Are SUVs truly a problem, or is it how we drive?

Great Debates
1

I was having a conversation yesterday about this, and I’m curious to hear the Teeming Millions’ take on it.

Basically, I’ve been hearing a lot of schadenfreude by non-SUV owners now that gas is $4.00 and rising (at least here). Some are suggesting that this is going to cause a lot of people to get rid of their SUVs and go with smaller cars. I think to some degree this is true. But, I think that a much more important consequence is that people will drive less. With the choice to drive becoming more expensive, I think we’ll see more people not joy riding as much, considering proximity to employment when buying/renting a home, car pooling, and depending slightly less on a lifestyle that involves getting in the car and driving any and everywhere.

I’d much rather see more people in SUVs driving less than people getting more economical cars and maintaining their driving habits. It seems that the real danger of an energy crisis is how a shortage of energy would effect one’s day to day activity. If you’re stuck without gas in the car, it doesn’t matter what kind of car you have. What does matter is how used you are to dealing without that vehicle.

disclaimer: I’m not saying that more fuel efficient vehicles aren’t better for the environment. I’m just saying that car reliance is a bigger problem in the long run than fuel efficiency.

2

Why won’t both of your options happen? Even in an economical car gas prices hurt. It still makes sense to cut down on trips and combine trips. And SUV sales have plummeted, and some car dealers are not even taking them as trade-ins any more. So that is happening also.

I suppose that when we get really fuel efficient cars we might go back to our old ways again, but that is not going to happen for a while.

3

The less fuel one uses, the better. An economy car uses less gas per mile than an SUV. There’s four options:

1: Dump the SUV, drive less.
2: Keep the SUV, maintain driving habits.
3: Dump the SUV, maintain driving habits.
4: Keep the SUV, maintain driving habits.

Of course, (1) is the best option, while (4) is the worst. You’re asking if (2) or (3) is less bad? In reality, it still boils down to carbon footprint, and how much gas is being used per person per week/month/year.

In short, they’re both problems, and there are to many conflates to say which is worth in a general case. Better to just reduce driving and get a smaller engine.

*disclaimer: I drive a 5.7 Hemi, and am putting forth hypothetical scenarios. I don’t plan on driving less or getting a better car. So, maybe you’re right, and attitudes like mine are the problem.

4

Does it really matter? Hypothetical: If a person has a 20 mpg car and normally drives 100 miles a week, they might cut their driving down to 80 miles a week or get a 25 mpg car. In both cases, they’ve gone from using 5 gallons of gas per week to 4. Presuming reducing gas usage is the goal, either way seems appropriate to me.

ETA: Santo, do you mean “Keep the SUV, drive less” for option 2?

5

Sure did, and I even double checked it, too. :smack:

Thinking about it a bit more, I think the OP may be onto something. When it’s time to buy a new car, it’s an easier decision to make to buy a smaller one than to make the decision to cut miles out of your life. In other words, it’s easier to buy something you’re buying anyway than to essentially change your lifestyle.

6

Middle-class people will trade in their SUV’s for the fuel-efficient luxury cars that will be rolling out to fill the niche. But those SUV’s will be pretty much all that’s available when poorer people show up on the used car lots for the next few years, who can ill-afford the higher gas consumption. So you’ll see lesser-income people with fewer of the optons that were promised by the age of the automobile.

One new trend I’ve ntoiced: when I’d go hiking at the nearest state park, I’d have to make way for mountain bikers. I long ago made my peace with this, since China was spitting out so many affordable bikes that made pedestrains like me obstructive cheapskates. But now at the city park where I run, the jogging path has become crowded with mountan bikers. For Christ’s sake - it’s a two-mile asphalt path where parents push their kids on strollers.

7

I know both will happen. I don’t think I was particularly clear in my OP; my suggestion is that cutting down the amount of driving is a more significant and effective long-term change than driving a more efficient car. The reasons are:

Large savings can be seen immediately. With $4 gas, if I drive to a friend’s once a week to play poker in a 25mpg car, and he lives, say, 25 miles away, that’s $8 round trip for me to get there. If I got 35mpg instead, it’d cost me $5.70. If a buddy who lives near by to me drives to my place and we go up together, it’s now cost $4 round trip per person, maybe $4.50 if you add a quarter gallon for him to get to my place.

There is a limit to fuel, efficiency; not so travel distances. If I have to drive 45 miles to work each day (and another 45 back), I am at the mercy of fuel prices and my vehicle’s efficiency. It will never cost me nothing to get to work, as I’ve got to travel 90 miles a day. I can (in some cases) move to within walking (or biking) distance of work, reducing my cost to the calories expended walking there.
The point being, let’s say that gas goes up to $10 a gallon (ignoring whether it could get that high without major crises happening well before that). I’d much rather be in a position where I could simply not drive or drive very short distances to get where I needed to get than to be far away from necessities with a fuel efficient car. Even a two hour walk to town (work, groceries, etc) is a viable option if fuel gets prohibitively expensive.

8

That was exactly the genesis of this train of thought. Or rather, the idea that buying a smaller car without changing driving habits means that while practically you consume less, you’re still maintaining the same consumer, drive the car everywhere lifestyle that keeps us tied to the pump.

9

I own 3 V8s, all paid for. With a $10k replacement cost (at the low end), it is not worth it to me to dump any of my cars to replace with something that gets better mileage - especially since I have a 5 mile commute and my wife has a 2 mile commute.

New car sales will drop - but the cost of replacing a car is not minimal. We have already decided to drive our cars into the ground, and spend the same $10k on solar panels for our house.

10

FWIW, thinking about this thread made me realize that I’m within biking distance of a number of shopping centers I visit, and not necessarily for large shopping trips. I may wind up getting the bike out of storage and start making use of it for those trips. Of course, it’s getting toward summer, and Arizona in the summer is difficult to deal with without AC.

Trouble is, for most practical purposes I do have to drive the car everywhere, due to suburbia and sprawl. So do most people. Suggesting one move to a more appropriate location is all well and good, but moving is not something to take lightly, and it’s not always possible to do so. My office is located in a fairly upscale part of Phoenix, and I couldn’t afford to live near it. I spend quite a bit less living 10 miles away than I would if I lived 3 miles away.

11

And it’s not at all my intent to suggest that folks really should just up and move (though it may be a viable alternative for some).

But, there are thousands of people every day who are making some of these choices for the first time; where to live, what to drive, where to work, etc etc. I’m thinking more about long-term security for those who aren’t particularly rooted or stable at the moment.

12

We will see the same shift in fuel efficiency that we saw when fuel prices spiked in the late 70’s. There are SUV hybrids on the market so that will keep the large vehicles in the mix. Certainly the true Sport Utility Vehicle will remain in the upper price ranges. It’s a win/win situation to add hybrid technology for the additional hp and the higher price ranges will allow absorb the cost.

Smaller SUV’s will survive with a different engine platform because large vehicles (the family station wagon) will always be needed. VW is bringing a turbo-diesel 4 cylinder into the US market in 2009 that should revive interest in diesels. The 150 hp engine with 223 lbs of torque is perfect for a large economy vehicle.

13

I don’t think SUVs in and of themselves are a problem.

Ever since I was a young man, I’ve typically owned either a truck or SUV. Throughout the 80s I typically had a truck or SUV (back then they weren’t called SUVs–think Broncos and et al.) and would keep it parked in my garage. I’ve usually had a mid-sized sedan for getting around (or in my slightly wilder days a sports car.)

Even back then, I never saw the larger vehicle as my “every day” vehicle. It didn’t make much sense to use it as such, even back in the 80s when gas prices weren’t a huge concern, it was asinine to drive around a big lumbering vehicle. It was nice to own one, for when I needed to haul stuff or the weather turned ugly.

But day to day, a car was easier to move around, lighter on the wallet, and just generally less of a pain to drive.

Sometime in the mid 1990s, SUVs transformed from vehicles guys like me used to haul stuff or go off-roading in, to vehicles soccer moms used to haul groceries and sometimes kids. Often times these land-yachts are driven around with one or two people in it, with seating for 6-7+.

If you actually drove vans/SUVs with full passengers they are are much more efficient than even the most efficient hybrid. Sure, the MPG isn’t great, but if one vehicle can be used to combine five individual’s commute that one vehicle, even if it gets poor gas mileage, is way more efficient.

It’s sort of the idea behind buses, they don’t get great gas mileage, but they haul enough people that they’re still more energy efficient than the most efficient hybrid, when you compare that one vehicle’s gas usage to the gas usage of all its passengers were they to drive themselves separately.

If people got serious about car-pooling, that would drastically alleviate the woes of many.

Realistically, for many it is a financially poor decision to trade in a gas-guzzling SUV, even at $4/gal gas. Because SUVs are so unwanted right now there will be a significant cost at converting from an SUV to an energy efficient hybrid; a cost that you probably won’t make back in saved gas money.

America’s biggest transportation problem is people think their commute should be a time of quiet sanctuary, we have way too many people riding alone to work. Many married couples could work out a way to use one car a day to commute, for example. I know many couples who work at roughly the same time, and don’t work so far apart that sharing a ride would be unreasonable, but they all drive themselves. The only real downside to them driving together would be they’d have to leave a little bit earlier so they both get to work on time.

SUVs in and of themselves aren’t a problem, it is how they are used. For the vast majority of Americans, SUVs should never have become a primary transport. Most SUVs are as bad as worthless for off-roading, but they are nice in poor weather in rural areas.

14

There are plenty of people who need trucks for everyday use. We bought a big Chevy pickup to haul a horse trailer. Now we don’t need to, we maybe buy a tank of gas for it every 3 months for exactly the reasons you give. It is great to haul lots of stuff, but a real pain day to day.

It took a while for people to spread out. Around where I live, high home prices and low gas prices caused people to buy houses hours away from their work. Now they’re suffering. With high gas prices and lower home prices I suspect people will be moving closer to Silicon Valley and work, which will help also.

15

Before we go too far with this “move closer to work” thing, lety’s remember that sometimes it’s the job that moves.

I’ve lived in the same place for 22 years. In that time I’ve had four different jobs, but worked in 8 different places. I’ve only worked in one job from start to finish that didn’t involve an office relocation.

During the same time, my wife has had four jobs, none of them more than 3 miles from our house. My daughter has had three jobs since she graduated – one within walking distance of our house, one four miles away and one 10 miles away.

Multiple earners in the same household may have wildly different commuting needs. I drive a small, gas-efficient car, and that’s the most practical solution for us.

16

All true. Which is why moving isn’t, in general, an option for individuals, yet if gas prices continue to rise it may become the right move for us as a population. It just makes more and more sense (and dollars) to live close to work and amenities, particularly so the less money you make.

17

I don’t disagree that there are plenty of people who need trucks “for everyday use.” I just feel they are in the minority of American drivers.

18

Agree - and I’d add that those who really need SUVs for everyday use are in the minority of even SUV owners. Most pickups I see, on the other hand, seem to be loaded with stuff.

19

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/ SUVs have a bad center of gravity and roll easily. The idea that they are safer is not true. They are involved in many single car accidents. They have no redeeming traits.
A pickup truck does not have to be a huge waster. They can be reasonably cheap and are useful.

20

And most could get by with smaller trucks.