SUV Phobia
Are SUVs truly as evil as we're supposed to think?
You should follow me on twitter here.
| Skeptoid #15 December 20, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Let's spend some time on the trendy fad of looking for villains to blame for global warming. My flavor of the week is SUV's, those evil gas guzzling, ozone destroying, unethical, politically incorrect, Nazi family soccer wagons. Only let's not do it the trendy way, let's look at the issue skeptically.
Let's start by finding some common ground, some generalizations that most people probably agree with. First, the premise that fuel efficiency in vehicles is a good thing. There are probably very few people who disagree that efficiency should always be a goal. Second, the premise that heavier cars are generally less fuel efficient, thus lighter cars are generally good things. Excess weight burns excess fuel. Cars should not be unnecessarily heavy. Third, many heavy truck-based SUV's are generally heavier and less fuel efficient than light passenger cars.
I'm going to continue with the assumption that you agree with all of the above. Based in part on these generalizations, many so-called environmentalist groups have been lobbying, often successfully, for laws against SUV's. I hope to encourage you to be skeptical of such laws. The problem with making laws based on generalizations is that the exceptions are being unfairly penalized, and some guilty offenders are getting away scott free. Any law against SUV's is a bad law, and here's why.
The vast majority of so-called SUV's are mechanically identical to conventional cars. They are given taller bodies and more upright styling, then sold as SUV's. Their weight, economy, and performance are generally similar to the cars on which they are based. Toyota's Highlander and Lexus RX series are built on Toyota Camry chassis and mechanicals. Honda CRV and Element SUV's are based on the Honda Civic. The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe are rebodied Toyota Corollas. The Hyundai Tucson, Santa Fe, and Kia Sportage SUV's are based on the Hyundai Elantra and Sonata sedans. The Acura MDX and Honda Pilot SUV's are simply Honda Accords underneath that taller sheet metal. People don't need heavier metal or tougher mechanicals, they simply want a particular cosmetic style or a form factor that's more convenient for carrying people and cargo. And that's fine.
For example, a military Humvee, now also marketed to consumers by General Motors as the H1 Hummer, has portal axles and inboard brakes. Most people don't know what either of those are, but suffice it to say that they represent dramatic structural departures from conventional SUV's. People want to buy a big beefy military vehicle, but GM's engineers know that it's simply not a practical road car. Not wanting their customers to be disappointed, they took their existing conventional Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade vehicle, put a vaguely Humvee-like body on it, and they now sell it as the H2 Hummer. Most people wrongly assume, as GM hoped they would, that it's a second generation Humvee, new & improved, but still with military vehicle roots. Wrong on all counts, but again, most consumers don't know or really care. Not a single component is shared between the H1 and H2. Their whole design paradigms are polar opposites: one is a military truck, the other is a passenger car with a styled exterior. GM knew that people wanted to believe that they're driving a Humvee, so GM tried to license the name Hummer from the Humvee's manufacturer, defense contractor AM General; but AM General refused. GM had to buy the entire company, just to get access to the Hummer name so they could sell more H2's. It was well worth it since GM sells an H2 Hummer for about twice the price of a mechanically identical Yukon or Tahoe. And consumers now blissfully believe they're driving around in military trucks. Yet another example of why you should be skeptical of marketing labels.
People talk about cleaning up Los Angeles' smog by penalizing or banning SUV's. Did you know that a single container ship coming into Long Beach Harbor generates as much carbon emissions as 300,000 cars? Ships are not subject to emission laws. Why not? Are SUV's, most of which are mechanically and economically similar to conventional cars, really the logical targets? SUV's are hardly the cause of our carbon problems. Any road car, H2 Hummers included, is extremely environmentally friendly (as vehicles go), given all the emission laws that they comply with, especially when compared to the average car from only a decade ago.
Paris and London are two cities that have really gone agro over SUV's, fining them for entering downtown. The claim is that they're not only fuel inefficient, but they're too big to park and too dangerous. But, as we've established, the term SUV really only refers to cars with a certain cosmetic style. There are plenty of cars that are fuel inefficient that are not SUV's. There are plenty of cars that are longer than many SUV's. And there are plenty of cars that are tall or heavy and do as much crash damage as SUV's. SUV's probably appear frequently on all three lists, but targeting cars because of their styling is still the wrong path to a useful solution. Ban cars that are fuel inefficient, or ban cars that are too long to park, or ban cars with bad crash ratings. Even do all three. But you won't solve those problems by attacking the irrelevant characteristic of cosmetic styling. So why do lawmakers do it? They don't care about the facts, they care about appealing to the voters' emotions. Ban those evil SUV's, and you'll satisfy the emotions of the ignorant masses. If you're not ignorant, you shouldn't stand for it. You should demand that lawmakers pay attention to the facts. (You might also mind your own damn business and stop trying to legislate what other peoples' priorities should be, but that's another subject for another time.)
Here's another wrinkle for you. Hybrids such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight have really pushed the bar higher on efficiency and economy. Thus, there is now a general perception that hybrids get better mileage. Generally true, but again, there are exceptions. The Lexus RX hybrid SUV uses exactly the same V6 engine as its non-hybrid counterpart, and thus posts similar mileage numbers. I drove both vehicles prior to their release in a consumer test. The hybrid system in this case simply adds additional power for acceleration. The improved mileage that you might expect from the hybrid system is canceled out by the additional weight of the battery and motor, particularly on the highway. The Lexus GS is an example of the same philosophy applied to a high-end luxury sedan. In addition, many high-end sports car manufacturers are testing hybrid prototypes for the electric engine's ability to add acceleration off the line. In summary, a hybrid system does not always mean improved economy or cleaner emissions. You should pay attention to the actual numbers that a vehicle posts, not to its label, be it "hybrid" or "SUV".
Here's the first example that pops into my head: my 2004 Audi S4, a 4 door sedan, gets 15 miles per gallon, which is worse than the 16 miles per gallon of my wife's 2006 Toyota 4Runner with the largest V8 engine. Which do you hear so-called environmentalists protesting: common sedans, or SUV's? They're smart: Protesting sedans will strike no nerves, but it's easy to terrify the public with alarmist warnings about those evil SUV's. And I think that this perfectly summarizes the fact that anti-SUV protests and legislation are not only counterproductive, they are factually wrong. When you hear marketing buzzwords and labels instead of valid test data, be skeptical.
You should follow me on twitter here.
Drop a tip in my tip jar? or become a supporter
© 2006 Skeptoid.com
References & Further Reading
Cardenas, E., Gorman, E. The Hummer: Myths and consumer culture. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007.
Corbet, J., Koehler, H. "Updated emissions from ocean shipping." Journal of Geophysical Research. 29 Oct. 2003, Volume 108, Number D20: 4650-4666.
De Place, Eric. "How SUVs Can Save the Climate." Sightline Daily. Sightline Institute, 19 Dec. 2007. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/12/19/how-suvs-can-save-the-climate>
EPA. "Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. US Federal Government, 1 Feb. 2005. Web. 20 Dec. 2006. <http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05004.htm>
Padgett, Martin. Hummer: How the Little Truck Company Hit the Big Time, Thanks to Saddam, Schwarzenegger, and GM. St. Paul: Motorbooks International, 2004.
US Dept of Energy/US EPA. "Fuel Economy." Fuel Economy. US DOE/US EPA, 22 Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Jan. 2010. <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/>
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"SUV Phobia." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
20 Dec 2006. Web.
11 Mar 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4015>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 35 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
The Pit Bull analogy is indeed valid. Since I run a dog rescue & have had dozens of them come thru & get adopted successfully, I know that they are one of the more stable and people-friendly breeds -- usually even after being abused & fought.
Another aspect of the debate that gets ignored quite often is that many people have a real NEED for a van or SUV-type vehicle, unlike the urban yuppie scum that whine & moan about mileage and carbon footprints.
I live in a rural area where snow happens, and there are no buses or subways to get me to the grocery store or feed store when there's a foot of snow on the ground. For urban dwellers, no problem. For me -- it's damned essential that I have something that will work in ice or snow (high ground clearance & 4wd), people & 35 dogs will get hungry.
Also, unlike the urban bums that annoy me so much -- most of us rural dwellers do our own home maintenance & repairs, build sheds, fix fences ... and I need something that will carry plywood & lumber, hundreds of lb of dog food at a time. Expecting us to drive some little Asiatic abortion of a hybrid, not much larger than my Great Danes, is ridiculous. And I'll be damned if there's any reason I should get stuck with higher fees. I already pay more in gas because of my needs.
The real problem with the growing mob of urban voters is that they barely have a life, and want to turn the rest of us into THEM.
The worst fascists are the liberals.
G. White, Arlington VA
September 04, 2009 11:13pm
To further James from Harrogate's points SUV's might also cause more accidents. My premise is that these are more dangerous for those of us driving smaller cars due to not being able to see around them. In this way they are like freight trucks, except that they don't cary cargo.
In my estimation the real problem is americans needing a larger foot print every time we turn around.
Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
November 02, 2009 10:30am
Well, try not to tail gate next time you drive!
I still love my BMW 4.8is
Not many people tail gate me, as when they do, I usually drive over the centre of the road (you know, the part with the grit!) and you can see them back off in a hail of grit and a huge dust cloud!
HAVE THAT!
neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
November 20, 2009 4:38pm
I hate the argument that "SUVs are too big on the road." So are Mack trucks. Do you want to ban those? People in urban areas would starve without trucks bringing in food.
"SUVs don't fit in compact parking spaces." So make larger parking spaces.
SUVs are valid choice, and here in America, we have that sort of freedom.
I think the hype against SUVs is finally dying down as rationality reasserts itself. People can't make a groundless argument forever unless it's backed by a church or political group.
Abby, Austin, TX
February 17, 2010 10:01pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
We should ban SUV's because I can't see around the damn things. That's reason enough.
Seriously, though, my main criticism is that, although Brian made a good point in that we should look at the fuel efficiency of the individual types of cars and SUV's rather than just banning them, I heard very few numbers comparing the actual fuel efficiencies of the models. So I get the impression that there are a couple of exceptions here or there, but that for the most part SUV's really are less fuel efficient than the average car.
A bigger, heavier car is also more likely to seriously injure or kill the other driver in an accident than a normal sized car. Couple that with James' point about handling, and SUV drivers are more likely to get into accidents in which they will kill another driver.
Jarek, Ohio
August 23, 2009 11:22am