Pretty interesting

That is kind of my point. The issue is not how much gas these vehicles burn but how much pollution they produce.

Why then are the discussions in miles per gallon and not CO2 emissions?

-Biscuits

Your reasons for owning an SUV:
>>1. Comfort

SUVs ride like a truck, I can see your problem with size though. Ford fought that problem by underinflating the tires below spec. Very clever. See note on rollovers below.

>>2. Interior Storage ability (about every 2 weeks)
>>3. Being up high above the crowd
>>4. Towing ability (about every 2 weeks)
>>5. Knowing that if I get in an accident, it is the other guy's car that gets >>crumpled.

Yep, your bumper may end up going right through the trunk of a smaller car and cause lots of damage since the bumpers dont come close to lining up. Keep in mind since you have a higher center of gravity, your vehicle is much more likely to roll over in the event of a accident or tire blowout.

In my research on this issue, I found that ford made a lot of poor stability related decisions on the Explorer, despite the advice of their very own engineers. The internal memo went something like this: we need to widen the vehicle and make stiffer some other chassis components to make it safe. Im sure other companies make decisions like this all the time (statistical analysis of death and lawsuits for not replacing $10 worth of parts to fix a safety problem, etc)

>>6. Offroading ability. I go totally off-roading about once a year, although it is nice >>to be able to jump curbs and other obstacles much more often.

Rent a hummer ;-)

Another problem which is somewhat unrelated is that I see people driving SUVs like cars. SUVs are trucks! SUVs don't stop as fast as cars, they shouldn't be changing lanes like they are in a NASCAR race either!

Interesting, since those stats are six years old now, I bet the percentages are much worse.

If you converted these statistics into "deaths caused by trucks per thousand/million/or whatever vehicle miles travelled", you would find that trucks cause far fewer deaths than other vehicles for the distance they travel.

But when these big trucks do hit something, whatever they hit is going to stay hit and the people in the whatever it hit will probably be dead.

And yes, maybe the truck driver 30% of the time in those fatalties was half-asleep at the wheel, but thank goodness there are only 7 million truck drivers on the road at any one time, when the number of half-awake SUV and car drivers on the roads at the same time is probably 10 times the half-asleep large truck driver numbers.

And by all accounts, many car and SUV drivers (especially it seems), are never actually fully awake any time they are behind the wheel of their vehicle.

In reply to:

---

Any current argument about oil being a scarce resource is bunk.

---

Why is it then that the US spends $50 billion a year keeping it military forces in the Middle East? - mostly to "protect its (oil) interests"?

If oil is so plentiful, why is the US etc doing this?

Also, do you really think that the "war on Iraq"/Regime change will be about anything other than getting long term control of Iraqs oil supplies?

This WMD palava is a side-show to keep the folks at home away from the true facts of the matter.


As far as 1% of the worlds oil reserves being tapped - that may be true, but that 1% is the "easy to get at" oil, and the other 99% is locked in hard to extract or get at places such as tens of kilometres under the seas etc, places where they have no idea even now how to drill down to locate the oil, let alone get the oil out.
In 10 years time, maybe they might be closer to gettng at this oil.

Also note - the North Sea oil fields are running out, and in some cases have already run out.

That won't affect the US, but will put begin to put even more demand on OPEC countries to supply Europe and the US with even more oil than they do now, making the Middle East a even more strategic place than it is now.

In reply to:

---

The issue is not how much gas these vehicles burn but how much pollution they produce.

Why then are the discussions in miles per gallon and not CO2 emissions

---

Because the 2 figures pretty much track one with the other and MPG is easier for people to understand and recite.

[And its interesting to note that MPG figures were only made a legal requirement of the Detroit car makers and published along with other information about the car, after the Oil Shocks of 1973 - Detroit resisted the MPG figures thing for as long as it could - but thats another thread].

In actual fact SUV's emit more pollution of all types, not just CO2 per "gallon" of fuel burned than just about any other car you care to name, this is mostly due in part to the engine designs being the engine equivalent of modern dinosaurs.

And of course, if your SUV gets lower MPG, you have to burn more fuel to cover the same distance as a more fuel efficient vehicle does, thus emitting even more pollutants to get the same distance covered.

The whole reason why SUVs get away with this poor situation is that the SUV's are classed as "light trucks" and therefore are able to side-step any controls on pollutants that "regular" (i.e. non-SUV) vehicles have to meet.

And Detroit lobbies Congress very hard to ensure that this lack of pollution controls rule stays that way.

Of course, at the same time, the United States are trying to make a deal with Russia to gain access to the vast oil reserves under Siberia.

In 5 or 10 years, I imagine that hybrid cars will start to become much more commonplace, if not by the Big 5 automakers, then by somebody else. They have made enormous strides in recent years and the technology seems to be there for the mass market. All that is needed now is for the right designs to surface and for people to be made aware of them.

I like my Ford Explorer, but not because it uses more gasoline than some other vehicles.

-Biscuits

In 5 or 10 years, you might *just* be seeing Hybrid SUV's coming out of Detroit, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
5 years is the minimum planning window that Detroit is using for Hybrids, so maybe the 2008 model will be a Hybrid.

Meanwhile we have 5 more years of poor performing SUVs to come...

Aren't the majority of CO2 emissions from heavy trucks. I seem to remember a statistic from about 1990 that 90% of the pollution was caused by 10% of the vehicles. At that time, the high-polluting vehicles (mostly trucks, but also old cars) caused 89 times the pollution of the other ones. Granted, this is an old statistic, but large trucks have very powerful backers and have been exempt from most pollution legislation since then.

I would be interested to know what the current statistics are. I imagine that SUVs are worse than small cars but still dwarfed by tractor-trailors in the amount of pollution produced.

-Biscuits

In reply to:

---

Aren't the majority of CO2 emissions from heavy trucks. I seem to remember a statistic from about 1990 that 90% of the pollution was caused by 10% of the vehicles. At that time, the high-polluting vehicles (mostly trucks, but also old cars) caused 89 times the pollution of the other ones. Granted, this is an old statistic, but large trucks have very powerful backers and have been exempt from most pollution legislation since then.

---

Most truck engines don't actually emit large amounts of CO2 as they run on Diesel, the engines typically have very high compression ratios, super/turbo chargers and all sorts of high-tech features that the average SUV engine has never heard of. This results in them emitting higher levels of pollutants like NOX (Nitrogen Oxides) - which are not greenhouse gases, merely responsible for the photochemical smogs and eventually acid rain.

Trucks do however emit lots more visible pollution than cars and lots of particulates (so called PM10s), which are proven to be very carcinogenic.

That figure you stated was for worst case situations in a study done in Calfornia from memory and these cases were a few old bangers of cars were found to be poking out 89 times the level of CO (Carbon Monoxide) - CO is a greenhouse gas too, but typically gets converted to CO2 eventually or chemically bound with other elements to form other compounds.

That study also showed that having a modern well tuned fleet of vehicles was as equally important as getting the old bangers off the roads.

This study was also conducted well before the SUV craze started in earnest.


Detroit wants the right to be able to captilise on this situation and allow the "trade in" the old bangers and get "carbon credits" for getting these old bangers off the road, so that they can then transfer the right to emit the pollution to new SUVs and cars - note this won't actually reduce the pollution, just spread it over more (and newer) vehicles.

A similar study conducted in LA found that burger bars and fast food joints were actually - to everyones surprise - major emitters of pollutants that cause photochemical smogs - this was becuase the "fat molecules" that go up the air circulation/venting systems is unfiltered and just the right size and make up to bind with other pollutants in the air and cause these smogs.

But thats a different story, and its not the same in all places in the US.

In reply to:

---

I would be interested to know what the current statistics are. I imagine that SUVs are worse than small cars but still dwarfed by tractor-trailors in the amount of pollution produced

---

Heres some figures* sourced from the DetroitProject website - take them at face value or not: The source is shown below. I snipped out the ones that are not relevant.

In reply to:

---

...

7. Cars are responsible for 25 percent of the heat trapping (Global Warming) gases produced.

8. The U.S. consumes 8 billion barrels of oil a year, much of which goes to fueling our vehicles.

9. Average mileage of our new cars and trucks is at its lowest level in 20 years.

...

12. The life span of each new car is now over twenty years.

13. There are already over 20 MILLION suv’s on the nations roads.

14. Suv’s spew up to SIX TIMES as much smog - causing pollution per mile as cars.

...

17. An automobile engine produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas it burns, or about 1 pound per mile.

18. A hybrid car produces less than one half pound of CO2 per mile.

19. Suv’s have no fuel economy standards because they are considered trucks.

20. Fleet-wide fuel economy is decreasing because of the growing popularity of suv’s.


*Source: Natural Resources Defense Council
From the book, High and Mighty: SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and how They Got That Way, by Keith Bradsher. Copyright © 2002.

---

Assuming these figures are somewhat accurate (or no less inaccurate than the fiugures Detroit would rebutt them with ;-) )

Each SUV pollutes to the same level as 6 cars, that means that the current SUV "pollution" factor is equivalent to 120 million cars if 20 million SUVS are on the road now, and with at least 12.5 million new SUVs sold each year (based on 25% minimum of new vehicles are SUVs, with 50 million "cars" -( including SUVs I guess) made each year), then the pollution footprint of *new* SUV alone is equivalent to a least the equivalent 75 million cars *Each Year* - and growing.

Or to put it another way - collectively, new SUVs have at least twice the pollution footprint of all the non-SUV cars made each year - and that footprint is growing.

And won't shrink for probably at least 5 years or until Hybrid SUVs start coming onstream..

Most truck engines don't actually emit large amounts of CO2 as they run on Diesel, the engines typically have very high compression ratios, super/turbo chargers and all sorts of high-tech features that the average SUV engine has never heard of. This results in them emitting higher levels of pollutants like NOX (Nitrogen Oxides) - which are not greenhouse gases, merely responsible for the photochemical smogs and eventually acid rain.

Trucks do however emit lots more visible pollution than cars and lots of particulates (so called PM10s), which are proven to be very carcinogenic.


You can thank all the trucking companies/assosciations/lobbyists for that one...Europe has had clean diesel laws in effect for a few years now, and this in turn has led to clean and powerful diesel engines for cars. (eg VW's 1.9TDi, 130BHP & 50mpg)
In the meanwhile, US is lagging (again), so the US equivalent of that same engine only outputs 90BHP.... so few people actually buy diesel cars.

Fortunately, that will change in the near future. I can't remember exactly when, but IIRC, the clean diesel laws will come into effect in 2004.

Thank you number6, that is the kind of information I was looking for. I think that gas mileage is unlikely to sway many people, but pollution arguments are much more effective.

I wonder how accurate those statistics are, seeing as how they are from this particular group....

In actual fact SUV's emit more pollution of all types, not just CO2 per "gallon" of fuel burned than just about any other car you care to name, this is mostly due in part to the engine designs being the engine equivalent of modern dinosaurs.

I think CO2 is a bit of a red herring here. Any two engines will produce (essentially) the same amount of CO2 from one gallon of the same fuel. CO2 is a product of clean burning of hydrocarbons, along with water vapour, and despite being a greenhouse gas it is naturally present in the atmosphere and so probably isn't a "pollutant" in the sense meant by the study quoted in number6's post. At least in this country, when people talk about pollutants from vehicle emissions, they mean CO, nitrous oxides, and all the stuff (e.g. from fuel additives) that isn't CO2 or water vapour.

Peter

Probably by the time we get through 30% of it the planet will be unfit to support life as we know it.

Yeah, but by that time there'll be so much carbon in the atmosphere that the pyre of our own civilisation will turn into an oil seam over geological time. The Second Carboniferous Era, they'll call us.

Our great-grandchildren (or maybe sooner than that!) will look back upon our generation with astonishment, to think that we took this incredibly valuable chemical and of all the goddam things we could think of to do with it, we burned it to make our cars go and ruined the planet in the process.

This is good point we hadn't had. However damaging a gasoline drought would be to the world's standard of living, it wouldn't be half as damaging as a petrochemical drought.

Peter

Or to put it another way - collectively, new SUVs have at least twice the pollution footprint of all the non-SUV cars made each year - and that footprint is growing.

Assume for a minute we get rid of all SUVs: Then we would still have a dilema because some groups of cars produce significantly more pollution the other groups of cars. We are not suddenly in the clear because SUVs are gone. Pollution is a growing and chronic problem in which all vehicles share blame. A solution would then be for EVERYONE to drive ONLY supersubcompacts which get 40+ mpg and have extremely efficient (clean) gas utilizing engines. Not great performers but then at least we will ALL be doing our part to protect our environment. Focusing solely on SUVs is not the solution. The fact remains that in addition to SUVs, many (I would hazard to guess most) people are driving cars that are not considered to be the most efficient available. The desire for design, comfort, performance make this unlikely. Until the auto manufacturers offer alternatives, a significant reduction in pollution emmisions will not occur. They must lead the charge and offer choices people will gravitate towards.

How can anyone justify the fact that a SUV or any *passenger* vehicle puts out 6 times the pollutants that a normal non-SUV car does?

I think thats about the level that the average 40 seater diesel powered bus emits - and a SUV only holds 7 or so people maximum.

This means that each mile driven in a SUV is the same as six cars driving the same distance or 1 car driving 6 times further.

Also, the oft quoted justification of "I can fit 7 people in my SUV so thats gotta save gas/be more efficient" doesn't really stack up when those same 7 people could each drive their own cars seperately and emit only slightly more pollution than the SUV would if it had 7 people in it".

And as many people have pointed out, most SUVs are not full with people or cargo - they are empty most of the time, or with a few kids in them maybe and the gas and pollution emitted is not a lot different I'd bet in either case whether its full of people or not.

Nobody is saying don't ever drive/buy SUVs - what people are saying is use them appropriately - and given that 1 in 4 sales of new cars are now SUVs there are a lot of inappropriate users/uses that those SUVs which make up 25% of the vehicle sales each year are being used for.

Each SUV will last probably up to 20 years, so once you sell it, it will still be giuzzling gas and emitting lots of pollution for a lot longer than your ownership.
So, 3 years of driving a SUV will emit the same pollution as driving the same car for 18 years.

And these figures only occur if the SUV is well maintained and kept properly tuned - as the SUVs age their pollution emission will sky rocket - thats how come old bangers produce the worst pollution of the lot as they are rarely properly maintained, with (new) SUVs not that far behind in the pollution stakes, and they (new SUVs) have 120 "car" equivalent years of polluting ahead of them if they last 20 years.

In reply to:

---

A solution would then be for EVERYONE to drive ONLY supersubcompacts which get 40+ mpg and have extremely efficient (clean) gas utilizing engines. Not great performers but then at least we will ALL be doing our part to protect our environment. Focusing solely on SUVs is not the solution. The fact remains that in addition to SUVs, many (I would hazard to guess most) people are driving cars that are not considered to be the most efficient available. The desire for design, comfort, performance make this unlikely. Until the auto manufacturers offer alternatives, a significant reduction in pollution emmisions will not occur. They must lead the charge and offer choices people will gravitate towards.

---

A large part of the problem with American cars lies in the lack of proper pollution and fuel efficiency laws - and those laws that do exist are watered down due to Detroits friends in Congress. [laws like SUVs being exempt from the laws that govern cars efficiency as they are classified as light trucks].

Focussing soley on SUVs is not, as you said, all the solution, but its a very good start - for every SUV you get off the road permanently you save a awful lot lot of pollution.

Most European [and Japanese] car makers routinely make and have made for years, non-Hybrid engined cars which get 40+MPG right now, using the same petrol and Diesel that you put in your tank now, and these are not poorly performing engines in super cramped cars (supersubcompacts in your parlance) that can't even do the same basic job that most SUVs are calledon to do now.

Read the post from some BBS members here, they have cars which have the same or more room and cargo carrying capacity inside than the average SUV, drive better, handle better, get much better mileage and cost a lot less than the average SUV and have modern safety features for Africa so that in a crash they don't roll over and they are designed so that when they crash, they deform the chassis, not the people inside.

We are talking about highly efficient engines which have 25%+ more power than the same model of car sold in the US - Due to the lack of proper laws the European models with all their efficiency can't be sold in the US "as is" and have to be detuned for the US market.

When the Hybrids come onstream, you will see a big improvement in MPG figures, for the same or better performance (most Hybrids have powerful electric drives which offer much better torque and acceleration than most petrol cars have) and as all the weight is generally lower down they rollover a lot less than the average SUV.

Detroit won't offer better models of vehicles than the SUVs they offer now unless they are compelled to by law - they make far too much money on SUVs to give them up and offer better models which cost them more to make, or you to buy.
[50% of Detroits profits come from SUVs and they only make up 25% of their sales currently].

If you think that Detroit will offer meaningful alternatives to SUVs that you can buy, think again - but then you could if you wanted buy a European or Japanese car and do yourself, and in the long term your country, a big favour - and thats probably the best and easiest way to send a message to Detroit - don't buy an American SUV, buy a European or Japanese one - and these SUVs are more like SUVs should be.

To me the whole SUV thing has gone full circle back to the days when Nader was taking on the car makers in Detroit and winning - a lot of those hard won victories and lessons learned have been forgotten and buried over time, and the catch cry of "Unsafe at any speed" is probably as true today about SUVs as it ever was about the cars around in Naders day.

My wife loves her Escape, and I have no problems with it. It seems to run well and we've already put 26,000 miles on it in only a year. As I mentioned before, I drive a Mustang so I miss the tight steering and being low to the ground when I'm in her car, but she thinks it's absolutly wonderful.

That is an interesting look at the data ... Isn't it always fun how depending on how you look at the numbers, they can say very different things?

I suppose this argument reduces down to the exact same argument as oil consumption -- i.e. do you care more about the relative deadliness of the trucks or the absolute deadliness of the trucks.

"I hope it's not the image factor, because you'll be paying about $8K plus gas money for an image."

I wouldn't be the first would I?

I can say abolutly without question that the minivan thing is a "coolness" factor for my wife, and being as its her car I'd have to have a pretty good reason to tell her "No." I'm sure my next car will have at least 8K poured into "coolness" (because I could buy a nice little Saturn that gets me to work for around 15K) so I don't need to tell her she can't do the same. Face it, the reason we buy the cars we do is mostly for the "coolness", otherwise there would be about five different kinds of vehicle on the road and we'd all drive the same thing (empeg's firmly intact).

Read the post from some BBS members here, they have cars which have the same or more room and cargo carrying capacity inside than the average SUV, drive better, handle better, get much better mileage and cost a lot less than the average SUV and have modern safety features for Africa so that in a crash they don't roll over and they are designed so that when they crash, they deform the chassis, not the people inside.

It's great that these people are happy with these vehicles, however; it's also obvious from the rising popularity of SUVs that there is also a large group of people who do not want to drive these vehicles for whatever reason. If these cars were indeed suitable replacements(not that these are great cars) then I don't think we would be having this discussion because everyone would own them. The fact that SUVs are popular says a lot about what a certain segment of the population chooses to drive. I would love to see increased regulations and voluntary changes to reduce emissions of SUVs and all vehicles for that matter the same way I would like to see tougher requirements in other areas dealing with pollution control as well. I agree with you on many of your points but still believe that SUVs have been unfairly targeted for problems that have been with us well before the onset of the SUV. Due to their popularity I cannot see them fading away soon so I believe the realistic answer is to push the manufacturers to continually make them safer and more efficient.

We are talking about highly efficient engines which have 25%+ more power than the same model of car sold in the US - Due to the lack of proper laws the European models with all their efficiency can't be sold in the US "as is" and have to be detuned for the US market.

Genixia mentioned this as well:

Europe has had clean diesel laws in effect for a few years now, and this in turn has led to clean and powerful diesel engines for cars. (eg VW's 1.9TDi, 130BHP & 50mpg) In the meanwhile, US is lagging (again), so the US equivalent of that same engine only outputs 90BHP

How come a lack of laws in the US, as compared to Europe, means the 130BHP version can't be sold there? Surely "Dude, I just got 40 more horsepower" is about as American a car-buying sentiment as one could wish for? Is the grade of diesel different or something?

Peter

In reply to:

---

to stay in the right-hand lanes unless passing

---

AMEN!!! This is my biggest rant and I believe one of the largest causes of road rage... If your not passing please clear the way. Stop talking on the phone and just get over....

Face it, the reason we buy the cars we do is mostly for the "coolness"

Some of us don't.

The first car I ever drove was about a '92 Oldsmobile Silhouette, or whatever was the first year they made them. It was the least cool thing a 16 year old high school student could drive. I loved it. It had nothing flashy about it. Bad stereo, seats were difficult to remove, and the sliding doors were a puzzle to anyone new to the car. It was my favorite car (keep in mind that after that I've driven an Eclipse, LR Discovery, and - on occasion - my dad's company Lexus ).

So if everyone buys their cars for the "coolness", I'd be suprised by what the other college kids thought about my current minivan.

Face it, not everyone does buy for coolness. Once and a while, people buy things for practicality. I've hauled countless band instruments, pa systems, drum kits, etc. in my van, and have frequently had 7 people riding inside (fraternity, any of 3 school bands I'm in), and I'm always giving about 4 other people rides home on break, earning me a little extra cash. I went for practical.

Please allow me to rephrase my point: I think "coolness" is a large factor when most people buy cars. The reason I drive a Mustang isn't because it's just another car. It's fun and I think it looks nice. There are more effecient cars that do exactly what mine does: get me from point "A" to point "B". Still, I enjoy driving it so that's why I was willing to spend the extra cash.

Certainly when there are financial considerations, such as being in college, of course you get what you can afford. Right now, however I'm out of college and making enough money to spend a little on stuff I like. And what I like isn't always necessarily simply the utility of a vehicle. So if my wife wants an SUV I'v got no problem with that, even if its for the "coolness" factor. The fact we'll need more room eventually means her next vehicle probably won't be a Ford Escape but something a little bigger.

So how much pollution are SUVs really pumping out? Is it the 6x figure which seems absolutely incredible? Which kinds of pollution are most important and how do SUVs stack up with those?

One thing I read a while back that I thought was interesting. California has been adding "clean fuel" additives for years now. MTBE reduces the air pollution, at the expense of poisoning the ground water. The other additive, ethanol, increases the evaporation rate of gasoline, thus adding to the number of pollutants in the air.

-Biscuits

I understand what you're saying. It's just when you say "Face it, the reason we buy the cars we do is mostly for the "coolness"", that's a blanket statement that would include me, which it doesn't apply to.

I do think that coolness factor is a reason why many people buy cars, I just don't think it's a good one. Finances weren't the reason I got a minivan. My family isn't all that bad off, and we probably could have gotten an SUV (that's why my father and I were test driving them). I was maintaining that the single reason I got a minivan over an SUV is that it was of more use to me. I weighed every option, and to me, the image I portrayed to a bunch of people who didn't know me did not justify the obscene amount of money that allowed me the privilege.

How come a lack of laws in the US, as compared to Europe, means the 130BHP version can't be sold there? Surely "Dude, I just got 40 more horsepower" is about as American a car-buying sentiment as one could wish for? Is the grade of diesel different or something?


I'm not sure about the technical details, but my memory wants to say that it's something to do with the sulphur content being lower in the clean diesels. Maybe it clogs the injectors, or exhaust ports or something.
Ironically, a lot of the more populous and emissions-friendly states *do* have the clean diesel, since they have enacted state laws. (eg California, Massachussets). The problem is that VW can't sell a car that'll break down as soon as it gets to a rural state. The rural states won't enact such laws themselves, since most of their constituents rely on diesel for agricultural purposes and don't want to bear any additional costs.

OK, point taken. That was a pretty broad statement and I really didn't mean to include everyone. Being a musician I've certainly dealt with more than a few people who drive vans for the utility. Also there are some (possibly like yourself) who simply don't care about how "cool" a vehicle is.

You should note, however, that don't drive the car I do to project an image to anyone. I really don't care what other people think of my car; I think it's cool and that's why I bought it. I seriously doubt as I drive down the road people say: "Wow, a green Mustang, I've never seen one of those before. He must be really cool!"

I suppose I get the sense (perhaps wrongly) that you think only utilitarian criteria should be used in assessing a purchase. THIS is what I disagree with. Certainly if you only care about utility then go right ahead and ignore aesthetics, but for others there is nothing wrong with choosing something because it's “cooler” (if they can afford it) even if it costs more. We (or most of us) make decisions on non-utilitarian criteria all the time, from clothes to houses. I am very fortunate to live in a place where I have the freedom to spend my money this way. What we each favor is what makes us different and unique, it shouldn't be looked down upon.

Always remember that there are regional, socioeconomic, and ethnic differences in people's behavior.

For example, in Georgia, in it impolite to mention how much money you make or, for that matter, how much anything costs.

However, when I went to visit relatives in California, I was shocked that everyone told me how much money they made, how much their car cost, how many square feet their house had and why it was in the best neighborhood.

To each his own I suppose.

-Biscuits

Yes, this was actually something I'd intended to convey in my first post. Here in Texas people don't give owning a large vehicle a second thought. Every family I know of has at least one truck, SUV, or van. Only by being part of such a diverse BBS do I get to hear the opinion that people don't like SUVs. That would be like saying "I think guns should be illegal" around here. Not really offensive, just so far out of the cultural reality that no one would expect it.

talking about salary is taboo a lot of places, and it probably plays to employers' benefit... When a coworker of mine was likely to leave, he was given a raise, to not significantly more than what I was getting, but more... I'd been there like 4 or 5 years longer.

I got about half the difference when I got my degree (he got his just before he left) and browbeat people for a year to get some more, specifically reminding them what he was getting and that I started in 1995.

I got what I wanted, but then I got a second jjob (at consulting rates ) and just stopped caring. Speaking of that, I wonder if they're behind on checks because they're doing tax crap?

I was shocked that everyone told me how much money they made, how much their car cost, how many square feet their house had and why it was in the best neighborhood.

I don't know. I'd think that braggadocio would be impolite in any subculture. Maybe I'm too provincial.

I think it is especially rude to mention money in almost any context in the south, more so than most places. People that move here from the rest of the country do not have the same inhibitions as the locals. In areas with a lot of influx of new people, the culture seems to be changing very quickly, with people suddenly becoming increasingly concerned with status symbols.

I think a lot of the difference is not so much that people are differentiating themselves and trying to set themselves higher, but that they are doing it in a different way. It is no longer relevant that you come from a "good family" when nobody knows your family or anything about you except what they see on first glance.

Still, mention what that watch cost you, whether $5 or $500 and people are going to look at you funny. Ask somebody else what their watch cost and they are probably going to hesititate before answering, if they do at all.

-Biscuits

I'm guessing you're from GA. I'm from NC. I'd have to say that stating that my watch cost $5 (``Look what a deal I got!'') wouldn't be a faux pas around here, but announcing that it cost $500 (``See how rich I am!'') would.

And I live in Raleigh, which probably has more Yankees than natives.

talking about salary is taboo a lot of places, and it probably plays to employers' benefit

Some employers in the UK try and make you agree not to discuss your salary with co-workers. Somehow being diddled always seems much worse to me when I'm forced to be complicit with it, and I tend to view this as an end-of-interview situation.

Peter

Off Yahoo's front page:

Regulator criticizes SUVs on safety front

Timely to this topic.

I pretty much talk at will about expenses, though not income. People seem initially uncomfortable with such conversations, but eventually get over, making the conversation much easier. It's not that I try to compare or brag, but when I try to tell someone about a story or gripe which involves a purchase I find myself talking around things if I don't just give figures. Of course, I generally don't buy things like the $5,000 watch that would make people feel uncomfortable. Usually it's: "look what a great deal I got!" kind of thing.

I must admit I probably wouldn't have told anybody what I paid for my Empeg if I had paid what it's really worth. That would make people who don't "get it" uncomfortable for sure. Then again, I tell them now what I should have paid for it. . .

I've actually turned down work because I thought the NDAs were excessive, and because the terms would have precluded something more interesting down the road. I'm under a mostly-uninteresting NDA now with my side job. When I say that, I mean the people pay me to fix problems they have and contribute them back into the open source software they're using. So I can't disclose the problems, but if you look at the fixes I suppose you can figure them out for yourself

As to my day job, I tell my coworkers what I get. I've been here longer than all of them, but I'm unmotivated to leave, so I could probably get more if I played like I was.

Yeah interesting I like these quote:

In reply to:

---

''Not all SUVs are created equal, and I would urge people not to just take what salesmen have to tell them about safety features, but to do their own research,'' he (NHSTA's Administrator Runge) said.

As for himself, Runge said he wouldn't drive an SUV that scored fewer than three stars in NHTSA's five-star rollover rating

More than 30, or about one-third, of the 2002 SUVs tested by the agency earned just one or two stars, including the top-selling SUV, Ford Explorer, and other popular models such as Chevrolet Tahoe, Toyota 4Runner, Nissan Xterra and Mitsubishi Montero

---

And then this bit is is interesting too:

In reply to:

---

Automakers don't like NHTSA's rollover ratings, derived from a mathematical equation based on wheel width and center of gravity.


''We don't agree that the current static stability method is a good one,'' Ford spokeswoman Sara Tatchio said.


''It doesn't take into consideration stability control technology that greatly affects driving performance.''


''NHTSA's current test doesn't factor in enhancements we make to suspensions, tire size and other handling features we put into our vehicles,'' General Motors spokesman Jim Schell said.


NHTSA is developing a test for rollover tendency based on driving maneuvers done on a track. A final standard for that test is expected this year. Meanwhile, the current rating method ''accurately predicts rollover behavior of SUVs in real-world driving,'' NHTSA spokesman Tim Hurd said

---

Where the Automakers say the test used by the NHTSA doesn't accurately predict rollover behaviour in newer SUVs and the NHSTA says "oh yes it does".

So, who do you believe - since the NHSTAs model seems to be accurate (according to them) for predicting past SUVs rollover behaviour, its probably a good predictor for current SUV models on the road.

Whether it accurate for future SUVs with all the handling control stuff that Detroit has finally put in there, who knows, but I guess thats why the NHSTA is implementing the newer testing model performed on a track to be finalised this year - and you can bet that there will be something about this testing procedure that Detroit won't like either - giving them more excuses to not change things for the better in the meantime.

I don't know about you, but I don't plan to roll over my vehicle any time soon. Barring rare unforeseen circumstances, such a tire blowout while going 70+ mph, I believe I am a good enough driver to avoid it.

That rollover rating is based upon two numbers (center of mass and wheelbase). Those are the two most important figures in determining whether a vehicle will roll over, but are they the only ones? These new handling devices are designed to prevent rollovers, so either they are frauds or they are not being taken into consideration.

The problem is that rollovers are even more dangerous in an SUV than in a ``regular'' car because the center of gravity is so much lower. This means that when a rollover occurs, the center of gravity is much higher, which means that the cabin gets driven into the ground with a much greater force than in a ``regular'' car, causing much greater upper-body injuries.

No one (except Evel Kneivel, et al.) intend to flip their cars. Yet it still occurs.

Of course, this is not to say that the NHSTA's methods are perfect, but, still, any increased chance of rollover is that much more chance of death or severe head injury.

Given that the NHSTA says that their current "mathematical model" accurately predicts rollovers I'd have to say that they probably have something right.
and the NHSTA is obviously correlating actual SUV rollovers statistics with predicted by their model statistics and saying the two agree pretty well.
So the NHSTA is in effect saying, regardless of what the current safety features on the existing SUVs say should or should not happen, actual driving experience tracks with our predictions.

I recall fo many years in the 90s that Detroit denied that their SUVs were more likey to rollover or be no more dangerous than other vehicles (e.g. cars) on the road.
I also recall that Detroit said that the (then) anti-rollover safety measures in their SUVs were effective and safe.

Statistics since then show otherwise - otherwise why is Detroit putting all these new safety features in their SUVs if the current safety features are "good enough"?

Those newer features may help prevent rollovers, but the proof of the pudding is in the actual driving statistics of SUV rollovers with new models with all the new features. And only for newer SUVs - the older SUV models without them will of course remain dangerous until they are scrapped.

Which is why the NHSTA is finalising a track test to simulate actual driving conditions SUVs and drivers face.

Only then will the truth or otherwise of Detroits claims to the effectiveness of the new features be known.

Nobody is going to flip their vehicle, no matter what kind, unless:

a) They are a bad driver and don't know how to handle their vehicle.

b) Someone else causes the wreck.

c) Some freak circumstance occurs and it is the will of God.


Many people who get in major wrecks that are their own fault end up wrecking many cars in their lifetime and would wreck just about anything on wheels. I used to own a Ford Bronco (which I couldn't have flipped if I tried) and I used to drive a Ford Explorer, but I'd know when I'm driving that Explorer that it's not going to handle like my mom's Taurus and I'm not going to be able to manuveur (spelling?) it like a car, so I handle it with a little more respect, and maybe I'll brake a little bit more in the turns or slow down a little more when it's wet. If someone doesn't think they can handle driving an SUV, then they shouldn't drive one. Same applies to other cars, motorcycles, planes, etc.

I'm sure if there was a study on the likelyhood of a bicycle crashing vs. a tricycle crashing, then the tricycle would be deemed the safer ride. And if there was a study to see if riding a tricycle was more perilous then walking, I'm sure it would show that walking would be much safer. And if there was a study to see if walking was inherently more dangerous than sitting down in a padded chair in a locked room..... I don't think the answer is to ban tricycles, bicycles, or SUV's. I think some people should be more competent when they are handling a 3000 lb vehicle. So instead of being anti-SUV, I guess I would be anti-bad-drivers.

In reply to:

---

Nobody is going to flip their vehicle, no matter what kind, unless:

a) They are a bad driver and don't know how to handle their vehicle.

b) Someone else causes the wreck.

c) Some freak circumstance occurs and it is the will of God.


Many people who get in major wrecks that are their own fault end up wrecking many cars in their lifetime and would wreck just about anything on wheels. I used to own a Ford Bronco (which I couldn't have flipped if I tried) and I used to drive a Ford Explorer, but I'd know when I'm driving that Explorer that it's not going to handle like my mom's Taurus and I'm not going to be able to manuveur (spelling?) it like a car, so I handle it with a little more respect, and maybe I'll brake a little bit more in the turns or slow down a little more when it's wet. If someone doesn't think they can handle driving an SUV, then they shouldn't drive one. Same applies to other cars, motorcycles, planes, etc.

---

Sure, but your first 2 points merely restate what Detroit used to say in the 50's and 60's about car safety - i.e. its the nut(s) behind the wheels fault in every case and we cannot be expected to produce cars that don't crash or kill people due to this. [or words to that effect].

To which the reply from the politicians and judges of the day [after a few court cases from Nader et al], was "you damn well will engineer safety into your vehicles even if it costs a little more and we expect you to build safety in from day one from now on"

Still Detroit didn't learn too fast:

The lawsuits over the Pinto and other cars of the 70s and 80's were not for nothing - in those cases, the folks in a Pintos would get incinerated through no fault of their own if they got rear ended due to the placement of the fuel tank right near the rear of the vehicle - inches from any impact point in a rear-ender.

There was a similar situation/design issue with a Lockheed plane in the late 50's I believe, that had the undercarriage retraction lever near the control stick/column, and in a position which could be easily knocked accidentally, now when the plane was in the air, who cared, but while the plane was on the ground, that would be a problem as there was no interlock to stop the undercarriage being retracted on the ground so if the lever was knocked while on the ground, sure enough the wheels fold up and the plane goes onto its belly causing lots of damage in the process.

Now the FAA and the Airlines didn't like this "no safety" design, and asked Lockheed to fix it, eventually Lockheed hmm'ed and looked into it and in the end the Lockheed fix for the problem was to simply stuck a small sign on the cockpit near the lever that said "Do not retract undercarriage while plane is on runway".

Now, given that the pilots of the day were no doubt very highly skilled people who were trained not to make mistakes, yet they managed to damage a few planes with a simple unprotected retraction lever.

So if a highly skilled and trained plane pilot makes mistakes, then drivers - no matter how skilled - have no chance of never making one, and in the case where you're driving a SUV and make a mistake (or someone else makes one for you), you can end up in a roll over that had you been driving a non-SUV vehcile may not have rolled.

In reply to:

---

... don't think the answer is to ban tricycles, bicycles, or SUV's. I think some people should be more competent when they are handling a 3000 lb vehicle. So instead of being anti-SUV, I guess I would be anti-bad-drivers.

---

Problem is that right now, with 25% of the new cars sold being SUVs, I see a lot of people buying or using them, who are doing so without proper driving skills being taught or required.

Sure, maybe 5 or 10 or even 15% of those SUVs are sold to people who know how to drive them and take care to drive within its and their limits.

But the other 80+% don't.

The issue is:

Is it the fault of the car (and by extension, the maker) that those 80+% can't drive them properly becuase they are so badly/differently engineered to start with, or is it the fault of the 80+% people who don't bother upgrading their skills to know how to drive their SUV properly?

See, any reasonable person would expect that if a SUV was this much harder/different to drive than a car, then the US lawmakers would require a different type of driving license or training to drive one.

But thats not the message that Detroit puts across - they say "anyone can drive a SUV safely" - they do that in all sorts of non-explicit ways, not least in the way they advertise them and where and how they show them being used.

I don't know about the US, but I need different license to drive a Motorcycle, a Car, a bus, a taxi, a heavy vehicle over 2.5 tons, a vehicle with tracks instead of tyres, a vehicle over 5 tons, a vehicle with more than 18 wheels, a vehicle with a cab and trailer combination, a vehicle with more than a cab and one trailer combination etc.

Thats not simply bureauracy gone mad, its simply because all of these require different skills or safety precautions and need specialist training that the average "car driver" just doesn't have/get from driving a car around.


So, if you are saying "its really only bad drivers" not bad SUVs - I can't agree - there is a line between making products that anyone can use safely, and making products that are unsafe at any speed without proper training but not telling anyone that.

I think SUVs are in the latter class of vehicles, and no-one in Detroit wants to admit that and lawmakers seem unwilling to address it either with stricter licensing rules.

17. An automobile engine produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas it burns, or about 1 pound per mile.

I don't dispute this, but am curious to know how it happens. A gallon of gasoline weighs a bit over six pounds. It seems like a stretch to generate 20 pounds of CO2 (along with all the nitrogen oxide, all the hydrogen compounds, and the considerable weight of water) from that six pounds of gasoline.

18. A hybrid car produces less than one half pound of CO2 per mile.

Here's proof that statistics don't lie, but people lie with statistics. Notice the careful juxtaposition of the two statements: "An automobile engine produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas...", and "A hybrid car produces less than one half pound of CO2 per mile." Wow! The hybrid car only produces one-fortieth the amount of pollution!

Wait a minute -- the first statement is pollution per gallon, the second statement is pollution per mile. Take a car getting 30 MPG, and it is producing 2/3 pound of CO2 per mile -- not that different from the hybrid. Keep in mind that even a hybrid car uses "...an automobile engine [that] produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas...". It just gets more miles per gallon.

Another factor to consider in all of this... the EPA does not rate vehicular pollution on the basis of amount of pollution per gallon of fuel burned, but instead on amount of pollution generated per mile traveled, regardless of amount of fuel consumed. This applies to automobiles, trucks may be different.

tanstaafl.

In reply to:

---

So how much pollution are SUVs really pumping out? Is it the 6x figure which seems absolutely incredible? Which kinds of pollution are most important and how do SUVs stack up with those?

---

The 6 times figure is probably gained from comparing the emission of Nitrous Oxides (NOX) compounds - a modern car will emit something like .2 grams per kilometer driven, wheras the average SUV starts at 1.2 grams per km and goes up.

(1.2 / .2 = 6 times)

I think the measurements are grams and kilometres.

NOX is one of the pollutants that causes smogs, and respitory diseases, Asthma and other conditions, as well contributing to acid rain.


Anyway, yes SUVs can and do emit 6 times (or more) the pollution levels of other modern vehicles - no-one disputes that fact.

I have a copy of the ChryslerDaimler Environmental report for 2002 at home I can get some figures from if you really want to know - but comparing the European car pollution figures with the US car figures make for very sobering reading as to how far behind the US car makers are in this area.

And as Chrysler don't make SUVs these are the "better looking" i.e. lower US car pollution figures than say Ford or GM pollution figures would be in comparison.

But I've yet to see the figures for GM or Ford vehicles - probably these aren't published very widely, for good reason.

Also there are some (possibly like yourself) who simply don't care about how "cool" a vehicle is.

Also keep in mind that people's definitions of "coolness" will vary considerably. The Rice Boy with his chromed, be-winged CRX with the six inch diameter exhaust piple thinks his car is really cool. The guy driving the monster-size Hummer with the blacked out trim and the knobbly tires thinks his car is the ultimate in cool, and laughs at the Rice Boy who in turn is laughing at him. I think my absolutely stock-appearing ShoWagon is cooler than anybody else's car on this bbs -- even though I know the great majority of you are laughing at me for thinking so.

Buying a car for the "coolness" factor is not necessarily a bad thing.

tanstaafl.

In reply to:

---

Another factor to consider in all of this... the EPA does not rate vehicular pollution on the basis of amount of pollution per gallon of fuel burned, but instead on amount of pollution generated per mile traveled, regardless of amount of fuel consumed. This applies to automobiles, trucks may be different.

---

Light Trucks (ie. SUVS) are different - they don't have to meet the rules that cars do - they are exempt from most pollution reduction laws and I am not sure if they even have to publish their pollution figures at all.

This is due to a historical situation in that years ago, before SUVs existed light trucks made up such a small %age of the US vehicle fleet and were used mainly for commercial purposes that congress exempted them from having to meet tough anti-pollution laws aimed at reducing the average level of pollution emitted from the US vehicle fleet.
The carmakers saw this loophole (which they helped engineer anyway) and immediately got SUV's classified as light trucks and here we are today, SUVs are now 25% and growing as a percentage of all new vehicles sold and the average MPG figures for the US vehicle fleet is declining thanks to SUVs and the levels of pollution (average) is no doubt the same or worse due to the lack of pollution controls on SUVs.

Blast! I helped dismantle the gas-guzzling argument, only to start people on a worse one!

The true solution to travel related environmental damage is to cut down on travel, which most of us could do easily. The problem is there are a lot of people like me who love to drive big gas guzzling cars just for fun, or to jump on a jet when we could as easily video conference or vacation nearer home. There may come a time when we (or more likely our grandchildren) have to be denied some basic rights in order to maintain our civilisations.

Rob

There may come a time when we (or more likely our grandchildren) have to be denied some basic rights in order to maintain our civilisations.

Not til they pull my big ol' gas-guzzler from my cold dead hand

You're right though, if we don't adjust our lifestyle mother earth will do it for us (a little chilling)

I take it from your first post above that you don't intend to give up your SUV anytime soon to help ol' Mother Earth out a bit?

Is force the alternative?

I still feel these commercials are aimed at inciting people who already hate SUVs rather than educating current owners.

-Biscuits

Who said you'd dismantled the Gas Guzzling argument?

As far as I can tell, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, SUVs get abominable mileage (MPG) - far below most regular cars, and even in some case as bad, or worse than the old gas guzzlers of the 60's and early 70's.

How is this dismantling the "Gas Guzzling" nature of SUVs from the arguments about SUVs?

The only thing that makes those things even half affordable to run is the very low gas prices you pay - probably due to lack of taxes on gas sales, but there are other factors in there as well [like current US energy policy and lack of concern about doing anything practical about tackling global warming by reducing US CO2 emissions].

Previous graphs showed in this thread that the US uses twice the level of oil per capita than the rest of the industrialised world does.

Most of that extra usage I'd bet comes from the booming market for SUVs.

Also, if SUV's are not gas guzzling, then how come the average MPG of the total US vehicle fleet is actually decreasing (getting worse) and has been doing that for the last 15-20 years (about the time the SUV craze took off), and is now nearly at the same point it was in the early 70's, when 30+ years of fuel efficient technology and millions of efficient cars and big trucks have been made and sold in that time - and all the old gas guzzlers from the 60's and 70's have mostly been retired or scrapped?

The only candiate vehicle to explain this downward trend, I can see is the (rise in) SUV.

Remember this figure is an *average* (the sum of the mileage driven divided by amount of gas used divided by the count of vehicles on the road gives an average MPG).

The only way this average can get worse over time is if new vehicles have worse mileage than the older vehicles they are replacing and thats true even if the old cars they replace are kept on the road.

And of course, the MPG is merely a scapegoat for the pollution that these things emit, which in some cases is not easy to find out what the levels of pollution SUVs emit - or get anyone to make them less polluting as SUVs are exempt from any clean air and pollution reduction requirements other cars have to meet.

Hehe, I was wondering how long before somebody picked up on that and challenged me.

My point was that gas mileage is largely irrelevant. We are not short of oil currently, nor will we be in the near future. The gas an SUV buyer comes out of his own pocket.

The only way gas mileage is important is in how much extra pollutions is caused by that gas burning.

-Biscuits

I've never seen the commcerials you refer to, but I've seen corporate sponsered "pro" campaigns for all sorts of things in the US in the past and I doubt that these commercials are any worse - if they were, then presumably someone would be suing them for saying misleading things right?


Maybe that they are preaching to the converted - but its certainly got a few people talking about it, which can't be a bad thing long term.

And if Detroit gets some idea of the anti-SUV feeling out there, they might modify their behaviour a little.

But the longer term change can only come from Politicians and lawmakers actually forcing Detroit to act - and by SUV buyers deciding not to replace their current 1,2 or 3 SUVs with newer more polluting models or hopefully convincing non-SUV owners not to buy one in the first place and these are things which a grass roots campaign like this might help bring about.

In reply to:

---

We are not short of oil currently, nor will we be in the near future

---

Well you might think that way, but I don't think your government, or other governments around the world think that way now.

In reply to:

---

The gas an SUV buyer comes out of his own pocket.

---

True, but as has been pointed out earlier - the true cost of allowing you [and your fellow SUV drivers] to burn that fuel inefficiently and as a consequence polluting the entire planet for your personal gratification is something we all have to bear.

Personally, I'd much rather that I don't have to bear those costs from your or any other SUV drivers activities - but I know full well that we all will, whether directly or indirectly, whether we want to or not.

We will all pay directly as our insurance premiums rise to cover the cost of damage caused to property from increased extreme natural events like more frequent hurricanes, tornados, snow storms etc around the planet due in part to global warming from burning fossil fuels.

This is in the same way that everyone around around the world will ultimately end up paying for the costs of 9/11 through increased insurance premiums on everything thats insured as insurance companies claw back the money they had to spend for 9/11 payouts, or through reduced cover for the same premium.

We will also pay long term as parts the planet become uninhabitable either due to sea levels rising by up to 5 metres over the next 100 years (as the Antarctic ice sheet melts into the sea and the oceans expand as they warm up) or due to permanent climate change rendering currently habitable zones on the planet, uninhabitable, requiring more people to be fitted into smaller areas, or through more intangible things, like the loss of biodiversity etc.

Eventually these activities are all hastening our own demise as individuals and as a species.

We have to all start somewhere, and getting most SUVs replaced with more efficient vehicles would be a good start, and short of preventing the 1.2 billion people in China from developing as an industrialised nation, it would be one of the biggest positive steps for the entire planet anyone can do,
and all it needs is 12.5 million people to not buy a current inefficient SUV next year, and the years after that until Detroit wises up and make fuel efficient models that pollute no more than the regular "big cars" do now.

Those sound like pollution concerns to me. Am I wrong? You don't say anything about how it is worse for you if I burn 28 gallons of gas instead of 21. What is worse for you is if I pump out 6 units of pollution instead of one, correct?

Why are we arguing about miles per gallon when all that matters is pollution per mile?

-Biscuits

Well as has been pointed out before, Oil is a very valuable source of all sorts of raw materials used for all sorts of industrial and consumer products (like raw materials for plastics, dyes & paints to name a few), that are not easy to get from other sources currently.

If you take more oil from the ground to burn it in your SUV, then you have "wasted" more of our collective resource of valuable petrochemical feedstock - whether that oil comes from US reserves or some terrorist run oil well in the Middle East has little bearing on the matter.

So, yes not wasting valuable oil is important to us all. And its especially to not waste the high quality oils that we use to run our cars on as these have the compounds in them that are most valuable and they are a finite resource.
Oil is pretty much like coal, it comes in varying quality and the best quality coals are very valuable and are in short supply, relative to the vast quantities of lower quality (and sulphur laden) coal out there.

Yes, the pollution from a SUV is currently a major problem and so is using oil to run inefficient petrol engines - regardless of the levels of pollution emitted from doing so.

When hybrid and fuel cell cars and power sources are available, they will be able to extract far more of the energy directly out of the oil than the current big banger air-breathing internal combustion engine in your SUV does now.

And it will do this while reducing pollution and wastage.

So by not wasting the oil now we:

(a) keep a valuable and scarce resource in reserve

(b) don't have to deal with the pollutants that burning it would generate - and dealing with those pollutants takes more energy again.

and

(c) and your country is less likely to be held to ransom by future Oil Shocks.

And eventually when we collectively don't need oil, we can chose whether or not to let the factions in the Middle East fight it out "to the death" in the deserts of the Middle East without having to care much one way or the other about the outcome.

I suppose I get the sense (perhaps wrongly) that you think only utilitarian criteria should be used in assessing a purchase

Well, I'd say that I'm coming across as I am, because most people aren't putting enough emphasis on utilitarian criteria. Sorry if I have come across so abrasively

If it helps, my decision was also affected by coolness. After I chose that I wanted a minivan, it was between the Nissan Quest and the Odyssey. Due to several reasons (terrifying handling, shoddy build quality, the fact that it's a Nissan), I went with the Odyssey. I think I was only thinking about the Quest because I hadn't driven an Odyssey yet (they were too popular at the time). I picked it because it drove beautifully, was the first minivan to not look either boxy or bubbly, had power sliding doors, and a nav system. Of course, people have to ride in one to discover all but one of those "cool" factors

I'll end my involvement with this paraphrase from a GTA3 radio commercial:
"I'm a marketing exec. I live alone and drive to work on the highway. So of course I need a car that seats 12 and is equiped to drive across arctic tundra." Ah, the Zaibutsu Monstrosity

Umm.. 'Give up'.. so all SUV owners should have their vehicles turned into scrap metal and purchase new cars?

Well yes, unless you want them to be destroyed for you, like the PETA people and fur coats.

Sure, I'd love for the PETA people to be destroyed.

So you're calling for people to go out and destroy other people's SUVs? (I assume that incldues all trucks too, or do you only care about SUVs?)

In reply to:

---

Umm.. 'Give up'.. so all SUV owners should have their vehicles turned into scrap metal and purchase new cars?

---

Long term yes.

Short term, no.

Things you can do as a current SUV owner are:

1. Don't buy another SUV to replace the one you've got - keep the one you've got and make sure its kept well tuned and maintained and when it needs replacing consider buying a vehicle (yes, even, if you must, another SUV) provided thats it more fuel efficient and documented as less polluting than the one you've got.
If you need a second.third vehicle, don't get a second SUV, get a car or minivan or whatever suits its roll as the second/third car and use it in place of the SUV more often.

2. Contact GM or whomever made your SUV and tell them you won't buy another SUV until its made at as fuel efficient as most cars and proven to be no less safe than a car - and don't just take the dealers word for it, check out the rollover figures on the NHRTA rollover tests and actual track safety test results for yourself.

3. Lobby your congressman to ensure that he/she helps modify current laws to ensure that SUVs are made to comply with similar fuel efficiency laws and pollution emission laws as most cars are. And if they won't help do this, then vote for another candidate next election who will and make sure your congressmen knows this and why you're voting that way.

4. Be considerate when driving your SUV and remember it handles a lot different from the average car, and this includes "cutting some slack" for the car drivers who don't know how different to control or stop your SUV is compared to their car as they pull in front of you. Also remember that most vehicles can't see past or through you.

5. Remember that the kicking the SUV habbit is just one (but a good) way to help cut pollution long term - consider/research and implement ways of doing more than that to really help reduce long term pollution you cause by all your activities. Yes, maybe using less electricity, using the car (whatever type) less or even (shock horror) using public transport or more efficient methods - like car pooling, to travel to/from work if possible and practical in your line of work.
Yeah and maybe buy a Rio Pearl so that you can take your music with you when travelling in other modes of transport :-))

I have a feeling that if SUV's were suddenly all replaced by smaller cars, then the little USA bar on that graph showing how much oil we consume would only come down a fraction of a millimeter, if that. The difference between mpg on cars and SUV's isn't really THAT great. And I don't think it would impact the oil consumption too much. let me do the math. (and somebody please double check it)

I'll use Biscuitjam's figures: that there are 16 million SUV's out of 200 million vehicles. They average 21 mpg, as opposed to the car's average of 28. Let's say the average auto is driven 10,000 miles/year.

16,000,000 x 10,000 = 160,000,000,000 miles/year
160,000,000,000 / 21 = approximately 7.6 billion gallons/year

So SUV's use about 7.6 billion gallons of gas in 1 year. If those SUV's got 28 mpg then...

160,000,000,000 / 28 = approximately 5.7 billion gallons/year

So then they'd only use 5.7 billion gallons of gas in one year instead of 7.6. That is a difference of 1.9 billion gallons of gas. According to discover.com, typically 19 gallons of gasoline can be produced from 1 barrel of oil. So...

1,900,000,000 / 19 = 100,000,000

So 100 million barrels of oil would be saved each year if all SUV's in the US got 28 mpg instead of 21. That sounds like a lot. It sounds like a lot until you look at that graph that someone posted above and see that the US uses 300 million barrels a day.

EDIT: I actually meant 900 million barrels a day, but that seems to be incorrect. see my next two posts. It should be more like 20 million/day.

Yes, maybe using less electricity, using the car (whatever type) less or even (shock horror) using public transport or more efficient methods - like car pooling, to travel to/from work if possible and practical in your line of work.

Of course we as a country haven't exactly done a good job providing transit service. I bought my house expecting to change jobs but knowing it was a one bus ride to my office. That was only just over 7 years ago. Service has been cut considerably in that time. It takes about an hour for me to walk to the bus and then ride it to my office, assuming it leaves on time. That's non-rush, I never go inbound during rush, or outbound if avoidable.

Since I'm at the end of the line I get a seat inbound. If I go outbound often I don't get a seat until more than 2/3 of the way home. That means that it's not really more productive than driving, because it takes longer and I don't get to work anyhow. If I had it to do over again, I'd get a house close to work, but I don't want to move. Moving sucks.

There's a "maglev" proposal which is supposed to pass nearby on the way to downtown Pittsburgh, but it will stop neither close to here nor to my office, which is closer to me by several miles than downtown. There is a transit expressway which is actually being extended further out from the city right now, but the bus which ran from near here to the exit from that expressway which is near my office was discontinued in 1989 or so. So basically, because I don't work downtown, but instead in the area that is the 3rd largest transit trip generator in the state, or was last I checked (Center City Philadelphia, Downtown Pittsburgh, Oakland, in that order) I stand basically not a chance of seeing service improvements any time soon, and instead the service runs infrequently during non-rush, and more frequently but not "frequent" during rush. I seriously want a real transit system. I'm still hoping to pull off a 6 month sabbatical in Stockholm next year, at least in small part because their transit system (though the subway now shuts down overnight) is useful.

After I got job #2 I started driving to Oakland when I don't work from home. When I go back to having one job, I will probably go back to taking the bus every day and wasting twice as much time going back and forth as I do driving.

There may be hope. Pennsylvania will probably get a former executive director of the body which operates Pittsburgh's transit system as the next Secretary of Transportation, But I'll probably have a Pearl long before I'll have a commute short enough to want to use it on.

Looking at those graphs again, it looks like the 1st one and the 3rd one say different things. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like the first one is saying North America uses 20 million barrels a day, and the 2nd graph is saying the US uses almost 900 million barrels per day.

OK, the first graph is in barrels and the 2nd one is in gallons. duh.


So SUV's getting 28 mpg instead of 21 mpg would save us 100 million barrels of oil per year, or about 5 days worth of oil (if all my figures are correct). That is more than I expected.

Don't forget that 12.5 million SUVs are made each year - of the 50 million vehicles made (and presumably sold), 25% are SUVs.
so, the 16 million SUVs on the road is probably on the low side by 50% too low.

I think I saw figures mentioned earlier of 67 million "light trucks" of which SUVs are in that category, so lets assume given 15 years of SUV sales, that only half of the 67 million light trucks are SUVs, that makes your 16 million SUVs double to 32 million or more SUVs on the road.

Now that effectively doubles your "improvement" of 5 days of oil saved a year to 10 days a year if every SUV did 28MPG.

And when every SUV is able to do 40MPG like a lot of modern non-hybrid cars available now, then you're talking nearly a 3 fold improvement on those figures again (40-21 = 19 MPG better per gallon which is nearly 3 times your 7MPG improvementfrom your original figures of 7MPG better = 5 days worth of oil saved]

And when the Hybrid SUVs come out, with 50-70 or more MPG then you're really getting somewhere.

At that level you're talking about a situation where the US would be close to or past not having to import oil to meet its oil usage requirements.

I don't dispute this, but am curious to know how it happens. A gallon of gasoline weighs a bit over six pounds. It seems like a stretch to generate 20 pounds of CO2 (along with all the nitrogen oxide, all the hydrogen compounds, and the considerable weight of water) from that six pounds of gasoline.

Ah, but only the 'C' (one carbon atom) in CO2 comes from the fuel. The 'O2' (two oxygen atoms) come from the atmosphere. As a carbon atom only weighs 3/4 as much as an oxygen atom, only 3/(3+4+4) or 3/11 of the mass of CO2 produced, comes from the fuel. So 20lb of CO2 comes from 3/11 *20 or 5.45lb of carbon.

And gasoline is mostly (by weight) carbon: I'm not sure which hydrocarbons gasoline contains but let's assume it's mainly octane, C8H18. Hydrogen atoms only weigh 1/12 as much as carbon atoms, so they only make up 18/(18+12*8) or 18/114 or 3/19 of the weight of octane -- the carbon makes up the other 16/19. So 6lb of gasoline contains 16/19 * 6 or 5.05lb of carbon -- that's not quite enough to produce 20lb of CO2, but it's pretty close, and you did say a gallon was "a bit over" six pounds.

As for the rest, a similar calculation shows that the hydrogen (the other 0.95lb of the 6lb) produces nine times its own weight of water vapour (H2O, in which the oxygen atom weighs sixteen times as much as either of the hydrogen atoms) or 8.53lb of water. Nitrous oxide isn't produced from the fuel at all: the heat of the reaction causes a small amount of atmospheric nitrogen to combine with atmospheric oxygen.

Peter

As soon as something better comes along

Actually you are right. I could be driving something other than an SUV but I don't like the alternatives. As far as mother earth is concerned, my voting record and advocacy for the environment is something I'm proud of. I'm outspoken about many issues concerning pollution and the destruction it's amassed, I'm very angry at the way our government is dismantling the environmental protections that have slowly been built in recent years. I have great and grave concerns for our future. My only disagreement is the targetting of SUVs and SUV drivers as the "evildoers" of our society. SUV and their drivers are being targetted by religious groups, vandals, governemt agencies and others as a scapegoat IMO while SO many other groups of rampant pollutors go unnoticed by the people and press. Most of the energy to educate is being lauched against SUVs. I think the owners factories, strip mines, lubmer companies, etc are sitting back and having a good laugh because there is no focus on them. I get the feeling that campaigning against SUVs allows people to feel like they are doing their part for our environment/future while frankly SUVs are a drop in the bucket of the problems we face.

Yeah, but 5 days is still only 1.4% of our yearly consumption. So while quadrupling that number would put like a 6% dent in the US's yearly consumption, it still isn't a whole lot. We might run out of oil a couple years earlier than we would if we got rid of SUV's (depending on how much we have left). To me personally, I'm not willing to sacrifice SUV's and big engines to conserve a small fraction of the world's oil for when we might run out and might still be dependant on it.

I'm not going to get in this quagmire of an argument about oil waste, pollution, et al. I just think that SUVs are dangerous because they:

• handle very poorly as compared to the cars that people are ``trained'' to drive
• the physics (mostly center of gravity and momentum related issues) involved in accidents means that in an accident, injuries are likely to be more common and more severe for all parties in said accident
• the fact that bumpers on SUVs are closer to being at car-seated head level than at car bumper level means that the severity of injuries for those in the car in a car v. SUV accident are likely to be greater, and
• their physical size means that they obscure traffic to those behind them, making it nearly impossible to predict shifts in traffic flow

handle very poorly as compared to the cars that people are ``trained'' to drive

I kinda fell ot of this thread recently due to the avalanche of responses, but this is one of the best points made so far. People don't drive SUV's like the trucks they are, they drive them like they're driving a car. I guess they think because they have plush interiors and DVD players, it will handle like a nice luxury car.

p = m * v, people.

Thanks, I'm glad someone agrees with me!

that isn't the fault of the SUV. That is a fault of certain drivers.

I don't remember making any argument over whose fault it is.

SUV and their drivers are being targetted by religious groups, vandals, governemt agencies and others as a scapegoat IMO while SO many other groups of rampant pollutors go unnoticed by the people and press.

There's something to that, but bemoaning it probably won't do you any good. SUVs? Well Suburbans certainly have their fans among Columbian drug lords and oil sheiks, but I think SUVs receive so much attention in the U.S. because they are positively emblematic of reckless American disregard - of our unique, neo-isolationist, business-as-usual, $1.50-a-gallon collective mindset.

Other countries have their share of the rampant polluters you cite, but only we in the U.S. (really) have the SUV. So, if you find one of those "I'm Changing the Environment..Ask Me How!" bumperstickers on your SUV, don't be tooooo shocked. Just go find your paint scraper.

Don't get the idea that I'm sort of environmental saint. I burn more than my share of oil recreationally. I have friends that drive a Suburban, but they haul search dogs up logging roads in it, so I grant them the need. Can't imagine ever driving an Excursion or Hummer, myself, though!

I know. I'm just saying.

I haven't jumped into the SUV oil quagmire because I didn't have anything smarter to say than number6 (who had a lot of smart things to say).

Bitt, as usual, puts it better than I could on a few of the things that bother me more directly about SUVs:

* handle very poorly as compared to the cars that people are ``trained'' to drive

And would continue to handle poorly if people were trained to drive SUVs

* the physics (mostly center of gravity and momentum related issues)involved in accidents means that in an accident, injuries are likely to be more common and more severe for all parties in said accident
* the fact that bumpers on SUVs are closer to being at car-seated head level than at car bumper level means that the severity of injuries for those in the car in a car v. SUV accident are likely to be greater, and

Yeah, "My Hummer is safer" ...safer for whom??

* their physical size means that they obscure traffic to those behind them, making it nearly impossible to predict shifts in traffic flow

Ugh. Leading to the "can't-beat-em-join-em" SUV debacle.

Three-four years ago I watched a Suburban crumple a Hyundai in a supermarket parking lot. The diminutive Suburban driver popped her kid in a car seat, got in, checked all her mirrors, put it in reverse, then backed into the Hyundai that had become trapped front and back in that lane and that she couldn't manage to see in her mirrors. About 5-6 cars including the Hyundai honked and honked as the collision unfolded. To no avail. Funny. Sad.

I see the new ad for a bright yellow Hummer being driven through the city by slender, young, freckled redhead. She is just so blissed out. Me? I wanna know who I can strangle.

I see the new ad for a bright yellow Hummer being driven through the city by slender, young, freckled redhead. She is just so blissed out. Me? I wanna know who I can strangle.


Yeah. Slender, young, freckled redheads should stick to giving hummers, not driving them.

<runs for cover>

In reply to:

---

My only disagreement is the targetting of SUVs and SUV drivers as the "evildoers" of our society. SUV and their drivers are being targetted by religious groups, vandals, governemt agencies and others as a scapegoat IMO while SO many other groups of rampant pollutors go unnoticed by the people and press. Most of the energy to educate is being lauched against SUVs. I think the owners factories, strip mines, lubmer companies, etc are sitting back and having a good laugh because there is no focus on them. I get the feeling that campaigning against SUVs allows people to feel like they are doing their part for our environment/future while frankly SUVs are a drop in the bucket of the problems we face.

---

The thing is, that a large chunk of the non-renewable energy the US uses each year goes on making cars/trucks/SUVs go.

A SUV is as you point out only one of the causes of the manyfold problems that the US (and by extension, everyone else) faces with burning fossil fuels.

However the SUV it has become a very obvious and noticeable symbol for some vocal lobby groups - and some not so vocal lobby groups.

Yes, these groups may be misguided to target only SUVs, but we/they have to start somewhere in reducing CO2 emissions and other emissions, and yes, cars & SUVs are not the only sources of those, but they do represent a large chunk of what are considered by some to be "non-essential" or discretionary activities, which can be reduced or redirected without significantly harming the "GDP"/economic output of the US.

And when looking at the area of Vehicular pollution/emissions, SUVs stand head and shoulders over any other vehicle on the road in terms of that, and the numbers are at 25% and growing fast portion of new vehicle sales.

So with that said, the facts would tend to indicate that to fix a large chunk of the current vehicle pollution problem, you have to fix the SUV problem.

And to fix the SUV problem you either have to legislate to make them cleaner - something which your politicians seem unwilling to contemplate, and/or in the meantime/absense of a law change, you re-educate a significant part of the 12.5 million buyers of SUVs to know what to consider when buying one, and maybe they end up buying an alternative - a non-SUV.

That alone would make a big impact on the vehicle emissions "problem", and then you would have to move to other targets elsewhere like in industry etc.

But we are not at that point yet.

The thing is with big issues like Global Warming is that nearly everyone agrees its a problem, but no-one wants to have *their* lives/choices etc affected by the hard decisions that need to be made and implemented by all of us, they want other folks to bear the brunt first. And then you end up with a situation where nothing gets done and the problems get a lot worse, and then eventually everyone has to suffer - some more than others, the side-effects of the "solution".

So, if you don't start somewhere, you don't start at all, but having started its important to keep on changing, not just making one change and then letting it be - that will never work long term.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

* their physical size means that they obscure traffic to those behind them, making it nearly impossible to predict shifts in traffic flow

---

Ugh. Leading to the "can't-beat-em-join-em" SUV debacle.

---

Yeah, but as I recall most SUVs I see around have those dark tinted windows, so even if you are stuck behind one SUV, and you're driving another SUV - and therefore at the same height more or less, you have no better view of the road ahead thanks to those dark windows...

...so the can't beat em join em soultion is not a workable one either.

And when everyone has SUVs - then what?

Which reminds me:

I was behind an Ass-tek the other day, and one thing that I can definitely say about them that's positive is that, while they're large(ish), the rear window comes pretty far down and is not tinted, so you can see through them.

In reply to:

---

So while quadrupling that number would put like a 6% dent in the US's yearly consumption, it still isn't a whole lot

---

It is if that means that the US doesn't need to import that oil from countries like the Middle East.

And if the US didn't have to get any of its oil from there then the whole Middle East can be ignored as far US foreign policy is concerned.
[well maybe except for the nukes that Israel has - but thats a different thread].

And that might save you as a tax payer some $50 billion a year from not having to keep US military personnel in the Middle East Region.

I think thats something you might want to think about/want to bring about right?

Umm, yeah! If we had less oil consumption, we could just stop importing oil from the middle east!

You don't think that the Middle East would still be essential to low oil prices, even if we did cut our demand? It also isn't like we are forced the Middle East to sell us oil. In fact, good ole Saddam keeps trying to secretely sell extra in violation of UN rules.

In reply to:

---

You don't think that the Middle East would still be essential to low oil prices, even if we did cut our demand? It also isn't like we are forced the Middle East to sell us oil. In fact, good ole Saddam keeps trying to secretely sell extra in violation of UN rules

---

The Middle East could get lost if you guys didn't need their oil.

Right now with Middle East Oil its a case of willing seller/willing buyer.

But - Imagine if the willing buyer side of the deal [thats the US] dropped off since you didn't need to import any oil anymore?

Then your government wouldn't need to keep propping up un-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia and that would save you a bundle of taxpayer dollars each year.

15+ years ago, the US didn't need foreign oil supplies, now you have SUVs and the US imports oil from the Middle East.

Re: Saddam, well Saddam is legally allowed, as per the UN agreements, to sell lots of oil - he's just not supposed to use the money he gets to buy guns, air defence systems, scud missles and stuff like that with it.

He's supposed to buy food and medical supplies etc to keep his people from starving to death, but knowing Saddam its unlikely that he is doing that with every dollar he makes from oil.

"15+ years ago, the US didn't need foreign oil supplies, now you have SUVs and the US imports oil from the Middle East"

That is why we weren't involved in the Middle East 15 years ago? I always wondered about that.

-Biscuits

In reply to:

---

That is why we weren't involved in the Middle East 15 years ago? I always wondered about that.

---

Its one of the reasons, but not the only one.

15+ years ago, Iran & Iraq were fighting each other (Saddam versus the Mullas in Iran) and the US was covertly helping Iraq and was also helping Afghanistan beat the Russians - planting the seeds for bin Laden and his ilk to harvest.

The US got involved with the Middle East again in a big way because of the Invasion of Kuwait and countries like Saudi Arabia figured that Sadam would go after them next once he'd annexed Kuwait so they asked Uncle Sam to help out (or Uncle Sam volunteered - can't recall which now).

And, the US has never left since then.

I think he was being snarky. The US has been chin-deep in the Middle East since at least the formation of Israel in the mid-to-late 40s. We've been eyeball deep since '90.

I'm not going to get in this quagmire of an argument about oil waste, pollution, et al. I just think that SUVs are dangerous because they:

handle very poorly as compared to the cars that people are ``trained'' to drive
the physics (mostly center of gravity and momentum related issues) involved in accidents means that in an accident, injuries are likely to be more common and more severe for all parties in said accident
the fact that bumpers on SUVs are closer to being at car-seated head level than at car bumper level means that the severity of injuries for those in the car in a car v. SUV accident are likely to be greater, and
their physical size means that they obscure traffic to those behind them, making it nearly impossible to predict shifts in traffic flow

I think those are legitimate concerns that get lost in the aggresive attack campaigns being launched against SUVs and their owners. I believe a lot of those concerns are addressable without the demise of a very popular segment of vehicles.

And when the Hybrid SUVs come out, with 50-70 or more MPG then you're really getting somewhere.

Well, as long as we're defying the laws of physics let's just power it with an electrostatic anti-gravity diffusion polarization matricizer with inverse capacitance bias modulation rectification and not use any fuel at all!

A six-foot tall, 4WD, 5500 lb, off-road capable vehicle (which would be a pretty average description of a truck wearing the appellation of "SUV") carrying enough engine and battery capacity to give acceptable acceleration is not likely to deliver "50-70 or more MPG".

[tongue-in-cheek]
Hey, I've got it! We equip all the gasoline pumps with a bit of electronics on the fill nozzle that will read the current odometer mileage of the vehicle and what the mileage was the last time the vehicle was refueled, thus determining the miles traveled. The pump will then dispense only as much fuel as the vehicle consumed if it got 25 miles per gallon. Those with more fuel efficient cars would be able to collect fuel "credits" which they could then sell privately (at whatever outrageous price the traffic would bear) to SUV owners.
[/tongue-in-cheek]

tanstaafl.

bumpers on SUVs are closer to being at car-seated head level than at car bumper level

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Do you USians know those metal bars that stick down from the rear end of semi-trailers? You know what those are? They're the equivalent of car bumpers. They're intended to stop cars from underriding the trailer in an accident, and, not to put too fine a point on it, decapitating the car's occupants. (The next time you're driving behind a semi-trailer, look straight ahead parallel to the ground. You should notice that the bottom of the box is right at neck level. It's disconcerting. You'll never intentionally drive behind one again, and you'll keep your distance when forced.)

Considering that, how many of them have you seen that say something along the lines of ``do not use as a step''? How comfortable does it make you that the thing that's supposed to stop your car hurtling down the road at 55 mph isn't rated strongly enough to support the average (okay -- we're talking truckers here -- heavy) man?

Also, how about the fact that it's more-or-less at hood level and not bumper level? I know that my car's hood deflects when I sit on it. So it's probably about the same strength as the bumper itself.

Doesn't sound like too much protection to me.

In reply to:

---

The US has been chin-deep in the Middle East since at least the formation of Israel in the mid-to-late 40s. We've been eyeball deep since '90.

---

Yeah, but before 1990, you weren't armed to the back teeth and didn't have lots of miltary personnel stationed there - they were all in Germany ready for WWIII, and the US interests were being protected by a proxy army of CIA agents who were doing covert arms deals and black ops and training the locals to fight for Uncle Sams interests where it suited US interests at the time.

Before 1990/Kuwait it was officially: "can't you all just along guys, come on, be nice, or the Ruskies will get you."

And we never overthrew any governments or propped up unpopular ones. Not only that, but the Arabs prior to 1990 actually liked us.

Officially, sure. But the CIA was masterminding all sort of covert actions up to and including overthrowing or propping up governments:

1949: Syria
1953: Iran
1963: Iraq
1973: Iraq (failed)
1979: Iran (prop, failed)
1979: Afghanistan

Not to mention the support of Israel (both moral and with arms) during its numerous invasions of other countries.

Regardless of whether or not it was official, it was well known to everyone over there.

Not only that, but the Arabs prior to 1990 actually liked us.

I highly doubt that as we have been an israeli ally for quite some time.

Still with the irony.

In reply to:

---

A six-foot tall, 4WD, 5500 lb, off-road capable vehicle (which would be a pretty average description of a truck wearing the appellation of "SUV") carrying enough engine and battery capacity to give acceptable acceleration is not likely to deliver "50-70 or more MPG".

---

Yeah, but we're not talking about putting a hybrid power train into a current SUV based on a damn truck chassis design.

We're talking about a fundamental redesign so that the Next Generation Hybrid SUV is not simply a whacking great heavy truck chassis overlaid with even more gas guzzling features.

5500LB ain't a light Truck anymore - never was - thats a 2 tonne monster light truck.

Heck even a top of line modern SUV equivalent from Europe won't weigh anywhere near that and it gets decent mileage right now.

And add in regenerative braking, high energy capacity short term battery storage and you can start to get 50+ MPG without too much thought involved.

Yeah maybe it won't go so well off the road, but like Nike trainers never seem to be used for doing any training, its a moot point.

In reply to:

---

Not only that, but the Arabs prior to 1990 actually liked us.

---

Or was it that they hated you less than the Russians?

Here is the Detroit Project's argument, as I see it.

1. Arabs are pissed at us for being involved in the middle east.
2. We need to be involved in the Middle East because we need oil.
3. SUVs use more gasoline than other vehicles

Therefore, Arabs hate us because some people drive SUVs.

Tell me how this isn't designed to make people hate SUV owners?

-Biscuits

We're talking about a fundamental redesign so that the Next Generation Hybrid SUV is not simply a whacking great heavy truck

Okaaaayyy... so why will your "fundamental redesign" be called a "SUV" and not a "Car"?

What defines an SUV? Bigness. Four wheel drive. An upright (tall) body design. Ruggedness (even if it is just the appearance of ruggedness). Power.

None of these things is conducive to economical operation. If you "fundamentally redesign" the vehicle to overcome these shortcomings, you will no longer have an SUV, at least not an SUV as most buyers would define it.

tanstaafl.

None of these things is conducive to economical operation. If you "fundamentally redesign" the vehicle to overcome these shortcomings, you will no longer have an SUV, at least not an SUV as most buyers would define it.

Yeah, what you are left with is commonly known as a minivan and there are a lot of us SUV owners that for one reason or another do not consider them to be appropriate for our lifestyles.

-Mike

yeah...like...my mom drives one

In reply to:

---

What defines an SUV? Bigness. Four wheel drive. An upright (tall) body design. Ruggedness (even if it is just the appearance of ruggedness). Power.

---

In one word?

Marketing

In reply to:

---

None of these things is conducive to economical operation. If you "fundamentally redesign" the vehicle to overcome these shortcomings, you will no longer have an SUV, at least not an SUV as most buyers would define it.

---

None of these things you mention are mutually exclusive with better MPG and lower emissions per mile from any vehicle including a SUV - provided that the findamental design is sound.

As far as power goes there's lots of options besides 3 hundred cubic inch or whatever V8 engines to drive you forward with the same responsiveness.

It could simply be that Detroit simply puts a high-performance Diesel engine under the hood, and couples it with an hybridised drive train so that when the power isn't needed its not burning loads of fuel and when its needed, the diesel kicks in quickly and keeps the rest - the 4WD, the hi body design, the supposed "ruggedness" and yes, even power.

As far as acceleration goes, you won't beat a electric drive train for that - ever been in a modern electric passenger train (the Accela? one is probably the best known US example).

The acceleration is pretty good - not too different than sitting in a high powered carwith the foot being planted - proably better than an average SUV has now.

And of course, with electric drives you get options like regenerative braking so that when you slow down, the energy normally wasted via brakes) in slowing down the vehicle quickly is captured and stored in electric cells so that the next time you need to accelerate - like when the lights change, you can get moving quickly before the engine has to even increase its revs again - its been idling the whole time - that will save lots of fuel and increase your MPG no end.

Maybe one day, we will all have direct conversion fuel cells and that will be a lot better again - no noisy engine under the hood for a start and clean smooth electric traction all the way.

Maybe those vehicles won't be called SUVs - personally whether its called a SUV, Light Truck, LT:NG or whatever doesn't matter - its still a SUV by "nature" and marketing.

In reply to:

---

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Do you USians know those metal bars that stick down from the rear end of semi-trailers? You know what those are? They're the equivalent of car bumpers. They're intended to stop cars from underriding the trailer in an accident, and, not to put too fine a point on it, decapitating the car's occupants. (The next time you're driving behind a semi-trailer, look straight ahead parallel to the ground. You should notice that the bottom of the box is right at neck level. It's disconcerting. You'll never intentionally drive behind one again, and you'll keep your distance when forced.)

Considering that, how many of them have you seen that say something along the lines of ``do not use as a step''? How comfortable does it make you that the thing that's supposed to stop your car hurtling down the road at 55 mph isn't rated strongly enough to support the average (okay -- we're talking truckers here -- heavy) man?

Also, how about the fact that it's more-or-less at hood level and not bumper level? I know that my car's hood deflects when I sit on it. So it's probably about the same strength as the bumper itself.

Doesn't sound like too much protection to me.

---

Yeah, but there are plenty of dangerous things. Personally, I don't want the government to try to protect me from every little hazard in everyday life. It's a waste of money and time, and more restrictions equals less freedom. If someone in a little (lightweight) car can't mange to stop faster than a big heavy tractor-trailer, then maybe they shouldn't be driving at all. People need to use their own common sense instead of expecting the government to do it for them. I will not be surprised if in 20 years there will be a government agency dedicated to wiping citizen's asses for them.

Sidenote:

Here's Dodge's first attempt at a hybrid-SUV:

http://www.theautochannel.com/content/news/press/date/20001024/press029051.html

Haven't heard anything about it lately.

Here's another by Toyota:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/news/112_news39/

Interesting, all of the advantages, with almost none of the disadvantages (except tow capacity). I wonder how much these things cost?

The second article mentions that Ford predicts and extra $3000 for a hybrid Escape.

Do you USians know those metal bars that stick down from the rear end of semi-trailers?

As a good model railroader I know they're ICC bars. The ICC doesn't even exist anymore.

Yeah. Slender, young, freckled redheads should stick to giving hummers, not driving them.

/Jim, taking ten-foot insulated pole and rubber boots out of closet....

/Jim, putting pole and boots back in closet

Every fuel-consuming engine is a problematic powerplant from lawn mowers to Boeing Airliners the focus seems to single out SUVs as the first "layer" to correct. This simply doesn't make sense to me.

It's not being looked at first. I remember when two stroke engines were targeted, and now most motorcycles come with quite a bit of enviormental equipment.

Similarly, boats and jetskis are switching to exclusively 4-stroke models by 2006.

None of these things you mention are mutually exclusive with better MPG and lower emissions per mile from any vehicle

Bigger = heavier.

Taller = more wind drag (and on the highway that's where at least 80% of your fuel goes!)

4WD = more mechanical drive. That's why a 4WD truck will get about 25% less fuel mileage than the identical 2Wd model.

Power = tanstaafl. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Doesn't matter if you're getting the acceleration from the batteries. That energy had to get into those batteries in the first place, and the only place it's coming from is from the engine. Regenerative braking is a nice idea in theory, but it's not ready for prime time yet. Or maybe it is? Doesn't the Honda Insight use it? Don't recall now... But regenerative braking is only advantageous in a stop and go situation. Get that hybrid SUV out on the interestate pushing that "sleek" .65 cd body through the air at 75 MPH and spinning all those axles, constant velocity joints, drive shafts, differentials and transfer cases merrily along -- I don't care if it's a diesel, a hybrid, a gasoline-only, or any combination thereof -- it is going to burn a lot more fuel than an "automobile" (mini-van or station wagon) of comparable capacity.

tanstaafl.

That's why a 4WD truck will get about 25% less fuel mileage than the identical 2Wd model.

I actually just went through all the SUVs on cars.yahoo.com trying to get data to refute biscuitjam's assertion that SUVs get about 21mpg (it's a little high, but not a lot), and I found that that wasn't the case. Usually, the mpg rating only dropped 1-3 mpg when going from 2WD to 4WD. That certainly used to be the case, though, I think, but advancements in 4WD technology has helped in that the two axles don't fight each other nearly as much as they used to, and SUVs seem to have, mostly, picked that technology up from smaller AWD cars. (It's not as if these powertrains are usually designed for off-roading anymore.)

21 miles per gallon is the federally mandated minimum for SUVs versus 28 mpg for cars. I believe these measurements are done in best case situations. Some vehicles are much higher than these standards in best-case, but city mileage is almost always going to be lower.

-Biscuits

Suburbans, for example, get quite a lot less than 21. They get 14/18 for the 1500 models. I cannot find data for the 2500 models anywhere, including on Chevy's web site, and while it couldn't possibly be better, I infer from the fact that it's unavailable that it's quite a bit worse.

I also can't find any data on the Ford Excursion.

Contrary to popular belief, cars get the best gas mileage in the 45 mph range. Highway speeds are greater than that. It is possible that the Suburban gets 18 mpg at highway speeds and still gets 21 under bestcase scenarios. It is also possible that because it is such a heavy bulky vehicle that it is exempt from all regulation.

-Biscuits

*cough* data *cough* Actually it's 55mph..

Depends on the vehicle. I'd have to look it up again to be sure. That website only says that you get better gas mileage at 55 than 70, not that it is the ideal speed.

True.. But please go look it up though.. Something about "contrary to popular belief" and a lack of source...

This might be relevant:
From howstuffworks:
"So, for most cars, the "sweet spot" on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed.

"In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds."
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

Other statistics from How Gas Prices Work on howstuffworks.com:
"The United States consumed an average of 19.5 million barrels of oil per day (bbl/d) in 2000, according to the Department of Energy. Of that, 43 percent was used for motor gasoline.

"1950 - $1.91 per gallon
1955 - $1.85
1960 - $1.79
1965 - $1.68
1970 - $1.59
1975 - $1.80
1980 - $2.59
1985 - $1.90
1990 - $1.51
1995 - $1.28
2001 - $1.66

"Where your costs go:
Distributing and Marketing Costs and Profits: 5%
Taxes: 27%
Refining Costs and Profits: 32%
Crude Oil: 37%

"In California, the state government has set its own reformulated gasoline rules that are stricter than the federally mandated clean-gas laws. This is why Californians pay a higher price for cleaner fuels -- this, plus a local sales-and-use tax of 7.25 percent, an 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal excise tax and an 18-cent-per-gallon state excise tax. California's distance from the refineries located near the Gulf of Mexico can also add to the cost of gasoline if it chooses to obtain gas supplies from those refineries.

"The other area where prices can far exceed the U.S. national average is the Midwest. In 1999, the Midwest region became subject to new reformulated gasoline rules. The Midwest uses a special gasoline that is produced using ethanol instead of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Ethanol is used in the Midwest because of the region's abundance of corn, which is the main raw material used to make ethanol. Few refineries outside the region produce this type of reformulated gasoline, which means there may often be a limited supply of the product. "

I'd recommend reading the whole thing at:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm

Note: MTBE reduces air pollution while poisoning the water.

And another statistic:

"In January 2001 alone, the United States produced an estimated 181 million barrels of crude oil."
http://www.howstuffworks.com/gas-price4.htm

That means we produce about 1/3 of our oil domestically. This is compared to the 17% we get from the entire Middle East.

-Biscuits

While it may cost $3000 more per vehicle, Ford has a solution:

From This Article you linked to.

In reply to:

---

Ford suggests that Uncle Sam pick up part of the bill. Tax credits will "need to be big and long term to drive this market," said GM President Rick Wagoner, as quoted by Dow Jones News Service. "A significant pump priming by the government needs to take place."

Pump away, Uncle Sam. With the federal deficit skyrocketing, Washington needs to get stingy with spending. But promoting hybrids can save us money in years to come.

The government should encourage this. If automakers can sell enough hybrids, the technology will improve and the costs will drop. Then subsidies can be phased out. Hybrids can help boot the imported oil monkey off our back.

---

Given that large tax breaks already exist for buying SUVs, another tax break for buying a more fuel efficient one sounds like a good idea to me, especially as the saving in gas from better mileage will probably return a large chunk of the extra purchase cost over time as well so you actually end up being paid to drive the thing - relative to old model SUVs.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

None of these things you mention are mutually exclusive with better MPG and lower emissions per mile from any vehicle

---

Bigger = heavier.

Taller = more wind drag (and on the highway that's where at least 80% of your fuel goes!)

4WD = more mechanical drive. That's why a 4WD truck will get about 25% less fuel mileage than the identical 2Wd model.

Power = tanstaafl. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

---

You have shown perfectly why SUVs are such gas guzzlers - its like trying to make a brick to fly sideways to get a SUV to move through air at high speed and thats going to take a lot of energy to do it no matter what you try.

The 4WD thng has been proven to be less of a problem now since they use more "car" like 4WD mechanisms, not designed for so much off road work.

And of course with anything, tanstaafl applies, so you can only get out what you put in so to a certain exten you need a decent power plant to make it go.

But it does *not* have to be a honking great 300+-cubic-inch-V8-gas-guzzling-solid-cast-iron-engine-block power plant to do so - the Japs [and Europeans] are doing it now, so Detroit could too if it really wanted - and thats the rub, they don't because they make too much money from selling the old technology crap to be bothered with the new technology crap that they make less money on.

In reply to:

---

Regenerative braking is a nice idea in theory, but it's not ready for prime time yet.

Or maybe it is? Doesn't the Honda Insight use it? Don't recall now
... But regenerative braking is only advantageous in a stop and go situation.

---

Yes, but isn't that *exactly* the sort of environment where 80% of SUVs end up now - stop and go traffic in a urban area and hardly getting over 35 or whatever MPH most of the time?

And stop go urban traffic is where the already abysmal MPG figures really take a hammering and where things like regenerative braking really come into play to help that out.

Yeah maybe RB is not ready for the prime-time yet, but will be by the time Detroit gets around to releasing a Hybrid SUV.

In reply to:

---

Get that hybrid SUV out on the interestate pushing that "sleek" .65 cd body through the air at 75 MPH and spinning all those axles, constant velocity joints, drive shafts, differentials and transfer cases merrily along -- I don't care if it's a diesel, a hybrid, a gasoline-only, or any combination thereof -- it is going to burn a lot more fuel than an "automobile" (mini-van or station wagon) of comparable capacity.

---

Don't disagree, but *when* was the last time you actually saw a SUV doing 75 MPH?

And more to the point, if you did see one doing that speed, I say keep well clear of it, because they must be finding it pretty hard to control at that speed - and if anything goes wrong, rollover or worse here we come.

*when* was the last time you actually saw a SUV doing 75 MPH?"

The speed of traffic in Atlanta is quite often that fast. Not only that, but most SUVs have a top speed of 100+ mph. It isn't like they CAN'T drive that fast.

My Ford Explorer starts to feel a little uncomfortable at around 75 mph, mainly because the wind wants to jerk it around the road.

-Biscuits

Don't disagree, but *when* was the last time you actually saw a SUV doing 75 MPH?

To chime in, I can say that I see SUVs doing 75+ pretty routinely -- in a straight line. They are probably pretty bitchin' at that -- so long as they don't have to execute any sudden avoidance manuevers! Rollovers? I've seen two in the past 6 months inside the city limits. OK, FAIK, they were dead drunk, but they were most definitely TU.

In reply to:

---

The speed of traffic in Atlanta is quite often that fast. Not only that, but most SUVs have a top speed of 100+ mph. It isn't like they CAN'T drive that fast.

My Ford Explorer starts to feel a little uncomfortable at around 75 mph, mainly because the wind wants to jerk it around the road.

---

Hey, I thought you guys had a 55 MPH speed limit - whats this 75+MPH or even 100 MPH stuff?

Yeah, I know some states have unlimited speeds, but I thought it was back country states like Utah that had unlimited speeds, not GA.

Doesn't sound like off-roading kind of activities SUVs are supposed to be used for, unless it on the Salt Flats in Utah for a land speed record attempt.

Yeah, I know, gotta be able to get to the offroad place real quick so we have more time to do the off-roading bit our SUV is designed for right?

In any case, as commonsense will tell you, the faster you go in any vehicle, the more drag you have, so much so that at speeds above 70+ MPH, you spend most (90% or so) of the energy in the fuel just overcoming wind resistance - and the drag goes up exponentially so as you go faster the drag goes up by a higher factor.

And driving any SUV over the "speed limit" they were "tested" to travel at makes a mockery of the minimalist MPG figures (21MPG) that they have to meet in the first place.

At those speeds for long periods of time the MPG figures must be in the low teens or even single digit.

In reply to:

---

Not only that, but most SUVs have a top speed of 100+ mph. It isn't like they CAN'T drive that fast.

My Ford Explorer starts to feel a little uncomfortable at around 75 mph, mainly because the wind wants to jerk it around the road.

---

Doesn't sound to me like SUVs are actually designed to travel at those speeds regardless of what the salesman told you, or the speedo says.

Or the wind buffeting would not be a problem, either that or the vehicle control mechanisms are not really as good as the engine is - and that wouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

A F1 race car or even a top end sports car can go over 200MPH+ consistently and not be "buffeted by wind" - because its designed that way.

In any case, no matter how good a vehicle you think you have, if you hit anything in a vehicle at 60+ MPH, even with airbags and normal seat belts your survivability chances go down dramatically.

And imagine two SUVs hitting head-on at 75+ MPH each - doesn't bear thinking about really. No airbags or seatbelts or truck chassis will save you from that.

They don't test vehicle crash resistance at those sorts of speeds, its much lower - and probably lower than 55MPH even, so who knows what your SUV will do when crashed at those speeds.


To show you what happens at high speeds when wind gets under a vehicle heres a true story...


[and no, *NO* JATO rockets were involved - honest :-) - and its documented - and it really happened]

There was a case over here about 8 years ago where some local top notch racing driver used his racing Porsche to try and set an official landspeed record on a normal road -

- no ones tried since for good reason:

They closed the road and did all the proper & legal things, the ambulance and fire crews were standing by in case anything happened, they even had a helicopter ready to take the injured to hospital as this was out in the country away from the nearest hospitals, in case of a major incident...

...The first pass went well - over 300+kph on the first pass, a bit bumpy in a couple of places but they set the speed record.

But they needed a second pass to make it official:

While they got the car ready for its second run, the wind got up a little bit - not much, just a bit more than on the first run, and this time it was into (or more across the wind) than the previous run - but time was a ticking down and the wind was still there so they had to go again to make it official...

On the second pass to get the record the car was doing over 300+kph again when the wind got under it as it went over a the crest of a small dip in the road and turned it slightly side on to the road - the resulting accident caused the car to rollover about 6 times along/on top of a strong wire fence beside the road - it made a real mess of about 100+ yards of the fence - with solid wooden uprights and massive wooden fenceposts, it demolished the fence completely, and most of the car.

What was left of the car (which was more the central passenger compartment - or whats left of it - came to rest about 150 metres from road in the middle of a field.

- the driver survived - just and after about 9 months or rehab was able to sort of walk again, his left arm was pretty badly damaged (it was a left hand drive Porsche) and his arm got rolled over and crished more than once during the accident - and he was wearing full racing seatbelts with proper roll bars inside the vehicle to protect himself in the event of a rollover/crash.

There is some TV footage of this around - I've seen it a couple of times and wondered how the guy survived - I'm sure he does too.

And this was in a car designed to crash at high speeds and survive - it had all the right crumple zones and proper rollcage and stuff - and yet the guy got very, very badly injured.

The speed limit within city limits of Atlanta is 55 mph. The speed that traffic moves (excluding rush hour) ranges from 70 to 80 mph. At one time, the average traffic flow was close to 90 mph, but it has come down a little since then. If you are going 65, you are a severe traffic hazard. Don't even think about driving the speed limit! People who are not used to 8 extremely narrow lanes of heavy traffic going 70-80 mph can become extremely agitated. I don't drive in Atlanta unless I have to.

-Biscuits

Given that large tax breaks already exist for buying SUVs, another tax break for buying a more fuel efficient one sounds like a good idea to me, especially as the saving in gas from better mileage will probably return a large chunk of the extra purchase cost over time as well so you actually end up being paid to drive the thing - relative to old model SUVs.

Not only that but I think it would give the car manufacturers more incentive to try new technologies. Once a new "breed" of SUV hits the market there will be a fairly rapid evolution resulting in better & better designs. One danger is public backlash from poor designs that come with many major problems (unreliable trucks/cars that turn people off).

In reply to:

---

Not only that but I think it would give the car manufacturers more incentive to try new technologies.

---

Hey, I thought that was the job of competition in a free marketplace - not the US government.

Obviously I'm in the wrong universe as obviously the big protector of the "free market" everywhere concept has trouble making the playing field level for all comers, and the incumbants expect tax breaks to beat their competition.

Wait, yep just checked my gauges, we are in the wrong universe - this is the one where they still make SUVs that only get 21MPG.



Detroit should be innovating as the "right" way to beat the competition, and not just only when they can put their hand out to Congress for some more tax payer dollars money to make it so.

The universe I'm talking about is the universe of reality. Car manufacturers are racking in big bucks in SUV purchases and are not going to suddenly have an epiphany, drop the production of current SUVs, return all of their year-end bonuses after realizing their failure in advancing future technologies. Something is better than nothing IMO. I can fantasize about the world I'd like to live in but wake up everday in the world I do live in. Like everything else it's going to take time to deliver better vehicles and will also take time for the public to truely accept them.

In reply to:

---

Car manufacturers are racking in big bucks in SUV purchases and are not going to suddenly have an epiphany, drop the production of current SUVs, return all of their year-end bonuses after realizing their failure in advancing future technologies

---

Yeah, not unless your government has an epiphany of sorts and makes them do it.

The only epiphany I can see that will cause that right now is an election - and thats the end of next year, or maybe the election after that in 2008.

Tax breaks are not bad IMHO - and in any case you will be the one paying for them out of your own taxes.

But it still wrankles - and tax breaks and special cases have a bad habit in the US of becoming "the norm" from then on.
[witness how come the SUV thing came about in the first place - special rules (or no rules) for light trucks].

The current lack of emission and similar rules on SUVs should be changed to make the current SUVs design have a definite "phase out time period" in the next 4-5 years, so that Detroit has to innovate.

Heck, you put a man on the moon in 10 years from practically nothing, how long would you think it would take Detroit to really sort the SUV problem out if they were given the mandate - and maybe some government funds to do so.

The benefits to all mankind could be enormous - and probably of more day to day use than putting men on the moon.
[but maybe not as inspiring I'd admit].

In reply to:

---

I can fantasize about the world I'd like to live in but wake up everday in the world I do live in

---

To quote your president JFK - From a speech delivered by John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United Sates of America to the joint sitting of the Dáil and Seanad on June 28th 1963.

In reply to:

---

George Bernard Shaw, speaking as an Irishman, summed up an approach to life: “Other people”, he said, “see things and . . . say: ‘Why?’ . . . But I dream things that never were—and I say: ‘Why not?’”

---

I think that's a good quote and do believe the true pioneers are those who have asked the question why not? But I think that philosophy goes against the auto manufacturers main focus: immediate bottom line profit. Your right though, govermental regulations could force them to change quicker, but after witnessing the last election I don't think the new powers that be are very interested in regulations protecting the environment or public safety (IMO). As sad as it sounds, I think monetary incentives are the only realistic way of pushing things in that direction.

In reply to:

---

And if Detroit gets some idea of the anti-SUV feeling out there, they might modify their behaviour a little.

---

I doubt it. As long as %25 of Americans are buying these types of cars, they are unlikely to change. What incentive do they have? BTW, %25 if a pretty damn large voting block. I sincerely doubt it is %25 would vote against controlling SUV's and %75 for, since many independants or conservatives would view this a the Govt invading our lives and telling us what we can and cannot due.

21 miles per gallon is the federally mandated minimum for SUVs versus 28 mpg for cars. I believe these measurements are done in best case situations

Actually, I'm pretty sure that they take the average mpg of all of a manufacturer's line of SUV's and that has to be over the minimum. So one model could get 1 mpg as long as another model gets 41 mpg.

Hey, I thought you guys had a 55 MPH speed limit - whats this 75+MPH or even 100 MPH stuff?

The 55MPH speed limit was a federally mandated speed limit in effect from 1974 until 1995. It was determined that it wasn't constitutional for the federal government to mandate speed limits, so they told states that they wouldn't get federal roadway funding unless they made their speed limits a maximum of 55MPH.

Nowadays, most big highways are 65MPH. Some are more, some less: Maximum Posted Speed Limits

However, few people drive at these speeds. They are much too low for almost anyone. Even police cruisers regularly drive 10MPH faster than the speed limit on highways. But you could technically have your driver license revoked for going more than 15MPH over the limit, so we all walk the fine line of not getting too close to a cop who's in a bad mood that day.

Yeah, I know some states have unlimited speeds, but I thought it was back country states like Utah that had unlimited speeds, not GA.

You're thinking of Montana. It's rule was that you could drive at a reasonable speed on interstates (interstates being federally funded highways ultimately intended for military transport and aircraft runways in case of invasion, but the rest of us get to use them for automobile roads until that happens). However, in 1999, that was found to be an illegal law because it was too unclear. It's now 75 in most areas, IIRC.

In reply to:

---

I doubt it. As long as %25 of Americans are buying these types of cars, they are unlikely to change

---

Well that 25% is 25% of US car buyers, not 25% of voting age Americans.

And thats at worst case 12.5 million SUV buyers compared to what, 200+ million registered voters?

About 6% of voters I'd say.

And of course, some SUV buyers would buy more than one SUV so the voters to SUV buyers %age goes down further - yeah and maybe they are a influential lot with the lawmakers.

But in any case and regardless of how influential SUV buyers are with politicians and lawmakers, the best way for Detroit to get a message is through sales (especially declining ones).

If say half (or even 20%) of these SUV buyers switched to buying a model of SUV with better MPG and/or lower emissions (or demonstrably safer for all road users) then Detroit would get the message through sales as most of the SUV sales would either be of non-Detroit SUVs, or of other types of vehicles (non-SUVs).

Thats the best way for the average consumer to force Detroit to do something, especially in the current climate where the politicians are unwilling to change.

And next year you get the chance to make a bigger/longer term difference at the ballot box.

In reply to:

---

...govermental regulations could force them to change quicker, but after witnessing the last election I don't think the new powers that be are very interested in regulations protecting the environment or public safety (IMO)

---

Your fears/concerns are quite justified, and the rest of world agrees with you that the current US administration is paying lots of lip service only to these areas.

A real case of Nero filddling while Rome burns...

For those non-USians who have never been to the States here is an illustration of just how big the SUVs we are talking about can be:



Yes, that is a large Volvo on the left hand side.

Not to mention that in a few months you'll be able to get a V70R and have a sports (estate) sedan on top of it.

Yeah the Excursion is big. Though if I'm not mistaken, I think Ford discontinued them.

Yes, that is a large Volvo on the left hand side.

Andy, interested to know where you found that picture. Is it from Volvo?

A little off-topic (but that's the name of the forum!)... but what about that marijuana comercial with a couple of guys smoking joints in their car while repeatedly going through the drive-thru. After a few rounds, they speed off and run into a little girl on a tricycle.

Okay, that's fine... but what about alcohol? Alcohol slows your reaction time down WAY more than marijuana does. I guess since marijuana is the "enemy" though, it must be worse...

Typical.

And no, I don't smoke pot. I just think it's pretty lame that money has such an influence on how stuff is portrayed on TV, just like the comercials you guys have been talking about.

I don't think Volvo would say something like "less likely to kill or cripple people in the other car." It seems like it's something they would be sued for and it's probably not the best advertising slogan. But I could be wrong.

In reply to:

---

I don't think Volvo would say something like "less likely to kill or cripple people in the other car." It seems like it's something they would be sued for and it's probably not the best advertising slogan. But I could be wrong.

---

They could say that if they could prove it to be true.

I recall in the late 80's after the Tylenol laced with cynanide actually killed some people - some competitors were advertising that "our product won't kill you"
[unlike Tylenol]

So if you can say that in a ad, why not the above?

It came from here:

http://www.gaspig.com/

I think Ford discontinued them.

Maybe, but not quite yet.

It came from here: http://www.gaspig.com/

(Duh, Jim, it's in the page source.)

I was just struck by the Volvo irony since I had just come from being stuck behind one of these: Volvo XC90

It is, of course, "The first SUV with a conscience."

Wonder what that pic would look like with *this* Volvo parked next to its big, black FoMoCo sibling.

Probably about the same, because the XC90 is only actually 3.5 inches longer than the standard station wagon. It is however 11 inches taller.