When I was seventeen, a neighbor invited me to drive his metallic black 1982 Porsche 911 SC. I stalled the engine twice before leaving the driveway. Then the owner slid behind the wheel. Within seconds we were ripping through the Texas hill country at 140 mph. Since that fateful day, my tastes have broadened to include off-roading, mountain biking, backpacking and skiing. But I’m still a bonafied pistonhead, and I’m disgusted by the hypocritical anti-SUV remarks I’ve read in the automotive press and right here on TTAC.
Most automotive journalists have decided that the average American shouldn’t own a gas-guzzling SUV because they never drive it off-road. And yet these same scribes have no problem taking passenger cars onto a race track for high-speed evaluation. In fact, I’d wager that there are more SUV drivers who take their vehicles off-road than sports car owners who set rubber on a racetrack. Why, then, is it okay to buy a car based on its theoretical extreme performance, while purchasing a four wheel-drive SUV for its unused off-road abilities is considered a crime against nature?
Of course, many SUV drivers do go off-road. I recently packed my family and luggage into our Jeep Liberty for a two-week vacation in Colorado and Utah. The SUV was spacious and comfortable. Its 3.7-liter V6 engine hauled us up the frequent seven percent grades with ease. When we arrived, I used the Jeep's off-road capabilities to explore off-road and ATV trails. The little SUV took me to out-of-the way places to fish and view the deer, elk, moose and pronghorn. The weight of the Liberty’s frame and suspension components (derided by some for making the vehicle seem ponderous on road) gave it sure-footed control and provided protection while crawling over oil pan hungry rocks.
SUVs are frequently purchased for their off-road abilities– however infrequent. Nearly eighty percent of SUV owners told pollster R.L. Polk that they count on their SUVs for severe weather. The same survey showed that fifty percent regularly haul heavy or bulky items to their homes, while twenty-four percent pull boats or carry bicycles, and fifteen percent use them for off-road sport. I guess soccer moms are busier than some people thought.
Aside from their alleged "inappropriateness," SUV’s are usually vilified on safety grounds. Supposedly, their top heavy nature renders them prone to rolling over in certain types of accidents. While SUV’s certainly have a higher center of gravity than passenger cars, are they really more dangerous? As pointed out on this very website, the vast majority of rollover deaths and injuries are attributable to non-compliance with seat belt legislation. Besides, as simple common sense suggests, road safety is largely a reflection of a driver’s abilities– not the vehicle’s. Perhaps that’s why insuring a new Corvette costs roughly five times more than insuring a similarly priced Chevrolet Suburban SUV.
Car aficionados that criticize SUVs for poor gas mileage are also skating on thin rhetorical ice. Unless they bicycle everywhere (I give bicyclists a pass on chain oil and the methane they release when exerting themselves), they are like vegans that wear leather shoes. What are our favorite sports cars? Does reading any of these letters get your heart pumping: GTO, SS, HEMI, SC, RS, GT, S? As emotive as all these high performance tags sound, they’re all shorthand for “crappy MPG.”
Of course, the SUV is a far more practical conveyance than a dedicated sports car. The vast majority of pistonheads' dream machines seat two people, offer limited trunk space, are tail happy in the rain and can’t tow worth a damn. Obviously, sports cars aren't designed for extreme weather or as a U-Haul alternative. By the same token, an SUV wasn’t designed for high-speed cornering. Yes, you pay the price at the pump, but both genres are suited to their respective tasks.
According to environmentalists, the SUV is the root of all evil, belching filth into the air, destroying our air quality and warming the planet. In truth, all American cars and light trucks produce approximately two percent of all man-made greenhouse gasses worldwide. Emissions from a modern mid-sized SUV are cleaner than that of the average new car built three years ago. As of 2004, SUV’s produce 99% less pollutants per mile than cars manufactured in 1967 (prior to federal emissions standards). All ongoing emissions improvements split the remaining fraction of a percent.
There will always be poseurs that buy SUVs just to look outdoorsy and adventurous. And there will always be consumers who buy sports cars simply to pose and preen. Though distasteful to true enthusiasts, as long as we live in a free country, we can’t stop pathetic pretenders from buying the vehicles we love. As my wealthy neighbor demonstrated all those years ago, all we can do is drive our cars how they were meant to be driven. That includes SUV’s.
Tagged as
142 Comments on “SUV’s are A-OK...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
t's certainly a free country. I've personally never taken issue with the gas mileage of SUV's, as my car is no sipper… I just take issue with the people who buy them thinking "thank god, I'm not driving a minivan, I still look kinda cool" which of course isn't true at all. SUV's and minivans now exist on the same plain of coolness.
Thats forgetting, of course, that an SUV fails to have the practicality of a wagon, has sloppy handling that makes it much more likely to get into an accident, obscures road visibility for other users, and that most if not all SUVs are poor off road machines, for starters. Here in Canada, once the snow starts to fly, you can be assured that the drive home will pass atleast a dozen of these ponderous machines in the ditch. Severe weather capabilities is a joke, my front wheel drive sedan will run rings around an SUV when the weather worsens.
SUVs were an ill conceived fashion statement which worked out wonderfully for the manufacturers financially for a time. Anyone who is going to spout off about the practicality of an SUV has obviously never driven a wagon, and a sensible person would have an economical vehicle to take them and there lunch box to work, and just rent a vehicle for those few times real hauling is needed.
What a disappointing editorial.
First of all, you should never listen to environmentalists. I hate those guys. They are more like an evil religious sect. And you are right, that sports cars are at least as bad as SUVs. SUVs however are a mass phenomenon and that's where many people feel that something has to be done about that.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Trucks & SUVs, but I'm also for freedom of car and therefore won't ever lecture anyone about the right choice of car.
I think however, that the posers are in the majority of the SUV customers. Not that I have a problem with it. This trend will fade out sooner or later and the posers will find another car to pose in. I mean isn't a owning Prius just as much about posing?
I liked SUV’s before they became a fad. I begged my dad to get a
pathfinder (he was a Nissan guy at the time) back in 86. I loved
Blazers. But I, Like William, used mine. I do not know where the poll
got its responders from, but I have never seen any 5 foot blonde woman
out on the trail, or hauling anything from Lowe’s, or doing anything in
their SUV’s that could not have been done in a minivan. It was all the
cool factor. I don’t hate SUV’s, I hate what FADs did to them. This
article is dead on in many ways as well. I am a big fan of clean air,
and the air quality aspects are very true. Gas is the only thing
keeping me out of one. As in a previous post, I am now pulling a
trailer behind my Honda when I need to haul stuff from Lowe’s, instead
of my Chevy. But the honda doesn’t provide the enjoyment (or the
ability) of driving up a trail in the mountains here in WV (the only
thing going for this state) to do any of the activities William describes. Between my preggo wife, and gas prices, I won’t get to do
any this year at all. I hope next year is better. Fasten your seatbelts
America! I don’t sympathize with morons who dont buckle up and get
flattened by their own vehicle rolling over their ejected butts. Way to
put things in perspective Robert! – Shawn
Amen, to the article, not lizthevw. Liz's response is exactly the shortsightedness and irrational prejudice people have towards SUVs that the article seeks to expose. Instead of an insightful comment on the comparison of high perforamce sports cars to SUVs, we get "[s]evere weather capabilities is a joke, my front wheel drive sedan will run rings around an SUV when the weather worsens." How can you seriously say that? Any competent driver can drive circles around a FW drive car with 4wd. That being said, I do agree that 4wd does give certain drivers a sense of security that surpasses their driving abilities.
High speed track testing is about testing the performance envelope of the vehicle. If it can handle an extreme situation very well (on the rack) then it can most likely handle more mundane, day-to-day driving situations that most people will encounter. So, i have no problems with manufacteurs and/or journalists testing Civics and Corollas at the track.
To Hutton:
As much as I don't like driving SUV's, I have to admit I'd rather own one when the weather gets bad down here. As great as a wagon may be in snow, AWD included, it still cannot ford 2 feet of water in a flood. I'd rather the clearance than higher-speed prowess in bad weather.
Anyone who drives in severe weather like they do in dry deserves to learn otherwise.
William C Montgomery, thank you…..
Hear, hear. Nothing like a champion for the underdog, eh? But…
(rant)
Across from my office we have a high-end "lifestyle
center" and everyday at 11, the rich housewives start to show up for
their lattes and scones and in what do they arrive? Excursions.
Navigators. QX4s. Escalades. How many kids pile out with Mommy? Two at
the most. How many trailer hitches in the parking lot? At a nickel per,
the whole parking lot would be hard pressed to come up with the price
of a stick of gum. How much 'stuff' has been hauled in these monster
trucks? Please. You really think Mrs. Rich is going to let hubby put a quarter ton of mulch in the back of her mommymobile?
(/rant)
RF's points are well taken, though. When I bought my Jeep, the first thing I did was pick up a friend. The second was to take the thing into the woods and scuff the hell out of it and bounce it off some rocks (dumb? probably; fun as hell? definitely). In 4 years, though, I've taken it off-road less than a dozen times, and in all but 3 or 4 of those times I didn't even need to put it in 4wd.
But why did I really buy it? So I could have a convertible that also had 4 wheel drive to help me deal with the ever-unpredictable New England winters. Snow bank at the end of my driveway? No problem.
There IS a place for SUVs in this world, as RF nobly points out. Bad weather, towing, hauling, people moving. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to agree with him to the hilt, I think the bad rap SUVs get is somewhat deserved.
Sorry. Just my early-morning-angry 2 cents.
Saying SUVs are a "fad" is like saying internal combustion engines are a fad. SUVs have been around longer than metal bodied station wagons (1935 vs 1946.) My first vehicle (bought in 1979) was an SUV – it was built in 1957 (IHC Travelall, 4×4.) People in the midwest and Rocky Mountains were using SUVs as daily drivers long before people on the coasts caught on to the "fad." If SUVs are no longer hip, trendy or cool, that's one thing, but to write off the SUV as obsolete only makes sense if you live in Los Angeles or Miami and never leave the city limits.
Poorly written, poorly reasoned.
I'm a Miata driver, and I ride a bicycle for everday transportation, but having Land-Rovered through Africa and grown up on a farm, I'm no 'fraidy-cat when it comes to trucks.
My favourite argument for "needing" an SUV? "I need this huge-ass vehicle to tow my huge-ass speedboat around." Some people really ought to take a second look at their overweight, vulgar, big-gulp lives.
Tom,
A Ferrari Enzo has a 6.0 L V12 engine. A Chevy Suburban has
a 6.0 L V8… how many Suburban’s do they sell a year and how many Enzo’s do they sell a year?
Jon.
As a former SUV owner (2 Suburbans and a Tracker) and current sports car owner (Corvette) I'd like to offer counterpoints to some of your assertions:
1. "Why, then, is it okay to buy a car based on its theoretical extreme performance, while purchasing a four wheel-drive SUV for its unused off-road abilities is considered a crime against nature? "
The "theoretical extreme performance" of a sports car gives it a decided edge in braking, steering, and handling in day-to-day driving (read: accidence avoidance). The "unused off-road abilities" of an SUV only add weight and increase height, producing worse gas mileage, poorer braking performance, and tippier handling.
2. "nearly eighty percent of SUV owners told pollster R.L. Polk that they count on their SUVs for severe weather"
The only "severe weather" advantage an SUV would have over a passenger car would be in snow IF the SUV had 4WD, and 80% of SUVs certainly don't have that! The increased size and height of an SUV would make it a lot more sensitive to winds, decrease its handling ability, and increase its braking distance in the rain. The only "advantage" the SUV has over a passenger car in that situation is the ability to run over it.
3. "Perhaps that’s why insuring a new Corvette costs roughly five times more than insuring a similarly priced Chevrolet Suburban SUV. "
I don't know where you buy your insurance, but my experience is that the insurance on my Corvette is much less than it was on my Suburbans (adjusted for inflation). In fact, it's less than the insurance on my Audi A4 Avant for the same coverage. Incidentally, the Audi is all-wheel drive which, combined with its weight and height advantages, make it much safer than those SUVs that 80% of owners rely on in "severe weather."
4. "What are our favorite sports cars? Does reading any of these letters get your heart pumping: GTO, SS, HEMI, SC, RS, GT, S? As emotive as all these high performance tags sound, they’re all shorthand for “crappy MPG.”
I notice you conveniently omitted the Corvette from this list. Based on real-world experience, my Corvette gets about the same gas mileage around town the EPA says your Liberty gets, and blows it out of the water in highway cruising (where I consistently get 30 MPG cruising at highway speeds in 6th gear).
5. "The vast majority of pistonheads' dream machines seat two people, offer limited trunk space, are tail happy in the rain and can’t tow worth a damn. "
The VAST majority of SUVs I see on my daily 60-mile round trip commute contain only ONE person and nothing in that apparently unlimited "trunk space". And I can guarantee you with the traction control and active handling standard on my Corvette, it'll do a lot better in the rain than your average SUV. Every SUV I've ever owned has been prone to hydroplaning and didn't handle in the rain worth a crap.
6. "As of 2004, SUV’s produce 99% less pollutants per mile than cars manufactured in 1967 (prior to federal emissions standards)."
So does every other vehicle produced in the same time frame. What's your point?
Now, having said all that, I'll also say it's a free country and you can buy and drive anything you want. Just please don't get in my way and slow me down while I exercise my freedom to enjoy my choice of daily transportation!
Perhaps in other parts of the country, SUV use is different from that which I observe in the Northeast. Here, the SUV is more typically a commuter vehicle for the driver alone or it's a suburban runabout, also often with just the driver present. It strikes me that the switch from sedans and wagons to SUVs is largely a fad that will soon to pass, but it does, I fear, reveal something more worrying: the apparent inclination of people to mindlessly follow along without a great deal of thought. A different kind of environmental pollution, if you will!
This is a great rebuttal. Thanks for writing.
SUVs are also great in high water conditions…in a city like Houston, the SUV comes in handy at least once a year for this reason alone. You're not gonna hear any PR department promote that, but its a reassuring fact when the weather gets bad.
Not to mention the big-dog ride, cargo carrying, towing and cool factor that "Crossovers" can't touch.
In the end the market will decide the SUV's fate, gas prices shall certainly weed-out the part time SUV lovers.
Mr. Montgomery is right that a lot of car guys and environmentalists are quick to criticize SUVs and even their owners. They are so big they make an easy target. And as he points out, SUVs and light trucks do have their uses. For hauling a load and towing they can be nice to have around. I sorta miss my old Chevy S10 or '96 Exploder when I need to haul a ton of whatever in my trailer.
But you know something? Either my Saab 9000 or 9-5 wagon can easily haul the same load. And as for people buying SUVs for winter, I think it's just an excuse. I live in Northern New England and having used the Exploder both on and off road
and in extreme winter conditons, I can think of just two situations in 8
years in which it's "off-road" or winter capabilities were truly useful. In fact,
I could do just about anything the Ford would do in my beater of the
time, an '84 Saab 900. For winter conditions the average SUV is in truth only mediocre. FWD or AWD cars with traction control and good tires are better suited to anything other than deep snow. That's not a helluva lot of "utility" in my estimation.
Like tailfinned cars of the Fifites, SUVs are going away.
The day I stopped SUV bashing was the day I accused a friend of being anti environmental. Once I did that, I realized that I am a much worse violator than he was.
He owns a small printing company, about 15 miles away. My company did some printing for him that his shop couldn't do, and he drove his 7.5L Chevy Suburban 4X4 SLT over to pick up what amounted to six boxes of paper (8.5 x11 size).
We were discussing the then high price of gasoline (at that time $2.25/gal) when we diverged into the high cost of driving such a large vehicle. I and another person here at the shop started deriding our old friend for purchasing such a large tank of a vehicle. He became indignant and reminded us of his 4 kids he takes camping, the boat he pulls to the big lake and the fact that his personal vehicle was big enough to be useful to his small business without him having to fork out the money for a dedicated delivery van.
He then went on to ask me about the mileage of my cars, including my (then) Grand Marquis, which actually got roughly the same mileage in city driving, which at the time was the only kind of driving I was doing with it. Plus the fact that I had two other cars, while he and his family only owned one.
When he reminded me that my three cars burned much fuel than his one car (SUV) in an average month, the scales fell from my eyes. I apologized for being so damned insensitive, but the damage had been done.
Ever since then, I have been trying to imagine what it feels like when the shoe is on the other foot. But, I'm sure that fate will find another way to remind me. Just don't judge me too harshly when I go off the deep end.
I'll add my amen to everything Frank Williams said above, with this addition: Many SUV drivers and most of the soccer moms can't drive the things. The number of these behemoths idling along below the limit in the left lane demonstrates that the soccer moms piloting them don't know where the right side of the vehicle is, so they hug the left edge of the road. My proof of concept is that you can witness the same dumb behavior in England, where they hug the right lane edge, instead. QED.
SUV's are fantastic at doing what SUV's are designed to do, and if they were purchased for those reasons, that would be great, and nobody would care. If you need a boat-towing, rock-crawling, river-fording workhorse, by all means, get an SUV. You wouldn't have much choice. If you don't need to accomplish these things, you can still buy whatever you want, but if you bought an SUV, that would be silly.
I also would like to add in a question…
SUVs get a lot of criticism, but how come Pick-up Trucks don't? They have almost all of the same drawbacks, and are also driven by many people who don't need or use them as they were inteded. Lot's of people get them for the image, and never put anything in the bed. And extended cab trucks are basically the same as SUV's, only with an open cargo area.
Amen and halleujah! This editorial is something LONG overdue in a publication about cars. And the kind of allowable attitude that keeps me coming back to this website.
The anti-SUV attitude goes a lot deeper than just the reasons you gave. The SUV's biggest sin is that it is (one of) the preferred car of the average guy. You know, the poor boring souls who all those who think they are special consider to be the height of absolute mediocrity. The ones who 'deserve' to be sneered at for being so ordinary.
Unfortunately auto journalists are a jaded lot. When you get to drive Ferrari's or even Miata's as part of the job, you tend to look down on anything that doesn't pump the adrenaline at that level. And judge all cars by that standard, even if it is completely inappropriate to the vehicles intended use.
It ain't just cars, either. When was the last time you saw a cruiser get a fair shake from a motorcycle journalist, most of whom are complete sportbike freaks? Once again, the ride of the 'great unwashed' gets slagged.
I ran into this attitude 30 years ago, SCCA autocross in Erie, PA. Lord help you if you drove something American in B Sedan (real autocrossers drove 2002's!). Ended up getting my first motorcycle, saying goodbye to the SCCA and never looking back.
At least the poseur in his Hummer H2 isn't as obviously trying to pick up 21 year old hardbodies as the pathetic, fattening middle-aged guy with the combover and 350Z.
Syke
Deranged Few M/C
“The ‘theoretical extreme performance’ of a sports car gives it a
decided edge in braking, steering, and handling in day-to-day driving
(read: accidence avoidance).? The ‘unused off-road abilities’ of an SUV
only add weight and increase height, producing worse gas mileage,
poorer braking performance, and tippier handling.”
The added performance of your corvette also turns it into an unguided cruise missle? capable of hitting 100mph in a couple of blocks when what’s her name from the lifestyle center pushes the pedal a little too hard… or when retired dentist guy decides to turn off the electronic nanny to show off his car to a light standard (hopefully that’s all that gets in the way)…?
Anyway I agree, most people shouldn’t be idling giant SUV’s or thristy sports cars on their way to work or to the gym to ride a bike that doesn’t go anywhere… But what are you going to do about it…?
And you could do all of that in a Subaru Outback or Forrester.
When I bought my Murano I wanted AWD for snow and knew I would never be off-road in anything more than a car could handle. It wasn't labeled the "Urban SUV" for nothing.
For those that occasionally go hiking and camping and even if it's once a year it's perfectly fine to have a vehicle with off-road capabilities. Where however is the need for an Escalade, Navigator, or Jeep SRT8?
The main gripe people have is that the majority of BoF SUV's are bought by people who do not need that kind of capability. Whereas if you buy a 350z, RX-8, Mustang GT you can utilize a portion of it's abilities on any country road with no traffic.
Lizthevw,
I have no problem with wagons. Personally I think they are a better option for someone who wants the room and has no aspirations of ever driving off-road. Even better are AWD wagons from Subaru, Audi and Volvo.
A ’sensible person’ would also never buy a Corvette or a Porsche 911 but we love them anyway’ its all nonsense.
Normally being a from Texas I would defer to a Canadian with regard to winter driving but in this case I cannot. I suffered through nine Utah winters driving a FWD Camry. Several times I risked my life jut to drive to work. Driving with 4WD, ABS, higher-clearance (so as not to get high-centered in the snow), and deep-treaded tires is incomparably better than a FWD sedan with M/S tires. The vehicles you see piled up in the ditch during a storm are there as a result of driver error not deficient equipment.
a lot of people hate them for a reason. some suvs can handle bad weather, but alot can’t as lizthevw pointed out. people think they handle better than they do and end up in a ditch when the weather gets bad. then there’s the way people drive them. everybody’s experienced the bad suv driver, people who can’t handle the size or sightlines of the thing. think about it, nobody ever critisized 4×4 jeeps or trucks on the road. that’s because those people got them for what they were designed for and generally knew how to drive them. there’s probably not too many people who would mind suvs if they weren’t driven by so many ignorant posers.
Amen to that message William. But just as Phil Hartmann said, “Dont try to confuse me with the facts!” this message cannot cut through the dense fog of feel good thinking. Some people just cannot stand happiness..and to them, its everyone else’s fault. The irony is that these same people like to talk about tolerance. AL-righty then….
It is a free country and I don’t care what anybody drives as long as they are responsible. I am sure there are many reasons for the SUV phenomenon. I have always found it interesting that the rise of the SUV mirrored the growth of obesity in America. SUV’s are the perfect compliment to a gluttonous lifestyle. But gluttony is a right too.
The real damage done by the SUV was inflicted on those that produced them. Pick-ups and SUV allowed manufactures to use old technologies and manufacturing techniques far longer than they should have. They became depended on the huge profit margins this allowed. Even without high fuel prices, the SUV was bound to destroy these manufacturers. It allowed them to ignor the future that was so obvious to others.
I disagree with many points in this editorial, but applaud TTAC for including a balancing opinion to the anti-SUV comments here.
I hope we see more diversive opinions in the future.
An SUV used off road, now that's a joke. I used to work as a geologist with projects in the backwoods of northern Ontario or New Brunswick. I've been off road and I'll believe your average SUV goes there when I see one covered in brush scratches. Until then it's just a fashion statement. As for carrying gear, we used to own a Sable wagon – every bit as practicle as an SUV for camping or lugging the retreiver around.
As for winter weather, any decent front wheel drive car, with a good set of winter tires, will have no trouble most of the time. If the climate is too much for that set up, a Subaru Legacy or Forester (or other AWD car) will almost certainly do the job.
Regarding safety, quite frankly I don't give a damn if they kill one another in single vehicle roll overs. Darwin in action and all that. As for fuel inefficiency, after September 11, I would have thought the idea of sending even more money to King Abdullah would be offensive.
I disagree with the Canadian too.
Having driven 4wd SUV's and FWD cars in the Canadian winter, I can agree that 4wd SUV's kick butt over the FWD cars, but only if you compare both with snow tires. My FWD civic with snow tires was better than a 4-Runner with all-seasons.
That being said, my Civic provided a more comfortable ride, better handling, better stopping, no-tippy-feeling at highway speeds, for about one third the price, whenever the snow wasn't deep.
That was when I realized that if I had the cash for a limited 4-runner or similar SUV, that I'd put it into a great car 9.9 times out of 10.
The SUV is merely the continuing trajectory of the Station Wagon. The Boomer’s parents drove them, and boomers can NOT accept anything their parents saw as “practical”… hence the minivan craze of the 80s, and the now widespread use of SUVs today. The vast majority of these things are Grocery Getters and Mom Taxis. The only time I see them filled to the brim with stuff is on the weekend; my daily commute sees 99% of them filled with one latte-sipping driver. There have always been vehicles designed for off-road use, as long as there have been vehicles… the difference now is that most of these behemoths are being used ON-road, as an ill-advised fashion substitute for the frumpy station wagon of days gone by.
I live in the rural fringes of the Puget Sound area, in the Cascade foothills, and my house is at the end of an unpaved road. I see my share of deep, wet, slippery snow and floods… but really don’t feel the need to arm myself with an Urban Assault Vehicle for the handful of days a year when it would be required. Careful driving of my FWD “daily driver” (A Jetta TDI) will get me through most, and if it is really bad… I’ll just stay at home, thanks. My family of four fits in the Jetta fine, and the trunk has enough space to swallow two hockey bags and have room left over. If I had a Jetta wagon, I could carry twice as much. Given that, I really doubt that the majority of SUV owners really “need” the capabilities of their vehicles. Certainly not the majority of the time.
The real problem of SUV’s is not their owners, but the fact that the manufacturers have become so addicted to them and have been standing still and not developing CARS to keep moving forward after the SUV fad dies. The Europeans and Japanese are going to kill off the domestics, sooner rather than later because they have kept their eye on the ball. Developing clean Diesels, reasonable small hatches and sedans (and “gasp”… station wagons!) that we’ll all be clamoring to buy as fuel costs continue to gouge holes in our credit.
–chuck goolsbee
I’m really tired of the BS Spewed by the likes of people who share the opinion Lemmy-Powered and others. You need to realize that you are in the minority, riding a bike to work. And you also need to realize that most of your peers also ride like they own the road, and in most cases are more of a threat to cause an accident with their utter disregard for traffic laws while pedalling away, making people go around them and into oncoming traffic.
There are several types of SUV drivers, and I think most of you pointing a critical eye to this are missing that – yes, there is the overpriced trophy wife bitch driving around in a hulking, sickening Excursion, Escalade, Navigator, or Hummer, that someone like me, who drove small and mid-size SUVs for a decade, absolutely hated. I’m single, young, and I loved my Trailblazer. At least once a week, there was a full load in the back, whether it was rocks, paint, furniture, a crew of guys on our way to a game, or a well planned shopping trip. I drove it responsibly, and well, better than most of the thrifty Prius drivers who look like scared deer on a 45mph road. For every vehicle on the road, I can give you an example of a certain demographic that shouldn’t be driving it or doesn’t need it.
I’d also like to point out that a lot of the “SUVs are evil” argument never takes into account that MPG is relative to several things, including upkeep of the car. Sure, I averaged 15mpg in the Trailblazer, but I got the same mileage as my father’s DTS. And not everyone is driving new cars or even compact thrifty ones for that matter. How many late 80’s/early 90’s name-a-sedans do you see chugging around on the road? You think that it was getting better gas mileage and putting out less pollution than my ‘03 Trailblazer – you’d be dead wrong.
And god forbid people actually like driving an SUV around town. I did. I still wouldn’t mind it, but right now, I want sporty. I don’t think I necessarily needed and SUV, but it certainly came in handy in several situations that a price tag can’t be put on – severe weather during a work emergency or family emergency, and in a few traffic mishaps where certain econobox drivers fall asleep at the wheel with their foot on the accelerator and slam into you doing 30 while you sit at a red light.
The problem isn’t just SUVs. I don’t see anyone nailing BMW to the wall for all the suburban people driving a 3 series that never do more than 10-15 miles of highway in any given week, and they’re only getting 19mpg.
Sure, there was a fad, and more people that wouldn’t have purchased SUVs in other circumstances happily plunked down cash to do just that, and yes, it’s ending, but to damn a whole car segment based on the glaring exceptions in that segment is folly. It’s easy to pick on the targets like so-called soccer moms. I’m even guilty of it. But for every soccer mom, there is someone like me (well, formerly) that hated them just as much as you did for giving me a bad name just because of the vehicle type they drive. It’s like saying everyone that drives a civic within a certain age bracket is a ricer. Or everyone that rides a harley is an asshole.
So I guess…hate the SUV all you want. The numbers will roll off and they’ll go back to pre-craze levels, where it will be a niche vehicle, but be careful what you wish for – when everyone is driving a little hybrid car, there will be something to bitch about – I gaurantee it. It’s already starting, I see it every morning. People are driving in these little Kias and Hyundais (not that I have anything against them, far from it), and babying the thing like it’s a toy car. Point is – bad driving is bad driving, and it’s dangerous and annoying no matter if they’re in a 1966 Lincoln, 2006 Prius, or a fugly H2.
Comments this far down are rarely read, I’m sure, but column is the first one I’ve read on here that seriously just left me wondering what I’m reading anymore.
Lampooning straw-men environmentalists is fine. I’m not really a fan of dredlocks, but is the concern really that stupid?
Long before people were worried about global warming, in places like Southern California, where I grew up, people were simply worried about smog. Yes, the vehicles today are somewhat cleaner than older ones, but there are many, many more today, and average commutes are much much longer.
Besides, isn’t it simply too facile to act like we “fixed” that problem?
If the same percentage of people who bought poseurish sports cars that cost in excess of $50k had SUVs, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s the fact that they are the primary car anymore.
Also, if you’re so sure that so many people use them for offroading, go see how many people actually by the 4×4 option when there’s a 4×2.
???I don’t know where you buy your insurance, but my experience is that the insurance on my Corvette is much less than it was on my Suburbans (adjusted for inflation).???
Progressive Insurance quotes $949 to cover an ???06 ???Corvette for 6 months of collision coverage and $150 to cover the ???06 Suburban (married male, homeowner, owner of vehicle w/loan payments). I excluded all other auto insurance charges not related to the indemnification of a traffic accident (i.e. comprehensive, theft, rental, loan payment, etc.) because the point of this comparison is to demonstrate real world safety as manifest by the collision premium.
My problem with SUVs is that most people, myself included, use them in ways that other types of vehicles would be much better suited. I bought my SUV because, at the time, I was windsurfing. It was great for carrying all the gear, but a wagon could have done just as well. It would have been great for going on beaches IF I ever did that. I think that has happened once in the 8 years I’ve owned the car. I’ve used the 4WD for snow, but I would have been better served by an AWD vehicle.
Too many drivers become obnoxious behind the wheel of a SUV so try to drive at ridiculous speeds in bad weather conditions because they are driving an SUV. In Boston on a snowy day, I could count on most of the vehicles stuck on the side of the road being SUVs because they thought a SUV substituted for common sense (ie slowing down when the weather is bad).
People can and should buy what they want. And if you actually use an SUV off road, more power to you. But if many SUV owners, including myself, looked at how they really use their SUVs, another vehicle type would simply make more sense. For me, an AWD wagon or hatch-back just makes more sense.
A friend bought a Toyota Sequoia a few years back; she lived in a rented urban apartment, single with no kids or dogs, didn’t ski, camp or boat, and didn’t even realise it was 4WD. She bought it because she was intimidated by all the other SUV drivers on the road and couldn’t see around them in her Honda. Now I’m intimidated by and I can’t see around her, so I think I’ll get myself an 29′ U-Haul as my daily driver; at least it’ll get used for its intended purpose once every 3-4 years when I move house.
One of the things I hate about SUVs (and pickup trucks) is that they created an arms race on the highways. A lot of people feel they need an SUV just to protect themselves from other SUVs. When the Wash Post had an article about the dangers car occupants face in crashes with SUVs, a week later local dealers reported a surge of SUV sales.
On top of that, big SUVs handle so badly that they can't get out of their own way and they can't brake as well as cars. Thus, an SUV driver is more likely to crash into a car driver. And unfortunately, Americans focus far more on safety after the crash, than what they can do to avoid the crash in the first place. If people focused a little more on the latter, they would avoid SUVs more.
The thing that drove me to hate SUVs in the first place was having my view of the road ahead blocked.
But as I think I said before, the real culprit in the rise of the SUV was the government, for leaving the light truck loophole in the CAFE standards. In other words, light trucks have a different, much lower gas mileage standard than cars. That drove the companies to push SUVs.
Excellent reading on SUVs: Big and Bad: How the SU ran over automotive safety, by Malcolm Gladwell, New Yorker, Jan 12 2004.
I found Mr. Montgomery's article weak on logic. For example, he says the SUV is far more practical than the dedicated sports car. The dedicated sports car isn't made to be a family car. But the big SUV is far less practical than traditional family cars, with its gas guzzling ways, its lack of agility, its outsize size, and its lack of safety compared to cars of similar size (for example, go to informedforlife.com). For interior space and carrying stuff, a minivan is a better vehicle than an SUV.
You will never stop people from buying what is trendy. How many pseudo “fuel efficient” hybrids, Ford Escape and Lexus GS for example, that get marginal MPG gains are sold to eager buyers that are more concerned about image than actual fuel efficiency? The mainstream SUV is a trend that will slow down and slowly drop off, leaving only the serious outdoor enthusiasts driving them. And those people don’t really care what you think about them and their transportation choices anyway.
sitting@home,
if your friend intimidates you in her Sequoia, maybe you should look into one of these…
http://www.internationaldelivers.com/site_layout/XTFamily/cxt.asp
http://www.monroetruck.com/GM/index.html
^ A woman I work with, after having a baby, traded in her Jetta for an Explorer because “It’s not safe to have a baby in a car. What if you crashed?” I couldn’t believe it. The idea that anything less than the absolute biggest thing you can afford is unsuitable for the safety of your family is absurd, but unfortunatly typical. This woman isn’t stupid either. So it was hard to believe she actually said that.
The arms race is on.
I completely agree that there are as many sports car posers as SUV posers. You know, people that drive gas guzzling sports cars as a fashion statement and never explore the car’s potential.
However, there is an important difference between sports car posers and SUV posers: SUV posers tend to drive like complete assholes. Trust me, I know – I live in the SUV central of the USA: Houston, TX. People that drive SUVs feel invincible on the road; and they are. Occasionally, I drive my uncle’s Suburban. And, to be honest, I do feel like the king of the road. When I’m in my Focus, I’m very careful when changing lanes; looking around, checking blind spots, double checking to make sure nobody’s in the next lane. However, when I’m in the Suburban, I offer a careless, quick glance to the next lane before moving over. I know that if somebody is in the next lane, they WILL slow down for an SUV. It’s this feeling of power that leads SUV operators to drive carelessly.
That is the difference between SUV drivers and hypocritical sports car drivers. End rant.
Frank Williams,
Yes, the Corvette gets better gas mileage than the other cars I alluded to in my list of acronyms. By the way, I commute to work every day in a 5-speed Honda Accord that beats your Corvette for gas mileage and emissions. Does my ownership and use of my Honda make me morally superior to you in your Corvette? No. It just means that I am less fortunate. One day…
One thing I hate about SUVs (and pickups) is that they have created an arms race on the road. People buy them in self-defense against other SUVs. The week after the Wash Post ran an article on the dangers car occupants face in crashes with SUVs, local dealers reported a surge in SUV sales.
The other thing is that there are two components to car safety: crash avoidance, and protection once the crash has happened. SUVs threaten their occupants and others because they handle and brake badly. Compared to cars, they can’t get out of their own way, or anyone else’s. Part of the problem here is that Americans are so focused on protecting themselves in the event of a crash that they don’t even think about what they can do to avoid one (like taking an advanced driving course).
(For an excellent article on this, see Malcolm Gladwell’s Big and Bad, in the Jan 12, 2004 New Yorker).
Of course, the ultimate culprit in the rise of the SUV is the light truck loophole ijn the government CAFE standards. In other words, light trucks have a much lower mileage standard than cars, so the car companies drove millions of light trucks through that loophole.
As for this article, I found it long on rhetoric but weak on logic. For example, the comparison of the practicality of SUVs with that of dedicated sports cars is bogus. There are few dedicated sports cars on the road, and nobody is trying to use them as family cars (except perhaps for the RX-8!). And compared to family CARS, SUVs are gas guzzlers, parking spot hogs, they block the vision of drivers stuck in back them them (which is why I started hating them in the first place), and they are unsafe compared to similar sized cars, even after the crash (see informedforlife.com).
And, for the record, cars and light trucks on American roads contribute slightly less than 4% of the world’s annual burden of greenhouse gases (not 2% as per the article) and about 20% of the U.S. burden. While the contribution from US light trucks is still not that big on a percentage basis, the world is going to be hard pressed to reduce greenhouse gases enough to avoid disastrous consequences for civilization. According to John Holdren of Harvard, one of the leading thinkers on this issue, just 3 degrees of warming will have dangerous consequences for agricultural production worldwide, and that if we keep going as we are, we may have 20 degrees of warming by the end of the century.
Hutton,
A July 2005 NHTSA study found that retrained children in an SUV are 2x safer than restrained children in passenger cars in accidents.
See:
http://www.suvoa.com/media/newsreleases.cfm?showcomment=1&article_id=110
There are idiots aplenty piloting all manner of internal combustion machines.
I’ve had hits and near-misses both on my motorcycle and in my F150 with cell-phone gabbers, tailgaters, CD changers, crossword puzzle solvers, newspaper readers, makeup appliers, Big Mac eaters, Starbucks sippers, and plain old daydreamers. Teenagers with fart-cans. Mrs. Rich and her big ‘ol Lexus SUV. The old man peering over the steering wheel in his Crown Vic. Recognize any of these? SUV’s do not own a monopoly on idiot drivers. A Yaris that runs my motorcycle off the road is just as deadly to me as a Suburban. A year ago, a twenty-something lass left a stop sign and T-boned me in her Sentra. She told the cops she didn’t see me (in my big, red F150 crew cab 4×4!)
Face it folks…the American Road is a hazardous place to spend your time. That’s why I ride my bike in the country and drive my F150 in traffic. When one of these idiots hits me in my (much-despised) truck, I’m going to be much better protected than the guy saving nickels in his Prius. He might feel better about himself for saving the environment and conserving precious fossil fuels. I feel better knowing I’ve got more sheet metal between myself and the clueless.
William:
If the C.A.F.E. loophole for “light trucks” is eliminated, SUVs won’t be criticized by environmentalists.
SUVs aren’t fighting fair, because the Uncle Sam is “picking winners.”
Nice to hear good words about the Liberty (KJ) every now and then.
If anybody wants to see examples of people taking their Liberties offroad, you can always check out National L.O.S.T. (Liberty Owner Special Team) Website. This is a website that discusses all things Liberty-related (and sometimes CJ/YJ/TJ/XJ/ZJ/WK as well).
I think the author is trying to be a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and I am sure he knows the days of SUV as a “me too” car is over. I, for one, like reading TTAC for the rational discussion about what we are all passionate about, but not this kind of non-sense, and provacation.
The comparison to sports car is wholy inappropriate. The point here is that the SUV is so UNNECESSAY. There are some many other options out there that does exactly, or more than if not better than, what the SUV does, without posing UNNECESSARY danger to the driver/passenger/other dirvers, AND damaging the environment. This cannot be said about the sports car.
So, SUVs are NOT a-okay, they are a-passe.
You mean I can take the Corvette out to Hell’s Revenge trail in Moab? I did not know this …
Yeah. Just like I can take a Jeep autocrossing.
Whoa brother, whoa!
There are some heavy helpings of ill-logic happening here.
You state that your experience is not atypical but then state that 15% of SUV owners take their vehicles off-road — while not atypical, 15% is not common. Also, please consider that the Escalades of the world will never go off road and your 15% claim gets more suspicious. I???d buy 15% of Jeep owners, but what about Lexus RX owners? Once, on accident, perhaps while understeering like crazy.
SUVs are less safe than other vehicles. This is not in dispute. Driver skill is one thing, but I wager that your average SUV driver is exactly as skilled as your average sedan driver ??? so, that factor being equal, top-heavy SUVs are more dangerous. And their stopping distances are greater, their needlessly high-profile tires do not perform as well and their handling characteristics are automatically compromised because of hundreds of pounds of useless lard. They also do not have to meet passenger safety car standards — so they don???t.
As far as bad weather goes, are you talking low speeds or high? Because if you are talking highway speeds in an SUV during a storm, they are the least safe vehicle you could be in, as four-wheel drive goes out the window the second you take your foot off the gas and get on the brakes.
I like SUVs. I???ve owned three Jeeps in my life. But denying the fact that most people buy SUVs because they like how they look and how high they sit is simply disingenuous. And the gas-mileage sucks.