SUVs should Get Tobacco-Style Warnings

[hmmfe]

How about a station wagon?

That's the thing that bothers me. People act like they need an SUV because there is no other more fuel effiecient option. If you want an SUV, go for it. It's a free country. But at least be honest about it. Unless you are fording rivers, you don't _need_ an SUV.

As the architect of the greatest economy the world has ever seen would say, "It depends on what your definition of need is."

The real problem is you are setting yourself up to decide what other people need. I'm guessing you would not want anybody snooping around your house to see if you own anything you don't need.

While I do not ford rivers, I do use my "SUV" (I prefer the older 4WD vehicle) to get me in the mountains where a stationwagon or minivan would not go. So, I think I need one - but I guess I should be asking you instead?

I guess I'm just not being honest about it.

 

[jsw]

I actually agree with much of what you are saying, especially what you said in the last paragraph. I just don't see a "minivan" or station wagon being much different from many SUVs of similar size/weight in terms of fuel consumption or in the emission of gases.
....

FWIW, I've owned a number of SUVs and, politically correct or not, loved them. I still have a Jeep Liberty, which I enjoy.

However, our Honda Odyssey minivan weighs at least as much as the SUVs
we've owned, and it gets a good 10 mpg more than they did (or do). Aerodynamics and engine efficiency play as much or more of a role as size and weight.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Your comparison in unfair, people are talking about large SUVs being needed for a family of 5. A Minivan carries up to 7 easily and so are comparable to BIG SUVs in that regard.

Your comparison shows that Minivans which can carry many more people than smaller SUVs get about the same mileage.

In effect proving that Minivans are much better than Big SUVs, and smaller ones when it comes to how many people you can move around while getting comparatively good mileage.

Not a minivan fan myself, but then again, I don't why anyone would want more than two kids. Though in SoCal lately, haveing three or more kids is a symbol of social status.I guess overconsumption and excess doesn't stop at what you drive.

I specifically qualified the comparison as being between SUVs and minivans of similar size/weight for a reason. Like you, I'm not a fan of minivans, partly because I often find that comfort in those vehicles leaves a lot to be desired. That's why in my opinion, the claims of a minivan carrying 7 passengers vs 5 on an SUV are only true "on paper". Most minivans I've had the opportunity to ride seemed quite uncomfortable when carrying 3 across a 'long' seat when compared to an SUV. That's without even mentioning things like the awkward sort of "legroom" you have, which in most minivans is compromised by the high floor (no "footwell" as you traditionally have in a car). Even when they have "individual" seats in the rear, those are quite narrow. I'll just say the minivans I have personally experienced would not carry 7 members of my family . Five passengers would be all right which is the same as most SUVs. Also, in many minivans the cargo space is actually quite limited if you decide to put in all the seats to carry 7. If you are going on a vacation trip with your family, odds are you are carrying no more than 5 passengers and the things you need for the trip. Again, same as an SUV.

We might also consider a few things about the EPA numbers:
- EPA tests are conducted with only the driver in the vehicle, not a "fully loaded" vehicle. The inherent efficiency (or lack thereof) of a specific power train under the load of X passengers vs. just one might yield surprising results in terms of fuel economy. This is likely to be true in a model by model basis instead of a vehicle class basis so I doubt it would show that generally minivans or SUVs are more efficient.
- EPA tests are conducted in a stationary rig. Aerodynamic efficiency is not even a factor in the numbers.
- EPA tests are conducted with accessories turned off. That means the air conditioner is not used even though most people in the U.S will use their A/C at least part of the year. The effect of this load will vary greatly from vehicle to vehicle but in my experience, would generally be most noticeable in smaller engines.

I'll reiterate I'm not a fan of SUVs either, I'm just explaining why I don't see much difference between them and a minivan. That's why I think much of the language aimed at SUVs, and especially their owners, by some who have taken up this cause is unfair. It is true that if need was the primary criteria for selecting a vehicle, many could get by with a smaller, lighter vehicle, but this would be true of any type of vehicle. Does a family of two really need a Mercury Marquis or BMW 7 Series? You get my drift

 

[jywv8]

As the architect of the greatest economy the world has ever seen would say, "It depends on what your definition of need is."

The real problem is you are setting yourself up to decide what other people need. I'm guessing you would not want anybody snooping around your house to see if you own anything you don't need.

While I do not ford rivers, I do use my "SUV" (I prefer the older 4WD vehicle) to get me in the mountains where a stationwagon or minivan would not go. So, I think I need one - but I guess I should be asking you instead?

I guess I'm just not being honest about it.

Point taken.

I guess I'm thinking of my sister, who lives in an suburban area of FL, who has never once engaged in any activity that would require or suggest the use of a SUV, who says her and her husband bought a Yukon and some other SUV because they "need room for their two bassett hounds".

I suppose I'm thinking of my neighbor, who lives in the city of Chicago, who says he bought an SUV because he "needs room for the kids".

I'm thinking of many other high income, status conscious friends and acquaintances, all of them self-proclaimed environmentalists, who try to assuage their consciences by telling themselves that, no, they aren't being hypocrites, that, yes, they need these SUVs.

 

[Abstract]

I specifically qualified the comparison as being between SUVs and minivans of similar size/weight for a reason.

.....Even when they have "individual" seats in the rear, those are quite narrow. I'll just say the minivans I have personally experienced would not carry 7 members of my family . Five passengers would be all right which is the same as most SUVs.

But it's not a Mini-van's fault that your family is.....um......"large". And if a Minivan can only fit 5 of your family members comfortably, then a comparable weight SUV would probably carry less. It's too bad that a comparably sized SUV usually weighs more than a Mini-Van, and yet the Minivan carries more cargo.

And if you're going to say that SUVs are being castrated now by the public because of lobby groups, and that minivans would have gone through the same treatment if such groups had such influence back in the late 80's, I'd say even back then, the Minivan could seat 7 people, but the fuel usage was actually quite comparable to some sedans/saloons, as the engines were smaller in mini-vans back then. 150 hp/110 kW can still haul 5 people around quite well, and they still emit less polution today for the size when compared to SUVs, despite the larger engines compared with the 1991 models.

Nobody is saying that SUVs are absolutely useless, but for the large large majority of people, they are equally as well off with a mini-van/station wagon. They get their kids, groceries, and so forth. Again, that isn't the case for everyone, but it is for the majority of SUVs you see on the road. So when you're driving, and you're boxed in by 4 SUVs on each side (happened to some friends and I 6-7 days ago), it sort of blows knowing that these people completely block my vision of the road when all they're doing is going to the grocery shop to buy a bucket of ice cream and a box of frozen lasagna.

 

[Mr_Ed]

But it's not a Mini-van's fault that your family is.....um......"large". And if a Minivan can only fit 5 of your family members comfortably, then a comparable weight SUV would probably carry less. It's too bad that a comparably sized SUV usually weighs more than a Mini-Van, and yet the Minivan carries more cargo.

Reiterating that I don't actually like SUVs or minivans but . . . . Actually, yes, we are "large", does that mean I should buy a vehicle where I am unfcomfortable? On seat width, even a "normal" person would prefer a first class seat in an airliner, right? A 6 ft plus person sitting in some of the minivan seats I have been in would simply not be comfortable for more than a short trip because you feel your knees are up in your chest (no footwell) as opposed to a more normal seating position. It's a matter of how comfortable or uncomfortable you are willing to be, so it's highly subjective.

On the weight comparison, are you comparing vehicles of similar size (wheelbase)? For an example, I looked up the Dodge Caravan (first minivan that came to mind) and found it to have a wheelbase of 113 inches and curb weight of 3908 lbs. I then looked up a Ford Explorer and found it to have a wheelbase of 114 inches and a curb weight of 4300 lbs. I then looked up a Chevy Equinox and found it to have a wheelbase of 113 inches and a curb weight of 3776 lbs. I just think there are enough exceptions to any rule we might come up with in classifying minivans and SUVs that in my mind at least, there isn't a significant difference, especially when I take into account my own perception of the "comfort factor."

And if you're going to say that SUVs are being castrated now by the public because of lobby groups, and that minivans would have gone through the same treatment if such groups had such influence back in the late 80's, I'd say even back then, the Minivan could seat 7 people, but the fuel usage was actually quite comparable to some sedans/saloons, as the engines were smaller in mini-vans back then. 150 hp/110 kW can still haul 5 people around quite well, and they still emit less polution today for the size when compared to SUVs, despite the larger engines compared with the 1991 models.

Again, hauling 5 people around "quite well" is subjective in terms of comfort and performance. I'll give you that with a minivan, you at least have the option of cramming more bodies inside if that is what you want to do and you simply cannot do that on an SUV unless you go for one of the larger ones.

Nobody is saying that SUVs are absolutely useless, but for the large large majority of people, they are equally as well off with a mini-van/station wagon. They get their kids, groceries, and so forth. Again, that isn't the case for everyone, but it is for the majority of SUVs you see on the road. So when you're driving, and you're boxed in by 4 SUVs on each side (happened to some friends and I 6-7 days ago), it sort of blows knowing that these people completely block my vision of the road when all they're doing is going to the grocery shop to buy a bucket of ice cream and a box of frozen lasagna.

No argument there. And I am in complete agreement with the other effects of the proliferation of SUVs on the road. Those are some of my "pet peeves" as well

 

[takao]

And if you're going to say that SUVs are being castrated now by the public because of lobby groups, and that minivans would have gone through the same treatment if such groups had such influence back in the late 80's, I'd say even back then, the Minivan could seat 7 people, but the fuel usage was actually quite comparable to some sedans/saloons, as the engines were smaller in mini-vans back then. 150 hp/110 kW can still haul 5 people around quite well, and they still emit less polution today for the size when compared to SUVs, despite the larger engines compared with the 1991 models.

for example our '89 Renault Espace (short version) has a lousy 115 HP 2.0 liter engine but only has 1250 kg (thats ~2500 pounds) ...
including 75 kg driver
last holiday with 6 people and luggage (sp?) we got ~23 MPG on the highways and autobahn with speeds between 80-140 km/h

 

[Earendil]

Not arguing for the SUV, but I'll give an example (though not a common occurrence) of a family that needs an SUV.

We are a family of 6. We used to own a Volkswagen, with 4 wheel drive that handled far from adequately in snow. We live in the North Cascades, Just on the borders of OR and WA. We own a 4 wheel drive Suburban, because it does everything we need it to do.

It hauls 2 adults and 4 kids, and if we want friends to come along, they can. When we go back packing or go on vacation it fits (though barely) luggage for 6 people in the back (and in out laps). So far a mini van *might* do this, right?

On occasions we've used it to tow a 28 foot trailer. towed a car with it (both off the freeway and on a flat bed trailer). Did you know you can fit a full sheet of 4x8 plywood in the back? or Drywall for that matter. Starting to go above and beyond a Mini Van here.
Thrown 2000lbs of dry cement in the back of it(that was fun to drive). Last winter we had 3 feet of snow on the roads (plows are slow out here), which it handled not only with ease, but safely. Come ski season I often car pool my friends up to Mt. Hood for skiing/boarding. I can fit 6 adults and snow gear for all in there(without a roof rack). I always carry a tow rope in the back. Last winter I pulled 3 cars out of a snow laden ditch with it. Pulled our own vehicle out twice last winter.

Granted, my family lives on the edge, but not even close to where some people. some of our neighbors have Subarus that do handle the snow fine. But they can't tow. For that some people by a second (or third) vehicle in the form of a truck to do some of that stuff. But that still doesn't solve fitting 6 people and the 2 Mastiffs in the car if we want to get away from the house.

If you live in San Diego, for pete's sake get a mini van. But for your Northern brothers, an SUV saves some people from getting 3 different cars.

Peace,
Tyler Z.

side note-
We used to own a 1991 325i BMW. the book said 24 mpg, and it got more like 22 mpg. If you wanted to "get home fast", going up hill, it would burn 6 mpg over a period of 20 minutes, according to the on board computer. How you drive your car makes a huge difference too.

 

[hmmfe]

Point taken.

I guess I'm thinking of my sister, who lives in an suburban area of FL, who has never once engaged in any activity that would require or suggest the use of a SUV, who says her and her husband bought a Yukon and some other SUV because they "need room for their two bassett hounds".

I suppose I'm thinking of my neighbor, who lives in the city of Chicago, who says he bought an SUV because he "needs room for the kids".

I'm thinking of many other high income, status conscious friends and acquaintances, all of them self-proclaimed environmentalists, who try to assuage their consciences by telling themselves that, no, they aren't being hypocrites, that, yes, they need these SUVs.

I see what you are saying. There are definitely clear examples of excess. In the end, I think most people are reacting to the excess rather than the choice of vehicle specifically. Somehow, everyone has it in for "yuppies".

 

[combatcolin]

Right then.

How about this for an intresting POV WITHOUT any attempt, i may add - to troll

If Americans need such huge off roaders because of the enviroment they live in, be it Snow, Mountain or simply crap roads, why can the nations of this planet that do have such terrain manage without them?

Now it can't be don't to wealth for a good proportion of them - as America is not the worlds only rich country.

In the Nordic country's they simply change there wheels in the winter to small metal studs and they manage with "average" size cars.

Or for an even more intresting POV, what would enviromentally minded persons such as myself say if these huge off roaders (or SUV's - depending on where you live ) could run on something less damaging than petrol - say LPG?

 

[Earendil]

Right then.

How about this for an intresting POV WITHOUT any attempt, i may add - to troll

If Americans need such huge off roaders because of the enviroment they live in, be it Snow, Mountain or simply crap roads, why can the nations of this planet that do have such terrain manage without them?

Now it can't be don't to wealth for a good proportion of them - as America is not the worlds only rich country.

In the Nordic country's they simply change there wheels in the winter to small metal studs and they manage with "average" size cars.

Or for an even more intresting POV, what would enviromentally minded persons such as myself say if these huge off roaders (or SUV's - depending on where you live ) could run on something less damaging than petrol - say LPG?

And in those countries you may not be guaranteed a doctor, as he may not be able to make it to the hospital in an emergency. My dad, a family practice doc in a rural town, can't afford to be late....And when was the last time you saw a car drive through 3 feet of snow?! chains or no, my friend, that is more than a "hard feat".

Perhaps it can be said that one of the reasons America has the economy it does today, is because people are able to reliably show up to work.

 

[edesignuk]

H2's should be banned for being H2's IMO

www.fuh2.com

 

[brap]

...could run on something less damaging than petrol - say LPG?

Humanity needs to be kicked in the nuts before this'll happen. Part of me says 'The sooner the better', because we deserve it. Part of me is terrified about the lack of chain-carbon based goods.

Oh well, America and China will sort it out for us, don't you worry.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Humanity needs to be kicked in the nuts before this'll happen. Part of me says 'The sooner the better', because we deserve it. Part of me is terrified about the lack of chain-carbon based goods.

Oh well, America and China will sort it out for us, don't you worry.

You're absolutely right brap - humanity needs an event similar to a kick in the nuts to force change in the chain-carbon industry. BP already has alternative fuel initiatives going, but I don't know if the other oil companies are quite as proactive.

 

[combatcolin]

Unfortunatly with Dubya the world is f**cked.

Oh well, Next chance to save the world - 2008!!

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Unfortunatly with Dubya the world is f**cked.

Oh well, Next chance to save the world - 2008!!

Nice try at hiding a political comment, combatcolin. Next time, keep those to the political forum - that's where they belong. ("Dubya" is a reference to George W. Bush)

 

[edesignuk]

Nice try at hiding a political comment, combatcolin. Next time, keep those to the political forum - that's where they belong. ("Dubya" is a reference to George W. Bush)

Well spotted Sherlock I somehow doubt combatcolin was trying in anyway to hide anything

 

[combatcolin]

Actually, i love the guy

 

[kylos]

In my state at least(MI), chains and whatnot are illegal for road use. They tear up the surface.

As far as suv's are concerned, not everybody who buys them needs them, and I wish they wouldn't if they don't, but I believe in personal freedom, so I'm not at all interested in more laws. It would be interesting to see what proportion of automotive pollution is caused by unneeded suv's. My guess is it's a lot less than what people think. SUV's are the primary focus, however, because of their appeapance of extravagnce.

 

[wdlove]

You're absolutely right brap - humanity needs an event similar to a kick in the nuts to force change in the chain-carbon industry. BP already has alternative fuel initiatives going, but I don't know if the other oil companies are quite as proactive.

I have faith that the needed solutions will be found. Higher gas prices over time will tend to encourage us into seeking cars with better gas mileage. Tax incentives would encourage research and the purchase of alternatives. In the 80's it was done with Solar.

 

[Apple Hobo]

From fuh2.com:

Hilarious video showing the H2's "capabilities" - Reality check to all the H2 drivers who think they've got a real 4x4

 

[ejb190]

Not all that long ago I heard a soil scientist make a really convincing argument that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is as much due to the decomposition of soil organic matter (poor agriculture practices, drainage of wetlands, etc.) as it is polution from vehicles. The breakdown of the organic matter leads to the release of sequestered CO2.

 

[SharksFan22]

A solution, perhaps?

The whole concept of SUV-owner bashing is one that leaves me a little befuddled. As an American, I treasure the fact that we live in a society where we can choose to purchase a 7-passenger, gas-guzzling SUV or we can choose to purchase a compact, fuel-efficient hatchback. Wouldn't want it any other way. The worst thing in the world would be for the government to take that power of choice away from the individual and mandate certain styles of vehicles.

For those of you old enough to remember, in the late-1970s the Japanese kicked the hell out of the American automaker industry with reliable, efficient, and affordable transportation. America tried to impose tarriffs and use other protectionist tactics, but at the end of the day, the Japanese were so much more in-tune with the market that they won the battle and forced GM/Dodge/Ford to change. Today all of those manufacturers produce vehicles that are light-years ahead of their predecessors -- not because of government mandates, but because of the competition in the market and the customers who vote with their dollars.

All of that said, in my humble opinion, I think the right answer is to let the price of gasoline control the purchase of large SUVs. If it gets more expensive, people will stop looking at purchasing inefficient vehicles and move into efficient ones. Ultimately, we'll get to a point where the market won't purchase gas-guzzlers because it will be just too darn expensive to operate one. Problem solved -- and all without the meddling or influence of the government.

Of course, I also find it interesting that Detroit is starting to promote fuel-efficient sedans now that the gas prices have risen. These are the same automakers that sold us large SUVs when gas prices were very low in the mid-to late-1990s. Conspiracy??

One more thing to ponder -- vehicle size and it's retail price have nothing to with the cost to manufacture, but instead the retail price is driven by the market. A Ford Expedition doesn't cost tiwce as much to produce as a Ford Escape, but the market is willing to pay the higher price for the Expedition so Ford charges accordingly.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I totally agree with SharksFan22, you should be allowed to choose what type of vehicle you buy and use. I think it would be bad if the government told us we could only drive compact cars and they were the only ones legally sold. I drive an SUV and I love it. I have room for my dog, 4 wheel drive which I use where I live, in South Dakota, and plenty of room. Also, as a 28 year old single male, the SUV looks better then a mini-van in my opinion. I just don't think mini-vans are really cool and trendy vehicles for a younger single male. I have a Ford Explorer and it has been very reliable and it is a nice sized vehicle. The only downfall is that the gas economy is poor compared to smaller passenger cars and when I replace it, I will be buying one of these...

www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/

For everyone that says it is not possible for a 4 Wheel Drive SUV to get excellent gas economy and be a good environmental choice, the 2005 Ford Escape Hybrid proves that it is. Now who can bash an SUV that will get 40 MPG around the city and 30 MPG on the highway along with cutting pollution over any straight gasoline powered vehicle? I think it would be pretty hard to bash someone for buying one of these SUV's.

 

[brap]

The worst thing in the world would be for the government to take that power of choice away from the individual and mandate certain styles of vehicles.

Jesus H. Christ! Why, in America, must everything be so black and white?

I very much doubt any of these dirty, hippy liberals arguing against SUV usage are concerned with removing the right to drive a ridiculously overpowered, overweight, wasteful machine. What's irritating is the fact you are able to drive such a thing without penalty - at all. Maybe if the tax system were a little better, and driving such monsters hit you in the pocket a little harder, you'd consider that.

Don't even start on prohibitive 'gas' prices, come over here and see how you like it. I believe it converts currently to ~$1.40/litre. Your government wouldn't dare push prices up that high, and thus you continue to buy. People drive SUVs over here, but only those stupid enough to pay the penalty.

I, personally, don't trust other humans to care about the environment; we suck - but maybe if wealth, #1 motivator for centuries were hit, you'd consider sacrificing a little "comfort". Pity it'll never happen.