Do you own a SUV?

[jim_wilson]

When I say "illogical vehicle choice" I should probably elaborate. What I mean by that is that I believe it is that it is unneccessary for suburban soccer moms with one kid to be toting said mom's butt and said child around town in vehicles like Suburbans and Excursions, when a Honda Civic or Toyota Prius would do just as well.

The low price of gas is the thing that allows people to make these vehicle choices. If gas was $5.00 a gallon then a great many people would be driving smaller cars than they currently do now.

When I was younger I did a little bit of car racing and learned a few things. Racing is all about efficiency - efficiency of vehicle design, efficiency of fuel usage, efficiency of the drivers endurance. How many times have you seen a driver at the Indy 500 or a Nascar race out into the lead in the first laps still there when the race ends? How many marathon runners sprint into the lead right from the start and win the race? What we have now is a large vehicle population that is very inefficient when it comes down to the actual tasks that vehicle population has to accomplish. 20 years ago everybody drove smaller cars and everybody got along just fine. Families have gotten smaller for the most part but the vehicles have gotten bigger. For what reason? - to haul around our bigger butts because the population is overweight?

As a general rule when resources are tight and you actually have to pay for them people tend to conserve. If something costs nothing you treat it like that. This is borne out by recent events as more and more people are talking about getting into more efficient vehicles. If it makes sense now how come it didn't make sense before? I don't think that the true cost of gasoline is reflected at the pump - if you added in the tax dollars spent to keep the Navy protecting the oceans the supertankers sail on, the Army in the countries in the Middle East that produce the crude and all of the other myriad ways our tax dollars support the oil economy - you would see higher prices than we have even now. In the end if I am driving a fuel efficient vehicle and everybody else is driving Hummers I am supporting them because their vehicles are subsidized by all of the things I mentioned above.

I believe that nothing in life is free - if you pee in the river somebody else downstream drinks the water. If we use up all the available petroleum then my kids are going to have harder choices to make than my generation was willing to make. Every time I hear somebody say their SUV is safer in an accident I ask them why they keep hitting things. Maybe if their vehicle was smaller they wouldn't have such a hard time navigating around obstacles. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[HGM]

I respect your opinion and agree with parts of it. If you have followed this post over the many pages I'm sure you have heard some valid arguments as well.

I dont see the issue of slamming all SUV's in a generalized statement. There are some very economical versions out there. If you think your little econo box could pull a camper on a family vacation or fit a family of 5 comfortably, your sadly mistaken.

Again, there are folks that dont need them. Just as there are folks that do. Because you dont have a need nor see why people in your area should have one gives you no right to chastise someone else because they do. Fuel economy is getting better, maybe not to your standards but our diesel Excursion gets 18.5mpg. That isnt too bad for a 6k lb truck that we need by the way.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="green"> When I say "illogical vehicle choice" I should probably elaborate. What I mean by that is that I believe it is that it is unneccessary for suburban soccer moms with one kid to be toting said mom's butt and said child around town in vehicles like Suburbans and Excursions, when a Honda Civic or Toyota Prius would do just as well.
</font>

Well my wife drives a Volvo XC90 SUV, we have 1 child.

I just wonder where she would pack the volleyball and soccer equipment into a Civic? She coaches both teams. Even if she only drove with just our daughter in the back seat, her vehicle is pretty much full all the time every day. In fact she has to unpack equipment to put a couple grocery sacks into the back.



The problem with this whole discussion is that a group of people on one side of the fence is defining the "needs" of the group of people who live on the other side of the fence.

Just my opinion. But blanket statements don't accurately apply to many things and this is one of them.

 

[daedong]

Bob
I have to agree with you on this, we need to look at the big picture.

There is not an infinite supply of fossil fuel.

So the question really is who should have it and how much can they have and what are we going to do when it runs out.

Now I make my point very clear here I do not know the answer but it is time to start to find the answer or we will or our kids will pay the price of this generations greed for oil and I do not exclude myself from that.

 

[MikePA]

We are not running out of fossil fuel, we are running out of easily (read inexpensively) obtained fossil fuels. Tar sands and oil shale are just 2 of the more expensive alternative sources. sneaky_pete can probably comment, if he hasn't already.

 

[RedRocker]

The free market will take care of itself, the higher it gets, the more alternatives will be viable. We could all drive a Prius tomorrow and the price wouldn't go down, it would probably go up. I know CA is already whining to tax the gas sippers by the mile since they don't use a lot of taxable gas.

 

[bmac]

I would like, for a moment, to accept the arguement that we are, indeed, running out of fossil fuels. As I am too lazy to do any research on this, I'll throw out a question to those who are staying abreast of these developments : At our current rate of usage, how long before our petroleum stores are exhausted? Are we talking 25 years? 50? 100? 500? I really haven't a clue on the time frame people are talking about when the claims are made about the end of the petroleum supply.

While it seems that lots of folks drive vehicles that can be classified as SUVs, what is the percentage of vehicles on the road that are the real poster children of the target group, i.e., Excursions, Suburbans, Hummers, etc. My guess is that this group makes up a relatively small percentage of vehicles on the road. Maybe 5% ? Could it be as high as 10%.

Now, if we could wave a magic wand and instantly replace all of these evil, gas guzzling SUVs with vehicles that got, let's say 30 mpg (after all, I don't see any vehicle getting this kind of mileage in the crosshairs of any group so it seems like a safe number), how much longer would it extend our supply of petroleum? 10 years? 25 years? 100? Again, I really don't know.

Has anyone come up with a figure of petroleum usage that would allow our global supplies to remain static? I.e., that level where the amount of new petroleum formation equals the amount pumped out of the ground? If that figure is known, could one then calculate what mean mpg requirement would be to maintain a static oil supply? I'm going to intentionally be silly here and take wild guess: 1000 mpg?

I guess where I'm going with this is, even if one accepts the proposition that the petroleum reserves are drying up (and I'm not saying they aren't), eliminating the thirstiest of SUV's doesn't seem to me will "save our children" from depleted petroleum reserves. If we're running out of oil, we're running out of oil. And I don't think eliminating the gas guzzlers (as they are defined today) is going to make any significant difference in how long our petroleum reserves last. And with the ever-increasing number of cars on the road today, I would expect that even if every one of them got 50 mpg, we would still be experiencing a petroleum deficit (again, assuming that we are running out of oil). So, by driving any gas (or diesel) fueled car or truck, if we're not screwing our children out of their oil, then we're screwing our grand children or great grand children or someone down the line. So, what's the point of targeting the SUVs?

And people say I'm cynical. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Please, understand the above was offered purely for my amusement. As I admitted, I have done no research on this topic and make no claims of possessing any knowledge of petroleum supplies and demand. And, my wife can find flaws with my logic on a daily basis. So, no flaming responses, please.

 

[Boomerang1]

<font color="red"> </font><font color="blue" class="small">( When I say "illogical vehicle choice" I should probably elaborate. What I mean by that is that I believe it is that it is unneccessary for suburban soccer moms with one kid to be toting said mom's butt and said child around town in vehicles like Suburbans and Excursions, when a Honda Civic or Toyota Prius would do just as well.)</font> </font> Maybe the mom wants to make sure she and her son would have less chance of being injured if they wre involved in an accident. Which one would you rather be in if you were involved in an accident? A Toyota Prius or a Ford Excursion. That is why I drive my 7000# pickup that gets 14 mpg less than my wifes matchbox.

 

[DKinWA]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Maybe the mom wants to make sure she and her son would have less chance of being injured if they wre involved in an accident. )</font>

I haven't read the whole thread, but this came up in a discussion I was having with some friends. While this is likely true, the smaller vehicle will also likely sustain more damage than if hit by a vehicle of similar size. In this case, I may be safe and sound in my larger vehicle, but it's possible my larger vehicle may ultimately be responsible for greater injuries to passengers in the smaller vehicle. Right or wrong, who knows?

If a purchaser bases their decision on safety and more space, why stop at the expedition sized vehicles? Why not a 15 passenger van or a semi with a huge sleeper berth? Definitely safer and a lot more storage room than the expedition sized vehicles.

Personally, I think SUV's and larger vehicles are purchased for a lot of good reasons, but I also believe we tend to exagerate our utilization of them. When this thread was first started, I counted the number of occupants in SUV's while driving to town one day. Obviously I didn't spend a lot of time on study design, but it represented what I saw on the road at that time on that day. Of the suv's I counted, 30% of the suv's had two or more passengers and the remaining 70% were single occupancy. Based on my small sample, it'd be hard to argue people are buying them for people haulers.

My daily driver is a F250 4x4 with 351 gas motor. I bought it because I carry 80 gallons of diesel and a lot of tools for the dirt work I do. I'd like to have something more fuel efficient, but I believe having two vehicles actually wastes more resources than using only the one truck. Right or wrong, this seems to make sense to me /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif I better quit now and go to bed before I really start rambling /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[HGM]

I believe it has gotten past the point that anyone will stop singling out SUV's even if they did get 50mpg. The anti-SUV crowd doesnt really care. SUV's are larger,safer and more practical than their compact, and the only valid excuse for their rant is fuel economy.

The fact that most forget is that that big school bus (SUV) is often seen with one person and alot of empty seats is because most can only afford one vehicel per person in the family. If I could afford to have several vehicles just for my driving purposes I would probably have a work car, pick-up, motorcycle, sport car, and yes still an SUV..Alot of SUV's out there are the "family vehicle" and someone uses it as a daily driver because they are making payments on it.

I also like the comment abount quantifying the fuel shortage claimed in this thread. If all vehicles doubled in fuel economy its unlikely that oil consumption would be cut in half. Dont forget our population is growing out of hand at the same time and. We dont have the disease, accidents, wars, etc that were present years ago that controled our population. There are many options in the works. Nature is handling our supply now. BioDiesel is becoming more poular, more diesel,Hybrid, Hydrogen, etc are all coming in the near future..

Please get over the scare tactics and live your life,not everyone elses. It will save on the alcohol bill and cut down on ulcers as well.. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[To20Chris]

I've read most, but not all, of these posts. I have two SUVs, one a small car-based one (Santa-Fe) that's not too bad on gas for now, and one an old gas pig that's not too inefficient when used to tow the horse trailer, which is about all it does anymore. I commute in 1500cc econobox that I enjoy a lot. I've survived a horrendous wreck in an old Escort - I tend to think the small cars are dangerous thing is overblown.

The thing that strikes me from reading this thread is that people still think there will be a choice - that we'll continue to be able to decide if we want to drive an inefficient veheicle. It's not as if the last drop of crude is going to drip out tomorrow, there is an enormous amount of oil left in the ground. It's just that we've already pumped the best and easiest to get, they haven't discoverd any big new fields in a very long time, and the world is using as much or more than can be pumped. Demand is increasing exponentially, and supply is leveling off, and soon will decline. There are and ever will be more people who want it, and less of it to be had. So there will be less oil in total, and we'll get a smaller share of it. Oil is going to get very expensive, especially if you include the costs of the inevitable conficts. And no matter how much you're willing to pay for it, no more will appear in the ground.

Since we use that oil for so many things, functions like agriculture and transportation of goods will likely have to have a higher priority.

There are other souces of oil, such a tar sands, but a barrel of oil from there takes far more energy and money to get than does the crude we've been pumping thus far.

The choice to buy an inefficient vehilce of any kind will simply become unreasonable for most. If you get an SUV now, I suggest you lease it!

 

[slowrev]

I agree on the lease aspect if you get an SUV. Not sure how well they will be selling in 2-3 years. Consider how much gas prices have gone up in the last 2-3 years.....
Trade ins on small efficient vehicles should be going up, and going down on guzzlers.
Ben

 

[rozett]

</font><font color="blueclass=small">( I tend to think the small cars are dangerous thing is overblown )</font>

You are welcome to that view, but the data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says the opposite. Here is one quote from the linked report. A subsequent study indicated in this 1997 report validates the 1991 data.

<font color="blue"> "The 1991 study estimated that the reduction of the average weight of passenger cars from 3,700 pounds (in 1970) to 2,700 pounds (in 1982) resulted in increases of approximately 2,000 fatalities and 20,000 serious injuries each year." </font>

 

[rozett]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The choice to buy an inefficient vehilce of any kind will simply become unreasonable for most. )</font>

I agree. Over time, the consumption vs availability problem will reach an equilibrium.. However, my problem with the statement is that some people are trying to define what an inefficient vehicle is for others. They may see me driving alone in my Excursion and decide that I am scum because I insist on driving an inefficient vehicle. Unless they know more about me or why I need an Excursion-like vehicle, they have no place sitting in judgement!

 

[To20Chris]

Didn't judge you in the least - nor did I define what is unreasonable. It's not my place to do so, nor is it necessary – what is reasonable or not will soon be pretty obvious to you anyway. As I said, I own 2 SUVs. So whatever your problem with my statement is, it must be something else. You seem to have taken my comments as a personal attack on you, which they certainly were not. My comment was that people would make their own judgement that certain vehicles were unreasonably expensive for them to drive.

 

[rozett]

Sorry, Chris. My post wasn't aimed at you. Just a general comment. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[ejtaylor822]

Interesting article in this month’s Consumer Report. The purpose of the test was to show how far off the EPA rated MPG on new cars were off from actual real world numbers – a fact most of us are already well aware of. Anyway, the interesting part was seeing the mileage CR got from some of the cars they tested. Their test was “real world” using a combination of city (stop & go), highway and combination driving. Here are some of the CR MPG numbers:

Jeep liberty Diesel Ltd. 4WD - 11
Honda civic - 26
Chrysler 300C - 10
Honda Odyssey EX - 12
BMW 745Li - 11
Oldsmobile Alero GL - 13

I find it funny how all of these, except the Civic, get worse or the same gas mileage as my SUVs, yet I come out of stores and find nastygrams from the tree-huggers on my windshield. I have yet to see a tree hugger protesting a BMW 7 as killing mother earth.

I must say though I am curios what type of tests were done. I trust CR, but, they referenced another test and had the Ford Expedition, Eddie Bauer @ 12 MPG. This is what we own (w/ 4WD) and we get anywhere from 14 MPG to 17 MPG (I know, it's only 2 or 3 MPG difference but it sounds better than 12 /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

 

[Dargo]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...they referenced another test and had the Ford Expedition, Eddie Bauer @ 12 MPG. This is what we own (w/ 4WD) and we get anywhere from 14 MPG to 17 MPG (I know, it's only 2 or 3 MPG difference but it sounds better than 12 /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif).
)</font>

In right at 60,000 miles worth of driving on our 5.4 liter Eddie Bauer Expedition 4X4, the overall MPG was 12.2. That's over 60k miles. I'd say they are pretty well dead on with saying about 12.

 

[To20Chris]

Interesting data point for me - my old Jeep Grand Wagoneer gets 12 or so in mixed driving, probably would do 15 in steady highway. I wondered how that compared to newer designs. I guess it's not that far off, considering the 360ci V8, 3spd auto, full-time 4wd, about 5000lbs, and barn-door aerodynamics. The nice part is that the mileage doesn't really drop that much towing a 5000lb horse trailer!

 

[HGM]

WOW, maybe we should ban the sedans /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sorry, I couldnt resist. The mileage thing is so relative to how you drive, its kinda silly to base all decisions on it. I agree it is a baseline, but by looking at that report you can see how if you drive it like you stole it most of the time(I think thats what they did) you get poor mileage.

I wouldnt recomend wasting fuel nowadays, but if you have a trip computer that gives you instant fuel economy, try something.

Reset the computer
Drive the vehicle hard for a minute or so, hard accel, wide open, etc.
Then let it idle at a stop for 5min.

Then read the mileage estimate.

Reset it again
Now drive real easy, like 0-40 in a 1/4mile
Decell to a stop with no accelerator input and minimal braking.

Now compare the readings.What's the difference?

The reason I ask you to try this is as a dealer tech we would get alot of folks complaining about their fuel economy. We would drive the vehicles normally, like it was dads car and he was watching you trying to pass your driving test to get your lisence. Making sure to drive the speed limit, obeying all trafic laws,etc. 99.999% of the time people were amazed that their car got 5-7mpg better fuel economy when you drove it.