Ok, there are two debates going on regarding SUVs one in IMHO (sorry about the lack of cite) and in the Pit. The apologist keep insisting that we move a debate here so they can refute the envoirmental, fuel efficiency & saftey concerns. Well here we are, now put up or shut up.

Lets start with fuel efficeincy. The following numbers I acquired from Ask Jeeves, they site the DOE & EPA as their sources. I pulled info on the followinfg vehicles both in 4wd & 2wd where avalible. In the info below if you see two sets of numbers the first is for 4WD and the second 2WD. Where I could I also chose the standard engine. BTW, this is in City/Hwy format.

[li]Blazer 16/20[/li][li]Blazer 12/17[/li][li]Durango 14/18[/li][li]Escalade 12/16[/li][li]Expedition 14/18[/li][li]Expedition 15/20[/li][li]Explorer 16/21[/li][li]Suburban 14/16[/li][li]Land Rover 13/17[/li][li]Navigator 12/17 - This is the same for 2&4WD[/li][li]Mercedes 16/20[/li][li]Lexus 13/16[/li][li]Lexus 19/24[/li][/ul]

All these vehicles annual fuel cost were between $1215 to $1685 dollars.

Why is fuel efficiency important, well lets see the EPA’s atatement on that (also form Ask Jeeves)

How about those envoirnmental concern, again lets go to the EPA for a statement:

And finally saftey. These came from The NHSTA first the SUV driver:

And the safety of others:

Ok, so SUVs are not safer, except vs a car, they cause more polution and envoirnmental stress, they’re not fuel efficient. Read bad for the envoirnment and the economy. Any questions?


This is really a simple issue. SUV’s are inefficient, polluting machines that make it difficult and even dangerous for the drivers that share the roads with them.

And they’re cool as hell and I want one but can’t afford it so I hate everyone I know who has one.

My brother and sister-in-law recently bought a Suburban. He tells me that it is manufactured by the Amoco Corporation and she won’t let his take it to the gas station anymore.

SUV’s are like any one of a hundred other excesses - nice if you can afford it.

::sigh:: :frowning:

The two threads leading up to this are A SUV and BMW almost collide. Whom do you laugh at first? and Sensitive ass SUV drivers

I don’t think you will find many people who will dispute those figures you’ve quoted. SUV’s are more prone to roll-overs than cars. They are heavier and less fuel efficient. They obscure visibility (along with minivans) to a majority of other passenger type cars on the roads today. They pose a danger to smaller vehicles in collisions.

So what should we debate? Should we debate whether or not the auto industry was irresponsible building these behemoths? Should we debate whether people truelly buy them for their utility, or for their trendiness and status, or for the percieved safety they offer in collisions with other (smaller) vehicles?

Being a car enthusiast as well, I can tell you that there is a groundswell of emotion rising amongs many people who, like you, consider the SUV to be the greatest evil on four wheels. I have to admit that I would not miss these trucks if they suddenly disappeared from our roads to be replaced by sedans and wagons. However, I am not as militant about these vehicles as many of my fellow sports car enthusiasts. Sure they are often driven carelessly - but no more than any other car class. Sure they waste gas, but the owners pony up their share of cash for the fuel they use. Sure they are dangerous when compared to some of the smaller cars on the road, but should we discourage people from driving the SUV or encourage the car companies to build better and safer cars to combat the SUV menace.

Hey a simulpost :cool: I just invited you (IMHO)over here Quick and here you were already posting. To be honest, Im not that militant about (well maybe a little)it. I started this thread because in the Pit and IMHO, several posters kept challenging the facts on this issue and challenged us (and since I started the Pit thread, me) to move it here where they have could defend themselves with facts.

I must say though the response so far has been underwhelming to say the least. :smiley:

Careful man Logic/commen sense tends to fool these anti-SUV individuals.

That was a very sensible and thought out response you gave. You drive your car that you choose, I’ll drive the car that I choose. If I want to pay for the gas that the SUV takes then so be it. I’m glad that we live in a society that allows people the freedom of choice in such matters.

To all of you who feel you have been slighted/offended/endangered by SUV drivers, I am very sorry about that. You aren’t going to be able to get these vehicles off the road so you are the ones who will need to adjust. Now I know no one like to have to comprimise in situations that don’t actual benfit themselves but that is the reality.

I agree that these hogs take up way too much gas, but the fact is that they can be just as environmentally hazardous as the Geo Metro when you base the amount of passengers that both vehicles can assist to the amount of oil/pollutants that they create.

I think people are simply tired of the rhetoric. They are tired of hearing how they are a bad guy for buying into a trend as if they were sheep. Face it, 90% of these trucks are not used for the purpose for which they are designed and built. Would you like to be told time and again that you are a pillick after having spent $30,000+ for a vehicle that never leaves the paved roads?

Most of these truck are not unattractive looking. They have a certain aggressive appeal to them as well as that weekend warrior aura. Most people do not drive aggressively and therefore don’t consider the poor handling characteristics of these vehicles as a noticeable problem. The high vantage point, from a driver’s point of view is certainly an appealing feature for the average driver. I can certainly appreciate their magnetism for the basic, point A to point B commuter.

As a sport sedan and sports car enthusiast I would not trade the handling and sundry features of my cars for an SUV. But I will tell you a dirty little secret… whenever we go on vacation, we almost always pick up an SUV at out destination. Why the hell not! - They are ideal vehicles with which to venture off the beaten path and even admire the sites while stuck in congested traffic. And our yearly trip to Vail would not be complete without a big ass SUV to blast through those snowbanks in. Waahhhoooo!!!

What do mean “as if” :smiley:
There are very valid concerns I mentioned a few in the OP. Saying that it’s a freedom changes nothing about any of the “concerns” i mentioned. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. And “everyone’s doing it” is a kids argument.

Change only occurs when people say enough is enough. Why do the car manufacturers keep making them, and making them bigger in top of that. Because people keep buying them. It’s that simple. The car companies listen, if people stopped buying them, they’d stop making them. Basic economic principal here.

BTW, Ive mentioned in the other thread that I also on occasion have to drive a company owned SUV, that doesn’t mean I have to like it, nor that I shouldn’t let other people know what’s wrong with them.

The best analogy of this I can think of is the Civil Rights movement. (not that i think they’re on equal footing) The movement did not garner significant support until enough people got outraged by the actions of the anti-segregation crowd to say enough. I see no difference here. The only diference is here, you can speak with your dollars, instead of with signs.

This has never been suspected in any instance except one, which I think was a Mazda or Mistubishi or something (you know, the one that got blasted in Consumer Reports?). Anyway, even that one claim has resulted in a lawsuit claiming that CR doctored the tests.

If you think about it, the “higher center of gravity” really isn’t that high. Sure, the roof of an Expedition is much higher than on a Geo Metro, but most of that extra height is passenger space.

If you showed some evidence that SUV’s ar, truly, more prone to roll-overs (aside from the currently under-fire Consumer Reports article), I’d give it some serious credence.

Anyway, I’m currently looking for cites to address the OP, but my Internet connection is being a bitch. I’ll get back to y’all (that’s a promise, not a threat :D).

I will tell you why I hesitate to get up at a podium and declare that nobody should be driving SUV’s. Because next year someone else may step up to that podium and tell me that I cannot drive sports cars with an over 200hp rating.

As you said, when enough people say enough is enough and begin to vote with their wallets against these types of vehicles, the manufacturers will respond in kind by offering something the people do want. Until then, you and I will have to sit tight and wait for this silly trend to run it’s course.

stuffinb quoted NHSTA:

Note that “light trucks” includes not only SUVs, but also pick-up trucks and most mini-vans.

If an accident between a light truck and a car is always worse for the car than an accident between a car and a car, why did we wait all this time until SUVs became popular before we started making a fuss about it? And why is this “accident imbalance” almost universally directed exclusively against SUVs, and hardly ever brought up as an argument against pick-ups and minivans? It’s not like pick-ups and minivans are rare sights on the road.

I submit that the real reason SUVs are singled out and picked on, while other light trucks are ignored, is what sdimbert implied 'way back in the 2nd message of this thread. Pure penis envy.

Vans, minivans, & pick-ups also get worse mileage & handle worse & pollute more than cars. Diesel trucks/semi’s out-pollute everything.

It’s trendy to pick on the SUV trend.

benefits of SUVs…
(1) 4 wheel drive – great in snow (safer than many cars)
(2) totes more stuff than cars
(3) better vision with all the other SUVs around :slight_smile:
(4) able to go off-road without cringing if necessary
(5) aesthetics
(6) long-lived (Jeeps anyway)
Sure SUVs are not ideal & are often bought when not needed, but the negative attention they are getting is a bit extreme.

Spoofe: The rollover cite is from the NTSHA and is based on actual accidents, not the consumer affairs report.

QuickSilver: You might be surprised to know that I’m in agreement with you, hence my “wallet” statement.

Tracer: If you look at the nest paragraph you’ll notice it was from the same report, which was on vehicles of different size reports, not just SUVs. If you’ll notice they even mention that themselves, and that a study from UM merely backed up their data.

As for your envy argument, well I’ll just say this, Im the marketing director for an aerospace firm, I can easily afford one if I want :wally

According to 1999 figures, the Ford F-series pick-ups and the Chevy C/K pick-ups are the #1 and #2 best selling automobiles in the U.S. These are not called SUV’s, but are classified as light trucks (remember those statistics you were using to bash the SUVs, the ones about light trucks?). So why not bash these, too? Does it only matter if the vehicle has an integrated passenger/cargo area, and anything with a separate pick-up bed is OK? I notice you didn’t mention pick-ups in your little mileage chart, either.

If your anger about pollution and danger to society is genuine, it doesn’t seem like your focusing on the big picture very well. But hey, it’s a lot easier to hop on bandwagons, isn’t it?

IshiPishiFirst the “other things pollute too” argument is getting old, and were covered by the otehr threads. But FTR here’s the numbers for your pickups

18/24 Ford
19/26 Chevy

Not the greatest but way better than most on the list in the OP. Now how about addressing the OP, it clearly states why I started this thread. If you don’t like it tough.


Thank you for a nice OP, and the facts in it.

The problem I have with the currect argumtns against SUVs (as already stated by a few posters) is there seem to be some arbitrary groupings in this arguement, ie SUVs are “bad” for us, but no mention is made of many many other vehicles with all the same “faults”. I listed some in one of the other threads - Vans, Movng trucks, Service trucks, Fedx trucks, etc. All of these are also quite common on the roads, but we’re not arguing against them.

From here, the arguement then get’s turned around to ‘need’, ie ‘you don’t need that big honkin thing’, and to this I would reply (as QickSilver already said) you don’t need a two seater car with 300 horsepower, either. So we fall flat with that arguement also. Some sports cars get even fewer MPG than SUVs.

I can see how people can become annoyed with an SUV driver who is careless, and puts them at risk. But this is the case with any driver on the road, from a careless bike rider to a careless driver of a moving van.

The arguments just seem inconsistant. That’s all.

I thought it was addressed in the other threads, but I don’t mind addressing it again.

Moving Trucks, Federeal Express Van, Sercice Trucks and even buses. Serves an actual much needed purpose to society and the economy at large. The removal of these vehicles would be a significant undertaking because they have nothing to be replaced with. That being the delivery of goods to markets. In the cases of buses - people, moving them to and fro.

Vans on the other hand, don’t fit the above and am more than happy to include them in the discussion. However FTR, in my own experience they are more likely to be used for their intended purposes. That being moving multiple passengers and cargo.

And while it may be true that SUVs are equipped to carry multiple passengers, I just don’t see that being the case 90% of the time.

I just figured that if you were truly angry about automobile fuel efficiency, environmental concerns and safety, you would want to address the larger cause of that anger, which in this case would be the pick-ups. But hey, like I said, bandwagons are easier to jump on.

And BTW, your snotty little attitude in general really leaves a lot to be desired. But you probably already knew that, right?

Also, consider this:

In a collision between a car and an SUV, the car and its occupants sustain more damage than the SUV and its occupants, right?

Well, in a collision between a motorcycle and a car, the motorcycle and its riders sustain more damage than the car and its occupants, too.

I say we ban cars to make the highways safer for motorcycles!

As a SUV owner in particular, but also as a driver in general, I am a very courteous driver.

I always yield to pedestrians, regardless of the circumstances; I stop to aid disabled motorists; I report unsafe drivers on my cell phone…stuff like that.

I almost never “bully” other drivers with the size of my vehicle (the exception are people who will not yield the fast lane on the interstate.

I’m not going to claim that I drive more miles a year than anyone else here, but I do log quite a few miles in my travels, and one thing that I’ve noticed is this:

WARNING: Generalizations Follow!

Urbanites/suburbanites are the rudest, most aggressive drivers out there (soccer mom’s are a menace to society!);

rural(ites?) are the densest, slowest to react drivers out there;

the small handfull of experienced over-the-road drivers are some of the best people around (not just truckers, either; those folks are hit-or-miss when it comes to road manners).


I realize that my truck is a gas hog (18/21), and I’m looking into getting a motorcycle for running around town with, reserving the use of my truck for inclement weather, camping and utility.

But I feel that the auto makers can do a lot more to make these trucks more environmentally friendly, amd will hold off buying a new SUV (should I feel the need) until such time as they do.

If they do not, then I’ll drive my Jeep until it is no longer economically/financially feasible to do so, then quietly retire the old girl with dignity before I go shopping for a new car (I like the Dodge Intrepid, and similar sized cars). And get a trailer hitch installed so I can drag my motorcycle around with me whenever I hit the road.