The SUV Is Dethroned 1234
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Everybody hates a truck until... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Everybody hates a truck until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Road service is pretty much up to the job where I live. Oops, I forgot
(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... (Score:5, Insightful)
(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
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?
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Funny)
What I'm trying to say is: GP doesn't have anything to do with you, and everything to do with people who get SUVs and don't do "SUV stuff."
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
And even so, I'm willing to be that you could have bought a Liberty or even a Tacoma and stuck a small two-wheeled trailer on the back for the half-dozen times you actually needed to carry eight bikes, and then not have been stuck with a gas guzzler the other five days of the week when you're simply commuting to work. (The fact that you felt you had to take a picture of all those bikes together tends to indicate that it was an exception and not the rule.)
Everyone thinks they're a special case, but add all of those special cases together and you create an enormous demand that drives up the prices for everyone else. And where I grew up, thinking solely of your own needs with no regard whatsoever for how it might impact others was considered to be a 'might selfish.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're carrying bikes for eight people and no one has a spot for a trailer? No one has parents or friends with a house and driveway? Heck, I've seen some flatbeds where people back 'em up to the side of a garage and then push 'em vertical. Takes up maybe eight square feet. No RV/"toy" paid parking lots near you?
And a Yakama car rack with gutter posts will hold four bikes easily. (Been there, done that.) Yeah, it might cost $600 for posts, rails, and racks, but that's a darn site better than an extra $8,000 or more for a bigger vehicle. Plus operating costs.
Or a smaller truck/car with a heavy-duty trailer hitch rack can hold three or four. (Mine does three, and folds up when not in use.)
And you can buy a car for day-to-day use, and then figure out something else for those special cases. (Heck, with the bottom dropping out of the huge SUV/truck market, you could have bought a car and then picked up a used truck for a song. (grin)).
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you are a spacecraft engineer, and then a meter is the same as a foot !!
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Funny)
By your logic you might as well call a van a poorly-designed subcompact.
Two type of people (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
But... you sir, are an idiot for using a defense of trails with thick roots and muddy fields. Who the hell is facing this in getting their kids to school or dance practice? I don't advocate using Toyota Corollas for plowing fields, nor do I advocate using them for what your uses seem to be. Maybe you should come down from your muddy root-covered trail someday to my urban neighborhood in the Washington DC region, where SUVs large and small, but mostly large, are used to drive to the shopping mall 8 miles away on flat paved roads.
Did people in Michigan have no families prior to the SUV? Did they stay in all winter? There were 4x4 trucks back then, but most people in America who didn't face severe conditions or tow boats, etc, didn't buy them to get to the office.
The prevalence of truck-like cars for use as the main vehicle in America stems mostly from marketing savvy, not usefulness. Add to that the fuel economy standard loophole that allowed them to be gas pigs. While I don't subscribe to the believe that a certain type of car should be mandated to everyone or certain types outlawed, that latter fact - the fuel economy loophole - was a crock.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Informative)
Plus, the auto makers figured out they could make a bigger profit on the trucks.
So, car with reasonable engine is more expensive than an SUV "truck" with an unreasonably large engine... for the same space and hauling capacity.
A lot of market forces were at work to make the current situation like it is.
I am actually amazed it flipped so fast.
Next up; dumbasses stop racing up to the stop light and actually try other gas-saving measures.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cable TV (Score:4, Informative)
That's odd... When I look at the ncap ratings, SUVs (particularly and especially older ones) do not get the highest ratings. While they are commonly perceived to be safer, that does not seem to be the case.
Those who own SUVs are welcome to them - they will finally be paying something closer to the true economic cost of owning and operating them. I do not think it is necessarily true that SUVs are safer for the occupants, or for the people on the other end of the collision...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He states facts in a most mildly inflammatory way while still making his viewpoint known - SUV resale values are going down hard as gas prices go up - and you answer by looking forward to killing people with your unnecessarily oversized vehicle. You do realize that you exemplify most (and perhaps all, though we're lacking some information) of the negative stereotyp
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
All of those minivans also outdo every single midsize and large 'crossover' SUV for interior volume and passenger space, including the Acura MDX, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Saturn Outlook, Buick Enclave, Mazda CX-9, Ford Flex, Ford Taurus X, Volkswagen Touareg, Volvo XC90, Hyundai Veracruz, and their respective corporate cousins.
To do better for space, you need to get a Suburban, an extended length Expedition, or a fullsize family van like the Chevy Express, Ford Econoline, or Dodge Sprinter.
On the other hand, I believe for model year 2008 only the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey are available with 8 passenger seating. All other minivan models are limited to 7.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
This has meant, effectively 7 passenger minivans. The latest, a 2001 Sienna, is soon to be gone because we are now down to only one booster, which means we can fit all three kids across the back of a much smaller vehicle.
The point is, though, that people use lots of kids as an excuse for driving SUVs. SUVs are not an efficient way (ignoring hybrids) to transport lots of people. They carry extra drivetrain and extra suspension that are not required for transporting lots of people. And they frankly aren't as good at transporting stuff as a minivan.
A good minivan can handle a lot more cargo and a lot more people a lot more comfortably and a lot more efficiently than most SUVs out there. IMO. And they seem to be holding their resale pretty well at the moment.
All that said, having small children makes small efficient vehicles an impossibility; at least in the US with constantly increasing requirements for restraining^Wsecuring children.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Informative)
From Princeton's wordnet via google search [google.com], condemnable means "bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure". GP was saying something along the lines of laughing at someone for losing money buying an SUV (when you feel doing so deserves severe rebuke)
You also question the use of the term sociopath. Wikipedia indicates [wikipedia.org] the term "sociopath" is loosely defined, and can mean, among other things, someone with "antisocial personality disorder". Let's look at the diagnostic criteria [wikipedia.org] for that one:
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know what his line of work is but would a trailer fit his needs?
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Informative)
No good place for bikes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you occasionally run across the guy who wants it both ways. They'll veer to the side of the road and try to pass stopped or slow moving traffic in the same lane. They'll run red lights. They don't stop at stop signs. They get a whole bunch of people riding side-by-side at 5 mph so they can have a leisurely chat while cars pile up behind them (making it dangerous to pass). I hate these cyclists. If they want to do these things they need to ride on the sidewalks and risk getting the ticket. Using the roadways is a responsibility, not a right.
I can understand it being scary riding in the middle of traffic on a bicycle. I live in Chicago and it scares the shit out of me (which is why I don't do it). So I'm a bit lenient on cyclists. But at the same time it can be frustrating if you come across a douchebag who wants you to treat him super special and waive the traffic rules for him because he's riding a bike. Luckily I don't own a car anymore, so I only have to deal with this a couple of times a year.
So tip-of-the-hat to you responsible cyclists. I have no problem sharing the road with you. Wag-of-the-finger to the douchebags who think that their bicycles give them the right to ignore traffic rules (and make things dangerous for the rest of us. Learn to ride.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Informative)
If you're in an SUV impact against a compact or subcompact, then the KE of the smaller mass subcompact is distributed to the whole mass of the SUV so you only get a small fraction of it and crumple zones aren't as necessary. If you're in an impact with something the same size or bigger than you, then you get hit worse without the crumple zones.
SUVs were relatively safer when they weren't one third of the vehicles on North American roads because the odds of an impact with a travelling object that would deliver enough KE to matter were fairly low. When the odds of running into something with equal or higher mass increased as more SUVs got on the road, then the probability of more serious injury from those types of impact dominated the risk equation.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
* consumption isn't all THAT low from what I hear from my 2-wheeled-colleagues
* it might be nice in warm / dryish countries, I for one don't look forward to arriving all drenched at work
* I for one feel quite a bit more safe being surrounded by a steel cage & airbags-combination
* it's just not practical to strap 2 kids, a wife and a bag full of groceries on top of it
IMHO : bikes is more about 'that sense of freedom' than transport, cars are more about convenience than play. That said, it's always a blurry line off course...
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Funny)
Your car is too fat. Uncle Sam needs to trim it. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Your car is too fat. Uncle Sam needs to trim it (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, twitter, let me see if I can follow your logic:
The problem was caused by government, government, and then government. Demonstrating the common affliction of irrational faith in government, your solution is now more government!
Sure, government is responsible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a list of government problems, mostly anti-trust issues and corporate welfare:
Regulation that makes sense:
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Uncle Sam is too fat. You need to trim it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how economics is supposed to work! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also interesting to see whether the trend of people sensing safety while in those large vehicles will continue... Not so easy to go back to sedans while there are so many dangerous SUVs (tanks) out there on the roads, eh?
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! [nerdkits.com]
Re:This is how economics is supposed to work! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the OPEC countries do a lot of artificial manipulation of oil prices in the first place, so this isn't pure market either.
I think scenestar and tronbradia above debunked the rest of your arguments pretty well.
Environmental impact. (Score:3, Interesting)
In a perfect world, the free market is a pretty good idea. In a world where most of the inhabitants are irresponsible, arrogant and self-centered assholes, it just doesn't work that well.
Re:This is how economics is supposed to work! (Score:4, Interesting)
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!!)
Re:This is how economics is supposed to work! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate SUVs with a passion. Glad to see them go.
Re:This is how economics is supposed to work! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers!
i'll still drive my hummer (Score:3, Funny)
Re:i'll still drive my hummer (Score:5, Funny)
This is the silver lining (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid Ford (Score:4, Insightful)
I use my Ranger mostly as a commuter vehicle, but we need a truck for weekend projects like landscaping and hauling stuff. I'd never even consider commuting with a gas guzzler like an F-150.
I hope they figure this out before they close their last Ranger lines down.
Re:Stupid Ford (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SUVs were always a missed opportunity. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:SUVs were always a missed opportunity. (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Very easy to bring them back (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Serial hybrids (Score:3, Informative)
All these companies have to do is change them over to a serial hybrid ...
Ah, you forget that you are dealing with American car companies. Guessing that they will get smart is not a good bet considering they have been getting dumber by the day for the past 40 years. Find me an innovative, exciting car company which is producing cars that lead the market and you won't find GM or Ford in the top ten.
GM is commited to producing the Chevy Volt, and Volvo ( owned by Ford ) is devloping the Recharge AKA the hybrid C30 in Camarillo, Ca.
Dude! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ryan Fenton
A big "duh" to the auto industry (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A big "duh" to the auto industry (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A big "duh" to the auto industry (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:A big "duh" to the auto industry (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A big "duh" to the auto industry (Score:4, Insightful)
The other thing about them is that they cost a fortune to make, both in money and energy. Here in Ireland at least the only reason they're affordable is down to the tax breaks you get for being "environmentally friendly".
Electric hybrids are (at the minute at least) a feel good car. Be it a pious or those completely pointless lexus v8's. The way the market is really heading is towards lighter and more aerodynamic cars with real world effective energy saving measures like BMW's stop-start technolodgy, and regenerative braking. About time cars got lighter too if you're asking me.
Not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Ford saw it's SUV and truck sales drop a whopping 44% last month. That's huge.
SUVs were always mostly a waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SUVs were always mostly a waste (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need large passenger seating, there are minivans.
There is a better solution for "large passenger seating" (that could be parsed in an alternate, amusing way): it's called a "bus" or a "train."
hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice (Score:3, Interesting)
Toyota knew the high price of oil was coming... (Score:5, Informative)
What if gas prices drop again? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I am worried that the current high price may in part be due to people speculating that we have reached peak oil (or that at least supply can no longer match demand.) If people buy oil futures in speculation of an oil shock that may not be as big as expected then prices will fall again.
If prices fall then people might go back to old habits and then when they rise again people might just expect prices to drop again like it did in 2008.
I guess I am hoping for a nice steady rise so we can switch to renewable sources as quickly as and painlessly as possible. Of course if we were to pass regulation to encourage a switch to a better energy source before we reach peak oil then we would make the transition a lot less painfully than we would if we just wait for peak oil and then let the market force the change. Yes the free market will make sure that eventually we will all be using renewable resources. The only question is what will the economy be like by then? Will we have a middle class at all at that point? The sooner we get to work ending the oil age and going on to something better then the better off we will all be in the long run.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 2002 the Netherlands (and some more) switched to the Euro. 1 liter of Euro95 at that moment costed us about 1 Euro. At this moment the price is round 1.6 Euro. In the last year prices went up with about 15 cents and they're expected to rise another 30 to 40 cents this year.
And yes, you're reading it right. In the Netherlands a gallon of Euro95 would cost you 6 Euro, that's allmost $10 a gallon...
Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Keep the gas guzzler. (Score:4, Insightful)
Very few people are actually doing the math.
One thing that is important to understand: GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been selling these things with 0% financing and allowing 0% down for some time now. As a buyer, taking this offer is a good idea, even if you can afford to pay cash. Most people can't though, and the financing is the only thing that allows them to afford the vehicle.
As we all know, any new car depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot. So everyone taking these 0%/0-down deals is upside-down on their vehicle on day one. (Whereas someone with a "traditional" car loan where 20% of the money or so was used as a down payment would still be right-side-up on day one).
Now you have the current energy crisis on top of it, and a sudden spike of 30% in gas prices has eroded another 30% of equity for a guy who wasn't right-side-up to begin with.
Small cars are hot now, and they're in shorter supply. So manufacturers don't need to offer 0% loans on them.
So here's what the idiots do: sell the SUV at any price, get a smaller car. Eat the negative equity. Go from a 0% loan into a 6% loan.
Example:
You have a 2007 Chevy Tahoe. It gets 17mpg city/highway combined according to the new 2008 EPA numbers. 1 year old, 0% loan on $40,000 for 5 years. You've paid back $8,000, owe $32,000. It's worth $20,000 on the market if you're lucky. $12,000 in negative equity there.
Buy a 2008 Honda Accord, 4 cylinder. EPA combined mileage = 24mpg.
According to the fueleconomy.gov site, the Tahoe will cost $3475/year @ 15k miles per year. The Accord will be $2464/year. So it will take roughly TWELVE YEARS or 180,000 miles to overcome the negative equity alone. Heaven forbid we include sales tax and depreciation on the new vehicle into the equation.
Even if you bought a Prius (46mpg, $1282/yr) it'd take 65k miles, or 5.5 years, to make up the difference.
Moral of the story: keep the gas guzzler.
Re:SUVs aren't dead (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SUVs aren't dead (Score:5, Informative)
A crossover is build on a sedan chassis and is based on a passenger car. It is lighter, and by virtue of the car engines, more fuel efficient. SUVs are built on a light truck frame, frequently using ridiculous engines far beyond what would be necessary for that weekly grocery run.
Crossovers are the answer to people who like the style or configuration, or who might need to carry large loads from Home Depot or the local garden center, but who want better ride, handling, and fuel efficiency.
Those little Honda deals and compact SUVs were never really SUVs to begin with--that was marketing. If the market has moved on to crossovers rather than SUVs, then yes, they are dead, and a crossover is not nearly as obnoxious. It's the trendy replacement for the minivan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But, you didnt say "why" you need an SUV, "gf and her two kids", so i assume that makes 4 people... whats wrong with a car or a mini-van? you can fit more crap in a mini-van than an XTerra or Escalade, and you arent wasting your gas driving two useless wheels and the extra drivetrain, plus you can usually fit longer things in them, like plywood, and ladders and still have 4 seats usable.
Re:And may I be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:completely missing the point with SUV's. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Small cars can brake and swerve... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why so many SUVs go off the roads every time it snows. 4WD means you can accelerate well so you scoot along the freeway pretty much as normal. First sign of trouble, you've got nothing. No brakes, no steering, so guess what happens next...?