Ford Kills 19-Foot Gas-Guzzler Excursion

they could probably make a sale if they reimagineered the SUV to mean "Survival Utility Vehicle"; seeing as how SUVs did well enough in the mess of Katrina, with some enhancements, like solar roofs, waterproofing, standard powerjacks (lockable on the outside), etc.; it could actually be useful in such conditions, and as such, worth the premium.

No, what you need in a predictable natural catastrophe is a working government and a good plan.

It's insane to drive such a wasteful monster 364 days a year for many years just in case someday you need it to wade through flooded streets.

Getting a good government these days is well... an iffy prospect. The best plans are almost always one's own.

Such a 'wasteful monster' would drive me (and many) to -finally- take ride bus/bike instead...both problems solved. :) OR start a business that actually made use of such presumeably real utility.

Sam,

Yes, and what about everybody who can't afford such a monster? There's a reason why it's important to fight for a good government; these things don't just appear on their own while the whole population is watching reality shows.. But anyway, lets not get into that.

Also, you can take the bus/ride a bike without having to own a gas-guzzler :D

I cannot ride a bike to work (low paying night job, freeway only, 30 miles), and the bus costs more ('89 camry 33 mpg, $3 a gallon for dino-crap, vs. >$5 for bus fare; do the math).

It's much easier to fight for good government when said government is as small as can be. That said, I am still in favor of increasing cheaper options (cheaper trains, buses, bike paths etc) via government influence.

As to everyone who can't afford such monster (like me), you should still have an emergency plan. For those who -can- afford such a monster, if you've got that kind of money you should demand and SUV which is actually helpful in such emergency situations...sadly many SUVs are not so useful.

p.s. sorry my bad it's $3.95 for bus fare here...still not good enough. Even running Biodiesel would be marginally cheaper.

The debate about SUVs is not this simple. For my personal daily commuter, I drive a VW Jetta TDI. Hurray me. On the other hand, I'm the father of three and the family pet is a german shepherd. Needless to say, that amount of life does not fit into my Jetta, particularly when I'm driving kids and their friends around.

The reality is we need large vehicles, we just need them with a high degree of fuel efficiency. My Ford F250 Diesel gets about 17-18 mpg and I burn Biodiesel. There's no reason this vehicle could not be reengineered with a more efficient engine, such as a the TDI's.

Oh, I still am not willing to discount the safety issue. I spend a good bit of time in rural areas and have seen accidents on two-lane highways. For safety's sake, the bigger the better. Just close your eyes and think about this match-up: Excursion vs. Prius. SO, like I said, there's still a place for large vehicles, we just need Detroit to put fuel efficiency into the equation!

If you want safety and need to carry a lot of people while getting decent fuel economy, a minivan or station wagon is your answer.

As for the SUV safety myth, I'd recommend that you read "High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the SUV" by Bradsher. Road fatalities and injuries have actually stopped declining since SUVs have become popular (after years of things getting better; lets just say that these huge things roll over, have long braking distances, are not nimble enough to avoid accidents, that their weight is a disadvantage when you hit a fixed object, that they cut visibility to those behind, blind those in front, that when they get old and are in bad mechanical shape (failing brakes, etc) and get cheap enough so that young drivers can afford them, we'll be in trouble, etc, ...)

Agree with MGR; -if- I did get an SUV, it would be smaller than most, like a Jeep Liberty, smaller Series Defender, or a RAV4. ...I think I will be waiting a while.

One problem with even small SUVs is that, almost by definition, they are not very aerodynamic. The faster you go, the more that has an impact on fuel economy...

the only reason I might want ot go -fast- in an SUV is if a lion/rhino/whatever is chasing me in the African bush (or similar situation) otherwise granny-slow is good by me.

Have a look at this picture:

Here.

By "fast" I meant speed-limit highway speeds and up.

When it comes to the ownership of an SUV, several arguments can be made either way, but MGR brought up an irrefutable point which everyone needs to know.

SUVs are most definitely not safe. A simple perusal of the internet via news, government and transportation safety sites will quickly prove that.

Also, Scott - the picture you painted of an "Excursion vs. Prius" is extremely misleading. As we all are aware, accidents can happen numerous different ways. Not everything is a head-on collision.

As for the potential use of SUVs and their unique "qualities", instead of asking yourself if you would put it to good use and make the most of its off-roading or large size, ask yourself if the majority of those who own one do. Even living in Oregon, where hills, mud and rugged lands are abound, for some reason 90% of the SUVs I see on the road when I commute only have one person in them.

The Prius is not an unsafe car by any stretch of the imagination; 5 star crash ratings, can be had with side airbags, electronic stability control, etc.

Another problem of SUVs that I forgot to mention is that you are a lot more likely to back up into someone (especially kids) or something.

Great points all.

I understand the safety issues presented, however I think the data would bear out that the SUV accident issues noted would fall squarely on the shoulders of the mid-range models such as the Explorer. In any event, the most frequent accident in my area is car/deer; in these cases, the height/weight advantage are clear!

To reiterate, however, the main point I was making is that an Excursion-sized vehicle need not be an Excursion as currently engineered. For starters, it simply need not weigh so much. This is a profit issue, not an engineering one.

More important, consider that the engines put into an Excursion PRESUME towing. Most people that own these vehicles don't tow (unlike most F250 owners I know who do). If you were to take the towing capacity -- boat, camper, machinery, etc. -- out of the spec's for the vehicle, you'd already have minivan like gas mileage. Incidently, you could also change gear ratios, a key design variable that can increase fuel economy even further.

Can't remember who made the comment re: speed, but when all is said and done, that's the critical design flaw in the current Excursion: no aerodynamics.

The reality is, in my truck (which has pretty much the same front end) I can increase fuel economy by 3-4MPG by driving 55mph rather than 70mph. I could also add 1-2MPG or so if I used a tourneau/bed cover when not hauling things. In that case, my Truck -- a Diesel in burn B20 -- would get 23-24 MPG, the same as a Dodge Grand Caravan.

Scott, about your " SUVS are more safe thing " :

You do not have the right to make yourself feel safer by driving a car with 2.4 tonne of engine aimed directly at another driver's head.

BTW, found the data on large SUVs. Fatalities in single-vehicle accidents involving large SUVs, due largely to the roll-over issue. Fatalities are lower in large SUVs in multi-vehicle accidents, largely because the other vehicles involved are lower and weigh less.

A great multi-vehicle fatality issue is the fact that large SUVs and super duty pick-ups have bumpers above the frame bracing of most passenger cars. Another design issue perhaps worth debate.

When all is said and done, the greatest impact on driving safety is driver behavior. SUVs can be operated safely; unforunately, they are more subject to abuse by drivers that treat them like Porsches.

"Fatalities in single-vehicle accidents involving large SUVs, due largely to the roll-over issue. Fatalities are lower in large SUVs in multi-vehicle accidents, largely because the other vehicles involved are lower and weigh less."

What I would be curious to know is how many of these accidents would have been avoided if no SUVs were involved (cf. my comments about SUVs having longer braking distances because of weight, being less nimble, blinding, cutting vision, etc, and add to that the false sense of security that height and 4 wheel drive gives..).

I was disgusted to read the comment about "Excursion vs. Prius".

I feel bad when I read or hear comments about how people want a large vehicle to survive a collision crash. Instead of being concerned with the people involved (in all vehicles), the person cares more about themselves than those in the other vehicle.

If it's utility for hauling family, I agree with MGR that one should consider a minivan or station wagon.

Some people use oversized SUV's for a reason. I for one use my large V8 SUV to haul horses and saddles. I can't do that with a hybrid.

-Tyre

"Aren't the gallons upon gallons of highly potent battery acid far more enviromentally damaging; than a lifetime of driving in my high powered sports car?" -me

"Some people use oversized SUV's for a reason. I for one use my large V8 SUV to haul horses and saddles. I can't do that with a hybrid."

You are in a small minority, and we weren't talking about you but the 99.5% of other big SUV owners who are suburbanite commuters who will never go off-road or tow anything. They are in fact driving alone in their vehicle most of the time.

"Aren't the gallons upon gallons of highly potent battery acid far more enviromentally damaging; than a lifetime of driving in my high powered sports car?"

No they aren't, far from it. Batteries from hybrids are recyclable. They are NOT lead-acid batteries. They keep tons of oil from being burnt and smog-forming emissions from going into the air. They are one of the very rare car components that is actually beneficial, and if I were you I'd be more concerned about the batteries from non-hybrid cars, or about moonroofs, or whatever, before being concerned about hybrid car batteries.

Please Joseph, don't assume I'm naive.

Did I ever say that changing things was easy? But it is possible to change them. If you don't believe that, it is you who's naive.

It's not about making everybody care deeply, or removing laziness from society. It's about getting simple policies that make sense, like airbags and seatbelts and catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline, etc.

Right now the US government is pretty much the worse it ever was on the environment, but a lot of goods things are being done elsewhere, and the neocons won't be in power forever. Thinking that it's impossible to change things is self-fulfilling.

mgr,
I believe you posted that in the wrong thread.

Some people use oversized SUV's for a reason. I for one use my large V8 SUV to haul horses and saddles. I can't do that with a hybrid.



-Tyre



"Aren't the gallons upon gallons of highly potent battery acid far more enviromentally damaging; than a lifetime of driving in my high powered sports car?" -me



We do have large hybrids now. The Highlander will tow 3500lbs., and the Silverado will tow 7700lbs.



And I think you're overestimating the amount of battery acid present in a hybrid. The Prius' battery pack weighs about 120lbs. Even if we assume that the *entire* battery consists of nothing but acid (no metal electrodes, etc...) that's only about 17 gallons. A realistic estimate is probably less than half of that, after we remove the weight of the casing, wires, and electrodes.



Throw in the fact that the battery is fully recycled by Toyota-- including the acid, case, wires, electrodes, etc... and that they'll pay you $200 to do it-- I don't think very much of the acid is going to end up "in the wild". With the exception of the few cars totalled so badly that a battery pack located in the center of the car is crushed, the batteries will all be stripped, rebuilt, and put into new hybrids.

I really don't understand why ordinary people think they need a SUV. A regular car is bad enough. Personally I am car-free and very happy with it. I have my two feet, I have a bike, and I have a monthly bus/subway pass. I also made the decision not to live in the suburbs. If I ever decide I need a car on an occasional basis, I will join a car-sharing program.

Patrick

You do not have the right to make yourself feel safer by driving a car with 2.4 tonne of engine aimed directly at another driver's head.

This is not the way to convince people to give up their SUV's. Ranting that some one "does not have the right" to purchase an item sold the world over is only a good way to make yourself, and the idea you are attempting to forward, look as if you are an extremist. I have brought more people to my side of an idea through thoughtful arguments and some give and take.

One down, and about fifty to go!

Now we have to get rid of Dodge extended cab 4wd pickups with V-10's and bigh Hemis, and so as not to leave out the imports, all V-12 BMW's, Mercedes, Maybachs, and maybe VW Phaetons as well. Perhaps we could pay a bounty to anyone delivering any of the above to the nearest car crusher?

yazheirx,

Your right, that did come off to harsh, however...

I think you honestly don't have the right to, no matter what the government says is legal. If you are 27 times more likely to kill the occupants of a normal car, I think it's simply wrong.

We can all be concerned with the environment without getting too caught up in the politics of things. The reality is Ford's decision is an economic one; that decision was fueled by the thousands of individual economic decisions of consumers who vote with their pocketbooks.

These vehicles are not selling any more because of the cost of gas. Plain and simple. It is now far more likely that people will make the decision to buy such a vehicle only when their full functionality is needed. The market functions apply and that's the way it should be.

For those that decide it's safer in a large vehicle than a small one, well they pay for it. As to the mis-fitting of various vehicles on the road, I think it's meritorious to consider a safety regulation that mandates equivolent bumper heights. As to equivolent weights, I'm not quite sure how to accomplish this while still making a range of cars affordable, but perhaps someone aught to investigate such a policy.

Until that time, I hope that Detroit catches the curve and starts to build high-functioning power plants for their vehicles, whatever size.

As to the battery discussion, since it was raised: the issue for me, again, goes back to economics. I bought my VW TDI because the total cost of ownership was **a lot** lower than a Prius. For starters, the Jetta TDI cost $22K, while the Prius, similarly equipped, cost $33K. For that price difference, I could buy a whole lotta carbon offset certificates or even install a solar system on my roof!

Beyond the initial cost, you have to consider resale. The TDI, a proven efficient vehicle, will hold more than a third of its value even after 150,000 miles. The market for the Prius is too new to tell, but from what I've read, the useful half-life of the car's battery system could be as little as five years -- for an average driver, that's about 75,000 miles. The replacement cost of the full system, according to the dealer I visited, is about $10K! That's 13 cents a mile in system degradation.

Currently, the Prius battery systems are under warranty for 10 years, but this does not cover relative performance, only that it "works". As such, to maintain the type of performance in the Prius over time, you might have to replace the battery system after five years at your own expense.

Even if the batteries hold, the relatively little bit you save on fuel over the life of the vehicle (43mpg vs. 60mpg), does not off-set the thousands of dollars of added cost of the vehicle combined with more rapid depreciation. In addition, it does not open new alternative fuel markets that less dependence on mineral-based petroleum from foreign markets.

Don't get me wrong: I love the Prius and am glad it's taking over American roads. However, it's certainly far from perfect, still out of economic reach for most Americans and is generally ill-suited for rural environments. Like the Europeans, in addition to hybrids, we should continue to make strides in Diesel technology and the creation of a valid, competitive bio-diesel market in the US.

"The market for the Prius is too new to tell, but from what I've read, the useful half-life of the car's battery system could be as little as five years -- for an average driver, that's about 75,000 miles. The replacement cost of the full system, according to the dealer I visited, is about $10K! That's 13 cents a mile in system degradation."

From what you've read? Could you tell me about your sources, please, because the information I found all around (and I've written about on Treehugger - it's easy to find) is vastly different.

The Prius' battery should last the life of the vehicle easily (that's for Honda, Toyota and Ford hybrid batteries), which is 15-20 years. The Prius has been around in Japan since 1997 and it is not "new" anymore. A few Prius taxi drivers have put around 300,000 kilometers on their cars (one of them in Vancouver) without any problems or apparent degradation of the battery. etc.

So I'm curious about your sources.

I will have to do some digging for additional data, but for starters the "life of vehicle" is considered 160,000 miles by the DOE and DOT. This is the extent of testing that's been done on these vehicles and this also matches the warranty provisions for these cars. I don't doubt your data about Taxi drivers, nor do I challenge your general knowledge on the subject. I'm far from an expert. What I do know is that consumers are not likely to stand in line to purchase a 10 year old Prius!

User forums suggest that Honda has had much greater battery system issues than Toyota. I looked into buying an Insight a while ago and read post after post about battery system issues. This is anecdotal, but definitely steered me away from Honda Hybrids a few years ago.

As to the Prius, the Gen I Prius was not as good as Gen II (makes sense). Testing of the Gen I showed that "end-of-life" fuel economy while using systems such as AC degraded from 69MPG new to 40mpg at 160,000. I don't know if the results for the Gen II are any better, but the same data shows that, on average, the Prius loses about .2MPG per quarter in fuel efficiency. Not alot, but still a downward trend of about 1mpg/year.

This data does not suggest these vehicles are bad in any way. My point was about consumer economics, and my belief is that manufacturers' warranties are doing a lot to get people to buy these cars. It will be interesting to see how the resale on these vehicles holds over time. (BTW, given the improvement in the Gen II over Gen I, it's very likely that depreciation will be even faster because people will know that.)

I am for these vehicles and am a fan! I am just for a choice of alternatives. What would really be cool is a biodiesel/electric hybrid, but I'm not sure that diesel would allow for the engine to constantly shut off and on...

Thanks for nuancing your post, Scott. I don't have time to answer to everything right now, but I can shed some light on this:

"User forums suggest that Honda has had much greater battery system issues than Toyota. I looked into buying an Insight a while ago and read post after post about battery system issues. This is anecdotal, but definitely steered me away from Honda Hybrids a few years ago."

The reason is because the Insight was sold as a manual, and that way you could drive it so that batteries were almost completely drained; very bad for longetivity. This can't happen with the Prius, batteries are almost at least half charged.

"while the Prius, similarly equipped, cost $33K"

33 thousand US dollars? In the US?

Where exactly does it cost $33K for a Prius?

I just checked out the price from the dealer I visted and the model in question was $27,000, not $33,000. However, there's been a lot of gaming and price gouging at dealers despite the sticker price. See this post for an example:

http://priuschat.com/forums/archive/o_t/t_8586/great-experience-in-northern-va.html

This shopper specifically cites dealers marketing their Prius' to the $33K mark!

"I just checked out the price from the dealer I visted and the model in question was $27,000, not $33,000. However, there's been a lot of gaming and price gouging at dealers despite the sticker price. See this post for an example:

http://priuschat.com/forums/archive/o_t/t_8586/great-experience-in-northern-va.html

This shopper specifically cites dealers marketing their Prius' to the $33K mark!"

Scott, I think you can understand why people are skeptical of your argument if you're confounding what some loon may be asking for a vehicle and what it actually sells for. When you're disucssing the economic trade-offs between options, a $6,000 overstatement (and I would even contest that, since a loaded Prius is $25K and a base one is closer to $20-21K) will completely skew the comparison.

Also, you might want to do some research about something like this:
"from what I've read, the useful half-life of the car's battery system could be as little as five years -- for an average driver, that's about 75,000 miles. The replacement cost of the full system, according to the dealer I visited, is about $10K! That's 13 cents a mile in system degradation."

OK, so you've read that. Where did you read that? Do you have proof of even one single instance of a hybrid system failing that quickly? And even if it did, if you had done your research, you would know that hybrid-related components are covered for 8 years or 100,000 miles (and the batteries possibly even more than that), so a failure at 75,000 miles would cost exactly zero dollars and zero cents for the Prius owner.
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/prius/faq.html

With respect to the VW, they have had some MAJOR quality problems - especially the past few years. So it's a bit disingenuous to play the "what if" game with the Prius (which is made by a company with the best quality in the industry), yet conveniently ignore the flaws with your preferred option.

That said, Edmunds puts the Prius at 47 cents a mile and the Jetta TDI at 45 cents a mile, and that's assuming heavier depreciation numbers than the used market is showing the past couple of years. Note also they indicate the Civic Hybrid to be 4 cents cheaper per mile than the Jetta.

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/volkswagen/jetta/100544987/cto.html?step=2&%3CE:track%20comp='cto'%20lCode='2'%20/%3E#compare

Keep in mind, too, that if you're going to make fair comparisons, you should compare the automatic Jetta with the Prius, since the Prius doesn't have a manual transmission option. According to the EPA, the automatic Jetta TDI averages 38 mpg, not 43. And higher fuel economy (like the Prius) should also command a certain "risk premium" that's there to protect people in case gas prices keep escalating.

Lastly, there's the issue of emissions, and this isn't even a contest at this point - with the Prius getting 8 and 9 ratings (BIN 3 and SULEV II), while the Jetta TDI is only getting a 1 (BIN 10).

The bottom line is that the economic equation is a wash, so it's going to come down to what people prefer. And from the looks of Prius sales, it's pretty clear which one is most preferred.

Lets not forget that a Prius keeps its value very well in the first years. Many people are selling their 2001 Prius for almost what they paid them for (and most of them buy a 2004+ model with the money, from what I could read on forums). Few cars keep their value that well.

I guess that's a problem if you want to buy a used Prius, though.

I enjoy getting into arguments when there are none to be had. A few points:

When I went to purchase my car (August 2005), the Prius on the lot had a substantial "dealer charge" applied to it. The other option was to get on their "waiting list". These charges are real, albeit not standard across the country. In Virginia and other Southeastern states, these premiums were common when the gas crunch hit.

This problem was exacerbated by the $2,000 tax deduction, which dealers knew people were factoring into price, as well as the state law that made Prius the only SOV that could be used in HOV lanes during commuting hours.

You can dispute the facts, but please refrain from calling me a liar.

As to cost of ownership, I know a 10 year old Jetta TDI will retain about 1/3 of its resale value. I cannot make the same assumption for a Prius -- no one can as they have not been out that long.

Sorry about the 10/150K year vs. 8 year/100K. The higher number applies if you are in a "Green State", which you apparently are not. I recalled the higher number from my dealer discussions.

In any event, your correction makes the economics WORSE, not better! And again, please reserve the liar insinuation for someone that's not honestly attempting to advance the discussion of the issues.

Your post also discusses "failure" and I am not. I am discussing degradation: this is a different issue. Failure in the context of warranty would be GOOD, as it would be covered. Degradation of performance, however, is not. Toyota does not guarantee its fuel efficiency, just that the car will start and get you where you need to go.

If the efficiency of the batteries declines, that is not a warranty issue. It is simply wear and tear. You can read the DOE HEV (High Efficiency Vehicle) study data yourself: the Prius Gen II loses about .8MPG per year in efficiency, and according to their data has a life-time (which they call 160,000) average MPG rating of 45.6.

Again, for the record, I am not suggesting these numbers are BAD. They just are!

It's also worth noting here that the Prius is a particularly Urban vehicle suited to high stop-and-go traffic environments. The vehicle gains a good measure of its high average ratings because the gas engine shuts off when the vehicle stops, as well as uses the electric motor to accelerate. In a straight rolling highway comparison, the batteries, etc. are not the big deal. Rather, the vehicle gains its efficiency at speed from low weight and great areodynamics: elements of good vehicle design I noted in earlier posts.

Thank you for contributing the Edmonds data. The TCO tool is pretty cool. That said, it really doesn't apply to my argument. The Edmonds TCO does its projections assuming a "five-year" period of ownership. Second, it makes estimates based on like models unless there is compelling live resale data to draw from. In the first case, the Prius batteries are still under warranty; in the second, the Prius curve mimics that of the Honda Civic and the Jetta. I don't believe this curve is economically realistic because these vehicles are simply not the same.

To summarize, my points are simply this:

(1) Hybrids are a new technology product and therefore have uncertainties. We do not know what the future will bring for these vehicles in terms of useful life like we do with other, more established platforms.

(2) Batteries degrade. There's not a battery on the planet that can run at peak efficiency ad infinitum. The current batttery platforms are designed to run for the "useful life" of the car. The DOE currently defines "end-of-life" for hybrid vehicles as 160,000. (This is not to say they can't run to 1M miles, there's just no data that I've seen. If you have, please post it for the rest to see.)

(3) Resale is a function of demand. Prius II is better than Prius I. Prius I has displayed battery degradation; Prius II is better. How many people into the Prius are interested in buying a Prius I? More important, how many people are going to be interested in buying a Prius I out of warranty"?

As an aside, current replacement cost (if you didn't have the warranty) for the battery system would run north of $7,000 for parts. Then there's labor. Now, as volumes increase, prices may drop, so perhaps this replacement cost fades. However, we just don't know.

Assuming resale holds and consumers in 5 or 10 years are willing to assume the risks of owning a complex electric hybrid warranty-free, perhaps my bet was wrong. Like computers and other consumer electronics devices, it's my belief these vehicles will depreciate to near zero after 10 years if and until they have a battery replacement.

Oh, and regarding emmissions issues. The fundamental issue with Diesel emmissions in the US is sulphur. Because it is still primarily a commerical fuel (trucks and farm equipment), cutting sulphur is considered an economic issue that affects businesses. While it's slow going, the move is underway to reduce sulphur to ultra-low sulphur grade (ULSD) in the US by 2009 to keep Diesel equipment in compliance with increasingly strict EPA standards.
In fact, of the five major concerns in emissions -- carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides -- diesel generally emits less small amounts of the first three. The reason for the low BIN you quoted falls squarely on sulphur because it isprone to creating particulates.

One solution, of course, is to burn biodiesel, which I happen to do, but don't need any applause. It's available in my rural area and I'm happy to support the fringe benefit of reducing demand on foreign oil. According to Biodiesel.org, B100 (pure biodiesel) has the following characteristics vs. conventional petrol-based diesel:

Total Unburned Hydrocarbons -67%
Carbon Monoxide -48%
Particulate Matter -47%
Sulfates -100%

So, again, I'm pleased the current Ford Ex is going off-sale. :)

"You can read the DOE HEV (High Efficiency Vehicle) study data yourself: the Prius Gen II loses about .8MPG per year in efficiency"

You've just made me curious about how they reached that .8MPG figure, and what is the yearly efficiency loss of other non-hybrid vehicles. Is that info available?

Hi MGR,

The Data comes from a 2005 academic paper by Karner and Francfort entitled: "US Department of Energy Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery and Fuel Economy Testing". You can download it at:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/hev/karner.pdf

The conclusion of the paper:

"Fuel economy for HEVs operating in 'real world' conditions is less than that predicted by the US Environmental Protection Agency in their fuel economy rating for new vehicles [7]. Combining the Baseline Performance fuel economy testing results with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing results (Figure 6) shows that the AVTA’s fuel economy test results are very similar to the EPA results when fuel economy testing is conducted with the air conditioning off. However, with air conditioning on during conduct of the test, fuel economy decreases significantly.This decrease is also seen in Accelerated Reliability Testing fuel economy results.

Although HEV fuel economy is initially less than that reported by the EPA, the fuel economy remains stable over the vehicle life as shown in Table 2. To maintain fuel economy stable over the life of an HEV, either battery performance must remain stable or any decrease in performance must be less than the performance margin designed into the hybrid energy system. Additional testing will be conducted, including battery capacity and power to determine the degree, if any, of battery degradation in vehicles completing Accelerated Reliability Testing. However, it is clear from data collected to date, that battery performance is sufficient to provide stable vehicle fuel economy over a 160,000 mile HEV life."

Before anyone jumps on the quote about "stable" fuel economy, the paper has a slide graphing a data set. That data set, if regressed to a linear trend, shows that all of the vehicles tested actually have a modest downward sloping trend-line as time progresses. The line for the Prius II happens to decline at .19 MPG per quarter (with a r-sq fit of about 60% for those statisticians out there). Hence my comment that declines, on average, appear to be about .8MPG per year (.2X4). The decline coefficient for the Insight is significantly more prominent.

Also, note the conclusion that further testing is required over time to understand the true effects, if any, of battery degradation in these systems.

Thanks all for the lively debate and healthy skepticism. I've learned much here!

Thanks for the precision Scott, but I'm still curious to know what is the loss of efficiency of non-hybrid cars. After all, all mechanical things wear out.

One thing that I know (and that doesn't seem to be very publicized) is that many things in the full-hybrid design (ie. Prius) actually REDUCE wear.

A few examples: Less wear on the brakes because regenerative breaking with the electric motors does most of the work and these brushless motors are design to outlast the vehicle. Very little transmission wear because of the CVT planetary gearset. Less starter and engine wear because the Prius has a strong starter that creates optimum oil pressure BEFORE starting the engine, and it starts it at much higher RPM than a "weak" regular starter. Less engine wear because the engine is less often on than in a normal car, and because when it's on it tends to stay at a fixed RPM and not rev all the time. Etc..

As for the batteries, I'm under the impression that even if they lose some of their capacity with time, it won't have much effect since a full-hybrid never gets even close to emptying the batteries (it rarely goes under half, apparently.. And even when you see half on the Prius' battery gauge, you are not really at half because the gauge doesn't show the whole capacity).

I can't comment on the relative decline in fuel efficiency for other types of engines, so I won't suggest that the results for hybrids are better or worse. What I do know is that diesel engines operate for lots more miles than do gasoline engines without declines in horsepower or torque.

The generally accepted (i.e., anecdotal) data I've heard is that a diesel engine at 200K is the equivolent of a gas engine at 80K in terms of life. It's not uncommon for diesel pick-ups, for example, to sell for thousands more at high mileage for this reason.

If you see something more specific, please post...

I didn't call you a liar, Scott. Nowhere did I say that. I said you need to clarify the facts that form the basis for your conclusions. If you were intentionally misrepresenting facts that you know, then that would be lying, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by simply clarifying holes in your assumptions and argument. That's not calling you a liar - it's called setting things straight. So I'm sorry if you think I called you a liar, because I didn't, nor did I intend to.

That said, you simply reiterated your arguments and didn't really address the fact about real quality problems with VW. And since the whole basis of your discussion is revolving around the supposed superior benefits of a Jetta Diesel, it's not really workable to ignore the risks with buying into that platform and simply using some very rough rule of thumb about depreciation, ignoring all other possible risks.

If one were to take your argument at face value, it would never make sense to ever buy anything, since we can never predict what's going to happen in the future to a specific object. I think you should give people more credit for taking reasonable risks by investing in hybrids, given the fact that the manufacturers have an incredible record of producing quality vehicle across their product line and for a long period of time - consistently.

Resale values are going to change as people get more information about reliability and other options that emerge for hybrid vehicles. There is no way anyone can predict with certainty which way that will move things, so it's basically just speculation on your part. Some people think Toyota and Honda have their reputations at stake, so they're betting they've done their homework with their products, as they have a long track record of doing. You may not be willing to take that specific risk, but that doesn't mean your specific risk outlook is applicable to others.

Look at it this way - what is the risk of buying a hybrid today? The resale values are strong as gas remains expensive and demand for the vehicles is incredibly strong. So, where's the risk? If as an owner I sensed the market turning, then I would just sell my vehicle - as with any asset. It's just odd that you're putting 8 year or more timeframes onto objects which tend not to be held that long by the average American household - particularly the demographic (ie, educated, well-off) that's buying things like hybrids.

As for the emissions thing, using biodiesel as an example is like using hydrogen or ethanol as an example. There simply isn't widespread availability of the fuel, so unless someone doesn't take their car out of a small area close to where they refuel, then they're going to be putting regular diesel in the engine and it's going to be more polluting than gasoline going through a Prius.

You can't just dismiss greater sulfur, NOx, and PM output, since all of those can be very harful to respiratory health (especially with children and the aged).

Nor did you answer about the fact that an automatic Jetta TDI gets 38 mpg compared to the 55 mpg of the Prius. That's going to mean a $400 annual fuel savings for the Prius at $3/gallon and a $500 savings at $4/gallon.

Plus, as you made mention of, certain hybrids like the Prius are going to get favorable HOV lane treatment in certain diamond lanes because of its low emissions, so you would definitely need to factor in the economic benefit of that (which, in the case of NoVa, is probably overwhelmingly substantial in terms of opportunity cost of time, as well as stress effects etc, for the average commuter availing themselves of that benefit). And that benefit will persist (at least in terms of Fed limits) until 9/2009.

raygundan: thank you for the info on the hybrid batteries. I keep hearing about massive cleanup issues, extra acid on the roads in wrecks, un repairable damage, etc. I always thought that it was most likely completly overblown but still.

As for the large hybrids... I only drive japanese cars so the chevy is out, and the hylander is about 3000lbs short of being able to tow what my Sequoia tows.

The reason why sales have gone down by 24% is most likely due to the fact that more and more americans are starting to realize that Ford is a crap company. Within that time Ford's stock has also been downgraded to junk status. That may have a little more to do with the slump in sales.

Joseph,

Thanks for your comments and healthy skepticism. I get frustrated with the moral superiority often demonstrated by hybrid owners and supporters in their arguments and am often "attacked" when expressing a wider point of view. Perhaps I vented a bit of my frustration on you.

The fact is, the hybrid is a transitional technology that still has a long way to go in its development and deployment. The Honda Insight is a far cry from the Gen II Prius; the Gen III Prius will be better than current vehicles. I am not predicting, but it is my humble view that the depreciation on the current iteration of these vehicles will be far greater than existing platforms in the short term. I hope I'm wrong, however if I'm not, then at least current buyers can feel good about subsidizing the development of a great new practical technology.

As to the Jetta, in particular. The reliability issues with VW (as measured by JD Powers) is troubling. No question. Clearly, Toyota and most Japanese manufacturers for that matter, have better track records. Lesser reliability plays into TCO; perhaps I'll get caught downstream.

As to the fuel economy of the TDI vs. Prius, it's not as stark as you portray. My vehicle currently -- including an unfortunate dose of stop and go commuter traffic -- sits at 41MPG over the life of the vehicle. The car, just on highway, averages about 50MPG. If I took longer trips, my fuel economy in MPG would be higher.

As the DOT study shows, the Gen II Prius under what they call "real world" use, averages 45.2. 41 to 45 is not a wide gap -- about 10%. Add to the math that Diesel, at least in my area along the highway, is averaging about $.20 less than gas (.30+ below premium) -- or roughly 6% cheaper, the fuel savings with a Prius are negligible.

As to the automatic vs. manual: touche. The Automatic gets less fuel economy becuase the driver has less control over the use of RPMs, etc. On the other hand, the Prius owner can significantly increase fuel economy by not ever running AC. If fuel economy is the utimate goal, not convenience, then the manual is an option for a TDI purchaser that is not available in the Prius. (Manuals, according to an earlier post, pose significant problems for hybrids. If not, perhaps this would be an option for even greater fuel economy.)

The NOX issue is Diesel's achilles heal, no doubt. Particulates are a fuel production issue; NOX is a combustion difference issue. The addition of NOX scrubbers could add to a vehicle's cost and/or reduce the useful life before major repair. Traditionally, the relative economy of diesel engines vs. gas off-set the elevated NoX. With electic assist, hybrids are seeing similar, if not better, efficiencies. This has changed the math. As with anything, there are trade-offs.

(This, by the way, is why I think diesel hybrids are probably the best of both worlds; producing one, however, has been problematic.)

Finally, the HOV benefit is proving short-lived. In our area, this will be the last year in which that advantage exists. The legislature says the law has done its job: promoting sales. Now, however, the HOV lanes are more crowded as any other lane. So, long term, the pervasiveness of these vehicles remove their commute time reduction benefits.

Look, to reiterate: I'm a big hybrid fan and I'm glad people are purchasing them. They are efficient, do good things for air quality, and advance the use of new technologies. These are all great qualities. That said, I think we may face a cliff over the next several years as these products age beyond what warranties are masking. The future of hybrids will depend on the growth of the technology and the willingness of consumers to spend more, on average, to own these vehicles in exchange for other benefits.

As an aside, I am personally very interested in biodiesel (as you can tell) because math suggests that, ultimately, it can provide the only true carbon-neutral transportantion fueling solution short of solar. In fact, some academics suggest that it might be a net positive as the growth of fuel supplies such as soybeans provide a wealth of air cleaning and nutritional benefits that become part of the positive lifecycle of this fuel source.

To move solely in the direction of hybrid technology at the expense of other options at this point, I don't think is in the best interests of anyone.

I have been a FireFighter Paramedic for over 12 years. And let me tell you one thing.....the bigger SUV always wins. The mini-vans fold up on impact. I have seen too many people die in them. These little cars you talk about...you will die in them when that drunk or careless driver hits you.

I agree you must have Detroit build more TDI tech vehicals...but until then...my family drives a Ford Excursion. For the extra money it costs to fill it up....it is worth it to know my two kids have a chance....I know to many moms and dads that cannot say that. Heck if I could afford one, I would buy a APC for the road! You people have no idea what real life is all about....

Steve,

It is because of people with your attitude that there is an arms' race on the road. Everybody only thinks of themselves and doesn't even consider that they are putting the lives of OTHERS at risk by drive a huge dangerous vehicle. As a paramedic, you should know better.

to scott

"Just close your eyes and think about this match-up: Excursion vs. Prius."

yes and what about the father of three behind the wheel of the prius. i suppose he should go out and buy himself a big fuckoff truck, as a survival tactic in the battle of the SUVs. then perhaps all those concerned could write eachother off and get this shithole looking a little cleaner.

sorry but SUVs anger me.

Just thought I'd put in my two cents (in sentence fragments).

I was ecstatic when I read this. I sure hope that this shows America is wising up. Unfortunately it's because its hurting their wallets not their earth.

I feel a little hypocritical though. My parents (no laughs, I'm a minor, so I basically have to live with my parents) drive a Ford E-350 (15 passenger van, which I lovingly refer to as the white whale. I have a large familyand we often give people rides, so hopefully that makes it more acceptable. Either way, it is pretty much praked in the driveway.

This leads into my question which hopefully someone will be able to answer. I was thinking, there is an enormous surface area on the roof of this behemoth. What if one were to retrofit it with solar panels? What kind of gas mileage would it get in a hybrid set up?

Even better, what if one were to stack two more soalr panels under the top one, which could be pulled out on a track system creating two "awnings" on either side of the van creating a camper-typesetup,thus tripling the photovoltaic square footage? How much energy could be generated then. Could it be used as a mobile generator?

If anyone could answer these questions for me, I would be very grateful. Is it even a plausible/ good idea?

Also, everything exerts a gravitational pull. Anything that has mass, i.e. all matter, warps the 3 dimensioanl fabric of spacetime, thus creating its own gravitational field. Though the excursion exerts a stronger gravitational pull than say, the prius, or my bike, or me, they all have gravitational fields. Thought you might like to know.

SW,

That last paragraph made me smile. Of course I know that all matter has a gravitational field, I was just trying to write poetically, no do physics.

As for your solar panel question, I'd point you there:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/solar-powered_t.php

But solar panels would be the most complicated way to get better mileage. Easiest way is to get a smaller vehicle, or at least a big one that runs of diesel and run it on biodiesel.

Finally I get to educate you guys on this subject. Suv mileage---I had a small suv Jeep grand cherokee 4x4 4.0L 6 cyl that weighed approx 4000 lbs This truck averaged 18.6 mpg It would only hold My family of four comfortly. We would go out with friends and family and 2 cars had to be taken. Plus we could not tow anything over 2000lbs. Ford DIESEL 4X4 EXCURSION nearly 8000 lbs hauls 8 people with comfort. Now we take 1 car to go out, tows 10,000 lbs average 17.9 MPG,20 mpg highway, we need 4x4 we live in the country. Small cars and small SUV's aren't the ticket for everyone. but now I have one less option. You can't see the forrest because of the allthe trees

We have 7 kids, 2 in car seats. If we want to all go some where, with anything other than the clothes on our backs, we take the Excursion, Pound for pound in gross weight, we actually save a little when she is fully loaded pulling a boat trailer etc. I have done all that I can to increase milage and "save the world" but I'm also not going to stand clear and let everyone else take it. I have a 60 MPG motorcycle when I'm alone and a 28 mpg car when its just 2-5 of us. Leave us SUV'ers alone!

The people here who feel the need to personally defend themselves should understand that the problem that I & many have with SUVs is not with people who use them for what they were designed for. It is for the 99.5% of others who buy them for superficial reasons and drive alone in them, never towing anything, never going offroad, never carrying much.

The problem with these people is that most of them seem to think that they fall in the 0.5% of people who *need* a big truck and will rationalize 33 ways why they "need" it.

I am not wealthy.
I live paycheck to paycheck.
I drive an excursion.
I do not appologize for driving it.
I do not whine about gas prices.
How I use it, or don't use it for that matter is my concern and no one else's.
The moment you think differently, think about your favorite product. A car, computer, food, coffee whatever. What will you do when they come for that? Will you stand? Or will you curl in the corner like a sniveling dog?
It is retorical, not because I know what you will do but because I don't care. Your side is slowly fading away into that back waters of a sad history. The future belongs to those who built wonderful machines like the excursion and the people who buy them.
In time this will come back. Hell its been mothballed before.

I own a 2003 Ford Excursion Diesel and want to make sure that you know more about what you speak of!

This vehicle in Diesel form gets 16-18 miles a gallon in the city and 22-24 on the highway. That is beter then 90% of the smaller (because all are smaller) SUV's on the road.

I bought mine for the diesel and mainly the safety that the huge vehicle offers my family. Our roads are more dangerous then ever and If I am going to have an SUV (they all get worse mileage) I am going to have the one that takes a semi to kill my family on vacation!

I'm sorry that people that drive the little,fuel efficent cars feel these trucks shouldn't be on the road, because they are so dangerous to the small cars in accidents.I drive transport for a living and I get to see alot of these little cars driving around like they are in a race,they don't use signals,they almost touch bumpers as they cross infront of you,they tailgate,and it don't matter what the weather.And I'm not trying to say it's just them, but for the majority it is!.I do feel better in my crewcab GMC p/u for my family,and in the north we need 4wheel drive.Thanks for letting me vent a little anger when people say these suv's are to big.We all need to learn a little respect!.Thank you.

This is America, a free country where you can choose to (legally) pursue happiness. I'm also not one to judge. If you need the room for your kids, stuff or your ass, the towing capacity, offroad capability, bragging rights, or if you're nothing but a little bitch or a punk-ass who always feels like someone is out to get them in life or on the road, and are nothing among your neighbors without one, then by all means buy it if it satisfies you! But, there are consequences for driving anything!



I am an engineer and my wife is a scientist. We can afford a lot of car, but we're not greedy. We choose not to drive a true SUV for a few good reasons that don't have anything to do with cost. The biggest reason is handling. With the exception of some of those costly Jap/Euro sporty SUV's, their handling stinks on a good day. Which leads to accident avoidance. As much as people talk big all day long, nearly everyone will try to avoid an accident if they can. It's like a reflex. We just don't like sloppy steering, nor chancing a 1-car accident.



My wife drives a crossover SUV/wagon. I personally drive a full size car with 4 star crash rating and 5 star rollover. My car has as much room behind the front seats as a midsize SUV, gets 20/27 mpg, can almost hang with the smaller cars in terms of handling, and is the same width and 12 inches longer than a Tahoe, but is more aero-shaped therefore it masks its bulk. It has enough space and safety for me!



To all those saying SUV's should be banned, I'll bring up this. You've probably read stories about my type of car, striking big SUV's on a tire and sending them into a 55-mph sideways tumble into the ditch, crushing the roof and killing kids & adults alike. So should we ban big cars now because they are so dangerous? Where does it end? Should we all just go back to walking? Like I said there are consequences for everything!

Actually, Rob Wheeles, when you try to avoid an accident on the open road, and your vehicle rolls over on its top and puts your family's heads into their tailbones on the median, you can write back here from the afterlife and tell everyone that you were wrong, and that a small car was actually responsible for the death of your family (and Excursion).

Seen one rolled over on the highway, rooftop crushed to the area below the bottom of the doors' windows. Single-vehicle accident. Not a pretty picture. I used to work at a photo lab that did photos of accidents for investigators. I saw plenty of SUV and truck rollover pix, with plenty of blood, too.

I own a 2000 Ford Excursion and I understand the concern in a vehicle crash but reguarding the comment that if you haul a lot of people get a mini van. Well thats what I had previous to my Excursion. I have 4 children and they are all 6 feet tall. We are a Italian Family. My husband is 6'5 and 300 pounds. (Not Fat Just Big) My children were miserable in my mini van. There knees would hit the seat in front of them and if they wanted to bring friends. Forget it, they would not fit. Plus the trunk in these mini vans are not big enough for a vacation trip with a family of 6. I love my excursion and would never buy anything else. I am a very safe driver and luckly never been in a automobile accident. I understand that everyone is intitled to there opinions but I highly would recomened these vehicles to any BIG family like mine.

One of the reasons that my husband and I chose to have only two kids was that having more would mean having to drive a - gasp - minivan. Or worse.

I remember family vacations in a Honda Civic (the OLD ones, built in the 70's)with 2 adults, 2 kids, one dog (very grumpy), tent, sleeping bags, cooler, etc. My father would get up hours before the rest of the family on the day we left so he could work on fitting everything into the car. Maybe we should all attempt to do a little work, rather than opting for the easy out.

And birth control is a wonderful thing!

Who here believes "Amy"?

Wow your advocating population restriction? I think it very narrow minded that you would limit your family size due to car choice.

Thats unfortunate that you and your husband only have two children. And I am sorry that finacially you can not afford any more, but children are a beautiful gift from God and if you are as well off as my husband and I well then you can afford the bigger families. So rather than dumping our money down the drain with stuff that we want we just decided to have a big family to provide lots of love and support through life. So yes birth control is a wonderful thing. And sorry about your dad. If he would have bought a Excursion, it probabily would have saved him a lot of time. Time that he could have spent with you.
Oh were adopting 1-more!
P.S. Love my Excursion

I understand the need to protect both our resources and our environment... I'm not any happier about gas prices or breathing problems than anyone else here. I, too, would like to see old ideas come off the shelves and new ideas brought forward, to find ways to make our vehicles more efficient in these areas. If you want to 'bash' the car companies for not pursuing more solutions, go for it, after all, you are lashing out at a corporation... no one person will feel drilled into the ground for your need to do so. But please keep in mind that there ARE people in this world who DO NEED these larger vehicles for different reasons. Not all of us jump into a nine-passenger Excursion by ourselves and toodle off to the mall everyday. I, for one, do not own an Excursion, or a Suburban... but, up until a couple of months ago, I did own a Ford Club Wagon (15-passenger van). OMG... gasp, throw tomatoes, whatever. If I told you that I have six children, some of you would say 'get a mini-van or a station wagon'. Well, news flash... when baby #6 was born, there were no mini-vans or station wagons that would carry a family of 8 (I could be wrong, but I think that is still true.) In addition to the seating issue, a family of 8, with one income, can't afford to take big vacations that involve hotels/motels every night, and/or plane tickets for 8 and a rental vehicle that will hold everybody for a week or two. So we own a travel trailer and most nights we park at Wal-Mart. We've had some fabulous, once-in-a-lifetime, unforgettable vacations. But guess what? You need a large vehicle to pull a travel trailer.

BTW... the reason we no longer have the van? We were in a horrible accident on July 6th of this year. Thanks to our van, we all walked away unharmed. Had we been in a minivan, I seriously doubt I could make that claim. I value the lives of my children more than the money I have to spend on gasoline in order to protect them.

We are now in the market for a Suburban or an Excursion because, in addition to the two issues I already mentioned, we now live in a place where we drive winding, snowy roads in the winter time and we really do need 4wd in order to stay safe (we had a couple of close calls in the old van.) It is our search for a 4x4 Excursion with a diesel engine that brought me to this page. I hope that, with my story, you can understand better that there is a place for the larger vehicles and that people like myself should not be treated badly for owning/driving one. What was really sad to learn is that people's personal vehicles (not the big bad company) were targeted by people such as yourselves, vandalized, out of such strong feelings towards these 'behemoths'. If my husband and I make the decision to spend his hard-earned money on one of these vehicles only to have some hyped-up idiot come along and destroy it, I will be very angry. How would you feel?

What if the Excursion got over 20 mpg powered by a Cummins 12 valve 5.9 diesel? What if it ran on free recycled vegetable oil, having virtually no dependance on foreign oil? What if it kept American farmer's in business while producing more crops and improving air quality at the same time?

What if it also had water/methanol injection to negate the NOx so that its emmissions were cleaner than any current hybrid?

What if it could still tow more than any other SUV at maximum payload while getting better fuel economy than a Hemi at the same time? Have people forgotten the percentage of recylced materials the Excursion is made of, or how much of it is recyclable? As far as being a green vehicle, have we compared the problems of disposing the hazardous hybrid batteries?

An Excursion can be kept on the road for a long, long time. It is an excellent work vehicle on our farm. It hauls people, gear, tools, parts, and our trailer full of animals. Ford could have done better, giving it the newer coil suspension. It is a safe vehicle, but no manufacturer can make a safe driver. Mine was unstoppable in Boston's last two blizzards when other cars were stuck all over the roads.

This is one of the best vehicles ever built. It is wasted on soccer mom's who never see worse than wet pavement or never hook up to a trailer. The Excursion is one of best and most purpose built SUVs ever made. Even compared to my '52 Dodge Power Wagon M-37.

This gargantuan machine is a highly capable and adaptable vehicle. Run on WVO it can be one of the least expensive vehicles to maintain. With a few mods, the Ford Excursion can be one of the safest, most useful, and greenest vehicles on the road.

Just got an '03 Excursion to replace my recently deceased '95 Suburban. Brought baby #6 home from the hospital two weeks prior. We were borrowing my folks Honda Odyssey for the last month, but it couldn't hold the whole family. We could have gone with another Suburban, the Excursion, or a full sized van. None of them are fuel mileage champions, but consider this: it would take two smaller vehicles to carry us all, which would cut our actual mileage in half... for example, in two Accords, getting about 28 mpg each, we would only get 14 mpg for both operated concurrently. So for "person - miles" per gallon, the big SUV isn't such a bad proposition. (An extreme example would be busses... bad mileage and polution if you were only carrying two people, but hailed by enviro types because of the economy of scale)

I couldn't afford to get the diesel engine, although with that option the mileage gets better. The new fuel regs make diesels burn cleaner than ever, and bio diesel is one of the smartest real-world ideas I've heard for using existing resources instead of relying on imported oil.

I'm glad so many people care about our world and taking care of what we have been given. Still, larger vehicles do have their place. I don't understand how some people live in 3500 sq ft homes when their family has only 3 or 4 members... think of the trees, think of the fuel burned to dig the foundation, to quarry the stone for the driveway, the slab, the fancy tile floors. That's wasteful, too. And yet, I sure would like a 3500 sq ft home for my family of 8, although we make do with a home half that size right now.

Lastly, I read several comments about how great battery cars are, how the batteries are recycled, and so forth. But those batteries don't come with a permanent charge. Every time you plug one into the wall, you are getting that energy from a power plant that is consuming fuel, and the efficiency of transmitting that power across tens or hundreds of miles to your home means you're not saving much (if any) fuel... you just don't actually see the fuel being burned. Hydrogen fuel cells are another great idea, but again, Hydrogen must be Produced, bottled, trucked to a station... things that consume energy. It is great that many of humanity's brightest engineering minds are trying to squeeze every drop of useful energy out of the resources we have, but remember: There really is no such thing as a free lunch.

When you consider the amount of large SUVs Ford is selling compared to all the hybrids that there are out there it does seem a little strange that these gas guzzling vehicles are doing better. And let's face it people, who makes station wagons anymore that are "reasonably priced." BMW? Mercedes? OKAY, I will give Mazda credit for making the 6 Sports Wagon but still, it's a small car. Most vehicles are LEV, ULEV, or PZEV rated so it's doing that for the enviorment. And Ford's new vehicles are coming with 6 speed automatics which greatly improve fuel economy. Plus, they run on E85.

I truely do not see the problem with driving a large vehicle if you can afford to . I feel no pain as I drive my 2003 Ford Excursion Limited with a V-10 Triton engine and a 44 gallon tank while averging 10 mpg. I have never been one to like cars and simply feel safer in my 19 foot gas guzzler. When we first bought it for my family of 6 aminivan was never considered an opition for more then one reason. 1) I live on a steep hill and a front wheel drive van simply wasnt going to cut it during the New England winters. 2) A minvan wasnt big enough if my family of 6 and their friends all needed to go out at the same time. 3) Gas milage really doesnt matter all that much. Its simply a side effect of me being happy in my large SUV

John,

If you actually use your vehicle for what it is intended, that's fine. Nobody is against pickup trucks used to do pickup-truck-things and large SUVs used to do large-SUV-things.

The problem is that these vehicles are best-sellers while the vast majority of people have no use for them and usually drive them alone, in the suburbs, with maybe a bag or two of groceries on the passenger seat.

You should be worried about fuel efficiency for many reasons (environmental, geo-political, the future for your children), but if you do NEED a large vehicle, then that's the keyword. You need it. Nobody's blaming you.

You people are missing the point. It is true that these large vehicles are inefficient and way more than many people need so in a way they are deserving of their sterotype. However, here are actually people that have 8 kids and live in a snow prone area and need a vehicle this size. Also, you are ignoring that many of the excursions were powered by a 7.3 litre diesel engine burning comparatively enenvironmentally friendly diesel fuel and not gasoline. Lets face it, people don't buy those stupid hybrid cars because they want them. They buy them because they think other people want them to have them. The truth is everyone in this country should drive a pickup truck because pound for pound a pickup maximally loaded (including trailer) is generally between 5 and 7 times as efficient per unit of mass as even the most efficient hybrid subcompact car. 1/2 ton truck + trailler = 14000 lbs at roughly 15 mpg. At 3000 lbs, a hybrid car achieving 50 mpg would at that fuel efficiency to weight ratio get 10.7 mpg if its total mass were 14000 lbs. The numbers don't lie. Pickups are more efficient per unit of weight. Period. End of story.

I went to price club guys and for 35,000 they have one package for a four two car. Using NASA lithium ion technology they made it run a hundred miles and it only takes 5 hours to charge. I remember watching a film about workhorse ford pick ups that people leased and were forced to give them back by ford. WHY can they not use that same technology for SUVS? Every government Vehicle could use except for secret service where they need mission critical components.

I drive an excursion. I was driving a Tahoe previously and decided I wanted to do something for the environment. My 7.3 L diesel gets 18-22mpg city and is a more environmentally friendly fuel. I also bought it to keep my family safe. I was APPALLED at the above poster who made reference to another posters family dying as a result of their excursion. I think those of us that buy a large SUV for our families safety are also more likely to be the safer drivers. We also want to protect our families from such things as teenage drivers, and drunk drivers. Maybe you should work on raising the driving limit and try to bring back prohibition before you attack large SUV's. Because more than likely us large SUV drivers are more likely to survive a run in with those above things. If you think large SUV drivers are a threat, wake up and realize where the real threats are. I do NOT apologize for choosing the vehicle I did. If it upsets others..tough. In reality I do not owe anyone an explanation. I am merely pointing out that you are no more right than I, you are simply more close minded.

i have/had a jeep wrangler and a ford excursion.the jeep had a 6 cylinder and the excursion had a diesel -- compare them side by side and i cna tell you the xcursion gets as good if not better gas milage than the jeep.we have 4 kids ages 14,12 and twin 3 year old boys , try loading them and their friends up in a mini-van etc. or go on a family outing!with a gas engine yes the excursion was a bad idea but with the diesel it actually makes alot of sense for families like ours .. comparing taking 2 cars instaed of just one!!then when you look at where they are made compared to the priius -- you can be green and support america jobs!!! family farms are being sold to make subdivisions why not boycott that ? i have a 50 acre farm and am starting out by doing organic farm products but try to start from scratch finding out the information needed. alot of people don't understand that even though it is an electrric car a power plant is puffing out somke to make the power to charge the batteries.!!! there are better ways and ford and gm will be comming out with them in the future after they are proven -- i know ford has a truck in dc. doing deliveries and it gets 60 miles per gallon !!! go look up ford hydraulic engine on google -- just because it is big doesn't mean it isn't useful and green -- peace, cowboy mike

I think it is funny that people say how horrible SUV's are I'd like to see someone get around where I live in the winter without a good sized vehicle. We just traded my wife's 02 Neon for an 04 excursion, I know this thing will get around anytime we need it, snow, ice, whatever. We used to just park her car anytime there was snow, now I am comfortable with her driving any time of year, any weather. And I can live with the gas mileage knowing that my wife and kids are safe.

I'm glad Ford is making the Excursion again, it is a great reliable vehicle that is worth every penny.

Reading some of these posts makes me believe that some of you never paid any attention in physics class. The wealth ignorance in this message board is astounding.

When vehicle crash tests are performed, they are performed against a barrier of known mass and energy absorption capacity. These vehicles are then rated accordingly.
Vehicles are NOT rated against each other, and therefore using crash tests to compare how vehicles will fair against each other is ludicrous.

In the example 'Prius vs Excursion', there is simply NO angle at which the Prius can strike the Excursion in a crash, and expect to protect the passengers better than the Excursion. First, there is the mass issue. That should be obvious. Then, there is passenger placement in both of these vehicles. In this case the Prius holds its passengers at the same level of the impact, whereas the occupants of the Excursion will be seated well above the impact.

It's becoming more and more difficult for me to believe that intelligent people unintentionally ignore the laws of physics so they can promote their views. As a group, we should be able to analyze these purported 'facts' that are thrown at us on a daily basis, and see them for what they really are.

I was talking to a friend of mine who drives a mini-van just the other day about gas milage and discovered my steriotyped bohemoth excursion gas guzzler gets better gas milage then his dopey stupid looking, not as safe in an accident van. I can get 23mpg running 75mph down the hwy. That is better then any truck, most suv's, mini-trucks, and a lot of regular cars. My family will not fit in a prius nor would I fit in the drivers seat. Next time you see an excursion, instead of hating them because they think they are better or using up all mother earth's resources...maybe just try to keep your mind in a happy place... They may have a lot of kids, haul a big boat, or have a retrofitted fuel heater that allows it to get 32mpg.... you don't know ... so stop the hate.

After reading all this I find it funny that some consider a minivan the solution to a larger family. I currently drive a minivan, but with the third baby on the way, we are in the market for an Excursion. There is no way I will feel safe with a child in rear seat of a minivan. Seems to me people are pushing their agendas without thinking that others have different needs - or likes. I think others simply feel unsafe and awkward in a midget car. No Prius for me. No thanks!