Are hybrid SUVs a good or bad thing?

[trebuchet03]

First, I haven't read the entire thread yet...

Second, I'm the one with position #1 - but allow me to explain (I think I have good reason) as it took awhile for me to get used to this concept....


Right now, a lot of people thing caring for the environment is a good idea -- especially when worded that way. At the same time, right now - only a few are actually willing to do something about it. My case for example - I hang dry all my clothing. Clothing lasts longer and I don't use gobs of energy to heat the house I'm cooling while destroying my clothing in a tumble oven. My mother doesn't like that - but she doesn't live with me.

So apply that to cars. We can not change what the masses want to buy. You can either disagree with that completely, or cash in. Either way, someone will step up weather or not you are willing to. So, the best alternative is not to change the people - we know that's incredibly hard to do. Instead, lets change the product. If they can still have the freaking massive deathtrap of "safety" AND cut back on fuel consumption - GREAT! But weather or not you think it's irresponsible - that doesn't change anything. The only people that have power to change new car trends are the people that buy new cars.

So while they're driving in their hybrid SUVs, they are exposed to the idea. It works its way into the status quo. It becomes acceptable outside of the California eco nut and that weird guy from Florida that hang dries all of his clothing.

------
SECOND HALF

So these larger cars seem to be the bread and butter of auto mfr's. At least, it seems that way given the higher prices and that SUVs make up 50% of the US market share. So, let them put it into SUVs. Let them make gobs and GOBs of money off of it. Then let them further develop it, so that it will be in every econobox 20 years down the road. Yes, I realize trickle down eco. only "works" in retrospect - it's not predicable :/



I also uphold the idea that the all or nothing practice will result is neither.

Of course, my car still gets more MPG than your hybrid SUV

[cfg83]

Hello -

I went for the wash. It is a greenwashing, like #2, but the technology is being implemented and worked out by people that I think would otherwise buy SUVs. Hopefully, it will migrate down to smaller cars like the Honda Fit (as rumored).

CarloSW2

[RH77]

Complicatated Situation, oversimplified below...

I think that this market share is going to buy the SUV regardless. The fact that Hybrids are available in this segment helps with FE (albeit slightly number-wise, but larger percentage-wise, with less fuel consumed overall).

They still get crummy mileage. If someone is serious about FE over other concerns (unwarranted, or otherwise), then they'll choose something smaller, more efficient.

Lastly, it educates folks about hybrids, which is a good thing.

RH77

[DifferentPointofView]

I have a question, why are they making more and more hybrid SUV's but they aren't making more and more hybrid mini-vans???

[AndrewJ]

Because nobody willingly goes out and buys a minivan.
"Guys! Check out my awesome new Caravan!"

[newtonsfirstlaw]

Maybe there's room for a position #5: Hybrid SUVs are a bad thing because there should be MORE SUVs.

Let me explain: the next extended fuel price shock causes SUVs to end up going back to China as scrap because no one can afford to run them. This causes the common perception to change - people start thinking of SUVs as a stupid investment with no resale value. Then the average person becomes envious of those who can travel at or near highway speeds while still being able to feed a family, especially without getting wet in the rain. And everyone starts talking and learning about FE, industry starts sating public demand, etc.

[Peakster]

I voted somewhere in between because no matter what, people are going to buy SUVs. There's just something about buying 2+ tons of steel that's equipped to drive across arctic tundra that seems to make people feel special (I'd drive one if it didn't send me to the poor house. Remember I almost bought a Jeep instead of the Geo).

Driving a vehicle that goes from 15 MPG to one that gets 20 MPG is an immense fuel savings... much more than a car that goes from 35mpg to 40mpg. It would be lovely if a person made an SUV that got 50 MPG, but that ain't gonna happen.

[newtonsfirstlaw]

Originally Posted by Peakster

Driving a vehicle that goes from 15 MPG to one that gets 20 MPG is an immense fuel savings... much more than a car that goes from 35mpg to 40mpg. It would be lovely if a person made an SUV that got 50 MPG, but that ain't gonna happen.

Two points:
1. A hybrid (even mild hybrid) SUV, driven at low speed pulse and glide, should be able to achieve 50mpg. The catch is, it would have to be driven at 60kph or less. Aeromodded, slightly more, maybe 70kph.

2. mpg is a terrible measure of fuel economy, for that very reason. An inverse of that measure is a lot better (e.g. gallons per 100miles) or l/100km doesn't have that problem.

e.g.
15mpg = 15.68l/100km
20mpg = 11.76l/100km
difference = 3.92 l/100km

35mpg = 6.72l/100km
40mpg = 5.88l/100km
difference = 0.84l/100km

Edit: It does have the problem that 1l/100km difference is not as significant the lower you go. It does have the advantage of improvements being understated rather than overstated. e.g. my bicycle achieves infinity mpg ftw! lol lol kthxbye

I suppose what we need is a logarithmic measure, like decibels. But since you'd have to do log conversions to determine fuel use over a certain distance, it would be useless for that.

[Lazarus]

This shows that the SUV's are in demand despite high gas prices so anything that will bring the mileage up the better. I don't think the consumer will change their buying choices.

The numbers for large SUVs rose nearly 6 percent in the first quarter of 2007, and the April figures were up 25 percent from April 2006, according to automakers' statistics provided by Edmunds.com, an automotive research Web site.

The average price of gas at this time was $2.80 ish.

[RH77]

Maybe consumers aren't the one's helping the most here...

For that small percentage that actually require those vehicles, this seems to be a good trend. (I see public service vehicles, requiring 4WD and extra ground clearance, that do quite a bit of stop-and-go driving in the interim -- such a rural Sheriff/Police vehicles (e.g. Tahoe), or other rural/rough-terrain applications, to benefit the most). Will these enter fleet service, or is durability and longevity a concern?

The trend lately has been in the in the Medium-Duty Truck (Ambulance, Delivery, Military) and Transit Bus segment. With a different architecture, these generally help a Diesel or Alternatively Powered vehicle get started with an electric motor or hydraulic pressure, and start the engine at the proper time during the FE-critical standing start scenario. Semi-trucks are next on the list.

RH77