backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 295 comment(s) - last by root mean sq.. on Jun 9 at 12:37 AM


2008 Ford F-150 XLT

2008 Honda Civic Si Sedan

2009 Toyota Corolla SE

2008 Toyota Camry Hybrid

2008 Honda Accord EX
The tide is finally turning with regards to America's embrace of large vehicles.

With gas prices approaching or already having surpassed the $4.00 a gallon mark in the U.S., many Americans are looking to ditch their gas-guzzling SUVs for smaller cars and crossover utility vehicles (CUVs).

Nowhere was this more prevalent than the month of May for U.S. car/truck sales. The Ford F-150 has been America's perennial best-selling vehicle for the past two decades. It's month-to-month sales streak, however, came to a screeching halt in May.

The F-Series was beaten in monthly sales by not one, but four cars: the Honda Civic (53,299), Toyota Corolla (52,826), Toyota Camry (51,291), and Honda Accord (43,728). The F-Series was next in line with 42,973 units sold. The F-Series last saw the tail lights of a car in monthly sales way back in October 1991.

Ford Group VP for Marketing and Communications Jim Farley said that that thumping from Honda and Toyota was a "significant development" and that "it's not surprising, given the fuel price."

"That's just a sign of the times. I think May has been a watershed month," added Farley.

Alan Mulally, Ford's CEO, went even further adding, "We really believe we are seeing a structural shift with the fuel prices going through the $3.40-to-$3.60" range. It's interesting that a lot of others are saying the same thing now."

So I think we're seeing a structural shift where, with the prices being high in the United States, we're seeing exactly what happened in Europe a number of years ago, where the customers are going to make economic decisions, and they're going to move toward smaller and medium-sized vehicles."

Ford isn't the only American company feeling the heat from rising fuel prices and waning interest in large trucks and SUVs. According to the Chicago Tribune, General Motors has plans to close four of its truck and SUV manufacturing facilities. In return, the company plans to bring online a new small car plant in Ohio for the year 2010.

"We at GM don't think this is a spike or a temporary shift," said GM CEO Rick Wagoner in response to the shift from large vehicles to smaller cars.

In addition, GM's macho "Hummer" brand may be sold off according to Wagoner. Wagoner noted that GM is "undertaking a strategic review of the Hummer brand, to determine its fit with GM's evolving product portfolio" and that it is "considering all options for the Hummer brand... everything from a complete revamp of the product lineup to partial or complete sale of the brand."

Even GM's new hybrid SUVs have failed to spark much interest from consumers despite the fact that they manage to crack the 20 MPG barrier. GM managed to only sell roughly 1,100 units combined of the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid and GMC Yukon Hybrid through the first five months of 2008 -- this is well off the projected pace of 12,000 units for all of 2008.

Manufacturers with more nimble, car-based product lineups like Honda are laughing all the way to the bank with America's newfound interest in efficient vehicles.

"The dramatic increase in car sales appears to be one of the most profound shifts in automotive buying patterns in more than a decade," said American Honda Executive Vice President Dick Colliver.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

SUV owners are stupid.
By reader1 on 6/3/2008 4:19:05 PM , Rating: 5
I can't wait for $5/gallon. Suckers. :P




RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Tsuwamono on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By OxBow on 6/3/2008 5:18:06 PM , Rating: 5
I'm 6'2" 215# and have no problem driving my wife's corrola. I usually bike to work since I need the exercise, but the idea that most small cars don't fit big American's is such old tripe that I'm suprised anyone is still trying to pawn it off as fresh.

At least with high gas prices wer'e starting to see some conservation going on. It's sad that it's taken us so long to realize what's been obviously coming for so long. We need greater fuel efficiency and alternative fuels on a mass scale. This includes hybrids, plug in hybrids, all electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, as well as bio-fuels and ethanol mixes.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By hubajube on 6/3/2008 8:48:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm 6'2" 215# and have no problem driving my wife's corrola.
Weight doesn't determine how you'll fit. I know 200 lb guys that can't fit in a Miata but I know a 240 lb guy that can. It's your build that makes the most difference.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By piranhaa on 6/3/2008 9:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
I second that. I'm 6'2", 220lbs (bodybuilder build) and I fit into my 2000 Corolla without ANY issues. Been a great car.. Only thing i wish was that the steering wheel was telescopic.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Ardan on 6/3/2008 11:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
I agree as well. I am 6'5 228 pounds and can manage okay in most vehicles, though I've been in my fair share of cars that are too cramped for me (primarily being legroom). I count the Corolla as one that isn't as bad for me as it looks. I drive a 2006 Malibu Maxx LT that gets me around 20-21 in the city and around 29-32 on the highway. I love that car because I have plenty of room as do my passengers, but its not some huge vehicle either. It also has plenty of power for my needs, too. Those numbers aren't with extremely conservative driving either, just average...though I am certain that I could waste lots of gas if I drove very aggressively, which seems to be the norm around me still. Definitely don't need to automatically buy a big, full-sized vehicle if you're tall. :)


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Screwballl on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By RHiNoX on 6/3/2008 11:59:38 PM , Rating: 3
6'3" 270 lbs. My shoulder hits the side glass on a corolla, I have to lean into the middle of the car to shut the door.

I fit in Civic just fine. Had one but driving F150 now.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By wetlegs6 on 6/4/2008 6:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
Im 6'3" and I drive this: http://www.thomas-thaerigen.de/images/thowww6a.jpg

(Not me in it btw).


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By crimson117 on 6/4/2008 11:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
wtf I never knew so many posters on DT were so big/tall :P

6'0" 175 here, fit in my '04 Accord coupe just fine, and drove a '92 Civic for 10 years before I got the Accord.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By SeanMI on 6/5/2008 9:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I guess I win. I'm 6'6" and 255lbs. I drive an '05 Focus.

Oh, and FYI...I can't fit in the drivers seat of an '03 BMW 525. I guess it's because they value the backseat space in those things, but the seat doesn't go back far enough. Either that or the dash protrudes too much. One way or another, I can't get my knees under the dash.

So much for big cars being roomier...


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By OxBow on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By OxBow on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/3/2008 7:20:53 PM , Rating: 3
> "the idea that most small cars don't fit big American's is such old tripe that I'm suprised anyone is still trying to pawn it off as fresh."

Well, the tripe that bigger vehicles truly aren't larger on the inside is still being pawned off by some.

I can squeeze myself into a Corolla also...or (as I do far more often) my small two-seater ragtop. Neither is as comfortable as my SUV, which not only has more interior room, but a much larger doorwell to ease entry, along with a higher wheelbase, which doesn't require leg exercise to get in and out of. Plus, when I put the wife, two kids, and one or two of their friends in, we all still have breathing room. Try that in your wife's corolla.

Sure, I could also do that in a Minivan...but on days when I want to bring back 12 bags of mulch and a few plants from Home Depot, an SUV is far more convenient to load and unload...not to mention clean out afterwards.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Merry on 6/3/2008 8:36:18 PM , Rating: 5
Sure, you're right about the interior space argument, but I think you're missing the point here, or at least exaggerating somewhat.

A Toyota Corolla, particularly if its the same as the one shown in the article, is not a small car by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed the same could be said of the Accord and the Camry shown in the article. I know of a number of people of a large size, one in particular has a Peugeot 306, smaller than any car mentioned here and he's easily 6"something, yet its comfortable for him. I also dont buy to much into the whole 'but what if I go to the garden centre and buy x' argument. I have a tow bar fitted to my car for such an event and I have a lowly Mk1 Fiat Punto 55. If push comes to shove i'll borrow a Transit van, but that is very rare.

I'm not saying that people should chose such options i'm just pointing out that from my point of view, and probably that of a few Europeans, your argument seems somewhat alien to me.

Also you said the Wife, two kids and a friend was a push in a Corolla. Try 5 people and a guitar in a Mk1 Mini (the guitar was half out of the front window, by the way) :p


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Merry on 6/3/2008 9:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure. I think there is a somewhat of a philosophical divide. Many of the more wealthy opt for sports cars, or fast Saloons. More importantly despite you discarding it as a factor, yes our streets are smaller, our roads twistier and our countries smaller. I think the trend towards SUVs has been somewhat of an American import really as opposed to some economic by product, although that is a somewhat crude generalisation.

At the end of the day its a case of the car being fit for purpose. It may just be the case that said purpose is different in each country.

Of course whether said purpose is indeed necessary...


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/3/2008 9:33:54 PM , Rating: 3
> "More importantly despite you discarding it as a factor, yes our streets are smaller,"

Eh? I specifically included it as a factor, though not the largest.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Merry on 6/3/2008 9:39:31 PM , Rating: 3
Yes sorry, I meant to say as a major factor.



RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By slunkius on 6/4/2008 12:56:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
European automakers sell models with mileage far worse than even a Hummer H2


can you prove that? I would consider "far worse" being at least 20% difference.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 1:10:27 AM , Rating: 4
> "can you prove that? I would consider "far worse" being at least 20% difference"

Lamborghini Murcielago, 8 MPG city.
Bugatti Veyron 9 MPG.
Bentley Azure, 9 MPG.
Bentley Arnage 9 MPG.
Ferrari Scaglietti 9 MPG.
Aston Martin DB9 10 MPG.
Maybach 57 (and 62) 10 MPG.
Mercedes G55 11 MPG.
Hummer H2 11 MPG.

GM's great crime wasn't to make a gas guzzler...but to make one people could afford.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By dsx724 on 6/4/2008 1:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
You're right. With the exception of the G55, those cars are exotics made for the filthy rich and the poor man's dreams. Not to mention they would burn the H2 off the line and run circles around them in corners. H2 is just an underperforming American SUV well suited for the American suburban lifestyle and not much else. And not to mention that gas is probably their last worry when the rear-view mirror costs 3000 euro.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Maskarat on 6/4/2008 4:01:13 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry ! Why are you placing a crappy Hummer in such a list?

I understand it's a big, powerful SUV, quite a good one in it's caregory.. but to just compare that monster to an Aston Martin DB 9 or a Ferrari Scaglietti or the Bugatti Veyron...

Aside from the fact that those cars are quite a rarity on european roads, do you really not see any difference between them? Aside from the ridiculous MPG those cars have nothing in common with the Hummer! I doubt any big european spender, wanting to splash cash on a STYLISH SOPHISTICATED car would even consider a Hummer!


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By BarkHumbug on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By P4blo on 6/4/2008 5:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
LOL


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By HeavyB on 6/4/2008 9:57:10 AM , Rating: 1
What a ridiculous comparison. You are getting desperate in your attempts to prop up big oil if this is all you can come up with, Masher. Very desperate...and pathetic.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By crimson117 on 6/4/2008 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 3
His point was that in Europe, generally only luxury cars are gas guzzlers. But in America, there are many cheap cars that are still gas guzzlers - Hummer for example. He specifically mentioned "GM's great crime wasn't to make a gas guzzler...but to make one people could afford."

Try to name an affordable gas guzzler made in Europe... affordable gas guzzlers are not as popular in Europe as in America, and that trend is coming to America to with our rising gas prices.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By sporr on 6/7/2008 5:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM's great crime wasn't to make a gas guzzler...but to make one people could afford.


Nice oxymoron, although unintended in your case.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/4/2008 10:12:03 AM , Rating: 5
I drive what I consider a fairly large and fast car, or at least it's large enough to transport 4 normally sized adult men and their luggage without being cramped.

It averages 26.5 MPG with 3/4 highway (~85 MPH) and 1/4 city traffic. It can go from 0-60 MPH in less than 6 seconds and has a top speed of 160+ MPH.
How is that possible? Well, with an advanced turbo charged 4 cylinder engine it is. Inefficient and heavy V8s? No thanks!

And with the seats down it can fit huge amounts of stuff inside. Like 9 large moving crates and lots of other stuff when I helped some friends move. Or how about a 3.2 meter long christmas tree? Or a fridge? Or a couch?

The car is from 1995, has gone 220k miles and still going strong.
I drive a modded Saab 9000 turbo...

I don't understand the desire for SUVs and I would never buy one, no matter how cheap the gas was or how much money I made. I value performance, practicality and handling far too high for that. It's not because the gas is $9 per gallon here that most people I know don't want SUVs.

But each to his own I guess...


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/4/2008 12:13:55 PM , Rating: 4
I'm definitely not going to have more than 2 kids and I've grown up in a family of 4 in a surburban house where we had a similarly sized car. Never had any problems fitting in that. Even when we all four took road trips to other parts of Europe...

I think you overestimate the interior size difference between a well designed hatchback/stationcar and an SUV...

Lets take the 2006 BMW X5 and my 1996 Saab 9000 and compare EPA interior space:

Front headroom:
X5: 39.9", Saab 9000: 38.6"

Front legroom:
X5: 39.3", Saab 9000: 41.7" !

Front shoulder room:
X5: 58", Saab 9000: 57.5"

Rear head room:
X5: 38.5", Saab 9000: 37.4"

Rear leg room:
X5: 35.4", Saab 9000: 36.8" !

Rear shoulder room:
X5: 57.2", Saab 9000: 57.5" !

And finally, the big surprise,
Interior volume:
X5: 97.6 cu ft, Saab 9000: 123 cu ft !!

So you see, besides the headroom being about an inch better in the X5, the SUV is actually smaller inside! So in spite of being bigger on the outside, much heavier, slower, poorer handling, much less fuel efficient etc, this SUV does not have better interior room. And the X5 is a medium sized SUV!


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/4/2008 12:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
What you call a midsized crossover SUV, we just call an SUV.

They (Porsche Cayenne, VW Tuareg, Audi Q7 etc) are all pretty much as large as is practical to drive on European roads. The other gargantuan SUVs would just be a nightmare to find parking spaces with and to navigate in most European cities..


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/4/2008 12:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
The length is mostly a problem when parking. When navigating small city streets the width and turning radius is much more important...


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By wempa on 6/4/2008 12:51:00 PM , Rating: 3
Regardless, he's got a good point. There isn't that much extra room in an SUV over a good hatch back. I definitely find a big difference from cars, though. My wife drives a Honda Accord and I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee. There are definitely a lot of things I can transport that she can't. Since my Jeep is getting up there in mileage, I think my next car will be very fuel efficient and I'll just hang onto the Jeep for whenever I need the extra room to haul things around.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2008 3:09:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm definitely not going to have more than 2 kids


LOL ohhh boy. If we only had a list of everyone thats ever said that before ! heheheh :)


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Drexial on 6/4/2008 4:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
Im not sure you remember a time when families had as many as 12 children and SUVs were only an automakers wet dream. They had a family car and a utility truck... SPORT wasnt even a consideration.... why does a utility vehicle need sport, or for that mater, Luxury. I grew up with an 81 Chevy Pick-up. That was a utility vehicle. But why do you need luxury or sport when picking up mulch/fertilizer/furniture.

I mean right wingers say liberals are making this country soft, when they are the ones that wont settle for anything less then leather, AC, satellite radio, 32 way electronically adjustable seats.

Vinyl bench seat and an awesome view of the country side was all the entertainment I needed in a truck.

BTW I grew up in the inner city, my dad lived in the burbs and we used the truck to tow a boat and get supplies. I didn't even come close to living in the sticks.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By fonzdaman on 6/5/2008 12:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vinyl bench seat and an awesome view of the country side was all the entertainment I needed in a truck.


Amen to that! Much like myself, nothing beats a good view

And about time people start waking up and are starting to drive fuel efficient cars. Sure, many families out there would need an SUV and all its goodness to get around but for the people who don't...well then its a no brainer

Remember, aslong as it takes you from A to B people :D


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By hubajube on 6/3/2008 9:09:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Try 5 people and a guitar in a Mk1 Mini (the guitar was half out of the front window, by the way) :p
We have laws governing the amount of passengers you can have in a vehicle as well as what you can tow with said vehicle. You can't tow a tractor with a Corolla. You can't tow jet skis with a Corolla. You can't tow a hole digger with a Corolla. You can't fit a TV in a Corolla. You can't fit a washing machine/dryer in a Corolla.

There are delivery restrictions to certain areas so that means borrowing a larger vehicle or renting for those folks. See, here in America, most of us live in rural areas not in cities. We don't have all the luxuries and conveniences of cities. It takes far less of our time just to simply buy a truck or SUV then it does to coordinate rentals, other peoples schedules and such.

Not saying that everyone is in that situation but a good few million of us are. Calling people idiots because they choose to buy what they want or need is ridiculous. How about some understanding of your fellow man? Why did he/she buy that SUV or truck?


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Merry on 6/3/2008 9:35:00 PM , Rating: 5
You can't tow jet skis with a Corolla. You can't fit a TV in a Corolla. You can't fit a washing machine/dryer in a Corolla.

As someone with a smaller car that a Corolla, yes you can, indeed I have (alright so maybe not the jet ski, but I have towed a ProKart which is ab out the same weight/size). Admittedly fitting the washing machine in would depend upon whether you have the saloon or hatchback version of a Corolla, but you get the idea.

Also, how many times do you feel you need to have the versatility of an SUV, i'm not being condescending here, i'm just genuinely intrigued how you can justify the extra cost because occasionally you might want to throw a TV in your car, or tractor or whatever.

Not saying that everyone is in that situation but a good few million of us are. Calling people idiots because they choose to buy what they want or need is ridiculous. How about some understanding of your fellow man? Why did he/she buy that SUV or truck?

Sorry but I didnt call you idiots. You're reading what you want to see here and to be honest its borderline insulting.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Omega215D on 6/3/2008 10:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
I live in NY where the winter can be harsh so my family has a pretty small SUV. My dad has to go to work at around 4 -5 AM which means that the roads may not be plowed or in worse winter weather snow has accumulated so much. He travels from the boroughs to Long Island in which road conditions may get worse out there.

We all know that SUVs aren't immune to the weather but it did a better job of being able to get out of the driveway and on to a snow covered street compared to my brother's Mazda Protoge.

The bad thing is that the car is paid off so my parents don't want to think about buying another vehicle and start that monthly payment hassle again. Meanwhile I commute mostly on my motorcycle which gets me 53 MPG highway, 44 city and then it's public transit for the snow bound days.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By crimson117 on 6/4/2008 12:07:31 PM , Rating: 3
I know you said you weren't, but if you were in the market for a new car, and winter-weather performance was important, you still don't have to look to SUV's. In fact, many SUVs on the market today are just cars with an SUV shell on top (like the RAV4 is just a Corolla with a big shell on it), so you don't get much winter performance.

To drive in the snow, you need:
- good snow tires
- 4-wheel/all-wheel drive helps you get started
- traction control
- high ground clearance for really deep snow (and then, come on, stay off the road unless you're a snow-plower :P)

To stop in the snow, you need:
- good snow tires
- to go be going really slow in the first place

Any midsize car with good snow tires and a smart driver behind the wheel will do fine in most snow. At some point ground clearance does become an issue, but in NY you're not supposed to be on the roads in deep unplowed snow unless it's an emergency.

Suburu makes cars with good clearance, all-wheel drive, and good mileage.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Omega215D on 6/4/2008 3:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've been trying to get my parents to get a Subaru for some time but they already finished paying off the car. My parents need to make money so sometimes staying in from work isn't an option.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Drexial on 6/4/2008 4:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
Man I drove a rear wheel drive lowered BMW M3 through Buffalo, NY winters... Never even put the winter tires on (though that would have helped a lot).

Really all you need is Winter tires and patience. The only reason people get stuck is cause they floor the gas.

most people put too much faith in their all season tires. Most aren't actually rated well or recommended for anything more then LIGHT snow.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By hubajube on 6/4/2008 12:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
I don't own an SUV so no need to justify it. Never wanted one anyways. I DO own a truck. We bought it mainly to tow our horses around but my wife uses it as a commuter too because three cars is too expensive. I do some DIY stuff around the house so we use it for supplies and then there's feed for the horses. I live in an area that has all custom homes on multi-acre lots. Lots of contractors, horse owners, and other small business owners.

Quite frankly, I can use a tractor almost everyday. Fire codes require us to keep 8 feet from our fence lines clear of anything and the way weeds and such grow out here, that needs to be done once a week. We have no grass (desert), but stuff grows anyways and that needs to be kept clear too. No lawn mower can do that, riding mower or otherwise, because of the rocks. I drag it with a tractor. Works great. Tractor rental is $170/day not to mention they won't let you tow it unless you have a 3/4 ton or larger truck. Cheaper just to buy a tractor in the long run plus I can let neighbors that don't have one borrow it.

My wife rides a couple times a week plus we get feed once a week. So the truck won't be a rental. There are people that could simply rent a truck for whenever they need it but if you're renting it for three or more days a month at $115/day, it would be cheaper to buy one even if it's used. If you're using it once a year maybe it's not the best choice but who am I to say what someone should or should not buy?


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By hubajube on 6/4/2008 12:35:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sorry but I didnt call you idiots. You're reading what you want to see here and to be honest its borderline insulting.
BTW, I didn't read into anything. The title says:
quote:
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
Since trucks sell WAY more than all SUV's and they get crappy gas mileage and people don't use them for their intended purpose just like SUV's, we must be stupid also. Besides, I like being part of the unpopular group anyways. It makes life most interesting.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Merry on 6/4/2008 2:44:07 AM , Rating: 3
The title isnt mine, its from the original post and quite frankly is stupid in itself.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Sandok on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Ringold on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Maskarat on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By crimson117 on 6/4/2008 12:21:44 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting assertation...

(268,601 sq miles in Texas)(6,600,000,000 people) = 1,134.5 square feet per person

Thank you google calculator :) You're right, 1.1k square feet per person is a lot. Still, you couldn't really do that because people need resources like food markets and roads and schools. But it's a fun calculation.

--

As for your claim... where did you find your numbers for the manhattan vs sweden/spain average living space?

Home size is a function of relative wealth AND population density. A person making $100k/year living in Kentucky could own a multi-acre property and live in a very large, very well furnished house, while a person making $100k/year in Manhattan can maybe afford to rent a 1-bedroom and buy furniture at Ikea. So as population density rises and per-person living space decreases, it takes more and more wealth to buy that living space.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 12:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "You're right, 1.1k square feet per person is a lot. "

You're assuming single-floor construction. If we house those people in three-story buildings, and assume an average of just 3 people per home, that's an average home size of over 10,000 sq. feet -- a mansion for all, and with the entire rest of the planet fully depopulated.

> "Home size is a function of relative wealth AND population density."

No. In some cases, population density contributes to cost of living, which makes it appear related. But for proof by counterexample, consider the size home one could buy in ultra-crowded Calcutta.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/4/2008 12:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
You're trying to use Manhattan as an indicator of average population density in the US?! That's not exactly representative of the US as a whole.

Here are some facts:
Average population density of the United States:
31 per square KM

Now lets compare that with the major European countries:

Average pop density of United Kingdom:
246 per square KM

Average pop density of Germany:
232 per square KM

Average pop density of France:
110 per square KM

Average pop density of Spain:
89 per square KM

Average pop density of the Netherlands:
395 per square KM

Well I think you get the point? I'll add my own country for fun:

Average pop density of Denmark:
127 per square KM.

So, I think it's safe to say that YES, the most likely reason people have larger homes in the US is because there is more space and it's cheaper! Not because people are more affluent in the US. This will be confirmed if you compare the average prices per square meter of houses and appartments.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "You're trying to use Manhattan as an indicator of average population density in the US?! "

Amazing someone could have misread clear English to such an extent. I specifically stated Manhattan was the most crowded spot on the planet. Despite that, the average home size there is larger than most people in the rest of the world enjoy. Furthermore, its larger than what Americans in much less crowded (and less affluent) areas such as rural Mississippi live in.

Home size has nothing whatsover to do with "space". It has to do with wealth, plain and simple. People buy what they can afford. Europeans, having a lower per-capita income and a less efficient building market, can afford less.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 6/4/2008 12:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
And some of the richest people in the world live in Manhattan. Like I said, not representative of the US as a whole.

Per capita income according to the CIA is practically the same for the UK and the US. And the pop density is higher in the UK by basically an order of magnitude...

As I wrote in my previous post. Try digging up the average cost per M2 of homes in the US and in the major EU countries...


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 1:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "And some of the richest people in the world live in Manhattan. "

Now you're getting it. Home size is a function of wealth, not physical space.

> "Per capita income according to the CIA is practically the same for the UK and the US."

According to purchasing power per-capita income in the US is $44K, whereas it's $33K in the U.K -- a full one-third lower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

The average home size in the U.K. is roughly 50% smaller, a value which (when combined with the disparity in building efficiency) is almost perfectly explained by the difference in income.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Spoelie on 6/4/2008 3:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
Every time this kind of article comes up, there's countless arguments "but what if i need to carry xx tons of equipment and carry 7 people at the same time".

Based on the arguments always used, I'd love to see a typical american highway/road, must be funny as a european to see every SUV going by stuffed to the brim with TV's, refrigerators, people ... - while on a typical european road you'd have a hard time finding a car with more than one person in it, let alone a refrigerator.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/4/2008 7:33:24 AM , Rating: 2
I find my Acura TL to be quite a good day to day car. When I need to haul something large I rent a truck for a few hours.

Renting a truck? Wow what an amazing discovery!


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Alexstarfire on 6/4/2008 8:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
I know, it's like the idea of renting is a lost art. People use a lot of ifs when they talk about owning an SUV or truck, but the fact of the matter is you need to look at what you do the most of. If you would rent a truck or SUV more than twice a month then it'd probably be cheaper to buy one, but most people probably wouldn't.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By kkwst2 on 6/4/2008 8:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
What year is your TL? The recent ones get very unimpressive mileage, given it's size and performance. Plus, they use premium gas.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2008 12:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every time this kind of article comes up, there's countless arguments "but what if i need to carry xx tons of equipment and carry 7 people at the same time".


And every time this article comes up theres people like you telling others what they should or shouldn't buy.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By MrPoletski on 6/4/2008 6:56:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yanno we get fat leviathon put-the-fork-down future heart failure need an 18 wheeler ambulance soon to be dead cake-o-philes here in the UK too.

They drive our small cars fine. The ones that don't drive small cars are the MUMS dropping their single kid off at school in their ford galaxies holding up ALL THE TRAFFIC because they can't manuever the damn thing!

They need the huge vehicles for SHOPPING.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By MrBlastman on 6/4/2008 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
I can fit 12 bags of mulch and a few plants in my Subaru WRX Wagon any day. It gets 27 - 30 mpg on the highway and is turbocharged and able to Autocross all day long.

What's your point? There is no need for big SUV's unless you are a mountain man or a contractor. In their case - they usually drive Trucks or Sienna's - not castrated semi-lux wannabe utility vans otherwise known as SUV's.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2008 12:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "I can fit 12 bags of mulch and a few plants in my Subaru WRX Wagon..It gets 27-30 on the highway"

Interesting, this Motortrend review of the Subaru WRX showed it at 18.4 mpg on the average...not much better than a midsized SUV.

As for loading up your wagon, I'm sure with the seats folded down it's a monster for cargo storage. When you need to move 5 people, and 6 large suitcases on a vacation trip, though, you'll miss those rear seats.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By MrBlastman on 6/4/2008 1:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Called roof racks sir :)

Just this past Memorial Day weekend I hauled:

Canoe on roof
3 People
Cooler, Chairs, Food, Equipment etc. and still had room to spare for a 4th person easy.

Motortrend is great for some things but who are you going to believe more - an article or someone that has driven the car for the last 4 years?

I average 27 mpg highway with my BBS racing wheels/tires, 30 mpg highway with my stock wheels/tires without any effort.

I get about 20 - 22 mpg city with racing wheels/tires. I gas up every two weeks and put 10 gallons in the tank as long as I stay off boost and don't race the car around town.

I'd say I'm doing a tad bit better than your typical SUV driver.

Oh - AND, I don't block peoples view who are behind me - thus enabling them greater awareness of the road ahead because they can... actually see far down the road. This isn't possible with congested highways full of SUV's who decide tailgating is the best driving action.

If I had to move more ppl I'd load them in our Forrester. With roof racks once again, luggage is not a problem.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By jRaskell on 6/4/2008 1:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, you've got yourself a very rare WRX there man. My buddy has owned two WRXes (a 2001 or 2002, I forget, and now a 2006) and has never been able to do better than about 24mpg highway absolutely babying the thing.

Who do YOU think I should believe?


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2008 1:55:33 PM , Rating: 1
WRX's get crap for mileage. And they are not cheaper because the turbo models require premium fuel. If you use anything other than premium on a turbo car your an idiot and deserve the cylinder detonation that WILL happen.

WRX's are sporty and fun to drive too, which kills gas mileage. Because, lets be honest, your going to floor the thing constantly.

My friend owns an STI and the temptation is just horrible. You can't " granny " it, it begs for you to rip through the gears and spool up the turbo as much as you legally, and illegally, can :)


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By MrBlastman on 6/4/2008 2:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
After owning it for 4 years I really don't beat on it nearly as hard throttle-wise as I did when I first got the car. I save most of the really-hard throttle work to Autocross and track events.

I run premium only.

They're extremely fun cars to drive and as I have found that with the handling mods I have done to the car, I have far more fun with lateral g's rather than acceleration-induce g's.

I have 0 engine mods as well. I've only focused on handling so far which it does _very_ well at.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2008 3:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have 0 engine mods as well.


My friends STI has benefited greatly from the K&N filter he installed. Quicker throttle response and turbo lag went down. I highly recommend it !

Anyway I'm glad you like your car. I just took issue with your statement that " nobody needs an SUV ". I mean, its just really not your place to say what people want or need.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By MrBlastman on 6/4/2008 2:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
He must not be good at driving then. :)

I do it all the time. On a 700-mile trip I averaged 30 mpg. I wasn't really babying it either and was sailing along at 75 - 80 mph most of the time.

Perhaps the gravitational field of the earth was off kilter? I don't know. I do know my numbers are legitimate.

I would think though that the 04 would get slightly better mileage vs. the 06, 04 being 2.0 liter and the 06 being 2.5 liter.

I run fully synthetic oil as well, change it every 5k, make sure I change my manual transmission fluid periodically (his are stickshifts, right?) as well as my differential fluids. I do all the maintenance myself.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Major HooHaa on 6/7/2008 2:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
If we are talking MPG, I can give you some figures on our car, which is a 5 seater Toyota RAV4.

Previously we had a 2-litre petrol RAV4, which officially does 32 MPG and produces around 200g of CO2 per kilometre.

We have finally replaced our aging RAV with the newer version with a 2.2 litre diesel engine. This produces more horsepower at normal engine speeds (it's only once you get somewhere past 4,000 RPM that the petrol version out performs the diesel in horsepower output) and it produces much more torque.

But it produces slightly lower CO2 emissions (175g per kilometre if memory serves) and officially does 42 Miles Per Gallon. Currently the onboard computer says that our RAV4 S.U.V's average fuel consumption is 45.5 MPG. This number has been steadily climbing since we got the car.

Also we live down a country road that floods in various places during prolonged heavy rain, the RAV has been good for fording these floods. Also it is quite at home on the local farm tracks round here, as well as on the road.

This new RAV4 is in front wheel drive most of the time, which in theory saves fuel. When the on-board computer detects loss of traction, then power is also sent to the rear wheels. The RAV can be locked into 4-Wheel-Drive mode at speeds below 25 M.P.H, via a button on the dashboard.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Souka on 6/3/2008 5:28:26 PM , Rating: 5
I'd like to know the numbers of these top 5 selling cars/trucks if you take out business purchases.

I'd imagine the F-150 series hasn't been #1 for most of the two decades it currently claims.

And I'd alos imagine if you look at buiness purchases only, the F-150 was #1 for two decades and still in #1 spot by quite a few sales....

numbers...#1...etc....so easy to make them say anything...


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Teancum on 6/3/2008 5:59:26 PM , Rating: 4
I'm 6'8" and 330lbs so I'm screwed in any car or SUV. SUV's really don't have more legroom for the driver. Go to Tall.org to see a list of cars that have the most legroom.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Lord 666 on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Alexvrb on 6/3/2008 8:10:44 PM , Rating: 5
BMI = Bullshit Meter for Idiots. I'm not saying he couldn't stand to lose a few pounds, maybe he could, I've never met him. Hell I sure could lose a few pounds. But for all you know he could be built like a Spartan, and might be in better health than you or I.

Plus, you kind of come off as a dick with a comment like that. What? I already used naughty language to get my auto-downrate. Might as well.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By piranhaa on 6/3/2008 9:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
haha, I laugh at anyone who uses the BMI as a calculator for good health. I'm 220lbs, ~6'1"-2" and my BMI is 29 (at the low end of obese. I workout 5days/week (and cardio on my off days sometimes), and FAAAAR from that. I really don't know why anyone even suggests using that bullsh*t scale anymore (or ever for that matter)


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By blaster5k on 6/3/2008 10:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's a little bit easier than whipping out calipers and calculating body fat percentage basically, but it's still a meaningless number that only hacks would use as a gauge of anything.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By Lord 666 on 6/4/2008 9:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, BMI is a valid indicator for future health problems and a required calculation in physicals. There is a huge visible difference between 29 and 36 or even 20 and 29.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By crimson117 on 6/4/2008 12:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
BMI is admittedly inaccurate for people with certain body types, such as body builders (who have way above average muscle mass and way below average body fat) or adolescents (whose BMI varies greatly from month to month as they grow up). But for people with average body types, it's generally a good indicator of a proper weight/height ratio.


RE: SUV owners are stupid.
By flurazepam on 6/3/2008 6:03:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are more then one reason to own a car. Gas isnt everything for everyone.


Ok, maybe not, but it will be for many of us. Not knocking the need and use of trucks. They will always have their place/use(s). In a recent issue of Maclean's magazine, they not only write that economists agree that the $200/barrel of oil will be reached by 2009-10, but they intimate that $250-$300/barrel is not unrealistic. When filling a car costs $160+, the economy and way of life will be radically changed. In terms of the smaller cars, one of the big complaints I read is that economy cars are too small for taller people. In 2006 Honda/Nissan/Toyota/Mazda addressed these concerns by making the seats of these cars 20-30% larger than previous generations to accomomdate these needs.

Regardless, that being said, the big issue about fuel costs is when China and India come on board so to speak in the next 2 decades. The demand for oil will skyrocket. There definitely needs to be a radical shift from this energy source to another, otherwise the global economy will suffer brutally.