07 Mar 2003 | Benjy said...

Current Chairman and CEO Bill Ford had made a name for himself as the "green" board member, but there were some questions about his remaining true to this stance once he took over CEO responsibilities from Jaques Nasser--especially in a time of financial difficulties. I'm glad to see that he has remained concerned about the environment, while at the same time offering the market what it wants (SUV's). Both sides win.

07 Mar 2003 | pb said...

The Escape seems an odd choice for this. Net/net will it guzzle as much gas as a normal Focus?

07 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

I don't get it either. Anyone that cares about the environment and is willing to pay for a hybrid probably isn't going to choose a huge SUV as first choice.

07 Mar 2003 | Eamon said...

As a hybrid owner, I say the more on the road the better. And, at least until Toyota brings their hybrid minivan to the states, there really isn't another option for large families in the foreseeable future. I love my Prius to death, but trunk room ain't its strong suit.

07 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Actually I think it makes a lot of sense. People buy SUVs for a variety of reasons (macho image, size, perceived safety, perceived need for something with 4wd, etc.), but some of those people also feel a little guilty about it.

The reality is that SUVs are still a hot commodity and people are going to keep buying them until they go out of fashion. And even when they go out of fashion some people will still want to buy them because of the macho image. Let's face it, are a secondary sex characteristic.

So it makes sense to offer some hybrid SUV models to people who are slaves to fashion or need a big brawny car to prove that they have (or envy) a penis, but who also want to appear environmentally responsible. It's true that this beast won't get any better mileage than the Focus, but if people start buying it instead of the standard Escape the environment will be better off. Unless unless the availability of a hybrid SUV lures people away from smaller hybrids that have much better fuel economy. Even in that case, I think a number of smaller hybrid SUV-type vehicles are coming on the market in the next few years and there will be more choice.

07 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Um, that should have been "Let's face it, cars are a secondary sex characteristic." I left out the word "cars."

07 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Must be a typo in the article...it says: "35 to 40 miles per gallon in city driving and 30 mpg in highway driving" whereas a normal Escape gets 20 city/28 highway.

Cars get better mileage on the highway, not less, so I wonder what the real highway mileage is...perhaps 45-50 mpg?

The point is (and this is to you, pb) that, if people are gonna buy SUVs anyway it would be better for them to by this hybrid one. SUV buyers, concerned with protecting them and their families from other SUVs, wouldn't buy a Focus in any case.

It also appeals to yuppie guilt. They feel they are doing something without actually sacrificing anything. You're still destroying the environment, sure, but not at the same rate -- and that counts for something.

07 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Toby, read the article again, it explains why this kind of hybrid gets better gas mileage in the city than on the highway. I think Honda's first hybrid, the Insight, used a different technology and got better mileage on the highway than in the city, but the Prius and the Escape will get better mileage in city driving.

07 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

You are right and I'm a dope.

07 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

nope you're not a dope...it's Friday afternoon and my extensive research has revealed that the human brain is capable of capturing and correctly processing only half as much information on Friday afternoon as it can on Monday morning.

07 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

but the Prius and the Escape will get better mileage in city driving.

Which is good on Ford, I suppose, as most SUV drivers seem to be Wal-Mart shopping soccer moms who just go back and forth from the strip mall to their suburburban McMansion.

07 Mar 2003 | brian said...

i think this is a great move, i for one have been increasingly warming to these smaller-suvs (like the new nissan murano). now that they get 45MPG on the highway, I'd be hard pressed not to look into one, as I'm moving my stuff around alot. ford was smart in making it more fuel efficient in the city, i wonder how it would affect the off-road capabilities(does the escape have any to begin w/?)

07 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

hurley#1:
You are too generous...I'm having a dopey week, which is why I'm posting half-thought opinions here and not getting work dumb.

07 Mar 2003 | david said...

toyota will be bringing hybrid versions of the lexus rx330 to america in the next couple years, and (iirc) also a hybrid version of the rav4. there is already an all-electric version of the rav4.

07 Mar 2003 | ek said...

Re: brian's question about off-road capabilities, neither the Escape nor the Lexus RX330 are really meant to go off-road so the move to a hybrid engine doesn't really have any impact. But, at least in theory, hybrid engines could improve the off-road capabilities of SUVs, mainly because electric motors (the gas-based engine in hybrids is supplemented by electric motors) generate lots of torque at low speeds, which is important in true off-roading situations. The only problem is developing electric motors powerful enough to power the really large, really heavy truck-based SUVs without adding so much weight that they defeat their own purpose.

07 Mar 2003 | nathan said...

Why can't we ever have a discussion about SUVs and alternative fuels without people lazily reciting soccer moms with penis envy vs. granola muncher stereotypes?

Someday we will all drive hydrogen cars, or perhaps science will engineer bacteria that generates super clean fossil fuels, or perhaps we'll put banana peels in our our Delorean's Mr. Fusion. The important thing to remember is that progress happens incrementally and that whining: "but I want my hydrogen economy NOW!" doesn't make it happen any sooner.

07 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Why can't we ever have a discussion about SUVs and alternative fuels without people lazily reciting soccer moms with penis envy vs. granola muncher stereotypes?

Because those stereotypes are largely true. Okay, and because we're lazy.

It's easy to make fun of people who buy SUVs because in many cases the reasons they bought them are so ridiculous or pathetic. And making fun of people is one way of encouraging them to be less stupid.

The car companies won't make efficient cars unless people demand to buy them. They make SUVs now because people want them (and, er, because they can make a large profit on them, maybe that has something to do with it).

Hybrids are a great incremental step forward. Now the thing is to make them attractive to buyers (the price issue is a problem). But once Joe Sixpack realizes he can get laid more often if he buys a hybrid SUV and the women he meets start thinking, "wow, not only does he have biceps and good teeth, but he cares about the environment too," I think we'll start seeing more people buying those vehicles. Sorry for the stereotype (he says, ducking).

07 Mar 2003 | ~bc said...

I think it's ridiculous that Ford's starting with the Escape and not doing a car at all. They should give those of us who want to be good, but are still smart enough to stay off the SUV bandwagon. Focus, anyone? Personally, I wish hybrids would add the ability to manually switch on the electric engine, for when you're stuck in traffic, for example. I thought that was how they worked when I first heard about them, but then I remember reading how basically all the electric motor does is backup / add power to an anemic gas engine when it needs more power. Does anyone know more about this? A hybrid is almost certainly our next car (hopefully we can afford one and there will be some more options in a year or less).

07 Mar 2003 | nathan said...

Ford is starting with with the Escape because it makes business sense. Why go toe to toe with Honda and Toyota who have already established themselves in the hybrid car market when you can be first to market with hybrid midsize SUVs?

Here's a good read in Wired about GM's fuel cell efforts.

As for SUV buyers being stupid? I doubt any amount of namecalling or SUV rollover statistics can make people react contrary to their instinct of "if my kids and I are in a crash, I want to be the one in the Hummer."

08 Mar 2003 | dmr said...

I drive an SUV (Honda CRV) so I can carry all my art shit (kindly name a car that can carry 4'x8' paintings); no need to paint all SUV drivers as slick-haried, fat pig mofos eating Micky Ds on their way to drop off the kids as soccer. I will gladly take a hit performance wise (slower accel., less power, etc) for a cleaner, more efficient car.

And another thing, as much as I would like to, people who are 6'3" can't fit in a goddamn Civic/Primus/Focus.

Also, I support Henry Rollins efforts in casually renaming the Hummer to 'dickhead'.

08 Mar 2003 | Eamon said...

For the record, there's more headroom in the Prius than in, say, the Camry-- and it fares surprisingly well against an SUV like the CR-V (38.8 vs. 40.9). The car looks tiny because the wheels are so close to the corners, but it's roomy for a midsize 4-door. I strongly recommend a test drive.

08 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

The Prius got a Consumer Reports "best bet" rating, though the crash test indicators only show average, and trunk space is lacking. But pretty much everything else got highest marks.

Or better yet, have companies make it easier to work at home.

08 Mar 2003 | pb said...

Please everybody. Even if buyers buy SUVs purely for the dimensions (the don't) they are not going to buy such a wimpy vehicle.

09 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

And another thing, as much as I would like to, people who are 6'3" can't fit in a goddamn Civic/Primus/Focus.

I beg to differ. I'm 6'4" and I drove a Honda Civic wagon for 10 years (and 250,000 miles) and then bought a Focus ZX3 hatchback. Before that I drove mostly Subaru wagons. I've driven a CRV and the headroom's great but the legroom feels a bit cramped to me.

The Focus is actually the most comfortable car I've ever driven, and even though there isn't much headroom for me there's enough and the legroom is better than any Japanese car I've driven.

All that being said, I'd probably be more comfortable in an SUV or minivan, and I'm waiting for a decent hybrid version from Toyota or Honda before making my next car purchase.

09 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

What's wrong with having sixpack abs?

09 Mar 2003 | Innuedo said...

DaimlerChrysler will presumably start selling the first fuel cell cars in 2004 in Europe.

Cars like this one (1999): NECAR

In the meantime the NECAR 5 has crossed the united states from the east to the west...

09 Mar 2003 | dmr said...

Hurley #1, I agree, I used to drive a 4 door wagon 88 Civic, and it was a great car for room, but newer Civics (2/4 door sedan) are just too tiny and cramped.

10 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

I just had the "height vs. Cars" discussion with my sister's boyfriend this week. He's 6'4 and I'm 6'2, and we both drive small cars. Some have more head room than others, of course, but it just isn't true that small cars have no head room at all.

We've both been trying out new cars lately. Right now I'm looking to get a nearly used something or other that is small, fuel efficient, and hatchbacky -- something good for hauling groceries and occasionally camping out of. Any suggestions?

10 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Off-topic, but the "height versus cars" issue reminds me of a business idea I had some years ago and never followed up on: we need a consumer's guide for tall people that identifies where we can find things that fit us or that we fit into. A Web site and/or print publication that listed and reviewed cars with ample headroom and legroom, places to find shoes in sizes 14 and up, places to find good clothes rather than the crap offered by most "big and tall" shops, etc. Wouldn't that be great? Is something like that already available? There should be one for short people as well.

10 Mar 2003 | SU said...

Right now I'm looking to get a nearly used something or other that is small, fuel efficient, and hatchbacky -- something good for hauling groceries and occasionally camping out of. Any suggestions?

Not sure about the headroom, but the Subaru Impreza would fit the bill. They get great gas mileage for an AWD car and have a good deal of storage capacity. Plus, Subarus even used ones are long-lived. The Ford Focus is also pretty spacious and fun.

10 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

I haven't taken the Impreza for a test ride yet, but it is under consideration. AWD seems like such a fuel economy waste...I'm going to take a car camping, sure, but I don't see the need for AWD if my old Corolla can handle it.

Otherwise, Imprezas are fine cars from what I've read. And they certainly look sharp. I drove the Focus, it was nice, but it didn't blow me away. I hear they have "quality issues" whatever that means.

I'm too hip for the Focus, and not hip enough for the Vibe/Matrix, so maybe the Impreza is the way to go.

10 Mar 2003 | SU said...

Surprisingly, AWD doesn't really detract from gas mileage in the Subarus... In my Legacy Wagon, I get 20-30 mpg depending on the mix between highway and city driving. The automatic Subarus are front-wheel drive until the AWD needs to kick in... The manual tranny ones are AWD all the time.

10 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Actually the fuel economy for the Totoya Matrix AWD model isn't much different (1 mpg less) than that of the comparable 2WD model. I don't think AWD necessarily means a big penalty in the fuel economy department. The Matrix AWD model has about the same fuel economy as a Ford Focus hatchback; 27 mpg city, 32 mpg highway.

Unfortunately the AWD Matrix currently comes only with automatic transmission, which kills that option as far as I'm concerned.

10 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

I guess it is all relative. My wife's Civic gets about 38mpg, so even 30 seems low -- which it really isn't when compared to most sedans.

Considering that I only seem to buy a car once every decade, I think the next car will have to last until we get a clearer picture of how the whole hybrid/fuel cell thing pans out.

Thanks SU. I just need to get a house first...

10 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

phew...need to catch up...

Why can't we ever have a discussion about SUVs and alternative fuels without people lazily reciting soccer moms with penis envy vs. granola muncher stereotypes?

Because there are real problems with the American mindset. SUVs are not good vehicles for anything but the occasional person who specifically needs either the off-road features or the cargo space (though. typically, there are better options for both of those).

While it's great that Ford is making Hydrogen SUVs, the reality is that it would simply be better for us to just stop buying so many SUVs. Forget the hydrogen, let's just drive safer, smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

Ford is starting with with the Escape because it makes business sense.

And that is the problem. We take the easy 'business sense' approach to things rather than 'is there a more environmental friendly solution that we can implement, albeit at a slightly lower profit margin?'

if my kids and I are in a crash, I want to be the one in the Hummer

I wish we could get through to people that two hummers in a 60mph head-on collision are as unsafe (if not more so) than two smart-cars in a head on collision.

I drive an SUV (Honda CRV) so I can carry all my art shit (kindly name a car that can carry 4'x8' paintings); no need to paint all SUV drivers as slick-haried, fat pig mofos eating Micky Ds on their way to drop off the kids as soccer.

Certainly not. But you seem smart enough to understand you have a valid reason and to not get insulted by the stereotypes. ;o)

people who are 6'3" can't fit in a goddamn Civic/Primus/Focus.

Have you ever sat in one? I'm 6'1 and have more than enough room in my Civic. More so than in my Forrester. We rented a Focus in Europe. I thought it was plenty roomy.

I dare say the Civic is the most comfortable vehicle that I've ever driven.

AWD seems like such a fuel economy waste...

I'm certainly not a car geek, but realize that AWD is a lot different that 4WD. I don't find our Forrester terribly comfortable (and it has a shitty sound system) but it certainly grips the road great in the winter snow.

10 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

if my kids and I are in a crash, I want to be the one in the Hummer

I wish we could get through to people that two hummers in a 60mph head-on collision are as unsafe (if not more so) than two smart-cars in a head on collision.

Physics was never my strong suit, so bear with me. If F(orce) = m(ass) X a(cceleration) then, mass of two hummers colliding at 60 mph will equal seriously "F'ed" up occupants. A quick way to make family paste.

10 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

The real safety issue is not about SUVs colliding with each other, it's about SUVs colliding with Civics. The mass of a typical SUV and its greater bumper height can wreak considerable damage on smaller cars and their occupants. There are a lot of SUVs out there, which will gradually be sold as people trade them in for newer vehicles. As the fleet ages, eventually these older, used SUVs will become cheap enough to be affordable to teenaged boys, who will drive them the way teenaged boys have always tended to drive: recklessly. The New York Times did a story about this a while back, and I remember shivering over the projected increase in highway fatalites.

10 Mar 2003 | 8500 said...

it would simply be better for us to just stop buying so many SUVs. Forget the hydrogen, let's just drive safer, smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

Actually it would be better for us if we drove our cars a lot less. I think the driver that puts 8k miles a year on his SUV is not any worse than the Civic owner that drives 30k in the same time period.

10 Mar 2003 | SU said...

Actually it would be better for us if we drove our cars a lot less. I think the driver that puts 8k miles a year on his SUV is not any worse than the Civic owner that drives 30k in the same time period.

Exactly! A large part of our problem in America is that most cities seem to be designed around automobiles, rather than pedestrians/mass transport. SUV or Prius, if you drive you're still using fossil fuels.

10 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Here's a Washington Post opinion piece on Hydrogen power.

Sounds feasible, folks. Supplying Hydrogen will be an issue, the cheapest way to do it now involves oil. Still, one can imagine what a Tropical nation with access to a coastline might be willing to do to create solar-powered hydrogen-from-saltwater distilling plants.

10 Mar 2003 | Tim said...

> The real safety issue is not about SUVs colliding
> with each other, it's about SUVs colliding with Civics.
> The mass of a typical SUV and its greater bumper height
> can wreak considerable damage on smaller cars and their
> occupants.

SUVs are as dangerous to the people who drive/ride in them as they are to people in smaller cars. Truck-based SUVs do not handle like cars, yet people try to drive them as such. People die when they rollover because the tops get crushed by the massive weight of the vehicle. They stopped putting rollover bars in the vehicles because they realized most people would never go off-road. But the higher center of gravity is a BIG problem.

Apparently, Ford has known about the rollover tendency of the Explorer/Bronco II for almost 20 years!

Here is a list of all the rollover accidents involving Ford Explorer/Bronco II that killed someone.

Here is a video of a standard rollover test.

Here is a PBS Frontline special that dedicates an hour to the SUV rollover problem.

10 Mar 2003 | ek said...

Hey Toby, I know it's not a hatchback, but have you considered a Civic Hybrid? From what I've heard the recent update to the Civic line has resulted in a lot more interior space and the Hybrid gets an amazing 45/51mpg (city/highway).

Otherwise there's also the Honda CR-V, which is offered in both AWD and front wheel drive configurations. Not nearly the same fuel economy (23/28 for the FWD model), but it provides a good amount of room for cargo in the back with the rear seats folded down and can be had with dual side impact airbags (dual front airbags are standard on the current model).

I've also read good things about the Toyota RAV4, though it's not available with side impact airbags (which, to me, are as important as front impact airbags).

If you're looking for long-term reliability and value it's tough to beat Honda and Toyota.

10 Mar 2003 | ek said...

On this SUV rollover thing, I was really surprised by a N.Y. Times piece I read a couple of weeks ago on the topic of compatibility. In it the auto industry's own top lobbyist cited statistics revealing that cars are indeed safer than SUVs, if only marginally so:

Last Wednesday, before a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on S.U.V. safety, the industry's top lobbying group held a pre-emptive news conference on the subject. "S.U.V.'s are as safe as cars and in some cases safer than cars," said Josephine S. Cooper, the president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers...Her group presented data showing that 16.25 occupants of every 100,000 S.U.V.'s died in collisions annually, slightly higher than the 15.7 occupants per 100,000 passenger cars. Though many drivers bought S.U.V.'s believing they were much safer than cars because of their size, their high risk of rollovers, a particularly lethal kind of accident, more than offsets any advantage.

That's the first time that I've heard the auto industry themselves admit that S.U.V.s are not safer than cars, something that's implied if not said outright in most showrooms. Keep in mind that this is the industry's own data.

So next time you hear someone say that S.U.V.s are safer than cars you have some concrete evidence to refute that common misconception.

Aside from the absolute mortality issue, the issue of compatibility is an interesting one. Basically, the problem is that "when an S.U.V. strikes a car from the side, it is three times more likely to cause a fatality than another car." So not only do more S.U.V. occupants die overall in accidents, they also kill more people when they strike other cars.

When compatibility is taken into account in a measure of overall safety the worst performer is the Chevy S-10 pickup (meaning that more people die in it and are killed by it) and the best is the Toyota Avalon (a large sedan).

The thing about compatibility is that it's completely solvable. Hopefully Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge, the Bush Administration's top auto regulator, will continue to pressure automakers to make the necessary changes to their trucks.

10 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

ek: I've thought about the Civic hybrid. When they first came out, I didn't quite like they way they looked, ya know, with the half-covered rear wheel that gave it a bad-scifi Robocop squad vibe.

Looks aside -- hey, I drive an '89 Toyota Crapola -- I'm not what you would call an early adopter. The technology is a little too new, if you know what I mean. Like I mentioned, the next car will be the 'bridge' car to a hybrid/fuel cell.

That said, I met someone who bought a Prius and absolutely loves it(especially with the tax breaks!).

While I generally prefer tooling around in a smaller car, I've also thought about the mini-SUV thing. Like you said, the Honda CR-V gets about the same mileage as a Subaru (the Element, IIRC, gets slightly less), and so does the Saturn Vue, the Ford Ranger (not quite), and the Toyota Tacoma (quite). Not every SUV is a Ford Extinction.

Despite my wife's love of the things, I'm not a huge Honda fan. (But then, that might be because her dealer is a raging prick...errr...car dealer that is.) Saturn has a similar, albeit, more nefarious cultlike attitude.

OT...What amazes me is how much I can be negatively swayed by marketing. You'd think a grown man who already has no problem driving an embarrasing car wouldn't be thrown off by Elements or Matrices geared toward kids. I'm not thirty yet, but I'm getting bald enough to make myself look like I'm going through a mid-life crisis. Sorry for the long post.

10 Mar 2003 | ek said...

Hey Toby, the new Civic Hybrid actually looks just like a "normal" Civic -- it's the insight that looks all Robocoppy.

And I know what you mean about the dealers. Seems to be a line of work that attracts a bad lot (not all of course, but many).

And on the marketing thing, I know what you mean. But I talked to some Honda dealers recently and they said that 1) the Element is selling far better than they had expected and 2) the people buying it have, with few exceptions, been far outside of the Gen Y demographic.

10 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

Her group presented data showing that 16.25 occupants of every 100,000 S.U.V.'s died in collisions annually, slightly higher than the 15.7 occupants per 100,000 passenger cars.

What would make this statistic more telling is how many of the passenger car fatalities were caused by an SUV smashing into them.

10 Mar 2003 | ~bc said...

I wish we could get through to people that two hummers in a 60mph head-on collision are as unsafe (if not more so) than two smart-cars in a head on collision.

Actually, a hummer on hummer crash would be many times more dangerous. Cars are usually designed with "crash-compatible" parts like crumple zones. Structures that deflect the energy of a crash away from the occupants (SAAB and Volvo do this best). What people aren't grasping here is not just physics, but truck construction: trucks are meant to be stiff nose-to-tail for towing. So when you collide with something you don't get the benefit of crumple zones mandated by car specs, and you're actually punished by your load capacity. The physics law that applies here is stiffer something is, the more energy it will pass along to non-stiff things attached to it. In this case the piece that has all the energy sent to it is the driver of the SUV. Bottom line: no matter what truck you drive, if you hit a car. truck, bus, 18-wheeler, tree, jersey barrier, or fly off a cliff, when you finally strike something your truck will pass the whooping on to you. "SUVs are safer?" Retake high school physics, will ya?

12 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

Dubya said it: Technology & innovation is what will drive the american environmental efforts - not law or guidelines.
Sounds fishy, but none-the-less a good thing. Maybe Ford is trying to target all the SUs out there to start buying more SUVs, instead of only the "Don Schenck" group.

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

HEY!!!! :-)

Headline should be "Ford to sell hybrid SUV at a SHORT-TERM loss".

They're doing it for -- horrors -- long term profit! Don't kid yourself.

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Hurley, try purchasing a suit with a 48-inch chest and a 30-inch waist (Not me; I'm 42-30). Or with 26-inch thighs (I love it; my thighs are bigger than my 23-year old daughter's waist).

Same problems. My wife and daughter can't find decent clothing in their size (2 and zero, respectively).

*sigh*

I guess we all need to visit McDonalds on a daily basis. :-)

12 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

In slightly sadder news: GM (Saturn) is canceling it's electric car program.

As they reported it in the evening news last night, GM thinks its time to 'move on' -- the folks who leased the cars said they were great, that the technology worked fine and the cars were wonderful.

One thing that struck me as odd was the voiceover that said how there were concerns (note passive voice) that customers wouldn't want to recharge their cars every 100 miles or so. 100 miles? If you are driving a 100 mile commute recharging your car is the least of your worries. For the average person, how hard would it be to plug your car in at night?

(and, yes, I know, the power has to come from a fossil fuel burning - or *gasp* nuke - plant somewhere, but it still lowers city-bound pollution)

12 Mar 2003 | 8500 said...

For the average person, how hard would it be to plug your car in at night?

I live in an apartment and it would be a huge problem for me to plug my car in every night. Same goes for those who live in major urban areas and are forced to park on the street - sometimes blocks away from their outlets.

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

But 8500 ... the solution is easy!

A portable generator! HA HA HA

12 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Electric cars were never going to cut it...they work fine for certain niche applications like station cars (cars you rent for going back and forth to a special parking area at the train station, where you plug it in for the day) or utility fleets, but most consumers want to be able to use their car on the weekend to get away somewhere, which frequently involves driving more than 100 miles at a pop. I have a few friends who have electric cars, and they're all getting rid of them due to the inconvenience factor. One of these friends came over to my place for the day, drove back (mostly uphill), and his electric car ran out of juice about 2 miles from his house.

If you have two cars and one of them's an electric, that's fine. You can use the electric for commuting and the other for going longer distances when you need to. But they're really not practical for most people who own just one vehicle. That's why the hybrids are so much more commercially viable.

12 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Well then, 8500, electric cars wouldn't be for you. Nobody said they would be mandatory.

For many commuters -- and, indeed, the average communter -- it would be a good idea. According to the 2000 census, 60% of Americans live in single family homes, presumably with electricity. The average American commute is about 25 miles, within the bounds of the car.

The people who lost their Saturn EV1s liked them. Clearly the model would work for some. For you, it wouldn't. So be it.

12 Mar 2003 | Sue said...

I personally am glad to see that the electric hybrids are moving into the SUV category. I currently own an SUV, which I bought for my particular lifestyle. We do a lot of camping and hiking and have not only our gear to transport, but three pre-teen boys that get taller by the minute. We also need some ground clearance as the "gravel" they use on dirt roads here would be considered boulders anywhere else.

As much as I would love to be able to have a small, green fuel efficient vehicle for my commute back and forth to work, and another for the weekends when we are out and about as a family, it just isn't fiscally feasible for us.

This presents us with a perfect solution for our next vehicle purchase. All I can say is...it is about damn time.

12 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

I think a lot of consumers fall into your category, Sue, otherwise the carmakers wouldn't care.

I don't have a contempt for SUVs, per se, just a mild contempt for certain SUV owners -- the ones that own the colosso-mobiles for not particular practical reason other than bigger is better and these things are popular. We can debate safety issues all day, but when it gets down to it, Joe SoccerDad picked the Lincoln Navigator over the Dodge minivan to protect his fragile ego. And, yes, some families do need big cars, they have 15 kids and live on the mountainside like in the commercials, sure. Fine, whatever.

Most suburbanites aren't hauling lumber in these things, they're hauling groceries from the store, kids from the mall, and their fat asses from the office parking lot.

And yes, four wheel drive is nice to have in the snow. But they also make AWD sedans, station wagons, and Mini-SUVs that do the job. If you can't survive the twelve hours waiting for the roads to be plowed before you starve to death from the lack of a jug of milk, then you got far deeper issues than the car you drive.

Be practical for Jebus' sake. Ack. Pbblt.

/frothing rant

12 Mar 2003 | Steve said...

There are SUVs, and then there are SUVs. For the average-sized ones, I see no difference between buying one of those and a minivan. They're both good for hauling kids and their stuff around, they get pretty comporable gas mileage, and the SUV doesn't carry quite the "ewww" stigma minivans do.

What I have an issue with is the mega SUVs (which I remember once hearing being refered to as "urban assault vehicles," a term I rather like). Someone driving around a Navigator or Escalade might as well just slap on a bumper sticker saying "I have a small penis" and be done with it. There's no reason for those vehicles other than to satisfy the bigger is better urge.

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Oh; I have a great line, borrowed from the pro-Choice crowd:

"If you're against SUVs ... DON'T BUY ONE!"

Sheesh. Go whine about something else. HOW ABOUT THIS: I'm a member of Surfriders, and I use *my* SUV to haul trash away from the beach.

13 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Gee, sorry about your penis... :)

13 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

WHO TOLD YOU??

*laugh*

Surfrider

17 Apr 2003 | Joe Shmoe said...

Don --

The problem with whiners simply not buying an SUV is that it doesn't make them any safer. Fact is, SUVs make other people less safe. They also damage the economy more, and slow traffic down more. Does this mean that everyone who drives one is a jerk ? No -- there are good reasons for having them. But most of the drivers out there don't have them, which you can see by the type of SUV they drive. I've heard people say how can I haul my two kids plus one of their friends and I've scratched my head thinking ... an average car has three seats over and above the drivers seat, how hard is this ? And if people have alot of kids, I'd rather they were in an SUV, at least it isn't designed like an offensive weapon to come in over my bumper and cause me serious damage. I'm half tempted to buy a unimog or a pinzgauer just so I feel safe around the Ford Extinctions out there.

Again, I'm not saying that people with good reasons for driving an SUV offend me. Go ahead if you actually go off road *and* have to haul alot of people or stuff, but otherwise I'd rather you weren't making me less safe, slowing down traffic, and destroying the environment just b/c you think it looks cool when you go to the megamall.

At the same time, unfortunately, I don't fit into a prius well. I'm 6'4", and while my legs are OK, my head really doesn't fit well. So I really can't live the green-driving life I'd like. I compensate by driving as little as I can, but in my new job that will be less of an option.

Joe

17 Apr 2003 | Joe Shmoe said...

Whoops -- that should have read, "I'd rather they were in a Mini-van" not an SUV. D'Oh !

08 May 2003 | Getford said...

Think about it. The net effect of Hybridizing gas guzzlers, instead high milage cars is a greater benefit to the enviroment. Start with the worst offenders first.

29 Jul 2003 | John H said...

I have a '97 Ford Explorer Sport. Why? Not because I want to be macho. Not because I want to look like I have a big penis (or some ridiculous penis envy). Not because I'm some yuppie and want to look rich. Not because I want to be in fashion. I think far too many of you have been reading Freud books and fashion magazines. LOL!

I obtained an SUV simply because I needed the extra room. I am a tall person - so the extra space provided in an SUV was perfect for a person of my built. More importantly, I have made quite a few long distance journeys (2000 miles) with a rather large dog, plus luggage, gifts, etc. Hence, a smaller car simply wouldn't have provided the necessary room.

Even when I was looking at SUV's, I was careful to consider gas mileage. I purposely obtained the 2 door Explorer because I didn't want the low gas mileage of a 4 door. My Explorer gets about 20 mpg. While this is not great, it's far better than the 10-14 mpg of larger SUV's.

Now that my vehicle is 6 years old, I am starting to look at new cars. Because of the mileage issue, I was considering going from an SUV to a smaller car, even though I would have to sacrifice space. But then I started reading about these hybrids and realized that they offer the perfect solution. I can get something like a Ford Escape hybrid that gets 35-40 mpg in the city! That's FAR superior than most cars - and even competes with some feul efficient cars. Yet, I will have the space I need for my travels.

Therefore, I am very closely monitoring the progress of these SUV hybrids. I'm not doing so because I'm "trying to make a difference without doing anything" as someone stated. I'm not trying to be hip. I'm trying to be practical. I want a vehicle that suits me, my lifestyle, my pocketbook AND that doesn't burn gas at an outrageous rate.

So please don't vituperate all SUV owners as being impractical, macho, fashion-conscious morons. I think the fact that people are interested in hybrid SUV's (which, again, seem to get better gas mileage than many cars), shows progressive forward thinking.

29 Jul 2003 | lkj said...

Okay, so what is the safest, hybrid, midsize SUV out there, and why? I am willing to import it if necessary. I would like fuel cell tech. I have all the right reasons for an SUV. Live in the mountains. Need I say more? Thanks for your help.

22 Aug 2003 | ca1975 said...

I can see that there are alot of people in here that do not like the idea of people driving suv's or trucks and belive that a car can do just as well. I for one am looking forward to the new Escape Hybrid. I live in Wasilla Alaska and there is no car made that can get around in the 7-8 months of winter like my F-150 or my Explorer. Infact sometimes we get so much snow that my F-150 has a hard time getting around. When this new hybrid comes out I am going to trade in my Explorer for one.

22 Oct 2003 | Bonnie Wallace said...

I currently drive a 93 Escape and there are a couple things I things I do not like and in discussions with other Escape owners our views agree.......first, we all much prefer a stick shift on the floor rather than attached to the steering column. Many also want a lighted ignition and redesign the sterring wheel because it often blocks the view of the speedometer and other instruments. The fold down seats are awkward to put down.....there must be an easier more friendly design than these little straps and loops. Also the gas tank is too small..........and we should have more colors both inside and out........these tan and gray interiors remind many of us of caskets!! How about green, marron, red leather?

20 Nov 2003 | aig insurance said...

so will the hybrid suv get as good mileage as a regular car?

25 Nov 2003 | DC said...

Hybrids electric/piston engine vehicles offer a multitude of benifits:

o Incredable city milage is useful to a taxi or delivery company

o Unexeled torque at low RPM is available- perfect for off road vehicles, for the millitary, or for pulling trailers from a dead stop.

o Electric motor drive and braking is very controlable, making it easy to design high performance traction control and antilock braking systems for icy, snowy roads.

o Direct electric drive can simplify the design of 4 wheel drive vehicles - reducing maintenance.

o Hybrids are extremly green with low CO2 and polutant emissions - especialy important in California

o Very little heat and noise is emited when operating in electric mode - important for the millitary when conducting stealthy operations.

o Hybrids operate in electric mode nearly half the time in city driving, improving the quality of life in urban areas.

o Hybrids are fun to drive around town because they take off so quickly from a stop

O Hybrid technology is a stepping stone to fuel cell vehicles.

o Hybrid drivers can legally use the car pool lanes.

o People looking for green vehicles can feel comfortable owning hybrid SUVs.

o Hybrid technology adds power and zing to deisel vehicles

o 120 volt power can be supplied - very useful to contractors or the military.

No wonder auto makers are racing to hybrids!

25 Nov 2003 | DC said...

Hybrids electric/piston engine vehicles offer a multitude of benifits:

o Incredable city milage is useful to a taxi or delivery company

o Unexeled torque at low RPM is available- perfect for off road vehicles, for the millitary, or for pulling trailers from a dead stop.

o Electric motor drive and braking is very controlable, making it easy to design high performance traction control and antilock braking systems for icy, snowy roads.

o Direct electric drive can simplify the design of 4 wheel drive vehicles - reducing maintenance.

o Hybrids are extremly green with low CO2 and polutant emissions - especialy important in California

o Very little heat and noise is emited when operating in electric mode - important for the millitary when conducting stealthy operations.

o Hybrids operate in electric mode nearly half the time in city driving, improving the quality of life in urban areas.

o Hybrids are fun to drive around town because they take off so quickly from a stop

O Hybrid technology is a stepping stone to fuel cell vehicles.

o Hybrid drivers can legally use the car pool lanes.

o People looking for green vehicles can feel comfortable owning hybrid SUVs.

o Hybrid technology adds power and zing to deisel vehicles

o 120 volt power can be supplied - very useful to contractors or the military.

No wonder auto makers are racing to hybrids!

12 Jan 2004 | casino said...

Nice and enaging blog, but all the spam is starting to ruin many sites like this one!

14 Jan 2004 | album said...

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z