The USA is using less gasoline. Guess how much less.

[mike]

According to KansasCity.com:

"Gas consumption so far this year is down about 0.2 percent compared to last year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The federal agency is predicting that gasoline demand will be down 0.4 percent this summer and 0.3 percent for the year."

[cudak888]

0.2 percent? :lol:

Fancy way to make .002 (not the percentage, of course) appear larger to those who can't do their arithmetic. Gives one an idea of how little this actually is.

-Kurt

[twahl]

Well, considering that 2007 gasoline consumption was 3,390,977 thousand gallons, that means that if they reach the projected .03% for the year, it would be about 1017 thousand gallons less. Simple way of saying it for people that can do math.

[noisebeam]

How many motor vehicles compared to last year?

[bac]

In other words - NO less gasoline.

/what a shocker, eh?

[bizzz111]

well, considering the rise in population year to year, ANY reduction would be an accomplishment, in my opinion.

[Torrilin]

In other words - NO less gasoline.

/what a shocker, eh?

Since in a given month, gas usage typically goes up 1% from a year previous... it's bigger than it sounds. IIRC we're on something like month 3 of small decreases from the previous year's usage. Do that for a year, and it adds up.

[StrangeWill]

well, considering the rise in population year to year, ANY reduction would be an accomplishment, in my opinion.

My thoughts exactly. Demand is going up, but so is either efficiency or conservation is going up faster.

[powerhouse]

If the Bush Administration looks at that level of reduction as good news, I say it's nothing but a farce.

[bac]

well, considering the rise in population year to year, ANY reduction would be an accomplishment, in my opinion.

Good point!

... Brad

[Allister]

It's a start.

[slvoid]

Hopefully people will stop buying those ridiculously large 8000 lb suv's that get 15mpg and/or get cars with better mileage.

[Bekologist]

unfortunately, the USA has kept CAFE gas mileage standards in the 1970's and grouping SUVs into the 'light truck' exempt from CAFE car standards didn't help anything.

I read recently that China has higher fuel efficiency standards than the USA.

any reduction in US gas use is a good one - however, if it's caused by economic neccessitythat's not an indicator of any 'greening' of the american public but a marker of financial hardship facing the general public.

[mar1nka]

Hopefully people will stop buying those ridiculously large 8000 lb suv's that get 15mpg and/or get cars with better mileage.

I hear lots of complaining about it. I've been stuck driving my husband's truck to work, and every day, the greenie in me cried. Glad I got the bike! :P

Although I have to say, I'm so tired of people whining about how they can't get any trade-in value for their behemoths. Being a stay-at-home mom, I was literally the only one not driving an SUV or a Van -- and lots of these people only had 1 or 2 kids! (It is hard to find a car that fits today's ginormous car seats, though.)

[slvoid]

unfortunately, the USA has kept CAFE gas mileage standards in the 1970's and grouping SUVs into the 'light truck' exempt from CAFE car standards didn't help anything.

I read recently that China has higher fuel efficiency standards than the USA.

any reduction in US gas use is a good one - however, if it's caused by economic neccessitythat's not an indicator of any 'greening' of the american public but a marker of financial hardship facing the general public.

I think it's all the up bringing. I know a few people who used to live in china, russia, india, and were piss dirt poor. They're all filthy rich now and they're not squandering resources like mad. They mostly drive toyota's and honda's, albeit really well equiped ones, that get great gas mileage and still turn off the lights when leave a room.

Difference is, they were poor, they knew what it was like, and they knew not to waste anything, and it stuck with them.

[mandovoodoo]

Will take a while for the larger vehicles and motor vehicle dependent aspects of life to shift radically. I expect we'll continue to see gradual declines, which really add up. SUVs will get retired early, smaller cars will enter the market. Systems to de-emphasize cars will gradually build momentum. There's some good work in those areas, but it will take time. Perhaps time we don't have. Little changes add up. People living close to work. Choosing 4 cylinder vehicles. Driving less. We've been doing that for years. With a bigger family, we have a bigger vehicle we're planning to kill. It should die completely about the time my daughter goes to college. That might be the way we'll see things go. Incremental. Which is OK.

[derath]

I read recently that China has higher fuel efficiency standards than the USA.

That may be true. I haven't read it (but haven't looked for it either). But at the same time those gas efficient vehicles pollute worse than ours. Kinda crappy tradeoff.

And I don't understand the people who laugh. This is good news. Keep in mind the population, and gas usage have been rising steadily for what, the last 80+ years? You don't turn that around overnight.


-D

[kendall]

I have to say that while I don't like the way that everyone and their brothers seem to want an SUV, I've driven them for the last 18 or 20 years. Simply because nothing else offers the function I need. On nearly any given day I have up to $8000 worth of tools in my explorer. A truck with topper is less secure, a van is too large, and mini vans just don't seem to hold up. So there are people who use SUVs because nothing else is functional.

What I get a kick out of is that anytime you see gridlocked traffic, it's rare to see more than one person in each car, if they were to just double up, you'd halve the number of cars on the road.

And even today, carpooling and ridesharing when seen in advertisements, is portrayed as a very distastefull experience. They generally show a 'normal' guy/girl stuck in the car with a bunch of irritating and obnoxious slobs, since advertising has a hefty impact on people's opinions, it's kind of hard to go against it when pushing ride shares and public transportation.

Also, SUVs are most often based on truck chassis, so no real surprise that they are classed as small trucks. Many states though do class them as passenger vehicles.

Typically my decisions to drive or ride the bicycle are based on distance, whether I have to transport something, or weather. If the weathers nice I have no trouble riding the bike 40 miles to see a friend, but in nasty weather I'll take the truck or borrow the wifes car. I have a trailer for the bike so I can haul some things, but it's not good for everything.

Ken.

[Bekologist]

SUVs were lobbyied by carmakers to be included in the truck category, so these wouldn't skew a manufacturers' CAFE standards, ken. There was quite the controversy when this was enacted 10-15 years ago.

[MNBiker]

What could make the OP's statistic much more meaningful for me would be to see figures of gas consumption for something like the last 5 years. This would show the percentage increase per year in various years and how the trajectory might be changing.

[twahl]

What could make the OP's statistic much more meaningful for me would be to see figures of gas consumption for something like the last 5 years. This would show the percentage increase per year in various years and how the trajectory might be changing.

Ask and you shall receive: Linky (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfupus2a.htm)

note that numbers are in thousands, thus 2007 consumption listed at 9,290 is that many thousand, or 9,290,000 barrels.

Unfortunately I find in pointing that out that I misread a number somewhere in my drug induced state. I can't even figure out where the numbe I used above came from, so let me offer my apologies and a correction. 2007 consumption was in fact 9,290,000 barrels. If we go the projected .3% for the year, that would be 27,870 fewer barrels of gasoline, or 9,262,130 barrels. This still represents an increase of 9,130 gallons over the previous year, as compared to an increase of 37,000 barrels between 2006 and 2007.

edit: a barrel is defined by this source as 42 gallons.

Take a look at the chart. You can see the reduction in 1974, then a big drop in 1980. Last year's increase of 37k barrels was the smallest increase in at least a decade.

I am total agreement with those that believe our reliance on and use of petroleum products must decrease, but I see hope in a slowing of the increase.

[John E]

What disgusts me most is that, as a society, we were warned in 1973, and again in 1979. We have seen this coming for 35 years! When I bought my first car, a one-year-old 1976 Ford Pinto Squire station wagon, I got the "MPG" model with the 2.3L 4-cylinder engine instead of the V-6. Car buyers of the late 1970s cared about fuel efficiency, and the auto makers marketed their wares accordingly. Every one of the four new cars I have bought has had a 4-cylinder engine. I have always strongly favored sporty small-to-midsize wagons over gas-thirsty, unstable SUVs and minivans, but we now have very few options in the U.S. I have also arranged my lifestyle to minimize the amount of driving I need to do. My wife and I try to keep our cars 15 to 20 years, and usually succeed.

My advice is to buy a car large enough to be reasonably safe but small enough to be fuel efficient, look for opportunities to rideshare, combine trips, ride a bike, walk, ride transit, avoid trips, etc., and invest your savings in energy stocks, my long-term favorite of which has been Apache (APA).

[dobber]

What could make the OP's statistic much more meaningful for me would be to see figures of gas consumption for something like the last 5 years. This would show the percentage increase per year in various years and how the trajectory might be changing.

Very good point. Since demand growth has typically averaged 1-2% over the past several decades, the fact that it has flattened out is meaningful.

[Bekologist]

there were several car models available in the 1980's that got close to or exceeding 50MPG..... what happened to those cars? Hondas and a couple of other manufacturers.

Try to find a car that gets that good of gas mileage in ANY manufacturers' fleet nowadays.

Americans have been sold a flawed set of goods for a flawed transportation paradigm for all the wrong reasons. Pernicious pandering by automakers to base desires of 'safety' and machismo helped create this gluttony. Instead of shortages or environmentalism, gas use is down because of inflation and hard times in america.

It's an indicator of economic hardship in my opinion. If the shortsighted bulk of americans realized the folly of large cars, personal mobility, ethanol economy and false freedoms of the no longer open road, gasoline use would really decline. Maybe wait until america is totally paralyzed by a spiral of higher gas and food prices?

It's still just griping at the pump. Food, gas, or medicine is a dilemma facing many americans today.

Bush just visited the Saudis to implore they boost production. they said, "NO, sell us arms, little man." Did anyone catch hillary blaming the oil companies for disruption in supply and demand? What a sorry state america has fallen into.

[Feldman]

I think it's all the up bringing. I know a few people who used to live in china, russia, india, and were piss dirt poor. They're all filthy rich now and they're not squandering resources like mad. They mostly drive toyota's and honda's, albeit really well equiped ones, that get great gas mileage and still turn off the lights when leave a room.

Difference is, they were poor, they knew what it was like, and they knew not to waste anything, and it stuck with them.
Same as some of us Yanks who are old enough to have had Depression-era parents--before she passed, my mom was a little proud of my switching-off habits!

[genec]

there were several car models available in the 1980's that got close to or exceeding 50MPG..... what happened to those cars? Hondas and a couple of other manufacturers.

Try to find a car that gets that good of gas mileage in ANY manufacturers' fleet nowadays.

They all grew! Just like the people!

Remember the first Hondas that had that "scuba mask" gasket on the rear window... you won't find that today... Today Honda has a fleet that been "enlarged" and "blinged" to appeal to apparently "the American consumer" that was brought up in the Reagan age of "conspicuous consumption."

You're right that hardly any of those old high MPG cars made it past their introduction into America... remember the tiny Toyotas and Datsuns... Now they have morphed into Lexus and Nissans. Heck, in the late 70's, even Ford had small cars... What do they have today with the same MPG?

Welcome to the land of large people and big cars.

Some friends from France were visiting just a few weeks ago... the boys were in utter amazement over the huge SUVs and lifted 4X4s around here. A neighbor has a lifted 4X4 that practically takes a ladder to "board." Yup, America, land of large gas guzzlers and the large folks that drive them. :rolleyes:

[mike]

I think we will see more dramatic decreases in gasoline consumption if the price of fuel remains high. It takes awhile for people to make changes. Most people, for example, cannot afford to buy a new lower-mileage car suddenly. They may, however, choose a low-mileage car in the future when they replace their existing gas-hog.

The same goes for bicycling. This is a quick, cheap, and extraordinarily efficient way to reduce gasoline use, but it takes people time to consider, consider, then see other folks doing it, then finally dusting off the old Trek in the garage, pumping up the tires, and riding to work.

[Rex G]

Regarding the increasing size of cars, that is certainly the truth. Look at today's Honda Civic compared to the same maker's CVCC of the 1970's. The Honda Fit does, however, reverse the bigger trend. I nearly bought a Fit last year, when a local dealer had a row of them lined up for sale. I am now kicking myself for not acting then, as Fits are now on waiting lists.

[OH306]

Regarding the increasing size of cars, that is certainly the truth. Look at today's Honda Civic compared to the same maker's CVCC of the 1970's. The Honda Fit does, however, reverse the bigger trend. I nearly bought a Fit last year, when a local dealer had a row of them lined up for sale. I am now kicking myself for not acting then, as Fits are now on waiting lists.

I had a 77 Civic and now drive a 2006 Civic with many in between. While considerably larger than the 77, the 06 has better fuel economy and many more bells and whistles. My daughter drives a Fit. She gets a tad over 33mpg while I get a tad over 32. My bicycle gets better mileage that both.

[slvoid]

Regarding the increasing size of cars, that is certainly the truth. Look at today's Honda Civic compared to the same maker's CVCC of the 1970's. The Honda Fit does, however, reverse the bigger trend. I nearly bought a Fit last year, when a local dealer had a row of them lined up for sale. I am now kicking myself for not acting then, as Fits are now on waiting lists.

I think a lot of car companies are realizing that and introducing new models like that.

Honda Fit.
Toyota Yaris.
Chevy Aveo
Nissan Versa
Mini Cooper
Suzuki SX4

Just to name a few.

[Bekologist]

the honda CVCC of the 1980's got 50 + highway miles to the gallon, current 'fuel efficient' vehicles sold nowadays get around 20mpg less.

[derath]

the honda CVCC of the 1980's got 50 + highway miles to the gallon, current 'fuel efficient' vehicles sold nowadays get around 20mpg less.

Now now Bek, there is no need to exaggerate. While I agree that we don't have anything near 50mpg right now, there are plenty of vehicles that get much better than 20mpg. Even before this gas crunch. My Honda Civic 8-9 years ago got well into the mid 30's

-D

[bac]

the honda CVCC of the 1980's got 50 + highway miles to the gallon, current 'fuel efficient' vehicles sold nowadays get around 20mpg less.

My auto (Toyota Prius) gets over 50mpg OVERALL. To date (since driven off the showroom floor) I've gotten an average of 51.6 mpg, and many of those trips I was carrying gear and bikes on the back! :thumb:


... Brad

[Bekologist]

a prius is a hybrid vehicle, right?


Derath (why dude, do you love my commentary this much?????),

50+ minus 20 equals 30+ MPG.

you are correct, sir!

[derath]

a prius is a hybrid vehicle, right?


Derath (why dude, do you love my commentary this much?????),

50+ minus 20 equals 30+ MPG.

you are correct, sir!


You are absolutely correct sir. I misread the 20mpg less. and just saw 20mpg.

My bad. I will go impose my 20 lashes now.

-D

[StrangeWill]

My auto (Toyota Prius) gets over 50mpg OVERALL. To date (since driven off the showroom floor) I've gotten an average of 51.6 mpg, and many of those trips I was carrying gear and bikes on the back! :thumb:


... Brad

Lots of city driving? That or where you live has a nice slow freeway speed limit.

In CA, expect getting no more than 45 on the freeway, EPA says even less. That and having to throw away the car once the battery's condition starts to decline (err... or pay $8k to have a new battery system installed).

Hybrids while an interesting technology aren't worth it, considering a 15 year old 92hp car will get 45/55mpg. Surely we can do the same with even more hi-tech fuel management.

[Az B]

there were several car models available in the 1980's that got close to or exceeding 50MPG..... what happened to those cars? Hondas and a couple of other manufacturers.

Try to find a car that gets that good of gas mileage in ANY manufacturers' fleet nowadays.



Oh, they exist. Look in almost every other country but America. Some of the models are identical to the American versions, except they have much more efficient drivetrains. They're not offered here unless they have at least a 6 cylinder 250+ horsepower motor because that's what Americans want. Forget the fact that most of us sit in traffic most of the time anyway, why do minivans need 250+ horsepower?

As you mentioned, it's all about marketing and Americans have fallen for it, hook line and sinker. Now we're paying the price.

Two years ago, I was hired as a consultant by one of the big three. When asked my opinion on pickup trucks, I told them they needed a model that got 40+ mpg. I explained that this would set them far above the competition, and put them in a great place in the very near future.

I was asked not to come back after that day. Apparently, they were only interested in how macho they could make the truck appear, and I had nothing for them in that area.

Az

[kendall]

SUVs were lobbyied by carmakers to be included in the truck category, so these wouldn't skew a manufacturers' CAFE standards, ken. There was quite the controversy when this was enacted 10-15 years ago.



You have two basic types of SUVs, truck based, and car based. Truck based SUVs have always been considered trucks from way back with the the willys wagon of the mid 40's. Bronco, suberban, blazer wagoneer, explorer etc, even though their basic purpose is to carry passengers

recently (comparatively) there have been some SUVs based on car chassis. (suburu outback AMC eagle and similar) these are the type I believe you are refering to that were lobbied for inclusion in the truck catagory to preserve CAFE standards. These I have never realy considered trucks, and agree that they should be called cars

Most states though, consider a vehicle a truck if it has a cargo space (other than trunk) seperated from the passenger space as in a pick up truck, and broncos, blazers, vans and simila as wagons (vans are often classed as 'commercial' if they don't have windows)

Ken.

[Az B]

Hybrids while an interesting technology aren't worth it, considering a 15 year old 92hp car will get 45/55mpg. Surely we can do the same with even more hi-tech fuel management.

But that little 92hp car won't have the pickup the hybrid has. That's the whole point of the hybrid system... allow the use of a small, efficient gas motor, but still provide some soul satisfying accelleration away from the red lights. That's exactly what the electric motor is good for... lots of power for a short period of time. And that's the way we drive.

Oh yeah, and marketing. Hybrid technology sounds so modern and hip. Much easier to sell it to Americans. They'll buy anything with an image.

Az

[genec]

My auto (Toyota Prius) gets over 50mpg OVERALL. To date (since driven off the showroom floor) I've gotten an average of 51.6 mpg, and many of those trips I was carrying gear and bikes on the back! :thumb:


... Brad

But can you tow a boat with it?

[StrangeWill]

But that little 92hp car won't have the pickup the hybrid has. That's the whole point of the hybrid system... allow the use of a small, efficient gas motor, but still provide some soul satisfying accelleration away from the red lights. That's exactly what the electric motor is good for... lots of power for a short period of time. And that's the way we drive.

Oh yeah, and marketing. Hybrid technology sounds so modern and hip. Much easier to sell it to Americans. They'll buy anything with an image.

Az
Yeah actually statistically, they have better. Prius with an amazing 10.9sec, and the 92hp with 9.5 seconds (0-60). Prius has an engine HP of 70, and with the electric motor, it's calculated to be more of around 60 to the wheels, considering the engine is also turning a generator, and the electric motor turns a transmission (inefficient). That and the car weighs an assload, it's over 3000lbs mainly due to battery weight. Plus the Prius only comes in automatic, and if you want pick up and go, you go for mechanical efficiency in a manual, that or you're just pretending (10% boost in HP to the ground + lower operational costs FTW!).

Not to mention, thats a 92hp car 15 years ago, you can probably push 112hp and still get near the same efficiency today.

[buzzman]

Regarding the increasing size of cars, that is certainly the truth. Look at today's Honda Civic compared to the same maker's CVCC of the 1970's. The Honda Fit does, however, reverse the bigger trend. I nearly bought a Fit last year, when a local dealer had a row of them lined up for sale. I am now kicking myself for not acting then, as Fits are now on waiting lists.


After a ton of researching and trying to figure out what would be a more economical, utilitarian car to replace our old Toyota Corolla wagon, that managed to get 34 mpg on a good day and close to 30 mpg in the city, we opted for the Honda Fit over the Prius. I have no regrets. We ride bikes to work and use the Fit for longer trips on the highway, where it gets a respectable 40-41 mpg at 65 mph on cruise control. While I have great respect for the Toyota Prius the Fit design is more conducive to my lifestyle and I have some doubts about the ecological impact of the batteries both in manufacture and eventual disposal.

The more difficult issue for those of us in the Northern climes is not reduction of gas usage but heating oil. That's by far the bigger hit on the pocket book and the harder one to cut back on- at least people can drive less but it's hard to live without heat and very expensive to change to some of the more efficient technologies.

[Bekologist]

You have two basic types of SUVs, truck based, and car based. Truck based SUVs have always been considered trucks from way back with the the willys wagon of the mid 40's. Bronco, suberban, blazer wagoneer, explorer etc, even though their basic purpose is to carry passengers

recently (comparatively) there have been some SUVs based on car chassis. (suburu outback AMC eagle and similar) these are the type I believe you are refering to that were lobbied for inclusion in the truck catagory to preserve CAFE standards. These I have never realy considered trucks, and agree that they should be called cars

Most states though, consider a vehicle a truck if it has a cargo space (other than trunk) seperated from the passenger space as in a pick up truck, and broncos, blazers, vans and simila as wagons (vans are often classed as 'commercial' if they don't have windows)

Ken.
Having looked into CAFE standards in a little more detail, the development of SUVs and minivans were in and of themselves an affront to passenger car CAFE standards and governmental oversight. There was no changes in CAFE fuel standards.

the change? car manufacturers just started making minivans and SUVs which are not coonsidered 'passenger cars' regards to fuel economy.

from wikipedia : SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate

The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a Chrysler PT Cruiser is defined as a car for emissions purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes.[7] Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.

CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler's Lee Iacocca developed the idea of the minivan, which would fit into the separate truck category and allow automakers to comply with emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the development of the SUV.



Virtually ALL privately owned vehicles in america are used for transport of passengers.

Claims a private passenger vehicle shouldn't be considered in CAFE fleet standards becasue it is soley larger than other cars is an insult to american oversight on a national economic and security related issue like petroleum use.

States do not set CAFE standards, so what Tennessee thinks about a Toyota Highlander as it is up for liscence tab renewal has absolutely no effect on fleet fuel economy reqirements.

Article in this months National Geographic- short one, as if the conclusions are such they need little explanation - "World Oil Bust? Tapped out- World oil demand is surging as supplies approach their limits."

Petroleum use is a national security, economic and environmental issue. Allowing car manufacturers to exempt growing numbers of vehicles americans drive from passenger car fuel economy standards is unpatriotic IMO and fueled by market forces, not strategic ones like CAFE standards were meant to be.

[gpsblake]

Hopefully people will stop buying those ridiculously large 8000 lb suv's that get 15mpg and/or get cars with better mileage.

What's amazing is how many 2 and 3 TON suv's you see at the beginning of bicycle and walking trails.... :crash:

[cudak888]

And if we keep it up...SUBicycle, anyone?

http://www.travelpod.com/users/chris-marianne/bigchina.1108633680.china_cyclist.jpg

-Kurt

[zoste]

...The more difficult issue for those of us in the Northern climes is not reduction of gas usage but heating oil. That's by far the bigger hit on the pocket book and the harder one to cut back on- at least people can drive less but it's hard to live without heat and very expensive to change to some of the more efficient technologies.

This is causing me to sell the house I grew up in. Seven bedrooms and 4,000 square feet are nice to raise a family of five kids, but I burned 1800 gallons of #2 fuel oil last winter and it was a mild winter here. I can't afford the $10,000 it is likely to cost to heat the place next year and I keep my thermostat at SIXTY. The expenses associated with upgrading windows, insulation and furnace are prohibitive.

I walk to a commuter train to use mass transit, I bike to a shopping center with grocery store/hardware store/drug store and I could bike the five miles to my girlfriend's. I could totally eliminate my use of an automobile very easily, but I can't stop heating my residence.

[OH306]

This is causing me to sell the house I grew up in. Seven bedrooms and 4,000 square feet are nice to raise a family of five kids, but I burned 1800 gallons of #2 fuel oil last winter and it was a mild winter here. I can't afford the $10,000 it is likely to cost to heat the place next year and I keep my thermostat at SIXTY. The expenses associated with upgrading windows, insulation and furnace are prohibitive.

I walk to a commuter train to use mass transit, I bike to a shopping center with grocery store/hardware store/drug store and I could bike the five miles to my girlfriend's. I could totally eliminate my use of an automobile very easily, but I can't stop heating my residence.

GEOTHERMAL?

[zoste]

GEOTHERMAL?

Nah...I'd like to be able to recoup the expense before my great grandchildren are born and turn fifty.

[bac]

Lots of city driving? That or where you live has a nice slow freeway speed limit.

In CA, expect getting no more than 45 on the freeway, EPA says even less. That and having to throw away the car once the battery's condition starts to decline (err... or pay $8k to have a new battery system installed).

Hybrids while an interesting technology aren't worth it, considering a 15 year old 92hp car will get 45/55mpg. Surely we can do the same with even more hi-tech fuel management.

Wow - you just couldn't be more wrong. :lol:

... Brad

[Bikepacker67]

I have to say that while I don't like the way that everyone and their brothers seem to want an SUV, I've driven them for the last 18 or 20 years. Simply because nothing else offers the function I need. On nearly any given day I have up to $8000 worth of tools in my explorer. A truck with topper is less secure, a van is too large, and mini vans just don't seem to hold up. So there are people who use SUVs because nothing else is functional.


OK.
So you need something extremely dependable, with a large, secure cargo area.
Does that also mean you need a V-8 Hemi 4X4 that gets 15mpg?

This is where the disconnect in the "I need my SUV because of kids/tools/extended shopping sprees" comes in. There is NO reason whatsoever that Detroit couldn't put out a vehicle that exceeded CAFE standards, and also hauled your tools, faithfully.