Some believe SUVs should be categorized by their cosmetic appearance, rather than by their size or fuel efficiency.
by Brian Dunning
December 20, 2006
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
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
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
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.
By Brian Dunning
Cite this article:
Dunning, B. "SUV Phobia." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media,
20 Dec 2006. Web.
17 Jan 2018. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4015>
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/>
©2018 Skeptoid Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Rights and reuse information
The Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming
Deconstructing the Rothschild Conspiracy
Rods: Flying Absurdities
Exploring Kincaid's Cave
Are Vinyl Recordings Better than Digital?
The Betz Mystery Sphere
A Skeptical Look at the News