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."

Comments

Good riddance!

[jawtheshark]

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.

Re:Good riddance!

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Fortunately, these young people will not be able to afford to drive these out of their driveway.

Any SUV owners reading this? Look forward to watching the second hand sale value of your vehicle plummet even while fuel costs rise to the point where you can no longer afford to drive your (now) useless vehicle.

Don't like it? Bad luck. You can't say you weren't warned.

Re:Good riddance!

[mark72005]

I own a Jeep. Gas mileage is pretty bad but it's paid off so I don't mind too much.

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.

And heck, gas would need to get a lot higher than it is for it to be worth financing another car when you factor in a monthly payment.

Re:Good riddance!

[darkgreen]

I'd like for you to be right, but the reality of it is that people will always pay for what they think is important. In this case, the idea of an SUV is very important to a lot of people.

The importance is, for most owners, a necessary expense. The SUV is essentially a face-saving minivan. Guys and girls who wake up one day realizing that they have 2.5 children and a hockey game or ballerina class to chauffeur around on saturday mornings need to feel like they haven't yet abandoned their youthful carefree lifestyle.

The SUV is a way to convince themselves that they are something they're not.

For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with ending up with the kids and white picket fence. I think it's a problem when you try and ignore or cover it with your choice of vehicle.

Re:Good riddance!

[Anonymous Coward]

If each person in a large demographic group spent $15,000 on some ridiculous and unnecessary item - say some rare Cabbage Patch Kids - and all of the the sudden the market for that ridiculous and unnecessary thing fell through the floor, could you never possibly laugh at the situation or remark on how stupid they were in the first place? If you buy something unnecessary and lose lots of money on it, then eat your crow, try to learn a lesson or two from it, and move on.

If you can't see the difference between laughing at someone for losing money buying a luxury good you find reprehensible and saying you're going to be happy when you run someone over and kill them with your vehicle, then you belong with that borderline sociopath and fellow SUV owner named Soporific.

Re:Good riddance!

[ppanon]

There's a reason why SUVs aren't popular in the UK and Europe, and that's safety. You've got *no* protection from impacts.
Nah. Unless you're hitting a bus or a large truck, an SUV will plow through stuff by sheer mass alone. If you do hit the same size as or bigger than you, then that truck frame will absorb less than a car's crumple zone and you'll get hit worse. The biggest problem with SUVs is the same one as with Jeeps in the 80's. They're trucks with a high center of gravity and people buy them for the power and try to drive them like a Porsche Boxster. Hilarity ensues for anybody not caught up or related to someone in the accident.

The real problem with SUVs in Europe is that nearly all parking is sized for cars, and often for compact or economy models at that. Some stupid (single occupant) rich bitch in a town in southern France (can't remember which one) yelled at my sister for almost opening the door of our rental car into the side of her precious SUV. There was no more than an inch or two to spare on each side of her vehicle to the edges of her parking stall in a full lot. I was too dumbstruck by her arrogance to turn the tables and ream her out the way she really deserved to be. If we had stayed in France long enough for it to happen again, that next SUV owner wouldn't have been as fortunate.

I suspect, given the same situation, other Frenchmen would have found the vocabulary. Being an SUV owner in Europe is probably more pain than it's worth in terms of conspicuous consumption and feeling above the masses.

Re:Good riddance!

[shmlco]

"I take my 2.5 kids up the mountain 4x4ing and fishing all year round in my Liberty."

Yep, you definitely need a 4WD SUV to take the highway up the mountain to the paved turnoff leading to the trailhead parking lot. And while you're taking pictures, send me one of the Honda Civic and the VW Beetle parked next to you in the same lot. (I live in Colorado, BTW. See 'em parked side-by-side all the time.)

I'd estimate that MAYBE one in 10,000 SUV owners have EVER used their vehicle under the off-road conditions for which it was originally designed. And even then 99% of the time they're back home shuffling kids to soccer and groceries from the store.

Too many idiots bought them for what they could do, someday, maybe, and not for what they "actually" do day-in-and-day-out.

Re:Good riddance!

[stuntpope]

Yes, they are. Poorly designed station wagons with less interior space. As said earlier in the thread, the reason these vehicles are "truckified" is for the owner to save face and present him/herself as not a dweeb. Station wagons used to be THE family vehicle in the 60s and 70s. Minivans took that spot later. But they announce that you've gone soft, you don't take risks. So the industry beefed vehicles up to look macho, to make the owner look sporty, daring... all those adjectives they can't get out of a plain family/grocery hauler.

Re:Good riddance!

[MrNaz]

Thanks to the marketplace now, the word "necessary" will no longer mean "compensates for my small penis", and start meaning "justifies the costs of running it".

In other words, people who need it will be those who use it as part of a transportation business, and thus have an income from the vehicle that justifies its use.

If you need one due to your environment or business, good on you. We're laughing at the suburban twats who bought them because they thought their 2.4 children were too large to fit in a normal sedan.

Re:Good riddance!

[damn_registrars]

As the post itself points out, there will always be a market for SUV's, because SUV's are necessary.
It is important to keep in mind the varying degrees of necessity. Plenty of people subscribe to the mindset that just because they live somewhere that has snow in the winter, they absolutely must own an AWD vehicle.

I can tell you first hand that logic is rubbish. I live in upstate New York - annual snowfall over 100 inches. I drive a RWD coupe, with a standard transmission and no traction control, year-round. By using tires that match the conditions, I have never been stuck. Indeed I have passed idiots in SUVs that drove into ditches because they felt themselves to be above the laws of physics.

And yet a local used car dealer did a TV ad - in April - telling us that "if you live in New York, you need an SUV". Of course that was probably because his lot was already full of used SUVs, since we had crossed well beyond $3/gallon gas at that point.

So while there are some areas where an SUV is indeed necessary, far too many people have allowed themselves to be sold on the mindset that they are always necessary.

Re:Good riddance!

[moosesocks]

As the post itself points out, there will always be a market for SUV's, because SUV's are necessary. SUV's have existed at least since the days of the first commercial Jeep, and probably before that. Okay. There are a few uses for SUVs. If you need to haul 7 full-sized adults off-road in the snow, I'll grant you that an SUV is a good idea. There are legitimate users, and this is largely what they were originally targeted as.

However, 99.99999% of the time, this isn't what they're used for. I continually hear arguments of how "I need an SUV because of the weather in my area," and it just doesn't hold water.

Last year, I spent a fair bit of time living in the interior of Alaska. If there's any area that "requires" its residents to own an SUV, this is it. In reality, gas is expensive, the residents aren't terribly wealthy, and as a result, virtually everyone drives either an AWD Subaru, one of those seemingly-indestructable old Volvos, or a pickup truck.

(Also tangentally, Fairbanks is a working model of a city that has the infrastructure to support plug-in electric vehicles, as every single parking space is wired with a 110V outlet that's used to keep your vehicle's oil from freezing in the -50Â winters.)

With a bit of experience, one could safely drive our old 1980s-vintage Saab hatchback down an unplowed road.

Today, an inexperienced driver can safely drive an AWD sedan across a sheet of ice. Last winter, I visited my folks up north, and took their (fairly small) car around town after a snowstorm, and swore that the car's AWD system was violating the laws of physics.

"Necessary" usually means that you haven't considered all of the alternatives out there.

SUVs were always a missed opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Very easy to bring them back

[WindBourne]

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.

A big "duh" to the auto industry

[freeweed]

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.

Uncle Sam is too fat. You need to trim it.

[Majik Sheff]

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.

Sure, government is responsible.

[westbake]

Here's a list of government problems, mostly anti-trust issues and corporate welfare:

• Allowing anti-comptitive practices that consolidated automobile making into three companies.
• Allowing GM to kill streetcars and other electric vehicles.
• Protecting their favorite companies from imports like the VW Bug, and later Japanese economy cars.
• Allowing GM to kill modest safety improvements at Ford
• Bailing out bankrupt companies in the late 70s and 80s.

Regulation that makes sense:

• Safety standards as measured by crash tests
• Emissions controls as measured by calibrated machinery at break tag stations
• Fuel economy standards.

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.

Re:This is how economics is supposed to work!

[tronbradia]

Not via regulation or per-category taxes that artificially manipulate, but by consumers adjusting their buying habits as costs change. The problem with your idealization of market capitalsm is the problem that gas-guzzling and dangerous SUV's create externalities in terms of environmental destruction, dependence on foreign oil, and injury to others on the road, which the buyers don't pay for. Except for the latter which might be paid for in insurance costs, none of these elements factor into the price or operation of the vehicle. They weren't then and they're not now.

I get suspicious too when I hear about targeted taxes and subsidies. It's dangerous ground on which to tread. I always hope for economically sensible policies, and of course am usually disappointed. But reasonable policies that take advantage of natural market forces by making users pay for their externalities do have a place.

Re:Everybody hates a truck until...

[Ihlosi]

(a) it snows a lot

Road service is pretty much up to the job where I live. Oops, I forgot ... taxes baaaaad, truck gooood.

(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.

Re:Everybody hates a truck until...

[jollyreaper]

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 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?