SUVs plunge toward 'endangered' list

[Crayz9000]

Mind you, the same thing can happen to gasoline-powered cars; the problem is that the fire will be more violent with a propane tank. But honestly, saying that propane tanks can't rupture because they're "put through a battery of tests" is ridiculous. The logic doesn't track at all, and it would cost a lot of money to make propane tanks so tough that they could withstand being rammed by cars without springing a leak.

Well, I understand that much. Placement is big when you're sticking an LPG tank into a vehicle, you generally don't just want to drop it into the trunk. If it's possible, usually the best spot is roughly in the center of the chassis (something you can only really do on the older body-on-frame trucks).

[dragon]

Amazing about how the Americans look at the price of gas and complain, here in Germany gas is about 1.40 Euro per liter with the current exchange rate thats almost 8 dollars a gallon. I have to drive about 30k twice a day for work, needless to say gas money adds up even though I have a small economical car.

At least next month I will be working for the government again so I'll get fuel coupons at the current price in the States.

Eventually car manufactures will start making more efficient cars but there is one major problem. Developing countries like India and China are going to start using up a lot of the fuel that out there.

[Thunderfire]

Amazing about how the Americans look at the price of gas and complain, here in Germany gas is about 1.40 Euro per liter with the current exchange rate thats almost 8 dollars a gallon.

1.40 EUR is pretty cheap for germany. It costs more than 1.50 EUR in Mainfranken. Getting a monthly ticket for the bus is a good investment at the moment.

[Coyote]

I hate to say it, but we feel the gas costs more. Even if we all drove super-compact fuel sippers, our driving distances for daily commutes is much longer for anyone outside a major city. Daily work commutues of 25 miles or more are not uncommon, particularly in the wide-open spaces of the West.

However, this underscores the silliness of our piss-poor mileage standards for cars. With our distances, we should have switched to more economic engines years ago...

[Darth Wong]

I hate to say it, but we feel the gas costs more. Even if we all drove super-compact fuel sippers, our driving distances for daily commutes is much longer for anyone outside a major city. Daily work commutues of 25 miles or more are not uncommon, particularly in the wide-open spaces of the West.

However, this underscores the silliness of our piss-poor mileage standards for cars. With our distances, we should have switched to more economic engines years ago...

Actually, your distances are a product of your low gas prices. Yes, the country itself is large, but it survived just fine in the 1940s without the massive commuting distances that are common now.

The only thing that could have prevented this would have been social responsibility and foresight (ha ha) or much higher gas prices.

[Darth Wong]

Looking around, I still see a lot of SUVs driving around. The high gas prices don't seem to be having that much effect, as far as I can tell. And minivans suck up gas like crazy too, yet they're still all over the road.

[Crayz9000]

Looking around, I still see a lot of SUVs driving around. The high gas prices don't seem to be having that much effect, as far as I can tell. And minivans suck up gas like crazy too, yet they're still all over the road.

Minivans at least have about a ~20% efficiency advantage over SUVs: while an SUV might get 14 mpg highway, if the driver doesn't have a lead foot, most minivans get at least 18-20 highway.

[Imperial Overlord]

Looking around, I still see a lot of SUVs driving around. The high gas prices don't seem to be having that much effect, as far as I can tell. And minivans suck up gas like crazy too, yet they're still all over the road.

That's not odd. We're talking about a decline in purchases. It's going to take a while before that significantly affects the number of vehicles on the road. All the ones that were purchased over the last several years when their sales numbers were still good are still on the road.

[Alferd Packer]

Looking around, I still see a lot of SUVs driving around. The high gas prices don't seem to be having that much effect, as far as I can tell. And minivans suck up gas like crazy too, yet they're still all over the road.

What used car lots I've gone by are definitely packed with SUVs, garish "SALE!" stickers plastered all over them. They're generally smaller, lower-cost SUVs, too, suggesting that lower-class and middle-class people who bought them as status symbols are ditching them. The largest SUVs are still on the road, though, because they're largely owned by rich people. That's really the asskicker, too: those smaller SUVs really aren't that much more fuel efficient that their larger counterparts.

I can only imagine the terror being felt out in the boonies, where your SUV or pick-up truck is a way of life.

[Terralthra]

Looking around, I still see a lot of SUVs driving around. The high gas prices don't seem to be having that much effect, as far as I can tell. And minivans suck up gas like crazy too, yet they're still all over the road.

What used car lots I've gone by are definitely packed with SUVs, garish "SALE!" stickers plastered all over them. They're generally smaller, lower-cost SUVs, too, suggesting that lower-class and middle-class people who bought them as status symbols are ditching them. The largest SUVs are still on the road, though, because they're largely owned by rich people. That's really the asskicker, too: those smaller SUVs really aren't that much more fuel efficient that their larger counterparts.

I can only imagine the terror being felt out in the boonies, where your SUV or pick-up truck is a way of life.

My micro-SUV (Honda CR-V) is a full 50% more fuel-efficient than my father's gaz-guzzling Toyota 4Runner. He's lucky if he gets 16-17 mpg, I get 25ish.

[Coyote]

My 1997 Isuzu Rodea gets in the 20's.

[Broomstick]

I can only imagine the terror being felt out in the boonies, where your SUV or pick-up truck is a way of life.

Actually, the farmers around here usually have an actual car, usually a mid-range sedan, for driving around. They only use the big pickup or whatever when there is an actual need for it. It's the idiot suburbanites that have ONLY SUV's that are in the worst trouble.

[Darth Wong]

I can only imagine the terror being felt out in the boonies, where your SUV or pick-up truck is a way of life.

Actually, the farmers around here usually have an actual car, usually a mid-range sedan, for driving around. They only use the big pickup or whatever when there is an actual need for it. It's the idiot suburbanites that have ONLY SUV's that are in the worst trouble.

My in-laws are farmers, and they never owned an SUV or pickup truck in their lives. It's not strictly necessary, but out in the country it's a fashion statement. And it's not just suburbanites; people who live in rural areas are expected to drive trucks. They don't feel manly if they don't.

[Broomstick]

That's why I added the "whatever" - while pickups are not necessary as farm equipment they do have their uses. I know farmers and tradesmen for whom their truck is a strictly utilitarian vehicles used when they require greater hauling capacity than obtainable through cars. When they aren't at work they drive a more efficient vehicle.

Pickups, SUV's, and other trucks are not inherently evil, it's the uses to which they are put. If you're hauling around tools, animal feed, animals, supplies of various sorts, etc. they can make good sense. Commuting for a single person between home and work - not so good. Actually, rather stupid.

We own a pickup we use for things like large model airplanes that won't physically fit into a sedan and helping my parents move from one residence to another, and the like. If we don't need its capacity (such as when my husband is hauling around model airplanes that WILL fit in the car) we use the car. This is why the truck is three times as old as the car but only has half the mileage. That makes sense. Using the pickup to commute from home to the commuter train station - stupid. Uses easily twice the gas, is harder to park, and no way do I need its carrying capacity for that. So I drive the car instead.

[CaptainZoidberg]

You know what we need to do? Fix gas prices. Here's how it works - If gas today costs $3.50, the government takes any profit on a gas price below $3.50 as tax. The essentially makes a promise to the consumer that the price of gas will never, ever, fall below its peak cost.

The problem with a lot of people I see is that they use the reasoning: "Well, I could buy a hybrid car, but what if gas prices go back down. Plug-in hybrids are expensive, and we all know what happened with the gas embargo where prices went back down".

If we fixed gas prices, people could look at ways to conserve gas and be assured that their investments in saving would have a certain value. Also, it would dispel any myths and fantasies about gas prices plummeting back down.

I also think we need laws mandating all hybrid cars manufactured to have a plug-in capacity proportional to the size of their engines. Of course, some would say that such a policy would merely discourage hybrids - but most Americans these days aren't exactly in the boat to reject fuel efficient cars.

[Enforcer Talen]

Why would people think prices are going down, and how at all would that solution fix the larger picture?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why would people think prices are going down, and how at all would that solution fix the larger picture? :?

The most obvious solution--if one we cannot politically implement--at this point would be a gas tax which starts rising at 50 cents per year for the next 32 years, culminating in a 16-dollar-a-gallon gas tax (it wouldn't actually be that bad, because of the inevitable extensive inflation in the period, but still a very severe tax) for all non-government-owned road vehicles (ships and railroads exempt). That would force people to move closer to cities and jobs, and force everyone to work toward extensive commuter rail and bus service, and eliminate gasoline/diesel-powered cars in general or at least demand 100mpg efficiency from any that still remain, probably in conjunction with electric batteries only. The government would then use the proceeds to fund the electrification of the entire railroad net, which would also eliminate that source of fuel use.

[Sea Skimmer]

I also think we need laws mandating all hybrid cars manufactured to have a plug-in capacity proportional to the size of their engines.

Umm, proportional to the size of the engine? So we should adjust the size of the electrical plug to match the size of the engine? I suspect that’s not what you exactly meant, but that’s what your asking for.

A plug in hybrid is simply a hybrid which can top off its batteries from an outside power source, a hybrid being plug in or not has no bearing on its battery capacity, which is already going to be roughly proportional to the vehicles gross weight and power requirements in most cases (except those bullshit hybrid SUVs that don’t save any gas at all by being hybrid, they use a small electric system to boost peak power )

The problem though with plug in hybrids is that the US national electrical grid is in very poor shape, and is already being strained past the breaking point in many areas. We need hundreds of new power plants over the next 20 years to meet expansion in basic demands for power, without even counting the heavy load you’d be placing on the system from millions of plug in hybrid cars. We also need extensive modernization of the lines that transmit the power, which is an almost equally daunting task. Don’t forget the need to replace many existing power stations which run on fossil fuels (especially the handful in that run on crude oil!) and are either utterly obsolete in design and efficiency, or suffering from high fuel prices, or both. The CO2 issue doesn’t even factor into this BTW, some plants are simply too old to be worth keeping around.

I think it already was federally mandated that future hybrids (from like 2012 onward) have a plug in capability, but for most hybrid designs that capability will give only a very slight boost to fuel economy to begin with, and the electric grid issue rules out the mass adoption of small hybrids which run primarily as electric vehicles.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Umm, proportional to the size of the engine? So we should adjust the size of the electrical plug to match the size of the engine? I suspect that’s not what you exactly meant, but that’s what your asking for.

What I meant was proportional to the car's power needs. So a large car that required large amounts of power would be required to have a larger battery and the ability to recharge faster.

The point of the battery capacity condition is to prevent companies from putting cheap and tiny batteries on cars just to reap the government benefits aimed at plug-in hybrids.

A plug in hybrid is simply a hybrid which can top off its batteries from an outside power source, a hybrid being plug in or not has no bearing on its battery capacity, which is already going to be roughly proportional to the vehicles gross weight and power requirements in most cases (except those bullshit hybrid SUVs that don’t save any gas at all by being hybrid, they use a small electric system to boost peak power )

That's precisely why I brought up a size condition on plug-in hybrid benefits. If a car's battery is too small to make a difference, than the company shouldn't get benefits aimed at real hybrids.

The problem though with plug in hybrids is that the US national electrical grid is in very poor shape, and is already being strained past the breaking point in many areas. We need hundreds of new power plants over the next 20 years to meet expansion in basic demands for power, without even counting the heavy load you’d be placing on the system from millions of plug in hybrid cars. We also need extensive modernization of the lines that transmit the power, which is an almost equally daunting task. Don’t forget the need to replace many existing power stations which run on fossil fuels (especially the handful in that run on crude oil!) and are either utterly obsolete in design and efficiency, or suffering from high fuel prices, or both. The CO2 issue doesn’t even factor into this BTW, some plants are simply too old to be worth keeping around.

Well, then we need to fix the electric grid, because I can't see any way for the average American's lifestyle to be sustainable without electric cars. I understand the need to update our infrastructure, but there's really no alternative to moving to plug-in hybrids and then full electrics, so it's not like we have the choice not to fix the grid.

Today most Americans can't really afford gasoline - and there's definitely no way it'll be affordable in the long.

I think it already was federally mandated that future hybrids (from like 2012 onward) have a plug in capability, but for most hybrid designs that capability will give only a very slight boost to fuel economy to begin with, and the electric grid issue rules out the mass adoption of small hybrids which run primarily as electric vehicles.

Well, even if the electric grid can't handle it yet - we really have no choice but to run our cars primarily as electric vehicles. If we had an alternative to electric cars or plug-in hybrids, then I'd agree that we'd want to take it light on the grid until we can get it up to speed.

But honestly, given the severe nature of gas prices and few choices we have, we still need to move in the direction of electric cars or hybrids.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Why would people think prices are going down, and how at all would that solution fix the larger picture?

The most obvious solution--if one we cannot politically implement--at this point would be a gas tax which starts rising at 50 cents per year for the next 32 years, culminating in a 16-dollar-a-gallon gas tax (it wouldn't actually be that bad, because of the inevitable extensive inflation in the period, but still a very severe tax) for all non-government-owned road vehicles (ships and railroads exempt). That would force people to move closer to cities and jobs, and force everyone to work toward extensive commuter rail and bus service, and eliminate gasoline/diesel-powered cars in general or at least demand 100mpg efficiency from any that still remain, probably in conjunction with electric batteries only. The government would then use the proceeds to fund the electrification of the entire railroad net, which would also eliminate that source of fuel use.

But if people move closer to cities and jobs (i.e., abandoning suburbia), then people will effectively have to give up their homes and the majority of their possessions for practically no monetary return.

People is suburbia live miles away from their jobs, and usually the position of their job is in no way related to the position of their neighbors job - so suburbia as we know it will never work without the personal automobile as the modicum of transit.

That's a pretty dramatic change for a person/family to go through, and I don't see it happening unless things get REALLY bad. To be honest, if that did happen, what seems more likely than a movement of people towards towns and cities would be a transition to motorcycles and very small cars.

[SCRawl]

People is suburbia live miles away from their jobs, and usually the position of their job is in no way related to the position of their neighbors job - so suburbia as we know it will never work without the personal automobile as the modicum of transit.

Suburbia is a dinosaur. It can't survive in the medium to long term. Get cozy with that idea, and the sooner the better.

I bought a used minivan a few months back, and I was thinking at the time about how stupid such a vehicle is. Nevertheless, with my two preschoolers making our Focus bulge at the seams, we had to upsize. We rarely drive the van -- or, the Focus, for that matter -- any serious distance, though the price of gas really doesn't have an effect on that.

[Broomstick]

Why would people think prices are going down, and how at all would that solution fix the larger picture?

The most obvious solution--if one we cannot politically implement--at this point would be a gas tax which starts rising at 50 cents per year for the next 32 years, culminating in a 16-dollar-a-gallon gas tax (it wouldn't actually be that bad, because of the inevitable extensive inflation in the period, but still a very severe tax) for all non-government-owned road vehicles (ships and railroads exempt). That would force people to move closer to cities and jobs, and force everyone to work toward extensive commuter rail and bus service, and eliminate gasoline/diesel-powered cars in general or at least demand 100mpg efficiency from any that still remain, probably in conjunction with electric batteries only. The government would then use the proceeds to fund the electrification of the entire railroad net, which would also eliminate that source of fuel use.

The problem with forcing people to move closer to jobs/cities is that property prices are so high in cities that many people are effectively priced out of the market. Without fixing the problem of affordable housing all your solution does is increase bankruptcy and homelessness.

Rail lines out to suburbia greatly expand the area for housing people - you can see this in the Chicago area were low-wage workers can get to lucrative downtown jobs that, while not paying enough to allow them to live in the core area, do provide enough wages for a decent standard of living in the outlying areas.

Electrification of the entire rail network is not the highest priority, although it makes for a good long-term goal. Even in its current state rail is much more fuel efficient than cars. Get people used to using rail it will ease the transition to electric cars, and reduce the range required of such cars.

[Broomstick]

Well, then we need to fix the electric grid, because I can't see any way for the average American's lifestyle to be sustainable without electric cars.

Why do you assume the "average American's lifestyle" is sustainable at all?

I understand the need to update our infrastructure, but there's really no alternative to moving to plug-in hybrids and then full electrics, so it's not like we have the choice not to fix the grid.

Either that, or we could move to independent power generation and greater efficiencies in homes. I don't know if that would truly be feasible, but do we really have to have centralized power generation? There are already dairy and other farms that generate their own power from their waste products, and some can even sell power back to the grid during their times of peak production. Moving to locally generated power, even as a supplement where it can't provide all needs, would greatly ease the burden on our current power systems. It would also help when the grid fails, as it does on occasion - a back up system that keeps the refrigerator cold and a light on does not require as much power as an entire house, but makes a significant difference during power failures.

Today most Americans can't really afford gasoline - and there's definitely no way it'll be affordable in the long.

Actually most Americans CAN afford gasoline - but they are now being forced to re-calculate their budgets. More will have to go to essential items such as food and fuel and less towards toys and excess clothing and such.

Well, even if the electric grid can't handle it yet - we really have no choice but to run our cars primarily as electric vehicles. If we had an alternative to electric cars or plug-in hybrids, then I'd agree that we'd want to take it light on the grid until we can get it up to speed.

We could also have diesel cars, which get higher mpg. We can move to smaller cars. We can make our living spaces more friendly towards using bicycles for commuting and errands rather than as exercise and toys.

We need to STOP thinking of miracle, one-size-fits-all solutions and start taking multiple approaches.

Seriously, how do you think I survived months of unemployment and underemployment and wound up with MORE money in the bank than when I lost my job? I did it by making changes in my lifestyle. I cook more, and more from scratch. We eat out once a month, not once or twice a week. I shop for clothing at Goodwill, not a department store or mall. We watch more movies via cheap pay-per-view and our tape/disc collection than at the big theater. I buy less books and go to the library more (the fact the library is right across the street from one of my employers is a bonus). I planted my garden with vegetables this year, not flowers, and I've already started harvesting radishes and spinach (I expect turnips and beets in just a couple more weeks) which, while not providing for all our food needs, are a welcome supplement. We combine errands. I can easily get by with buying gas only once a month if need be (in actual fact, I like to keep the tanks at least half full, so that's a slightly more frequent purchase, but for less than filling an empty tank).

EVERYONE is going to have to start making such changes.

And THAT is going to impact the economy big time. It's going to lead to a contraction as people buy less new stuff, less of the expensive stuff, and less luxury. People are going to have to give up their credit habits, and learn how to save up to buy things again.

I've already downsized - have you?

[chitoryu12]

We could also have diesel cars, which get higher mpg. We can move to smaller cars. We can make our living spaces more friendly towards using bicycles for commuting and errands rather than as exercise and toys.

Definately agree with you there. Florida is pretty much all subdivisions. If you bike out of my neighborhood, the closest building is the church about a thousand feet down the road. After that it's another quarter mile in one direction to one part of the city, a mile to the other part of it, and two miles to Lake Mary (our closest neighbor). It also doesn't help that there's a lot of steep inclines leading to the parking lots of plazas and restaurants in Lake Mary, so it's damn near impossible for the average biker to make it up on their bikes, especially with the extremely heavy traffic at nearly all times of day.

Compare this to my mom's old neighborhood of Berkley near Detroit, where you could walk from your home to school, the store, work, and every fast-food place and hangout spot.

[CaptainZoidberg]

People is suburbia live miles away from their jobs, and usually the position of their job is in no way related to the position of their neighbors job - so suburbia as we know it will never work without the personal automobile as the modicum of transit.

Suburbia is a dinosaur. It can't survive in the medium to long term. Get cozy with that idea, and the sooner the better.

Well, as I see it, the big resource constraints are:

1. Transportation. Basically each family needs their own car. Of course, extreme car pooling could cut this a little bit - but there's no way you can run suburbia without personal automobiles.

2. Fresh Water. Suburbia takes a lot of it.

3. Waste disposal

4. Electricity (Think about heating the huge houses, lighting, etc.)

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. If I missed any big ones don't hesitate to point it out.

1 and 4 are really just a matter of gathering, moving, and storing electricity. With very cheap electricity, 2 becomes abundant and 3 is really just a matter of moving to more reusable goods (more metal, less plastic).

So in reality, it seems like suburbia is sustainable as long as you have a cheap, abundant, and scalable source of energy. Uranium is abundant, nuclear power is scalable, and perhaps in the long run cheap.

I fail to see any aspect of suburbia that's unsustainable that goes beyond our reliance on fossil fuels, however I'm by no means an expert in this subject and if anyone has any contrary insights I'd be glad to hear it.