The Holy War on SUVs

Okay, Jesus Christ would not have driven a sport utility. He would have had a 4x4 pickup with crew cab.

It's Salem all over again. This time the alleged witches are sport utility vehicles, said to be the work of the Devil. More particularly, the government's chief safety official says SUVs are too dangerous. The Wall Street Journal says in an article: "Auto Makers Start To Back Away From Big SUVs." The greenies say the big cars heat up the earth, the know-nothings blame them for Arab terrorism, and the yahoos figure that Jesus wouldn't drive one.

Where does all this misinformation and wrongheaded opinion come from? Let's take the accusations hurled at these cars one at a time.

Safety: SUVs are generally safer than other vehicles. That's it. The best information I've seen comes from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Its last breakdown of driver deaths reported:

"Bigger and heavier vehicles are better: Two important characteristics influencing crash outcome are vehicle size and weight, which are strongly related. The smaller vehicles in each class generally have higher death rates."

SUVs have high death rates in single-vehicle rollover crashes. Notwithstanding that, they are generally safer than other vehicles. Most victims who died in SUV rollovers weren't wearing seat belts. Buckled up, you're safer in an SUV than in a lightweight car that doesn't roll as easily.

The popular Ford Explorer had a driver death rate of 56 per 1 million registered vehicle years. Of 89 car models reviewed, 74 had higher death rates; of 34 pickups reviewed, 32 had higher death rates. All seven sporty cars (like Mustang and Miata) had higher death rates. These Insurance Institute figures are a few years old, but they are the latest available and still representative.

Yes, auto companies should do more about the rollovers. Stability control systems that sense impending rollovers and automatically brake individual wheels should become more common on SUVs. And when a big SUV hits a smaller car, the little guy gets clobbered. This is big guy/little guy physics. But Ford's new Expeditions and Navigators are designed so that their bumpers don't override most cars. More such engineering improvements will come with future designs.

Earth warming: Yes, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is considered a cause of earth warming. It also is key to life on the planet. Every person exhales CO2, and every photosynthesizing plant inhales it.

If you believe that the earth is on an aberrant warming trend right now, and that industrial CO2 is to blame (note that the earth has been gradually warming for thousands of years, which is why we're not under a glacier), then consider this: If Honda sedans were substituted for every SUV, the old earth wouldn't know the difference. There are 750 million cars and trucks on the globe. Last year we sold 4 million utility vehicles in America, all types, and most of them were not particularly low mileage/high-carbon dioxide vehicles.

Terrorism: I suppose if no one used oil then some Arab states would be beggars and some terrorists couldn't afford the tuition at flight school. But more Arab oil goes to others--to Europe and Asia--than to us.

Remember that SUVs use just a fraction of the world's oil. There are those 750 million vehicles, and all the oil going to heat homes and to lubricate machines and to provide the ingredients for plastics. I'll believe that 666 is the mark of the Devil before I believe that banning Chevrolet Suburbans will win the war on terrorism.

Yes, I prefer to use less fuel and pay less at the pumps. Everyone is working on energy-saving technology--hybrid engines, diesels, hydrogen engines. So are manufacturers backing away from big SUVs as the Wall Street Journal said? No. Nissan is preparing a big new SUV. Cadillac just introduced an even bigger Escalade. GM is preparing systems, such as cylinder cutoffs, to increase fuel economy on big SUVs.

What is happening in the SUV market has been going on for years. It's just that vehicle makers, from Porsche to Kia, are adding to the variety of vehicles they make. You can buy a $70,000 SUV Porsche; a sleekly styled SUV by Nissan and Toyota; a hybrid (gasoline/electric engine) SUV by Ford, Toyota and GM; or a station-wagon-type SUV by Ford, Cadillac and Chrysler.

And what would Jesus drive? I've been to Israel, Judaea, Samaria, Sinai and the shores of Galilee. It's a rocky land and 2,000 years ago there were paths or trails, not concrete highways. Might Christ have needed a big SUV to get into those hills? My friend Jason says, "He was a carpenter. He would have driven a pickup and probably would have had a crew cab version to carry more of His followers." And four-wheel drive for those hills. A hybrid wouldn't have made it.

Jerry Flint, a former Forbes Senior Editor, has covered the automobile industry since 1958. Visit his homepage at www.forbes.com/flint.

Well, fuel efficient SUVs are possible, but unfortunately, passe.

I owned a 1986 Ford Bronco II, with a six cylinder engine and MANUALLY locking front hubs. (This is critical, as the front wheels are not driven when not in use.) I put 225K miles on it and it was still averaging 21-23 mpg, and getting 24-26 mpg highway mileage on trips, and it's off road performance was superb. (Remember, this was a 1986 vehicle, and unfortunately, Ford stopped making the Bronco II in 1989 or I would have bought another one.)

Two points:

1) When "shift on the fly" ads for the soccer Mom SUVs started appearing in the 80's, I knew that true off road vehicles were going to vanish. This meant that the front wheels would be constantly engaged, seriously degrading mileage for no good reason. The industry and the public would have been better served if family use SUV owners had simply been encouraged to engage the front hubs when the clocks were changed from DST to ST, and vice versa.

This would enable the driver to engage the four wheel drive system without leaving the vehicle during fall and winter, and would improve mileage when the system is not needed during spring and summer.

2) How many full sized, heavy, safe station wagons have you seen in dealer showrooms in the last ten years? (Which is the real purpose of the current monster SUVs.) None? Me either.

Thank your Congresscriters for the CAFE laws requiring fleet mileage standards for automakers. Traditional family station wagons are classed as cars, and are subject to these laws. SUVs are classed as light trucks, and are exempt from these same fleet mileage requirements.

The free market has responded by finding a way to provide the public with what it wants. (Large, heavy, safe family vehicles.) The laws have also inadvertently created a vehicle "height war", to combat the reduced visibility of non SUVs. "Visibility" is often one of the criteria for an SUV. The taller vehicles allow drivers better visibity in traffic, making them less dependent on the driving habits and reflexes of other drivers. Unfortunately, this also raises the center of gravity, increasing the rollover potential during sudden manuevers. (Like those that might need to be taken to avoid an accident, thus reducing the SUV drivers ability to maneuver to avoid an accident, and forcing them to "aim" their vehicles straight ahead and take their chances.)

Four wheel drive systems, for vehicles that never leave a paved road, are now available from $15K to $100K+. Between legal fleet mileage requirements for manufacturers, road rage fears, reduced visibilty in traffic, and the "tank" mentality, we have a lot of work to do to revive the simple, common sense utility of the family station wagon.

Let's hope we start before the advent of the two story, four ton SUV hits the showrooms.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.