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."

Good riddance!

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 [gladwell.com].

Re:Good riddance!

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!

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!

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!

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

Why not? A gallon of gas costs EU 6.24 here in The Netherlands (which is $9.73) and while SUVs were never that popular here (and their popularity is declining) I still see quite a few of them every day.

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

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.

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

An anarchist who supports big government... Next up, a vegan espouses the virtues of pork chops.

Sure, government is responsible.

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.

Westbake == Twitter sock-puppet.

Irony: Using a sock-puppet account to complain about other people's dishonesty.

SUVs were always a missed opportunity.

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

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.

Dude!

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

A big "duh" to the auto industry

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.

Re:A big "duh" to the auto industry

No kidding. *I* saw this coming years ago (read: 2003), and dumped my two Suburbans while they were still worth something on the used market. I kept my pickup until early last year, when I "gave" it to my ex as part of the settlement. She can't afford to sell it, and can't afford to fill it. Yeah, I'm still grinning ear-to-ear on that one. Book values were still high in early 2007...

Now I drive my 15 year old Civic most days, and I have my CR-V for those times that I need AWD / greater clearance / etc.

The real answer is that the American auto companies got complacent and lazy while the trucks were selling well. They made a ton of profits, built generally good products (my GM truck was about the most reliable thing I've ever owned, considering the rough service life it saw) and ignored R&D for the inevitable price spike in fuel. They're getting exactly what they deserve - years of profit-taking with little investment in innovation, and the market is now crushing them. Market forces at work, folks.

Not surprised

I'm not surprised. For the month of May '08, the Honda Civic dethroned the Ford F-150 [autoblog.com] as the best selling U.S. vehicle. The F-150 was the best selling vehicle in the U.S. for the past 17 years.

Ford saw it's SUV and truck sales drop a whopping 44% last month. That's huge.

SUVs were always mostly a waste

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.

Re:SUVs were always mostly a waste

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.

An SUV can do all those things - but none of them very well. It's more of a Spork Utility Vehicle.

Toyota knew the high price of oil was coming...

...which is why they spent so much money in the 1990's developing the hybrid, when all the other car manufacturers thought they were nuts. There's a lot to be said for long-term thinking, which is partially why they are mopping the floor with the detroit automakers in so many areas.

Wait, wait, wait...

Has Netcraft confirmed this yet?

Re:Stupid Ford

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.

Re:This is how economics is supposed to work!

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:This is how economics is supposed to work!

Luckily it did. Our roads are not made for cars as big as houses. SUV's are like the old iPhone: they seem to promise a lot, but when you look more closely you see that they don't perform well in any category. They only look good, if you're into ridiculously big outrageous cars.

I hate SUVs with a passion. Glad to see them go.

Re:i'll still drive my hummer

You should have gotten the H2 option to use flexible fuels, like baby seals; then you'd be killing two birds with one stone.

Re:And may I be the first to say...

you apparently didn't read the first post, who said that first. 1st.

I like that. A post about redundancy that contains its own in-built redundancy.

Re:completely missing the point with SUV's.

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.