That SUV Driver May be Saving Gas

When a new full-size Chevy Suburban parks alongside you at the store and the owner slips out from behind the wheel, rather than giving him grief for guzzling gas, give him a hug for saving it.

Full- and midsize SUVs and full-size pickups are considered by many as the worst energy offenders on the road today.

Yet in analyzing sales for the first six months of this year, CNW Marketing Research, a company that studies why people buy the cars they do, found that those who purchase new full-size SUVs actually get nearly 2 mpg more in the new car than they did in their old one (19.9 mpg vs. 18 mpg).

At $3 a gallon, that's not only a savings of $186 in gas over a year's driving, it's a savings of more than 60 gallons of fuel.

Since the trade-ins were, on average, 6.5 years old, that's another low-mileage, high-emission-belching relic off the road.

Those who bought a new midsize SUV are now getting an average of 21.7 mpg, up from 19.9 mpg on their 6.4-year-old trade-in. Savings there is $136 a year and about 44 gallons of gas.

Those moving into a full-size pickup truck found their average mileage increasing to 19 mpg from 16.8, a savings of $292 or about 98 gallons of fuel over their 7.3-year-old trade-in.

Of course, new small cars conserve lots of fuel, too. Those buying small cars found they averaged 32 mpg, up from 20 mpg in the 6.3-year-old trade-in, a hefty $673 savings and 224 fewer gallons of fuel consumed. 

"When you see a new full-size Suburban pass, don't look down at the owner as a gas hog," says Art Spinella, general manager of CNW. "Look at the driver as someone who is interested in conserving gas by buying a vehicle that gets better fuel economy, regardless of size.”

Comments

"When you see a new full-size Suburban pass, don't look down at the owner as a gas hog. Look at the driver as someone who is interested in conserving gas by buying a vehicle that gets better fuel economy, regardless of size.”

This statement is completely flaw! Now here's a great example of propaganda - how to turn something bad into sounding good...and GREAT. To bust this statement is relatively easy: it isn't that the "someon" is interested in conserving gas when buying a vehicle that gets better fuel economy, especially on those SUVs and TRUCKs, but engine technology has advanced yearly, which resulted in more fuel efficient powertrain on ALL vehicles. If you compare a V6 engine from 10 years ago to a V6 engine nowadays - especially on trucks - with the newer 5 spd or 6 spd or even CVT transmission, which none were available back 5 or 6 years ago (at least at an affordable price), of 'coz the fuel efficiency has gone better!

Wanna understand more on the flaw of this CNW statment? Here's an alternate example:

"When you see someone buying a gun, don't look down at the owner as someone who wouldn't shoot at another human being or living organism. Look at the owner as someone who is interested in protecting him or herself, regardless of whether he/she has involved in any criminal activities previously.”

The statement from CNW is really a fallacy. Wonder if it is really an "independent" research.

[Dave T.]

I don't think people buying new suburbans are thinking they are conserving gas. They simply want a new car. The fact is that they just happen to get slightly better mileage than before.

[Joey1]

... All this means is that people driving Suburbans get better mileage than they did driving their late-model Suburbans...

[Tor]

"When you see a new full-size Suburban pass, don't look down at the owner as a gas hog," says Art Spinella, general manager of CNW. "Look at the driver as someone who is interested in conserving gas by buying a vehicle that gets better fuel economy, regardless of size.”

This statement is so full of flaws it is hard to keep a straight face.

First, the guy just bought a new Suburban - one of the 'cars' that get the worst MPG figures. Did he buy a new one so he could conserve fuel 'regardless of size'? Of course not. He wanted a new Suburban - and that Suburban happened to get better gas mileage (as do all new cars).

Most importantly, the Suburban guy would save so much more by going to a minivan - as would the mid-size SUV owner by going to an Accord.

The only thing the CNW research is saying is that all classes of cars are getting better fuel economy. Really? That is a big revelation. It has been going on for decades.

The problem has been that consumers have been moving to the more fuel-inefficient categories driving up fuel consumption.

...so there is no reason not to view that Suburban owner as a gas hog.

[J]

Yep, getting 19.9mpg is better than 18mpg.
Yet, on my last tank, I got 36.91mpg.

SUV still sucks more gas than cars.
Thank you very much.

[Kyle.C]

No one on here should be attacking the Suburban on here just because it gets horrible MPG. SUV's arnt sucking up all the gas. Just because you like getting 36.6 MPG in your small car does not mean that that car is right for everyone. There are large familes out there that need Large Suv's. If people who complain about MPG had their way, a large family might need to have 2 econoboxes just to get around. In the end would'nt that waste just as much gas?

[Amuro Ray]

Kyle. C - the answer to your question is, "no, in the end 2 fuel efficient vehicles will NOT waste just as much gas."

the suggestion of "large family needs Subruban" doesn't really stand. You can check out the thread on "To Tax SUVs or Not to Tax SUVs, Is That the Question?" The short answer is - get a minivan with better mileage, rather than a Surburban; also, since it's UNLIKELY that the entire family will need to go in the same Surburban all the time, that is, most of the time you'll probaby be able to fit everyone in one 5 seater vehicle (may be a bit crowded), you can have 2 fuel efficient and drive them together with someone else when condition requires you to, rather than having a Surburban as the only vehicle and drive it whether you have only yourself or all 8 people seating in there...and most of the time, it would just be you in the S only!

P.S. From the way you describes small cars as econoboxes, I can see how ignorant you are in today's small, fuel efficient car markets. You really should go to the dealers and check out what is/are being offered in today's small cars!

[dave]

I agree w/ Kyle C here. All people do is complain. There's a difference between disagreeing with someones beliefs, and imposing them.

You don't believe in SUVs, and some people who get them simply NEED them. So get outta here with your "we have to raise CAFE standards" b/c you're ENFORCING environmental responsibility, and that takes away from our freedoms.

Hell, we have a four cylinder G6, but I don't look upon others with contempt simply b/c they gulp gas instead of sipping it.

[Amuro Ray]

"that takes away from our freedoms"

Don't you guys get it? What 'bou my freedom to breath fresh air? What 'bou my freedom to enjoy the beauty of environment? What the heck to I have to pay for expensive gas just because you impose your so call "freedom" to drive whatever you want?

Now do you see why regulartions are needed?

P.S. I have seen that all the SUV/Truck owners have said 2 things: it's their rights and freedom to drive whatever they want, and it's their need too. Gladly I've answers to counter those, making their points invalid. Unless you've some "NEW" arguments, please refer to other blogs on why SUV/Trucks are really unnecessary before reposting your weak defense again :)

[J]

Kyle. C
My answer to you is: Do the math, please. :)
Assuming Mr. Someone have a family of 8(That's the maximum capacity of a Suburban)
Scenario A: The Someone's has a Suburban with 8 seats.
Scenario B: The Someone's has 2 so-called "econoboxes" with 5 seats each, 5x2=10.
Suppose that Mr. Someone have to work on weekdays and Mrs. Someone is a stay at home mom. Weekends are the family days.

Situation A: Mr. Someone has to drive himself to work, does Scenario A uses more fuel, or Scenario B uses more fuel?

Situation B: Mrs. Someone needs to get the kids to soccer game while Mr. Someone is at work.
How does Scenario A make it work? Mrs. Someone has to ride with Mr. Someone to work and drive back home herself, or they just simply need another vehicle. Hm...makes a lot of sense to be in scenario A.

Situation C: It is the Family day for a picnic, Hooray! The kids brought a friend with them.
With scenario A, it will be a "OH NO!, we don't have enough seats"
With scenario B, it will be: Okay, it might be a little tight, but we can still take one more friend because we have 10 seats.

[Ken L.]

Ok, some full size SUVs and pickups are bought for the wrong reasons, but I won’t get into that. But has it ever occurred to some of you that SUVs serve a purpose similar to sports cars/coupes/sedans? We don’t all fit one bill nor do we fit one image, otherwise we’d all be driving boring midsize gray sedans. I’m not advocating that everyone should get an SUV; in fact, most people should have bought a CUV to begin with. Most folks want the size/utility, but not the boring image of a minivan (though the Honda Odyssey is pretty neat). CUVs fulfill most needs and wants perfectly! Think about it. That leaves the rest of us true lovers of the body on frame, live rear axel, the North Face outdoorsy image to SUVs that makes you feel tank like safe. Again, I’m not saying that other categories of vehicles are not safe, but certain type of vehicles elicits an emotion. That emotion will never die. I hope you understand.

[William]

I had a Focus and was involved in a bad accident where I was lucky to walk away. The driver hit me in his Ford F150 while talking on his cell phone. I've since gotten into a JGC w/ a V8 and don't regret it one bit. My annual gas bill went up some $900. So What! I'd rather be alive and pay out the extra $900 then be dead. Clear the roads of all SUV's and then I'll get back into a subcompact car. Until then I'm worth the extra gas costs.

[J]

Ken L.
I am glad that someone has finally said something that makes sense in the SUV defending's side.

But, as much as I hate to point this out. It means the SUV's driver's choice and freedom to choose affects us all.

[DodgeFan]

The only problem I have is I know someone will probabily buy a used suv on the cheap. They might not use it as much but that suv will be used. I think SUV will continue to get more and more efficent because thats where American auto makers can afford to put the best technology first.

[Kyle C.]

So Now having two econoboxes you now have two car payments instead of one. Brilliant. A gas bill and a car payment bill.

If people like you had your way there would be no school buses because they glup diesel. Instead lets just place 4 kids and one driver in a small car. Seeing that 40 people would normally fit on a bus comfortably, that means you would only need ten econo cars! Thats Brilliant! (sarcasm)

Secondly I bring up this point because Not just large familes use large SUV's. Some day camps/ organizations use these to move large crowds of people.

On top of all this think of rescue vehicles. I dont think anyone would feel safe if there was no large SUV for a rescue vehicle.

People Need to tow personal possesions also. Calling me ignorant on this only proves that you only think in your own one dimensional world and do not concern yourself with how other people live/work.

[Amuro Ray]

Kyle C., when I said you were ignorant, you just totally proved my point. Why the heck are you giving me examples of PUBLIC transportation? I 100% support public transportation, be it school buses, organization vans, etc., because they are being used at the full 100% capabilities most of the time.

WE'RE TALKING 'BOU "PRIVATE" TRANSPORTATION HERE! HELLO?

And if you do your math, you should found out that the gas bill and car payments of 2 "econobox" is usually much less than 1 big SUV. Oh, did I mention the maintenance cost of a SUV VS a simple, 4-cyl econobox?

P.S. Just 1 more word of advice there...because I do concen the lives of other people, I understand that I've no right to polute the air, or burn excess fuels, just because I choose to live a lifestyle of having many kids, thinking that it's all about convenience to myself and ignoring my negative impact onto others...now that's what a good neighor should be. I hope you do understand, but this may be tough who can only think of him/herself and no one else...

DodgeFan, unless we live in an alternate universe, there's no way a SUV can be more efficient than a car - if both are equipped with the same type of engines (i.e. Hybrid SUV VS Hybrid car, etc.) There are 2 scientific enemies that prevent efficiency on SUVs: Weight & Aerodynamics. WIth such a heavy weight, and bad aerodynamics, SUV inheretly burns more fuel that the much less weight/more dynamic car. There just no way around it. (Be realistic for a sec, we aren't dealing with SUV that burns 100% solar power or such type of clean energy. We are talking about fossil fuels here.)

[Tor]

"You don't believe in SUVs, and some people who get them simply NEED them"

That people NEED big trucks is mostly a myth. Europe and the US have very similar needs. Both continents need construction workers, carpenters and plumbers. Both have heavy industry and lots of farmers. However, Europe has NO big trucks. Full-size pickups do not exists in Europe and neither do Suburbans and Tahoes. Somehow the Europeans manage just fine without them.

People here THINK they need these big trucks. Why? They are unfamilar with the alternatives that they would choose if gas prices enticed them. What are the alternatives? Just look at Europe.

No plumber needs a F-150. He'd be fine in a Toyota Hiace or Ford Courier. If you don't recognize these vehicles it may be time to look them up to see what alternatives exist.

Big trucks are a luxury. For most tasks they are overkill and most NEEDS are imaginary at best.

[Dennis Potter]

Always forgotten is miles/passenger. An eight person vehicle at 16mpg (my '97 Suburban) gets the same per/person mileage as a four person vehicle getting 32 mpg.

Mileage improvement has been focused on the large and smallest vehicles. I wanted to replace an 8 year old Ford Ranger (20mpg) with a new Chevy Colorado. Changed my mind seeing the "improved" S-10 replacement is rated at 17MPG. Chevy would have a new loyal customer if the Colorado got 25mpg (poor judgement of GM chases away customers).

[Kyle C]

Amuro Ray.

You were directly talking about how much big things drink gas. If you take away large SUV's that give the oppurtunity to get even stiffer on gas and take away things like public transportation. You can't just say one thing is bad when there is something else that is just as bad and sometimes worse right next to it that you ignore.

Listen I used to own a Dodge Caliber. Used to because it was totaled when a Camry decided to blow a stop light at 60 mph, Both cars were totaled, but he was in good shape. I was complelty torn up. I now Drive a Jeep Commander. And Just that. I bought a boat that I tow back and forth to the shore. With you saying that I don't need my large SUV just shows how stupid you can be. I need to tow my boat. The family and me go down there now all the time. When I just had the caliber and my wifes fusion we could not do such things. My family Enjoys doing what other familys can't. Obviously you never have lived like that. America is a rich country. People have luxerys. You can't ask people wth luxerys to give them up just because of your own belief. End of story.

TOWING is one thing that all the defenders of small cars keep ignoring as a fact. Your tiny toyota yaris dosent have the power to do it. Neither does a Small truck like the Ford Ranger. So Now tell me what do you think of that. How are you eco defenders going to concur that? Tell people to give up what they own just so you can be happy? Fat chance.

[Bob Wilson]

So with 6.5 years from 2001, the SUV needs to be replaced after 97,500 miles??? Remember CNW Marketing in their "Dust-to-dust" report claims Hummers (or any large SUV) will go 300,000 miles and now, CNW marketing reports they are being replaced at what appears to be less than 100,000 miles.

Had the SUV owner bought a Honda Insight in 2001, they would have saved nearly 4,000 gallons of gas or at $3/gal., nearly $12,000. Of course the numbers don't make sense, any more than CNW's original fictions. But CNW asserts fictions whatever way they want folks to believe at that moment.

Either SUVs are going 300,000 miles or not and as most of us had already figured out, CNW report junk science with sublime hubris as news . . . for the gullible . . . or those who shop for what they want to believe instead of the facts and data.

Bob Wilson

[Amuro Ray]

So Now tell me what do you think of that. How are you eco defenders going to concur that? Tell people to give up what they own just so you can be happy? Fat chance.

Now I don't know if you are categorized as stupid or not, but 1st and foremost...it's the lifestyle you choose to own a boat and need towing! So if you can live a luxury lifestyle, then pay the price of living a luxurious lifestyle. You wanna live rich and pay cheap (on gas and transportation cost)? Now that's fat chance. America is NOT a rich country...but maybe you aren't smart enough to realize that there are MILLIONS of homeless people here! And what you are doing is forcefully make these and the less rich people to breathe in your toxic excessive exhaust, pay the high gas price for their daily commute, and SHARE you burden of luxurious lifestyle. Who made you God of all people, Kyle C. I ain't asking people to "give up" their rich lifestyles. All I am saying is that, if you wanna live rich, then pay the price of living rich. Don't spill your problem to the others!

And to answer your question - in a smart way:
1. Leave you boat in the dock!
2. Buy a more gas efficient mini-van. You don't need a Tahoe to tow a boat. In fact, you can do it with wagons and today's more powerful 4-cyl engines. it may be slow, but hey, as long as it gets the job done, and makes no one suffer too much from the exhaust, then you've done your part.
3. If you can't even pay for having 2 small cars, or leave your boat at the dock...and you call yourself "rich?" Come on!

And as you said it yourself...other families may not be able to enjoy your lifestyle, so you need to be considerate and not force them to suffer from your richness. I know I haven't.

[Kyle C.]

Or maybe you need to just consider some people don't want to drive across a state to get to their boat and would rather have it with them. Think People arnt stupid. Why do you think I have the money to afford what I have? I know the right way to spend it with my life style.

Speaking of lifestyles and this country being not rich. People with money live luxurious because they can. They have the money to do so. It is there life style so why deny them that? Also if there are so many of us americans poor, then the FEW rich people arn't destroying the air as fast as the rest of the company. Hmmm Think of the top 20% of the contry. If they all owned SUV's they still would pollute less then the other 80% that also uses SUV's and cars.

I would Like you to show me a MINIVAN that has 4 cly and can tow over 4000 lbs.

If you want to complain about this how about you go to your states representative. (democrates will care more) and make a law stating that dealerships can only sell Large trucks/ SUV's to people that can prove that they need them.

All of this aside. Think of some full size cars that get less than 16 MPG. Think of some of the sports cars. They burn gas just as quickly as the SUV's do, except they have small
er tanks so they end up at the station more.

Just step back and think though before you say that we should all be in smaller cars. Americas Are getting bigger (by that I mean fatter). Some peoples big butts can't fit even into a full size car as well as they would in a SUV.

There are people in this countries farm lands that need those cars just to get around their farms or to move equpiment around and even herd animals. Tell them to switch to a 4cly car to do that.

With any situation you have to think of every possible situation a person may be in.

The last thing I have to say is:

Lets say you have your way.

On the road there is just small cars.

The oil industy wouldnt be making as much of a profit that they are used to making...So if you owned a company that contorls something that is valuable to socitey, and you lost money. You most likely would RAISE THE PRICES in order to make the same amount of money as you did when SUV's and trucks Existed.

The earth is not just going to instantly fix its problem. This planet has gone though climatic changes in the past. There have been Ice ages and heat waves. If you want to preach in the streets, go ahead.

[Dan]

I call schenanigans on the small car part of this study (if not the whole thing). Did small cars really average just 20mpg just 6.3 years ago? Now, perhaps if you averaged in all the Mustang Cobras and Mercedes SLR's (technically compact cars because of their small interiors) it could start to be believable, but I can't believe that if you continued to do that, you'd see a 60% improvement over 6 years. Bologna.

Dennis Potter-
You're assuming the vehicles are full again. Poor assumption. When large vehicles are full, they can be more efficient, hence public transportation. However, with personal vehicles the majority of miles driven are with a single person in a car. Even when you start adding passengers you have to have double the number in the SUV to compare to the small car.

Kyle C.-
You're presenting straw man arguments and using anecdotal evidence, two formal logical fallacies. No one is suggesting we completely eliminate large vehicles. What's being proposed is that those who don't truly NEED these vehicles be encouraged to stop driving them. Contractors would still drive trucks, taxes would drive large cars, public transit would still have busses, and people who reproduce like rabbits and go camping every weekend could have their large SUVs. Most individuals, however, don't truly have a need for any of this, and would be better served by a smaller car or two. In the end their costs, and the suffering of the rest of us, would be reduced. It's a win-win situation.

If you really NEED these vehicles, it's reasonable to ask you to pay some compensation to the public for the nuisance that is created in the form of pollution and road danger (as even you alluded to, trucks and SUVs are incredibly deadly to all other drivers on the road), our find a smarter solution such as Amuro listed in his last post. If we're a rich nation, it shouldn't be that hard for us to pay a little extra to find a solution that is better for all of us.

[ermatthe]

In real world driving the gas mileage on minivans isn't that much better than on large SUVs.

Hearing a minivan owner complain about gas mileage is just about as common as hearing it from an SUV owner. Actually it's probably more common, because people who buy the SUVs at least know what to expect.

And if you're going to complain about SUVs wasting so much fuel, it only makes since to do the same for sports cars, large sedans- shoot, anything that's not running on diesel and a battery pack is using more fuel than it could be.

You might frown on someone driving a Yukon, but the person pulling up next to you on a scooter could be thinking the same thing about you.

[Matt]

Instead of giving the SUV driver either grief or a hug, how about just minding your own business, and keeping your mouth shut? If you don't like my SUVs, put on your big girl panties and get over it!

[Troy]

Here's a thought.

If everyone drove the speed limit, properly maintained there vehicle (tune ups, tire pressures, oil changes, removed clutter in the trunk etc..) and started/stopped smoothly, fuel consumption would drop sharply regardless of what type/brand vehicle they drove.

In my opinion.... Instead of focusing on fuel economy, everyone should focus on their driving style, maintenance and clutter management.

[J]

Because people expect more MPG improvement when they get a more fuel efficient vehicle.

I've seen someone has a 18MPG 07 Civic, and a 37MPG 07 Civic, both drives 100% in the city.
Why is it such a big difference? Different driving style plays a major role.

[DL]

SUV's SUCK gas.

however, if a large SUV that's touted to carry 7 or 9 people carries half as many people on a regular basis (brings car pooling to mind), the gas used per person is not that bad. i have to confess i read about this on Car and Driver a while ago ... ;) they were driving around an Escalade with like 4 kids ...

[Jon]

Try this:

I drive a VW Passat (about 32mpg) 25 miles to work each day. Thats 50 miles round trip or about 1.6 gallons of gas/day.

My wife drives a 2002 Ford Explorer (about 17mpg city) 1.5 miles to work each way using about .2 gallons of gas/day

So in one month (aprox 22 work days) I use 35 gallons and she uses 4 gallons.

Which of us is saving gas?

When I drove my daughter to college we only need to take 1 loaded car (the Explorer)

When we drive to Hilton Head, SC from Maine (6 people) I only need to take 1 car. (the Explorer)

I contend that someone driving a Prius 50 miles a day (like I do) causes far more damage to the environment and consumes far more fuel than my wife does driving 3 miles in her suv.

We (the US) need to do far more than worry about who is driving an suv. It's an oversimplified idea taken out of context, that misses the real issue(s).

A good start for all of us would be:

1. Stop being self righteous
2. Move closer to work.
3. Build and live in small, efficient homes.
4. Drive the most efficient car possible for the task you need OR...
5. If possible take public transportation.

Jon Brown
York, Maine

[DL]

so how much would that Explorer use up if you drove it the 50 miles a day? please don't compare apples and oranges.

how come your wife doesn't take public transportation or ride a bike?

most americans are moving farther from major cities and from work. how do you address THAT big issue? is it better to try to make thousands or more americans move their homes and families, or have the greedy car companies use the technology they have had for years and update their P.O.S. gas guzzlers so that they can run a little leaner?