04-21-2005, 05:07 AM
Essay that I had to do. It's auto related...
SO IF YOU'RE REALLY REALLY BORED...
who can spot the most BS!?
These days itÔÇÖs not uncommon to find myself and my little Honda Civic trapped between two hulking SUVs in a parking lot. Driving on 66 in Northern Virginia during rush hour ÔÇô one of the most congested highways in America ÔÇô can also be particularly frightening when watching out for numerous speeding, lane changing SUVs. How did a gas-guzzling, battering ramming, monstrosity of a vehicle become the most popular car on the road? The general public is quite unaware of the various design flaws and scandalous history of the SUV.
The Sport Utility Vehicle came into production to circumvent strict government regulations on the automobile industry and focused mainly on making a fat profit, ignoring all other important aspects such as safety. This ultimately resulted in the production of an unsafe, unrefined, and extremely polluting vehicle. Today, especially as the SUV is rapidly gaining popularity, it's necessary that the government establishes restrictions and regulations on their production for safety and fuel efficiency.
The 1970ÔÇÖs were the years in which the American auto industry ceased to be a ÔÇ£freewheeling collection of industrial giantsÔÇØ that could pretty much build what they wanted. Each year brought another batch of new rules, from safety and fuel-economy regulations to air pollution controls (Bradsher, 23). But by extensive lobbying by unions and automakers, they were able to avoid much stricter regulations, which also exposed loopholes that they took advantage of later.
One of the first instances of dodging regulation on the auto industry was in 1970 involving Jeep (then, American Motors Corporation). The Environmental Protection Agency drafted to enforce the Clean Air Act of 1970 whddich focused on cutting down on auto emissions. The only widely produced SUV of that time was the AMC Jeep, who did not have the engineering know-how to build cleaner engines. The EPA who wanted to avoid being responsible for putting AMC out of business at that time, decided then to create the truck chassis classification (Bradsher, 25). The creation of the truck class is what allowed SUVs to escape stricter regulations to this day.
In 1975 the federal government established the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for new passenger cars at 27.5 mpg and 20.7 mpg for light trucks (including SUVs) which still stands today. However, this standard does not apply to each individual vehicle; rather, it applies to the entire fleet of each manufacturer. Therefore, in order for a manufacturer to comply with the CAFE standard for light trucks, they simply have to make the fuel economy of their entire line of light trucks average at least 20.7 mpg.
Automakers began to really take advantage of this in the 1980ÔÇÖs. High gasoline prices were hurting demand for the biggest and most profitable models and stringent government regulations were requiring them to meet very high fuel economy standards for cars. Hundreds of thousands of workers were being laid off due to plunging market shares because of fierce Japanese competition. In order to cut costs, they started making more vehicles in the truck class which had much more lenient fuel economy and emissions standards. These vehicles didnÔÇÖt have to be equipped with expensive catalytic converters or more efficient motors redesigned.
One area that was especially cost effective was the assembly. Usually, cars go through a period of research and development before production. SUVs however had very little. Early SUVs were almost literally the bodies of passenger cars placed on top of frames of pickup trucks. Many SUVs today still exhibit the same design. For example, the Ford Expedition is essentially the frame of a Ford F-150 pickup truck with an extra set of doors and two more rows of seats. This assembly is called a ÔÇ£body-on-frame structureÔÇØ which greatly differs from a passenger carÔÇÖs lighter, safer, ÔÇ£unit-body-constructionÔÇØ that features built in crumple zones to absorb impact during a crash. The results of building SUVs in this manner were heavy, rigid, and not particularly safe, but most importantly cheap (Gladwell).
For automakers, heavy was good in order to ensure that SUVs were classified as trucks to avoid fuel economy and emissions regulations. Fixing the problematic rigidity and lack of safety issues, however, were low priority because doing so would require an expensive redesign. Being able to produce cars cheaply was the number one priority and the SUV assembly accomplished this well.
Firstly, the SUV was not an entirely new breed of car; it was basically a modified truck. There was very little research and development prior to its production. This also allowed parts from the pickup assembly lines to be reused for SUV production. In fact, SUVs could be churned out on the exact same assembly lines as pickup trucks. In 1996, Ford Motor Company began production of the Expedition at the Michigan Truck Plant, the same plant that builds its F-150 pickup (Gladwell). All of these factors contributed to the cheap production of the SUV, which quickly resulted in the production of the most profitable vehicle in history.
SUVs werenÔÇÖt anticipated to sell as well as they did especially to urban and suburban households. Ford could hardly meet demand for Explorers and Expeditions for nearly a decade (Bradsher). SUV sales account for nearly 60% of the industryÔÇÖs profits and basically revived the struggling Big Three. At first, this surprised even Ford, who was making a tremendous profit from these vehicles. In 1996, the Expedition sold for $36,000; the cost of manufacturing one was $24,000 (Gladwell). Profit margins soar even higher on luxury models such as the Lincoln Navigator (a variation of the Expedition). A profit margin this large is almost unheard of when compared to the profit margin on normal cars: 35% versus 20%. However, Americans are still paying the outrageous premium for these dressed up trucks.
Martin Goldfarb, a marketing consultant for Ford during the 1980ÔÇÖs explains why the sport utility vehicle became so popular: ÔÇ£[SUVs] filled a whole group of very important needs, both physical needs and psychological needs. It transported families in a sporty way that minivans did not do. Sport utility vehicles had this robust, aggressive, rugged design. Those kinds of things which reflected AmericaÔÇÖs personalityÔǪ These vehicles said, ÔÇÿAmerica, weÔÇÖre risk takers, America, weÔÇÖre ruggedÔÇÖÔÇØ Many SUV owners claim that an SUV is necessary to meet the needs of their large families, however automakersÔÇÖ research show that people shopping for an SUV rarely consider minivans which are better vehicles in every category including gas mileage, pollution, and safety. Increasing sales of SUVs and declining sales of minivans directly conveys how successful SUV marketing has become in making consumers more concerned with image and fashion over practicality. The many who also claim that they SUVÔÇÖs feel safer than other cars. Research shows that Americans favor large cars for safety whereas drivers in Europe and Asia feel that smaller, nimbler cars are safer because they can avoid accidents with better turning and braking capabilities. Americans, however, feel that accidents are inevitable and that sheer mass will protect them. The perception that SUVs are safer in crashes has long been an important selling point for them (Bradsher).
The misconception that SUVs are safer than normal cars is one that automakers are willing to go to great heights to protect. Of course, what theyÔÇÖre really protecting is the huge profit margin that comes from SUV sales. One notable example is the Ford Firestone tires scandal.
The allegation against Firestone tires claimed that there were 271 fatalities due to SUV rollover resulting from tire failure on Ford Explorers. Ford, who was slow to execute the recall on their Ford Explorers, was quick to blame Firestone when the two companies were called to Capitol Hill (Gladwell). However, on closer examination of the cases, itÔÇÖs evident that the defective tires may have only been a small factor. Firestone had recalled 14 million of their tires from 1990 to 2000. If there were only 271 fatalities resulting from Firestone tire failure, then who is accountable for the 12,000 other fatalities from Explorer rollovers? Clearly the Ford Explorer had a stability problem and it wasnÔÇÖt too noble that Ford, who had long known about this, didnÔÇÖt act upon it sooner. It was obvious that Ford was trying to avoid the costly recall even if thousands of lives were at risk.
It was quite shocking that even after the scandal was revealed to the public, SUV sales were still booming. Most consumers today are still affected by years of marketing schemes and the misconceptions of the SUV are still very prevalent. The irony is that people are buying SUVs because they think theyÔÇÖre safer vehicles. The reality is, because of the rollover risk, they are rarely safer than passenger cars (Goldfarb). Simple physics reveals that because of SUVsÔÇÖ large mass, high center of gravity, and narrow wheelbase, they tend to tip over very easily. Attempting evasive maneuvers in an SUV, even at low speeds, also easily results in rollover. ItÔÇÖs massive weight and rigid truck suspension isnÔÇÖt designed to accommodate for rapid steering changes when, say, trying to avoid a child running in the street. The SUV simply was not designed to be a passenger car, but because people are driving them like passenger cars ÔÇô i.e. traveling long distances at high speeds ÔÇô there have been an alarming rate of fatalities.
Another alarming fact is that collisions involving SUVs and a smaller vehicle greatly increase the chances of injury or fatality to the occupants of the smaller car, because of the great difference in mass. This is all while the occupants of the SUV are also still at risk for injury, though maybe decreased by a tiny percentage (5%-10%) (Bradsher).
For decades automakers have been producing these sport utility vehicles that are terribly unsafe and inefficient because they have been able to exploit loopholes in legislation on the auto industry. Their increase in popularity, but lack of improvements to their design has only made AmericaÔÇÖs roads more dangerous for all drivers and pedestrians. Lenient restrictions on fuel economy and emissions has allowed automakers to make heavier and even less efficient cars, which is only increasing AmericaÔÇÖs dependence on unstable, foreign oil.
Even though new technology has made way for all types of innovative eco-friendly vehicles like the Toyota Prius, little has been done to improve the primitive SUV. It is absolutely necessary to apply pressure to automakers for change, because banning SUVs altogether is not the answer. Consumer choice will always be important to America but allowing automakers to continue producing monstrous SUVs in the careless manner that they will only be detrimental to all aspects of American living.
Works Cited
Bradsher, Keith. High and Mighty. SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way. New York: Public Affairs, 2002.
Brock, Yates. "Memo to O'Reilly: Spin this, Bill.." Car and Driver.com Nov 2003. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=7287>.
Gladwell, Malcolm. "How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety." New Yorker 12 2004. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html>.
Gladwell, Malcolm, and Ben Greenman. "Q&A: Road Killers." New Yorker 05 2004. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?040112on_onlineonly01>.
Goldfarb, Martin. "Rollover: the hidden history of the SUV." Frontline. PBS, Boston. 21 Feb 2002. Broadcast. 20 Apr 2005 <http://pbs.org/frontline>.
"Some Ford SUVs at bottom of rollover rating." MSNBC News 9 Sep 2004. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5651007/>
SO IF YOU'RE REALLY REALLY BORED...
who can spot the most BS!?
These days itÔÇÖs not uncommon to find myself and my little Honda Civic trapped between two hulking SUVs in a parking lot. Driving on 66 in Northern Virginia during rush hour ÔÇô one of the most congested highways in America ÔÇô can also be particularly frightening when watching out for numerous speeding, lane changing SUVs. How did a gas-guzzling, battering ramming, monstrosity of a vehicle become the most popular car on the road? The general public is quite unaware of the various design flaws and scandalous history of the SUV.
The Sport Utility Vehicle came into production to circumvent strict government regulations on the automobile industry and focused mainly on making a fat profit, ignoring all other important aspects such as safety. This ultimately resulted in the production of an unsafe, unrefined, and extremely polluting vehicle. Today, especially as the SUV is rapidly gaining popularity, it's necessary that the government establishes restrictions and regulations on their production for safety and fuel efficiency.
The 1970ÔÇÖs were the years in which the American auto industry ceased to be a ÔÇ£freewheeling collection of industrial giantsÔÇØ that could pretty much build what they wanted. Each year brought another batch of new rules, from safety and fuel-economy regulations to air pollution controls (Bradsher, 23). But by extensive lobbying by unions and automakers, they were able to avoid much stricter regulations, which also exposed loopholes that they took advantage of later.
One of the first instances of dodging regulation on the auto industry was in 1970 involving Jeep (then, American Motors Corporation). The Environmental Protection Agency drafted to enforce the Clean Air Act of 1970 whddich focused on cutting down on auto emissions. The only widely produced SUV of that time was the AMC Jeep, who did not have the engineering know-how to build cleaner engines. The EPA who wanted to avoid being responsible for putting AMC out of business at that time, decided then to create the truck chassis classification (Bradsher, 25). The creation of the truck class is what allowed SUVs to escape stricter regulations to this day.
In 1975 the federal government established the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for new passenger cars at 27.5 mpg and 20.7 mpg for light trucks (including SUVs) which still stands today. However, this standard does not apply to each individual vehicle; rather, it applies to the entire fleet of each manufacturer. Therefore, in order for a manufacturer to comply with the CAFE standard for light trucks, they simply have to make the fuel economy of their entire line of light trucks average at least 20.7 mpg.
Automakers began to really take advantage of this in the 1980ÔÇÖs. High gasoline prices were hurting demand for the biggest and most profitable models and stringent government regulations were requiring them to meet very high fuel economy standards for cars. Hundreds of thousands of workers were being laid off due to plunging market shares because of fierce Japanese competition. In order to cut costs, they started making more vehicles in the truck class which had much more lenient fuel economy and emissions standards. These vehicles didnÔÇÖt have to be equipped with expensive catalytic converters or more efficient motors redesigned.
One area that was especially cost effective was the assembly. Usually, cars go through a period of research and development before production. SUVs however had very little. Early SUVs were almost literally the bodies of passenger cars placed on top of frames of pickup trucks. Many SUVs today still exhibit the same design. For example, the Ford Expedition is essentially the frame of a Ford F-150 pickup truck with an extra set of doors and two more rows of seats. This assembly is called a ÔÇ£body-on-frame structureÔÇØ which greatly differs from a passenger carÔÇÖs lighter, safer, ÔÇ£unit-body-constructionÔÇØ that features built in crumple zones to absorb impact during a crash. The results of building SUVs in this manner were heavy, rigid, and not particularly safe, but most importantly cheap (Gladwell).
For automakers, heavy was good in order to ensure that SUVs were classified as trucks to avoid fuel economy and emissions regulations. Fixing the problematic rigidity and lack of safety issues, however, were low priority because doing so would require an expensive redesign. Being able to produce cars cheaply was the number one priority and the SUV assembly accomplished this well.
Firstly, the SUV was not an entirely new breed of car; it was basically a modified truck. There was very little research and development prior to its production. This also allowed parts from the pickup assembly lines to be reused for SUV production. In fact, SUVs could be churned out on the exact same assembly lines as pickup trucks. In 1996, Ford Motor Company began production of the Expedition at the Michigan Truck Plant, the same plant that builds its F-150 pickup (Gladwell). All of these factors contributed to the cheap production of the SUV, which quickly resulted in the production of the most profitable vehicle in history.
SUVs werenÔÇÖt anticipated to sell as well as they did especially to urban and suburban households. Ford could hardly meet demand for Explorers and Expeditions for nearly a decade (Bradsher). SUV sales account for nearly 60% of the industryÔÇÖs profits and basically revived the struggling Big Three. At first, this surprised even Ford, who was making a tremendous profit from these vehicles. In 1996, the Expedition sold for $36,000; the cost of manufacturing one was $24,000 (Gladwell). Profit margins soar even higher on luxury models such as the Lincoln Navigator (a variation of the Expedition). A profit margin this large is almost unheard of when compared to the profit margin on normal cars: 35% versus 20%. However, Americans are still paying the outrageous premium for these dressed up trucks.
Martin Goldfarb, a marketing consultant for Ford during the 1980ÔÇÖs explains why the sport utility vehicle became so popular: ÔÇ£[SUVs] filled a whole group of very important needs, both physical needs and psychological needs. It transported families in a sporty way that minivans did not do. Sport utility vehicles had this robust, aggressive, rugged design. Those kinds of things which reflected AmericaÔÇÖs personalityÔǪ These vehicles said, ÔÇÿAmerica, weÔÇÖre risk takers, America, weÔÇÖre ruggedÔÇÖÔÇØ Many SUV owners claim that an SUV is necessary to meet the needs of their large families, however automakersÔÇÖ research show that people shopping for an SUV rarely consider minivans which are better vehicles in every category including gas mileage, pollution, and safety. Increasing sales of SUVs and declining sales of minivans directly conveys how successful SUV marketing has become in making consumers more concerned with image and fashion over practicality. The many who also claim that they SUVÔÇÖs feel safer than other cars. Research shows that Americans favor large cars for safety whereas drivers in Europe and Asia feel that smaller, nimbler cars are safer because they can avoid accidents with better turning and braking capabilities. Americans, however, feel that accidents are inevitable and that sheer mass will protect them. The perception that SUVs are safer in crashes has long been an important selling point for them (Bradsher).
The misconception that SUVs are safer than normal cars is one that automakers are willing to go to great heights to protect. Of course, what theyÔÇÖre really protecting is the huge profit margin that comes from SUV sales. One notable example is the Ford Firestone tires scandal.
The allegation against Firestone tires claimed that there were 271 fatalities due to SUV rollover resulting from tire failure on Ford Explorers. Ford, who was slow to execute the recall on their Ford Explorers, was quick to blame Firestone when the two companies were called to Capitol Hill (Gladwell). However, on closer examination of the cases, itÔÇÖs evident that the defective tires may have only been a small factor. Firestone had recalled 14 million of their tires from 1990 to 2000. If there were only 271 fatalities resulting from Firestone tire failure, then who is accountable for the 12,000 other fatalities from Explorer rollovers? Clearly the Ford Explorer had a stability problem and it wasnÔÇÖt too noble that Ford, who had long known about this, didnÔÇÖt act upon it sooner. It was obvious that Ford was trying to avoid the costly recall even if thousands of lives were at risk.
It was quite shocking that even after the scandal was revealed to the public, SUV sales were still booming. Most consumers today are still affected by years of marketing schemes and the misconceptions of the SUV are still very prevalent. The irony is that people are buying SUVs because they think theyÔÇÖre safer vehicles. The reality is, because of the rollover risk, they are rarely safer than passenger cars (Goldfarb). Simple physics reveals that because of SUVsÔÇÖ large mass, high center of gravity, and narrow wheelbase, they tend to tip over very easily. Attempting evasive maneuvers in an SUV, even at low speeds, also easily results in rollover. ItÔÇÖs massive weight and rigid truck suspension isnÔÇÖt designed to accommodate for rapid steering changes when, say, trying to avoid a child running in the street. The SUV simply was not designed to be a passenger car, but because people are driving them like passenger cars ÔÇô i.e. traveling long distances at high speeds ÔÇô there have been an alarming rate of fatalities.
Another alarming fact is that collisions involving SUVs and a smaller vehicle greatly increase the chances of injury or fatality to the occupants of the smaller car, because of the great difference in mass. This is all while the occupants of the SUV are also still at risk for injury, though maybe decreased by a tiny percentage (5%-10%) (Bradsher).
For decades automakers have been producing these sport utility vehicles that are terribly unsafe and inefficient because they have been able to exploit loopholes in legislation on the auto industry. Their increase in popularity, but lack of improvements to their design has only made AmericaÔÇÖs roads more dangerous for all drivers and pedestrians. Lenient restrictions on fuel economy and emissions has allowed automakers to make heavier and even less efficient cars, which is only increasing AmericaÔÇÖs dependence on unstable, foreign oil.
Even though new technology has made way for all types of innovative eco-friendly vehicles like the Toyota Prius, little has been done to improve the primitive SUV. It is absolutely necessary to apply pressure to automakers for change, because banning SUVs altogether is not the answer. Consumer choice will always be important to America but allowing automakers to continue producing monstrous SUVs in the careless manner that they will only be detrimental to all aspects of American living.
Works Cited
Bradsher, Keith. High and Mighty. SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way. New York: Public Affairs, 2002.
Brock, Yates. "Memo to O'Reilly: Spin this, Bill.." Car and Driver.com Nov 2003. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=7287>.
Gladwell, Malcolm. "How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety." New Yorker 12 2004. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html>.
Gladwell, Malcolm, and Ben Greenman. "Q&A: Road Killers." New Yorker 05 2004. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?040112on_onlineonly01>.
Goldfarb, Martin. "Rollover: the hidden history of the SUV." Frontline. PBS, Boston. 21 Feb 2002. Broadcast. 20 Apr 2005 <http://pbs.org/frontline>.
"Some Ford SUVs at bottom of rollover rating." MSNBC News 9 Sep 2004. 18 Apr 2005 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5651007/>
