Why we need big hybrid SUVs

That's propaganda, a rather transparent attempt to divert attention away from how much fuel is being used in the first place.

 

When they build one that can tow 5,000 pounds, I'll buy one. Until then, I will stick with the one we have now (along with the Prius).

 

The argument that big hybrid SUVs "save" more fuel than cars like the Prius, is false because it makes the assumption that anyone actually needs those monster trucks.

Case study:

Fred drives an 8-passenger SUV, capable of towing a 60-foot travel trailer, to buy groceries, pick up his kid from school, and to get to the hockey game. He gets 10 mpg and in 15,000 miles a year of driving he burns 1,500 gallons of gas.

He switches to a hybrid that gets 11 mpg, so now in a year he burns 1364 gallons. Because he is a moron, he thinks he "saved" 136 gallons of gas.

His neighbor, Judy, drives a Prius for the same errands (only she drives to the symphony hall instead of the hockey game) and in the same 15,000 miles a year she burns 300 gallons of gas.

Judy burned 1,064 fewer gallons of gas than Fred, even though his SUV is a hybrid.

How effing stupid does somebody have to think I am when they tell me that Fred's hybrid SUV "saves" more gas than a Prius??? Gimme a break!

Postscript:

After Judy read this post, she went out and bought herself a ZAP Xebra and now she doesn't burn any gas at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 7 2007, 07:25 PM) [snapback]457693[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you...but also feel that just maybe hybrid trucks and SUV's might begin to remake the 'bleeding heart liberal/ecocraziness/namby-pamby image that seems to haunt most hybrids today.

My hope is that the military will really take to hybrids, and that 'battle-tough' image will trickle down, in the way the original Hummer's created a civilian brand.

That way, the 'big truck' of the family will be at least a bit more efficient...and it might also lead to a hybrid Malibu or whatever parked next to it in the garage (for the missus).

And then their kids would grow up with hybrids, and what seemed so unusual to the folks will be what the kids are used to in the first place...

Hoping for a slower but more comprehensive and organic assimilation of hybrids (or better) into the mainstream.

 

The article quote to watch:

"Be a Man"

That reptillian/caveman crap again...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 7 2007, 08:25 PM) [snapback]457693[/snapback]</div>

:lol:
A bit biased, are we? Haha, it's all good. Good way to pick apart the propaganda.

The whole news article seems like a farce. Somehow, the hybrid car has become the quintessential gas saver, vice a more economical automobile. OF COURSE it's not going to save as much when you switch over from, say, a Toyota Corolla. Gas savings are even less if you trade in your VW TDI for a Prius...the numbers become smaller. However, though you might save only a couple hundred gallons over the course of the year, you still use way less gas than what you would have driving a humongous Suburban or Ram 3500.

 

While I agree that the article in question leans heavily to the side of propaganda, some of the posters here are taking the polar opposite side, which is equally as wrong.

While not everyone needs a 4 wheel drive monster SUV, some people have legitimate uses for large vehicles.

My father does woodworking as a hobby, and maintains two rental properties. He needs a truck enough that it is not fiscally responsible to own a small car and rent a truck every time he needs it. That said, he drives a small truck by today's standards, a Ford Ranger.

My mother mainly is shuttling people, and not much cargo, so she doesn't need something massive. She drives a Toyota Camry. When they travel together and don't need to pick up something large, they take the car b/c it is more efficient, and more comfortable to ride in.

When he goes to upgrade his truck, he'll be getting rid of something that gets 20mpg consistently in mixed driving. Say he buys a new truck at a 15% mileage increase, 23 mpg.

Dad drives his truck only when they need it or they need to travel in separate directions. So he puts about 10000 miles on his truck a year. By using the car instead of the truck when they don't need it...they probably save 5000 miles a year on the truck that get run up on the car.

5000 miles at 20 mpg in an old truck, 5000 miles at 23 mpg in a new truck, or 5000 miles at 33 mpg in a car. I think we all know what's most efficient here.

And now I'll get to my point. Drive the car that makes the most sense for YOU. Do what you can to consume less. And try not to be quite so judgmental of others based solely on what they are driving.

 

I saw this article! What a bunch of bologna!

By the way, all, you can reach the author of the article at [email protected] if you'd like to send your opinion.

 

I have an example of why people need SUVs.

My mom drives a ~2001 Chevy Tahoe because twice a year she needs to drive three work buddys accross town for a meeting, and then all four of them have extra room. My dad drives a ~1995 Chevy Suburban because once every three months he goes camping with the Boy Scouts (he is Scoutmaster, though less active lately) and one out of every three times he goes he needs to pull the scout trailer. Also, once a month he needs to pull his 'boat' (small, cheap, aluminum, boat that I can pull with my own strength). Also, my parents need the Tahoe for when they go camping once a month as a couple, and they need the Tahoe because once a year they need to drive across the country to see family, all because they need the room. They also have my old Astro van, which my dad uses on his commute now (25 mile round trip) because it is more fuel efficient (17mpg compared to suburban's 12mpg). So, obviously he is helping the environment and decrease gas consumption by keeping the minivan for commuting instead of driving the SUV that he needs, right?

Or, perhaps, my mom only needs a Prius to drive her three workbuddies once a year (I count four seats in my Prius, so surely four people can fit), and perhaps my dad could drive a Prius to go on camping trips and let one of the other SUV dads pull the scout trailer. And perhaps he could pull his 50 pound boat with a prius, and perhaps, my parents could fit what they need to go camping in a prius (my wife and I manages with room to spare), and when they go across country, they could take a Prius and still fit the crap for the two of them (I can fit all of my stuff in the Prius and still use the trunk cover). So really, they don't need an SUV for any reason - none whatsoever, but they have told me all of the things I have said as reasons they each need an SUV. My parents feel that they need an SUV, although, they don't need one for any rational purpose. I think the vast majority of SUV owners are like them, at least every SUV driver that I have known is like them. My dad driving a minivan instead of his truck to work saves gasoline, but the amount saved on that decision is trivial compared to the excess gasoline they use. The same applys to SUV hybrids - the amount saved is trivial compared to how much they use when they DON'T NEED AN SUV in the first place. The safety hazards of SUVs, consumption wastes of SUVs, and environmental destruction of SUVs all justify IMO the need to regulate who owns one in the first place (and some people with job requirements like contractors and farmers should be able to have a truck/SUV, but with a surtax). I love personal freedom, but the truth is that some decisions that people make have huge negative externalities that those people DON'T PAY FOR.

 

...for the same reason they need big "regular" SUVs -

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HokieHybrid @ Jun 8 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]458226[/snapback]</div>

This is an excellent point. My wife's cousin has a Suburban (or the GMC equivalent). Why? Because he has 5 kids that all participate in different activities. And he & his wife both coach. They've got sports equipment coming out the wazoo and actually need something that size to tote them around.

On the other hand, my household is just me & my wife. Hence we have a Prius & an Accord. And, once it's financially possible, we'll downsize the Accord. We don't need that much car.

 

You see, some of the points made in this thread are quite valid. However, I firmly believe that the article posted by the OP was really trying to make a sales pitch for the big SUVs.

Yes, it is not only practical, but necessary for some to drive a big SUV. However, I do believe that in some cases I can make a wrong decision based on information I receive. I point the finger at the media for continually attempting to dismantle the hybrid car.

Ultimately, these articles are written for the sole purpose of generating ratings. Media stories like these are written to create a stir, IMO; and as more and more of us decide to 'click the link' and read the article, the only thing that they see is that they're bringing in hits on the article. Personally, I don't think these media giants even give a flip about the hybrid SUVs to begin with. They only care about buzz generated, and when buzz is generated, they make money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Jun 8 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]458345[/snapback]</div>

Right on the mark. I've only encountered one situation where an SUV was really needed (actually two big ones). This was a commercial operation that takes groups of people hiking in the Selkirk Mountains of Canada. They typically take 10 to 14 people plus three guides for a one- to two-hour drive each way to and from the trail head, and often one hour of that is on decommissioned logging roads. These roads are extremely rough with large water bars on them. A two-wheel-drive car cannot make it. A low-clearance car cannot make it. And this outfit takes two FULL loads most trips. They need big SUVs.

Nobody else needs an SUV.

 

I'd trade the Prius in on an Acadia in a heartbeat if the little woman would let me...

(ducks)

 

The Author is lying. I will usually cut some slack to an author but it does not snow heavily on Cape Cod. I lived midcape for two winters and sure we got some snow once in awhile but it melted quickly. The running fable on Cape Cod is that winters are so mild a person can golf all year round and it isn't far from the truth.

Also, the Cape is very compact and a person does not need to go very far to find most things they either need or want in life. The example is BS. A person who cannot drive well enough to navigate a two wheel drive vehicle in the winter has no business being behind the wheel of a four wheel drive for the priviledge of driving faster in the same dangerous conditions.

Additionally, The Cape is a pretty flat piece of sand so unless someone is running "The Dunes" four wheel drive is simply not necessary.

 

tnthub makes an interesting point.

In my 8 years of driving here in New England, there's only been once that I can recall that not having 4wd was a setback: when my 1989 Firebird (with posi) refused to get traction. I put some sand under the rear wheels, and presto! I was out in a semi-jiffy.

As for the snow here in NE, I've rarely put any 4wd vehicle that I've owned into 4wd simply to get through the snow. The only real advantage you have with a big 4wd is the weight on the wheels; even still, I've found that I never really needed 4wd - not even in my big 4wd Dodge Ram.

If you get 4wd for driving in the snow, I'd say it's a mistake. If ou get AWD for driving in the snow, again, it's a mistake. The only situation I think anyone actually needs 4wd for is in an off-road capacity, and with that I'd say that it's still got limited applications.
Even in the mountains there's no real need for it. He drove his 1971 Ford Maverick up and down windy mountain roads in the snow no problem. If you know anything about the Ford Maverick, you know it's really light in the rear end, and prone to spinning out in low traction conditions. All he used were snow chains; not once did he ever lose control while we were in the car with him.
Unless you're driving in the deep wilderness where there are no real 'roads', you're better off having a 2wd drivetrain - more efficient and more reliable.

Just my $.02 - and then some.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jun 9 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]458832[/snapback]</div>

Excellent point.

And I will add:

You will get stuck in the snow more often in a 4WD vehicle than you will in a 2WD vehicle:

I drove a CJ5 Jeep in rural North Dakota for many years. Eventually I dumped the POS and bought a Civic. The Jeep would go through anything if its wheels could touch ground. The only way for it to get stuck was when the snow was so deep that the car rested on its belly on the snow. But the problem is that when you have 4WD you believe you can go anywhere. So you go places no sensible person would try to drive, and you get stuck. I got stuck all the time in the Jeep. I never got stuck in the Civic because I waited for the snow plow to come through and I avoided unplowed roads.

As for handling on slippery roads, 4WD does not help as much as VSC.

And 4WD does NOT enable you to stop quicker.

Bottom line: You are much safer in a Prius than in an SUV.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 9 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]458910[/snapback]</div>

Watching the ditches here (Minnesota) during the winter is quite vindicating.

Whatever the reason, there are more SUVs that slide off the road into them than cars.

My guess is SUV drivers feel empowered, so they take greater risks. Then they discover there's no stopping advantage... and end up paying the price. In the meantime, those in cars just traveled along at a safer speed and got to their destination just fine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HokieHybrid @ Jun 8 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]458226[/snapback]</div>

Hi Hokie,

Can I ask, what is a typical load that your father carries that wouldn't fit in a Prius?