Slashdot Mirror
The SUV Is Dethroned
Wired's Autopia blog documents what we all knew was coming: rising gas prices have killed off the SUV. Auto industry watchers had predicted that the gas guzzlers in the "light truck" category would lose the ascendancy by 2010; no one expected their reign to end in a month, in the spring of 2008. Toyota, GM, Ford, and now Nissan have announced they will scale back truck and SUV production and ramp up that of smaller passenger cars. Of course there will always be a market for this class of vehicle, but its days on the top of the sales charts are done. "'All of our previous assumptions on the full-size pickup truck segment are off the table,' Bob Carter, Toyota division sales chief said last week during a conference call with reporters. Translation — we have no idea how low they'll go."
I'm not surprised. For the month of May '08, the Honda Civic dethroned the Ford F-150 as the best selling U.S. vehicle. The F-150 was the best selling vehicle in the U.S. for the past 17 years.
Ford saw it's SUV and truck sales drop a whopping 44% last month. That's huge.
...which is why they spent so much money in the 1990's developing the hybrid, when all the other car manufacturers thought they were nuts. There's a lot to be said for long-term thinking, which is partially why they are mopping the floor with the detroit automakers in so many areas.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or not...
But, you didnt say "why" you need an SUV, "gf and her two kids", so i assume that makes 4 people... whats wrong with a car or a mini-van? you can fit more crap in a mini-van than an XTerra or Escalade, and you arent wasting your gas driving two useless wheels and the extra drivetrain, plus you can usually fit longer things in them, like plywood, and ladders and still have 4 seats usable.
I kinda doubt that since the S-10 isn't made anymore. It's been replaced by the Colorado, no idea where they're made. I suppose your point still stands that they must do enough volume that they replaced the S-10 with something, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.
A crossover is not, in fact, an SUV, hence the name change. It's not just marketing.
A crossover is build on a sedan chassis and is based on a passenger car. It is lighter, and by virtue of the car engines, more fuel efficient. SUVs are built on a light truck frame, frequently using ridiculous engines far beyond what would be necessary for that weekly grocery run.
Crossovers are the answer to people who like the style or configuration, or who might need to carry large loads from Home Depot or the local garden center, but who want better ride, handling, and fuel efficiency.
Those little Honda deals and compact SUVs were never really SUVs to begin with--that was marketing. If the market has moved on to crossovers rather than SUVs, then yes, they are dead, and a crossover is not nearly as obnoxious. It's the trendy replacement for the minivan.
I take my 2.5 kids up the mountain 4x4ing and fishing all year round in my Liberty.
A Liberty is a station wagon (Sedan model as well), not a SUV.
The vehicles themselves be mothballed, stored someplace in the Mojave or Sahara and gradually be released to market over many decades.
Many items on a car deteriate with time, not miles driven. The paint weathers and peels, the rubber dries and cracks, the batteries sulfate, the flexible fuel system parts varnish, harden, crack, leak, etc.
The truth shall set you free!
Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal in many jurisdictions. Pedestrians and vehicles don't mix well (or pedestrians are far too miscible by vehicles, if you prefer that point of view)
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I haven't read all the posts, so even if it's been posted or not, the following deserves note -- we waste more fuel via poor technique versus whether there are or are not too many SUVs out there on the roads.
I can drive most peoples car for a week and get 25-35% better mileage by technique. If I told you you could get 25-35% better mileage with a doo-dad that cost 100$, I'd be rich.
But people don't like to be told how to drive. Oh, sure, they'll pay 75$ for a half-hour with the club pro in order to drop one or two strokes a round, but if you could save them $500 a year on fuel (or a half-hour or more in their time, per day), few want to listen.
Crazy, indeed.
Just remember -- Anyone going slower than you is an idiot; anyone going faster is a maniac.
----
I drive a 5.7L V8 SUV and get "book" mileage - or better - out if it, reliably. This on a 210K mile motor. And I only need brakes every 60K miles or so (this is with a 2 1/2 ton truck). Technique works.
-- Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
...while it's trivial to just ride on the damn sidewalk and stay the hell out of the way of the REAL motorists. Where I come from, that is illegal.Not exactly what you are talking about, but it gets good enough gas mileage to not kill you at the pump. 2008 GMC Yukon Hybrid
I agree that the Prius offers HUGE fuel savings when compared to an SUV. But did you know that a VW Gold TDi has exactly the same(or better on longer commutes) fuel consumption? And Honda is introducing a full line-up of diesel engines in their cars for 09?
What truly turned me off the Prius however was the way it feels as a car. It's really about as much fun as driving a dishwasher. I really wanted to like the Prius, but I can't.
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW).
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
Many later model SUVs (particularly so-called cross-overs which aren't built on truck frames) do actually have crumple zones that absorb some KE during impact.
If you're in an SUV impact against a compact or subcompact, then the KE of the smaller mass subcompact is distributed to the whole mass of the SUV so you only get a small fraction of it and crumple zones aren't as necessary. If you're in an impact with something the same size or bigger than you, then you get hit worse without the crumple zones.
SUVs were relatively safer when they weren't one third of the vehicles on North American roads because the odds of an impact with a travelling object that would deliver enough KE to matter were fairly low. When the odds of running into something with equal or higher mass increased as more SUVs got on the road, then the probability of more serious injury from those types of impact dominated the risk equation.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Yeah, keep thinking the gas-guzzler you're driving is "reasonable"...
You're carrying bikes for eight people and no one has a spot for a trailer? No one has parents or friends with a house and driveway? Heck, I've seen some flatbeds where people back 'em up to the side of a garage and then push 'em vertical. Takes up maybe eight square feet. No RV/"toy" paid parking lots near you? The most practical option for me is owning the pickup. Trailers also cause big problems being towed by small cars at 11,300ft of altitude on roads that have signs strongly cautioning against towing trailers. It's just not practical, and not convenient. You wind up going riding a lot more often when preparation consists of "throw the bikes in the truck and go." And a Yakama car rack with gutter posts will hold four bikes easily. (Been there, done that.) Yeah, it might cost $600 for posts, rails, and racks, but that's a darn site better than an extra $8,000 or more for a bigger vehicle. Plus operating costs. No it won't. These are freeride bikes. Weight is at least 40lb, typically closer to 50. I'm not interested in putting 200lb on the roof of a car with the CG sitting 2 ft in the air. That's 400lb-ft of torque per g of lateral acceleration on gutter posts. A good accident avoidance maneuver will take you well over 1g. Color me uninterested at disregarding manufacturer's specs and then having uninsure-able equipment worth more than the price of a good car thrown across an intersection if I have to swerve around some idiot on a cell phone.
I've shopped for racks for friends who have cars/SUVs, freeride bikes are a bitch, rack manufacturers want you to only do 2 per rack for a very good reason. Only feasible solution for a car is a roof rack AND a hitch rack. Or a smaller truck/car with a heavy-duty trailer hitch rack can hold three or four. (Mine does three, and folds up when not in use.)
And you can buy a car for day-to-day use, and then figure out something else for those special cases. (Heck, with the bottom dropping out of the huge SUV/truck market, you could have bought a car and then picked up a used truck for a song. (grin)). I don't drive enough to have more than one vehicle. I burn about 20 gallons of gas a month. And that truck was purchased four years ago.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
The station wagon disappeared in part due to tax breaks for large trucks being available for small business (read, anybody that can work up LLC paperwork), and because millage restrictions on cars did not also apply to "trucks".
Plus, the auto makers figured out they could make a bigger profit on the trucks.
So, car with reasonable engine is more expensive than an SUV "truck" with an unreasonably large engine... for the same space and hauling capacity.
A lot of market forces were at work to make the current situation like it is.
I am actually amazed it flipped so fast.
Next up; dumbasses stop racing up to the stop light and actually try other gas-saving measures.
Solution? I think not... "Could salt water fuel cars?. The most important part is on the second page, but I'll spoil it for you: energy input is greater than energy output. Thermodynamics is a bitch.
That's odd... When I look at the ncap ratings, SUVs (particularly and especially older ones) do not get the highest ratings. While they are commonly perceived to be safer, that does not seem to be the case.
Those who own SUVs are welcome to them - they will finally be paying something closer to the true economic cost of owning and operating them. I do not think it is necessarily true that SUVs are safer for the occupants, or for the people on the other end of the collision...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
From Princeton's wordnet via google search, condemnable means "bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure". GP was saying something along the lines of laughing at someone for losing money buying an SUV (when you feel doing so deserves severe rebuke)
You also question the use of the term sociopath. Wikipedia indicates the term "sociopath" is loosely defined, and can mean, among other things, someone with "antisocial personality disorder". Let's look at the diagnostic criteria for that one: Three or more of the following are required:
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
- [...]
- [...]
- Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
- Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
- [...]
- Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
The post in question, if taken literally, does have elements of those 4 criteria in my opinion, especially 4 and 7 (though I assume the post was merely flamebait, and not literal). Since 3 criteria are necessary for diagnosis, I think it's accurate to call that post borderline sociopathic, again if taken literally.Biking is a way to commute without using fossil fuels, and is what more people should be doing. I don't ride a bike, but am planning to start. Problems that would be solved by most people biking ARE problems of society, so why don't you use your head.
"I'd like to drive a hybrid, but the premium is too high for it to make sense. I would consider trading off for a 4cyl car, but again, mine is paid off. Suppose I'll drive it until it dies."
For @#%@#%^ sake, why do people think they have to get a hybrid? An ordinary mid or small passenger car will get roughly twice the fuel efficiency of a typical SUV/jeep/full-size truck. You don't need anything fancy to do substantially better than these inefficient vehicles. Buy a used car a few years old, inflate the tires properly, and don't drive like it's a rally race, and there's a huge difference. The maintenance and insurance costs are usually lower than any 4wd as well.
Heck, if everybody switched from such inefficient vehicles to ordinary cars the total gas consumption would drop by roughly 20% overnight, which would have a positive effect on gas prices for everybody. No fancy technology is required, just sensible consumer choices.
The pattern of the last decade in North America has been for the fuel efficiency of the average vehicle on the road to go DOWN. Yes, worse fuel efficiency. It happened not because the technology was getting worse, but because people were *choosing* to drive inefficient vehicles in ever-increasing numbers. To solve this problem in the short term only requires a reversal of this choice, which, predictably, seems to be what is finally happening.
You don't need the acme of fuel efficient technology to do vastly better than a gas guzzler. An ordinary car will do.
I own three Isuzu Sport/Utility Vehicles. They are small, hold a lot of stuff and run well, even when they are 20+ years old. They get gas mileage comparable to a small pickup, you know the kind they don't make anymore, and hold about as much stuff(in out of the rain). Plus, when one breaks down, someone not trained as a mechanic can fix it.
The 2 Troopers are 20, and 23 years old, and still fantastic vehicles. They can tow their own weight, go through foot deep mud, and are solid as tanks, and will take whatever abuse you throw at them. The Rodeo is ten years newer, and a consumer-focused product that came out in the beginnings of the SUV craze.
You can tell the differences between the old Land Rover style "Sport/Utility Vehicles" and the Ford Explorer-esque "SUVs":
size : bigger is better vs. small enough to get through the jungle.
Engine size: V6/8 vs inline 4
transmission: Automatic w/ 4WD option vs manual w/ 4WD standard
design: plastic bubbles with chrome vs angular no nonsense
durability: minimal vs. invincibility
Also guess which one has been sitting in my back yard with the engine torn apart for the last year. That's right, it's the Rodeo.
--The FNP
My '04 Dodge Durango does just fine at all of that stuff, and carries my family of six. With a 5.7L hemi V8, it has a 10,000 lb towing capacity, and I regularly tow a 4000-lb. boat or a 7000-lb. camp trailer. It also does just fine off-road, especially with a little lift and larger-than-stock tires. Of course, it's a little more top-heavy than a pickup truck, so I can't take it across inclines that are quite as steep as I could a truck, but a pickup couldn't seat six people comfortably -- or seven people at all -- while doing all of this stuff.
It also gets 24 mpg on the highway when I'm not towing. I considered buying a minivan a few years ago, but most of them only got 27.
SUV's are really not practical for anyone.This simply isn't correct. They aren't practical for many people who have them, but if you need to carry a lot of people, tow a lot of weight and do it on rough roads, there is no other vehicle that can do all of it. And with a utility trailer attached, a full-sized SUV can do everything a truck can do.
For me, not having an SUV would mean I'd have to have three vehicles: a roller-skate runabout, a pickup truck and a minivan. The SUV plus utility trailer can take the place of both truck and minivan, with gas mileage that's not much less than what I'd get with a minivan. And the truck would have to be a quad-cab, so I'd have a hard time finding a cheap old beater. It's much more cost-effective for me to own an SUV than both a truck and a minivan.
Of course, as gas prices continue climbing, it may get to the point where I can't afford to use my boat, or go camping with the trailer. My kids are old enough now that we've already begun shifting to less trailer camping and more tenting (backpacking). Most of our backpacking trips could be done with a van. On the other hand, the kids like water skiing more than ever. At some point fuel may get expensive enough that I just have to lose that part of my recreational lifestyle, because if you think SUVs guzzle gas, you don't even want to think about the fuel consumption of a ski boat.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The share of the highway tax that you pay matches fairly well the amount of stress put on the road by your vehicle. I can assure you that bikes put no stress on the road compared to any car. The rest of the road maintenance costs (capital expenditures on roads - most highways and freeways are either off-limits or too fast for bicyclists anyway) - are paid about equally by everyone, in the form of estate tax, various other taxes and the cost propagated by commercial road users (whose trucks stress the roads the most).
The reason you pay insurance is that if you hit someone with your car you're likely to kill them, while it's nearly impossible for a bicyclist to do so. The reason you pay registration and pass smog check is that your car pollutes the environment - a lot.
Bicyclists have equal rights with you on the road. Those who violate road rules should be punished, but recognize that they usually do so because the roads are mis-engineered in a car-exclusive way. But the argument that bicyclists don't deserve to use roads as they like is bullshit.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
That's odd... When I look at the ncap ratings, SUVs (particularly and especially older ones) do not get the highest ratings. While they are commonly perceived to be safer, that does not seem to be the case.
Well that's because a lot of the tests assume a direct head-on collision, obviously the kind the GP was thinking about. But most impacts are somewhat oblique, where the impact vector is not directly aligned with the SUV's center of mass. And then their high center of mass works against them, the forward momentum becomes lateral momentum and the bastards flip over like nobody's business.
Once more of the auto testing started to incorporate this kind of test (Europe has been doing this for a long time I understand), and once actual accident reports started being accounted for, the alleged safety of SUVs vanishes. But the memory of how safe they are, and the overly simplistic big=safe equation, continue to exist as common beliefs.
The enemies of Democracy are