SUV Forever: Automakers Still Want Them, but They Really Need a Diet Plan
General Motors (GM) is putting its new SUV models on a diet. Why not just get rid of 'em? you might ask. After all, aren't smaller, more fuel-efficient cars currently leading Detroit out of the darkness? Sure, but SUVs still mean big profits. They're just on a collision course with higher government fuel-economy standards, is all.
Here's a quick take on the situation from AutoGuide.com:
To meet new fuel economy regulations, General Motors will add a price premium to its line of full-size SUVs. Currently, the Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe get a combined average of 17-mpg. But new CAFE regulations will force GM to reach a company-wide average of 35.5-mpg by 2016, and there's no time to waste.Lightweighting and the destiny of the SUVAs a result, GM's next generation of full-size SUVs "will be more expensive to engineer and build because of the need for lighter weight materials," said Tracy Handler, an analyst at IHS Automotive. "I expect prices to be higher."
The beauty of the SUV, for a long time, was that it was cheap and simple to build -- a truck frame carried around a great big engine and a vast array of interior amenities and options -- and kept companies like Ford (F) and GM in the black for a decade.
As a result, an entire generation of car buyers has grown up with the SUV as a sort of default vehicle: larger than a station wagon, less domesticated than a minivan, more aggressive than a sedan, and packing the versatility that comes with powerful towing capacity (gotta pull that boat!) and off-road capability (because you never know when you might take that wilderness camping trip).
Automakers don't want to lose these customers, even as the industry is not-so-gradually shifting toward smaller cars and trucks that serve up higher MPGs, to meet the government's new CAFE standards. This is where lightweighting comes in. It presents an opportunity for SUVs to stay in the mix. But it means they'll lose their cheap-and-easy-to-build allure.
SUVs as pioneers?
Ironically, the SUV could accelerate the adoption of composite materials in the industry, displacing good old sheet metal. In theory, there's no reason why big vehicles can't get higher mileage. It's all a function of weight and, to a degree, purpose. You need a heavy platform to support a big engine and provide durability for rugged applications.
But an SUV that uses carbon fiber elements can shed pounds without becoming... well, you know, weak. This also means that a high-displacement V8 engine is not imperative. A V6 or even a turbocharged 4-cylinder powerplant could do.
The all-important visual impression would be unchanged. As would the seating/gear capacity. And given that a lot of the more luxurious SUVs will never put rubber on an unpaved road, you can easily see the profit opportunity. For example, GM could charge significantly more for a carbon-fiber Cadillac Escalade (carbon fiber has a certain high-performance appeal that commands top dollar).
But what about killing the SUV?
This proposal will horrify a fair number of folks who who would like to see rising materials costs, higher gas prices, and CAFE send the SUV to a grave upon which they can then gleefully dance. Unfortunately, it's just not feasible right now to retire the SUV. The vehicles continue to fill a consumer need, and they're still critical to maintaining the profitability that all the automakers now need, not just the resurgent Detroit Big Three.
SUV R.I.P.? Not yet, and probably not for a while. But we'll get something in the bargain, which is a greater use of futuristic materials in the industry. And the vehicles that most need to lose the weight will actually start slimming down. But losing the weight won't be free, even though it'll ultimately be worth it.
Related:
Photo: GM Media