Sorry. Not even close to being correct. European imported luxury sedans, sports cars, and now SUVs would hold that distinction. My point with Toyota is that while everyone's drinking the "we care about fuel economy Kool-aid" Toyota's real aim is to replace GM and Ford at the top of the truck and SUV supply pyramid. Honda is an automaker that I would say walks the talk when it comes to focus on providing the safest and most fuel efficient vehicles they can make. Toyota is focused on replacing GM for most global sales and sales leadership in the most profitable segments, which happen to be trucks and SUVs. Because they make a Prius (excellent product) they get a PR pass in all the other segments where Honda, GM, and Ford make better performing vehicles with better fuel economy on a model to model comparison.

Please provide data to support this. I have at my disposal the complete EPA report for 2006 model vehicles sold in the US. I'd love to see how you would support this statement.

Peace,

Martin

 

I'll admit to a slight over-dramatization on my part. However I'm not talking about sports cars, luxury sedans or mid-sized SUVs when I speak of "land barges". I'm talking about large trucks and large SUVs, sold and operated in the US. I don't live in Europe and don't know what they drive there. Toyota, Nissan and Honda are all recent (last decade) entries into American-sold large trucks (Tundra, Ridgeline, etc.). While they make mid-sized trucks and SUVs and have for some time (which I define as Explorer/Ranger sized), they only recently started making vehicles in the Excursion/Surburban size range, which is what I'm calling "large" (except maybe Toyota, who's had that size a vehicle for some time, but is arguably a small, if not insignificant segment of the market in the 70's and 80's). With that definition, I think my statement stands. Most of those size vechicles in that class offered and sold in the US in the last 40 years have been from Ford/GM/Chevy.

As for what's going on the market, here's info as listed on hybridcars.com

Current (my definition of "large" is in bold):

Accord, Civic, Insight, Prius, Escape, Lexus RX 400h, Highlander, Mariner, GM Silverado, GM Sierra

Coming up in next 2 years:

Malibu, Fit, Altima, Camry, Lexus GS, Tahoe, Durango, Yukon, Porche Cayenne, Saturn VUE, Sienna, Dodge Ram.

On that list there are:
Cars: 9, 1 is American
mid-size SUV/Minivan: 7, 3 are American
Truck/Large SUV: 6, all 6 are American

I think that list supports my point. My "10 MPG land barge" may have been over-dramatic, but the MPG of those vehicles on that Truck/Large SUV list is miserable. I'm not going to split hairs whether it's 10, 12 or 14 mpg. In general, those vehicles are among the worst in the industry. This also highlights where the American car maker's focus is. You can give Toyota as hard a time as you want, but at least they're making an even handed attempt to put the technology in a wide range of cars. So is Honda. I'll give Ford the nod if they follow through with the Fusion. The others have their sights on the large vehicle market first. Maybe that makes sense because that's where the money is for them. I still think it's short-sighted.

 

In all fairness, the Land Rover gets something like 10-8mpg - right with American land barges.

 

bCool. Now we can talk in similar language.

I realize that you were limiting your criticism to SUVs, but that was part of my counterpoint. If the discussion is fuel economy, vehicle size is relevant only to the degree that it contributes to poor fuel economy. Is a small vehicle with poor fuel economy better than a large vehicle with good fuel economy? European ultra luxury sedans have been imported to North America for decades with single digit fuel economy. European mid-sized SUVs are imported today that do not achieve the same fuel economy as larger US SUVs, yet US makers are singled out as not caring about fuel economy. The others seem to get a pass, but the US built SUV is commonly characterized as the enemy of the environment because people take "slight over-dramatization" as fact unless people like me actively challenge them with facts.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about product in Europe, but product imported FROM Europe.


Toyota's and Nissan's minor presence in the large truck and large utility segment in the US is not from lack of trying. It is from lack of ability to market a product that resonates with the huge segment of buyers as well as the products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler resonate with those buyers. Honda has never really ventured into that space because it does not mesh with their vision of focus on safety and fuel economy. It's not to say that they won't, but they have been nowhere near as aggressive as Toyota and Nissan. Why did Toyota build their newest plant, a full size truck / utility plant in Texaas? Because Texas is the heart of the full size truck / SUV market.


Your statement wrt vehicles of that size, f/e notwithstanding, does stand. The rationale behind it does not, but for reasons that were probably beyond your library of available info, some of which I've detailed above.


There is one reason why Tundra and Sequioia are not on that list. Toyota hasn't figured out how to scale it up to a full size truck yet. They have on more than one occasion signaled their intent to do so and on at least one occasion PUBLICLY stated that they were delaying the timing for technological reasons. GM and DCX, on the other hand, have figured it out and are going forward.

I do know of several other cars that are coming. I will stipulate that being an industry insider this is sort of an unfair point because I do have information that is not available to you and that I cannot pass on. I'm in a position where I can say "You're wrong" but not be able to back it up with data, so your point here holds.


I don't actually dislike Toyota. I think they make good product and have an excellent business model. I just get irritated when people, Americans in particular, hold Toyota up as some idyllic altruistic entity that is saving the world from the evil American automakers when in fact all Toyota is trying to do is occupy the same space that the American automakers currently occupy. GM and Ford both make high quality coupes, sedans, trucks and SUVs, most of which are very competitive with Toyota's offerings when it comes to fuel economy and are in all but a very few cases accomplishing that while providing the customer better performance. Toyota's SUVs and trucks are exempt from the "evil SUV" comments, but GM and Ford's sedans and coupe that are segment leaders for fuel economy don't even enter the conversation. Why is that?

Peace,

Martin

 

European Ultra Luxery sedans aren't much of a target because lets face it, they represent less than .1% of vehicles sold in this country. Most european luxery cars sold get good FE. The BMW 325i gets 20 city/30 highway mpg. The 12 cylindar 7 series gets much worse, but how many of them do you see on the streets compared to Tahoes?


As far as SUV's goes, I don't think anyone has stated that Toyota's large SUV's are exempt from criticism. GM and Ford are just the usual targets because their success in this segment makes them the most visible. Also most of GM's hybrid development has targeted these vehicles while turning its back on auto's. I was given a new Impala rental for work the other day and achieved 20 mpg on a 250 mile highway trip. This could certainly be improved with a hybrid engine.... or even modern technology.

While being a hybrid supporter doesn't mean you must "hate SUV's" as you suggest, most hybrid owners are sensative to the environment, and large SUV's are more damaging to the environment and are typically purchased for other reasons beyond practicality (Ego, Image, etc....) Sure there is a small percentage of the population that tows boats, and has 5 children, but my CR-V would satisfy the needs of most of the population while getting close to 30 mpg. I will also admit that part of my reason for purchasing my civic hybrid was image and my own smugness, but satisfying one's ego at 50 mpg is definitely an improvement over satisfying one's ego at 16 mpg.

By redirecting criticism to the Toyota Sequia and European Ultra Luxury sedans I think you are missing the point most here are making about large SUV's in general..... their existance is just very hard to defend. Of course their success really says more about the typical American consumer than it does about automakers who are simply giving them what they want.

 

"GM and Ford both make high quality coupes, sedans, trucks and SUVs, most of which are very competitive with Toyota's offerings when it comes to fuel economy and are in all but a very few cases accomplishing that while providing the customer better performance."

When ANY other car company comes out with a 50 MPG hatchback with very decent performance (0-60 MPH in 10 seconds), with significant emissions reductions, then, and only then will I look away from my Prius. So far, no takers. Been 6 years here in the states...

 

One thing I have to ask of the folks that say they need a giant v8 LandWaster for their 5 or 6 kids is this: Haven't you ever heard of contraception?!

Why are families still having half a dozen kids when what we really need is a planned, phased population REDUCTION strategy.

If the average American couple was more responsible in their breeding habits, there would be no *legitimate* excuse for owning a monster-sized SUV.

Personally, I think human reproduction should be a strictly regulated, limited, and licensed phenomenon. That way, you'd REALLY help out the environment long-term.

 

Actually, the developed world (N. America, Japan, esp. Europe) has a leveling off or declining population. See Newsweek article.

The consumption per person is the real problem, particularly as China and India grows....

Back to the topic of SUVs, Detroit has done the best job of social engineering their product. Instead of just saying "this is a good SUV", they appeal to power, status, machismo. In other words, they are not selling the craftmanship, but the image of the SUV.

 

I don't hate SUVs per-se. I own a Pilot myself and feel I have every reason to own a vehicle like that because I use it (capacity, towing, etc.). My wife also has a 1.2 mile commute - we can go a month on one tank of gas, and typically do.

I absolutely agree with Archslater's point, and it's one I've held for a long time. Very, very few people who own monster SUVs need them. 80% of them could get by with something much smaller. Even selecting say an Explorer over an Excursion is better - and Escape hybrid over the Explorer is fantastic. I'll boil this down to three points:

1) It's our own fault moster SUVs exist. We're willing to buy them, so they'll make them. What we need is a collective change in mindset that acknowledges we don't have to own something so excessive. Once we stop buying them, they'll stop making them.

2) Monster SUVs don't need to exist. There is nothing those vehicles offer that can't be satisfied by a smaller, more efficient equivalent - with the one possible exception of a very small segment of the population that has large families and large toys to pull. Even so, my Pilot seats 8 and pulls 4000 lbs. The top of my anoyance list is the Escalade, or these Tahoes with 24" custom rims. These vehicles cannot go off road, would be miserable even to take them up skiing, and 49 times out of 50 are filled with a mom, 2 kids in the back watching the DVD, and are used for nothing better than running around town. They are excessive status symbols achieved at the expense of our resources and the planet, and have no reason for being other than folks think that's what they need. See point #1.

3) Putting hybrid technology into monster SUVs is a sham (that is, the case where they're putting a hybrid drivetrain paired with the largest engine they have, like this Durango). They want the power and the power only. They want to make the monster bigger. The fact that +2 or 3 MPG comes along for the ride allows them to appease the masses and say, "look, see how responsbile we are?". I'm not buying it.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say here. Ultra lux sedans are a very small percentage of the vehicle population. But then, so is the Hummer H2. Yet the H2 is the favorite whipping boy of the environmentally conscious. It just seems a little inconsistent.


Actually this is pretty interesting. The Impala actually tests better than the smaller Accord and Camry V6 models on EPA city and highway cycles. Anyway, more to your point, it would probably perform very well if hybridized. There are reasons beyond those that are generally implied as to why certain vehicles are targeted for hybridization and others are not. Typical considerations include determining which engine / transmission combinations can be improved by hybridizing, integration and in vehicle placement of mechanicals, other vehicle systems that need to communicate with the hybrid systems (brakes, electrical systems, steering systems, HVACs systems powertrain mounts). Hybridizing a vehicle is not just a powertrain decision like "should it have a V6 or a V8?", it touches on almost every vehicle system. So the decisions to focus on one group of vehicles or another is not simply a matter of saying "We don't give a rip about cars so let's focus on trucks". As I've mentioned before, I have pretty good intel that all the domestics are working on cars. Just happens that since they all do trucks and SUVs well, they'd focus on protecting their bread & butter products before moving on to the others.



Re-reading my original post it does imply that hybrid supporters hate SUVs. That is not really what I meant or believe, but I'll accept responsibility for the interpretation. My frustration is that there is a subset who do draw the black & white line of "if it's a hybrid it must be good and if it's an SUV it must be bad (unless it's a hybrid SUV)". That gets old, tiring and irritating, especially when it's based on mis-stated information and sound-bite logic.

I also think the assumption that SUVs are more damaging to the environment than cars is an oversimplification. Which is more damaging to the environment, a 22 mpg car or a 22 mpg SUV? Both exist in large numbers. My opinion is you'd have to know a lot more about each vehicle to make any positive assertion.

As far as purchasing beyond reasons of practicality.......I love Corvettes. Do I need one? No. But I guarantee you I'll buy another one soon. It's not practical, but I wouldn't be purchasing it to be practical. Does that make me a bad person? No. There are a lot of other things that make me a bad person . Should we castigate everyone who buys a vehicle that we (who is "we") find impractical? I could argue that for most people, the purchase of an SUV is for them more practical than my purchase of a Corvette. But very few people would criticise my purchase of a Corvette.

I disagree here, especially with what I've bolded. It implies a value set. Not everyone shares the same value set. There are MANY in my industry who don't understand why anybody would ever buy a hybrid given the economics of the purchase. In their opinion, the existence of such hybrids is very hard to defend. I disagree with them to the same extent that I disagree with your position on SUVs. It is all a matter of perspective and value set.

As for re-directing criticism to Sequoia and European luxury sedans, it's not so much a re-direction as asking why there is not equitable discussion. There are more Sequoias and 7-Series BMWs on US roads than there are Hummer H2s, but H2s get the f/e criticism. Tahoes and Yukons get better fuel economy than Sequoia, but they get more criticism than Sequoia. I'm just pointing out how selectively the barbs are directed.

Peace,

Martin