Is the SUV Age about over?

[MisterCornell]

Most of the automotive "experts" (the weiners who write for the car magazines, and the auto section of business rags) spent the late 1990's proclaiming that the "SUV fad would soon be over". They don't do that anymore, for good reason. Light truck sales have grown every year, and are now ~54% of the new vehicle market. Even though fuel prices have doubled over the past few years, light truck sales have still continued to grow at the expense of sedans.

So to answer your question: No. The SUV "fad" will not be over.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: icepik
It'll be nice when the SUV fad finally wears off. And that's all it is, a fad. The majority of people purchase them for status symbols. Most people have no use for the cargo capacity they provide.

couldn't agree more. my mom's friend just bought a ford (expedition) i think. 1)its american 2)its an SUV
3)its a giant POS 4)the lady on has 2 kids. my family has 5, and we all fit tons of sh!t into a van just fine.

all in all, its just a damn waste.

edit for good note: complacent, you are probably the excpetion more than the rule. you have a legit reason for owning one. i would go to suggest that many/most people do not, like my mom's friend, who is mentioned above. i have no problems with suv's as long as people have a good reason to own them, but most ppl dont.

 

[smoothness]

here's a totally radical point of view: i have a VW Golf. it's fun to cut people off, but sometimes, trucks kill people. especially when you go to school in farm country. so, in order to prevent my dinky city/fake racer car from getting smooshed to smithereens by giant truckers, speeding SUVs, and real sports cars with crazy drivers, i chose a VW SUV. it's like a golf, but...big. and you don't get killed. a car is a car - size determines how much armor you got on ;-). that, or it's american. [if you can't tell, i don't like american cars.]

 

[Ornery]

CAFE carnage: Death by fuel economy standards

• The National Academy of Sciences and The Brookings Institution have each individually found that CAFE standards result in traffic fatalities. New research from the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that CAFE was responsible for 2,500 to 4,400 deaths nationwide in 2000, and that 27 to 47 of those deaths occurred in Oregon. Raising the standard to 40 mpg, as some in Congress want, would kill an estimated 1,100 additional Americans every year, 12 of which would be in Oregon.
  
  More Americans are now buying SUVs and light trucks for safety reasons, particularly in rural areas where travel is more extensive, at higher speeds, and on less safe roads. If passenger cars are subject to stricter CAFE standards, SUVs will become even more popular. Instead of reducing our choices further, Congress should let each of us make responsible decisions about our use of energy and the safety of our families.

Fuel Efficiency Regulations Cost Lives and Money

• The CAFE program was established by Congress in 1975. Current CAFE standards require motor vehicle manufacturers' fleets of cars to average 27.5 miles per gallon of gasoline and their fleets of light trucks (which include minivans and SUVs) to average 20.7 miles per gallon.1 The only affordable way for automakers to meet these standards is to reduce the mass and weight of their vehicles.2
  
  This reduction has had deadly consequences. According to a study by the National Research Council (NRC), reductions in vehicle mass and weight necessary to meet CAFE standards increase the risk of death or serious injury in crashes. The NRC study found that vehicle downsizing and downweighting resulted in between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths and between 13,000 and 26,000 serious injuries in 1993 alone.3 A USA Today report, using data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, estimated that 46,000 people - nearly as many Americans as lost their lives in the Vietnam War - have died since 1975 as a result of the vehicle downsizing and downweighting due to CAFE standards.4

Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased

• The evidence clearly shows that smaller cars have significant disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside the vehicle must absorb. Consequently, the weight and size reductions resulting from the CAFE standards are linked with the 46,000 deaths through 1998 mentioned above, as well as thousands of injuries. It is time that policymakers stop defending the failed CAFE program and start valuing human lives by repealing the standards.

Fuel Efficient But Dead!

• The Dec. 13 news story about the Department of Transportation's proposal to raise fuel economy standards omitted a major point: Downsizing vehicles to meet corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards reduces their crashworthiness.
  
  According to a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, CAFE-induced downsizing contributes to 1,300 to 2,600 vehicle deaths a year. Any move to make CAFE standards even more stringent probably would raise this death toll.
  
  Advocates of higher CAFE standards for sport utility vehicles argue that this would reduce the hazard that SUVs pose in collisions with cars. The evidence for this is far from clear, because assessing the overall safety effects of reducing one vehicle's mass in a multi-car collision is complex. But in single-vehicle accidents, small SUVs are much less safe than large ones. A higher CAFE standard for SUVs would encourage sales of small SUVs.
  
  The Transportation Department skirts this issue in its proposal, but that shouldn't be surprising. A decade ago the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the department, arguing that it had illegally ignored CAFE standards' lethal effects. A federal court agreed, finding that the department's approach was based on "lame claims," "statistical legerdemain" and "bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo." Now the department is doing it again. Even regulatory history, it seems, repeats itself.

CAFE's Three Strikes - It Should be Out

• To improve fuel economy, auto makers primarily reduce the size and power of vehicles. Unfortunately, this downsizing has tragic consequences (See Figure). As far back as 1989, consumer advocate Ralph Nader admitted that "larger cars are safer - there is more bulk to protect the occupant." Numerous studies have proved this point. For example:
  
  Researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that, on average, for every 100 pounds shaved off new cars to meet CAFE standards, between 440 and 780 additional people were killed in auto accidents - or a total of 2,200 to 3,900 lives lost per model year. [See the figure.]
  
  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data indicate that 322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.
  
  Using data from the NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety, USA Today calculated that size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.
  
  Since the laws of physics will not change, requiring all vehicles to be smaller increases everyone's overall risk of death or injury in auto accidents. Insurance data bear this out; occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident.

 

[Ornery]

Real-World Statistics

• ...real-world fatality rates show that large, heavy vehicles offer better occupant protection than smaller, lighter ones.
  
  A research and lobbying group supported by the insurance industry, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, analyzed driver deaths in popular 1997-99 vehicles. It found death rates generally decline as the size and weight of vehicles increases. In each of three main categories--passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport-utility vehicles--the smallest or lightest models had the highest death rates...

The CAFE ?Blood-For-Oil? Policy

• ...a 100 pound weight reduction, a mere fraction of Crandall and Graham?s estimate of CAFE downweighting, would result in a estimated fatality increase of approximately 302 lives...
  
  ...The NAS acknowledges, however, that CAFE standards have, in the past, been applied in a manner which has caused increased fatalities.
  
  In their 2002 report, the NAS emphasized the reliable connection between weight, size, and risk. As the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) summarized, the NAS asserts that the U.S. ?can achieve significant fleet fuel economy increases, without costing lives, by incorporating existing and new technologies over time,? continuing to note that ?the NAS report also demonstrates?that simply adopting arbitrary CAFE increases could cause additional traffic fatalities.? This, the NAS grudgingly admits, has been our historical experience with CAFE standards, the focal point of Crandall and Graham?s 1988 investigation...
  
  ...what is certain is that arbitrary increases in CAFE standards will increase automobile fatalities. Although there are dissenting views on this matter, the majority of existing research suggests a correlation between mass and fatalities, thereby supporting the conclusion that CAFE has cost lives. And for a variety of other reasons, CAFE is not the best course of action in reducing national fuel consumption. Its popularity is borne more out of ignorance and necessity than its effectiveness."

Relationships between Vehicle Size and Fatality Risk in Model Year 1985-93 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 808 570 January 1997

Washington?s War on Sport-Utility Vehicles

• Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year.

Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price.
by Daniel R. Levine

• "Forcing automakers to build vehicles to meet a drastically higher gas mileage standard would cost us more money, limit our choices and endanger our live. Just ask Tim Kauk, whose two-month-old son was left without a mother after the head-on collision of their subcompact car: "Every time you go out in a small car, you're putting your family's safety on the line. The sacrifice is not worth it."

Report says vehicle safety ratings confusing to consumers
From the Journal Sentinel

• "Many consumers likely believe a 4-star compact car protects them in a crash to a similar degree as a 4-star van or (sports) utility (vehicle), when in fact they are significantly more likely to be injured in a crash when occupying the smaller vehicle," wrote author Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group."

Status of Injury and Crashworthiness Consumer Information
TranSafety, Inc

• "Large, heavy cars generally offer more protection to their occupants, with fatalities in lighter vehicles averaging two to three times the fatalities in heavier vehicles. Because of their additional size, larger vehicles allow more "crush space" to absorb impact."

The Issue: Do real-life safety statistics warrant an insurance discount for larger vehicles?

• "State Farm Insurance, the nation's largest underwriter, will begin offering discounts to drivers of safer automobiles. Critics charge that the plan will "legitimize" larger vehicles that pose a danger to smaller cars. But the new policy actually reflects sound risk management."

When Heavy Meets Light

• "...So the statistics show. In 1996, 41,207 people died in traffic accidents, 35,579 of them within their vehicles. Crashes between LTVs and cars resulted in 5,259 fatalities. Of these, 81 percent, or 4,260 fatalities, occurred in the cars. Clearly, the passengers in the larger vehicles came out ahead. But that doesn?t make the LTVs the villains of the piece. Because it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

Safety Pointers for Car Shoppers

• "Larger, heavier vehicles generally are crashworthier than smaller, lighter ones. First, larger vehicles typically have longer crush zones, which helps protect the safety cage in one- and two-vehicle accidents. Plus, the extra weight offers additional safety in two-vehicle crashes -- as the heavier vehicle plows into the lighter one, some of its momentum is transferred to the other vehicle."

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: desy
Ok
straigthened out
Did you check my link earlier link? NA American mini vans statistically are almost the safest vehcicles you can buy. the worst is NA full sized trucks

Make/Model Type - Driver Deaths, Other Deaths, Total
Toyota Avalon
large 40 20 60
Chrysler Town & Country
minivan 31 36 67
Toyota Camry
mid-size 41 29 70
Volkswagen Jetta
subcompact 47 23 70
Ford Windstar
minivan 37 35 72
Nissan Maxima
mid-size 53 26 79
Honda Accord
mid-size 54 27 82
Chevrolet Venture
minivan 51 34 85
Buick Century
mid-size 70 23 93
Subaru Legacy/Outback
compact
74 24 98
Mazda 626
compact 70 29 99
Chevrolet Malibu
mid-size 71 34 105
Chevrolet Suburban
S.U.V. 46 59 105
Jeep Grand Cherokee
S.U.V. 61 44 106
Honda Civic
subcompact 84 25 109
Toyota Corolla
subcompact 81 29 110
Ford Expedition
S.U.V. 55 57 112
GMC Jimmy
S.U.V. 76 39 114
Ford Taurus
mid-size 78 39 117
Nissan Altima
compact 72 49 121
Mercury Marquis
large 80 43 123
Nissan Sentra
subcompact 95 34 129
Toyota 4Runner
S.U.V. 94 43 137
Chevrolet Tahoe
S.U.V. 68 74 141
Dodge Stratus
mid-size 103 40 143
Lincoln Town Car
large 100 47 147
Ford Explorer
S.U.V. 88 60 148
Pontiac Grand Am
compact 118 39 157
Toyota Tacoma
pickup 111 59 171
Chevrolet Cavalier
subcompact 146 41 186
Dodge Neon
subcompact 161 39 199
Pontiac Sunfire
subcompact 158 44 202
Ford F-Series
pickup 110 128 238


From this table you are more likely, by 3X to kill or be killed in a F150 over a Ford Windstar, or a Dodge T&C, or a Montana

I'm reading Wenzel's study now, it's not that simple or clear cut, for instance, pickup accidents typically happen in sparsly populated areas on undivided roads, far from hospitals.

 

[desy]

Well according the NHTSA
LTV's make up 37%of vehicle registgrations
Cause we all like to read boring gov't reports
They also make up 37% of total accidents, therefore a 1 to 1 relationship
Another report

But they are involved in a disproportionate amount of accidents involving death. So maybe there might be something to the 'remote' argument but since a large part of it is accidents is with cars it would seem that the passsengers of the cars would be just as 'remote' in these cases averaging it out some.
But its not just small percentages more, its multiples more dangerous, 3X in say an F150 over a Windstar.

I've driven lots of trucks, 1 tons, 3/4's, extended halfs, even a few grain trucks, 3 tons and I always find the learn curve greater when I jump behind the wheel of new truck over a new car just getting accustomed to the significantly different handling charcteristics.
I think that may be the biggest deal, you get on loose gravel in a truck you can get in trouble in a hurry and yeah if its remote your survival is going to go down but it takes a more experienced driver to handle big and I think that is what is making the disproportionate statistics.
The econo boxes aren't safe enough for me either, although a Civic fairs pretty good, not enough safety built in and outmatched by the LTV's on the road.


I might as well answer the OP's original question since since I haven't done that yet. No SUV's aren't going to go anywhere, they will make them safer and more fuel efficient. There will always be a market niche for them they are just TOO handy. I just sold mine a month ago but when the wife goes back to work and the car has outlived its usefullness, I'll be getting another, been relying on the FIL's too much

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I sure as fsck hope so.

Ditto that. When it all comes down to it if you don't own an SUV you pretty much hate them. Gas guzzling aside, they're hard to see around and they are dangerous to many regular sized cars because their bumpers are higher.

And to those that justify them by saying they are practicle - I don't buy it. The biggest reason I hear for owning an SUV is to haul kids. Well the average minivan hauls just as many kids better than the average (not bus sized) SUV. They have the about the same abount of room but are more open and lower than SUV's.

My bro and his wife just got a van because they've got a child on the way. They even admitted they went into the vehicle search looking for an SUV because of the minivan stygma but got a minivan because it made much more sense. Most newer minivans have 2 doors that slide out of the way. No way to say it's easier to get a child in and out of a partially opened SUV door than a wide minivan opening.

I can see buying a large SUV or truck for work or to haul a trailer but that's usually not the case. For every person who has one for that reason there's 9 more that use them just like a car or van.

 

[Ornery]

The biggest reason I hear for owning an SUV is to haul kids.

The biggest reason I hear for owning an SUV is safety. Second biggest reason for me, is not being strapped with a wimpy FWD and the expensive, hard to access parts under its cramped hood.

 

[navyjay]

What would you like the soccer mom's to drive, a freakin' mini-van??? Ha! Everyone knows how cool those things are.

 

[WolverineGator]

GM Cutting Build on Profitable SUVs
Production will be trimmed as demand drops, to GM?s surprise.
by Joseph Szczesny


Gary Cowger, President of General Motors North American Operations, confirmed that GM will cut production of the full-size sport-utility vehicles that have been at the heart of the GM's comeback since the mid-1990s. GM won't slow down specific assembly lines at plants but it does plan to take more down weeks during the first quarter.

"We're continuing to adjust inventory levels," he added. "We've adjusted inventory all through the year. You generally do it through down weeks," he said.

Sales of the Chevrolet Suburban, despite record levels of incentives, have dropped 26 percent in November and are down 10 percent so far this year. Sales of the GMC Yukon XL also dropped 26 percent during November and sales of both the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon also have fallen dramatically. In another disturbing sign for GM, sales of the Cadillac Escalade also dropped last month by more than 17 percent.

The decline in the big SUV sales fed a 10-percent decline in GM's truck sales last month.

The success of the Chevrolet Equinox crossover has helped take some of the sting out of the drop in sales of big SUVs. But big SUVS are the most profitable vehicles built by GM and GM executives in the past have argued they are virtually immune to shifts in the gasoline prices or economic outlook. Now, however, the sales drop clearly is putting heavy pressure on company's profit margin in North American where it lost more than $400 million in the fourth quarter.

Ballew also noted GM already has taken several steps to cut production in early 2005. In October, the company announced plans to eliminate the third shift at the company's light-truck assembly plant in Pontiac . GM also confirmed it was planning to shut down an assembly plant in Linden, N.J. , where it now builds an outdated sport-utility vehicle, the Blazer. GM also plans to phase out another assembly plant near Baltimore that builds vans that have been on the market since the 1980s and are now considered outdated.

Full Story Here: The Car Connection

 

[dbuttcheek69]

Originally posted by: aircooled
I don't mind an SUV if you own it for a reason. I just hate it when people buy them for 'show'.

peace to that

and i also have to complain here because i drive a tiny honda civic and the headlights on SUV's are RIGHT at my eye level, which makes for some very uncomfortable driving at night/

 

[dbuttcheek69]

Originally posted by: Ornery
The biggest reason I hear for owning an SUV is to haul kids.

The biggest reason I hear for owning an SUV is safety. Second biggest reason for me, is not being strapped with a wimpy FWD and the expensive, hard to access parts under its cramped hood.

are you kidding me???!!
trying to figure out where everything is under the hood of an SUV is like trying to understand women!

i could name everything under the hood of my civic and where it is, AND i could see it and get at it with out having to take anything apart!

 

[nellienelson1]

SUV = anything the size of a full sized truck, but not a truck. Like a Chevy Suburban or GMC Yukon. The Land Rover would be an SUV.[/quote]

i object the landrover is so much more than an SUV, in the uk an SUV is a soft roader, like a freelander, or a BMW X-5 or X-3 or the volvo X90. Landrovers kick the butt0cks from everything else off road.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dbuttcheek69

Originally posted by: aircooled
I don't mind an SUV if you own it for a reason. I just hate it when people buy them for 'show'.

peace to that

and i also have to complain here because i drive a tiny honda civic and the headlights on SUV's are RIGHT at my eye level, which makes for some very uncomfortable driving at night/

Looks like you are the one with the problem. You should consider buying an SUV.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: dbuttcheek69

Originally posted by: aircooled
I don't mind an SUV if you own it for a reason. I just hate it when people buy them for 'show'.

peace to that

and i also have to complain here because i drive a tiny honda civic and the headlights on SUV's are RIGHT at my eye level, which makes for some very uncomfortable driving at night/

Don't most people buy cars for show. People drive expensive imports to show that they have "arrived". People buy hybrids to show that they care for the environment.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: aircooled
I don't mind an SUV if you own it for a reason. I just hate it when people buy them for 'show'.

And I guess people who buy Corvettes, 350Z's, Vipers, etc. buy their cars for personal transportation? Who gives a sh!t if they are buying it for show. It's their money.

And don't give me that "they're unsafe" route, b/c you're just as likely to get mowed down by a full-size pickup.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: NFS4
You SUV bashers are a bunch of hypocrites. You bash SUV's but don't seem to give two sh!ts about pickup trucks. Hell, most of the big-ass SUV's are based on 1/2 ton pickup truck frames (Expedition, Tahoe, Suburban, Armada, Sequoia, etc.) and guzzle just as much gas. You ingrates do know that the F-Series is still the best selling vehicle in America followed by the Silverado/Sierra twins...RIGHT??

I don't see you little whiners bitching about the plethora of extended cab, crew cab, long-bed, duallie, etc, etc. trucks out there on the road that are longer just as wide and have turning circles far worse even the biggest SUV's. Hell, my dad's "compact" Nissan Frontier Crew Cab Long Bed is harder to drive, harder to see out of, harder to park, and harder to navigate with than his Toyota Highlander Limited.

Not true, I call on all vehicles that get 8 mpg like Military tanks, just so happens to be mostly the extremely heavy mamoth SUV's that are the biggest culprits.

Monster RAM1500's are just as guilty.

 

[dbuttcheek69]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dbuttcheek69

Originally posted by: aircooled
I don't mind an SUV if you own it for a reason. I just hate it when people buy them for 'show'.

peace to that

and i also have to complain here because i drive a tiny honda civic and the headlights on SUV's are RIGHT at my eye level, which makes for some very uncomfortable driving at night/

Looks like you are the one with the problem. You should consider buying an SUV.

im the one with the problem??! O ok so i should go out and buy a new car to accomaodate everyone else. i see.

if you are too fat to fit in a chair the solution is not to get a bigger chair. the problem is with the designers and the inconsiderate people who drive them. i have written many research papers on ths topic so i know what im talking about.

 

[webekyle]

Originally posted by: packmule
Does anyone else think that the end of the large SUV's are about over? I know that they have to be the most un-practicle vehicles made as far as fuel efficiency and just around town driving yet it seems that every soccer mom has a Suburban or Expidition trying to find a place to park at the grocery store.

im alright with my Explorer arent I?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dbuttcheek69

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dbuttcheek69

Originally posted by: aircooled
I don't mind an SUV if you own it for a reason. I just hate it when people buy them for 'show'.

peace to that

and i also have to complain here because i drive a tiny honda civic and the headlights on SUV's are RIGHT at my eye level, which makes for some very uncomfortable driving at night/

Looks like you are the one with the problem. You should consider buying an SUV.

im the one with the problem??! O ok so i should go out and buy a new car to accomaodate everyone else. i see.

if you are too fat to fit in a chair the solution is not to get a bigger chair. the problem is with the designers and the inconsiderate people who drive them. i have written many research papers on ths topic so i know what im talking about.

Why should SUV drivers have to buy a car to accomodate you? Perhaps you should do more research before you claim to know what you are talking about, as it is obvious that you are clueless on this subject.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: NFS4
And don't give me that "they're unsafe" route, b/c you're just as likely to get mowed down by a full-size pickup.

Except you're not - pickups are far less common, and owners generally at least have them for an actual reason. Further, they're not allowed on some roads, especially the bigger ones.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: NFS4
And don't give me that "they're unsafe" route, b/c you're just as likely to get mowed down by a full-size pickup.

Except you're not - pickups are far less common, and owners generally at least have them for an actual reason. Further, they're not allowed on some roads, especially the bigger ones.

Far less common? Perhaps in NYC, but not the rest of the country. Pickup trucks have been the number one selling vehicles in this country for many years.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: NFS4
And don't give me that "they're unsafe" route, b/c you're just as likely to get mowed down by a full-size pickup.

Except you're not - pickups are far less common, and owners generally at least have them for an actual reason. Further, they're not allowed on some roads, especially the bigger ones.

Are you smoking crack?

Look at the top 4 selling vehicles in America for 2004:

http://www.detnews.com/pix/200...segment_clr_010505.jpg

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: NFS4
And don't give me that "they're unsafe" route, b/c you're just as likely to get mowed down by a full-size pickup.

Except you're not - pickups are far less common, and owners generally at least have them for an actual reason. Further, they're not allowed on some roads, especially the bigger ones.

Are you smoking crack?

Look at the top 4 selling vehicles in America for 2004:

http://www.detnews.com/pix/200...segment_clr_010505.jpg

What kind of demographic buys pickups though? I'm guessing it's mostly people in the south & midwest, and in rural areas in general. I don't see very many pickups at all compared to SUVs where I live. Thanks for the offer, but I'm not into crack