Why is SUV bashing so fashionable?

[seftonm]

I read today that Gerard Kennedy proposed an extra tax on SUV's because they waste gas. It got me thinking and wondering why SUV's are so often targeted as being wasteful while I rarely hear anything about pickup trucks? The average pickup is larger, heavier, has a bigger engine, and sells more than the average SUV so I would figure pickups would be an easy target as well. I'm hoping someone could shine some light on why pickups are so often left alone.

[VivienM]

Pickups are used for work; SUVs aren't.

(Yes, I'm well aware that some pickups aren't used for work... but the taxman is going to have a lot of trouble telling those apart from the ones that are)

[Talamasca]

Big sedans and luxury cars use a lot of gas too but I never hear anyone complain about them.

[nano]

i love my SUV and i plan on getting a larger one

[CRXGSR]

honestly, do the majority of people really need to be running huge ESCALADES, or H2/H3 hummers just to go to and from work?

[rfdrfd]

honestly, do the majority of people really need to be running huge ESCALADES, or H2/H3 hummers just to go to and from work?

Exactly. When I see a huge ass H1 or H2 with one guy or usually a blond (rich looking) mom, I just shake my head. And I never give them any respect on the road. Wanna get infront of me? Ya right. Maybe in my next life.

One time at a shopping mall, I see a caucasian lady with her young (junior high) daughter jumping off their H2. I'm thinking, what kind of responsibilities and values are being taught to that child ? Screw the environment cause I'm rich and I can do what I want ?


Anyhow, big things like the Hummer won't last. I heard Hummers are being discontinued, because their sales is going to the pitts.

[masterballer]

honestly, do the majority of people really need to be running huge ESCALADES, or H2/H3 hummers just to go to and from work?

do they need to run a V10 V12 tire spinners? no....but it sure is fun to :twisted:

[FastFokker]

Pickup trucks helped make this country and still do in regards to the rural areas.. SUV's seem to be fashionable for the urbanites, hence the fashionability of their bashing.

I can't name an SUV that somebody bought because they absolutely had to because of their business purposes.. unlike trucks. So if you are willing to drop all that cash on a vehicle that isn't absolutely necessary and wastes fuel, then an added tax makes sense to a lot of people.

[MrDisco]

I read today that Gerard Kennedy proposed an extra tax on SUV's because they waste gas. It got me thinking and wondering why SUV's are so often targeted as being wasteful while I rarely hear anything about pickup trucks? The average pickup is larger, heavier, has a bigger engine, and sells more than the average SUV so I would figure pickups would be an easy target as well. I'm hoping someone could shine some light on why pickups are so often left alone.

most ppl buy pickups to do work, not as status symbols. I would also question the cost difference as you can buy entry level trucks for less then an SUV (and by SUV i'm not talking about a RAV4).

the SUV is a pure marketing concept that has brilliantly brainwashed people into thinking they need one. they are no safer then a sedan or wagon (and with the false sense of security may even be more of a danger in the hands of the inexperienced), they consume more gas on average, and they reduce visibility for everyone around them (though I suppose if we all move up to SUVs that height advantage will disappear).

tax 'em to death and lets get these dinosaurs off the road.

[Bazooka Joe]

As with most things, there is no single reason. A few possibilities though:

Originally they were very unsafe vehicles. Although that is changing there is still a long ways to go until they are as safe as say minivans.

They use much more fuel than cars, most SUVs are classified as "light trucks" and as such are not subject to the same emissions or fuel efficiency standards as cars. Some SUVs are so large that they aren't even classified as light trucks, and as such have no emissions or fuel efficiency guidelines whatsoever. As demand increases for oil, so will prices.

They are expensive. Because the majority of people cannot afford expensive vehicles (or choose to use their money elsewhere), something like that tax you mentioned would not concern the majority of people. If there were a Ferrarri tax, would you be concerned about it?

They occupy a lot of space. It is very difficult to see around or through an SUV. This is especially noticable at stoplights, intersections, and parking lots.

Just some food for thought...

[belgiangenius]

Exactly. When I see a huge ass H1 or H2 with one guy or usually a blond (rich looking) mom, I just shake my head. And I never give them any respect on the road. Wanna get infront of me? Ya right. Maybe in my next life.

One time at a shopping mall, I see a caucasian lady with her young (junior high) daughter jumping off their H2. I'm thinking, what kind of responsibilities and values are being taught to that child ? Screw the environment cause I'm rich and I can do what I want ?


Anyhow, big things like the Hummer won't last. I heard Hummers are being discontinued, because their sales is going to the pitts.

Thumbs up. Agree with every word you said.

[belgiangenius]

I read today that Gerard Kennedy proposed an extra tax on SUV's because they waste gas. It got me thinking and wondering why SUV's are so often targeted as being wasteful while I rarely hear anything about pickup trucks? The average pickup is larger, heavier, has a bigger engine, and sells more than the average SUV so I would figure pickups would be an easy target as well. I'm hoping someone could shine some light on why pickups are so often left alone.

SUVs have become synonomous with North American gluttony. They're a symbol of the wasteful, selfish, entitled rich who dominate our lands.

I don't think Mr. Kennedy's comments go far enough. The price of gas should be based on the size of the engine that shows up at the pump. If your engine is less than 2.5L, you pay $0.79 a litre. If it's between 2.5 and 3.4, you pay $1.19 a litre. If it's 3.5L or larger, you pay $1.89 a liter.

Let's make those who waste pay for the consequences.

[Bullseye]

Thankfully, the trend has started to move towards cross over vehicles, which are smaller, lighter, and generally much more fuel efficient. Sales of large SUV's have been falling for a while now.

We can thank high gas prices for this change, not any sudden new environmental awareness on the part of Canadians. Hopefully gas prices will continue to climb (and I can see no reason why it won't), it seems to be the only way to convince people to make better decisions. Gas prices are obviously still not high enough, every day I pass a line of 20-30 vehicles idling in line at Tim Horton's drive through. Some of those vehicles probably burn more money in gas waiting in line than they spend on their coffees.

[i-o_o-i]

minivans also use a lot of gas, my mom's nissan quest uses way more gas than her lexus rx300

[deep]

We need to redefine cool before people are going to ditch their SUVs.

When I lived in TO, I'd head down (walking) to the Village for a coffee and a bagel, and see dozens of 40-something women in their giant SUVs desperately trying to find a parking spot, finally illegally parking and getting out to pick up...one coffee.

I remember one woman executing a 17 point turn in the middle of the road, and when I chuckled as I crossed in front of her trapped Escalade, she shot me the finger, which just made me laugh harder. She probably could have run her errand in 20% of the time on a bike.

[ichpen]

I'll play devil's advocate here and say SUV taxation strikes me as spiteful and quite out of touch with reality.

Reasons:

1. Minivans are as big (sometimes bigger) than most midsize SUVs, they are usually as heavy and blow as much gas as an average SUV. And hey guess what, most minivan owners don't have 6 kids. It's a convenience to have all the space.

2. Some SUVs are not gas guzzlers i.e. girlfriend's Volvo XC90 is a mere 5 cylinder turbo. Does about 10-11l/100km. Not what I would consider a gas guzzler.

3. How does one classify an SUV? Are we talking hybrid minivan/suvs? Hummer size? Or do we go by the manufacturer's designation.

4. Why target SUVs and not your rich uncle's MB S500?

Just some thoughts.

[leseuldaniel]

I think it's mainly because there seems to be no 'socially acceptable' excuse for having them. As mentionned before, you can always pretend that pick-ups are for work, minivans are for dragging your big family around, small cars are commuting while saving energy.
SUV are perceived as not having a 'niche' (except for offroading, and no one believes that) and therefore, are discriminated against. Honestly, I think the new CUV will be more accepted (and make more sense).

[FastFokker]

If your engine is less than 2.5L, you pay $0.79 a litre. If it's between 2.5 and 3.4, you pay $1.19 a litre. If it's 3.5L or larger, you pay $1.89 a liter.

Let's make those who waste pay for the consequences.Although your concept is original and well intended, it doesn't necessarily account for the wastefulness you want want to punish.

Many a granny driving her 3.8L Buick is getting better milage than Lil Johnny stomping on the gas between red lights in his 2.0L+Turbo engine. And with the system, what kind of incentive is given to those who consume 0L of fuel? Perhaps they should receive free public transportation. :confused:

Last, most all commercial delivery vehicles are extremely large engines, with that system, our goods will become highly inflated to all consumers. In any event, I agree with you that drastic action should be taken to compensate those who try hard to reduce consumption and emissions, while added costs to be applied to those who are over-consumers and over-emitters of pollution.

[Bazooka Joe]

minivans also use a lot of gas, my mom's nissan quest uses way more gas than her lexus rx300

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2004_Nissan_Quest.shtml

nissan quest
18/25 mpg
EPA 6
2004 price $32,000

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2003_Lexus_RX_300.shtml

lexus RX300
18/22 mpg
EPA 2
2003 price $50,000

Nissan didn’t make a quest in 2003, Lexus RX300 stoped production in 2003.

So for $18,000 more you get a comparable gas milage with dramatically increased emissions. This is a bit of a loaded comparison though as the Lexus RX series was one of the best SUVs in terms of fuel efficiency at the time. Also the Lexus cannot seat the same number of people, or carry the same quantity of cargo.

[belgiangenius]

I remember one woman executing a 17 point turn in the middle of the road, and when I chuckled as I crossed in front of her trapped Escalade, she shot me the finger, which just made me laugh harder. She probably could have run her errand in 20% of the time on a bike.

Naturally - because she was entitled to that road and you were not. :)

There's definitely a trend/stereotype with SUV drivers. Whenever I have an encounter with a tailgater on the road, 80% of the time the person is in a huge SUV.

[frogger]

So what if they use more gas? They pay more tax because of that anyways since a big chunk of the price at the pumps is tax.
And what size SUV would this apply to?

What if they only drive 100km a week/get a job close to home vs someone who commutes 1000km a week clogging our highways and uses more gas?

[belgiangenius]

Although your concept is original and well intended, it doesn't necessarily account for the wastefulness you want want to punish.

Many a granny driving her 3.8L Buick is getting better milage than Lil Johnny stomping on the gas between red lights in his 2.0L+Turbo engine. And with the system, what kind of incentive is given to those who consume 0L of fuel? Perhaps they should receive free public transportation. :confused:

Last, most all commercial delivery vehicles are extremely large engines, with that system, our goods will become highly inflated to all consumers. In any event, I agree with you that drastic action should be taken to compensate those who try hard to reduce consumption and emissions, while added costs to be applied to those who are over-consumers and over-emitters of pollution.

Commercial engines use diesel fuel. We could easily exempt diesel from that pricing regime.

[Bullseye]

Ichpen - emissions requirements are not as strict for vehicles classified as trucks because of an arcane law, so even with a minivan vs SUV with the same gas mileage, the SUV is allowed to pollute more.

I agree that the label 'SUV' as a catch-all is a misnomer, many small SUV's are practical and as fuel efficient as a mid-sized car.

[Bullseye]

So for $18,000 more you get a comparable gas milage with dramatically increased emissions. This is a bit of a loaded comparison though as the Lexus RX series was one of the best SUVs in terms of fuel efficiency at the time. Also the Lexus cannot seat the same number of people, or carry the same quantity of cargo.

Not to fuss too much over details, but the Lexus is a Certified Low Emissions Vehicle (as are all Toyota products now, I believe), so it may actually not pollute any more than the Quest, maybe even less.

[warpdrive]

SUV's deserve a lot of bashing because of their target market, too many people who never take them offroad, use them to shuttle their one kid to school, or go to work on smooth paved highways.

However, the lines between SUV and car have been blurring a lot due to the crossover vehicles. More and more SUV's are just car platforms with a taller body shape thus inheriting more carlike behavior (safety, handling, efficiency advantages).

If gas prices were to go to $2.00/L, I'd take comfort in the fact that it would probably discourage some SUV's from being bought for the wrong reason.

[rfdrfd]

SUVs have become synonomous with North American gluttony. They're a symbol of the wasteful, selfish, entitled rich who dominate our lands.

I don't think Mr. Kennedy's comments go far enough. The price of gas should be based on the size of the engine that shows up at the pump. If your engine is less than 2.5L, you pay $0.79 a litre. If it's between 2.5 and 3.4, you pay $1.19 a litre. If it's 3.5L or larger, you pay $1.89 a liter.

Let's make those who waste pay for the consequences.


2 thumbs up !! :)


We as Canadians need to be better and learn. Look at European cars, they are all small, more fit on the road, probably use less gas.

Look at USA - Texas. I was down there for vacation and man, if you drove a Camry/Accord/Maxima, you are considered SMALL !! Everyone drives a huge a$$ 4x4, pickup. Even mini-vans look small on their roads.

And almost all of them have only 1 person in the car. No kidding when President Bush said USA is addicted to oil.

[ichpen]

SUVs have become synonomous with North American gluttony. They're a symbol of the wasteful, selfish, entitled rich who dominate our lands.

I don't think Mr. Kennedy's comments go far enough. The price of gas should be based on the size of the engine that shows up at the pump. If your engine is less than 2.5L, you pay $0.79 a litre. If it's between 2.5 and 3.4, you pay $1.19 a litre. If it's 3.5L or larger, you pay $1.89 a liter.

Let's make those who waste pay for the consequences.

Well that's silly. Some modern V6 engines can outperform I4s in fuel economy. This doesn't take into account regular maintenance also. A badly maintained engine/car can blow twice as much fuel as a well maintained more powerful car.

What about V6 hybrids?

[rfdrfd]

So what if they use more gas? They pay more tax because of that anyways since a big chunk of the price at the pumps is tax.


True, I guess the point here was, the environmental impact. Need to drill more oil, more industrial waste and messing up our ozone layer, global warming, etc.

[van]

they are no safer then a sedan or wagon (and with the false sense of security may even be more of a danger in the hands of the inexperienced)
I agree that SUV's are overkill for most people, but I would have to strongly disagree with you on the point of safety. When it comes to collisions, you are definately safer in a larger vehicle (SUV/Truck) then in a car.

[Audiogenic]

Because they are overkill for what most owners need them plus they should pay more for gas to use them as they pollute more than smaller cars. In Europe, this is the case and it's working fine.

[Bullseye]

I would have to strongly disagree with you on that point. When it comes to collisions, I think you are definately safer in a larger vehicle (SUV/Truck) then in a car.

Better to avoid the collison altogether, isn't it? Cars are definitely better than trucks in this regard, not only can they swerve sharply without tipping over and avoid an accident, but the lower weight of a car means they can stop faster.

Not to mention than in a collision, the truck driver may fare better, but his/her safety comes at the cost of the other driver, who absorbs the impact of all that additional weight hitting them. So essentially driving a big truck is a wholly selfish endeavour, you just don't care if your bulk means death for the car driver you hit.

[Bazooka Joe]

I would have to strongly disagree with you on that point. When it comes to collisions, you are definately safer in a larger vehicle (SUV/Truck) then in a car.

Let's for a moment assume that you are going to be in a head-on collision with another driver, and it is 100% unavoidable. Would you rather the person hitting you be driving an suv or a smart car? :D

[deep]

When it comes to collisions, you are definately safer in a larger vehicle (SUV/Truck) then in a car.

Would you rather have an Echo on Echo collision, or an Escalade on Escalade collision?

[VivienM]

4. Why target SUVs and not your rich uncle's MB S500?

2006 S500:
City: City 15.0 L/100 km (19 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 10.0 L/100 km (28 mi./gal.)
(I think that was the 4Matic version, too)

2006 Jeep Liberty, 3.7, 4X4:
City: City 14.0 L/100 km (20 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 9.9 L/100 km (29 mi./gal.)

2006 Honda Pilot:
City: City 14.1 L/100 km (20 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 9.7 L/100 km (29 mi./gal.)

2006 Ford Explorer (4.0L, 4x4):
City: City 16.0 L/100 km (18 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 10.8 L/100 km (26 mi./gal.)

What people don't realize is that thirsty luxury cars usually use about the same amount of gas as completely boring, average SUVs...

Now, let's compare to some luxury SUVs:
2006 Cadillac Escalade (the 2007 should be better):
City: City 17.3 L/100 km (16 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 12.5 L/100 km (23 mi./gal.)

2006 Lexus GX470:
City: City 15.3 L/100 km (18 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 11.4 L/100 km (25 mi./gal.)

2006 Mercedes-Benz ML500:
City: City 16.8 L/100 km (17 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 11.6 L/100 km (24 mi./gal.)

2006 Mercedes-Benz R500:
City: City 18.1 L/100 km (16 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 12.2 L/100 km (23 mi./gal.)

2006 BMW X5 (4.8):
City: City 14.7 L/100 km (19 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 10.1 L/100 km (28 mi./gal.)

2006 Infiniti QX56:
City: City 18.1 L/100 km (16 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 12.1 L/100 km (23 mi./gal.)

Rich uncle's S500 starts looking good, doesn't it?

[FastFokker]

Perhaps if a vehicle has such bad fuel economy, there should be a fuel surcharge added to the registration of the vehicle (so as to be applicable to used vehicles). An extra $500 for excessive consumption, which can be applied to public transportation and encouraging "green" methods of transportation.

If someone was using the vehicle for commercial purposes, then they would be able to write off a portion of that cost.

[van]

Better to avoid the collison altogether, isn't it? Cars are definitely better than trucks in this regard, not only can they swerve sharply without tipping over and avoid an accident, but the lower weight of a car means they can stop faster.

Not to mention than in a collision, the truck driver may fare better, but his/her safety comes at the cost of the other driver, who absorbs the impact of all that additional weight hitting them. So essentially driving a big truck is a wholly selfish endeavour, you just don't care if your bulk means death for the car driver you hit.

Obviously it is better to avoid the accident, but there are some instances where you simply can't.

Prime example - My uncle was hit by a drunk driver a couple of years ago. The drunk driver (in a Silverado truck) crossed the center line and hit my uncle head-on who was driving the opposte way (in a Sunbird sedan). Who do you think survived? My uncle was killed almost instantly, while the drunk **** got out of his truck with almost no injury.

I just wanted to respond to the statement: "you are no safer then in a sedan", because it's not true.

[FastFokker]

You are safer in a tank, perhaps people should start driving tanks.. although, once everyone is driving tanks, you will require something even bigger and stronger to be safe in head on, high speed collisions.

http://pakistantimes.net/2005/04/16/iraq_block.jpg

[Bullseye]

Obviously it is better to avoid the accident, but there are some instances where you simply can't.

Prime example - My uncle was hit by a drunk driver a couple of years ago. The drunk driver (in a Silverado truck) crossed the center line and hit my uncle head-on who was driving the opposte way (in a Sunbird sedan). Who do you think survived? My uncle was killed almost instantly, while the drunk **** got out of his truck with almost no injury.

I just wanted to respond to the statement: "you are no safer then in a sedan", because it's not true.

Drunks tend to survive collisions in any vehicle more often than a non-drunk would, as their bodies don't react the same way. Same reason why professional motocyclists look like ragdolls when they crash, they do it to reduce injuries.

Anyways, that story, tragic as it is, ony reinforces my comment that driving a truck is a 'better you than me' statement.

[frogger]

I have a feeling if published safety results were not based on how the vehicles compare only vs their own class of car (subcompact, compact, mid, fullsize etc), a lot less subcompacts and compacts would be sold.

[deep]

I'd rather have no collision, but I think you've missed the point.

Not at all - you said people would be "definitely" safer in an SUV, but a world filled with economy cars is safer than a world full of SUVs, which is the illogical extension of the thought. (i.e. if they're so safe, then everyone should have one)

The only niche I see SUVs filling is the "style conscious" (PC for idiot) demographic.

[frogger]

True, I guess the point here was, the environmental impact. Need to drill more oil, more industrial waste and messing up our ozone layer, global warming, etc.
Indeed but commuters who choose to live an hour's drive from work could be viewed as just as harmful.

[van]

Drunks tend to survive collisions in any vehicle more often than a non-drunk would, as their bodies don't react the same way. Same reason why professional motocyclists look like ragdolls when they crash, they do it to reduce injuries.
I guess that depends on the type of accident. But one things for sure, drunk or not, there is no way anyone in a car is going to survive a head-on collision with a truck.
Anyways, that story, tragic as it is, ony reinforces my comment that driving a truck is a 'better you than me' statement.
Pretty much..

[new_vr]

Would you rather have an Echo on Echo collision, or an Escalade on Escalade collision?
Exactly what I was thinking. If nobody drove these huge cars, it would be safer for everyone. There is a lot less kinetic energy being transfered in a crash of two small vehicles compared to two large ones.
Unfortuneatly, we have this arms race of cars....people getting bigger and bigger cars, so that they can be bigger then everyone else.

[Bullseye]

I guess that depends on the type of accident. But one things for sure, drunk or not, there is no way anyone in a car is going to survive a head-on collision with a truck.

Exactly. Which is why we should do everything we can to ensure as few large vehicles are on the road as possible.

[Focus]

All you have to do is apply higher tax on awd model. Awd use more gas, heavier and useless for most people.

[Bullseye]

All you have to do is apply higher tax on awd model. Awd use more gas, heavier and useless for most people.

There's lots of efficient AWD vehicles, and lots of gas sucking 2WD trucks, so that type of blanket tax would not work.

AWD is a useful feature in snowy Canada, the excess fuel consumption for it does not have to be much. Look at the RAV4, for example.

[VivienM]

The only solution to all these issues is, of course, a substantial increase in the gas tax :)

Trying to tax (or regulate) vehicles instead is a silly idea. e.g. why should someone commuting 100km each way daily in a Corolla not pay a guzzling tax, while someone who takes the subway to work and has a thirsty sports car that's only driven for fun on weekends would pay the tax? The commuter burns a hell of a lot more gas overall, even if it burns maybe one third as much on a per km basis.

[Focus]

There's lots of efficient AWD vehicles, and lots of gas sucking 2WD trucks, so that type of blanket tax would not work.

Tucson FWD 10.6/7.9
Tucson awd 11.1/8.3

outlander fwd 10.8/7.8
outlander awd 11.3/8.1

AWD is a useful feature in snowy Canada, the excess fuel consumption for it does not have to be much. Look at the RAV4, for example.

Any modern car w/ good snow tires > all season AWD in the snow.

[FastFokker]

Tucson FWD 10.6/7.9
Tucson awd 11.1/8.3

outlander fwd 10.8/7.8
outlander awd 11.3/8.1I don't see the point. :confused:Any modern car w/ good snow tires > all season AWD in the snow.Not that it really matters whatsoever to this thread.. but I would disagree. I'd say an AWD vehicle with all seasons will perform better than many 2WD vehicles with snow tires.

But that's my opinon and matters not at all to this thread regarding SUV bashing.

[dgs]

All you have to do is apply higher tax on awd model. Awd use more gas, heavier and useless for most people.

What about models that have switchable AWD? I think it is better to do this by just raising the tax on gas if you want to encourage people to drive smaller vehicles for environmental reasons or otherwise. High gas prices are already pushing buying habits away from SUVs and anything which is heavy on gas. Look at Europe - years of high taxes on gas have created an environment where most cars are what we would call a compact here.

[ShadowVlican]

So what if they use more gas? They pay more tax because of that anyways since a big chunk of the price at the pumps is tax.
that's what i think... the tax on gas is rightly served

the more you drive, the more tax you should pay for environment cleanup, road repair, wutever

Not to mention than in a collision, the truck driver may fare better, but his/her safety comes at the cost of the other driver, who absorbs the impact of all that additional weight hitting them. So essentially driving a big truck is a wholly selfish endeavour, you just don't care if your bulk means death for the car driver you hit.
exactly.

You are safer in a tank, perhaps people should start driving tanks.. although, once everyone is driving tanks, you will require something even bigger and stronger to be safe in head on, high speed collisions.
i agree, let's all start driving tanks. :lol:

All you have to do is apply higher tax on awd model. Awd use more gas, heavier and useless for most people.
but we live in canada........

The only solution to all these issues is, of course, a substantial increase in the gas tax :)

Trying to tax (or regulate) vehicles instead is a silly idea. e.g. why should someone commuting 100km each way daily in a Corolla not pay a guzzling tax, while someone who takes the subway to work and has a thirsty sports car that's only driven for fun on weekends would pay the tax? The commuter burns a hell of a lot more gas overall, even if it burns maybe one third as much on a per km basis.
exactly... agreed.

[SodiumSulfate]

Any modern car w/ good snow tires > all season AWD in the snow.

Let's call that X.

Now,

Snow tires + AWD >> X

FTW!

[konfusion666]

Look at Europe - years of high taxes on gas have created an environment where most cars are what we would call a compact here.

And we *want* that, why?

There is such a thing as over-reacting to a problem and it seems to be this board is rife full of that...

High gas taxes solely for the purpose of snatching SUVs away from all the evil rich people sounds a bit... lame.

[B0000rt]

What about models that have switchable AWD? I think it is better to do this by just raising the tax on gas if you want to encourage people to drive smaller vehicles for environmental reasons or otherwise. High gas prices are already pushing buying habits away from SUVs and anything which is heavy on gas. Look at Europe - years of high taxes on gas have created an environment where most cars are what we would call a compact here.
I think the point he's trying to make is that not only the fact that it 'costs' more gas driving all four wheels, but also the fact that for a car to have AWD, there needs to be a couple hundred pounds of additional mechanical gears and whatnot.

But regardless, AWD's hit on fuel economy is minimal. A person driving less agressively has a far greater change of conserving more fuel.

I don't think we should be looking at the vehicles as the problems, but rather whenever I'm in 401 rush hour, I always think of how much fuel is being wasted from these poorly designed highways of ours. I'm pretty sure the fuel savings would be insane, if the MTO or whoever was in charge, would've designed the 401 West in the Collectors before Warden, not to squeeze down to almost 2 lanes, etc.

Larger engines are so much more efficient on the highway than in the city, so if these problems are fixed, we can have our cake, and eat it too!

[NorthYorker]

There's very simple "SUV test". Any wagon built on frame is SUV.

Regarding why it's fashionable to bash SUVs as opposed to minivans. You can easily tell advantages of minivan over sedan or wagon. There is no advantage of SUV over minivan for any urban user in Southern Canada (with possible exception of South-Western part).

[dgmorr]

2006 S500:
City: City 15.0 L/100 km (19 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 10.0 L/100 km (28 mi./gal.)
(I think that was the 4Matic version, too)

2006 Jeep Liberty, 3.7, 4X4:
City: City 14.0 L/100 km (20 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 9.9 L/100 km (29 mi./gal.)

2006 Honda Pilot:
City: City 14.1 L/100 km (20 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 9.7 L/100 km (29 mi./gal.)

2006 Ford Explorer (4.0L, 4x4):
City: City 16.0 L/100 km (18 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 10.8 L/100 km (26 mi./gal.)

What people don't realize is that thirsty luxury cars usually use about the same amount of gas as completely boring, average SUVs...

Now, let's compare to some luxury SUVs:
2006 Cadillac Escalade (the 2007 should be better):
City: City 17.3 L/100 km (16 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 12.5 L/100 km (23 mi./gal.)

2006 Lexus GX470:
City: City 15.3 L/100 km (18 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 11.4 L/100 km (25 mi./gal.)

2006 Mercedes-Benz ML500:
City: City 16.8 L/100 km (17 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 11.6 L/100 km (24 mi./gal.)

2006 Mercedes-Benz R500:
City: City 18.1 L/100 km (16 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 12.2 L/100 km (23 mi./gal.)

2006 BMW X5 (4.8):
City: City 14.7 L/100 km (19 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 10.1 L/100 km (28 mi./gal.)

2006 Infiniti QX56:
City: City 18.1 L/100 km (16 mi./gal.)
Hwy: Hwy 12.1 L/100 km (23 mi./gal.)

Rich uncle's S500 starts looking good, doesn't it?


Do automotive comapnies use the US or Imperial MPG?

[Bullseye]

And we *want* that, why?

There is such a thing as over-reacting to a problem and it seems to be this board is rife full of that...

High gas taxes solely for the purpose of snatching SUVs away from all the evil rich people sounds a bit... lame.

You must not live in Toronto! We've already had several smog days here, choking foul air that is so bad I can't keep up my usual level of exercise. It has nothing to do rich people, and everything to do with improving air quality. Besides, it won't be the rich who give up their smog belching toys, they can afford any gas tax we through at them. It'll bethe average person, who at current gas prices can afford to drive a big truck, but at higher prices would choose not to for economical reasons.

[Bullseye]

I don't think we should be looking at the vehicles as the problems, but rather whenever I'm in 401 rush hour, I always think of how much fuel is being wasted from these poorly designed highways of ours. I'm pretty sure the fuel savings would be insane, if the MTO or whoever was in charge, would've designed the 401 West in the Collectors before Warden, not to squeeze down to almost 2 lanes, etc.

As has been proven again and again, expanding lanes will just cause the new ones to fill with more new traffic. If people think they can get to work faster by driving over transit, they will drive.

[konfusion666]

It'll be the average person, who at current gas prices can afford to drive a big truck, but at higher prices would choose not to for economical reasons.

So we artificially boost gas prices (through gas taxes) so that the "average person" can't afford an SUV -- and cause the compact/subcompact owners to suffer as well?

[waterlooeseller]

Exactly. When I see a huge ass H1 or H2 with one guy or usually a blond (rich looking) mom, I just shake my head. And I never give them any respect on the road. Wanna get infront of me? Ya right. Maybe in my next life.

One time at a shopping mall, I see a caucasian lady with her young (junior high) daughter jumping off their H2. I'm thinking, what kind of responsibilities and values are being taught to that child ? Screw the environment cause I'm rich and I can do what I want ?


Anyhow, big things like the Hummer won't last. I heard Hummers are being discontinued, because their sales is going to the pitts.

What kind of values do you espouse? Who has given you the authority to judge what you think others teach in terms of values. Perhaps the lady teaches her children to shut up and work hard in order earn their possessions.

But seriously though, I would buy a H2/H3 as soon as I have the money. Maybe even go for a Jeep Commander.

[manixc]

Raising gas price/tax won't solve anything because there is no decent alternative to driving yet in Canada.
Once we have a public transport system that can rival Europe or Asia, then we can raise gas price/tax and won't affect the average people a great deal.

I can't stand SUV because most of the time it is not utilize to its full potential (i.e. offroading or even carry more than one person).

[isleepinadrawer]

clearly we need to drop everything and return to the caveman ages

[grant]

I don't see the point. :confused:Not that it really matters whatsoever to this thread.. but I would disagree. I'd say an AWD vehicle with all seasons will perform better than many 2WD vehicles with snow tires.
That's a mistake; car & driver did a little impromptu test in the snow one winter, an audi AWD (TT?) with all-seasons could barely keep from spinning out at 30mph, whereas the porsche 911 RWD handled all speeds with no problem.

Remember AWD only gives you more traction when accelerating... snow tires help you with acceration AND steering AND braking.

[dgmorr]

Remember AWD only gives you more traction when accelerating... snow tires help you with acceration AND steering AND braking.

Unless you slam it into reverse while emergency braking or something :twisted:

[VivienM]

As has been proven again and again, expanding lanes will just cause the new ones to fill with more new traffic. If people think they can get to work faster by driving over transit, they will drive.

Small problem with that idea: the amount of vehicles on the road has been increasing EVEN WITHOUT new roads/lanes being built.

This is silly left-wing logic: let's make sure the roads are nicely clogged, wasting LOTS of gas, so that people suddenly have a desire to sacrifice their illegitimate individualistic instincts and take communitarian public transit.

[VivienM]

Raising gas price/tax won't solve anything because there is no decent alternative to driving yet in Canada.
Once we have a public transport system that can rival Europe or Asia, then we can raise gas price/tax and won't affect the average people a great deal.

That might be the wrong order...

Cheap gas is probably PRECISELY why there is no adequate public transport system. For as long as most people can afford to drive their own cars, with the obvious benefits that brings, why would they ALSO support being taxed to death to fund a public transit system no one except younger teenagers and low-income people will use?

[chicadam]

Just put a tax on poorly designed gas guzzlers, SUV or not. Over this much MPG, tax.

Take that tax money to clean up the environment.

Put the pressure on car companies to produce efficient products. Limiting car size and taxing certain car models is too complicated. Putting a gas tax is dumb, you are taxing everyone in an already over taxed economy.

[Bullseye]

So we artificially boost gas prices (through gas taxes) so that the "average person" can't afford an SUV -- and cause the compact/subcompact owners to suffer as well?

That's right. All cars pollute, consumption taxes are not the perfect solution, but the most fair in the circumstances.

Whether you agree or not, it makes no difference, the market is already doing the work for us in making gas more expensive. I hope it keeps going higher, $2/litre sounds good to me. I own two vehicles (one a hobby car), but have structured my life so we work close to home and drive as little as possible, others can and will do the same with the right economic stimuli.

[Bullseye]

Small problem with that idea: the amount of vehicles on the road has been increasing EVEN WITHOUT new roads/lanes being built.

This is silly left-wing logic: let's make sure the roads are nicely clogged, wasting LOTS of gas, so that people suddenly have a desire to sacrifice their illegitimate individualistic instincts and take communitarian public transit.

No, I do agree that expanding urban areas need more roads and lanes, but it's folly to think we'll ever get to a point where traffic moves well through rush hour in a big city no matter what we do.

[belgiangenius]

What kind of values do you espouse? Who has given you the authority to judge what you think others teach in terms of values. Perhaps the lady teaches her children to shut up and work hard in order earn their possessions.

But seriously though, I would buy a H2/H3 as soon as I have the money. Maybe even go for a Jeep Commander.

Maybe so, but that doesn't give the rich the right to plunder the world of its natural resources by wasting fuel and pollute the air that everyone breathes.

Simply because you have money, doesn't give you the right to stomp on other peoples' heads with your feet.

A capitalist society may tolerate Hummers, but that doesn't mean it's in any way moral, ethical, or reasonable.

Greed is greed, no matter how you spin it.

[B0000rt]

As has been proven again and again, expanding lanes will just cause the new ones to fill with more new traffic. If people think they can get to work faster by driving over transit, they will drive.
I didn't say expanding lanes, but rather making them more efficient. I mean we do have computer models to predict slowdown areas in advance, and can engineer around them!

[chicadam]

I didn't say expanding lanes, but rather making them more efficient. I mean we do have computer models to predict slowdown areas in advance, and can engineer around them!

Of the new roads paved or the re-paving of old roads, they do this.
Its not high school kids with a Sim game. :cheesygri

If want the existing roads to follow current computer model simulations, I hope you have patience because at the rate the government moves we're better off waiting for cars to take flight.

[Bullseye]

boort - agree with that, then!

chicadam - municipal governments already do it! Many cities have traffic light management systems in place that are supposed to optimize traffic patterns.

[ShadowVlican]

As has been proven again and again, expanding lanes will just cause the new ones to fill with more new traffic. If people think they can get to work faster by driving over transit, they will drive.
good point, but there's more reason ppl drive than just getting there faster

I own two vehicles (one a hobby car), but have structured my life so we work close to home and drive as little as possible, others can and will do the same with the right economic stimuli.
while it's good that there's people like you, try telling that to the millions of commuters

I didn't say expanding lanes, but rather making them more efficient. I mean we do have computer models to predict slowdown areas in advance, and can engineer around them!
or have computer driven cars :)

[VivienM]

Just put a tax on poorly designed gas guzzlers, SUV or not. Over this much MPG, tax.

Take that tax money to clean up the environment.

Put the pressure on car companies to produce efficient products. Limiting car size and taxing certain car models is too complicated. Putting a gas tax is dumb, you are taxing everyone in an already over taxed economy.

So how do you propose stopping people who commute 200km/day in their Prius?

By YOUR logic, they're less of a problem than somebody driving 2km/day in a big thirsty SUV.

Yet even if a Prius consumers five times less per kilometer... that still burns 20 times more gas.

(And you may think this is an exaggerated situation... but I had a friend... in the course of about 6-7 or so years, his parents drove 300K kms on the first vehicle and 260K kms on the second... while in the same amount of time, my parents drove about 100K in total, if not less. Lifestyle choices make a LOT more of a difference than vehicle efficiency.)

Oh, and quick economics lesson: if you manage to artificially cut down demand through what you're proposing, that's going to push gas prices DOWN. If gas is CHEAP, people will want thirstier vehicles (in which case automakers will cheat your regulatory system) or will drive more... both of which, in the long term, defeat the purpose. (Ask the Americans: they put in strict fuel economy regulations in the late 1970s... that worked beautifully until gas got so cheap that everybody switched to less-regulated SUVs!)

[Bullseye]

Oh, and quick economics lesson: if you manage to artificially cut down demand through what you're proposing, that's going to push gas prices DOWN. If gas is CHEAP, people will want thirstier vehicles (in which case automakers will cheat your regulatory system) or will drive more... both of which, in the long term, defeat the purpose. (Ask the Americans: they put in strict fuel economy regulations in the late 1970s... that worked beautifully until gas got so cheap that everybody switched to less-regulated SUVs!)

Oil is a global commodity, with prices set accordingly. With the rapidly improving economies of many countries, reducing demand in North America will only slow price growth, not reverse it.

In reality, all of this we're debating here is a problem that will solve itself in time through the laws of supply and demand. We'll be sucking fumes till that point, though, unless we help the process along.

[chicadam]

chicadam - municipal governments already do it! Many cities have traffic light management systems in place that are supposed to optimize traffic patterns.

I meant for re-paving existing roads and re-aligning current traffic infrastructure. The quick solution is optimizing traffic lights which helps but without a coupled change to infrastructure, results are limited. And for every area of traffic lights they optimize, new lights are put up elsewhere slowing down traffic.

So, no the government is not doing it. Off topic anyways.

[Narci]

If you can afford the vehicle (SUV), you should be able to afford the gas. If not...don't complain about gas prices.

What I personally would like to see happen is to see enviro safe vehicles like hybrids, hydrogen cars or alternative vehicles a tax incentive or a tax break/subsidization to manufacturers of hybrids etc.

[FastFokker]

What I personally would like to see happen is to see enviro safe vehicles like hybrids, hydrogen cars or alternative vehicles a tax incentive or a tax break/subsidization to manufacturers of hybrids etc.Yeah maybe we can fund the tax break/subsidization on "green" technology from our massive oil and gas productions. :razz:

[dark169]

THeres no one solution.

What needs to be done is a bunch of actions across the board:

1- increase gas tax, as burning a litre of gas polutes. That polution doesnt care how far you went or how mach grass you cut. the tax shoudl be tax per volume nothing mroe, what to pay less gas tax use less gas

2- mandate a consistant improvment in milage of new cars, all new cars dont do fleet numbers where you can balance out the junk with the good stuff

3- dont give tax incentives to hybrids, this is a dumb idea as a hyrid explorer gets a tax credit while a smart car doesnt... The tax incentive is built into the gas tax, increase the gas tax to the point its effective.

3- improvments to traffic infrastrucuture, improve traffic flow. For example Calgary is horible when it comes to light coridination, lights act rpetty much indpendant of each other and theres lots on timers. Theres some good progress in use of cameras to do the light timing this is only hapneing on new intersections. Funds need to be put into palce to retrofit old intersections.

4- improve public transit, but public trasit will always be a lesser choice in many cases.

Picking on SUV is fashionalbe becuase it's easy. SUV are a waste and its easy to bash wasteful things. Very few people use the S or the U of the SUV for more then 1%.

[chicadam]

So how do you propose stopping people who commute 200km/day in their Prius?

By YOUR logic, they're less of a problem than somebody driving 2km/day in a big thirsty SUV.

Yet even if a Prius consumers five times less per kilometer... that still burns 20 times more gas.


We all have friend that do this and do that... but this is a general rule for the car companies out there to build more efficient vehicles, including SUVs..
200km/day in more efficient car is better than in today's gas guzzling SUVs, no?


(And you may think this is an exaggerated situation... but I had a friend... in the course of about 6-7 or so years, his parents drove 300K kms on the first vehicle and 260K kms on the second... while in the same amount of time, my parents drove about 100K in total, if not less. Lifestyle choices make a LOT more of a difference than vehicle efficiency.)


Its seems your friend had a lot of places to go, good thing my idea would make him/her get a Prius instead of an inefficient SUV.


Oh, and quick economics lesson: if you manage to artificially cut down demand through what you're proposing, that's going to push gas prices DOWN. If gas is CHEAP, people will want thirstier vehicles (in which case automakers will cheat your regulatory system) or will drive more... both of which, in the long term, defeat the purpose. (Ask the Americans: they put in strict fuel economy regulations in the late 1970s... that worked beautifully until gas got so cheap that everybody switched to less-regulated SUVs!)

My rule allows you to buy gas guzzlers, you just have to pay a higher premium for it. ie. any car over a certain MPG rating, add tax. My idea taxes you before you use any fuel so its on the charge of the MPG rating. SUVs are certainly over the MPG of most vehicles, I'm not sure if you understand what I'm writing. Gas can be cheap but your gas guzzler won't be.

[Bullseye]

Anybody here read The Undercover Economist? It's a good laymen-level read that addresses issues like this, showing how problems can be solved.

[otaque]

In economics term, it is referred to as a free-rider problem.
Despite the complexed and nonlinear relationship between SUV ownership and (possible) negative effect on public good, people have an intuitive ability, over time, to detect when they have been treated unfairly. In my opinion, that's why there's an increase sentiment against SUVs.

[VivienM]

Its seems your friend had a lot of places to go, good thing my idea would make him/her get a Prius instead of an inefficient SUV.

No, his parents just had the silly idea of living 70km from where they work. Add it up over the course of however many years, and you get the expected result.

This is absurdly irrational behaviour and should be discouraged. I'm not saying you have to live across the street from the office, but 70km away (especially in the Ottawa area... if this was the GTA, it'd be a taaaaad less absurd) is just silly.

My rule allows you to buy a gas guzzlers, you have to pay a higher premium for it. ie. any car over a certain MPG rating, add tax. My idea taxes you before you use any fuel so its on the charge of the MPG rating. SUVs are certainly over the MPG of most vehicles I'm not sure if you understand what I'm writing. Gas can be cheap but your gas guzzler won't be.

Right... so somebody who wants to buy a thirsty sports car or SUV that they'll drive 5000km/year pays the tax.

Somebody who buys a Prius and drives 100K kms/year doesn't.

Please remind me again of the wisdom of this. The only thing your plan does is PROTECT those who have absurdly-inefficient driving-intensive lifestyles... which are PRECISELY the lifestyles that should be encouraged to change!

Let me remind you of something obvious: a parked vehicle burns no gas, emits no pollution and doesn't take up any room on the roads. So if you want to save gas and avoid massive road upgrades to increase capacity, you need to discourage DRIVING, not owning of guzzlers.

[chicadam]

No, his parents just had the silly idea of living 70km from where they work. Add it up over the course of however many years, and you get the expected result.

This is absurdly irrational behaviour and should be discouraged. I'm not saying you have to live across the street from the office, but 70km away (especially in the Ottawa area... if this was the GTA, it'd be a taaaaad less absurd) is just silly.



Right... so somebody who wants to buy a thirsty sports car or SUV that they'll drive 5000km/year pays the tax.

Somebody who buys a Prius and drives 100K kms/year doesn't.

Please remind me again of the wisdom of this. The only thing your plan does is PROTECT those who have absurdly-inefficient driving-intensive lifestyles... which are PRECISELY the lifestyles that should be encouraged to change!

Let me remind you of something obvious: a parked vehicle burns no gas, emits no pollution and doesn't take up any room on the roads. So if you want to save gas and avoid massive road upgrades to increase capacity, you need to discourage DRIVING, not owning of guzzlers.

The idea is to address the population not your friend... usually people don't drive for the sake of driving. I find its people that don't care about the environment who drive these gas guzzlers. They tend not to walk but rather drive... so lifestyle is also relates to the decisions you make when buying a vehicle.

Although your friend should be feeling it now with the gas prices being so high.

The problem is most gas guzzling SUV drivers don't need a SUV and this initial deterrant will change stop them from looking this direction... no one wants to pay taxes, not even the rich.

[FastFokker]

Let me remind you of something obvious: a parked vehicle burns no gas, emits no pollution and doesn't take up any room on the roads.If you can afford to buy a car and not drive it, you deserve to pay a Stupidity Tax. :lol:

I would rather "your friend" drive the an efficient vehicle 200km/day than drive an inefficient vehicle 50km/day. As if they are driving 200km, they must really HAVE to drive as not many other sane people would drive that much for commuting per day, so they have a real necessity obviously.