AutoblogGreen

Data on average occupancy of vehicles by class will help enlighten the debate on SUVs.

If by chance, the average occupancy of an SUV is 2.2 vs an average occupancy for a compact sedan at 1.1, then you could conclude that the SUV that gets 18 mpg combined is actually more "green" than the compact car that gets 32 mpg, since the SUV is getting 18 x 2.2 = 39.2 passenger miles per gallon, and the car only 32 x 1.1 = 34.2 passenger mpg. After all, transportation is about moving numbers of people, not number of vehicles. That's why so many experts point out public transportation is more efficient that automobiles.

I can't find this data easily - does anyone have a source? Personally, I suspect the occupancy is approximately like the example I gave, and SUVs give, in practice, a similar passenger mpg as any other car. Unless there is mass neorosis among buyers, I suspect that the owners paid extra to get six plush seats and video/ etc. for some good reason.

Reply

2001 Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2003/fcvt_fotw257.html

Reply

#1 "If by chance, the average occupancy of an SUV is 2.2 vs an average occupancy for a compact sedan at 1.1..."

But those 2.2 (say) can fit just (or almost) as easily in a compact sedan as they can in an SUV. I'll grant that as the number of passengers per vehicle rises and people have to sit in the rear seat (or second row) of a vehicle, the bigger vehicle becomes more attractive and thus, perhaps, more conducive to carpooling. But then, you could compare a full-size sedan instead of a compact to the SUV. Once the number of passengers reaches 5, you could compare a full-size passenger van to the SUV.

Reply

I appreciate the idea, but the average statistics above still doesn't give SUV any substance above a minivan, a crossover, or any other vehicle with better fuel mileage.

If we are ONLY talking about transporting people, SUVs do not transport people any better than a minivan. A family of five can fit into a Camry just as well as an Explorer.

If we are talking about people and SPACE, even a station wagon can do quite well for a family on long trips. SUVs do not necessary have the advantage on interior space either.
As for towing, we should note that many SUVs can't tow anything significant, like a boat, but on the other hand, for a small trailer, some cars and minivans are certainly up to the task.

In the end, it's really the ground clearance that should be the biggest factor in valuation of SUVs, and sadly, most Americans really have no need for that. For places without roads, there is no doubt that trucks and SUVs are kings. But in cases of flash floods, higher ground clearance will do little if driver do not know the depth of the water. Worse, SUV gives false confidence and ends up endangering the occupants.

I'm sorry if this turns into a rant, but average occupancy numbers really doesn't add much to the debate. Most cars can easily fit four passengers, so the quoted “2.2” occupants can be addressed by any vehicle, not just an SUV. It may just be that because SUVs were popular in the past, so those who will have most people in a car ended up buying an SUV.

Yes, there are always those who may need a full size SUV for whatever reason. Fine. But as gas prices goes up, we will see just how many people still "need" the most capable SUVs, and how many have finally realize that a more sensible, fuel-efficient car can do the job just fine.

Reply

"But as gas prices goes up, we will see just how many people still "need" the most capable SUVs"

Yep. Based on my short commute I made a personal choice to recently buy a gas guzzling v8 mustang. I just thought it might be fun and that I could handle the cost of the gas. I don't understand why people always want to reduce gas consumption *just to reduce gas consumption*. Nothing else works that way. Normally we all make a judgement based on our wants vs the constraints imposed by our budgets (+ a regulation factor to control undesireable things like pollution). Makes sense that gas consumption and suv ownership would respond to the same forces.

Reply

Some interesting arguments...

Sted - thanks for the link - it doesn't support the example numbers I gave, and takes the 2:1 ratio down for SUVs. The minivan is about 2.2, though.

Charles - the wagon part of the rant about people and space is about right, except I think that there is something about capacity of five or more that takes us into 3 rows of seats to maintain comfort. Who wants the middle seat? The part that is worng is about towing. Truck based SUVs have huge towing capacities when compared to crossovers (wagons) or minivans.

All comments illustrate that personal choice is what is in question, which is most directly addressed by T. "green" is more about the buyer and how it used than the it is about the vehicle itself. An SUV loaded with 6 and pulling a 6,000 lb trailer is a "green use" of an SUV. One person on a daily suburban commmute is not. The vehicle remains the same.

Charles, you mentioned that as the price of gasoline goes up, people who don't have a "green uuse of an SUV may decide to buy something else. To a real extent this has already happened. For those that still have a green use for an SUV, they will more seriously consider the most efficient SUVs in the class. Automakers are reacting with different more choices that people want - in this case better efficieny and more smaller car choices.

The factor that aligns the class and usage of the vehicle with fuel consumption is the operating cost as in price per gallon of gas.

Maybe more gas taxes will align the buyer to "green purposes"?

Reply

pointaken;

You seem to want to justify SUV use.

First you pull number out of the air for vehicle occupancy; then you say you have no source; then you say nobody else does; then you say you suspect your original numbers (total speculation) are right. You provide no basis for this, not even personal experience. In fact the post after yours shows a link that occupancy is basically the same as cars, and less than vans.

Finally you say:

"Unless there is mass neorosis among buyers, I suspect that the owners paid extra to get six plush seats and video/ etc. for some good reason. "


No not a mass neurosis. But people buy stuff for emotional reasons - I do sometimes. SUV's are a fashion to a large extent. This is like saying "tail fins must provide aerodynamic advantage, otherwise why would people but them?"

A minivan weighs 4,200 lb and carries 6 comfortable. A Chevy Tahoe holds 4-5 comfortably and its 3rd seat is less usuably and harder to stow. Yes you can tow a lot more - but still for many SUV is simply fashion.

Reply

It's not my place to go and tell people what they can or can't drive. If people want to feel good about owning a Mustang or Tahoe, fine. But don't go around boasting about being green or sensible. A V-8 Mustang doesn't do anything better than other cars but to look good, go fast, and guzzle gas. A Tahoe may be "convenient" for some, but doesn't make it green for the 80% of the time that it's not used to its maximum potential. You'd do better if you had own a sensible car and rent for the few times it is used.

Repeating the same extreme case of seating the maximum and towing some monstrous weight is getting old. These are stuff of commercials. Even for the most capable SUVs, at most, it would be "green" during the weekends. Even if the owner uses the towing capacity 52 weekends out of the year, it would actually make more sense to skip the towing, and just leave the "X" at the remote location. Tow a boat 52 times a year? Why not just rent a dock and leave the darn boat at the lake? It's not only safer for everyone on the road, it would probably cost less. Tow "X" just a few times a year? Just rent a boat, a house, or whatever and dump the SUV. Minivans rides better, safer, and holds more stuff.

I love the new tactics in putting a negative spin on being sensible. Since the popularity of Prius, it is now fashionable to shame “saving fuel” as a vanity trait. Let's not have the cauldron calling the kettle black.

Even if people don't care about GHG, wars, or pollution, and all one cares is money in the pocket, then it makes a lot of sense to drive a sensible vehicle and save fuel. We can't import oil forever without being vulnerable to outside influences. High fuel prices contribute to inflation, and possibly slows down the economy.

While I wish my words here would make sense to some, the state of the industry is only reactionary. At current prices, people still have room to rationalize gas-guzzlers. Fuel-efficiency is still categorized as a fad, rather than a necessity. As the article states, it is just as well that we should keep the status quo; all those who are stuck with gas-guzzlers should keep on driving them. It make sense for personal finances, and we might as well keep on sucking up more fuel and let the oil crisis escalate to the next level.

Reply

Andrew - you are a little harsh and cynical about what I wrote. In my post 6 - I granted I had the numbers wrong.

In the original post I suspected some blogger would have the occupancy-by-class source, and thanked Stedwoo for that. I never claimed that no one has the data.

Neuroses or some compelling emotional appeal - you made the point - people often buy what they want, and not what they need. (like jewelery?) and so the green use of automobiles is less likely, as Charles points out again in 7.

So how do you influence the buying habits? seems to me like the central question. With taxes, or some kind of guilt (like the "Esuvee" commercial campaign?

What are the precedents for this? Is the situation similar to public policy on smoking?

Reply

A Chevrolet Surburban carrying 6 people and getting 18 mpg equals 108 passenger miles per gallon...A toyoata prius getting 35 mpg gallon carrying 1 person equals 35 passenger mpg.

Reply