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."
Still, I have to see it to believe it. The current generation of SUVs will inevitable end up in the hands of young drivers. Those will be even less aware of the extra dangers a SUV presents while being in traffic. The SUV craze will have a significant impact for the years to come.
I urge anyone who owns an SUV and/or considers buying one to read "Big And Bad" by Malcolm Gladwel.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Not via regulation or per-category taxes that artificially manipulate, but by consumers adjusting their buying habits as costs change. If SUVs are too expensive to own, people will stop buying them and trade to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Is that really too crazy to ask?
Also interesting to see whether the trend of people sensing safety while in those large vehicles will continue... Not so easy to go back to sedans while there are so many dangerous SUVs (tanks) out there on the roads, eh?
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics!
In having 2 Texas oil men (Bush & Cheney) running this country.
...good riddance.
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
I use my Ranger mostly as a commuter vehicle, but we need a truck for weekend projects like landscaping and hauling stuff. I'd never even consider commuting with a gas guzzler like an F-150.
I hope they figure this out before they close their last Ranger lines down.
John
Trucks and SUVs should have been the first vehicles to realize the slow gains of hybrid technologies. Who wouldn't want the extra torque in a vehicle sold on it's ability to tow? Would wouldn't want the ability to produce electricty on demand with optional factory inverter in a machine sold on it's ability work anywhere, play anywhere? And who wouldn't want to pay less at the pump thanks to a smart engine which turns off cylinders it doesn't need given the task at hand. The car companies, particularly American ones, didn't understand what wealth is, and didn't try to return it to their customers. At least the Japanese companies have the excuse of not understanding the peculiarities of the American lifestyle, and had to chase down a once booming economic segment of their market.
That the car manufactures executives don't owe shareholders money, much less recieve compensation at all, is an afront to anyone who's ever put in 15 minutes of honest work in their life.
All these companies have to do is change them over to a serial hybrid esp for trucks. The reason is that the serial hybrid is perfect for working as a generator. A construction worker can drive to the job site and then use their batteries/hybrid as power for the job sites.
My guess is that one of these companies will get smart and soon deliver just this. It should have enough batteries to last at least 10-20 miles and 2 small generator-motors. The reason for 2 is that the likelihood of 2 motors dying are slim. And only one would be needed to cruise a truck with load. From a business POV, it would make sense to buy these if they could reduce their delivery costs or have dual use on them. From the automakers POV, the 2 small generators-motors may be the exact type that is going in their cars. IOW, fewer number of unique parts. Heck, the truck could use 2 motors identical from 1 taken from a car hybrid.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Destruction derbies are going to be so awesome in a couple months time, once value of the bigger SUVs drops to scrap value. They still have those things, don't they? I always saw them advertised on TV when I lived in Alabama in the 80's.
Ryan Fenton
Okay, twitter, let me see if I can follow your logic:
The problem was caused by government, government, and then government. Demonstrating the common affliction of irrational faith in government, your solution is now more government!
I never realized that I was psychic, but how could Detroit not have seen this coming?
Up here in the Great White North it's been a constant barrage of news stories: truck plants closing unexpectedly in Ontario, tens of thousands out of work. Apparently neither GM nor Ford actually anticipated a) fuel prices rising this high and b) consumers actually (gasp!) shopping for fuel economy as a result. Almost as if the 1970s never happened.
The other interesting thing is that hybrids are just about sold out entirely in western Canada. Months long waiting lists. Not so surprising, as I'm sure the auto industry never produced *that* many compared to regular cars. What is surprising is that Honda Civics are also sold out all over the place.
All of this followed by nightly news stories of these poor SUV drivers who are scrambling to replace their vehicles - only to discover the resale is next to nothing (I heard a report claiming used SUV prices are down 30% in the past month or two alone), and smaller vehicles are getting hard to find. Again, DUH. Economists, the oil industry - damn near everyone has been predicting this for YEARS. Everyone except the auto industry. I hope Ford and GM go bankrupt for their shortsightedness.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
What's the point of an SUV to drive through the city? That's like buying a sports car to drive a few blocks in a crowded city. The machine (SUV) was built for the purpose of being a sports utility vehicle. If you need large passenger seating, there are minivans. If you need to haul load, there are trucks. If your commuting, there are sedans and compacts.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Larger government only makes more holes for corruption to hide in. Laws in this way are a lot like computer code, the more complex they become the more places bugs can hide.
If you want to cut down on corruption, simplify the laws and reduce the role of government.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Here's a list of government problems, mostly anti-trust issues and corporate welfare:
Regulation that makes sense:
The contnued availability of cheap cars from Japan show that the technology to do all of the above has been around for more than 30 years and it's not terribly expansive. Instead of promoting such things, government has been busy supporting companies that rip us all off. That's a crime.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
US petrol prices are not all that high compared to other western countries. Its just that US made cars are not effecient.
"Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
-- $_='ab-bc ratvarre';tr"'a-z'"'n-za-m'";print
This is going to cost me karma, but goddammit it has to be said.
"If SUVs are too expensive to own, people will stop buying them and trade to more fuel-efficient vehicles."
What your short sighted mind doesn't seem to comprehend is the regulatory function of the government. It can define the rules and
levels out the playing field when the free market fails to regulate itself.
SUV's are the epitome of consumer irresponsibility with these behemoths causing problems related to pollution as well as road safety and Political Instability
With the "free market" continuously failing to address these "externalities" it is a surprise to me that no action has been taken before in the past. These asshole vehicles should have been taxed the fuck out of ages ago to make them as expensive and unattractive as possible
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
In the long run gas prices can do nothing but rise; that is unless and until we find a better replacement. Eventually we will reach peak oil and prices will increase and increase because demand will still be going up but all of a sudden supply starts going down. We will reach peak oil probably in my lifetime and there are people who predict that we have reached it already (no one really knows how much oil is in the ground.)
I guess I am worried that the current high price may in part be due to people speculating that we have reached peak oil (or that at least supply can no longer match demand.) If people buy oil futures in speculation of an oil shock that may not be as big as expected then prices will fall again.
If prices fall then people might go back to old habits and then when they rise again people might just expect prices to drop again like it did in 2008.
I guess I am hoping for a nice steady rise so we can switch to renewable sources as quickly as and painlessly as possible. Of course if we were to pass regulation to encourage a switch to a better energy source before we reach peak oil then we would make the transition a lot less painfully than we would if we just wait for peak oil and then let the market force the change. Yes the free market will make sure that eventually we will all be using renewable resources. The only question is what will the economy be like by then? Will we have a middle class at all at that point? The sooner we get to work ending the oil age and going on to something better then the better off we will all be in the long run.
They're not SUV's. Those are gas guzzling behemoths driven by people who have no respect for the environment or their fellow man.
They're "crossovers". Didn't you get the memo?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
But cmon, they are still the safest for the people inside
Really? I've driven a few. They almost universally have a large placard, big and obvious, on the driver side sun screen panel: "This vehicle has a high risk of roll over, resulting in serious injury or death." I've seen an SUV flip on the highway right in front of me when the driver attempted to pass another car at high speed. The resulting wreck was most likely not survivable.
"But it's better if somebody crashes into you." I've got a better idea. How about we stop driving like a bunch of fucking morons? Is it really that hard to NOT CRASH INTO SHIT? Maybe somebody should take your license.
I find the economics of this sudden SUV abandonment to be completely absurd. First of all, no one wants them. Second, everyone who has one suddenly wants out of it. So the economic answer is of course that the bottom falls out and they sell for pennies on the dollar.
Very few people are actually doing the math.
One thing that is important to understand: GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been selling these things with 0% financing and allowing 0% down for some time now. As a buyer, taking this offer is a good idea, even if you can afford to pay cash. Most people can't though, and the financing is the only thing that allows them to afford the vehicle.
As we all know, any new car depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot. So everyone taking these 0%/0-down deals is upside-down on their vehicle on day one. (Whereas someone with a "traditional" car loan where 20% of the money or so was used as a down payment would still be right-side-up on day one).
Now you have the current energy crisis on top of it, and a sudden spike of 30% in gas prices has eroded another 30% of equity for a guy who wasn't right-side-up to begin with.
Small cars are hot now, and they're in shorter supply. So manufacturers don't need to offer 0% loans on them.
So here's what the idiots do: sell the SUV at any price, get a smaller car. Eat the negative equity. Go from a 0% loan into a 6% loan.
Example:
You have a 2007 Chevy Tahoe. It gets 17mpg city/highway combined according to the new 2008 EPA numbers. 1 year old, 0% loan on $40,000 for 5 years. You've paid back $8,000, owe $32,000. It's worth $20,000 on the market if you're lucky. $12,000 in negative equity there.
Buy a 2008 Honda Accord, 4 cylinder. EPA combined mileage = 24mpg.
According to the fueleconomy.gov site, the Tahoe will cost $3475/year @ 15k miles per year. The Accord will be $2464/year. So it will take roughly TWELVE YEARS or 180,000 miles to overcome the negative equity alone. Heaven forbid we include sales tax and depreciation on the new vehicle into the equation.
Even if you bought a Prius (46mpg, $1282/yr) it'd take 65k miles, or 5.5 years, to make up the difference.
Moral of the story: keep the gas guzzler.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
You're confusing simplicity with brevity. While there is overlap, they are not equivalent.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Apparently, you haven't heard of the concept of "Rapture".
I am fully aware what that study is called. To cite the article: "TI writes in their FAQ on the CPI that "residents' viewpoints correlate well with those of experts abroad. In the past, the experts surveyed in the CPI sources were often business people from industrialised countries; the viewpoint of less developed countries was underrepresented. This has changed over time, giving increasingly voice to respondents from emerging market economies."
Or take a look at the wikipedia article on political corruption: "The argument that corruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries.".
If you know of more reliable data than the CPI, feel free to post a link.
"Those of us who own and *use* SUVs can generally afford the gas anyway."
Lookup "supply and demand", and then tell me what happens when someone consumes too much of a limited resource. Hint: The price of said reasource begins to skyrocket, impacting everyone.
Translation: You're driving up prices for those who CAN'T afford it.
"Too many hot rod kids out there driving like assholes."
They're not the only ones, apparently.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I think there's a nice futurama episode that sums up my opinion on suv's: Farnsworth, upon creating a variant of Bender for Mom's corp, complained that it's not fuel efficient, that it damages the environment and that it won't pass current regulations for robots. The big corporate overlord/lady promptly replied: "We'll market it as a sport utility robot." Go Bender, buy a suv.
OK, if you have a huge trailer to haul around on a regular basis, you might need a big engine. But, for the daily commute, I would make the case that 100-120 HP is enough to power a standard-sized sedan. This means an engine displacement of 1.6-2.0 liters, not the huge 3 liter engine that you often see in American sedans. My moderately-sized French-made station wagon has a 1.6 liter engine, giving me a fuel consumption of 0.07 l/km (it's a 2000 model, a newer one would probably be 0.06 or even 0.05 l/km) - this is 47 mpg in US terms. No need for hybrids, just moderately sized standard diesel or gasoline engines.
The thing that makes SUVs so dangerous is that all that torque and traction is totally out of proportion with the rest of the handling (ie. there isn't any). You swerve it, you flip. You brake ... and ... wait .... those 6000lbs take an awful long time to stop.
This is why so many SUVs go off the roads every time it snows. 4WD means you can accelerate well so you scoot along the freeway pretty much as normal. First sign of trouble, you've got nothing. No brakes, no steering, so guess what happens next...?
No sig today...
How did the human race possible survive before 1990? Astonishing how we could have lived with just cars!
Road service is pretty much up to the job where I live. Oops, I forgot
(b) it floods
I'd rather have a boat than a truck in that case. Or a hovercraft.
(c) they are moving
Last time I moved, I rented a truck. I mean, a _real_ truck (7.5 ton). I only needed it for a day.
(d) they drive into a ditch
I usually don't. My dad does that a lot, but then again, he's got a 4WD and thinks he won't get stuck. He usually needs to call someone with a fscking tractor to pull him out, though.
(e) they need a truck but only have a little munchkin car
See (c). When I need a truck, I rent one. That's easy with all the money I save by not owning a truck. Heck, I even have money left over.
>And where I grew up, thinking solely of your own needs with no regard
>whatsoever for how it might impact others was considered to be a 'might selfish.
Firstly, I don't own a SUV.
When I buy a car, the sole consideration is _me_.
It's _my_ money to buy it, it's going to be _my_ money to make it go. Thus when I buy a car it's going to do exactly what I want it to do, within the limits of my pocketbook and the law.
If I want to buy a car because it looks cool, that's my prerogative. If I want to buy a car because it's bigger and more likely to protect me in a crash, that's my prerogative. If I want to buy a car because it can go off-road even though I will never drive it there, that is my prerogative.
When other people start helping me pay my car bills, I'll start considering their opinions about what to buy.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
It was just over eight years ago that Slashdotters and LinuxPPC users came out in massive support for me when a drunk driver in a Chevy Tahoe tried to kill me. I still have the folder full of cards you sent -- it's half a foot thick! Thanks. :-)
- Jason.
-- haaz.
Everybody hates a truck owner, until:
(a) it snows a lot
(b) it floods
(c) they are moving
(d) they drive into a ditch
(e) they need a truck but only have a little munchkin car
Considering it snows a lot here every year and I've never needed a truck, it's never flooded, I move maybe once per decade or so, I've never driven into a ditch, and I seldom have need of a truck, I'd say that people in a similar situation to me hate a truck driver 97% of the time.
They're very handy when something like the flooding you mentioned strikes. 99.9999% of the rest of the time they're nothing more than a compensation mechanism. Even the way in which you refer to people with smaller cars as "munchkin hybrid" drivers suggests you see your truck as contributing to the size of your....ego. I can't tell you the number of "I'm the big man" type office workers I know who drive a big truck from their house in suburbia to their office every day. If you're doing construction or some other job that requires you cart around half a tonne of materials, you need a truck. However if you're reading this message from your work computer, it's more likely you're trying to prove something.
(a) it snows a lot
(b) it floods
(c) they are moving
(d) they drive into a ditch
(e) they need a truck but only have a little munchkin car There's a huge difference between an SUV and a truck. Trucks can do all those things you mention. About the only thing SUV's can do well are things already done more efficiently by minivans -- hauling people and bulky shit. But SUV's can't do that offroad shit you're talking about, going through floods, etc. They're built for the appearance of ruggedness, the same as a ricer tries to make his car look fast with big mufflers, gratuitous spoilers, and R-Type stickers.
I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the right job. You have to haul shit, you use your truck for work? God bless you, you're using the tool properly. You use a tricked out F-350 dually for a daily commuter vehicle? Baby Jesus himself is going to come around and spit at you.
Most people don't need trucks and SUV's are really not practical for anyone. Hell, the original hummer was good at what it was, a serious offroad vehicle. Doesn't work as well as a combat vehicle but hey, it wasn't designed for that. The new hummers are just stupid because they're designed to look tough but can't keep up with what the original hummers could do. Dumb!
Right now, I'm driving a roller-skate, one of those Toyota Yarii. Very nice. Good fuel economy, great price, huuuuuge carrying capacity for a little ol' hatchback. If I had to move a house, I'd rent a truck or buy a friend with a truck a case of beer. But I don't need one 99.5% of the time so why have one?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The problem with bikes is, they are too fast for the sidewalks, and too slow for the streets.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
And by leg room and cabin space, they are all still drastically inferior to my 20-year-old Volkswagen Vanagon.
But that doesn't really have anything to do with the argument you're making, it's just me being bitter because manufacturers chasing higher profit margins flooded the market with space-inefficient front-engine, front-wheel-drive designs based on sedan chassis. Anybody wanting something with a stronger chassis had no choice but an even more space-inefficient SUV, which also only came into existence because it leveraged truck production capacity, not because it was a sane design for a utility vehicle.