RIP SUVs?

by MoneyDoctor Thursday 26 June, 2008

deceased_256 4X4s, Chelsea tractors, SUVs.

Call them whatever you want, there a number of you that really don’t like these behemoth vehicles.

It’s clear that your opinion of the person that drives this type of vehicle is they think they’ve earned the right to hurry up, tailgate and cut off traffic just so they can slow down and assert their presence on all the lesser motorists, take that oh-so-important call and generally ignore their driving while they dream of the next round of golf or the next opportunity they'll have to buy something beige. 

Or maybe its something a bit stronger?!

With oil prices rising and the cost of fuel in the USA going through the roof, the Hummer and similar (SUVs) are rumoured to be at death’s door.

While GM still isn't confirming that the brand is for sale, all future Hummer models seem to be delayed or cancelled completely, so it's not likely GM wants to continue selling Hummers in the future. 

So is it RIP to the SUV?

Probably not in the very near future, but its clear that their fate seems to be soaked in $4 a gallon (and soon to be $5 a gallon!) petrol.

The tree huggers are pleased, of course, but some old friends of SUVs will miss them and try to remember them for their strengths. Try as they might, they still haven't found a manly alternative to the sport utility vehicle. 

So with that in mind, is there anything that we might miss about SUV’s if they disappear forever? Here are 10 possible things:

10.  Resale

Driving by car dealerships recently would have you believe they’re having an early Halloween-themed sale. Turns out, the cobwebs on the big SUVs aren’t decorative. That wasn’t always the case: when SUVs were in demand, dealers got fat off all the desperate ‘I must have one as my neighbour just got one’ buyers.

Of course, the tables turned at trade-in time, when quality used models commanded the same price and rolled away again just as quickly as the new ones.

9. Safety

If you could resist the urge to swerve out of the way of approaching danger and actually test its roof-crush strength, your SUV’s tank-like feeling took on a new meaning in terms of protection, and is definitely one of the top 10 things to miss about SUVs. The old adage of putting as much metal as feasibly possible between you and the next man was one reason why SUVs found their way onto so many driveways.

Sure, their size made them more of a threat to everyone else on the road, but at least you'd make it to Point B in one piece, so what’s to complain about?

8. Space

Your wife + your kid(s) + your dog(s) + everyone’s gear = lots of room needed. However, with an SUV you could take a trip without limiting luggage to one small bag and one personal item.

Even though the maximum cargo room in some SUVs could be matched or beaten by a number of estate cars and (ughhh) people carriers/minivans, SUVs were just way cooler than the rest. So there. Argument settled.

7. Conflict

SUVs tend to broadcast a ‘screw-you’ attitude; you actually welcomed the thought of neo-hippies talking nasty about your vehicle, and this is one thing we'll miss about SUVs.

They’d whine about SUVs being the reason why trees are dying, the ozone layer is depleted and baby seals are getting thumped...yeah, yeah, whatever. Talk to the hand.

You didn’t care. You were sending a message, and if a few more dead dinosaurs got burned in the process, then tough ****.

6. Altitude

Given the choice of not being able to see around the numpty in front of you or actually getting to see the road ahead, there really was no choice at all.  You wanted to know what was going on, and you wanted to know before you got there.

It was as if you were on some army reconnaissance mission and your commanding view of the road afforded you this information.

This in turn allowed you to act accordingly…when you weren’t on the phone or yelling at your kids, anyway.

5. Attitude

Not to be confused with the conflict or intimidation factors, the attitude aspect suggested a sense of adventure; like you were ready to drive up the Alps or pull a house clean off its foundations at any second. 

Sure, you may never have gone off-road beyond the time you accidentally mounted the kerb when parking, but those are mere details…

Your ride definitely looked the part, which is what mattered most and is one of those things we'll miss about SUVs.

4. Luxury

Somewhere along the way, some car maker hit on the bright idea that SUVs could be the proverbial iron fist in a velvet glove.

Soon, the option lists of many models rivaled those of traditional luxury saloon cars: heated and cooled leather seats, SatNav, power everything, DVD players to entrance the kids; it all became the standard operating procedure.

Basically you had the bells and whistles of your parents’ boring car without taking yet another step closer to becoming your dad. 

3. Capability

Once upon a time, SUVs had their 4x4 gears by an actual gear stick; primitive stuff. It’s since given way to innocuous dashboard buttons that involve no greater effort than switching tracks on your iPod.

And in all honesty, those buttons for the 4x4 system were pushed more often out of curiosity than necessity, because most of you had no flaming idea what they did!

However, when you did actually need it, the extra traction was a godsend and may have made the difference between getting home in nasty weather and being stranded in the middle of nowhere on a freezing night.

Still, that’s when your heated seats would have come in extra useful, assuming you could find the right button for them.

2. Intimidation

Even the meekest bloke you know could fire up the 3.2 litre in his SUV and immediately become a man harder than a coffin lid nail.  All of a sudden, he is out taking cruel pleasure in tormenting hatchbacks on the M25.

He’d get to within nano-inches of the guy ahead of him and make would-be lane changers reconsider the errors of their ways. In a world where guys sometimes feel like everything’s slipping from their grasp, the behind-the-wheel feel empowered more than a few to intoxication.

Boys, grow up; if you want a big Tonka Toy we suggest you go to Toys R Us.

1. Prestige

SUVs may now get laughs as ill-considered purchases and/or sad attempts at compensation for personal shortcomings, but they once defined the man of the '90s and the new millennium.

They were powerful, in your face and couldn’t be ignored…thus mirroring the personalities of more than a few of their drivers.

The power vehicle of choice is a cyclical thing, and the prestige that came standard with SUVs a few years ago has been replaced with a sense of failing to evolve.

Are there any other things we should miss about SUVs if they do die out? Or would you be glad to see the back of them?

Let us know your thoughts!

Categories for this post: Funny Bones

Related posts

Comments

Simon says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 13:25

I have just recently purchased a Used Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel for my wife. It is automatic and is extremely comfortable to drive. My wife is only 5' tall and enjoys being able to get a proper view of the road ahead. The Jeep will comfortably do 30 mpg which is only 2 mpg worse than her old VW Polo that she used to have before, and now we have twice as much room as before, which we need with 3 kids and 2 of them in baby seats still.

The Jeep is shorter and narrower than a current model mondeo so it is also easier to park. I cannot understand why people think SUVs are so bad...just brainwashed by all the propoganda put out by the government to enable them to overburder 4x4 owners.

If the government really wanted to cut down on Greenhouse gasses, they should get cows to stop farting and stop picking on motorists...

beingsalt says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 14:50

You've probably picked a "good" SUV, fair enough - your comparison of the Mondeo to the Jeep is interesting. But there are plenty of bigger and thirstier ones.

Observation: When I lived in the country near Gloucester, 4x4 drivers made good sense. They needed to pass in ditches and cope with mud-covered slopes, and they were usually driven courteously.

But now I live in the city and my overwhelming observation is this: 4x4s here are owned and driven more by show-offs than by considerate motorists. I don't know whether they simply attract owners with arrogant personalities, or maybe they somehow breed a sense of superiority in otherwise meek drivers, but it's a recognisable phenomenon in the city for sure. They are often parked badly, their headlights are often dazzling at night, they make it difficult to pass in narrow car-lined city streets. Driver behaviour aside, SUVs do unquestionably increase pollution over similar-engined smaller vehicles.

If they were only chosen by large families who did their sums - or drivers with decent parking skills and a non confrontational attitude to life - I'm sure they'd be far less of a problem!

Sheena says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 15:08

It's one thing buying your wife a 4 X 4 but you should also spend a bit extra for a course of driving lessons. More often than not the vehicles are far too big for the little wife to manoever and then what about all the kids in the back distracting her from her conversation on the mobile phone, filing her nails etc.,

Women in 4 x 4's - not always, but more often than not a bad idea!

Jonathan Parker says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 15:25

Not all 4x4 drivers are in them for the status, I personally drive a Mazda B2500 King Cab,which is neither glamourous or a fashion statement. It lack's all the bling! It does however have electric windows all round (for those easily impressed) Yet frequently when visiting my folks in London, we live in Gloucestershire, I'm subjected to both verbal and on occassion, physical abuse. My Truck being targetted by 'enviromentalists' who plaster the screens with paper notices condeming me and my vehicle. It's a vehicle not a statement. I work in woodland management, so why am I being penalised with higher tax rate's, bigger fuel bills and the condemnation of the masses for using the vehicle to do what it was truly designed for, working off road.So please, next time you condemn us, remember not to generalise and take a moment to ask yourself if this vehicle is a statement or a tool. Mind you my numpty of a neighbour has a Nissan Nirvana Bling Special extra extra sparkly bits super pick up....and absolutely no idea how to use the four wheel drive shift. He contract hired it about three months ago, sucker, and rather embarrasingly had to get me to show him how to disengage 4 wheel drive after playing around in Tesco's car park....numpty with a big N

Sally says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 15:29

I am 5ft tall and own a Landrover Discovery. As it now demands a 2nd mortgage to fill up, I also own a 1 litre micra. I use my Landrover for towing my horse (I must be a dreadful person as yes, I also own a horse, two actually), driving across fields to get to my horse, transporting hay, feed etc.

I can assure you, my nails are broken from mucking out and gardening, not worth painting at all! I do not answer my phone whilst driving and am far more courteous and road safety conscientious than most of the 'townies' in their Honda Civics, etc who drive out to the country on a Sunday with the kids hoping to see a horse, tractor etc. They have no idea how to drive. They drive far to fast, have no idea how to pass a cyclist or horse and they are the ones on the phone, screaming at the kids and wondering where the nearest pub garden is.

Long live the 4 x 4, its clear view of the road, safety and comfort.

Rob says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 15:47

I don't know why all the victimisation is aimed at 4X4's. There are plenty of hatch backs that break the 225g/kg of co2 the government is so keen on hammering. I get between 24-32mph from my Range Rover Sport and a neighbour I was talking to gets about 16mpg out of his VW Golf, but you don't see hippies strapping themselves to the Golf production line do you?

I was under the misapprehension that the UK was still a free country, why shouldn't I have the freedom to drive whatever I want without being judged?

I bet every one of the billion Tuctuc's in India pumps out more harmful emissions than my car. We are just a very very tiny part of what might or might not actually be a problem.

I would happily drive a hybrid if they made one that actually made sense and didn't look like a slipper on four wheels. We need more innovation in electric cars in my opinion like the Tesler roadster, but I drive a 4X4 and therefore hate the earth so why should anyone car about my opinion!

a ashwood says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 19:21

Have people forgotten that in the country we need 4x4's our lanes don't get gritted, we need them to go on our land and pull trailers etc,why should farmers and people that rely on them as work horses get penalised for the people who want them as fashion accessories

Robbie says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 20:04

Good to see some common sense written about 4x4's! I have live in deepest darkest Yorkshire where we do not have a proper public transport system since they removed the trains in the early 1960's, I tow big trailers and go through mud and country lanes as I live in a farming area. It is about time that the Government realised that not all 4x4's live in cities and that many people still live, and prefer to live in the countryside and need Land Rovers. I know the Government want to build on all available green belt land to make us "urbanites" but, until they achieve their aim, lets have our freedom of choice about the vehicles we drive. Personally I am 6'3" and an ex-Rugby forward and literally don't fit into small cars with poor headroom. Long Live the Land Rover products!

Alex says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 21:22

Well I'm 6'4" and the Ford Fiesta I had until about a month ago was at least as spacious as any other car I've had...maybe not for the people in the back but then how many of us actually have a car full most of the time? And as for this illusion that country folk drive 4x4's, I find that most of them don't and don't find a need to-and probably couldn't afford the fuel anyway, because anyone who thinks that bigger, heavier, less aerodyamic cars don't use more fuel is kind of delusional!

Simon says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 21:39

Sheena, are you a man or a woman?

How dare you assume that my wife is unable to handle her car. Just because some women cannot drive does not mean that all of them are unable to. My wife actually was trained as a rally driver and is more than capable of handling her car despite being a 'little wife'. Frankly I am a little surprised by your attitude and your tone has a hint of jealousy to it...perhaps you should go and get yourself a proper car before condemning others from behind the wheel of whatever car you are obviously not happy to be in.

Moving on, I accept that some 4x4 owners are idiots without a clue, and some 4x4s are way too big (Audi Q7, BMW X5 and Range Rovers etc), but there needs to be some give and take...not all 4x4 owners are idiots, in the same way that not everyone who is blonde is thick.

Next time there is a flood/snowstorm or similar in your area and you get stuck in your car, what will you say about the person who drives a 4x4 but carries various tow ropes etc to help others out like I do? (I realise that this does not happen very often but its good to be prepared).

Essentially, all I was trying to say was that there are worse things than 4x4s out there when considering environmental impact. People who drink imported bottled water, for instance, actually cause a lot of CO2 emmissions because all the water is brought by boat!!!!! Perhaps there should be a water tax instead?

gilmore taransay says:

Tuesday 01 July, 2008 / 21:53

like all things hijacked for media attention the fact that the 4x4 started life as a workhorse and is still used for work is missed, or deliberately ignored, by those who slate them. i do believe in looking after our environment but I also have a 700kg horse to tow and not matter how 'green' i want to be i cannot tow a horse with a polo bluemotion! it is possible, as other comments on this page show, to find a 4x4 with reasonable mpg (30ish) and with co2 output comparable to a large car. it also seems to be forgotten that 4x4 are not the only consumptive & co2 emitting vehicles on the road. all large engined cars (say >2.5 ltire) would struggle to meet the new co2 measures but as usual it is easier to villify one 'flag ship' vechile.

Rob Pollock says:

Wednesday 02 July, 2008 / 11:03

4x4's are just a target for the press to aim at, many estate cars 'pollute' as much, as do many sports cars. But at the moment the manufacturers aren't giving us many alternatives which will do the job 4x4s, estate cars, people carriers etc. can all do. I agree, there are certain parts of the country where you have to wonder at the reasons some people drive these things, but there are many who need them and are having to pay in extra fuel duties, road tax and as some have found, abuse from 'tree huggers'.
I have a 10 year old Nissan Terrano petrol which can sometimes manage 28mpg, which is used for family and pleasure and spends most of it's life on the drive, I do less than 3000 miles a yeaar in it. I also have a diesel Fiesta for work, which can do 60mpg, but I couldn't get the wife, 4 kids and luggage in it. If I wasn't paying the bank loan on the Fiesta, I could just run the Terrano all year (20,000 miles) but that wouldn't be very green, would it? There's no public transport available to get me to my place of work, and if there was I wouldn't want to use it due to the hours I work.
And if all cars were electric, does anyone seriously think the tax man would leave us alone? If you do, you're on the same cloud as those that think taxing 4x4s off the road will save the planet.

Mark Hospital says:

Wednesday 02 July, 2008 / 12:04

Thanks for all the comments people! ...I'd just like to mention the point was not at all to victimise 4x4 owners. Of course there are many drivers and occupations for whom this type of vehicle is ideal, and I think beingsalt's comment backs that up.

But just to return to the main point of the article: sales, in the USA particularly, have fallen noticeably, which does suggest that a large number of SUVs were being bought for fashion / aggression rather than need. Maybe now the vehicle market will now settle back down to the core of drivers who need 4x4 transmission, and the hard economics of the situation will drive the aspirational buyer towards other purchases... perhaps even the Tesler that Rob mentions!

And Simon: good point about all that bottled water... I wonder, if it's sparkling, does that add even more CO2? Just a thought Smile

seanbouchier says:

Wednesday 02 July, 2008 / 18:30

why can not 4x4 vehicles have optional 2 wheel drive select this giving better mpg on roads etc

Fatalistic Optimist says:

Thursday 03 July, 2008 / 14:33

Have to agree that not all 4x4 drivers should be tarred with the same brush. My husband has one for work but I personally don't like them. Where I live they tend to be driven by 30 something blondes with one child, usually to school and back (about half a mile) or to the supermarket where they take up two spaces. I drive a Yaris and have to say visibility has not been a problem, unless you count the fact that it seems to become the invisicar when the old chelsea tractors are around. A distinction should definitely be made between workhorse 4x4s and prestige 4x4s - why pay £70,000 for something like a Porsche Cayenne or BMW X whatever. They seem to only be purchased as a "Look what I can afford to run" item.

Add comment

(required)

(required, will not be published)
 
(optional)

[b][/b] - [i][/i] - [u][/u]- [quote][/quote]



Live preview

says:

Monday 13 October, 2008 / 00:08


Recent comments