Autoblog

And that they get their asses kicked by real off-roaders like the FJ Cruiser and Jeep Wrangler.

If you want a real SUV, Jeep Wrangler, FJ Cruiser. If you want a people mover, a minivan or something like the Ford Flex would be better suited for the task.

↓↑report

Im not trying to challenge you here or anything, on what basis do you think that large suvs require more energy to make than a car? Just wondering how one comes to that.

↓↑report

To Timsvtgen1: The fact that the vehicle is larger and heavier means that it requires more raw materials which means more energy for extraction, processing and assembling. For example (and I'm exaggerating) the rubber needed to make one tire for a Suburban would make four tires for a Toyota Yaris!
Also, larger vehicles require more energy to transport from the site of manufacture to the dealership. That Suburban takes up more space on a transport truck than a Yaris. That means it takes more truck loads to ship a certain number of Suburbans than to ship the same number of Yaris (Yari?)

↓↑report

Well ... other than the simple fact that people WANT and often NEED transportation of SIZE and VOLUME. What are you going to substitute for the work horse pickup truck? A Segway? A family of five, what do they use? Three SMART cars in convoy? How about Rentzenberger? Don't know them? They transport Union Pacific train crews to their trains, and require large vans or Suburbans because where train crews run out of shift-time and the next crew takes over (out West anyway) is often in the middle of nowhere. What are they supposed to use for transportation? Eagles from Lord of the Rings?

A capitalist economy is self-regulating, self-correcting, self-managing because of price signals. As petroleum becomes too valuable to use as fuel, capitalists (meaning, opportunists) are rapidly rolling out alternatives. No, not like snapping your fingers but pretty doggone quick considering the depth and breadth of technology that has to be invented, engineered and then radically understood in terms of making a profit.

Big isn't the problem ... inefficiency in the internal combustion engine is the problem. If BIG were the problem, then public transportation should be shut down.

↓↑report

You're right. 22 MPG Average is terrible for a full sized SUV with 400 horsepower.

(NOTE: This was 100% Whole-Grain Sarcasm--- for those who didn't get it.

Actually. I think GM and Chrysler are finally on the right track with this hybrid thing.)

↓↑report

People are going to buy SUV's whether you like it or not, yes even with higher gas prices.
Switching from a regular to hybrid SUV will save more gas than going from a Matrix to a Prius. In fact, looking at GM's hybrids (EPA numbers are not out yet for Chrysler, but GM uses the same hybrid system) switching from a standard to a hybrid Tahoe both with the same engine saves twice as much gas as going from a Matrix to a Prius.

↓↑report

I am going to continue driving/buying SUVs, just to piss off Isuzu32 and Joce03.

↓↑report

Agreed. The market for these vehicles will shrink a lot, but they won't go away. But I think it's important GM (and Chrysler) get the two-mode into pickups. The pickup market is more resilient than the SUV market (as evidenced by the F-150 returning to the top selling spot this month). There's a lot of contractors and such who will still need trucks, and at least some of them would probably like to save some gas around town.

↓↑report

I don't think Joce03 is really saying that these vehicles don't serve a purpose, I think he's saying that they, like all vehicles right now, need to shrink. It's like the new Toyota Tacoma versus an old Toyota Tacoma, or an old Explorer versus a new Explorer. They're growing in ways that they don't need to grow.

I would like to see a newer vehicle, like the Cherokees, that could transport five people comfortably yet still be able to tow stuff and go off-road. These current vehicles can't do that. They're too big to really be useful in an offroad setting. The other thing I'd like to see is more fuel-efficient seven-passenger crossovers.

↓↑report

ha, the "average" US household size is 2.59 people, and the average family is 3.14. the 6+ person family that requires these is relatively rare, and even those seldom utilize all 7 or 8 seats that come in these things. you could buy *2* Fits for $30k, and still save yourself $15k for renting vehicles for those 2-3 times per year that you're actually going to need to road trip with 6+ people in the car. Hell, I remember road-tripping growing up, and it was 5 people packed into a 4-seat Chevy Monza. You dealt with it.

Americans are getting out of large SUVs literally as fast as they can. I predict that these'll flop, and flop hard. Want to take that bet? Even priced at *only* $45k, they're still far, far more expensive than a Grand Caravan (starting at $23k, and gets almost identical gas mileage).

Aspen Hybrid (EPA est) - 19 city / 20 highway - $45k
Grand Caravan - 17 city / 24 highway - $23k

Anybody concerned about the price of gas isn't going to be dropping DOUBLE on an SUV with a 5.7l v8 than they could get with your normal, run of the mill minivan. Anyone NOT concerned with the price of gas will just get the normal version and save the cash by not getting a hybrid...

↓↑report

That's the beauty of freedom of choice, Travis. If you have the means, you DON'T have to "deal with" what you don't WANT to deal with. I, particularly, would not want to have to deal with two automobiles and the applicable expenses when I can get 1 automobile that will do most everything I need it to do. I choose NOT to deal with arranging for a car rental whenever I want or need to travel for an extended trip. I choose NOT to deal with packing more people in a car than can comfortably fit -- definitely not more people than there are sets of seat belts (more than can SAFELY fit). And, even with gas at $4/gallon, I take far more road trips than the 2-3 times per year you give in your example. Do I consider my needs normal? I have no idea. I'm sure there are those who travel far less than I do, and those who travel for more than I do.

I would hate to think that I would be forced to rent for every one of those trips, or forced to do it in a car that didn't fit my family comfortably. Nope, that's not going to happen.

While I don't consider myself part of the market for large SUVs, I understand why they exist. I truly feel what we're seeing is people who bought these type of vehicles based on reasons other than need now leaving the market. Face it: the reality is these types of vehicles existed LONG before those who didn't need them decided that they wanted them and sent sales skyrocketing. Those who NEEDED them before the sales boon are the same type of people who still NEED them now, and the market for them will still exist on a smaller scale.

It only makes sense to continue to make them more fuel efficient.

↓↑report

my comments aren't that people shouldn't be able to buy these (hell, I think I should be able to buy a small, turbo subcompact that gets 40mpg like the Abarth 500), I'm saying they WON'T. People are rethinking what they need, and what they don't, and even my uncle (family of 6) was lamenting the fact that he owned 2 large, SUVs. Is he looking at buying a Fit? Nope. However, a $45k monstrosity that gets a measly 20mpg isn't on his list when he's shopping for a new car either.

Hey, maybe they'll sell like hotcakes and I'll eat my words in another 12 months. If so, I'll freely admit that I was wrong, and Americans still wants big, lumbering SUVs in order to tow their boat 2x per year, and to drive by themselves to work each and every day. However, I still think that these new behemoths are going to flop, being too expensive, too big, and (still) too inefficient for Americans today.

↓↑report

Ha ha, Tony. I see the humor you're attempting to impart. But truthfully, that's not particularly a "Chrysler" characteristic. There's a story like that for every make and every model, and stories like this:

I've never had a finish (paint or chrome) problem with any Chrysler product I've owned. I currently have 74K trouble-free miles on my Chrysler-made Jeep. I've owned (or co-owned) 9 Chrysler products or over the last 20 years. None ever left me stranded on the road due to mechanical failure -- dead battery and flat tire, sure, but no mechanical failures. And outside of REGULAR SCHEDULED maintenance, the overwhelming majority of the times (and money) spent in the shop was to repair body damage after someone had run into me.

I'm almost certain Chrysler doesn't see me coming and says "Let's make this one good for HIM; forget about the ones for other people."

Humor: The reason they say SOME of it is based on truth is because A LOT of the truth is omitted to keep it funny. The WHOLE TRUTH isn't entertaining (or funny) at all.

↓↑report