DanCar
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:00 am
Delivery Date: 10 Mar 2013
Location: SF Bay area, 94043

Re: SUVs became the largest and fastest-growing automotive segment in 2015; up 22% from 2014

Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:16 am

If we take a car, raise the roof, add a ton of batteries underneath, and tada, you have yourself an electric SUV. Perfect for the environment. :P

GRA
Posts: 7443
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: SUVs became the largest and fastest-growing automotive segment in 2015; up 22% from 2014

Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:41 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:I own a 2003 Forester which I chose partly because of its excellent visibility,...
Bottom line for GRA in thread after thread after thread: "I couldn't care less that my vehicle pollutes more than the average car on the road today. What's most important is my personal convenience. I'm here to justify that as I repeatedly point out that most Americans share my opinion. I don't use photovoltaics for similar reasons: they don't fit my lifestyle."

The obvious conclusion of this warped thinking is to promote the most-polluting vehicle option currently available: H2 FCVs: "They'll never be as efficient as BEVs, but convenience trumps efficiency every time."

2003 Subaru Forester: 21 MPG City 27 MPG Hwy

But in 2003, there were plenty of options available which produced significantly lower pollution. That's what many here chose instead. Here's what we are still driving:

2003 Honda Civic Hybrid: 48 MPG City 47 MPG Hwy

But that car is now used on the small minority of our miles since we also have a 2011 Nissan LEAF which consumes no "gallons" to travel its miles.

Let me guess: It's important that you drive a high-polluting vehicle because that's what you feel you need to drive into the mountains and enjoy nature. It's too bad the irony of that is lost on you just as it is on most Americans.

The simple fact is that automobile companies decide what type of cars they will manufacture based on what people purchase. The growth in high-polluting car segments is the direct result of the "convenience trumps efficiency everyday" mentality.

My, my, do you feel all better, and holier than thou, Reg? So tell, me, how big is your house, how many people live in it, what's your average daily electricity usage and how far do you drive on a daily basis? On second thought, don't bother, getting into a pissing match about who's the most green is pointless.

As to whether there were cars more fuel efficient in 2003, sure there were, but none of them came closer to meeting all my needs for carrying capacity, performance, AWD capability for snow, safety, reliability, mpg, emissions etc. I think it was the next year where it started to be rated as ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) in California, but don't remember if they made any changes to the car or if they just introduced the category then. A few years after that, it was rated a SULEV aka PZEV (Partial ZEV), but that did involve some further reduction in emissions.

If I didn't need/want all those capabilities, I could have bought a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Since I did, I couldn't. Glad the Civic worked for you. BTW, the average mpg of all new cars is just over 25 mpg nowadays, and my Forester, as you noted, is rated at 27 but I get 28-31 hwy, which is all I use it for. Until something significantly better comes along, I can live with that. I'm also well aware of the irony of driving to enjoy nature in a fossil-fuel car, which is why I reduce my daily fossil-fuel use to compensate. If you don't find that adequate, that's your problem. I find your decision to live how you do to be equally unjustifiable, but each of us has made our choices for reasons that we can justify to ourselves, which is the only thing that matters in a reasonably free country. Until we can give the general public some compelling reason to switch, they will continue to buy cars to meet their own priorities, of which environmental concerns are often way down the list below the number of cupholders.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

cwerdna
Gold Member
Posts: 7185
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: SUVs became the largest and fastest-growing automotive segment in 2015; up 22% from 2014

Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:52 pm

DuncanCunningham wrote:I get the feeling when Petrol/Gas prices fall, which is almost always temporary, we buy cars that use more of it. When, 4 years later, we can't afford the running costs we complain about the lack of good cars that give a good MPG.

As for the latter statement, I'm not sure that's the case. But, every time gas prices go "high" (e.g. near or above $4/gal, which isn't that infrequent in CA), the local and national news keeps talking about "pain at the pump". But, all along, there have been plenty of fuel efficient vehicles. It's just that many folks have the memory of goldfish and decide to buy guzzlers because they think they can "afford" it now and for the next few months or year or whatever.

But as for the first part, yep. Truck and SUV sales rise during "low" gas prices and smaller and more efficient vehicles languish. Then, when they go "high", people "flee" the guzzlers and want to dump them, not want to buy them and gravitate towards more efficient vehicles, temporarily. The cycle repeats. The oil companies and countries have got this worked out pretty well to keep Americans and the world addicted to oil. :(

I've had my 46 mpg combined 06 Prius (after adjustment to model year 08+ test procedure) since Jan 06. It mostly sits in my garage now since I got my Leaf. 2010 Prius upped that to 50 mpg combined. The (unfortunately ugly) 2016 Prius ups that to 52 or 56 mpg combined, depending on whether it's the Eco version.

07 Camry Hybrid was 34 mpg combined (and IIRC, 192 net system hp). Next gen (2012) Camry Hybrid upped that to 200 hp while boosting combined mpg to 41 mpg.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do ... 5&id=32092

I've visited Japan 5x and spend ~3 weeks in Europe. Battering ram of death class guzzler SUVs (e.g. size and weight of guzzlers like Tahoes, Suburbans, Expeditions, Escalades, Navigators, etc.) are virtually unseen on those roads. In comparison, come to my neighborhood and watch the insane # of those pull into and out of the supermarket parking lot, almost always been driven solo and/or w/minimal cargo and passengers.

From http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/09/us ... brand.html, last month in the US, while Nissan sold/leased just over 1K Leafs, in that same time, this many BRoD SUVs were sold in the US. This isn't a complete list of BRoDs and doesn't include any BRoD pickup trucks:
Tahoe: 8,297
Suburban: 5,737
Escalade: 3,037
Yukon: 5,324
Expedition: 5,275
Navigator: 797

The 1st 4 vehicles are basically the same except the Slade is gussied up and Suburban is extended length only while it's another variant/trim on the other three.

I was surprised to see (guzzler) 2 Tahoe Hybrids today as I can go months w/o seeing one. I saw 1 (over 6600 lb.) Ford Excursion (aka Exxon Valdez) on the road and 1 parked today, in my under 25 mins of driving.

edit: And back to whether those folks w/poor vehicle buying choices and whether they actually "afford" the vehicle and its fuel, I always see articles like these and I suspect many of those folks are the same people as the below.

66 million Americans have no emergency savings
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/66-milli ... vings.html
"66 million U.S. adults have zero dollars saved for an emergency, according to a new study.
...
Currently, 47 percent of Americans said they either could not afford an emergency expense of $400, or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money, according to a separate report by the Federal Reserve Board's Division of Consumer and Community Affairs."

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgra ... -emergency

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement:
http://time.com/money/4258451/retiremen ... gs-survey/
"56% of Americans Have Less Than $10,000 Saved for Retirement
...
One-third of Americans report they have no retirement savings.
23% have less than $10,000 saved."

'13 blue Leaf SV w/premium package (owned)
'13 blue Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium packages (lease over, car returned)
'06 Prius

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5585
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: SUVs became the largest and fastest-growing automotive segment in 2015; up 22% from 2014

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:38 am

GRA wrote:So tell, me, how big is your house, how many people live in it, what's your average daily electricity usage and how far do you drive on a daily basis?
You've tried this lame approach in the past and I have called your bluff. The fact is you like to come here and promote your approach as being superior with the implication that everyone should follow suit, yet your actual usage patterns don't yield the results you like to think they do. As such, you then expect the government to spend OPM to subsidized centralized solutions for renewables when you yourself choose not to.
GRA wrote:BTW, the average mpg of all new cars is just over 25 mpg nowadays, and my Forester, as you noted, is rated at 27...
Come now, GRA, let's not be disingenuous by comparing the HWY rating of your car with the average of CITY and HWY ratings for other cars. In fact, the average for your car is 24 MPG, which is lower than that of new cars, just as I noted.

But you miss the point, as usual. You come here to constantly bad-mouth the most efficient cars on the planet and promote the most-polluting cars on the planet. At the same time, you purchase a CUV, thus promoting that type of vehicle to the car companies. That makes you the problem, not the solution.
GRA wrote:I find your decision to live how you do to be equally unjustifiable, but each of us has made our choices for reasons that we can justify to ourselves, which is the only thing that matters in a reasonably free country.
Yes, I know: we should all be single, move to the city, live alone and bike to work. I think everyone gets that that is your opinion. Hence the response you get from me and many others.
GRA wrote:Until we can give the general public some compelling reason to switch, they will continue to buy cars to meet their own priorities, of which environmental concerns are often way down the list below the number of cupholders.
This coming from someone who purchases a high-polluting CUV and somehow expects the car companies to offer something different.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

rmay635703
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Re: SUVs became the largest and fastest-growing automotive segment in 2015; up 22% from 2014

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:16 pm

DanCar wrote:If we take a car, raise the roof, add a ton of batteries underneath, and tada, you have yourself an electric SUV. Perfect for the environment. :P


An inefficient body style is inefficient no matter how you power it, its just that an electrical drivetrain is more efficient in of itself.

Far better to get big lugs off the road as much as possible, most people on the road today could make due with a single seat honda insight (if such a thing existed) since you rarely see more than 1 person in a truck, van or suv at a time.

GRA
Posts: 7443
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: SUVs became the largest and fastest-growing automotive segment in 2015; up 22% from 2014

Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:01 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:So tell, me, how big is your house, how many people live in it, what's your average daily electricity usage and how far do you drive on a daily basis?
You've tried this lame approach in the past and I have called your bluff. The fact is you like to come here and promote your approach as being superior with the implication that everyone should follow suit, yet your actual usage patterns don't yield the results you like to think they do. As such, you then expect the government to spend OPM to subsidized centralized solutions for renewables when you yourself choose not to.

Oh, Reg. You continuously mis-state my opinions. My lifestyle choices are my own, and everyone will make their own. I offer my choices as examples for others who may be like-minded, but I certainly don't hold myself up as greener than thou. But let's leave that issue aside and consider the single most energy, resource and emissions intensive life-cycle decision anyone can make: having a child, especially one living an American lifestyle. The world's human population has increased over 1 1/2 times since I was born, and is projected to triple before it levels off. I came to the realization (no great thinking required) somewhere between 14 and 16 that the underlying cause of most environmental problems was the sheer number of humans, and that I wouldn't contribute to the problem - not that this was any great sacrifice, as I never had any strong desire to have them and any residual desire was satisfied by being a scoutmaster for a dozen years. But if I had wanted a child, the huge environmental negative of doing so would have weighed heavily in my decision.

Just as I had sufficient reasons for the choices I've made, I'm sure you had reasons that were sufficient to you to have children, even knowing what you undoubtedly know, just as you had sufficient reasons (like most American homeowners), to choose to live in the least energy- and resource-efficient type of housing, which also generally requires a car-dependent lifestyle. Using a 3-8,000 lb. vehicle, no matter how powered to transport a single human, is not energy efficient. There aren't any environmental saints here, Reg, just all us sinners.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:BTW, the average mpg of all new cars is just over 25 mpg nowadays, and my Forester, as you noted, is rated at 27...
Come now, GRA, let's not be disingenuous by comparing the HWY rating of your car with the average of CITY and HWY ratings for other cars. In fact, the average for your car is 24 MPG, which is lower than that of new cars, just as I noted.

As I just noted, I only drive my car ON the highway, so it's city mpg is irrelevant for me, as the actual mileage I get exceeds that of the average vehicle by several mpg. My car gets infinite city MPG, because I chose to alter my living situation so that I can walk and ride my bike instead for the trips that I previously had to use a car for.

RegGuheert wrote:But you miss the point, as usual. You come here to constantly bad-mouth the most efficient cars on the planet and promote the most-polluting cars on the planet. At the same time, you purchase a CUV, thus promoting that type of vehicle to the car companies. That makes you the problem, not the solution.
See above.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:I find your decision to live how you do to be equally unjustifiable, but each of us has made our choices for reasons that we can justify to ourselves, which is the only thing that matters in a reasonably free country.
Yes, I know: we should all be single, move to the city, live alone and bike to work. I think everyone gets that that is your opinion. Hence the response you get from me and many others.
See above.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Until we can give the general public some compelling reason to switch, they will continue to buy cars to meet their own priorities, of which environmental concerns are often way down the list below the number of cupholders.
This coming from someone who purchases a high-polluting CUV and somehow expects the car companies to offer something different.

Actually, I think it was the least polluting CUV sold at the time, or among the top three (CRV and RAV4 were probably the other two), not that it matters. And of course I want the car companies to continue producing cars that meet my needs, but I want them to produce them in a less polluting and more energy-efficient form, and moreover produce cars in the widest possible variety with those same advances so that everyone will be willing to buy them, not just the true believers. I don't believe in elitist utopias; that you regularly accuse me of same just demonstrates your misunderstanding of my opinions.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Environmental Issues”