I first noticed the trend in about eighth grade: Moms trading their lumbering station wagons for one of those newfangled minivans. It was a slight move upwards on the handling and visibility front and a huge step forward in the space-is-the- final-frontier front. Equally important, the minivan maintained the traditional segregation between Mom and Dad-mobiles. But Dad’s world was changing too, and not for the better.
Almost overnight, the car guy thing morphed from muscle car / urban sophisticate to Marlboro man. Broncos and Blazers and big ass Suburbans weren’t a new idea, of course. You could see vehicles sort of like them plying the grasslands of Africa every Sunday on Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. But suddenly, every high-school badass in Michigan was giving up his Buick Regal for a GMC Jimmy, exchanging the lure of the open road for the equally fantastic lure of the off-road.
At the time, I couldn’t fathom it. Looking back some 20-odd years later, I still don’t. Even the modest work-a-day pickup truck became a gotta-have for both blue-collar guys and white-collar weekend wannabes. It was… grotesque. But, hey, I’m all about freedom of choice. If you’re a pretentious poser who wants to clutter your driveway with an oversized 4X4 that’ll never see anything but asphalt, that’s your call. I won’t stand on the sidewalk and cheer as you drive by, but I won’t preach to you about rollover statistics and fuel-efficiency either. At least not much.
Lately, however, I’ve noticed a welcome trend. As little as three years ago, I’d have trouble finding a parking space at work. I simply couldn’t see past the rows of trucks and SUV’s to find an open spot. And when I did find one, the bloated haunches of some Durango or Yukon XL spilled over the lines of adjacent spaces, rendering the spot unusable. Likewise, I had trouble enjoying what little scenery accompanied my daily commute. My view was blocked by the aggressive, trail-rated grocery mules clogging up the traffic lanes and monopolizing my rear-view mirror.
The vehicles they are a changing. As I peer out my office window today, the automotive population below is strikingly different. There are still a couple Trailblazers, a Durango, an F-150 and a Buick Rendezvous. But the majority of spaces are occupied by real cars: coupes and sedans and pony cars. Impalas, 300’s, Passats and Mustangs. Practically overnight, we have gone from a society that ‘needed’ the hulking, overwrought, extra-capacity vehicles that matched our hulking, overwrought, capacity-hogging lifestyles, to a society that seems to get along fine with average-size cars.
Anyone who looked at the situation objectively could have seen it coming (though they might not have wanted to admit it). I mean, it’s nice to have a big vehicle with the power to pull a boat, the space for a few sheets of ply-wood or a third row for that fourth kid. But I’d been paying attention all those years, and I saw what most of these SUV/truck/van people were hauling each day: nothing. I would walk through parking lots and see endless rows of pick-ups with nothing in the bed but sandbags for added traction in the winter. What a waste.
At some point, thankfully, the 20-year SUV trend literally ran out of gas. Obviously, money had a lot to do with it. The post-Katrina gas price spike impaled itself in the heart of Middle America, causing a vicious vehicular circle of desperation and depreciation. The implicit freedom of owning an SUV quickly became the explicit slavery of not being able to sell it, and the financial tyranny of feeding its tank. No money down doesn’t look as good when you become a de facto mortgagee to Exxon.
I like to think that the SUV’s declining popularity is more than that. I like to think the craze was a temporary aberration, a collective failure of common sense and personal responsibility. In that sense, I also want to believe that Americans saw the war in Iraq and felt the need to make some kind of sacrifice on the home front. But I suspect there are other, less moral forces at play.
Clearly, bling killed the SUV on the cultural level. When playas re-equipped their behemoths for “stunting and flossing,” they revealed the Emperor’s new clothes. What’s a Navigator with 22” wheels and low profile tires have to do with the romantic allure of fording streams and climbing hills? The same thing as a Navigator with 18” wheels and all-season tires. Nothing. Once you see the absurdity, there’s no going back.
Whatever the cause, I’m delighted to see cars replace SUV’s. I like living in a world where I’m not swimming in a sea of wretched excess. From those of us who never got caught up in SUV craze, welcome back.
Why must we label someone who owns a big 4X4 as a “pretentious poser” while someone who buys a 300 gets off scot-free? Let’s get back to reviewing cars not people.
Appropriate pic, reminds me of how ugly GM’s old Suburbans were.
Amen to the article itself though. Nicely written, and I agree. It’s good to see more cars on the road. Sure, SUVs are still bought obviously, but most can no longer afford to buy them as status statements or as poser mobiles. I always thought, and still do, that a real SUV is only for those who use it, as in those who actually need the cargo space, the people space, and the off-road capability all in one.
Good point HawaiiJim. But see, the topic of “pretentious posers who buy 300s” deserves it’s own article.
So people that bought SUVs and trucks only did so to be “pretentious posers”?
How about those of us that bought them to tow our campers on family camping trips? Or to take our boats to the ramp for a day of fishing with our buddies or fathers? Or to haul our kids stuff to and from college? Or to get through the roads during a western New York winter snowstorm?
Point is much (most?) of the time I drive my Tahoe during the week, I don’t need all of it’s capabilites. But come leasure time I won’t be without it. So it’s kinda hard from me to justify buying a sedan to drive to work or the store so as to not insult your sensibilities when you don’t see me towing my boat or camper.
I’m sure that many people never did use the full capabilities of these things. But I’ll bet when they get used to gas prices of $2.50, $3.00, $3.50, (heck, where ever they settle) that they’ll miss the verstaility of the SUV or pickup and start trading in the sedans for an SUV or pickup, whatever form these take down the road.
And speaking of pretentious, that is something I’m just as sure that the average reader of TTAC will never understand.
If I’m the only driver for 90% of the miles on my Passat, am I really any better than the SUV mom with one kid who does 90% of her miles with two people?
On every metric, she’s doing better than I am: carbon emissions, vehicle weight-per-passenger, fuel usage per person per mile, etc.
That’s just food for thought. I sometimes need to remember that just because I drive a small-midsize–ignoring potential crash damage–I’m no “morally superior” than a vehicle that weighs twice as much, gets half the mpg, but carries two people (or more). It’s all about per capita, so people that actually tote several kids around in an SUV are doing a lot better than most of us solo people in smaller vehicles.
re: uncanthandlethetruth’s post
When I was a kid in the 70s, station wagons and rwd sedans were the vehicles of choice for pulling camper-trailers and boats. When I went to university, I moved with dad’s Cressida and a $2000 cargo trailer. That same Cressida, with Pirelli Winter 190s and a limited-slip, did extremely well in our Ontario snow-belt town.
Maybe campers have ballooned in size. Maybe boats are now huge. Maybe college kids now have twice the stuff. Maybe everybody needs a Peterbilt to haul their lives around.
The point is, back in the day, we got by.
ucanthandlethetruth, yes, as much as it might be hard to believe, a *large* majority of people bought SUVs because it was the “in thing” to do at the time, and because a lot of people felt confident and safe driving a big lumbering brick on wheels. Before the SUV craze of the 1990s, oh how did people manage I wonder? It’s not as if hauling kids, fishing trips and towing boats before the 1990s didn’t exist.
In most places around the world, SUVs are used explicitly for their capabilities. Land Cruisers are used to climb mountains, or to drive where there are *no* paved roads whatsoever. Land Rovers and Land Cruisers populate the African savannah because their capabilities are used each and every day.
North America is quite unique in that most SUVs are used as daily drivers to get from the house to the office, or sometimes, to the grocery store.
Ever think of how people in numerous other developed countries get by without SUVs? How do parents haul kids in Germany or Japan hmmm? Or how can the Swedish or Finnish survive harsh winters driving small compacts?
The fact that you need an SUV to haul kids, survive snowstorms, or go camping is largely an American stereotype … myth even.
Apart from towing substantially heavy loads, what can a typical SUV do that an AWD Subaru wagon can’t? Or how about an AWD Toyota Sienna, or AWD Rav 4, or … the list goes on.
And you can be sure gas prices won’t settle. They will gradually keep increasing, this is simply a fact of life, because the world’s oil supply will continue to get smaller. There is no way around this point. SUV sales will never be the same again, unless a dramatic fuel economy/emissions breakthrough (like advanced hybrid SUVs) make an impact.
SUVs in the future will mainly be bought by those who actually need them. The trend now is towards crossovers.
Why must we label someone who owns a big 4X4 as a “pretentious poser” while someone who buys a 300 gets off scot-free? Let’s get back to reviewing cars not people.
I would say the comment was made tongue-in-cheek. Good article Bryan.
Lemmy and ucanthandlethetruth
I’ve looked around at small 2-3 person campers (non-pop-ups) to tow behind cars. Apparently everything offered to the US market is insanely heavy and assumes you have a truck or SUV.
I’m jealous of European caravanners, since they have several companies over there that make very nice, fully enclosed 4-person campers that can be towed behind most midsize diesel or 6 cylinder cars. We could do it, too, but the US camper market almost completely depends on the owner have a truck. Unless you want to tow a teardrop or popup, you don’t have much choice here with a car.
ash78, so much of American society revolves around being BIG. An alarming chunk of Americans are obese, trucks are still insanely popular, and SUVs still selling in high numbers even if they are dropping. The highways are big, fast food comprises of big and “super size” meals. I can go on and on. This helps to explain why so many Americans (and Canadians to a point) feel that they “need” an SUV to do such mundane and ordinary things as hauling kids and driving through snowstorms.
Geez, a decent boat weighs, what, 1000lbs? 2000lbs tops. You can tow it with anything starting from a mid-80’s diesel Rabbit. And if you have to haul a yacht, you BETTER have a second car because you can obviously afford it.
A few months ago I had an opportunity to see the best excuse people have for driving SUV’s in a city. A girl was giving me a ride in her ML, and she managed to violently jump the kerb 4 times in the 2 minutes I was in the car. Any compact sedan made in the last millenium would probably loose a wheel or two.
What makes me wonder is what people are going to do with all these trucks once they hit the junkyard. Would be fun to get one, strip it of all sheetmetal, bumpers, AC, and other junk, and use it for its primary purpose – offroading. I bet we’re gonna see some really big dune buggies soon.
I welcome the death of the SUV (at least on-road) if only so I can see where I’m going once again!
–chuck goolsbee
’02 Jetta TDI & ’65 E-type OTS
“We need more Diesels!”
Lemmy-powered and Alex Rashev
My “lite” 28 foot camper weighs in at about 6500 lb loaded. My 20 foot boat (10 year old Ranger, no yacht she) weighs in at about 5000 lb with trailer. Try towing that with any of todays sedans (or your Rabbit, diesel or otherwise) and see where that gets you. You’ll at least wear out the tires, shocks, springs and brakes fast, if you don’t get runover first. I don’t think any of todays sedans are rated to tow more than 1500 lbs. Even minivans can’t tow much more than 3000 lbs, just about enough to tow a pop-up or VERY SMALL regular camper. And when you get to the boat ramp with your sedan try getting the boat trailer up the slippery ramp, let alone with the boat on it.
So let’s examine the other end of the spectrum. For most people, most of the time, the only vehicle we need is one that can carry one person at up to highway speeds and be capable of stopping and manuevering safely. Do you really need air conditioning? How about a radio or power windows or power locks, or leather seating, or 245 hp, or (fill in the blank)? Seems to me that anyone driving more than a 250 CC motorcycle is a “Pretentious Poser” . Maybe winters kill that idea, so how about we all drive a base Yaris, Fit, or Aveo? And really, do you need to buy a new one? Should be able to by a used Echo or Sprint pretty cheap. After all, thats all we really need, isn’t it?
SUVs are a classic economic example of privatized benefits and socialized costs.
SUV owner — gets to drive an 11mpg vehicle
Society — gets to pay more for oil/gasoline in both blood
and treasure
SUV owner — gets to drive a vehicle exempt from smog and safety standards that apply to automobiles
Society — gets to deal with the a larger number of accidents, deaths and injuries, as well as the health effects of more air pollution
SUV owner — gets to be “high up” so he/she can see better
Society — gets to deal with not being able to see over/around the SUVs
SUV owner — gets to drive a massive, subjectively “safe” vehicle
Society — gets to deal with increased deaths/injuries when an SUV hits a pedestrain, hits another car, or flips over when it actually does go (unintentionally) off-road.
SUV owner — gets to drive a vehicle that accelerates better in snow and has higher ground clearance
Society — gets to deal with increased traffic congestion as underinformed SUV owners drive in more inclement weather that they would otherwise, and fail to understand that 4WD helps acceleration, but does *nothing* for turning and braking.
The list goes on and on…..
As for why the vast majority of SUV purchasers make their purchases, I strongly recommend Keith Bradsher’s High and Mighty which contains excerpts of what automakers market research reveals about SUV owners (it ain’t pretty)
I used to have a four cylinder 88 Camry that towed my boat for four years. I got rid of the boat and the car for a much bigger boat and a Subaru Forester. My wife two kids and a dog go “up North” most weekends of the summer with the Forester. It holds all of us without too much problem. I have a trailer rack if I don’t have the boat. I also have a utility trailer that is great for hauling anything.
There are certainly times that an F150 would come in handy, but the cost and massive size aren’t worth it for me.
I have a nice TV which allows me to be an audio/visual “pretentious poser”
The only argument that I don’t get is the one related to the price of gas. I bet this is more about the perception rather than the actual cost of gas to feed your SUV.
How long would it take to recoup the cost of a new car (more fuel efficient than you current SUV) versus keeping the current SUV and sucking it up w/ the high gas price?
Answer in most cases: a long time.
But it’s probably irrelevant math, when I guess lots of people never pay off their vehicle (jump to a new one when the current one is paid for, or heaven forbid, roll over the old car’s loan to the new loan) or even worse, lease their car.
My car’s paid for, gets a disapointing ~20mpg, and fills all the need for a daily commuter car (~55miles/day commute)
The surge in gas price only really affects you when you spend every penny of your paycheck every paycheck. And then you wonder how/why on eatrh you drive an SUV.
Finally, I’d argue that even when you need an SUV to tow a boat, I don’t see the logic why you need a boat or a camper in the first place. It is very clear that you can like/want/enjoy a boat or camper, but need you do not. Again, it is your personal freedom to make those choices, and I’m ok with that. Just don’t claim you need any of it.
That’s an excellent analysis of the US vehicular universe of the last 2 decades. As much as I hate to, I must disagree that there has been a paradigm-shift recently from utes to cars. They may be switching to smaller utes or car-based whatchamicallums but I’m afraid there is a whole generation out there who grew up “sittin’ high” and won’t “lower” themselves into cars. At least not most of ’em, anyway.
there is more to an SUV purchase than image and posing. the visibility, utility, style, all weatherness, and ruggedness were appealing and contrasted sharply with stationwagons and vans. like all passing fads/trends there is some value to be gained. when i see concept vehicles like the Audi A5 shooting brake thing i see style, utility, visibility and all wheel capability. my hope is that the various trends we live through will result in a truly versatile, fun, all weather kinda car that gets decent mileage and actually handles!
It simply took a while for manufacturers to zero on a vehicle type that meets both the emotional and functional needs of car buyers. The coming generation of crossovers will probably do this. Once these are prevalent, truck-based SUVs will seem absurb for situations other than those for which they are truly necessary.
Going back to cars seems less likely. People like the high seating and the large interiors. What didn’t make sense was that traditional SUVs weren’t all that space efficient.
99% of all Porsche and BMW drivers are absolute posers with the same need for “outward compensation for physical inadequacy” as the guy in the 4×4, as are Benz drivers, Jag drivers, and anything sporty that can do over 80mph in the USA. Doing more than 80 is illegal anyhow, and virtually all the time those cars are sitting in traffic anyway doing nothing more than the Elantra in the next lane. Fine use of those superior driving dynamics. Sure. My brother is in a Corvette Club in LA full of posers too – polished pristine sportscars that while away the weekend on leisurely drives to Julian or Disneyland.
Basically, per this article, if you drive anything above a Sonata (base level), you are a poser. I agree with the comment above about reviewing cars and not reviewing people. Besides, your Truth About People is not everyone’s. Truths are essentially facts.
Oh and one other thing – if you are married with no kids at home and you have more than one bedroom in the house …. you are a poser gorging in excess, right? You don’t need carpet on the floor either, you poser.
Kudos Mr. Myrkle on putting that handsome Jimmy beside your article. 1981-82 I believe?
While I can certainly appreciate the concerns related to the unnecessary use of utility vehicles as it pertains to pollution and safety concerns, I wonder if we proceed too far down the road of denigrating SUV owners and paint them with a broad brush it opens those critics up to the same charges, i.e. “pretentious posers”, leveled against said utility vehicle owners.
Care has to be taken in such critiques, as it can lead to statements that put a stake through the heart of the profound North American sense of freedom of choice. Whether or not this sense of freedom of choice is interpreted correctly by North Americans is another discussion for another time.
My wife has a Tribute; I hate it and she loves it. She likes the visibility and feels more secure in it after totalling a Honda Accord on a deer. To me the Tribute is uncomfortable, noisy, and handles like a kiddy car.
My Duramax diesel is in the drive, but it never moves except to tow my Airstream or an occasional trip to Lowes or HD. An early 2004, it has just over 36,000 miles and 90% of that is with the trailer in tow.
Mean time, I’m happy with my Sonata at an averafe of 23.5 mpg
Excellent article. Excellent. The outdoors wanabees here are a dime a dozen, its kinda funny actually, all the big suv’s with one person in them stuck in traffic with me.
Yeah and its nice to be able to see again.
I believe that the choice of buying an SUV, a minivan, a “sensible” mid-size sedan or even an “unpretentious” Hyundai Accent should be left solely to the consumers and not to a group of opinionated bloviates who desire the rest of the nation to tough it out in stripped-out Ford Fiestas.
It’s all about what the people want, not what the bloviate thinks the people should have. Freedom of choice, after all.
People wanted a vehicle with high seating, high seating capacity and cargo room. The station wagon was largely killed off by CARB regulations and the minivan gained the stigma of “mommymobile”. The SUV, on the other hand, filled nearly all of the above requirements while giving the owner/driver a false aura of invincibility and imperviousness to adverse weather conditions and other drivers.
High gas prices and negative stigmas towards SUVs are now insuring that the people choose something that fills the “tall, high and roomy” requirement. Seems like the CUV will fill that niche while preserving buyers against the pretentiousness of owning an SUV.
In other words, you don’t have to force buyers out of SUVs or any other vehicle viewed as “detriments to the environment”. The free market will do it for them in due time, just as long as the government does not add artificial conditions to the mix — that’s how former station wagon owners ended up with SUVs.
See, I agree with this, but I’m an SUV driver(I drive a Liberty and am damn proud of it). However, unlike most SUVs, mine is rarely seen without a coat of mud or dirt on it. I actually put a wonderful sheen of mud on it last night. It is used frequently on camping and climbing expeditions and I take it on the beach just as much and the cargo area is almost always filled with a drumkit. So not all SUV drivers are “pretentious posers.” Some of us use them for their intended purposes. Yes, I miss driving a car for the nimbleness, the fuel economy and rowing my own gears, but a Wrangler Unlimited aside, I wouldn’t trade my Jeep for anything on the road. End of story.
However, I cannot stand seeing someone taking an SUV and blinging the hell out of it and turning it into an expensive, overweight, gas hogging minivan that serves no purpose other than stating that the person behind the wheel does not know how to spend their money(Escalade and Navigator owners, I’m looking at you.) My town is flush with the “rich poor” looking to overcontent destroy their rides’ credibility with huges wheels, street tires and lowered suspensions. It’s a travesty. Do yourself a favor and invest the money in a better education for your kids or a better home for yourself.
Sorry….I’m done.
Some of you are using pretentious extremes as examples to counter the anti-SUV points.
No need for air conditioning? No need for carpet on the floor? That’s laughable.
I love SUVs myself, simply because they are big and comfortable. I also love particular SUVs which have a legendary reputation for off-roading. But SUVs for most people are excessive.
No need to be ridiculous. It’s pretty obvious in most developed countries that “needs” for the most part have been met for the general population. People in developed countries often start considering their wants as needs, because true needs are taken for granted.
Again, if we are to look at a country like Germany, Japan, or Switzerland, all of which, generally speaking have a *higher* standard of living than the United States, they don’t drive SUVs for the most part. The topic of discussion here is SUVs, and why their insane popularity is uniquely limited to North America, just like fast food’s popularity is mainly limited to North America.
Even for moderate towing needs, or moderate hauling needs, there are plenty of crossovers or AWD wagons that are just as luxurious, accomodating, and better in many other ways than SUVs in areas such as like visibility, fuel economy, performance, etc.
And let’s be honest, how many SUV owners actually have a boat, or *several* kids to haul around?
You simply cannot escape this point: SUVs are an encapsulation of American culture, where everything is BIG and excessive. The SUV market is shrinking, and rightfully so, as crossovers provide virtually exactly the same things as SUVs do (while getting better fuel economy), except high towing capacity and exemplary off-roading. Even then, there are a lot of mediocre body-on-frame SUVs that fail miserably at off-roading.
I was given the option of owning a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Seeing as about year later, I spun out on a wet roadway in my Lincoln, I’m glad that I didn’t choose the GC — I probably would had rolled that sucker over. The high center of gravity on SUVs never did sit well with me.
To this day, I still prefer long and low full-sizers. Lincoln and Caddy in my driveway hold testament to that. The gas mileage isn’t that great, but at least both are note-free :D
Speaking of which, a family member of mine used to drive econoboxes. Two accidents later, she’s moved up to mid-sized SUVs, for pretty much the same reason Pahaska’s wife bought hers.
My town is flush with the “rich poor” looking to overcontent destroy their rides’ credibility with huges wheels, street tires and lowered suspensions.
My city’s split between the following groups:
1) white suburban kids flogging their “azn” Civics and Accords fitted with neon lighting, fart cans, fake carbon hoods and the gaudiest, tallest wings that their parents’ money can buy.
2) black college/inner city kids pushing old B/D/G-body GMs with “candy paint”, 26″ rims with “rubber band” tires, Flowmaster mufflers and the loudest sound systems their student loan refund checks can buy.
My wife thinks her 03 JIMMY is the best vehicle ever created.
The Grand am sits too low.The Grand prix looks like a pimp mobile,her words not mine.The Caprice was a tank rwd that slides around too much, mini vans are for soccer moms.Pick up trucks are for cowboys.She don’t like Yukons or Tahoes.
Too freaking hard to park don’t you know.
She fell in love with the JIMMY the first time she drove it.
I’ve had 3 yrs of bliss may the Jimmy live forever
I used to drive a fullsize ’84 Ford Bronco. Traded it in on a Dodge Ram. Posing or not, the whole SUV craze just proves what any marketer knows, X amount of $ in advertising = Y number of people convinced of their “need” for a thing and buying it. I used my Bronco off road, hunting and towing trailer. I went to a 2wd pickup because, even in Iowa winters, I wasn’t using the 4wd, either on or off road. Good driving skill beats a lot of technology. Calling SUV folks posers is no different than calling any of the other groups of drivers posers. Boy racers with their hot steaming Rice, or the go fast people with their Mustangs and Corvette’s, or the BMW drivers who think they arebetter becuase their car cost 4x what yours did, shrug, everyone finds what they like and drives it. America is kind of cool that way. I really don’t care what someone drives, but don’t get me started on the lack of driver’s ed in the USA =p
JoeFlannel, I couldn’t agree more. Unless every sports car owner is racing their cars or every SUV owner is hopping rocks or every pickup driver is hauling etc etc etc etc, everyone is a poser.
My mantra is this (SUVs, sedans, sports cars, etc): If you’re not regularly driving your car at 90%+ capability–whatever that may be–then why own it? If you’re not driving your Prius to get 90% the EPA mileage; if you’re not using your H2 on 90% max approach angle or 90% towing; if you’re not driving your 911 at 90% acceleration, cornering and/or max speed…then what’s the point?
That’s just the rationale I use to talk myself out of wanting the latest and greatest. Maybe one day when I live in a rural area, I can fulfill all my automotive dreams by owning both a Wrangler and an Elise. I will drive them both at 90% as much as possible.
Contrary to the oft-stated PC belief, there ARE legitimate uses for SUVs, even when there’s nothing to be towed. My wife’s a real estate agent. She often has to go on new construction sites, yeah the damned subdivisions.
I got the Cherokee after the first time she complained about the client who wanted to be driven to a lot a few hundred yards back from the road (the subdivision’s roads had just been scratched in), and she was driving the M3 that day. She knows better than to try something that stupid.
And I think my daily commuting by motorcycle makes up for the times either she or I have to use the Jeep.
Ash78, by that logic, most folks wouldn’t ever drive. I use my truck mostly for truck stuff, but 90% usage, every time? That’s a bit unrealistic for most folks. And for what it’s worth, there isn’t any public transport out here at all, and owning a 2nd vehicle isn’t in my budget.
Bryan – I agree that there are noticeably less SUVs on the road than 3 years ago but your reasoning is somewhat wishful thinking. While gas prices may have something to do with it I doubt that the war in Iraq did. If Americans actually cared about what their consumption behavior did to either themselves or other people then our country would look a lot different. I’m not being critical, its just a fact of life.
SUVs went out of style. That simple. They have become the new mommy mobiles and no young person (or young wanna be) want to be seen in them. Those than need them for towing or work will continue to use them (as they should) and everyone else is moving to wherever motor-fashion will take us next.
This is America – and yes I think vehicle choice is covered mostly by “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.But we also have freedom of speech, and we also have a history of complaining. Hence all the anti-SUV rants.
So drive what you want – but expect some ridicule for putting 22″ wheels on a Hummer.
Some complain that SUV drivers cause extra costs with trade deficit, foreign wars, and pollution. This is a complicated argument – but in general the US approach is to legislate less. Yes this create problems but given our economy’s strength you can argue this is not a bad thing.
I’ve said it before – the “big iron” is not going away soon. Regardless of need people like big trucks and big SUV’s. Sales are down a little, but this is still a huuuuge segment – look at how Toyota is chasing it.
Actually what really makes me mad is that as a nation we act as hypocrytes. Why can’t we just own up to using huge amounts of gasoline? We blame “big oil”, we ask “who killed the electric car”? Politicians pass many silly, useless laws like HOV lanes, CAFE rules, and spend billions subsidizing boondogles like ethanol (look at E85 capable vehicles, a who’s-who of Nimitz class guzzlers – all requiring 51 cent a gallon taxpayer subsidy in the rare instance they run on E85).
So let’s complain – but don’t expect much to change until gas goes higher. With any luck we can hit 3 bucks a gallon soon (I’m an Exxon stock-holder too, couldn’t hurt)
In southern ontario were paying 3.80$ up to 4.10$ USD a gallon [rough converson] 88 cents a litre 52$ CDN to fill the Jimmy.
My wife covers a 200 sq mile area The Jimmy sucks up 75$ a week,If she drives my Grand am 50$ a week.
The weather here can change in a heartbeat you can go from clear and sunny to a white out in 10 minutes of driving black ice, drifting snow bone chilling temperatures you name it
She pushes a liitle button on the dash and you got 4 Michelin LTXs grabing the road
If you ask me or my wife 25$ is money well spent
That and it keeps her out of my beloved Grand am
good to see I got deleted, Guess I hit a nerve
Mike, Don’t feel bad, one of my comments got deleted from another stream of comments because my comment was felt to be off-topic, and also “nasty” in the way I expressed concerns aboout the TTAC worst-car survey. I will be more cautious in the future.
I don’t know what type of boats you guys are in, but our (what I consider an entry model) 21 foot Searay weighs 3200lb plus the trailer. (and add another 350lb if the gas tank is full!) If you tow this on trips in a regular minivan (or ‘mid 80’s deisel rabbit’), you would quickly find yourself short a transmission.
Alex Rashev – what size boat do you tow that weighs 1000 lb? I bet my trailer weighs 300 – 500 lb by itself. And this is a regular ol ski boat just big enough for the family to use.
From your comment, I’d bet you don’t own a boat unless it goes on top of your car.
Tow my average boat with your 80’s diesel rabbit – it’d be funny to see how the transmission hold up.
Bryan Kyrkle – I have to disagree with your thoughts that personal responsibility and bling killed the SUV craze. It was totally gas prices. If they stayed down for a long time again – SUVs would be as popular as ever.
ash78:
November 24th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
If I’m the only driver for 90% of the miles on my Passat, am I really any better than the SUV mom with one kid who does 90% of her miles with two people?
First of all, how many people always drive with another person in the car? Second of all, the SUV driver with another person in the car still could have saved on CO2 emissions and payments to terrorist-supporting middle eastern dictatorships by owning a car instead of an SUV. You don’t need an SUV to have another person in the car. Third, truck based SUVs are a hazard to the rest of us, and in a crash between an SUV and a car the people in the car are far more likely to die, because of the height and weight of the SUV. Fourth, they block the view of the road ahead for cars, which itself is a safety hazard. (I often find myself driving in the extrme left of the lane, or even on the double yellow, so I can see what traffic is doing ahead of the behemoth.
I don’t have a quarrel with people who really need trucks in their daily lives. But for most of the rest of the population, from the point of view of the comity, an SUV is a very poor choice.
This has been a fascinating exchange that demonstrates the value of TTAC. The exchange helps us appreciate that the SUV issue is complex. The more we can avoid generalizations and truly study the facts, the better off we will be. David Holzman’s elevation of the debate through the use of the concept of ‘comity’ is an example of TTAC at its best.
I think the main point is that if you own an SUV or truck and use it to it’s full advantage, then you’re using it for what it’s made to do.
However, the line gets fuzzy when people use those trucks or SUVs for more than they maybe should. Such as in your daily commute. Driving such a large vehicle in an environment not suited for it (ie. miles of smooth pavement and stop and go traffic), it can be seen as waistful and inefficient. And sadly a majority of SUV and truck owners do this, and most of them may not even need the vehicle in the first place as they’ll never take advantage of what it was meant to do.
I my eyes, a truck/SUV should only be used as a secondary vehicle. Passenger cars excel at all on-road duties, from fuel efficiency to accident avoidance.
It seems absolutely fair to label the majority of SUV drivers as pretentious posers. Sure, that middle-aged guy in a Corvette is just as much a poser, but did he justify his purchase as a need? Furthermore, out of all the other cars suggested as pretentious, how many are both incredebly common, completely anti-social, and everywhere? Drive whatever the hell you want, but have the decency to admit you don’t really need it.
And, well, if high gas prices are what it takes to ensure that the only people who drive SUVs are the ones who really need them. I admit, I can see the appeal in driving one (I drive an old truck, just because little is cheaper to insure – I’d rather give my money to the oil companies who screw everyone equally, as opposed to the insurance companies, who’re selective as to who they screw). For anyone who doesn’t really drive, but just commutes along, and for anyone with a bit of a Napoleon complex (I’m afraid I might fall into the second catagory), it’s a bit of an impressive feeling. But, going around corners reminds me that I can’t wait to get back into something a little closer to the ground.
As an American, I value the freedom of choice when it comes to buying a vehicle. Even a vehicle that exceeds the “needs” of its owners, SUV or sports car alike.
As a car enthusiast, I can’t fathom why my fellow American motorists would endure driving an ill-handling beast saddled with a powertrain & suspension that were state-of-the-art for the 1970s and is just an over-priced, luxury-veneered, enclosed poverty-level pick-up truck.
My conclusion is that many SUV owners seem to hate the fun of driving.
My conclusion is that many SUV owners seem to hate the fun of driving.
I thought only Camry and Corolla drivers hated the fun of driving while longing for the day of automated transportation :D
It’s easy to beat up on SUVs and those who don’t really “need” them. But to be fair, I have to remind myself of three things:
1) The American auto business has always focused heavily on creating fads rather than providing basic transportation. How many folks really needed 500-cubic-inch V8s? Three-foot-high tailfins? “Opera” windows? If Detroit hadn’t been pushing SUVs it would have been something else equally . . . “aspirational.”
2) The more ridiculous the fad, the more dramatic its eventual descent. Alas, “ridiculous” isn’t primarily defined by us car snobs, but by those with the willing wallets.
3) I’ve seen more reasonable usage of big SUVs and trucks than is often acknowledged by the anti-SUV crowd. Not to say that some proportion of these folks couldn’t at least slightly downsize, but these vehicles are hardly always about fashion — particularly in more rural parts of the country.
If the Big 2.5 are smart, they won’t wait for an increase in CAFE standards to start trimming the fat from their big trucks (and even their newer big crossovers, all too many of which are embarrassingly plump). Maybe Detroit might even rediscover the long-lost practice of aerodynamics. It could be the start of a new fad!
Here we go again….
For my thoughts on SUV’s, and you self-righteous Prius driving envirofreaks who think that you have the right to control both what we drive and our opinions on the matter (cf. any comment that begins with “How can you possibly think that….” or “You need to accept that your choices are leading to the war in iraq/cancer/apocalypse” and what have you), let me explain why I bought an SUV. It was primarily for my work. For my job, I have to haul 6-8 complete sets of scuba gear about 40 miles anywhere from 2-5 times per week. I used to own a Saturn coupe, and it wouldn’t all fit. Any car with carpet in the trunk would end up getting moldy, as I can’t fully dry the gear before it goes in my car. Sedans are also too small. Looks like I need an automobile that can carry lots of gear, and can easily be rinsed out, so needs a cargo space like a truck bed or the X-terra/FJ rear lining. I like being to safely lock my gear in my car, so I eliminated the trucks. I was left looking at an SUV, so I decided to get one that also allows me to enjoy my hobbies of camping, mountain biking, and off-roading. That having been said, I also don’t drive my car unless it is to or from work, or to or from my campsite/weekend remote area of choice. Anything within a ten-mile radius I walk or bike (this includes the grocery store, its not that hard to fit everything into a backpack). So before you start throwing your “everyone who drives a car type I hate is a poser” accusations around, get out of your Prius and try to understand that those of us who own SUV’s aren’t stupid, we normally have legitamite uses for our vehicles of choice.
/rant off
Great thread.
Several posts here mention poseurs and compensation as rationales for the SUV craze. Let’s agree that it is a craze – a large amount of people who own SUVs simply do not need them. They have no need for the UTILITY of the vehicles.
Why do they buy them, then? “They were fashionable” is only part of the answer.
People bought them because of what they projected about their aspirations: “If I wasn’t caught in this 9-5 job with a wife and three kids and a big mortgage, I/we would be in Alaska running a fishing lodge.” “We’re a much more exciting couple than you’d otherwise think.”
However, SUVs have become a very expensive way of projecting what psychologists and marketers call the “Pacific Island Dream” that keeps most people going through the daily drudge. And now they are increasingly unpopular, which is bad news for those stuck with one — or the majors who bet the farm on people remaining crazed and confused.
I have owned three Cherokee Jeeps. All in the Limited versions because I wanted the comfort, but I have treated them badly. Well, actually I have treated them the way they should be treated. I live with nature all around me, and the Cherokee gets me through everything these surroundings throw at me, rain or snow. I have pulled cars out of snowdrifts and run up steep inclines covered with snow and ice with no trouble at all. And I have barraged through underbrush with a big smile on my face on the way to a lake, barely able to spot a years old trail.
If I add up the total mileage in those cars — and estimate the amount where I had actual use of the UTILITY, then I think we’re looking at 5% HARD utility, 25% SOFT utility (handy with a jeep in winter, for instance) and 70% could have been done with another type of car.
And I’m an outdoorsman. I spend a lot of time 17 meters from the edge of the water close to the Arctic.
How would the above calculation look if I was a true urban dweller?
Or as I asked a friend who bought one of the first Cayennes, tricked out with all the extras and the biggest engine: “Would you take that on a forest trail?” “You crazy?”
At some point, a psychic projection that is part of modern man’s survival kit was allowed to become an irrational want. The Audi Q7s and Porsche Cayennes of the world will spend their “lives” on asphalt. And a single mom tanking up a huge Hummer will stare with amazement at the high tally of the dollar sum on the pump.
The craze is over, people will be projecting in other ways.
Which explains the hybrid craze that’s overtaking us now. Instead of running a fishing lodge in Alaska, we’ll be wanting to “drive Nature healthy” with alternatives to the overpowered gas driven engine.
As for myself, I’m nearing the end of my Cherokee years. I’m longing for the zippity-zip of having fun along regular roads again, before that’s all regulated away.
Ryan: Sure, that middle-aged guy in a Corvette is just as much a poser, but did he justify his purchase as a need?
Exactly. Thank you.
Having spent the last few days in South Florida with Frank Williams at the helm (thanks Frank!), I have a new perspective on this issue.
Miami is crowded with vehicles which will never get the use for which they were designed. And I’m not just talking about all the huge SUV’s cruising around.
For example, there’s a Lamborghini Gallardo parked outside the hotel here in Key Biscayne. Unless you take that bad boy off to a track, there is no place to get above the ton (without attracting police cruisers and helicopters) and no place to corner (unless you count highway off-ramps).
Obviously, it’s ALL about the joy of ownership. No really. It’s about having a vehicle that CAN do something extraordinary even though it and you won’t.
Now a large part of that is simple fashion-based snobbery. And the rest is, um, fashion-based snobbery. And that brings to focus the most important question in this debate: do car US buyers have some kind of obligation to be socially/environmentally responsible?
Clearly, US car buyers don’t HAVE to be responsible (even if car makers do, which is bizarre). There is no legal obligation to buy a fuel or space efficient vehicle. Morally, well, that’s where Mr. Myrkle and his supporters find traction.
Then you have to ask is it OK for society to create incentives or strictures to restrict the “free market” to achieve some moral or practical change in consumer buying patterns. Of course, such policies already exist. But where do you draw the line?
Personally, I believe the problem is not manufacturers or consumerfs. The problem is imported oil. The government should be doing everything possible to eliminate foreign oil imports and stimulate US energy independence.
I’m OK with Americans driving gas hogs if that gas (or electricity or hyrdogen or E85) is produced here in the US. THAT’S where we should be putting our efforts.
But until then, well, even a pistonhead like me can see the writing on the wall. I drive a minivan and (just for fun, not everyday) a Boxster S. That’s my choice, and I do think we as a society should try to encourage conservation– until that glorious day when energy is once again cheap, plentiful and politically “safe”.
When my parents constantly needed to haul around their four kids, they loaded them into their VW van. Seriously, those things offer everything you’d want: Good visibility, loads of space, acceptable fuel consumption and quite good performance: I used to work for a kindergarden, fetching the kids from home, and I had a T5 multivan with the smallest diesel engine (1.9?) there is. On the autobahn, it maxed at about 140kph (about 85 mph), and thanks to the gearing, there was actually quite a bit of grunt at the lights. And it needed something like 8-10 liters of diesel per 100km (23-28 mpg) – for a car weighing about 2,5 tonnes, that’s pretty good!
Granted, those vans look rather bland, but over here in Germany, they’re still very popular. This might be a reason why the ‘SUV-craze’ never really happend over here.
The market corrects all. Those who need will buy those who do not will move to more fuel efficent cars. Keep in mind that many sports cars will get between 15-25 mpg depending on how they are driven. Apparently they do not now suffer teh same stigma as SUV’s. Its a crazy world we live in.
People buy the autos they desire and can afford … just like the clothes they desire and can afford .. and the houses they desire and can afford … no more .. no less …
95% of the subscribers to this forum desire a MB-AMG, 911, vette, Continental GT(mine) or some sort of sports car and would buy one in a heartbeat … with no mind that 500+ HP is excess … so why are SUVs bashed routinely??
why is the SUV my wife loves and enjoys driving less of a valid choice … than the RX-7 she drove a couple choices before??
the only way to make a difference is to drive a penalty box … or better yet … take the bus … if you want to make a difference … not bash other peoples choices
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that this story is a near-perfect analogy to the darn pervasive argument (here, especially) for driving Japanese vehicles.
I (and others of like mind) can sit here and put forth reason after reason why driving a Japanese make is a detriment to the society we (most of us) live in. The Japanese lovers here argue back with 1) you’re crazy . . . I don’t think my choice is hurting anybody; 2) I need the benefits provided by the vehicle; or 3) go to hell . . . don’t tell me what to drive.
To me, your argument that the constant move away from American vehicles (and other products in general) hasn’t been a big detriment to this country is as hollow and self-serving as the argument that SUV emissions don’t contribute to global warming. Seems like two groups of people here can’t (or don’t want to) handle the truth.
To paraphrase buzzliteyear . . .
Japanese car owner — gets to drive a car with 0.8 perceived problems (rounds to one) versus 1.1 perceived problems (rounds to one); acheives 4% better real-world fuel economy
Society — replaces hundreds of thousands of high-paying middle-class manufacturing jobs with part-time jobs at WalMart and McDonalds; retirees take said WalMart jobs to supplement ‘jettisoned’ health benefits and retirement benefits.
To me, you’re argument that the domestics are all POS and you need the quality of the Japanese is as worthless as saying that people need their SUV to tow a boat or haul a load of drywall.
Obviously it’s easier to tow or haul with an SUV, as it’s obvious that 78 TGW is better than 113 TGW. But neither is truly a deal-breaker, and both groups are so tied up in their choice that they absolutely refuse to consider the ‘second best’ alternative and make a rational trade-off of the benefits to them versus the overall good.
Which leaves us with the final argument . . . don’t tell me what to drive. It’s common to both, which to me puts both camps on the same footing.
carguy may have put it best . . . SUVs were ‘in style’, and now they’re not. I would say the same thing . . . owning Japanese cars is ‘in style’. Is there a real objective reason underlying this? Perhaps . . . moreso in the past, not so much now, probably no more than the objective reason that people drive SUVs. But it’s in style, so people will do it.
For a big chunk of the ‘baby boomer’ population, it’s frankly always been ‘in style’ to hate anything that’s American . . . and this world-view is just marching on from protests in the ’60s to car-buying habits of the ’90s and ’00s. If you don’t buy this, then please re-read this article and train of posts . . . the whole premise is ‘why did SUVs catch on in America‘, and many of the responses seem to say ‘because Americans are stupid, and greedy, and uncaring, and selfish, and fat.’
Bravo.
The ‘style’ argument is about the most defendable of the three. But it applies equally to both . . . so maybe more people should shut up about telling you or me or him or her what to drive, or what not to drive.
Unfortunately, here in the US. There is very little you can tow with a car or small SUV. Boats have gotten on average, bigger and heavier along with our vehicles.
We have a 21′ open bow (barely avg size today) boat that is 3 years old and the tandem axle trailer weighs a 1000lbs alone. The combined weight is nearly 5000lbs when gear and fuel is added.
Sure, I can tow 5000lbs with most midsize SUVs, but what most fail to consider is the gross combined weight rating of the tow vehicle. By the time I add the family and a weeks worth of gear, your overloaded if towing anywhere near the max. tow rating. My Suburban with a 7200lb rating is humbled quickly and was downright unsafe when I towed the same rig with a Nissan Pathfinder rated at 5000lbs.
BTW, I hate the Suburban for day to day errands, but it’s awesome for our 6 or so 1000+ mile trips we take every year. That said, the day the we no longer have a boat to tow, I’ll jetison the SUV ASAP
Crash – you absolutely right about towing and hauling your family and gear.
With a Honda Odyssey – a towing capacity of 3500 lb, you can’t tow a 21 foot boat. That 3500lb number has to be taken down even more if you actually put some family members in your vehicle.
I think all the ‘poser’ accusations are funny. It would seem that everyone who drives anything remotely desireable must be a ‘poser’.
Sportscar? SUV? Fast Sedan? Big Sedan? Sportbike? M/AMG/L-tuned/RS/V/Saleen? Wheels over 13″? Luxury model? German nameplate? Japanese nameplate? All posers.
Obviously Prius owners (paying thounsands and thousands extra for a car that is good to environment so Toyota can sell more SUVs that hurt the environment) must be posers.
If you have anything other than the base engine in the base model of a car that won a consumer reports test – you must be a poser.
So I guess next time you are out judging people by the car they drive, count me as a ‘poser’.
As has been said, the reason that so many SUV drivers are quickly painted with the poser brush while drivers of other vehicles are left alone boil down to the SUV itself. If more people owed up to the fact that they just wanted an SUV, and didn’t try to hide behind needs, i.e. “I need something safe” (even if it kills the guy I hit), “I need the room” (because a minivan is just too small for my 2.5 kids), “I need 4WD” (because I’m a terrible driver, and have no idea what snow tires are for), etc, then there’d be less of a problem.
Brian:
I take it, then, that you’ve not been to Texas lately. Down here, pickups and SUVs still outsell sedans and econo-boxes, and probably always will. Of course, most of Texas is rural, and farmers and ranchers actually need the towing and hauling capacity.
This entire discussion about the “evils” of SUVs and trucks is all based on the assumption that conspicuous consumption is a bad thing, and that, if only we’d all agree to drive a Prius, the world would be a better place.
Hogwash.
Let the free market and capitalism be the final arbiter. If you can afford the gas – drive what you like. When manufacturers sense a trend toward more fuel-efficient vehicles, they’ll build them – or go out of business.
Henry Ford stubbornly refused to change the initially practical and popular Model T for years, instead just giving incremental improvements while lowering the price, even as sales began to steadily decline. The result was that General Motors, with its annual model changeover, has been the number one auto manufacturer in the world since 1931.
The SUV sales’ ‘bubble’ are just the latest proof that ever since then, what sells cars in the US is style and marketing, not practicality.
Robert Farago –
I agree with your first points – I could summarize this as: people often buy more car/truck than they need but we should respect individual choice.
My disagreement is your proposal for the US government to somehow pursue “energy independence”. Energy independence has been proposed by all US presidents and congressmen since Nixon – all while the share of our oil imports has increased continuously.
The first problem is that this is much, much harder than it sounds – there is simply no practical way of achieving this in the near or mid term without a massive decrease in standard of living. A capitalistic economy like the US operates to maximize standard of living, and importing petroleum yields by far the highest standard of living. So one major reason energy independence has been so elusive is that “energy dependence” is so darn practical – trumping political considerations.
There is no “magic bullet”. No 100 mpg carbuerator, no perfect EV that got “killed”. Ethanol costs much more per gallon, gets much worse mileage in flexfuel cars, and has almost no net effect on oil imports. Indeed the E85 program created huge CAFE loop-holes that allowed billions of extra gallons of dinasaur juice to flow.
The other problem is that all the proposals for “energy independence” involve massive use of tax payer money and government central management of the economy. This type of activity will be about as efficient as it was for the old Soviet bloc. Mr Farago has done a good job pointing out GM’s mis-management, but this is nothing in comparison to what the feds can do (look at Carter’s “synthfuels” program of the re-building of Iraq).
I actually mind soming driving an E85 gas hog more than a regular gas guzzler. E85 requires huge subsidies – waste gas if you want but I don’t want to pay for it. An 10 mpg heavily subsidized corn burner is worse than a taxpaying 14 mpg gas burner.
Thx:
I suspect you are right that “energy independence” is not very likely (at least without, say, a massive shift to a hydrogen-based economy). Yes, we must be wary of policy “shell games” that do not end up saving energy. I’d also agree with you that there is no “magic bullet.” Reducing our dependence upon foreign sources of oil would require a multitude of interlocking policies.
However, I would argue that attempting to REDUCE our dependence upon foreign oil is a worthy goal . . . and that it would NOT involve “massive use of tax payer money and government central management of the economy.”
You imply that we must make a stark choice between a free-market utopia and Soviet bloc-style government intervention. That’s simply not the case — there are many choices on that continuum. Some choices (e.g., changes in energy tax policies) could actually enhance rather than undercut market mechanisms.
You also argue that government would screw up whatever it tried. Painting with such a broad brush obscures many instances where government has been effective in solving a problem. Pointing to Iraq merely underlines how government is more effective when its administration is left to seasoned professionals rather than handed off to party loyalists or to private contractors who are not held accountable for their actions (and cost overruns).
Finally, you seem to assume that the feds would need to be the dominant player. That’s not necessarily the case. Quite a few local and state governments have been initiating a variety of innovative policies to reduce energy consumption. Many of these policies do not reduce your automotive choices a bit, e.g., better timing traffic lights so that vehicles spend less time idling.
PS: You already heavily subsidize the 10mpg gas hog through a variety of federal policies (e.g., tax loopholes for oil companies). So the question: If you’re going to subsidize someone would you rather it be Exxon or a farmer?
Energy independence for the U.S. is quite a stretch.
The U.S. has an estimated 4% of the world’s readily available oil reserves and consumes just in excess of 25% of the world’s daily raw oil production…
Still a pretty solid incentive for a reduction in excessive consumption.
(Figures from memory).
Stein, your figures are pretty good. Here are some addiitonal ones:
The U.S. has roughly 5 percent of the world’s population but spews roughly a quarter of the planet’s greenhouse gases. This is far higher than any other nation (although China is expected to catch up in a few decades because of its extraordinary growth and heavy dependence upon coal).
The U.S. consumes almost twice as much energy per capita as other advanced nations such as Great Britain, Japan and Germany.
Last I heard, Great Britain had both a decent standard of living and was not run with a Soviet bloc-style government. Now, some (Thx?) may think that Britain’s energy and transportation policies go too far. Fair enough. But let’s put to rest the red herring that we can’t cut energy consumption without lapsing into a dark age of abject poverty and totalitarian government.
The “freedom to do whatever you want” people should realize a big difference between people choosing “sports cars” and people choosing SUVs. I think this is a source of contention.
* A sports car faces 27 MPG CAFE and gas-guzzler penalties under 20 MPG while an SUV faces 21 MPG and no gas-guzzler penalties.
* A sports car might be driven at 155 MPH on the highway–endangering the lives of others. However, this is illegal. Some SUVs are very heavy, have high center of gravity, and don’t have crumple zones–these are dangerous features to all other vehicles on the road yet aren’t illegal.
* A sports car might have an excessivly loud muffler, but this is illegal. An SUV blocks the view of smaller vehicles on the road and in the parking lots–this isn’t illegal.
* Sports cars face tougher emissions standards than SUVs regadless of how either one is actually used.
Steven T;
I think we all agree that full independence is a politicians promise only. So the question is: can we reduce our dependence?
Well same problems. Even reducing dependence will involve some lowering of standard of living – most people would not stand for that. Thus we get “free lunch” corn ethanol – note that this does *not* require tax increase, we simply borrow more and add to deficit.
You are right there is a continuum – we can waste 100 billion per year and achieve nothing, or waste 50 billion per year and achieve half of this. O.K. you may say I am painting with a “broad brush” – but central planning has poor record.
And yes state and local governments *also* can waste money and achieve nothing – thanks for reminding me.
I live in Arizona – we had something called the “alternative fuels program”. Not content to let the Democrats waste all the money, the Republicans passed a law giving *huge* (10 -20 thousand!) tax credits for alt fuel vehicles. Dealers responed with poorly engineered conversions, with small propane tanks. O.K get this: most would never burn anything but gas – as the range was low and no propane stations. Also the poor engineering meant they sometimes polluted *more* finally – my favorite – the ~100 million of taxpayer money was almost all spent on huge SUV’s and trucks. So there you have it – state spending money to subsidize gas guzzlers, using *more* gas.
When it comes to public policy I sort them into two groups.
Gas taxes *do* work – most economists agree and they are the basis of Europes much higher efficiency. *But* voters will never approve them – because they *do* work.
Miscellaneous silly laws (CAFE, HOV lanes, E85, etc, etc, ad infinitem) don’t work just waste money. These *are* politically possible simply because they *don’t* work.
What we need is the “national the other guy burns too much gas act” I guess
Energy independence for the U.S. is quite a stretch.
The U.S. has an estimated 4% of the world’s readily available oil reserves and consumes just in excess of 25% of the world’s daily raw oil production…
Ah but maybe your friends up North can help with that!
US energy independence is a stretch. And…? Time to get on with it, methinks.
Keep in mind a lot of SUV owners, at least the ones I’m around, don’t care a whole lot about what their SUV does, because anything over 6000lb GVWR (If I recall correctly) qualifies as a work vehicle, therefore eligible for massive tax breaks on its price, depreciation and a certain percentage of fuel costs.
My friend’s dad, who is a real estate agent, bought a Mercedes G500 last year. He doesn’t care that it gets 14 mpg on the freeway with a tailwind and often hits the $75 pumping limit at Shell gas stations. He can write off a portion of the fuel cost of his 600-mile-a-week trips because it counts as a business trip. Although, to his credit, he enjoys taking it off road (I like riding in it too)–it has much more ground clearance than his Lincoln Town Car. It’s tax loopholes like that and cheap energy that encourages people to buy big things they don’t necessarily need.
Buying a new fuel effecient vehicle is often more expensive in the short term. People who bought their Ford Explorer Sport back when gas was a buck and a penny would end up spending more financing and paying insurance on a new or recently used vehicle, rather than just putting up with $55 fillups.
As for taxes, California already has some of the highest gas prices in the nation. Nobody here seems to care a whole lot though. On the other hand, you have to drive to get somewhere anyway.
But whatever happens, don’t worry. Utah and parts of the southwest sit on an estimated 80 billion barrels of oil trapped in sandy oil shale. We don’t use it because it cost $30/bbl to extract with current technology, while pumping black stuff out of the sea floor costs nothing in comparison. It’s not going to run out too soon, it’ll just get a lot more expensive.
Two camps: the defensive SUV drivers and the smug car drivers. Hilarious, great article!
And the best thing about the demise of the SUV age? Lots of nice SUV’s hitting the used market at fire-sale prices for those of us that actually have a use for them.
I gots mine. Towed the pop-up on an extended vacation and took it up to the mountain cabin shortly after buying it. Got it all dirty and never bothered to wash it when I got home. Nothing says “I ain’t no SUV poser” like a muddy truck.
I live in California, where I do quite a bit of backcountry, dirt road driving… in my lowly minivan, a Toyota Sienna FWD. It’s adequate to get to a lot of rugged places where logging trucks or pickups go. (And, no, I don’t ford creeks with it). In mountain snow I just put snow chains on to get traction. So, it would be nice to have an SUV for these activities, but I’ve been doing fine without.
What do you think? Am I crazy and is my minivan going to fall apart pretty soon? Will I be crying for the stronger wheel suspension and skid plates of an SUV?
By the way, Brian, great writing!
Areitu: But whatever happens, don’t worry. Utah and parts of the southwest sit on an estimated 80 billion barrels of oil trapped in sandy oil shale.
And you’d have to wreck some of the most beautiful country in the world to get at it. But I think global heating is much more of a current danger than running out of fuel. The price mechanism will keep adequate fuel flowing in some form, even if most cars in the US have to shrink to Fit-Yaris-Versa size
As I peer out my office window today, the automotive population below is strikingly different. There are still a couple Trailblazers, a Durango, an F-150 and a Buick Rendezvous. But the majority of spaces are occupied by real cars: coupes and sedans and pony cars.
I don’t know where you live, but here in Houston, parking lots are still dominated by SUVs and pickups.
It’s about having a vehicle that CAN do something extraordinary even though it and you won’t.
Exactly!
The fact of the matter is that most SUVs don’t do ANYTHING extraordinarily well. They don’t handle, they don’t brake well, they aren’t space efficient, they aren’t smooth riding, they are difficult to drive, etc.
While I agree that sports car drivers can also be poseurs, the fact is that the high capability these cars possess can be used in every day circumstances like…WHEN AVOIDING AN ACCIDENT. Also, as has been pointed out, sports cars and sports sedans are required to have a social “conscious” that SUVs get to skate over.
As far as energy independence goes:
While I’m not a fan of a central control, an effective energy policy that can lead to energy independence needs a central control in order to co-ordinate the implementations of certain policies.
The use of tax credits given to states that build nuclear power plants would be more effective if they were allowed to sell that power throughout the country. The same would be true of hydro and wind power. NIMBYism can be overcome if the federal government gave local communities incentives to develop these energy alternatives.
I was reminded ofanother reason to hate SUVs and senselessly oversized pickups today – the b*st*rds that buy them often don’t know how to park them. I encountered two of them taking up two parking spaces each today at the mall.
Nino – power is traded across the country all the time, now, whenever it can be sold at a profit or purchased cheaper than it would cost to generate. Nuclear power is usually more of a baseload power source (runs all the time) and is less likely to be traded during peak times when prices are highest. Peak power is usually supplied by more expensive sources which can be brough on-line in a hurry and shut off quickly Nukes don’t lend themselves to that sort of thing, since their incremental cost to operate is usually low.
I agree with the observations of this editorial but I find it interesting that you never see similar editorials about sports cars. When you have certain design parameters, other factors will have to suffer. Designing a vehicle to tow, carry from zero pounds to 2 tons as cargo, go off road etc. will of course compromise gas mileage, handling on road, propensity to roll over.
Designing a sports car to accelerate quickly, go around corners fast will hurt gas mileage, ability to carry stuff and drive in the snow.
My point is that sport car drivers probably only ever goose the throttle or take an on ramp fast thus utilizing about as much of their car’s optimized ability as a common SUV driver may use of theirs. But, you never see an automotive journalist panning sports cars because they are what they “dig”. I imagine people that dig trucks get a good feeling just driving around in their trucks whether they need them or not. Most sports cars never see a track but even the most pathetic pick-up owner probably occasionally gets a piece of plywood or helps a friend move.
Ok, I know there hasn’t been a sports car revolution like there was an SUV revolution but if we were all practical we would be driving camrys. The fact that we used to get by with less, well we used to only have horses and got by.