huge SUVs, trucks, and crossovers
 

Anyone besides me think it's stupid that at this late date, with peak oil upon us, that the american car companies are still producing these stupidly huge suv's, pickup trucks, and crossover vehicles that get such horrible fuel economy? Discuss.
BTW, I drive a 1990 Acura Integra that has gotten an average 32 mpg over the last 10 years of driving.

32 MPG

It's ironic that the add displayed in my browser just below your post is for a Chebby Eqinox SUV with the words "The most fuel efficient crossover on the highway - EPA est 32 MPG Hwy ( FWD ) "

I wonder how many people take that bait.

The simple facts are that Americans want to be: Better, "safer", and "cool."

I think they the manufacturers are slowly weening the general consumer off the the SUV (pigs on stilts) vehicles. The general consumer has been so heavily brained washed its going to take awhile.

I don't think there is anything nefarious going on. The customer isn't "brainwashed" and the manufacturers aren't forcing anyone to buy anything.

Like any company, they're trying to build what the customer will buy with a profit.

If they build a car that has only the necessities, as little weight as possible and a low powered engine so it gets 50+ mpg, now they have to sell the consumer a small, featureless, low-powered car. For a profit. They still spent the same millions of dollars designing, testing, etc that they would have on a loaded, powerful, masculine vehicle that's just dripping with profit-driving features - but on a little econo car they just can't ask you for much money because then you'll complain about how ford's econo car is more expensive than hyundai's econo car.

Similar to the movie industry.. Hollywood could produce great movies for $30,000 - hell download "Star Wreck - in the Pirkinning" and see what <$25k buys, it might surprise you. But the average consumer is so used to seeing superstar faces, bleedingest-edge visual effects, and multimillion dollar sets that even if they tried to scale back their ludicrous budgets and sell you a movie for $3.50, the average consumer would complain about how hokey it LOOKS without bothering to notice the story and substance of a cheap film can be every bit as good as those on an expensive one.

As long as people keep forking over money for excess, it's here to stay.

Of course those "facts" aren't really facts. As I keep having to point out (I guess some people just don't learn :-)) there are a LOT of Americans who don't want to drive huge SUVs &c - that's why the Detroit 3 have steadily been losing market share to the imports.

As for the ones who do buy them, better, safer, and cool just don't cut it as explanations. Any analysis of quality shows that the SUVs aren't better; there's a mountain of evidence showing they're not safer; and (though coolness is in the eye of the beholder) it's usually the exotic sports & muscle cars that are perceived as having that quality. SUVs are for soccer moms :-)

I have to figure that at some point, the early SUVs of America were utility vehicles like Jeep CJ's, Ford Broncos, and Toyota Landcruisers.. used chiefly by people who actually needed their braun and were happy to accept the compromise that they were fairly crude compared to the family sedan of the day. They became more comfortable and refined to attract a wider audience into showrooms, and more people began to buy them just to cart the kids back and forth - why? Because it really does feel good to feel capable - and SUV's feel capable. They knock a whole layer of "what if?" off your drive, so what if a rock rolled into the road from last night's rain? I can clear it!

The negative here is that as the SUV buyer shifted to soccer moms, the vehicles themselves have been getting more and more carlike, developing into the crossover thing we see today. This is good, because it's realistic to achieve 30+ mpg out of a crossover - they're effectively a station wagon with a couple extra inches of ground clearance. It's bad, because the men and women who actually wanted a utility vehicle all along are stuck using 20 year old iron because anything stout enough being sold today is saddled with $20,000 of extra "luxury" that the utility buyer doesn't need or want and often has compromises that make them unsuitable to use as a utility (less ground clearance, breakover angles, etc than their 1975 equivalent, etc)

As a twist of irony, we spend so much on our cars that we don't have the time or money to use them - like if you fancy yourself an outdoors kind of person and just signed up for a year's salary of debt to buy an Xterra, you might not have enough cash left over after your payments to drive 200 miles to the ski slopes or canyons at 15mpg (factoring some uphill driving and a bike/canoe/etc strapped to the roof) - so now your ruthless 4x4 machine with 80lb all terrain tires is shuttling you exclusively back and forth to the job that's paying for it.

We're funny creatures, us humans. :thumbup:

My statement had a hint of sarcasm, that I think most people on this site would have gotten.

I guess I should have said that the manufactures did a awesome job on marketing the SUV and now the Crossover. The majority of the people that purchase these vehicles don't even use the main features of their design, well other then the cup holders;).

I totally agree that the manufacturers make major profit on the SUV and Crossovers. Plus they also make big profits after the purchase of sale in chassis parts, tires, drive-train parts, body parts etc.

I dont think its stupid. Some of us need them. I have a 1993 Suburban. We get 80 to 100+ inches of snow here in my part of Michigan and when I bought it we drove 15 miles of mostly unplowed road. We also have 4 kids, 2 dogs and a mother-in-law we cart around along with a 25 foot pontoon boat in the summer. We actually use it for what it was designed for, large towing capacity and large crowd to carry around. Now the suburban is dead and is going to cost me about $1000 bucks to repair, I decided to go ahead and get a smaller car for my 100+ mile daily commute instead of repairing it at this time to save gas, but we are now back to driving 2 cars when everyone wants to go out. Sure I miss the suburban and it is sitting in the garage waiting for repairs and I will get it back on the road at the begining of next year. Will I drive it daily again? no. Cost of gas was roughly 120-150 a week. Will I drive it once a week and on long trips hauling the boat, people and gear? Sure will. As for safe, yeah it is a safer vehicle. Don't believe me? Ask my insurance company. They raised my premium because the 96 contour was in their words "Less safe, because the suburban has more iron around it" even though the suburban had no air bags, 2 years older and was a "roll over" risk...so thats where I get the safer argument from, the insurance agency.

As for peak oil, I doubt we are there, if we ever get there. Yeah I said that. My sister works for a drilling company and she said ANWAR has more oil there then Saudi and they are finding new sources every year. Are these sources easy to get to? No, which makes them more expensive to extract. That's where the expense is coming from, the extraction, not so much "Peak oil". Peak oil has been predicted a lot of times since oil was discovered. Sort of like the end of the world argument. We have only explored less then 5% of the ocean floor, how can anyone predict peak oil if more then 95% of the ocean is still yet unexplored? Sure a majority of it is at huge depths but who would have predicted that we could have ever reached the oil reserves under the ocean we are using now back in the 30's or 40's?

Anyone ever heard about Abiotic oil?

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who knows, it could be true I suppose. The part about finding hydrocarbons on other planets and moons is intriguing to me if hydrocarbons only come from plant/dino material.

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for getting off foreign oil and finding alternative cleaner, cheaper and more efficent sources of energy, not because of the abundance (or lack of) hydrocarbons, but its just the right thing to do.

You commuted in the Suburban, and yet you think they aren't a bad idea? I agree with using them for what they are supposed to be used for, but I have no idea what you would even mention that you commuted in one.

The converse is that the imports have been getting bigger (compare Honda Accords over a 10-year span) and import makers have moved into large vehicle territory as well (have you seen a Land Cruiser lately? Yeeeeesh!). That tends to support the hypothesis that there are a lot of Americans who DO want to drive huge SUVs, they just don't want to buy one made by the Big 3.
And the rich ones drive Audi Q7's.

Or the Lexus 470/570's, 75 grand for an SUV? I don't think so.

Sure, any particular model of import does seem to get bigger over time, but at some point the automaker usually introduces a new small model, for instance the Honda Fit & Toyota Yaris.

Likewise, when the import makers saturated the small car part of the market, they started expanding their range of models in order to increase sales. But the larger models are sold mostly to new-to-them customers, people who'd have formerly bought the similar-sized Detroit product. The small car market is still there, and imports have pretty well got it locked up.

No I dont think they are a bad idea, just that they do use a lot of gas, and thats the bad part, but yes I like big vehicles. I have had about everything from a metro up to the Suburban over the years. Many of them obnoxious, lifted, oversize tire, 8 mpg gas guzzling SUV's (jeeps, k-5 blazers, dodge 4x4's, Toyota cruisers, chevy trucks, etc) are the ones I had the most fun driving. I love to just go out and bounce around out in the field just to see if I can make it up that hill or through that mud bog for no reason. I also just like driving them around. I have driven the small 4 cyld and 6 cyld out in the mud as well and never really had as much fun, maybe its in my head but having that big HP engine spinning some big tires in the mud with loud pipes, Its fun to me. Is it right, probably not.

Believe it or not, one thing I do/did enjoy doing is pulling people out of the ditch when they needed it. I am the one that usually stops no matter the weather and offers help if people are stuck in the ditch in the snow storms in the area. Cant do that with the contour, the best I can offer is a warm place to sit and a cell phone at this time.

If I could afford to drive the Suburban again every day I would, but my wallet has been saying I cant do that right now. Do I enjoy the 10 gal fill ups for less then 25.00? Yes. It does beat the 125-150 fill ups, but like I said , if I could afford it I probably would still be doing it.

Eh, I don't like people like you, but I do hate people that can afford it more. So I am glad you aren't rich.

I could care less if you like me.

I thought this was an invite to discuss why "that the american car companies are still producing these stupidly huge suv's, pickup trucks, and crossover vehicles that get such horrible fuel economy?"

I didn't know it was a way to draw judgment on one anothers personalities and moral character by what they drive.

BTW...my suburban gets 18mpg on average, looks like its not much better then your mazda mpv...hmmm

Not much better than? It's worse...

Anyway, my mom drives the MPV loaded down with about 600lbs @ 75mph, I have driven it all of twice. hmmm

We've established that the car companies make big cars because of either profit, or to sell them to people that actually need them. I don't like you because you would rather drive a big "safe" car than a small car that made everyone else safer. I do like you because you can not afford to drive a big car.

Let me end this by saying, my personality type sucks online, so some stuff I say may sound offensive when it's really not.

Your MOM??...LOL...have a nice day kiddo

Do you have not have a mother? I am 37, and I happen to pay for gas for my 56 year old mother, so I used to keep track of her mileage here. :rolleyes:

*this is a test*

Yeah, I used to enjoy doing that too. (Still do, to some extent.) Except I was usually pulling out ignorant flatlanders who thought a 4WD SUV made them invulnerable - and I was using my '80 Subaru to do the pulling :-)

Why start a thread on this premise?

Unless you're driving the most efficient vehicle possible, then your vehicle type is also fair game for ridicule. Maybe all the Metro drivers on the site are wondering the same thing about companies that produce cars like your fuel-sucking, sporty Acura.

I'm not (actually wondering that). Just making a point.

But I'd rather we spent our time talking about what we're individually doing to improve efficiency than wasting time on a topic that's pretty unlikely to change anyone's position on the subject, while very likely to polarize and get people worked up for no good reason.

I can kinda see where he's coming from as Minnesotans offer up a fantastic regional example of rampant egregious wasteful mindless consumption. :mad:

I don't think it is ridiculous. You want to talk ridiculous, lets talk fuel injection. the facts would open eyes to alot of unknowing.

fuel injection is to land grid array....

if you can figure that out, I will call it wisdom.

A relative just swapped an expensive v8 bimmer for an extended yukon....
whats the difference?


:rolleyes:

..and if there was a top ten car list for longevity in fuel mileage....it sure as hellwould have a carburator....and still running.

I seek a v8. I would love to tinker with an older diesel.

I think theres a place for crossovers and SUV's. Yes, too many people drive them to mcdonalds. But having 2 cars isn't always viable.

I'm even guilty of this somewhat, lugging around AWD and raised ground clearance year around for 4 months of snow.

And at least in America, we want to have our cake and eat it too. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right?

Until that attitude changes (and I dont think it will) I don't see too much changing. Even when gas was 4$ I still saw every 9/10 SUV's with one person in it.

I am just now to the point in my life where I can afford (honestly) to have multiple vehicles. I am sure (if) I buy this 200sx the truck will be a weekend toy / nasty weather vehicle.
I would love nothing more than to get 30 mpg and be able to spend $300 for a set of tires, instead of $250 EACH.

As it turns out, if you have a need for a vehicle that does great in snow, I don't care how many wheels you turn, if you're plowing snow with your front bumper (AWD cars) you're still not going to get far.

Also, if you enjoy going into the woods IN A VEHICLE, which I do, guess what?
You're going to need some clearance!

I drive my big gas guzzling truck because it fills most of my needs and most of my wants, and does a decent job on the other things like reliability, cheapness to fix etc.

It's DAMN nice to have a big truck on the highway, even if someone IS ridding my rear bumper, I could care less, they are SOL if I brake faster than them. This has been proven time and time again Trailer Hitch vs Radiator... I drive away, they get towed to a shop.

No, I don't need a big truck. I could do what I do with a Dakota or S10. Difference is if I am going to get 13 MPG or 16 MPG, I'd rather have a big comfortable truck (I'm 6'4) with heated leather seats, a real transfer case, and solid front and rear axles.
Guess what, that leaves me at a full size Dodge, or a 3/4 + Ford.

... kaj mia tanko estas plena :)

My tank is full?

Hows the mileage on a suburban once you figure in the load? Yes for a person commuting the fuel per mile per pound of payload moved is way better in a metro but load a suburban down with 9 people and 800+ pounds of stuff and the thing comes into it's own.

person 180 lbs (per the FAA +10 lbs cause we are heavier now than when that figure was derived.)
metro
4x180 720 lbs +150 lbs in the back(maybe, this guesstimate is based on the size back there and how much stuff I put in a plane similar to what most people put in a car)
870* lbs of stuff at 45mpg* 39,150 pound miles per gallon

suburban
9x180 1620 plus another 800 lbs of stuff
2820* at 15mpg* 42,300 pound miles moved per gallon

I may be being generous with millage numbers given how loaded each vehicle in the comparison is. I pulled the payload of the suburban off the interweb for a 99 model

If you had 2800 pounds of stuff you would need 3+ metros to do the work of one suburban. With the suburban you are only moving 1 driver or not making the back trip as well. On the other hand if you are not loading the suburban down you are not getting anywhere near efficient.

To say that a large rig is not the right answer does not quite get to the crux of the issue. So what if someone is not being efficient by driving an suv, they are already paying the price at the pump. Gas prices going up will reduce the demand for inefficient rigs so will a the increase in "global care" or what ever newspeak buzz word of the day they come up with for not being a jerk. Frankly I don't much want someone dictating what type of vehicle I need to drive I can look at the issues and make that decision for my self as can most anyone else. If I make a poor choice then so be it.

I have to say my utility trailer is an insanely cost effective way to move stuff by comparison.

To use up resources based solely on their immediate monetary cost is classic tragedy of the commons.

Sure, if you spend most of your time hauling around 8 other people and a pile of stuff, but most people don't. Extend that logic of fuel economy per passenger mile out a bit, and you find youself taxiing your 747 down to the convenience store - hey, it gets great fuel economy on long trips with a full load, doesn't it?

Why the straw man with a 747? You seem to miss the line in there about where I stated that a metro is better for a light load.

How about we run those numbers with two people rather than a full load

180x2 at 45mpg 16,200 pounds per mile per gallon for a metro
180x2 at 15mpg 5,400 pounds per mile per gallon for the suburban, ouch pretty much why I don't drive one. If I had a bunch of people and gear to haul from time to time I would consider keeping one around (though for most a van may be an even better option). Seems to me if the mission is two people on clear, good roads a FE car is the way to go (throw in some snow and poor traction and AWD could make some sense). If the mission includes moving a fair bit of weight a larger rig may be worth looking into. A utility trailer is an excellent idea for most. In the next few months I will be hauling my own trash, and a fully enclosed utility trailer I can pull with the civic will be very high on the list.

The rule of thumb for aircraft tends to be get enough plane for 80% of your mission, rent the last 20% I would think that getting enough car to be useful 90% of the time then rent or keep parked a vehicle that can handle the last 10% would be effective for most people, but I sure would not dictate that logic to anyone else. About the most I could do is look at someone wasting their buck on too much ride and shake my head.

Hardly a strawman, just an honest bit of (intended as, anyway) humor on the logic involved. We do hear that "more economical with a full load" argument a lot, and of course it's not really wrong. It's more in the "not even wrong" class, because when we look at actual vehicle use, we see that 90% of the time they're carrying one person, 9% just two, 0.9% three...