Hooray, Let's all go by SUVs

[Sooner_Havok]

I thought this was kinda funny

Link (http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/01/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_taylor_SUVsales.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes)


American car buyers get a case of amnesia
When gas prices take a breather, consumers' common sense takes a hike.
By Alex Taylor III, Fortune senior editor
November 1 2006: 10:36 PM EST


(Fortune Magazine) -- Who can remember all the way back to last summer, when we had daylight saving time, baseball, and $3 a gallon gasoline prices?

Not American car buyers, apparently, and you can see the evidence in the results of October auto sales.

Sales of big pickup trucks and SUVs went through the roof - doubling from the year before in some cases. Sales of small, fuel efficient cars, meanwhile, remained stagnant. It is as if all that moaning and groaning about price gouging by oil companies never happened.

Actually, it is worse than that. American consumers have reinforced all the stereotypes they are labeled with: short attention spans, lack of social consciousness and thinking with their wallets.

Does anyone seriously believe that having once spiked up to $3 with very little provocation, gasoline prices won't do it again? Have they forgotten about the ongoing instability in the Middle East, where most of our oil comes from? And have they stopped caring about traffic density, scarce resources or global warming? And if they haven't, why aren't they exercising better sense in their vehicle preferences?

Homegrowns
General Motors' (Charts) customers get the ostrich award for sticking their heads in the sand. They drove up sales of hulking Chevy Tahoes and Suburbans, and Cadillac Escalade in October to double and triple the rates of a year ago. At the same time, they walked away from economical Chevy Aveos and Cobalts, sending sales of those vehicles down 31 percent and 43 percent respectively. "GM's truck business was boosted by lower fuel prices," sales and marketing boss Mark LaNeve explains. Apparently so.

One bright spot; sales of the fuel-gulping Hummer were about flat compared with a year ago. Perhaps consumers have tired of cartoonish macho design.

Over at Ford (Charts) and Chrysler, results were about the same. Sales of the new Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator both shot up more than 40 percent. Both are handsome vehicles greatly improved in their ride and handling from previous versions, but does how many people really need all that metal to drive to the 7-11?

Over at Chrysler, sales of Jeeps - known for their go-anywhere capabilities but not their fuel economy - shot up 29 percent, with the biggest and thirstiest, the Commander, shooting off dealer lots at the rate of more than 8,000 a month.

Import buyers demonstrated a little more common sense. They tend to be self-selected Blue Staters anyway, who are attracted to import brands because of their lighter weight and more fuel efficient engines. The gap between them and domestic buyers is widening.

Imports
Toyota (Charts) reported its best ever October, with overall sales up 13.6 percent. Its hybrids suffered because lower gas prices make the premium price harder to justify. Prius, the hybrid flagship, saw its sales fall 8.6 percent, though to a still healthy 8,733 for the month. Meanwhile, the RAV4, a crossover SUV that is downright stingy in fuel usage compared with a traditional truck-based SUV, sold 11,154 copies in October, nearly beating out the old-style Ford Explorer, once the leader in the field.

Honda (Charts) did Toyota one better. It moved 20,413 CR-V crossover SUVs during the month, an increase of nearly 96 percent, handily outpacing Explorer. Honda likes to brag that it has the best overall fuel economy of any U.S. brand, and its customers responded. They bought 21,343 small Civics during October, including 2,288 Civic Hybrids.

These kind of sales fluctuations drive product planners crazy. As they sketch out new models for the 2010 model year and beyond, do they add more big V-8s based on the latest sales data? Or do they assume that either gas prices will carom up again, or buyers will stop getting more vehicle than they need, and concentrate on doing more for list.

The sociologists have an simpler time of it. As Americans flock back to their old buying habits, it is all too easy to lump excessive fuel consumption in with other bad habits involving overindulgence: over eating, over spending and over television watching.

The supply of oil is not limitless but apparently the current generation of Americans is all too willing to exhaust it by buying more vehicle than they need and letting their children and grandchildren fend for themselves.




Do what now? Oh Boy, SUVs! :D

[Ike]

it is funny. I'm gonna go get a hummer now.

[PhilTLL]

It's stories like these that make you sit back and ask, as a nation, are we retarded?

[nanimonai]

Geez, now I'm rooting for $6 gas

[Vaevictis]

Camry hybrid all the way.

Whenever I see one person driving a completely empty Tahoe, I have to wonder what they're getting out of that Tahoe that is worth 220% more per mile.

[12]

My dad gave me the analogy of us being like the chickens. "When you wring a chicken's neck, the other chickens panic and make lots of noise. Before the doomed chicken's body stops moving, the other chickens are back to clucking and pecking at the ground."

[Taxman71]

Well, the prices on SUVs have also dropped tremendously, thus offsetting the extra gas money and causing sales to spike. Plus, many people are willing to pay a surcharge via higher gas prices for the safety of driving a big rig, especially when you have kids.

[Vaevictis]

Well, the prices on SUVs have also dropped tremendously, thus offsetting the extra gas money and causing sales to spike.

Which will in turn cause gas prices to rise ;)


Plus, many people are willing to pay a surcharge via higher gas prices for the safety of driving a big rig, especially when you have kids.

The best policy is to pay attention and get the hell out of the way; being in a Tahoe doesn't do you any good when you get T-boned by an 18 wheeler ;)

[Taxman71]

Well, paying attention avoids most trouble, but you never have control over the other idiots around you. I doubt A.D. has reflexes quick enough to avoid most of those accidents. Plus, I can see nearly 360 degrees with all the glass in my Expedition. Most cars leave me with severe blindspots.

[achiro]

I go by SUV's all the time, I'm actually thinking of buying one.

[OU4LIFE]

all of you truck haters can bite me.

[Vaevictis]

I have a bit of a pet peeve for the "I want an SUV for safety" reasoning.

SUV's have historically had more rigid frames, which causes them to eat up their energy by deforming the other vehicle.

In such cases, you're actually *less* safe when you impact another rigid vehicle -- you ideally want the vehicle to deform and eat up the energy of the impact instead of transferring it to the passengers -- and while you're safer against smaller more "crumply" vehicles, you're essentially shifting "your share" of the impact onto them.

In short, it basically boils down to: Less safe against vehicles of the same size, considerably more likely to kill other people in smaller cars (while being marginally more safe for me).

Really aggravates me :)

[12]

:)

Heh.

About three weeks ago, a gal hydroplained into my neighbor at around 60 mph. T-bone. Luckily, the impact was on her passenger side. Both survived without major injuries, but wow... made a mess of the two cars, to be certain.

He was driving a newfangled Mustang. The airbag gave him a hairline fracture to the sternum, but I don't hear him complaining.

[skycat]

I think I posted about how my wife's old 4Runner (~250k miles) caught on fire. We bought a new 4Runner to replace it. She was pretty adament about it.

But her company pays for her gas, so what do I care.

[Taxman71]

I don't know anything about physics, but I can tell you that most large SUVs score highly in safety ratings and, in a collision, I want the most size, steel, weight and distance between me and the other guy as I can get. Plus I can shine by headlights directly in the rearview mirror of the hybrid car guy who is in the right lane, but refuses to turn right.

[NormanPride]

The only thing I like about SUVs is the height. I can see almost the whole road, and can be that much more aware of what is going on. However, in the Nissan Altima that I drive now, I can actually react to things before getting killed. :D

[yermom]

i don't really buy the SUV thing for "safety" for the rollover thing

but in answer to PhilTLL's question, yes :D

[I_SMELL_FEAR]

I cant carry my rifle and shotgun in the back window of a hybrid.

[Vaevictis]

I cant carry my rifle and shotgun in the back window of a hybrid.

Dodge Ram HEV? Kinda crappy ROI though.

[Beef]

My Expedition is the smallest vehicle I could find that I could lug my internet penis around in.

[I_SMELL_FEAR]

Dodge Ram HEV? Kinda crappy ROI though.

Dodge sucks IMO...never will I buy a dodge product...the Dodge dealerships even seem to be the creepiest, dirtiest, cheating-est (?) dealerships.

[Mjcpr]

Dodge sucks IMO...never will I buy a dodge product...the Dodge dealerships even seem to be the creepiest, dirtiest, cheating-est (?) dealerships.

Those requirements are probably spelled out in their hiring manuals.

[Taxman71]

Rumor used to be that Lynn Hickey Dodge threw your keys on the roof the second you handed them over for a test drive, etc.

I refuse to buy a Dodge for the sheer fact that they refuse to produce a non-embarrasing body style. Plus, I don't want to get thrown into that group with the "If you can't Dodge it, Ram it" window stickers.

[Ike]

I don't know anything about physics, but I can tell you that most large SUVs score highly in safety ratings and, in a collision, I want the most size, steel, weight and distance between me and the other guy as I can get. Plus I can shine by headlights directly in the rearview mirror of the hybrid car guy who is in the right lane, but refuses to turn right.

all of that is true...however, they don't always test them for rollover safety. SUV's have a tendency to roll much more than cars due to the high center of gravity.

[mdklatt]

Plus I can shine by headlights directly in the rearview mirror of the hybrid car guy who is in the right lane, but refuses to turn right.

:confused:

[Sooner_Havok]

I have to say, when that jerk in his Jimmy starts riding my *** on Lindsey I really just want to slam on my breaks. I bet my Mustang stops a lot quicker than that waste of metal. Then I just got rear ended by a huge *** tank, and my neck hurts pretty bad :D

[nanimonai]

People can drive drive a dump truck to the grocery store for all I care, just don't start complaining when gas goes back up.
If you feel you can afford it, then fine.

[Jerk]

People can drive drive a dump truck to the grocery store for all I care, just don't start complaining when gas goes back up.
If you feel you can afford it, then fine.


Exactly. And if you're one of those people concerned about global warming, then ride a bicycle.

[Taxman71]

And if you're one of those people concerned about global warming, then ride a bicycle.

Not to mention airplanes. They burn a little fuel I am told.

[PhilTLL]

Not to mention airplanes. They burn a little fuel I am told.

Airliners average about 49 passenger miles/gallon, and that's accounting for 10% non-revenue/unoccupied seats. Some carriers reach higher levels of efficiency.

The "bah gawd, ah can afford this Chevydodgeford Gigantotruckasaurus and fill 'er up too" attitude is absolutely anyone's right in a free market, which means it's a-okay by me (though less so if the most rugged terrain/work/passenger carrying you see is the arduous 1-person commute from Edmond to downtown), but that doesn't make it a good choice for the country at large, or a wise one for the future. At some point in the next 50 years, government could justify legislating away your right to buy the biggest, fuel-consumiest vehicle your heart desires by claiming that the rest of the people and their endangered supply of energy need to be protected from the truck buyers.

[Ike]

Airliners average about 49 passenger miles/gallon, and that's accounting for 20% non-revenue/unoccupied seats. Some carriers reach higher levels of efficiency.


I think the number of unoccupied seats is exaggerated...at least from my personal experience. I haven't flown on a flight that was at less than 95% capacity since 2001

[mdklatt]

I think the number of unoccupied seats is exaggerated...at least from my personal experience. I haven't flown on a flight that was at less than 95% capacity since 2001

That percentage is even higher for me. And yet airlines still can't figure out how to make money.

[PhilTLL]

Erps. I typoed "10%" from the stats I was reading, which is still a high estimate for empty load but errs on the side of statistical caution, I guess.

[mdklatt]

Not to mention airplanes. They burn a little fuel I am told.

Even an old-school plane like a Piper Cherokee can achieve a better MPG value than a lot of large SUVs, and newer fiberglass designs are almost Honda-like.

[Jerk]

. At some point in the next 50 years, government could justify legislating away your right to buy the biggest, fuel-consumiest vehicle your heart desires by claiming that the rest of the people and their endangered supply of energy need to be protected from the truck buyers.

They'd love to do that, now. You think the elites would likewise give up their limos and Leer jets? bwahahaah I could see John Kerry riding in a small Hybrid or Hillary Clinton riding coach on a crowded airline. Yeah, right. Either everyone plays by the same rules, or I ain't playing.

[1stTimeCaller]

I just traded in a Pontiac G6 for a 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4. I look much cooler driving it and my weenis has grown two inches in both length and girth. And I need it for work ;)

[PhilTLL]

They'd love to do that, now.


At some point in the next 50 years, government could justify legislating away your right to buy the biggest, fuel-consumiest vehicle your heart desires by claiming that the rest of the people and their endangered supply of energy need to be protected from the truck buyers.

I know a lot of them would certainly enjoy it, my point was that we don't need to give them reasons to do it.

[Mongo]

I just traded in a Pontiac G6 for a 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4. I look much cooler driving it and my weenis has grown two inches in both length and girth. And I need it for work ;)

So that makes you 4" X 2 1/2"?

[1stTimeCaller]

I meant my internet weenis but if my real one grew those figures would be about right ;)

[Boarder]

The sales went way up on new Tahoes and Suburbans because the new body style came out. You know, the one rated at 22mpg highway?

Prius Hybrids cost more to operate per mile than Tahoes.

I don't care what you drive, stop caring about me.

[Vaevictis]

Prius Hybrids cost more to operate per mile than Tahoes.

Really? By what measure?

(the reason I ask is that based on my estimates -- including expected battery replacement costs -- gas would have to cost 1.3553/gal or less to break even. That does not include the fact that the base MSRP for the Tahoe is about $12k more than the base MSRP for the Prius)

[yermom]

here is one...

http://www.independentconservative.com/2006/05/18/car_energy_life/

doesn't really translate to $$$ for the driver though, unless they start charging to dispose of them

[Vaevictis]

Well, given that it's the Honda Accord Hybrid, the answer is a big fat "duh."

The Honda Accord Hybrid is not designed for fuel economy. They're using the Hybrid component to provide extra power for acceleration.

That's like being suprised when a V8 engine is less fuel efficient than the 4 cylinder one.

(looking at the actual study now, not just the summary)

EDIT: Well, gee, I suspect it's easy to come to the conclusion that the Toyota costs more if you assume that it'll only last 109k miles and you expect that the Tahoe will last 268k miles. I wonder how they got to that number? I've never seen a Toyota last less than 110k miles unless the owner totaled it.

EDIT 2: Heh, they're rolling in the fact that the Hybrid is often a second car within the family to drive down gas mileage by considering a "family fleet average MPG".

EDIT 3: I also like how they have fuel economy listings after 10 years of use on models that haven't existed for 10 years. They do not describe their methodology for these numbers.

EDIT 4: It's pretty cool how they decide that because gas only "costs" a certain amount in energy to produce, ($0.41 @ $3/gal, est. $3.70 @ $9.50/gal), that they should only consider the amount it costs to produce, not how much it actually costs the consumer ;)

EDIT 5: Okay, so they finally do something right. They find that because the economies of scale just aren't there for Hybrids yet, Hybrid maintenance is going to cost more. Okay, I can buy that. -- However, in the case of Toyota, I don't see it staying that way for all that long. Toyota has commited to producing every model in its line as a Hybrid in the near future; economies of scale will follow. Assuming they follow through on their commitment.

EDIT 6: Wow, they're rolling R&D into the ownership cost of hybrids? Just, wow. Talk about double-charging -- Toyota obviously has to roll R&D into the price of the vehicle already just to make a profit.

EDIT 7: Okay, I see what they're doing with the R&D stuff. Basically, they're saying that because the product is new, it costs more to design, develop and support. Okay, I can see that. Those prices go down rapidly as adoption goes up, however. The numbers on this could flip on their heads overnight if adoption is high enough.

-------------------

Anyway, at page 250 or so, I'm calling it quits. I'm going to call shenanigans on this one and appeal to Mark Twain -- "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I don't give a **** about R&D costs or how much of a gallon of gas' price is just energy to produce and how much goes to the administrative/marketing/sales/etc side of the company. I care how much it costs me to operate per mile.

The main shenanigan, though, is that 109k miles figure. Really -- does anyone believe that any Toyota model on average is only going to last 109k miles?

[tbl]

For my company car, I got a new Honda Civic in March. I wanted to get something with good mileage and the Civic is a good car for that (32/40).

Our company has now started a new program that is manufacturer specific and I have to give up the Civic. Some of the guys are getting Chevy Malibu's and the Saturn Vue, but I get the choice of the Saturn Aura or the new Saturn Outlook. The company pays for all my gas and all the repairs on the car, so it looks like I'm going with the Outlook.

I'm going from ashy
http://www.izmoauto.com/newcaronlinespecial/2006/honda/FA1526EW/galaxy_gray_metallic.jpg

to classy
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/2006_new_york/0605_2007_saturn_outlook_01_445.jpg




I was going to get the Aura, but it's only 3 mpg more than the Outlook, so I figure what the hey? I was doing some research and SUV's are actually getting better mpg all the time (as long as you're not talking about the big boy V8's). Most of the V6 & 4 cyl SUV's get about the same as a sedan. (17/25 for the Outlook, 20/28 for the Aura).

Am I a horrible person now?

[Boarder]

Don't look at me, I didn't do the study. I just blindly use the results to my own benefit in arguments.

:D

[Boarder]

The bigger SUVs are actually getting better mileage. The GMs have that 8 cylinder when you need it/4 cylinder the rest of the time thing that helps out.


the best thing is that they're developing a Duramax type diesel that is smaller. It's the same size as the current small blocks (5.3L, etc) and can be used in everything the V-8 can. It will be great. High mileage, high mpg, high power.

[Vaevictis]

Am I a horrible person now?

I don't think anyone who drives an SUV is a horrible person just because they drive an SUV. I just don't get what *most* of them are getting out of it that makes it worth the extra cost. And when I say "SUV" I mean the monster ones, not the reasonable ones ;)

I'm not talking the people who use it for work, or who have massive families that they shuttle all over the place. I'm talking about the people who live by themselves, MAYBE with a significant other, and the primary use of the vehicle is to drive to and work alone. There's nothing wrong with that, I just don't get it.

I do have a pet peeve about the "safer" thing, because it's *basically* an illusion and it has historically come at the expense of other drivers on the road. But that has nothing to do with gas mileage.