Toyota says the U.S. 'needs' inefficient SUVs

So Dan Neil, the auto dude at the L.A. Times, was apparently disappointed with the lack of real green cars at the L.A. Auto Show. Well, so was I -- and not just because of the all-talk, no-action GM. Even Toyota was disappointing!

You would think the maker of the Prius would be totally on green message now, especially considering how popular the Prius has become in SoCal. In some ways, yes, it was: Toyota did introduce its hydrogen fuel cell-powered Toyota Highlander -- which is still a concept SUV -- and announced that Prius plug-ins will be tested at UC Berkeley and UC Irvine.

But I was shocked when Bob Carter, vice president and general manager of Toyota, said at the news conference that consumer demand here is still about conventional trucks and SUVs, and declared that "many buyers have no alternative" to these. Then he went on to talk about how Americans "need" trucks and SUVs because we the people are so active and outdoorsy.

Um, are we talking about the same Americans here? Who are these mysterious Americans who "need" SUVs to enable them to undertake constant arduous physical activities? It's no secret that the majority of us in the U.S. are overweight, if not obese. We're not hiking and climbing and camping and Kayaking. We're sitting in front our TVs eating Cheetos.

I mean, perhaps there are a few people who really go through rough terrain every weekend to get to their campsite for serious hiking and stuff. But I'm quite sure that the majority of SUV owners are not buying these gigantic gas guzzlers to support their outdoorsy adventures. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're lazily driving these monsters like five blocks to get to the grocery store. We appreciate the roominess of these cars -- not because they carry all our camping gear, but because they're big enough to accommodate our expanding asses.

But Bob Carter of Toyota -- which by the way has joined the Detroit 3 to lobby against higher fuel efficiency standards -- said that "people who buy a full-size SUV typically need a full-size SUV." Yeah, whatever, dude. Your definition of "need" seems much wider than mine....

The fuel efficiency of the new Sequoia Bob was touting? A miserable 14 mpg highway/19 mpg city for a two-wheel-drive, 13/18 for a four-wheel drive with the 5.7-liter engine. Yippee. We could consider it all a joke, except that fuel efficiency is almost the norm for Chevy.

Comments

[Kate]

Oh, I have no doubt that such a significant percentage of people on the Westside need giant SUVs. After all, it's impossible to put a roof rack for skis or bikes or anything else on the roof of a compact.

Fewer giant SUVs would make everything more livable. Better gas mileage, easier street parking, improved visibility for other cars/pedestrians/cyclists, etc.

[James]

But geeze Kate!

What about the vehicular arms race?

I'm going to run right out and buy a Bradley! How dare anyone try and out BIG me!

[Nancy]

God, that sucks. The market has spoken, and we are saying loudly that if we must drive, we want to drive cleanly.

And what's up with the Chevy Volt? And all these commericals about non-polluting vehicles that don't give any promise on when this new technology is arriving. The tease and tease, and then all they give us are more gas-guzzling SUV's.

It's SOOOOO frustrating.

I have an old compact vehicle that's probably on it's last gasp, but I'm not buying anything again that spits out exhaust.

[Siel]

But you can attach bike racks to the back of smaller cars --

The Chevy Volt's still just an idea -- as are pretty much all the green vehicles Chevy's trying to sell itself on :(

But more and more rogue plug-in hybrid conversions seem to be happening all the time!

[Kate]

Sorry, Siel. I was being sarcastic.

[subgenius]

Since the majority of the pollution caused by a vehicle is due to its MANUFACTURE rather than use, and since it is hugely MORE polluting to build high-tech, unfortunately the hybrids, electrical and fuel cell vehicles are actually worse for the environment than the current standard. Its just that the pollution is hidden from the end user.

[tim]

Some families have 3-4 children, all with different activities, and gear...beleive me, i'd love to get into a smaller car, but where would i put the kids?..tie them to the car like a killed deer?, or maybe drive two cars and pollute even more.....and some people need larger cars for work, to lug around all work related needs...so don't be so quick to judge...some people actually have little choice...i recycle..use energy efficient lightbulbs in my home, and don't litter...i give too environmental organizations....

[branto]

Americans "need" 8 passenger SUV's like they "need" four-car garages. Oh, and check out Bob's reaction to questions about CO2 emissions standards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-8kv44EI5Q&feature=related

[Wendy]

I was buying a cart full of groceries at Sam's Club one day. Parked next to me was a full size Suburban. I was driving a Volkswagen New Beetle. The driver of the SUV walks by holding one small item and sarcastically tells me that my cart full of groceries won't fit in my car. I told her that with the back seats down, my car can hold a lot of stuff. She didn't stick around to see me load up my car, with room to spare. She tossed her one small item into the back of her behemoth and took off. I love my hatchbacks.

[tarbubble]

we "need" a giganto-car. boy scout troop, handy-woman equipment, and YES our fun gear for enjoying the outdoors. and no, we are not fat-assed tv addicts (remember, if 50% of americans are overweight, then 50% aren't). however, until we can find the right old diesel suburban and do a veg-oil conversion on it, we'll make do with our current comparably fuel-efficient vehicles - a subaru wagon (25 mpg, not the greatest) and a chevy metro (45 mpg). i know veg-oil isn't emissions-free but at least we'll be quitting petroleum and eliminating the waste & pollution from gasoline manufacturing.

[Phil]

You don't get it. Toyota is not a "green" company. It is a public company that lives on revenue, growth, and profit like any other firm. They will sell a couple hundred thousand Prius in ~16 million annual unit sales US market. Prius doesn't make them greener than anyone else. In heavier vehicles, they now lag many American models in real-world efficiency.

Meanwhile, General Motors has steadily increased its 30+ mpg offerings, and it has been making incremental improvements to the fuel economy of its trucks. Even the current Cadillac Escalade is both more powerful and more efficient than the prior model. They have introduced cylinder de-activation in V8s, and now offer a hybrid SUV that delivers a serious improvement to city mileage. The point is, environmentalists should appreciate the value of gains made in vehicle types that sell in the millions. The automobile is on an irreversible mend with respect to its environmental consequence. Each generation of vehicle type is steadily becoming more efficient, even in the volume sectors. You are not going to get everyone into small cars, so accept the value of making larger vehicles steadily more efficient. In the volumes they sell, incremental gains have more impact than converting another 100,000 people to a hybrid small car.

Fuel economy standards are not the solution. The last time, CAFE was a major factor that drove car people into trucks. When you bemoan the flatlining of our fleet average fuel economy, you can blame it squarely on CAFE forcing changes to cars that a large part of the market did not want. They found their satisfaction in tall, rear-drive trucks. GM, Ford, Chrysler and all the imports offer high-mileage vehicles. The market has not bought them in large numbers. Look at what's happened to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. They are now approaching 300hp and are huge compared to their predecessors.

Chevrolet's new Malibu is their equivalent and like Camry and Accord, a 4 cylinder option is available. Let's see what percentage of its buyers prefer the 4 pot mill. The result will show you the value of steadily chipping away at efficiency gains in mainstream vehicles.

Last, the Chevy Volt is a real development effort. It requires an advance in the reliability of lightweight Lithium Ion batteries. Your notebook PC is one thing, but the energy storage required from Li ion to power a vehicle is huge and that battery chemistry must become more stable for such large-scale, high current use. In the meantime, you will see GM's Two-Mode hybrid technology pushed into a greater variety of vehicle models. As a co-developer, Chrysler shares this too. The same will happen with Ford's parallel hybrid drivetrain currently in the Escape Hybrid.

Phil

[Kenji]

My Subaru Legacy wagon (1996) has more internal room than any standard SUV. Justifying SUV lust is ludicrous.... I'm a climber, camper and professional outdoorsman. SUV's are not essential for me, whatsoever. I've never owned one. Never will.

It's quite simply a fashion/style choice that has environmental consequences, since there are so many on the road. And the notion that the manufacturing process is the main source of pollution is only part right. The best environmental choice is to Recycle/Reuse/Use Public Transportation/arrange to work, shop, and play close to home. But if a new vehicle is going to get bought, it must be to modern standards and fit for today's society. I live in the OC now and it's absolutely absurd the kind of cars people drive here! So be happy in LA where there is at least a semblance of mindfulness.

Imagine buying a 1991 cell phone, brand new. You know, 1.5 lbs, pull out antenna, horrible sound quality and reception, and 10 min battery life. Logical?
Environmentally cool?
No. What about the monster boombox using 8 'D' batteries to spin a servo-motor to play cassettes?

I'd like to see the enviro-matchup against my Nano. Then again I could go music-less.... Never mind, that won't happen.

[James]

Total crap "sub" but if you're sure of yourself let's see your "proof".

[James]

I'll save you some time and effort subgenius.

I'm guessing you are referring to an article posted in a British right wing rag about the nickle used in the Prius battery pack?

Read this...

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html

You should stay away from those right wing publications that have this effect on certain people of narrowing their minds.

[Kate]

Tim, of course some needs are genuine--but I doubt that the majority of people in my area have no other alternative. And my parents' station wagon in the late 1970s/early 1980s got better gas mileage than some SUVs and minivans today.

[Peter]

"Some families have 3-4 children, all with different activities, and gear...beleive me, i'd love to get into a smaller car, but where would i put the kids?..tie them to the car like a killed deer?"

Best idea I've heard in a long time... :^)

But, basically, it's rubbish. There are four kids in my family. We made do with a Toyota Corrola and, later, a Ford Focus. How did we manage this, you might ask?

We rode bicycles.

If I had to be at work at 3:00PM, for example, I had two choices: Go with my Mom at 8:00AM and entertain myself until 3:00PM or ride my bike in at about 2:00PM to get there by 3:00PM.

Any two-wheel drive SUV is a macho minivan. Essentially, what happened was that people went out years ago and bought minivans. But they were seen as somewhat less than manly. So they traded in their minivans for SUVs. That's why I call them "macho minivans." Dad can drive it without advertising to the world that he has a wife, kids, and a boring suburban lifestyle.

(As an aside, I'll make one exception here: If you own a trailer for a boat or camper, buy an SUV or a truck. Please. I can remember being behind a Honda trying to pull a trailer up a hill. Hell, I'll help you with the downpayment! Anything to avoid being stuck behind you on that hill...)

For those with occasional needs for a larger vehicle, here's another crazy idea: Rent.

I like to go on bike rides. But, occasionally, there's a ride that I can't get to on my bike. So I'll go rent a minivan (which has much more room than most SUVs). Throw the bike in the back and go. It'll cost anywhere from 40-60 dollars per day, depending on which agency you rent from.

[Kevin]

More than half the people that buy SUV's don't really need them. It's just the typical American "mine's bigger" attitude. I swear to this, and I kid you not - I saw a man driving down the freeway in an Escalade towing nothing behind him, and he's all by himself.

Now you tell me, what in the world could all that extra space be for? To pull a huge mountain of paperwork? I think not. THAT'S why gas is so high. These people can't wait to flash their hummers and their Escalades and their Durangos and Heaven knows what else.

To all those who drive SUV's to work like this guy, I say this: Bob Carter is laughing at you as Toyota forks in the money hand over foot because of YOUR vanity. And the rest of us suffer for it in the form of high gas prices.

[Coral]

I saw a commercial for trucks recently that said, and I quote: "Americans need trucks to work and live." I about died laughing. Is that the most desperate sales pitch you've ever heard or what????