Asymmetrical Information

As the owner of a Ford F-150 Supercrew with a 1 mile commute I would argue that it is the large proportion of people with "heroic commutes" that will be the real issue with higher gas prices. The SUV as a commuter car was the direct consequence of high costs for any vehicle ownership (insurance, taxes, registration) that destroyed the option of a small commuter car.

So if one car was optimal, it had to be the largest required for play or comfort. Americans still want to haul the boat, bring plywood back from home depot, and tote the dogs. So do people everywhere, but they cram it into small cars with a considerable loss of convenience.

The bloom will soon be off the hybrids as drivers begin to realise the shortcomings of these underpowered complex vehicles.

Gradually, people will value more highly short or zero length commutes (telecommuting, etc.) and also actions that can lower the cost of a high-efficiency commuter car.

I'm surprised that there was even an expectation that high gas prices would affect SUV sales. From the same article: "In fact, gas prices, adjusted for inflation, are not nearly as high as they were in the early 1980's" - so why should people care more now than they did then? Also, "Some analysts see a parade of newer car models as the predominant factor" - which has certainly had an impact on me; I've been pretty impressed at the much cooler body styles coming out the past two or three years.

And finally, with 14 years of SUV/truck popularity at the dealerships compared to passenger cars, is it possible that the trend went (or is going) kind of like this: 1. Early adopters of comfortable SUVs (not original Suburbans, which could transport an elephant but he'd have sciatica by the end of the trip) buy a bunch. 2. That mysterious thing happens that makes something trendy, and all kinds of people buy them, financed by the dot.com-etc. boom. 3. Many of the people who bought them in the mid-to-late '90s, simply to be "with it," have now realized that they carry their groceries on the front seat of the bus they're driving, never take it out in the rain much less off-road, pay half again as much in gas (REGARDLESS of price per gallon) than they would in a passenger car, and now that it's time to consider a new car, why pay that much for the same when they're using none of its vaunted capabilities?

When we had our third kid and realized the Corolla was no longer going to hold all of us and our many carseats, much less our camping gear, we considered the advantages of SUVs vs. minivans. The SUV held the promise of boat-towing (but we don't have a boat) and off-roading (with a baby and a toddler??), but the minivan seats seven to eight comfortably, allowing all people to get to their seats without showing their underwear if they're in a skirt, actually holds more gear out of the rain, has a more flexible interior, gets better mileage, and costs less to run and to insure. So we got the minivan. RELATIVE gas price figured into the decision, but ABSOLUTE gas price did not and would not even if we were buying today.

SUVs are much more limited in their utility. When you actually NEED one, you really need exactly that vehicle - but not all that many people actually NEED one.

David,

Exactly. I own an SUV because it is practical. I save gas by living close to work.

An economist should know better, Jane. Large SUV sales may be slowing due to high gas prices. Then again, it may be because of the availability of more and better mid-size SUVs, or the return of the full-size traditional family car (think the Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum/Ford 500), or it could be a cool economy, or market saturation or a blip in the data, etc., etc. Assuming a purported cause to be true just because it warms the cockles of your ascetic little heart doesn't rise to your customary standards of analysis. And, yes, I'm being a little unfair with that characterization; you aren't really the self-satisfied puritan that you sometimes impersonate when the subject turns to SUVs or fast food.

The simple fact is, gasoline is not a renewable resource and there is a limited supply of it. So over time, we can expect gas prices to rise. Even now, with gas at $2.25 a gallon where I live, I think it is more likely that 5 years from now it will be at $4.00 than that it will go back to $1.50. Now for that small percentage of the population that doesn't have to worry about monetary concerns, they can buy any type of vehicle that they want to. For the rest of us, the price of gas is going to have an impact on what kind of car we can afford to drive.

But one thing to keep in mind is that the new car/minivan/SUV market is driven by people who are less cost conscious (either due to wealth, attitude, etc.), in comparison to the used car market. So it is going to change more slowly in comparison to the used car market. That is why I think the effect on new car sales is going to be a slow one.

Ironically, SUVs often have limited utlity for me, but I can't tell you how often I yearned for a pick-up, until I went out and bought a used one. If one does any projects at all, from gardening, to home improvement, to even universal tasks like buying furniture, having a vehicle in which large or numerous objects can be loaded easily is a fantastic luxury, if not a necessity. Not having to to adapt to the schedules of delivery services is also a god-send. I don't drive it more than 8-10 times a month, and a Honda Accord with 150,000 miles is a perfect vehicle for commuting, but a pick-up truck is invaluable.

I drive a Jeep Liberty. I probably spend $30 a month more on gas than if I drove a compact car. Snow, back roads, and carrying capacity - its worth it. There are lots of things I will cut back on before giving up a completely practical vehicle.

Most of the anti-SUV people have never wintered in Appalachia.

"Most of the anti-SUV people have never wintered in Appalachia."

I would guess that most of the people who own SUVs have never done this, either :)

I drive a Honda CR-V, and I find it perfectly adequate for our family of four (the kids are 3 1/2 and seven months, so it's a carseat and a booster seat in the back). I've occasionally wished I had more carrying capacity, but not so much that I also wished to be paying more for gas constantly. Our next car will most certainly be a hybrid of some kind, maybe a Toyota Highlander or a Lexus 400h (or something else, depending on what's available at the time).

The SUV as a commuter car was the direct consequence of high costs for any vehicle ownership (insurance, taxes, registration) that destroyed the option of a small commuter car.

You're -- you're kidding, right? If a car was considered a necessity (and for most people, it is), and fixed costs were exorbitant (for some people, they are), why wouldn't people scale BACK on the cost of the vehicle itself?

Owning multiple cars is a recent invention, I rather doubt that the high fixed costs per-vehicle have significantly altered buying habits.

So if one car was optimal, it had to be the largest required for play or comfort. Americans still want to haul the boat, bring plywood back from home depot, and tote the dogs.

Unless you own a pair of Malamutes and other breeds of miniature horse, most dogs will fit into many sizes of cars. Surprisingly many Americans don't own a boat and have never towed one either, and most people who need to haul know someone else who owns a pickup truck. For that matter, Home Depot will rent you a truck for less than $20, which covers something like ninety miles' round-trip distance and three hours' use.

People make their buying decisions on the basis of many factors, and in a society as wealthy as ours, dire need is often a relatively small reason. Convenience, fashion, and preference are often higher in the priority food chain, enabled -- wherever wealth is lacking -- by a healthy credit industry.

Lara says:

Even now, with gas at $2.25 a gallon where I live, I think it is more likely that 5 years from now it will be at $4.00 than that it will go back to $1.50.

===

Boy, there's one for a long-term bet...

Only 5 years, because now we buy our cars used to save money, so they don't last as long. The first couple of cars we bought were bought new, and they lasted a lot longer... We thought about buying a mini-van when our Mercury Sable stopped working, but that was about a month after gas first got to $1.50. We were thinking $3.00 seemed more likely that $1.00 so we decided... to buy another sedan :)

Good - maybe SUV prices will come down before we buy our next one.

SIGH...I just lost my full-size Bronco. Some lady fell asleep, crossed the centerline and hit me head on. If I had been in a smaller car, I'd probably be dead now. As it is I only had a sore knee for about three days.

I took the insurance money and bought a Saab. Nice car, but I miss the utility of the larger vehicle and the fun of going off-road and camping out in it. I do that, or at least I used to do it quite often.

I'm thinking about converting my old carbureated project Bronco to run on propane. If gas prices get much higher it will be an attractive option.

Wow! A lot of real off-roaders weighing in. Stay off the sensitive habitat, OK, people? But enjoy your adventures: plenty of those to be had. (Gad, I miss the West...)

Having car-camped (usually off Forest Service roads because the hubby hates to pay for a campsite) out of a Hyundai, a compact pickup, a Corolla, a station wagon, and a minivan, I can state that a front-wheel-drive car can get you into a lot of great places, as long as the road isn't too high-centered and the driver is confident. (A rear-wheel-drive baby pickup can get you STUCK, but it "feels" more like a camping vehicle...)

I came to think of car camping as similar to mountain biking: once you accept that you're SUPPOSED to drive on dirt, it becomes fun. Before that, it goes against earlier training and feels "wrong." (The analogy breaks down right there: I simply can't ride a street bike on a trail, but I can drive a car on a USFS road.)

So the basic complaint against SUVs is the idea that people don't have a right to use up more resources just because they choose to and/or can afford to. Consider the alternative - that only the politically connected have access to resources. The politics of pull.

So the basic complaint against SUVs is the idea that people don't have a right to use up more resources just because they choose to and/or can afford to.

For some, perhaps.

For others, the basic complaint is that SUVs (the large-mid and full-size models, anyway) block the view for smaller cars, pose a greater safety threat to smaller cars, and inflict greater externalities on the environment than smaller cars. (This involves more than just fuel consumption -- a handful of other automotive fluids, as well as several consumable hardware components, are required in greater quantities by large engines, and large-mid and full-size SUVs will always, of necessity, have large engines.)

Moreover, the higher center-of-gravity and greater mass require more moderated driving skills, yet the "feeling of safety" perversely tends to have the opposite effect on the drivers.

The possible solutions to these problems are admittedly thorny, but the problems themselves are quite reasonable in definition. In such context, the "I can afford an SUV so screw you" carries no more water than "My vehicle is capable of running stoplights so screw you."

anony-mouse,

You want to draw the line at SUVs. Why not draw it at automobiles. Certainly bicycles are safer and cleaner than any car. Or maybe we could allow motorcycles, which though admittedly less functional than automobiles for certain uses, are certainly cleaner, and safer too if you get all those massive automobiles off the road. How about, "I can afford a car so screw you".

My angle is a little different.
I don't drive an SUV as such.
Rather, I drive a conversion Safari/Astro.

Here's some pics and a description

I drive this rig for Several reasons; My wife and I are six footers.... And we have two boys. Do the math. We tow a camper, and are prone to frequent over the road trips, both with and without the camper.

At the moment, I'm getting about 21mpg in over the road work... pretty good for any conversion van, particulalry one with a high top, full-time AWD, and a 5000lb towcap.

I don't plan to replace this one for years, but were I to do so, I would be faced with either unloading the camper and going to a smaller Front-drive unit ( I tried front wheel drive towing with about 1200 lbs of trailer, and won't go there again) or going to a full-sized van, or an SUV which, either way comes out about 15-17mpg. Because of legroom issues, the van is by far the better choice for us.

The point made by David Moelling about the cost of ownership of multiple vehicles is quite correct; This rig we bought for towing the trailer and long-haul duty is also my daily driver, since we cannot afford another vehicle. This is not a matter of initial cost, but taxes, fees, insurance and upkeep.

Cars because of the government's attempts at regulating reality of of exisatnce, have gotten too small, and too light weight. You cannot reasonable fit 4 6ft people plus a dog plus luggage into one, anymore. Most of them cannot tow anything of any size. All-wheel drive is a godsend in the winter and in the rain as well, and without a frame all-wheel, much less the more solid 4wd, is unavailable.

And look, let's look at the prices, shall we?

Let's take a trip from my hometown in Rochester NY to Ft Worth... a trip that we're currently discussing at home. Let's say we get a hurry-up call to the Fort Worth area... a family emergency. This precludes special deals on Airlines, and so on.

One way, that's 1515 miles. Let's call it 1500 exactly for round numbers. Round trip, that's 3000 miles. Now, let's see how much gas that takes in my Box:

3000/21= 143 gallons.
Assuming the current ~$2.25 here in Rochester being the cost all along the route, (untrue, but let's go with it for the moment) that comes out at $328 for fuel, round trip.

Now, I've just checked, and because of cheaper fuel along the way, I can make the trip for well under $300. And that's hauling everything but the trailer.

Make no mistake, that's a lotta mulah. But how much is a set of four last minute round trip airplane tickets, plus a car rental when you get where you're going? How much is Amtrak?

Forget it; it's still cheaper and easier to drive.

Anyway, think about the fact that the Astro is gone, (they have closed the factory as of last month)and there's nothing in that class of vehicle anymore. Does forcing me into a larger vehicle to deal with my current needs make sense to any of you? That's what's going on across the board... either the vehicle offerings are under equipped, or vastly over-equipped and either way, don't fit the needs.

You want to draw the line at SUVs. Why not draw it at automobiles. Certainly bicycles are safer and cleaner than any car. Or maybe we could allow motorcycles, which though admittedly less functional than automobiles for certain uses, are certainly cleaner, and safer too if you get all those massive automobiles off the road. How about, "I can afford a car so screw you".

You don't pick your targets well; I'm also a recreational cyclist.

Furthermore, I never said I wanted to "draw the line" at SUVs. If you would like to use something I *have* said, and will happily repeat, try this: "I recognize there are a legitimate uses for SUVs, just as there are legitimate uses for cars, motorcycles, dump trucks, and farm tractors. But I am opposed to a distorted system of incentives that permit people to access very large vehicles for manners of use that are generally exceedingly wasteful and unnecessarily dangerous to other drivers."

Anony-mouse,

I don't like the incentives either. I assume you are referring to the tax breaks for large vehicles.

As for the danger, I just don't see it. I drive rental compact cars frequently and it doesn't bother me to be driving around a large SUV. I guess its because I got used to driving among semi-trucks on a motorcyle. Any vehicle is safe if driven safely. And any vehicle is dangerous if driven unsafely. Keep a safe following distance and vision is not an issue.

As for wasteful, I'm back to my original post. Certainly much vehicle use can be considered wasteful - and not just SUVs. But what is the alternative to freedom of choice, property rights, and the price mechanism to distribute resources? John Galt (and probably Jane as well) would refer you to "the politics of pull".

I know exactly what you mean about the dangers to other cars from SUVs, so I can go into a little detail. First, let me explain: I am from flatland (Chicago suburbs), but because it is a wealthy suburb, it seems like at least 50% of the vehicles are SUVs and minivans, which to my little Ford Escort look like the same thing.

1. If you are backing out of a spot, your visibility as to what is in back of you is much better if there are cars on both sides, compared to if you have large vehicles on both sides.

2. If you are coming out of a side street (or in my case, the school drop-off area), and there are SUVs parked on the street to your left, again it does limit your visibility.

3. Finally, if you are at a 2-way stop sign making a right turn and next to you there is an SUV in the left lane waiting to make a left, you basically cannot see what is coming down the street. So you have to wait for the SUV to make its left turn before you can make your right.

As for the danger, I just don't see it. I drive rental compact cars frequently and it doesn't bother me to be driving around a large SUV.

Many of the latest generation of compacts are encroaching upon what was called a 'midsize' a decade ago. Meanwhile, there are yet many cars on the road that date back to the smaller days, and likewse are not equipped with the same kinds of safety features available on a modern car.

I guess its because I got used to driving among semi-trucks on a motorcyle.

That would distort one's perspective, yes. Semi-truck drivers have special licensing and additional training, and are generally (not always) more careful than the average motorist. Motorcylists require special licensing and the motorist is making a known tradeoff on practical safety in exchange for high fuel efficiency, greater visibility, and greater maneuverability.

Any vehicle is safe if driven safely. And any vehicle is dangerous if driven unsafely.

Right on the latter, wrong on the former. Vehicle safety is not strictly a factor of what you are doing, although that helps. All it takes is one drunk driver, or one tired driver, or one aggressive driver, or one cell-phone warrior, or (less likely) one perfectly normal driver, making an error at a critical moment, and your life is suddenly in their hands.

This of course applies regardless of the vehicle that person is driving, but if that vehicle is built high and weighs 2.25 tons or more, and your vehicle is built low and weighs 1.5 tons or less, guess what happens when the two collide?

Keep a safe following distance and vision is not an issue.

I strenuously disagree based on driving an older Toyota Corolla daily, and Lara pointed out some other common visibility issues which I have likewise observed.

Finally, since I am not a rabid libertarian, I don't subscribe to the notion that the only alternative to unrestricted access, is tyranny. I'll settle for completely revoking CAFE, and replacing it with a proportional tax for engine displacements larger than (say) 2.8L and no special tax breaks for diesels, for any vehicle definable as a passenger vehicle (i.e. does not cover semi-trucks and similar), linked to the vehicle's annual registration. Concomitantly, users of business vehicles would be allowed to write off that cost as part of the expense provisions covering business-use vehicles. That ought to dent the appetite for excess without hindering commerce.

Anony-mouse,

I'm really not worried. SUVs as a problem seems to be a coastal issue. I live in Colorado. Any politician who tries to pass anti-SUV legislation in this state will be tarred and feathered.

Tall, blocky vehicles increase traffic hazards because drivers behind can't see traffic beyond them; this forces increased following distance for the same safety margin and decreases the carrying capacity of the road.  Some such drivers make matters worse by driving right on the left margin of the lane.

Bithead:  I bought a Passat TDI last year.  It will take 4 adults and gets ~40 MPG on the freeway (closer to 45 MPG on slower secondary roads).  I can drive a 2000 mile round trip on about $100 in fuel, and I save fuel every day.  I'm trying to reduce the amount of money we feed to the Wahhabists, but it only takes one jerk speeding in his 4x4 pickup to undo all my good work.

If we hadn't had a policy of subsidizing gasoline this whole SUV phenomenon would never have happened.  CAFE standards were intended to "fix" the problem by getting new-car buyers to consume less fuel, but subsidized fuel prices just led more people to drive more miles.  It's a pity that Congress didn't have the guts to add an "energy freedom" tax to gasoline to encourage people to be frugal with it.  It's also a pity that CARB demanded 100% ZEV's instead of a program of GO-HEVs (which would have been practical with the electronic and battery technology of the day).  Those opportunities were well and thoroughly blown, and now... here we are!

You can bring plywood from Home Depot on top of the car; a good roof carrier is a few hundred bucks, and you don't have to drag it through the air when you aren't using it.  HD's rental truck can haul loads you couldn't get into your F-150.  You can rent space at a marina to keep a boat.  But that's not how most people do things; they probably don't even look at the possible savings.  Perhaps $2.25 gasoline will change the way people look at these matters.

Last, you really should look at the possibilities of the gas-optional hybrid.  Nothing says an F-150 Supercrew can't run on batteries for 10 miles, and a 1-mile commute that takes half a kilowatt-hour is going to be cleaner and quieter than the same mileage driven in a Honda Insight.

From all indications, the energy bill wending its way through Congress fails to encourage any of these things while throwing subsidy money at all the usual suspects.  <sigh>

(MT's content filter refuses to accept my e-mail address, and won't let me post without it.  How gauche.)

Tall, blocky vehicles increase traffic hazards because drivers behind can't see traffic beyond them; this forces increased following distance for the same safety margin and decreases the carrying capacity of the road. Some such drivers make matters worse by driving right on the left margin of the lane.

You mean if I drive a smaller vehicle, these idiots re gonna get even CLOSER? Gee, THERE'S an incentive.

In any event, I'm willing to bet your Passat won't even TRY to tug the trailer.

And I hardly consider a commoddity having a bare minimum of 60 cents per gallon tax on it, to be under ANY kind of a "Subsidy"

\I do think there is a serious long-term energy issue for the U.S., well actually for the whole world, and having a lot of SUVs around is a minor inconvenience for me, but I don't think that people who drive SUVs are bad people. First, some people really do legitimately need them, and even for the others, if that is how they want to spend their extra cash, it's really OK by me.

The thing which surprises me (well that's a little strong) is the government really does not seem particularly concerned with raising public awareness on this issue. It the past, I have seen a lot of conservatives writing about how the energy crisis is "manufactured". But using up the world's oil and gas supplies is real.

The funny thing is that even people who think of themselves as environmentally conscious really don't seem to care much about this. For example, my daughter is in 8th grade, so she gets influenced by her peers and science teacher in terms of her awareness of the most important environmental issues. And what she comes up with is... global warming. There probably is some global warming, but so far, any real negative effects of global warming have so far been minimal.

In contrast, the real effects of a shortage of oil and gas are much more serious. Imagine if most people could not afford to drive to work. Think of how this would change their lives... and probably yours as well. In fact, if it weren't for the perceived dangers of a shortage of oil and gas, we wouldn't be spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq.

Bithead wrote:

In any event, I'm willing to bet your Passat won't even TRY to tug the trailer.

A diesel station wagon would be more than up to the job of pulling a travel trailer or boat... if the SUV segment hadn't destroyed the market for such cars.

And I hardly consider a commoddity having a bare minimum of 60 cents per gallon tax on it, to be under ANY kind of a "Subsidy"

In 2003, US oil consumption was just about 20 million barrels per day, or 320 billion gallons.  At least 50% of this was imported; call it 160 billion gallons.  The defense subsidy amounts to something like $1.40/gallon of imported oil.

Lara:  Imagine if most people owned gas-optional hybrids and could get to work as long as there was electricity.

Had a couple of decisions in California and Washington not been quite so short-sighted, we might have been there today.  Unfortunately, this isn't the future I voted for.

Comments are Closed.