to a car.
3. Those that need the room for kids and other cargo but realize they don't need towing power and off-roading capability will go for the improved version of the minivan: the "crossovers". Pilot, Highlander, Freestyle, Pacifica, Acadia, Outlook, etc.
Crossovers are exceedingly sensible in that compared to large SUVs and Minivans they weigh less, have comparable or better mileage, are refined, and have lower stances.
I remember a warm Autumn day in 1978 when the '79 Suburbans and Blazers were offered for a special festive Saturday display at Chopping Chevrolet/Oldsmobile in Riverton (yes, the Brokeback Riverton). I was 10 years old and blissfully unaware of the iron fisted grip a car could have on a man. Dad was pretty happy with his recently acquired '71 GMC 'creampuff' pickup with only 30,000 highway miles on the clock. That didn't mean he didn't like to dream – he'd come of age in the fifties when the new model's arrival was practically a local holiday. He'd purchased a Cutlass S from these guys only a year earlier, so I think he felt fully justified in drinking their coffee.
All the donuts must have altered my young consciousness. As I wandered the lot, my heart leapt at the prospect of expanding our summertime camping adventures. Outfitted with a brawny, "bobtail" (almost a technical term of distinction that once described Jeeps, Broncos and Scouts) K-5 Blazer the Continental Divide would be our personal playground. It was a magic carpet to rarer air where you had to pant pretty hard even at a slow walk.
With a kid's level view it's not hard to notice all that extra iron in front that makes the front wheels turn. I learned what a differential was on that day. Dad also tried to explain that our pickup's off road Achilles heal was a "highway axle."
With my sticky hands I opened the doors and climbed into the multi-tonal blue Scotch pattern bucket seats of the Custom Deluxe model, already sensing the dolled up, white spoke wheel, two tone Cheyenne was out of Dad's reach. Besides carpeting and headliner just get poked full of holes from antlers and soaked with elk blood. I tried to lay out the facts for Dad as he sat next to me in the passenger bucket seat (to this day, he's never owned anything with buckets). A Blazer would transform our lives, I explained, and for the better. When you get that far off the beaten track, you don't pay for nightly spots in a campground. My vain older brothers could probably do with much cheaper clothes – perhaps eating less would do us all some good – and why waste money on Catholic school when Jefferson Elementary was just as good? On that day, the K-5 Blazer gave me the fever – you all know what that fever is and what it does – and I still can't shake it. For several years it was all trucks – they were a mini-fad even then anyway, but after I found a '69 Motor Trend yearbook in the attic, my heart was a prisoner of fast and brawny cars as well.
Looking back, even by 1978 the Blazer and "light trucks" were catching fire. Chevrolet boasted that "light trucks" accounted for a record 30% of sales that year. I think '78 was the first year for power windows and a folding rear bench seat as well – harbingers of "Cowboy Cadillacs" to come.
But without the Rocky Mountains surrounding you, that bobtail Blazer wouldn't have had the same appeal. Without adventure calling, it's just a heavy vehicle that paradoxically doesn't have much room for passenger comfort (the K-5 rear bench, placed between the wheelwells, was more a two man affair), is hard to climb into, wears out tires (they were still "full time" 4x4s then), sucks down gas, and of course rolls over if you drive it like a car. In a sense, the sport utility has become more mundane, more generically suburban and mainstream than the Impala sedan it replaced. It’s still worth mentioning that it was also in 1978 that NHTSA first started dishing out fines for C.A.F.E. violations. Without the unintended consequences we’ve seen from coddling trucks and burdening ‘cars,’ maybe the SUV fad wouldn’t have spiraled so out of control. Nowadays, a 4500lb SUV on the K-5s 106.5” wheelbase is “midsized,” and the closest thing to a Blazer, the Tahoe, weighs in at a hefty 5800lbs. After all, when Uncle Sam throws his weight around, a fad becomes a “fact.” Many in GM’s Armani army haven’t failed in marketing metaphysics, but have succeeded in jawboning D.C. backslappers against ending C.A.F.E.’s irrational two tier system. Maybe it’s a little like letting your kid beat you in chess. He might get really interested in chess for a while, but when he starts playing the other kids he’s going to get a rude awakening.
“Praxis? First, did you bother to actually read your links? Or did you just ignore the facts and start spewing ANTI-SUV spin? ALL of the REAL SUV’s, except the Ford Expedition, had death rates LOWER than the average for ALL vehicles.”
The average for all vehicles was 87 driver deaths per 1M vehicles.
The Blazer, Explorer, Montero, Rodeo, Discovery, Xterra and Grand Cherokee all had driver fatality rates above this average. I am not sure what excludes these BOF trucks from the “real” SUV category.
I'm sorry, but I'm not getting this, "I need a big car to be comfortable in because I'm a big guy" story that some are posting.
I'm a decently sized guy who could stand to lose a few pounds and I fit comfortably in a Ford Focus, both front and back seats as well as a FIAT X 1/9.
How big of a car do you really need to be "comfortable" in?
And to the poster that wonders what would be the excuse if sports cars or sports sedans were treated the way SUVs are now, all I can say is that no matter how bad sports cars or sports sedans were vilified, they would still be a BLAST to drive! Something that will NEVER be said about the driving dynamics of an SUV.
"Did anyone think to look at the latest sales figures for the new 07′ full-size GM SUV’s BEFORE writing this article?" – gearhead455
Sure, they sold a bunch. Largely because that’s what they built. GM and Ford keep dropping the price and adding givebacks until the bloated things sell. At SOME price point, every vehicle will find a buyer. It’s tough to find actual inventory figures (for free, anyway) but GM and Ford seem to have quite a few weeks of unsold trucks and SUVs on hand. That’s not good for business.
Minivans in my opinion are they next to die. Atleasts GM's blundered
attempt to win over 1996 again, and Fords ill-fated 'Stars.
They'll probably shrink a whole size or two in the name of fuel efficiency – many minivans are awfully heavy, 4500lbs+. Think Mazda5, 1st gen Chrysler vans, 1st gen Odyssey.
Toyota has a JDM hybrid minivan with the 2.4L HSD and electric AWD, but it's the size of the 1st gen Sienna, no the current one.
The $25k federal income tax deduction for ‘business-use’ SUVs and trucks with a GVW over 6000lbs (designed to ‘jump-start the economy’) didn’t hurt big SUV sales, either.
I suspect this little caveat explains why it’s the mid-size SUV segment (Explorer, TrailBlazer, Durango, FourRunner) that is taking the biggest hit in sales these days.