Hampton please see the latest Nation transportation safety board numbers. I was shocked myself, I mean the think is way safer than most trucks and suv's. But think about is square low center of gravity and heavy as a tank.
Now to the fine false outrager comparing us to Europe. BAHHAHAH LOFL, they live in towns that are very small and have short commutes.
If you want to put your wife or teenager in an insight on the highways good luck. Most of the people I see in Suburans are tiny little wive's that can barely see over the wheel. But it's good that you dorks can get your man on with the anti SUV rant.

It's nice to see good ideas unfold .
If heavy cars are safer why don't we build cars with stone floors?
I think safety is relative. person vs. car, car wins. suv vs. bulldozer, bulldozer wins.
also if suvs "crush most sedans on impact" the car may be crushed but are the people inside ok? If a suv gets crushed are the people inside ok?

Lets see what people say about this one (with their money)

I welcome efficiency gains wherever they occur.

The use of hybrid electric motors, electric steering, electric throttle control, batteries, electric HVAC, electric power steering, electric power brakes et cetera all add to the volume of these components produced and driving down the cost of each one. The cheaper each component becomes due to mass manufacture, the more that can be afforded in producing smaller, cheaper vehicles. Such as the ones some of you would prefer that others drive. Smells of Lear-Jet-and-limousine liberal hypocrisy to me.

I'll welcome the efficiency gains there too.

But you should remember that all horsepower wars do not not run on forever. Many are satiated when reasonable performance, towing ability, and room in today's vehicles is achieved, compared to the tinny underpowered ones produced in the 1970's when cleanup and oil shocks began.

Future efficiency gains will more likely go toward mileage improvement since other needs are now pretty satiated.

Certain Europeans who post here seem to like to take a snobbish attitude and superior air, but I would point out that the horsepower wars of the Teutonic makes such as Mercedes and BMW are notorious as is the utter inefficiency of the Italian hand-made coach builders.

Actually this is very good news.

Lets assume that if a Prius here not a Hybrid it would get 35Mpg (Which seems reasonable given its likeness to a Corolla).

In that case The Hybrid Prius gains 20 MPG from Hybrid technology. This will result in a savings of 1,039 Gallons over a lifetime of 100,000 Miles.

If the Aspen Gaines 4.25 Mpg Using Hybrid technology (17-->21.25 Mpg) It will save 1,177 Gallons over the course of 100,000 Lifetime.

Assuming that the consumers of these vehicles are separate and distinct groups, this is a good thing not to be scoffed at.

Wait a minute: THIS IS A HYBRID?!!!!! Helllllllllllll nah! I ain't buying that crap! I rather buy an escape!

Does anybody know of a website with a good overview and technical analysis of the components of the two-mode hybrid system?

Stan Peterson:

You made a lot of good points. I also welcome fuel efficiency wherever we can attain it. I agree that the Europeans can't talk too loudly about fuel efficiency. I see a lot of comments alluding to how superior the European and Asian carmakers are at fuel efficiency, then I see the new Porsche Cayenne SUV comes with a 290-horsepower V-6 replacing the 250-horsepower engine, and a new V-8 with 385 horses versus 340 in the previous model. The twin turbo V-8 Cayenne moved to 500 horses from 450. Funny how I never hear anyone say that Porsche's are underpowered, yet they are working to make them yet even more powerful. I find it hard to believe that fuel is being saved when people are flying down the Autobahn at Mach 5 too. I think it is a valid point that Americans as a whole, (myself included) need to learn to be more efficient with how we live and drive, but lets not condemn Chrysler in this case for a more fuel efficient SUV. I don't see Porsche, Lexus, Mercedes, VW, or BMW trying to make their large SUV's more fuel efficient--does anyone? Am I missing something? I think many of us here are happy to ignore that our European and Asian favorites are more than willing to throw customers the keys to their $60,000 gas gulpers. The Detroit companies at least TRY to offer Hybrids and Cylinder Deactivation, for their latest models. What is Europe and Asia doing? Answer: More Horsepower. Need an Asian Company example? How about Toyota showing off its new Lexus LX 570 SUV, which replaces the 470. The current 470 weighs 5,400 pounds, can tow 6,500 pounds and has a 268-horsepower V-8. The new one coming early next year will have 381 horses, a 42% increase! Was the old Lexus too fuel efficient that they needed to increase the horsepower? This Lexus as well as the new Tundra come from the world leader in Hybrid tech., yet, I don't see them investigating hybrids for those vehicles. So the next time anyone wants to snub a Detroit Company for making a stride towards fuel efficiency, lets remember the glass houses we all live in.

What I would like to know is, when did we decide that we all need to drive big SUVs? When did the sedan become obsolete, and why? 20 years ago, SUVs were a small niche market. Now, suddenly, everyone "needs" one. For normal every day driving, such as your commute to work, in what way does an SUV outperform a sedan?

Bob B.:
You're right--not everyone needs an SUV. There are many whom a much smaller vehicle would serve their purposes just fine. SUV's make for a poor choice in single person commuting--no doubt about it. But for the people that do have uses for them, they are hard to beat. More room for people and belongings, more room for car seats and baby paraphenalia, 4 wheel drive for Winter snow, horsepower to tow a Camper trailer. Horsepower to tow a Utility trailer. Now, some will say their Prius can do all of that stuff, but that's being ridiculous. When our family goes Camping in the Summer, I have yet to see a Prius towing a 10,000 lbs. Camper. I would like to see the EPA numbers for the Prius that attempts that! For people that do have a need for an SUV though, news of a hybrid such as in this article is a big step in the right direction.

Unless you raise elephants (or morbidly obese children)why would anyone need to commute in a vehicle that weighs +5,500lbs? I recognize that there is a need for towing from time to time. However, 99.5% of the times I've seen these behemoths blasting down the highway they are not being used for this purpose.

SUV bashing applies to all makers of mega-ego mobiles to include Toyota, Lexus, Nissan.

Corporations exist to generate revenue. Sadly, because our market demands these products. As a result every car manufacturer jumps in to fill the demand. The imports are no better than the domestics.

Having been stationed in Europe and Japan, I can tell you that there is no market for +5,500lbs personal mobility vehicles there. Only in the US market is there a perceived need for obscenely large vehicles.

Let's focus on the problem: why does a demand for vehicles as wasteful as these exist in the US in the first place? As others have aptly posted, this "need" didn't exist 20-25 years ago. What has happened in the last few decades that has driven a need for the false sense of security (with total disregard for the planet) that these mega vehicles provide?

Oh, yes and Porsche, BMW, MB, VW/Audi are just as bad. What is with the Euro-trash horsepower wars? Interestingly Germany's automakers have come under increasing pressure concerning their apparent disregard for EU-mandated CO2 reductions.

Again- these manufacturers know full well that their over-powered gas guzzlers won't sell well in their home markets. They made these vehicles with the US market in mind. Only in America- where we wage wars to ensure an artificially low cost for petroleum products.

DieselHybrid, I have an SUV because it is more economical than a truck, and holds everything I need for work inside, where I can lock it. If you see me driving, you won’t see someone else with me, because I work alone, and can’t get my gear to my client’s houses using public transportation.

D.H.
You said the market for SUV's didn't exist 20-25 years ago. That puts us in the 1982-1987 range. I remember Ford Broncos, Chevy Blazers, Dodge Ram Chargers, Jeep Cherokees, and Toyota Land Cruisers from that era. There certainly has been an explosion of SUV's offered over the last 15 years though that can't be disputed. I think it is often because they are just so handy when you do need them for one of the capabilites they offer. I don't think anyone here is saying they make a great commuter vehicle--generally they don't. But for the people who do have applications for them, whether it be towing elephants or what have you, they are great. Cervus pointed out above that Europe and other parts of the world have more narrow streets and higher density urban areas. That's a good point. Deisel Grand Cherokees are very popular in Europe from what I hear.

what ways does and SUV beat a sedan?

Head on collission and cargo capacity.

The issue here is overall US auto and truck fleet efficiency, and therefore this is a good truck, it takes a vehicle from the less than 20mpg to more than 20mpg, without loss of performance, it will be interesting to see how well this truck sells, I hope it does well because that will encourage more of the same and progressive research and development.

I would live this to be Bio-diesel powered! to get another 30% improvement.

Not sure why the big 4 are rejecting CAFE improvements, when they have these vehicles in development.

I think Toyota wants to keep the current rules becuase they are winning with them, and I think GM, Ford, Chrysler want to keep the current rules to protect their market share.

If one of the big 3 accepted the coming CAFE changes and laid out a product roadmap, they would save the domestic industry and profit from the coming revolution.

Luxury and large sedans have lower fatality rates than SUVs. PERIOD!

Take the number of SUVs sold 20-25 years ago. Adjust for the employment growth in construction & contractors. That is what size the market for SUVs really should be. Instead, SUVs sell at a greater rate than cars.

I look outside my office building and spot 40% of the vehicles are SUVs. None of the people I work with are contractors, nor do they carry heavy loads constantly. At best, those with a truck (not included in that 40%) have offered others help in moving something large...can't say the same for those with SUVs. These people commute to work by themselves AND those with children are not dropping their children off in the morning nor picking them up in the afternoon. There are another 20% (roughly) who own SUVs but they commute in a smaller, more sensible vehicle (typically a compact or sub-compact) and leave the SUV at home for their spouse to use, on occassion, when they need to shop for groceries or pickup/drop off kids. Strangely, I am able to pick up and drop off my kids while loading up 3 weeks of groceries in a compact vehicle...I have two children as well.

Richard, I asked about normal everyday driving. The average driver doesn't need a huge amount of cargo space for their everyday commute to work or trip to the grocery store. Of course this is not the case for contractors and such, but they make up a pretty small percentage of drivers on the road. As for safety, the IIHS has rated these five cars to be the safest of all time in multiple-car collisions:
Buick LeSabre (model year 2000)
Honda Civic (model year 2001)
Lincoln LS (model year 2001)
Volkswagen Passat (model years 2000 and 2001)
Volvo S80 (model year 2001)
http://www.preferredconsumer.com/automotive/articles/safest_cars.html
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against trucks and SUVs in and of themselves. They certainly have their place. I own an 82 Chevy truck that gets about 10 mpg. The thing is, I only fill up the tank about twice a year. It only gets driven when I need to haul something big. What makes me angry is seeing so many of my countrymen driving around on DRY PAVEMENT in huge, empty SUVs and pickups, needlessly wasting finite resources, polluting the environment, and enriching dirtballs like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

Well said, Bob!

The way I see it, every single visit to the fuel pump further enriches our Saudi friends (17 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi), our good pal Hugo Chavez, our Iranian nuke proliferators, and our friendly genocidical African strongmen.

The most patriotic thing you could do for your oil-addicted country right now is DO SOMETHING that will lessen the frequency of your trips to the fuel pump!

I sure hope non of you fly that much, because that would spew way more co2 than the SUV's your crying about.
An suv with esp is way safer than a sedan

Lets assume that if a Prius here not a Hybrid it would get 35Mpg

Oh I don't think you will see Prius epa that high in 2008

"I sure hope non of you fly that much, because that would spew way more co2 than the SUV's your crying about."

Just playing on the back of a napkin here, if I recall correctly, a 747 gets about 5 gallons to the mile. If it’s full, there will be somewhere in the order of 450 passengers on board. .2 miles per gallon * 450 pax = 90 passenger-miles per gallon.

Research you cries for attention. Then use a spell-check.

I live in the Great State of Texas. One absolutely needs a Truck or High clearance vehicle here with 4x4 drive to get down some of our country roads where low water crossings put your vehicle in 9-12 inches of water over raw creek bed which in this area is head sized rocks of limestone. No way a compact or mid-sized vehicle makes it the whole bottom end would be torn out. I have never seen a prius or echo make it over the dunes on the coast to drive down the beach for some camping, nor would said ecodeath traps make it down the road to my hunting ranch. On Central Texas roads away from the liberal cesspool of Austin, if your in a ecodeath box your dead in an accident as EVERY one here has a truck or SUV. Further more no way a compact or even a full-sized sedan tows my Ski boat or my trailered “Golf cart” which is really a 4x4 Diesel Kawasaki mule if you have ever played golf in the Hill Country you know ICE power is the only way to go, and If you slice like I do the 4x4 takes you in to the weeds to get your $6 ball. Contrary to most of you greens impression there are some people can afford lifestyles that need a large truck with the ability to go off pavement, and tow 4500+ lbs on a regular basis. I own a 2500 Diesel GMC Suburban. I get 20 mpg on the highway and 15 in the city. With my boat I still get 15 on the highway that’s outstanding for an 8000lb truck with a 4600lb fully fueled boat. I’ll never own a gas vehicle again after switching to diesel. The torque, longevity, and economy cannot be beat. I have over 200K on my diesel, and it will make it to 500K I’m sure. I run full synthetic with a pre-oilier pump just like a big rig. Rigs go a million miles before engine rebuilds. Now if the yellow bowtie can give me a diesel with 2 mode. I would upgrade to a diesel-hybrid in a heartbeat IF it does not COST MORE than the FUEL SAVING over the life of the vehicle. That means it must be economically in my best interest to upgrade.

TexasNative:
Good comment, especially in regard to the Diesel Hybrids need for being cost effective. You have a lot of cool toys--I'm envious!

Diesel Hybrid and Patrick:
I can understand where your both are coming from in your comments. I was thinking about this last night. I got a question for both of you: Lets just say for arguments sake, SUV's no longer ran on gasoline. Say the entire fleet was converted to Hydrogen FCV's and B100 Biodeisel PHEV SUV's (there's a mouth full!). Now, the gas guzzling and harmful emissions have been completely eliminated from the equation. Question is, would you still have a problem with SUV's? Just curious.

TexasNative, again, you are talking about special circumstances. Everyone realizes that there are certain people who need trucks and SUVs, and no one is calling for their complete elimination. Contractors will always need trucks or vans, and if wealthy folks want to buy SUVs as play toys to haul their boats and horse trailers, I have no problem with that. I can sleep at night knowing that their are people out their who have more money than me, and like to spend it on indulgent things. You won't hear me crying about 6 mpg Lamborghinis, because they make up a very small percentage of the vehicles on the road, and statistically, they don't have an impact on fleet fuel consumption. On the other hand, if tomorrow, everyone and their brother decided that they 'needed' one to commute 80 miles to work everyday, that would be a different story. As for those ecodeathboxes you mention, the Honda Civic, including the 50 mpg hybrid, is one of the safest vehicles on the road, and has better crash test ratings, and highway fatality numbers than any pickup or SUV on the road. The Prius has very impressive safety numbers as well, and as noted above, the Buick LeSabre, which gets twice the fuel economy of the average truck or full size SUV, was rated safest car of all time in multiple-vehicle collisions. Of course none of these econodeathboxes do nearly as much for one's desired tough guy images as a 4Wd diesel extended cab dually with stainless steel 8-inch diameter exhaust stacks.
As for all of you who are asserting the need for SUVs and full size pickups, if you really want to be intellectually honest about it, I suggest a little exercise for you to do today: Count all the SUVs and pickups you see while you are out driving today. Then, add up the number that 1. Are carrying more than four passengers (or are carrying a load in the bed in the case of pickups) 2.Have mud on the body or even tires. 3. Are towing anything. I think the numbers will be very revealing.