By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
tidester
Host
SUVs
If I drove an "ordinary" car, I would feel just as guilty, not because of gasoline, but because of my laziness
I don't know about towing mileage (although I hear it can be bad), my mileage when I'm off-roading is almost cut in half!
FYI: I have designed/built/driven/raced hybrids and pure electrics. Sorry to say but their time just has never seemed right. Oh yeah and some of the very first cars were electric too. Are you trying to make this into an ' I don't like SUVs, why do you?' forum Tidester?
Besides, the quicker we use up all the evil gas the quicker we will develop other resources.
-mike
Nah - they could have gotten a "regular" car instead. Also, it is possible that some might recognize the problem only after they've gotten their fuel hungry SUV.
Are you trying to make this into an ' I don't like SUVs, why do you?' forum Tidester?
Not really. I was sitting here looking at one of the earlier messages with someone telling about (what I consider) truly abysmal gas mileage. It made me wonder whether I could personally justify that to myself under similar circumstances.
Obviously, money isn't an issue. But then I think I would have more than a twinge of guilt just because of the sheer inefficiency. We, as a nation, are almost fanatical in our quest for efficiency - in terms of time, resources, productvity, money etc. but when it comes to our vehicles we don't quite seem to have the same priorities.
So, I was wondering what others thought about it - since the topic IS "SUV fuel mileage!"
tidester
Host
SUVs
Unless you need to carry more than 4 people, you don't need an accord or camary, or any other car, no? They should also be painted grey with bright reflective tape along the edges for safety, and no need for anything more than an AM radio to get information to the driver.
-mike
It's amazing how inefficient our society really is though. Big business has a way of getting certain things done, but is typically not very efficient IMO. I think it's something like 50% of all new patents/ideas/... come from small business. I wonder how many people work for all of the small businesses compared to those for large businesses, and then we could see whether or not big business is really efficient.
Ever seen the movie Office Space? Where the main character has 8 bosses (or some absurd number) calling him to make sure he got a memo! That movie is great.
-mike
"Yeah that'd be great, I'm going to need you dielectric to go ahead and come in on saturday!"
I would personally have a problem with that. You do not.
dielectric: Agree! BTW - I wrote down the name of the video - will have a look! Thanks.
tidester
Host
SUVs
It's all relative.
Excursion is to Accord is to Metro is to Bike.
-mike
PS: let's try not to muddy the waters of this discussion with people posting comments pro-con gas milage. It should be kept a good resource for real-world milage info.
I doubt you would opt for a copying machine in the office that wasted 2 sheets of paper and 2 minutes of time for each copy you made or light bulbs that used 2,000 Watts of electrical power while only providing 100 Watts of illumination - even if you could afford both.
tidester
Host
SUVs
So the car is only 16% more efficient.
Granted the car cold have 7 people (hey two in the trunk) and the SUV 1, but generally I see people driving with one, maybe two people. I also don't see many SUVs towing or going off-road.
Apparently Americans really don't seem to care very much at this point about efficiency
I get 20 if I drive with normal flow but drops to 19 if I race away from each stop.
BTW, I average about 16.5 - 17 mpg overall with my PF. About half is highway. If it weren't for the abysmal mpg, I would have little to complain about with it. Of course, you can't have 240 hp and 4400 lbs and get great mpg.
-mike
Using a metro as the comparison is nonsense. There are comfortable, spacious cars (let alone wagons) that get 25mpg or better...compare this to an SUV getting 15.
Hopefully that hybrid and/or variable displacement technology will become available soon so that folks that say "I want an SUV and 15 mpg isn't so bad" will say "ok, it's worth $800 more to get adn SUV and get 25mpg (or better).
-mike
25mpg you are quoting is highway milage v. 15mpg for city milage on the SUV. Also let's get some names associated with these vehicles please.
-mike
Subaru Outback (you won't complain about a Subaru, will you?) averages 25 (22/28) vs a Denali (14), Expedition (15), Suburban (15), TLC (15)...and let's not even mention the Excursion.
These are all large SUVs...but the comparison is almost as bad with the mid-sized ones...starting with the Pathfinder (17), Explorer (17), JGC (18), Rodeo (19).
I have nothing against SUVs, per se...but there is a significant difference in gas mileage between an SUV and a wagon...let alone a sedan! A 25mpg vehicle uses 40 gallons to go 1000 miles...a 15 mpg vehicle uses 67...that's almost 70% more gas to go the same distance!
Cars average 28.5 mpg across all models on the road today (yes, 1 mpg above the CAFE requirement). That's a huge difference in gas consumption...clearly not a major factor in most folks' buying decision.
Or a little leaguer to a major leaguer
or pop warner to pro football
or a sunday golfer to Tiger Woods.
I get about 16 (higher when the mix is more highway in the Sub. I one time got 14+ all the others not less than 15.75. Therefore I speculate that the 14+ was an aberation based on fuel in the tank.
My former SUV Montero Sport religiously got 17, and 19.5 when all highway.
The trade off of space is more than worth it. Does that mean it is inefficient. Yes if compared to an Outback (of course there is nothing in common with an outback) but what does that matter?
Now the vehicle size, weight, contents, and aerodynamics are different, also what the vehicle capable of doing is different. So, based on that criteria, I do not consider it inefficient. Inefficient is making 3 trips to home depot to pick up your soil or flooring or other supplies that you could have taken home in one (as an example). Then you time, fuel, wear and tear and that, YES THAT is inefficient.
I guess I could say the PF, Montero Sport etc, are inefficient because they have smaller engines, can do less (based on engine size and weight) and yet only average 1 more mpg than I am.
Now, lets compare the GDP of Sri Lanka to that of The USA, while we're on the subject of fair comparisons.
-mike
I have a friend/neighbor with a truck. He gets about 15MPG with his driving. Here's the problem I have with him:
9 a.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 3 blocks, and stops it.
10 a.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives back 3 blocks, and stops it.
1 p.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 4 blocks, and stops it.
3 p.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 4 blocks back, and stops it.
So he's driven a total of 14 blocks with 4 cold starts. That's hideous for the environment and for efficiency. I make fun of him for being so lazy (he's a marine too), but honestly it's his truck and his gas.
Also perhaps SUV seats and views are more 'pleasurable' than an "ordinary" car seat to some.
What an enigma, can anyone say credibility?
Do as I say, not as I do.
-mike
Mike, this is like your argument that you need an SUV to deal with rough urban roads. You need an SUV because cars and wagons are uncomfortable? Even if it were true for large folk, it wouldn't be true for average folk and most folks are in the middle of the bell curve.
Most americans are overweight too.
And Yep most americans drive on crappy roads like PA, NY/NJ/etc.
-mike
Not really. There are lots of regulations related to car driving.
In any case, that wasn't the question Tidester was asking...he asked if there should be "cause for concern" if you used so much more gas driving an SUV when you didn't tow or go off-road (i.e., could probably drive a wagon or car or something with better mpg).
If you don't want to use gas...
You are completely missing the point. The point is whether you can get the same functionality while using less gas, wouldn't you rather...not asking if you want to reduce the functionality of your vehicle.
Here's the problem I have with him...
Right, I agree that that's a bad thing, too. You're not saying "fix that" but that there's no "cause for concern" if you get 15 mpg when you could get 25 at no loss in functionality, are you?
Do as I say, not as I do.
-mike
Remember paisan's motto..."when your argument is lame, start name calling"
Gee, I miss the old days, don't you Mike????
Why do we always have to use Off-road and Towing as the functions of an SUV? That is a BS and arbitrary function of an SUV.
-mike
Because that's what they were designed and spec'd for, Mike. What do you think the clearance is for? The HD suspension? The big engine? The HD frame? It's not arbitrary.
-mike
'You are completely missing the point.' I am? I don't think so, but that's OK. I'm used to you saying such things by now. If I'm missing the point, what exactly did I say that missed it?
Yes I wouldn't mind if my SUV got 9999999999999999999999 MPG, but they don't (sorry to disappoint you). If they did I'd sign up. When I want to get 9999999999999999999999 MPG I bike (but that's me). When I want to get slightly better mileage out of my SUV I carpool (well it doesn't increase MPG, but it's not so wasteful).
Cars can tow, they can go off-road too. Cars can carry people and luggage as well. But which one does a better job with less initial cost?
Most SUV's were not designed and spec'd to go off-road or tow. They were designed as people movers. Originally the idea was that they go off-road and/or tow, but not any more. SUVs do more than just those functions (but this is more for the I don't...forum).
Lots of cars off-roading there...
-mike
He'll ne-ver change I have been reading and posting to various forums here at Ed-munds for about a month.
I have seen many (in-cluding me) ac-knowledge when they were in error or when the li-ght buld of un-derstanding went off.
But sad to say, there is one here who won't or can't
Pity ain't it.
But hey, I'll not say who I think it is.
I find the contrast between driving inefficient vehicles and obsession with efficiency in the workplace fascinating.
tidester
Host
SUVs
Our 626 gets 22-24 mpg and Mazda even recommends premium, though we've used regular. Our Forester averages 25mpg and uses plain ol' regular. So I actually save money on gas, and have more range in the Subaru.
This despite AWD, wagon bodystyle for 4 times the space, and more payload capacity.
Am I saying everyone should buy one? Certainly not, buy what you love, nothing else. But mileage is important to me for several reasons:
* I'm less succeptible to gas price spikes
* good range means less stopping for gas
* lower operating costs
It would be refreshing to see, for once, someone come out and answer our host honestly. Yes, I bought a gas guzzler, I don't care, it's a free country, and yes a [pick an alternative] would have met my needs personally but I wanted that big truck and got it so tough!
-juice
Yeah, and then you'll be subjected to that gas station "music" blaring from the speakers at the pumps that less often.
Oops, wrong topic - nevermind :-)
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Back to cars, but not mileage: I'm willing to bet that the first cars ever produced took well under a year to build (I actually want to say a month). Nowadays it can take a decade before a vehicle actually comes into production. Now that's efficiency for ya
Like I've said before (not on this forum), just because you drive a vehicle that plugs into the wall, or uses hydrogen, or what not doesn't necessarily make the vehicle any better. You have to look at the overall picture (and under the skin too).
If it is not inefficient due to size/weight. Then put me down there.
If I can make, (restating) in one trip to the hardware store what takes you three -- then who is more 'inefficient?'
Define the term and I'll answer your question.
If the only thing I do was drive say 20 miles to and from work and get groceries etc, and nothing else and was single (or perhaps no kids), and theeneeeeeeennnnnnnnnnn still has the Suburban, that would be (to me inefficient), but as that is not the case, is it still?
Look at the whole CAFE thing, and it's ridiculous how hyprocritical the government can be. Gas prices go up, and they temporarily rescind gas taxes to keep them down.
Why not let them go up? This would push people into more fuel efficient cars more effectively than CAFE standards.
Gas is cheap, so people don't care much. That's the bottom line, and it won't change until we see sustained high prices for fuel. Folks in some countries pay $4-5 per gallon. That would influence plenty of folks.
-juice
-mike