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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
Did I miss any? Probably. I do all of the above, except for turning off the air conditioning. It's a fully automatic one and if I turn it off, there is no air circulation at all. There is an "Eco" setting, which is supposed to turn off the compressor. It's just impossible to set as default (as far as I've seen)
Besides, the above list has been repeated over and over by the government in the country I live, while I did my driving license and even in my car manual many of these "tips" are mentioned.
So, if I missed any crucial one, please tell me, I would gladly save another few litres of gas.
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.