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 can't seem to remember where I found them, but I remember seeing a "trike" with two wheels in front and one behind. It was basically a motorcycle with a personal cabin that was AC cooled. Not bad looking.
I wouldn't mind driving one of those for my daily commute.
Life is not for the lazy.
Over the last ten years cars have gotten so big, normal people can't ride their bikes on the same roads. A $5/gallon diet seems to be curing the problem.
The SUV is the end result of American car maker plans from the late 1960s. In order to keep their growth they had to sell larger, ever more expensive cars. The gas crisis of the mid 70s and air polution studies only partly derailed those plans. Regulation helped a lot. 20 years of cheap gas followed by corrupt government and import restrictions gave us the SUV craze. Further corruption gave us really expensive gas, which is going to solve the problem.
Further regulation is needed to avoid the inevitable resurgence of these monsters. We all deserve better road safety and air quality.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
Ford's not the only one, Dodge was doing it too. It's a cost cutting measure: Why make two models of trucks when the market really only supports one. If you have to make a choice, you keep the bigger one that meets the requirements of the commercial market. I suppose you could argue that they should keep the smaller one and kill the F-150. Then commercial users could be steered to the F250 and F350. However, sales numbers on the F-150 were MUCH stronger than those of the Ranger. Same argument applies to the Dodge Ram 1500 and the Dodge Dakota. GM's volume is higher on the Chevy S-10; and, it's made in a joint GM / Isuzu plant anyway; so, it impacts GM less.
Yeah, I said the same thing down below. What is really sad about this, is that American companies COULD take the lead, but they will not. This idea will be realized by either tesla or one of the japanese companies. My guess is that Nissan will do it. The reason is that they will realize that these trucks NEED to continue. Sadly, this is a great opportunity for a start-up business. Build the frame, use some of the standard motors on each drive shafts, a standard engine/generator, a small amount of li-ion batts and then a cabin. The back end could be a delivery truck, a standard flat bed, a regular truck bed, a camper, a bus, etc. This is actually a golden time for small start-ups. Heck, if smart, they would hook up with musk as he has the bulk of it; just focus on frame and cabin.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Even at $10 a gallon, I'll still enjoy driving my 6K
At $10/gallon, you're SUV is going to be worth more as scap than a car. Do you enjoy burning $1000 bills? 'cause with your SUV purchase, you've burned about 10 of them.
Oh - and what do you think's going to happen to real estate prices on your (public transport isolated) street once gas prices hit just $5/gallon? Your house will never be worth what you paid for it - and you won't be able to afford to drive between their & your work place.
Makes the $10k you lost on your SUV look like chump change, but again - you can't say no one warned you.
Big Wet Sloppy Kisses.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Some consumers did see this. I drive an 02 Prius. Many laughed when I bought it because I would need to replace the battery for 5 grand in 5 years, I spent an extra 5 grand to buy the car etc.
I bought it for my commute. I bought it for the reliability. I bought it for low maitenance costs.
In 100,000 miles, my average gas cost is about $2.00/gallon. My old car got 22 MPG. My new car gets 46 MPG.
The fuel cost savings can be figured out by the cost per mile for the 100,000 miles driven.
At 22 MPG 100,000 miles used 4,545 gallons.
At 46 MPG 100,000 miles used 2,222 gallons.
It saved 2,323 gallons or $4646 in fuel cost.
My next 100,000 miles will be more dramatic.
The battery unlike a cell phone or laptop battery is rarely fully charged and never run flat. Battery life is not an issue. Repairs have been nil. High failure items for the most part are eliminated. The power steering is electric, not hydraulic. The mechanical portion of the transmission has a total of 7 moving parts. None of them shift, slide, or are hydraulic. Regenerative braking showed up as a benifit when I changed tires at 80,000 miles. I had 80% of the brakes remaining, unlike my wife's car which is on it's second set of brakes.
Oh, if I need a new battery, the 36 7.2 volt modules can be changed as needed instead of buying an entire new pack. If I need a pack, it's no longer 5 grand. It's much less.
At current gas prices, I plan on keeping the car till the wheels fall off.
The truth shall set you free!
I was recently talking to my father about exactly this and since he was telling me how much he pays to keep his the pickup truck on the road.
Since he drives an hour and a half to get to most job sites he spends a fortune on gas. I calculated it out and discovered that if he were to scrap the blasted thing he would save enough on gas to lease a smaller car, rent a truck for the two days a month he actually needs one and still save money.
That was several months ago so the numbers have only gotten more in favor of scrapping the pickup since then.
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.
Some of the way it feels as a car is why I like it. The traction control is very good. Even though it isn't 4WD, it goes quite well in bad weather. With the electric motors in the transmission, the traction control works like anti-lock brakes in reverse. If you are into doing power doughnuts, a Prius won't do it. I know, I tried just to test it on wet grass. Cranking the wheel over and flooring it on wet grass is pretty boring. On ice, it keeps traction and pulls ahead instead of just spinning wheels. I was impressed.
If I want fun, I'll fire up the quad.
The truth shall set you free!
So...
* tax oil appropriately for the pollution it causes.
* tax the car for the pollution its creation causes
* pretax the car for the pollution its destruction/demanufacture will create
* tax the cars usage of the roads (both by space it takes and damage/stress it deals to the road)
(gawd, I should get a job at the government... the moneyz... Teh moneyz!!)
There is more to it for a handful of us. I commute in a 1996 2WD Ford F150 inline-6 300. It is a nice compromise for me as a daily driver because the inline-six gets pretty good mileage yet retains MASSIVE torque for towing and hauling. As a helpful person, I almost always stop for stranded people for problems ranging from flat tires to mud or snow entrapment. I keep rope, straps and chains as well as a jack and a set of tools in my truck. My in-laws laugh at me because I have a rotating orange strobe light mounted on it, but I would rather be laughed at then ironed out on the highway. Also, people automatically assume that you are important and/or belong when you have a flashing light on your truck. Cops wave you through and people pull over to let you by.
Friends and family that own gas-sipping little munchkin cars are constantly enlisting my services as a man who owns a functional truck. Whether they are moving, cleaning out a basement or hauling a load of firewood, they all know who to call... the man with the truck.
I also own a 1979 Ford Bronco with a 351m bored over 20 with a 850CFM Holley Truck Avenger carburetor, snorkel and smokestack sitting on DANA-60's, 36" SuperSwampers and air-auto-lockers, lifted etc., rigged for both plow and tow. It gets about six miles to the gallon. The floorboards are above the average knee, and if I am careful, I can drive it pretty much anywhere (got to watch out for little efficient cars). It is mainly a toy, A MONSTER TRUCK!1!11!!, but once again, it has special abilities that are needed:
We have had A LOT of HORRIBLE FLOODING here in Indiana, surpassing our record from 1913. DHS, National Guard, Marines, Coast Guard and every available resource have been chucked into the disaster maelstrom that is flooded Indiana. The nearest competition for my Bronco is a fire truck or a Caterpillar when it comes to submerged mobility. That big fat bastard gleefully contributed to global warming all the way down to Franklin, to Martinsville, and to rural points south as we teamed up to get people out of the water. Nobody can see your carbon footprint under five feet of water, septic runoff and synthetic flotsam. None of the people in the little bed of the bronco seemed to mind the CO2 streaming from my exhaust stack.
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
My father also uses his powers and torques for good in his 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe. He was down there with me, in the muck, but his new-fangled electronics cannot withstand submergence. His next purchase will he the Tahoe Hybrid, which outperforms its predecessor in torque and horsepower. These new trucks cannot replace their predecessors, though, because they are too complex and fragile.
That said, any 4WD owner that does not use his extraordinary capability as part of the solution--is part of the problem. Soccer moms must die.
Some of the rudest drivers I have ever encountered were in munchkin hybrids. The rest of them were women driving SUVs.
FairTax baby!
If the car was used to capacity, i.e. always carrying 4 people, then the Passenger Miles Per Gallon for a small car would be better than a motorbike but in the UK average car occupancy remains at about 1.2 people.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
People get really stupid. Several times there were obnoxious assholes who suddenly hollered at me as they flew 6in by me. If I was startled in the wrong way that could've led to an accident.
Once, a guy in a jeep decided to play chicken with me. I wasn't aware till the last minute.
This is just a general lack of respect for bicyclists. Respect goes both ways, you know. It's a much bigger problem over here in the US where everyone guzzles fossil fuels, instead of riding bikes more often.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
it's the same with most people who say they need a truck. When you work out that you don't actually buy a fridge that often, you might as well hire the truck (and a guy to drive it) on the odd occasion where a normal car isn't big enough.
I don't know what his line of work is but would a trailer fit his needs?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, because the economy here is currently shaky. If it were solid, then some people here probably would drive SUVs with $9 gas, but when the future is shaky you think more about how you'll never see the money you're pouring into your tank again.
I think it is also true, though, that Americans aren't as selfish and stupid as we're depicted as being. Much is made of America's rugged individualism, but there is also a streak of communitarianism in the American character. The people who think SUVs are cool vs. the people who think that hybrids are cool. It is the pendulum swinging between these extremes that gives American society its dynamism. Americans on whole sit these two poles, moving towards one of them until it feels like they've gone to far, then going the other way.
2005 was a watershed year. Americans looked at Katrina, and said to themselves, "this isn't working." It isn't just the possible connection of climate change in the intensity of the storm, it was disgust at the inefficiency of the response that made people decide things had gone far enough. It was Katrina that killed the SUV. High prices and economic uncertainty finished it off.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ok, well shocker here but two weeks ago it cost me $50 to fill the tank of my Mini. The town I live in is not the most commuter friendly (Hartford, CT) but I found a bus that picks up 4 miles from my house and am taking that instead. So instead of 210+ commuter miles a week, I am doing 40 and I haven't filled my tank yet. What used to cost me $40 a month in fuel was going to start costing $200 a month. Now I pay $100 for a 31 day pass (plus I get a $50 monthly pre-tax work subsidy), so the cost is much less, and as an extra bonus I figure my portion of the diesel emissions from the bus is significantly less than what I would put out even in my reasonably economical Mini.
Two weeks in, and I love commuting by bus. It does take some preplanning and the occasional drive into the office (when meetings are expected to run until 5 pm or later). I guess I am fortunate that CT seems to have made quite an investment in commuter vans, express busses and this thing called "NuRide" <http://www.nuride.com/nuride/main/main.jsp> , which is an online carpool meeting place, for rides into the city. There are definitely ways, beyond buying new vehicles, for people to save themselves some cash. Ridership on the busses has doubled in the last six months. Next we will need bike paths and commuting options for those people who work and live in the suburbs.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
There are 2 type of people posting on this thread. One type is who are against people buying Fuel guzzlers when they don't need them. The other type are those who just have an agenda against any vehicle thats not a sedan/hatch/minivan. You belong to second category. for example CRV. It gives 23mpg as compared to honda accord which gives 24mpg. In all respects its a very good handling safe vehicle with crumple zones and ample safety. But still you label the owner as trying to prove something. By your logic anybody who buys a good looking/butch looking/non VW beetle looking vehicle is trying to compensate for something/trying to tackle midlife crisis guy. Thats not the case. The problem is that America still buys a lot of "I am a truck but I will call myself a SUV" vehicles. There are lot of monoque chasis construction all time AWD crossovers which are good looking, offer a higher seating position, handle well, and give good gas mileage(Atleast better than minivans)
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Okay, I have to jummp in at some point, so it may as well be here. I grew up in Minnesota (St. Cloud, but I spent a lot of time in Duluth as well). My vehicle of choice? A monster pickup? Nope. A killer-cool SUV? Nope. Wait for it ... A Geo Metro for everyday use and a 4WD Subaru station wagon when there was extra cargo. These vehicles were able to handle Minnesota winters; I never needed a truck.
(Pretty funny to drive past Chevy Suburbans in the ditch during blizzards---I guess they had four-wheel drive to power them even further into the ditch. Stopped a couple of times to give the passengers a ride to the next town since cell phones weren't around yet.)