[aphextim]

If you live in an area which regularly needs 4 wheel drive (snowstorms) and you have kids that need to go to school or go to various actives, having a suburban makes sense. Think of a mini-van that can handle the elements.

In this article I totally agree, that a Hummer, or type of vehicle that simply fulfills one's ego is a little silly and inherently selfish.

However trying to say that all big SUV's are inherently selfish without looking at the reasons someone who has a family may purchase one is quite disingenuous.

[pwinnski]

I grew up with station wagons.

Nothing about snow or children mandate vehicle height.

[aphextim]

Live down a country road where the county/city doesn't plow and your kid is still expected to make it to the "main road" to get on the bus.

I do agree that the situation where you need this type of vehicle is quite niche and for the majority of people it's about status and not functionality.

[tsherr]

Once again, still don't need it. I grew up eight miles from the nearest paved road. I drove a Suzuki forsa in the winter.

If the roads are too dangerous for a car, stay home.

[silon42]

I have a small AWD crossover. Prefer it because it's shorter than a station wagon, for easier parking. Only raised an inch compared to a normal car (like a VW Golf). It can also pull a small trailer which is a weakness of most small EVs and even hybrids.

[dsfyu404ed]

Your modern crossover is the Corolla Wagon of 2020. In fact it probably has less interior space than a Corlla wagon of 1990. Something like a Ford Explorer is nothing like the Ford Explorer of 1990. If you look at who buys them and how they use them you'll probably find a lot in common with the Ford County Squire and Buick Roadmaster (the big wagons of their day).

The author is attacking a straw-man. The SUV craze seems to have mostly run its course. The boring practical cars that normal people buy in huge numbers seem to have morphed into SUV dimensions but I think that's a result of modern safety requiring you to get a much bigger vehicle in order to have a similar seating position in the vehicle as cars of old, not some selfish desire to drive a land yacht.

[mschaef]

> I think that's a result of modern safety requiring you to get a much bigger vehicle in order to have a similar seating position in the vehicle as cars of old, not some selfish desire to drive a land yacht.

Agreed. Nobody [1] goes into a car dealership looking for transportation that explicitly puts other people at risk and burns a lot of fuel. A lot more of it is about trying to exert control and project status. An SUV can feel stronger, more solid, and more capable and look more outwardly prosperous. Those are feelings that, at least in my experience, tend to be sought out, and this is particularly true in an economic and political climate where it's very easy to feel very much at risk.

1] There are exceptions... the whole 'Roll Coal' thing comes immediately to mind, as do some of the decorations often found on large trucks and the like. A lowered F-450 with spikes on the lugnuts and modified to blow black smoke at a Prius... that's intended to convey threat. (Which, now that I think about it is another way to misguidedly try to seek a degree of control.)

[erkken]

I would say 99% of SUV owners do not need an SUV.

[obelos]

The practical issue is there isn't a good way to determine who “needs” these vehicles and who doesn't. If we as a society want to curtail excessive use of these life-averse machines, there has to be some hurdle to separate out those who “need” from those who merely “want” one. Restrict private ownership and urban operation of them without a CDL or a contractor's license, for example. People who need to use them for that one trip per year to haul new furniture from Ikea can still rent them as needed.

[aphextim]

>Restrict private ownership and urban operation of them without a CDL or a contractor's license, for example. People who need to use them for that one trip per year to haul new furniture from Ikea can still rent them as needed.

That is a great idea, in cities there shouldn't be a need to have these types of vehicles.

I remember when I visited Germany back in 2005, it was strange not seeing a single truck anywhere! If you went to the country you would see trucks on farms and for people to personally use on their property.

In the 21 days I was there we drove around from city to city in a rental car, and I think other than freight vehicles, I saw probably 4 truck type vehicles.

Probably also due to the fact that Gasoline was the same price per liter as it was per gallon in the USA.

[DubiousPusher]

I have a mid-size AWD crossover. It handles snow, ice and excessive rain far better than my old 4WD utility pickup that shares a drive train and chassis with most GM SUV behemoths.

[magic5227]

Somehow the Europeans manage to bike families around town, including in snow, without a suburban just fine (as do I). https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3427493/Crown-Pri...

[riter]

Have you driven around Idaho, Nebraska or Montana?

[antisthenes]

Those states contain 1.4% of the US population.

It does nothing to explain the rising SUV/Truck trend of anywhere where it snows once every 5 years.

[magic5227]

And all the places without snow, like California.

[timw4mail]

Tires are more important for snow than 4-wheel-drive.

[qidydl]

It's scary this comment appears to be getting downvoted. Having more than two driven wheels does not change the contact patch on the road, does not add braking capacity, and does not grant additional steering. Being able to steer and stop is usually more important for safety than being able to accelerate, and even then, if you don't have the friction you'll just end up spinning all four wheels instead of just two. Tires are the most critical part of a car.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Having more than two driven wheels does not change the contact patch on the road

It literally doubles the contact patch over which you can apply forward forces. This is important when doing something like ascending a hill that has any sort of curve on it.

Not to say that more traction per wheel isn't more better but to just pass off AWD as being of negligible improvement is pure lunacy.

[dsfyu404ed]

The snow tires vs AWD situation is more nuanced. I own three of the same old car. The FWD one is the one with snow tires and it still sucks compared to the AWD ones. The reason I put snow tires on it is so that it can hill climb better on my street. Snow tires are highly overrated for commuting conditions. Maybe they would be more worthwhile if they didn't salt the roads in my sate.

For the typical slush you get when a few inched of snow meets road salt then AWD wins every damn time. Traction is not dominated by the coefficient of friction but by your tires ability to shed the "thick water" they're driving through. A snow tire is not going to be better enough at this than an all season tire (alright, maybe a little since the tread is a tiny bit more aggressive leaving more room for slush) to make up for the fact that the front tires have to do all the going and all the steering. You will be breaking traction left and right every time you touch the gas. Two tires simply do not have the traction to keep you moving at traffic speed and keep you pointed where you want when they are saturated with slush.

I would almost go so far as to say that snow tires and FWD is more dangerous in "slushmageddon and rolling traffic jamb behind the plow" type commuting conditions (e.g. Boston this morning) than AWD and all seasons simple because you will likely need to drive closer to the limit of traction on your front tires in order to maintain the same forward speed.

I have no doubt that snow tires stop and turn great on a sheet of ice but that is not what real world snow driving conditions are like. Obviously AWD and snow tires would be the best combo but forced to choose one I'll choose AWD every time.

[timw4mail]

Do they not plow the road where you drive? Just put salt on top of it?

Tread depth is also an important factor, which is basically a freebie with snow tires, as they usually have more tread depth to start with than an all-season tire.

Regardless of drive system, if you feel you are at the limit of your traction keeping up with traffic, you are going too fast.

[tsherr]

You don't need four wheel drive for snowstorms. Trust me, I've lived in Canada for 45 years and we've never had a four wheel drive. And I've driven (safely) in a lot of snowstorms.

[dsfyu404ed]

Subaru spent the 1990s selling station wagons to people with those needs. You don't "need" a suburban to take the kids to school or soccer.

That said, I don't think people's purchasing and lifestyle decisions should be driven strictly by need. That's basically what poverty is.