Why Americans have SUVs and aren't going to give them up

[pne]

bradhicks argues why Americans won't give up SUVs even though fuel prices are going up.

Interesting; I didn't know that estate cars/station wagons were fairly unpopular in the States; here in Germany, they're pretty common, I'd say, especially for families with children.

Incidentally, that entry is third in a series of "what American's won't do even though oil and gas[oline] prices are going up, and why not", and in general his journal has some readable rants on various topics; I recommend checking him out. (And thanks again to nou, who recommended him to me.)

Comments

[util.livejournal.com]

I'm skeptical. As I understand it, the SUV craze resulted from a loophole in the standards. SUVs are classified as trucks, which have lower emission standards than regular cars. I guess higher gas prices (plus environmental concerns) will weaken public resistance to closing the loophole, which in one move would put a huge damper on SUV sales.

Even if that doesn't happen, I think the population will continue concentrating in large cities, where despite some exceptions, it's less practical to own any sort of car. (Even aside from better public transit, worse parking and traffic, there are often more stringent regulations to control smog, right? And a larger population allows people to specialize more, ie, there will be a smaller percentage of people doing their own carpentry, etc.)

Finally, although sometimes it's convenient to have a truck to haul stuff around, once one of your group of friends buys one, you can just borrow theirs. Or if you have no such friends, you can rent. (And a car works just fine for hauling the amount of manure you'd want for a normal home garden anyway.)

[asciident]

"SUVs are classified as trucks, which have lower emission standards than regular cars."

For now; my understanding is that they will (or are considering, I can't remember what I heard) classify SUVs into several categories and create standards based on each class.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

I call bullshit. Last month I managed to transport in my small-size car (all flat-packed): 1. a 7' bookcase, 2. a microwave cart, 3. a breakfast bar, 4. three floor lamps, 5. a large dresser, and 6. assorted smaller stuff including a rug. At the same time. The week before that, we transported an armchair with enough room left over for a month's worth of groceries. Granted I only have space for 4 passengers (a deliberate choice on my part), but I could certainly fit their luggage in the trunk as well.

And the article doesn't address the question that's really what upsets me: why are SUV drivers such a******s? They tailgate, they park in two parking spaces at the same time (often deliberately), they don't bother to stay in their lanes, they cut people off ... I had one hit my car and take off right after I got my new car. Luckily the only damage was that all the paint got scraped off the corner of my rear bumper. Of course, I don't have the $600 to get it fixed and with a $500 deductible it wasn't worth putting in an insurance claim, but hey. In any case, I wish they'd pass a law stating that in order to buy an SUV, you have to prove you can drive it, which means no abrupt turns, no tailgating, learning to properly park so the SUV fits entirely within the parking space without encroaching on any adjacent ones, not trying to park in the "Compact Cars Only" spots, etc.

And did you know that a person in a car that's hit by an SUV is four times more likely to be killed than if it was hit by any other car (including a minivans!), and pedestrians are twelve times as likely to be killed.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Oh, and yes, I've transported four adults at the same time.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Oh, and did I mention that my car gets double the mileage of my mom's SUV?

[lexabear.livejournal.com]

I agree with you in general, but it is true that SUVs can carry more stuff than station wagons. My family has both a Civic Hybrid and an SUV. We use the Hybrid much more often (going places day-to-day) but there are times we need the capacity of the SUV (recently, on our beach trip where we had to fit 4 people, luggage, and a ton of beach crap).

I can see the OP's point that SUVs are necessary for their larger carry capacity, but I don't agree with his implied logical conclusion that they're worth the fuel inefficiency for it. If Americans put more pressure on the car companies for fuel-efficient vehicles, I bet the "Hey, look what we just happened to be researching" fairy would pop up and make it happen. Hybrid, hydrogen-engine, and alternate-fuel research is going so slowly because consumers don't care enough about fossil fuel consumption.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

My car (which is not a station wagon) can hold more stuff than my mom's SUV, except that it seats 5 and my car seats 4 (though there is a 5-passenger model of my car).

My husband points out that the flaw in the renting-an-SUV-costs-$800-per-year argument is that driving an SUV on a regular basis (as he argues people should do) costs an extra $850 in gas.

[lexabear.livejournal.com]

You must have some sort of Magical Black Hole Car, because I've had to mode piles of crap to/from storage, and mid-size cars (like my friend's Infiniti) definitely have a limited storage capacity.

Though as I said, I see his points, but don't agree with his ultimate conclusion.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Well, it helps to believe firmly that Any Space Can Be Made to Hold an Infinite Amount of Stuff. I don't know what kind of SUV you have, but my car (Saturn Ion) absolutely has more cargo space than a Hyundai Santa Fe. It's not as tall, but the trunk is much deeper (it has the largest trunk in its class).



That's the car with the armchair in it. It's in the back seat, not the trunk, so as I said we still had a ton of space left over.

Actually, there was another couple there buying the same chair as we were, and they were still trying to put it into their Infiniti when we left.

[lexabear.livejournal.com]

That is pretty impressive. We have a... umm... it starts with an R.... I think. Tells you how much I care about cars, there. It looks like a Trooper. Isuzu Rodeo, that's it. And it can carry much more than our Hybrid - I couldn't imagine trying to get to the beach with the amount of stuff we had in that thing. And the Hybrid does have a very generous trunk.

I dearly love the Hybrid for day-to-day stuff though. Not only does it have great milage, but it's also a very smooth, quiet ride - you don't realize how much noise normal cars make until you ride in a Hybrid. If I can afford it, I'm going to get one myself when I finally get my own car.

[pne.livejournal.com]

My husband points out that the flaw in the renting-an-SUV-costs-$800-per-year argument is that driving an SUV on a regular basis (as he argues people should do) costs an extra $850 in gas.

Good point.

[pne.livejournal.com]

If Americans put more pressure on the car companies for fuel-efficient vehicles, I bet the "Hey, look what we just happened to be researching" fairy would pop up and make it happen.

That sort of thing has happened in Europe as well, where fuel is more expensive anyway -- car companies had had lower-consumption engines "in their desk drawers" for quite a while but didn't see the need to bring them to market until people started looking a lot more closely at fuel consumption when choosing a new car.

[lexabear.livejournal.com]

Exactly - it happens whenever companies have something new that isn't cost-effective to finish researching/build. It doesn't become cost-effective until consumers show interest in it. That's my mom's pro-recycling argument, too: it might not really be very effective right now, but if people keep doing it it will be effective later.