All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 20, 2006 - Skeptoid
12:06
Skeptoid #15: SUV Phobia

Some believe SUVs should be categorized by their cosmetic appearance, rather than by their size or fuel efficiency. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Why SUVs Are Scare Words 00:03:32
Ever notice that anytime there's a car accident mentioned on the news, the anchor will almost always use the term SUV to describe any vehicle that's even remotely a crossover.
News producers know it's a scare word.
They know people associate SUVs with heavy crashes, poor handling, and danger.
But is SUV as a buzzword really very accurate?
That's coming up next on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems, and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's Hyperfixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
SUV Phobia.
Let's spend some time on the trendy fad of looking for villains to blame for global warming.
My flavor of the week is SUVs, those evil, gas-guzzling, ozone-destroying, unethical, politically incorrect, Nazi family soccer wagons.
Only let's not do it the trendy way.
Let's look at the issue skeptically.
Let's start by finding some common ground, some generalizations that most people probably agree with.
First, the premise that fuel efficiency in vehicles is a good thing.
There are probably very few people who disagree that efficiency should always be a goal.
Second, the premise that heavier cars are generally less fuel efficient, thus lighter cars are generally good things.
Excess weight burns excess fuel.
Cars should not be unnecessarily heavy.
Third, many heavy truck-based SUVs are generally heavier and less fuel efficient than light passenger cars.
I'm going to continue with the assumption that you agree with all of the above.
Based in part on these generalizations, many so-called environmentalist groups have been lobbying, often successfully, for laws against SUVs.
I hope to encourage you to be skeptical of such laws.
The problem with making laws based on generalizations is that the exceptions are being unfairly penalized, and some guilty offenders are getting away scot-free.
Any law against SUVs is a bad law, and here's why.
The vast majority of so-called SUVs are mechanically identical to conventional cars.
They are given taller bodies and more upright styling, then sold as SUVs.
Their weight, economy, and performance are generally similar to the cars on which they are based.
Toyota's Highlander and Lexus RX series are built on Toyota Camry chassis and mechanicals.
Honda CR-V and Element SUVs are based on the Honda Civic.
The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe are re-bodied Toyota Corollas.
The Hyundai Tucson, Santa Fe, and Kia Sportage SUVs are based on the Hyundai Elantra and Sonata sedans.
The Acura MDX and Honda Pilot SUVs are simply Honda Accords underneath that taller sheet metal.
People don't need heavier metal or tougher mechanicals.
They simply want a particular cosmetic style or a form factor that's more convenient for carrying people and cargo.
Labels Lie About Car Chassis 00:06:25
And that's fine.
For example, a military Humvee, now also marketed to consumers by General Motors as the H1 Hummer, has portal axles and inboard brakes.
Most people don't know what either of those are, but suffice it to say that they represent dramatic structural departures from conventional SUVs.
People want to buy a big beefy military vehicle, but GM's engineers know that it's simply not a practical road car.
Not wanting their customers to be disappointed, they took their existing conventional Yukon-Tahoe Escalade vehicle, put a vaguely Humvee-like body on it, and they now sell it as the H2 Hummer.
Most people wrongly assume, as GM hoped they would, that it's a second-generation Humvee, new and improved, but still with military vehicle roots.
Wrong on all counts, but again, most consumers don't know or really care.
Not a single component is shared between the H1 and H2.
Their whole design paradigms are polar opposites.
One is a military truck, the other is a passenger car with a styled exterior.
GM knew that people wanted to believe that they're driving a Humvee, so GM tried to license the name Hummer from the Humvee's manufacturer, defense contractor AM General, but AM General refused.
GM had to buy the entire company just to get access to the Hummer name so they could sell more H2s.
It was well worth it since GM sells an H2 Hummer for about twice the price of a mechanically identical Yukon or Tahoe, and consumers now blissfully believe they're driving around in military trucks.
Yet another example of why you should be skeptical of marketing labels.
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Malaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finished the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com/slash adventures.
People talk about cleaning up Los Angeles's smog by penalizing or banning SUVs.
Did you know that a single container ship coming into Long Beach Harbor generates as much carbon emissions as 300,000 cars?
Ships are not subject to emission laws.
Why not?
Are SUVs, most of which are mechanically and economically similar to conventional cars, really the logical targets?
SUVs are hardly the cause of our carbon problems.
Any road car, H2 Hummers included, is extremely environmentally friendly as vehicles go, given all the emission laws that they comply with, especially when compared to the average car from only a decade ago.
Paris and London are two cities that have really gone aggro over SUVs, fining them for entering downtown.
The claim is that they're not only fuel inefficient, but they're too big to park and too dangerous.
But as we've established, the term SUV really only refers to cars with a certain cosmetic style.
There are plenty of cars that are fuel inefficient that are not SUVs.
There are plenty of cars that are longer than many SUVs.
And there are plenty of cars that are tall or heavy and do as much crash damage as SUVs.
SUVs probably appear frequently in all three lists, but targeting cars because of their styling is still the wrong path to a useful solution.
Ban cars that are fuel inefficient, or ban cars that are too long to park, or ban cars with bad crash ratings.
Even do all three.
But you won't solve those problems by attacking the irrelevant characteristic of cosmetic styling.
So why do lawmakers do it?
They don't care about the facts.
They care about appealing to the voters' emotions.
Ban those evil SUVs, and you'll satisfy the emotions of the ignorant masses.
If you're not ignorant, you shouldn't stand for it.
You should demand that lawmakers pay attention to the facts.
You might also mind your own damn business and stop trying to legislate what other people's priorities should be, but that's another subject for another time.
Here's another wrinkle for you.
Hybrids such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight have really pushed the bar higher on efficiency and economy.
Thus, there is now a general perception that hybrids get better mileage.
Generally true, but again, there are exceptions.
The Lexus RX hybrid SUV uses exactly the same V6 engine as its non-hybrid counterpart and thus posts similar mileage numbers.
I drove both vehicles prior to their release in a consumer test.
The hybrid system in this case simply adds additional power for acceleration.
The improved mileage that you might expect from the hybrid system is canceled out by the additional weight of the battery and motor, particularly on the highway.
The Lexus GS is an example of the same philosophy applied to a high-end luxury sedan.
In addition, many high-end sports car manufacturers are testing hybrid prototypes for the electric engine's ability to add acceleration off the line.
In summary, a hybrid system does not always mean improved economy or cleaner emissions.
You should pay attention to the actual numbers that a vehicle posts, not to its label, be it hybrid or SUV.
Hybrid Hype And Real Costs 00:02:05
Here's the first example that pops into my head.
My 2004 Audi S4, a four-door sedan, gets 15 miles per gallon, which is worse than the 16 miles per gallon of my wife's 2006 Toyota 4Runner with the largest V8 engine.
Which do you hear so-called environmentalists protesting, common sedans or SUVs?
They're smart, protesting sedans will strike no nerves, but it's easy to terrify the public with alarmist warnings about those evil SUVs.
And I think that this perfectly summarizes the fact that anti-SUV protests and legislation are not only counterproductive, they are factually wrong.
When you hear marketing buzzwords and labels instead of valid test data, be skeptical.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and moose.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the teacher's toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection