Discussions
SUVs and U.S. Oil Consumption
Posted by richrf • 7/01/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
I was reading this week's Newsweek, and I noted in an article on oil consumption in the U.S., was pretty stable between 1970 and 1990:
energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/charts/chart8.pdf
But in 1990, oil consumption, in the U.S. skyrocketed due to transportation usage. I then did some research on SUVs, and low and behold, SUVs took off in popularity in the 1990s. While I haven't confirmed this on Google, it seems very likely that the whole oil problem (going from $11 to $80 during this period of time) is a direct result of the short-sighted popularity of SUVs. The more recent problem ($80 - $140, as I have discussed in the past, is most directly related to the Feds flooding the market with cheap dollars.
What do you think about SUVs and how they impacted oil usage? I still get steamed remembering how Rush Limbaugh use to laugh and implore his listeners to go out and gas guzzle with their SUVs, while eating whole steaks. Disgraceful.
User Comments
-
I was never for them since the 1990s. They block your view if they are in front of you and they get terrible gas mileage.
They didn't have them in the past. What did people do back then?
Do you ever see sports cars on the road now? I remember during the 1980s and part of the 1990s, that is what everyone wanted. Then it became trucks and SUV's.
If everyone wasn't measured by what they drive, maybe people would have never bought these to begin with.-
You are right. They were terrible ideas for motorists and for gas economy. The whole thing was so short sighted. If you noticed in the chart, I linked to, oil consumption was absolutely stable for 20 years (1970 - 1990), as the U.S. balanced growth with fuel economy. Then, all of a sudden, oil usage explodes, increasing over 25% over the next 15 years. If you look closely at the chart, it is all due to increased transportation utilization - or more accurately, transportation waste due to SUVs.
-
-
Well, no kidding, SUVs and the nations' energy crisis are correlated. DUH.
Of course, it's not always that simple. Back in '87 I bought a Chevy Blazer, because at that time I lived in a mountainous area with snow and no snowplows. I really needed that 4WD. Amazingly, that car got 20 mpg in town and 25 on the highway. I replaced it a few years later with another Blazer, which got about the same.
Then I replaced it with an Izuzu Rodeo that only got 13 mpg, on a good day. @#&?&!!!! I was pissed. It was the worst car I ever had, btw. I replaced that with a Scion XB, which has fully a much cargo space as any of the SUV's, and has fantastic traction. The only limits are clearance; it's only 10" off the ground, so I'm stuck if there's deep snow.
My point is, WTF happened between '87 & '92 that gas mileage on a small SUV went from 20 mpg to 13 mpg??? Even if I weren't a conspiracy theorist, this would make me one.
It's like those new HD TV's that we're all going to be required to have - I've heard that they use MORE electricity than the old ones. Who's been asleep at the switch, here?
What makes me really sad about all of this is, these energy problems are not new. We've known for 40 years or more that this was coming. Think how much further along we could if humans, collectively, had started to solve these problems back then, instead of wasting time and money arguing about whether climate change was real or not.
Makes me wanna holler.-
Yep. It is all very obvious. So what got over us, that we decided to buy vehicles that delivered half the fuel economy and set us on a path toward oil famine. If we were just satisfied with what we had - just consuming 15 million barrels of oil today as opposed to 21 billion, we would have all the oil we needed, and would not be sending our dollars overseas to the Middle East and Latin America, enriching them and basically selling off American assets. So strange.
-
-
A big part of the SUV's popularity was that it could transport the family around and it wasn't a minivan. Everyone hated the minivan and they were looking for anything to replace it.-
That is true, but I don't know how many times I have seen a single person, in a huge SUV, driving around the city and on the highway. Putting a car on a truck chassis, was not only exorbitantly wasteful, it was also darn uncomfortable. I never understood it. The new SUVs are certainly more fuel efficient, but notice that GM, Ford, and Chrysler, are no longer able to sell their trucks, while people manage to be comfortable with much less of a car. Lots of it, though not all of it, was just plain excess.
-
-
Well, I have a total of six people in my family. Other than a minivan (which all have very poor towing capacities I might add), what else am I supposed to purchase that will transport my family? The list is extremely short as far as options go.
While some SUV's are definitely ridiculous (I'm thinking Hummers and gas Excursions here), many aren't that bad when comparing fuel economy numbers to some minivans and sedans. I owned a 1996 GMC Suburban for 6 years that was fantastic. It was a diesel and I averaged over 20mpg in town. When I took it on longer trips, I was closer to 25mpg. That vehicle was wonderful. Now, Chevy doesn't make a diesel Suburban. They haven't produced one for almost 10 years. WHY??? The diesel Excursion isn't/wasn't such a bad vehicle either.
For some, yes SUV's are large and somewhat intimidating. However, if a large SUV makes you nervous while you're driving...you are probably better off just staying at home. What do you do when a tractor trailer or a bus is in front of you or next to you?!
I have to say that some of the SUV bashing really is uncalled for when it's mentioned in broad, sweeping language. Thankfully, I now work from home and drive less than 25 miles/week on average. It's great.
Rich, you're from Chicago correct? What a nightmare of a place to drive. One annoying thing I've noticed is all of the people who are in cars, trucks, vans, SUVs, and hybrids driving down the Dan Ryan and the other nightmare roads in Chicago all by themselves! If you want to conserve...carpool more! Why is everyone so stuck on driving their own car to work, ALONE, everyday?
Of course this applies to pretty much every major city in the US and beyond. I was just in Chicago every week for several years and took notice of it. Atlanta too. NYC and most of North Jersey...ridiculous too. LA...I'm speechless. The list goes on and on...-
Yes, it is ridiculous driving in the city. I hardly drive anymore. I am satisfied just being around where I am. Nowadays, I am using about three gallons a week, down from about nine gallons. That's all I need. My girlfriend fills up about once every three weeks or so, so she is using about 4 gallons a week. We have just learned to avoid the traffic and the fuel wasting ways of our lives. It is pretty calm, simple, and much healthier nowadays. I think we probably each walk about six miles/day on average, doing our errands and things.
-
-
I hyper mile - so mine gets over 30 MPG - better than most cars on the road. Plus I live in a rather remote area that seldom gets plowed during winter storms. We have one for the family for it's 4 wheel drive capabilites. Beyond that I love pissing off liberals.-
The thing is, that nowadays, we are all in the same boat - so to speak. Inflation hits everyone, and everything, and permanently devalues the dollar. If you have savings, that are meant for children or retirement, or schooling, all of it is being devalued. In the reverse, it is making it very cheap for foreigners to come in and buy up our land, and industry (e.g. our banks, Budweiser, etc.). We have become renters to foreigners in our own land.
-
-
Lets face it the SUV is dead as a mass market vehicle and so will be the US car industry if it continues to build so many of them.
It's bad enough for me. My V6 2.5L Mondeo does 33mpg way better than most SUV but with gas at $10 a gallon in the UK it's a killer.-
I agree. SUVs are probably permanently dead. It would be interesting to see whether the reversal in direction toward more fuel efficient cars will cause permanent demand destruction, return us to 15 million barrels/day here in the U.S., and release us from the grip of Middle East and Russian oil. The Law of Unintended Consequences.
-
-
I watched SUVs in the metropolitan DC area multiply like rabbits in the second half of the 1990s. Completely absurd in this driving environment. I've also seen their number go down in the past couple years. I'm glad about that, but I have to question the sanity of those who had them before. I guess people literally had money to burn.
People in the country owning them I get, though I found that on a dirt road in NH a front-wheel drive subcompact would do fine, just not with 8" of snow still on the road.-
Same here in Chicago. I see less SUVs in our building garage (there are hundreds of vehicles), and less mammoth ones on the road. People simply can't afford them anymore. I saw an article here in the Chicago Tribune that stated SUVs which previously brought in $20,000 used can only get $12000 with the dealers. So the resale market has died. I don't know what people are going to do with them, but there has been a surge in commuter train usage. The long term effects of all this might be quite beneficial for our economy. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
-
-
Yup they killed the station wagon and replaced it with the SUV. I thought station wagons were a better choice than SUVs. Now, it is very hard to get a good behemoth station wagon. I think that was the strategy.-
I see some good looking crossovers, that kind of sit between the station wagon and SUV, and get pretty decent mileage. I am not sure how those guys are doing in sales nowadays. Haven't heard much about them.
-
-
"it seems very likely that the whole oil problem (going from $11 to $80 during this period of time) is a direct result of the short-sighted popularity of SUVs."
You're looking through too small of a window. Increased demands for oil from India & China (particularly since 1990,) are a bigger influence on prices than mere SUVs.-
If you look at the oil used by China and India, you will see it is a small fraction of what we use, and really had very little impact over that period of time. Just look at how much our demand increased compared to their overall demand. No way does it account for an eight fold increase. Americans really no how to waste like no one else. It may be in the genes.
-
-
Most of the time I saw those large SUV's, you only had one person in them. They used them to go to work also.
-
Same here. I guess the good times are over.
-
-
SUVs are definitely part of the problem. And you get a HUGE tax break if you buy one of those monster Suburbans or any of a number of SUVs that weigh over 6,000 lbs -- part of Bush's myopic economic stimulus plan (MESP) of 2003.-
Yep, it was all part of the terrible economic policies over the last decade and a half. And then everyone is Shocked! Shocked! Amazing.
-
-
SUVs sales dropped termendously after the recent oil price hike, and manufacturers are stopping production, while Hummer is going to TATA. Ta ta then.
This implies it's another fashion icon. I mean, nobody is using it for Sport or its utility. It's just because it's the 'in' thing, apart from the increased safety they're feeling inside one.
To err is human, that's why free market sucks sometimes..-
Soooooo True. Greed and waste can sometimes bring us to places we rather not be.
-
-
I drive what some consider a SUV, it is a ford explorer, and it is actually better on gas then other cars that I have had in the past, it gets around 25 miles per gallon.
I have a large family; the other cars are not big enough to load up with children and their stuff. I also live where the road conditions are very poor. We also have extreme weather here, the SUV’s hold up better, and we have room to pack all the gear we need for any kind of road emergency during long distance travel. Which is just about everywhere you go to here.
Plus we travel to a larger city (over 200 miles round trip) once every two weeks and load up on staples and bulk supplies, because it isn't available where we are, we need a vehicle with space for that.
SUV’s handle icy roads better then the smaller cars, the smaller cars are not heavy enough to drive safely on the ice. Unless you load the back end with sandbags to help with traction, and when you do that you defeat the purpose of having better gas mileage.
There are many reasons why someone would chose to use a SUV. I really think blaming one type of vehicle for the massive fuel use is a bit much...because you could say that households with 3 or more small cars, even if they are not driving a SUV, they can be using just as much or more fuel in multiple car use.
Besides, it isn't just gasoline and diesel fuel that is being used, there is also heating fuel, and for those that live in the colder climate areas, they can burn quite a bit of fuel, just keeping their homes warm during the winter months.
And that isn't even counting big businesses that need to keep the buildings warm.-
Alaska might be a whole different ball game, but I did well with a Chevy Cavalier and a Plymouth Neon in New Hampshire winters, also on back roads. The whole front-wheel drive thing really helps.
-
-
I commented on SUVs above, but I should think other factors are at work as well. Possibilities include an increase in population, increasing suburban sprawl that demands more driving, less local production of food and other goods, so that everything is shipped vast distances in this country and from overseas, a housing boom that produced houses that paid little or no attention to energy efficiency, deregulation of the airline industry and a probable growth in flights, and . . . that's all that comes to mind at the moment.
Just feels like blaming SUVs alone is a little too easy, though I get disgusted when I see really big ones in my urban environment, especially since they're almost always new and were purchased while our soldiers were dying indirectly at least for energy security, never mind the whole issue of sustainable development for future generations. People in the city really don't need them.-
What about new competition for demand from the industrialization of China and India?
Or actually what would have been 'new' competition during the 90s -
New, I guess, in the sense that it took us a while to notice.
But yeah, big time. I was thinking more about domestic oil consumption. Ironically though, our consumption has increased while we moved manufacturing off shore. What would our consumption look like if we factored in the oil used to produce the goods we buy?
-
-
From the beginning of the SUV, I thought that driving them was selfish, and don't get me started about all of the H2's running around here. Who in the world thought "Hey, we're about to run out of oil, why don't we make a car that uses twice as much gas!" -
I was reading online that the Hummer gets near 10 mpg only. How nice.
-
Unfortunately, the auto makers took a 'niche' vehicle and successfully exploited it to the masses. SUVs serve a well defined purpose for many people. They just didn't need to be purchased by the masses.
Just out of curiosity, what does everyone consider an SUV? Where is the line? I'm not trying to cause controversy; I'm just trying to create somewhat of a baseline here.
Again, as I said earlier, my family totals 6 people. There aren't many vehicles made that aren't considered SUV's that will allow us to travel together and be able to fit a few bags of groceries in the back as well. The idea of purchasing two smaller vehicles is ludicrous in my opinion. I'm not going to fracture family time even more just to get better fuel economy. In the grand scheme of things, I think that is short sighted. We have a Chevy Trailblazer with a V6 in it and it is 4WD (not full time). It seats 7 people and has some storage in the back of it. So, we can invite Grandma out to lunch or dinner and all ride together. It gets about 18 miles to the gallon (disappointing).
Anyhow, I digress...sorry.
So, what's an SUV?
Here are my nominations:
1. Hummers (not the H1 diesels though).
2. Excursions (again, not the diesels).
3. Suburbans (if they still made the diesel, I'd list it as an exception too).
4. V8 Ford Explorers, Dodge Durangos, Land Rovers, Range Rovers, and Chevy Trailblazers. There's no need for an 8 cylinder engine in that type of vehicle. If you need to tow something that requires a V8 or larger...buy a truck.
To list every 'SUV-looking' vehicle doesn't seem appropriate. Many of them have 6 cylinder and some 4 cylinder engines that are just as fuel efficient as many cars. Unless they are full time 4wd (which is stupid), they are really just a car of a different shape. All wheel drive vehicles of any kind should be on the list because they are less fuel efficient than standard two wheel drive vehicles.
Just some food for thought...
This is a good thread. Thanks for starting it Rich. -
Isn't an SUV any vehicle that does not look like a truck, yet is built on a truck chassis, and therefore heavier than a car?
-
While that would hold true with several of the larger SUVs (Suburbans, the defunct Excursion, H2s, and H3s) it doesn't work that way with many of the smaller ones.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
