Credit is due to Peter DeLorenzo (2023a) for having the courage to say the quiet parts out loud. He concluded that “giant trucks and SUVs that are passing for everyday transportation these days are just flat-out embarrassingly stupid.” The only problem is that he wimps out on saying what could change the situation.
“We’re going to continue down this road until there’s a major ‘adjustment’ in the market, unfortunately,” DeLorenzo (2023b) wrote in a follow-up column. “That could happen with a significant, unexpected financial disruption to the economy, or some sort of world-altering event that would change everything.”
That may well be true, but DeLorenzo doesn’t acknowledge the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the living room: A cultish level of auto industry conformity. History tells us that it doesn’t have to be this way.
Also see ‘Will history repeat itself by punishing automakers for their big SUV binge?’
Consider what happened when Big Three cars mushroomed in size during the mid-50s. Instead of vainly trying to play follow the leader, American Motors head George Romney bet on compact cars — and aggressively marketed them.
In 1955 he began to rail against the “The Dinosaur in the Driveway” by pointing to the absurdity of cars “19 feet long, weighing two tons” being used to “run a 118-pound housewife three blocks to the drugstore for a package of bobby pins and lipstick” (Wernle, 1996).
Romney’s crusade for compacts would prove to be so successful that the Big Three ultimately entered that field in 1960.
Who will challenge America to stop feeding dinosaurs?
Unfortunately, the U.S. auto industry doesn’t have a modern equivalent of American Motors under Romney. Part of the problem is that domestic independents have long since vanished.
To make matters worse, foreign automakers no longer offer a clear alternative to Detroit fare like they did in the postwar era. All of the major automakers in the U.S. market sell fairly large sport-utility vehicles. And while many also offer smaller vehicles, they aren’t marketed with the aggressiveness of the Rambler.
Also see ‘Popularity of SUVs could offset climate advantages of EVs’
This isn’t just a matter of the entire industry being addicted to big SUVs. A less-discussed factor is the assumption that a major automaker must offer a fairly comprehensive lineup that includes everything from smaller to larger vehicles. This is the opposite of the postwar era, when foreign automakers targeted much narrower market niches where the Big Three wasn’t as strong, such as subcompact cars and trucks.
Today an enterprising automaker could carve out a solid market niche by aggressively championing smaller vehicles like Romney did. Alas, all those auto executives with their fancy MBAs have instead decided to slavishly copy what everyone else is doing. Profiles in courage.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- DeLorenzo, Peter; 2023a. “The AutoExtremist Stupid Meter, Part I.” The AutoExtremist. Posted Dec. 4.
- ——; 2023b. “The AutoExtremist Stupid Meter, Part II.” The AutoExtremist. Posted Dec. 11.
- Wernle, Bradford; 1996. “Romney had a mission and a dream: Sell America on small cars.” Automotive News. Posted June 26.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Rambler (1957)
I travel from Annapolis, MD to Bear, DE several times a week to take care of a family member who can’t drive. My trip basically uses US route 301 for 95% of the miles. Rt 301 is a limited access highway, and is 55 mph in Maryland, and 65 in Delaware.
I’m constantly passed by these huge, often tricked-out, behemoths, typically traveling 20 to 30 mph above the speed limits except when state troopers are around. As I’ve yet to see even 1 Delaware state trooper, these drivers know they can often exceed 100 mph with no worry of being pulled over for speeding. 5 years ago I would watch as young guys in small “hot hatches” raced each other at high speed, now it’s guys in big 4-door pickups and SUV’s chasing each other. What is truly amazing is to see these trucks, sitting on jacked up 4 wheel drive chassis, swerving from lane to lane, but I’ve yet to see any evidence of accidents. That said, I’ve seen several near misses recently, with both wheels on one side of the truck becoming airborne as they careened around other big trucks, everyone always in a hurry.
I asked a friend who is in new car & truck sales just how these young guys can afford these $50,000 trucks, and his reply was simple; They offer 7 year mortgages now!
Automakers will never do what is suggested in this article because more American consumers are willing to pay $60,000 or more for a 4 door full-sized pickup or full-sized SUV than are willing to pay $20,000 for a Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Chevrolet Spark and Sonic, or Hyundai Accent, even though these now discontinued cars meet the needs of 90% of consumers 90% of the time. I have rented a Rio and a Yaris on trips to both Southern and Northern California and found both cars comfortable and competent driving on I-10 from Palm Springs to LA and US 101 north of San Francisco.
Troy, variations on your first sentence have been written for years to justify why automakers adhered to the holy trinity of bigger, glitzier more powerful vehicles.
For example, back in 1953 a Ford study concluded that, “To the average American our present car and its size represent an outward symbol of prestige and well-being” (Nevins and Hill 1962; p. 379). Yet sales of both compacts and small imports would increase right along with the size of Big Three cars in the 1950s.
In general, the popularity of smaller cars have ebbed and flowed over time but there has always been a market for them. I would argue that there still is but right now no one is doing a very good job of exploiting it.
Profitability not popularity is the issue.
That’s another little chestnut that has been trotted out since the end of World War II. It’s a lazy excuse.
For one thing, the devil has always been in the details, e.g., the original Nash Rambler did better than Kaiser’s Henry J because it was initially priced near the top of the low-priced field. Or consider the downsized 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix, which John DeLorean said made a bigger profit per car than its full-sized predecessor because it cost less to produce but was given a higher sticker price.
Gas prices seem to bounce all over the place, and rewards members can knock off a few pennies. Where I live in Baja Wisconsin I can get gas for about 3.10 per gallon, and across the lines in Iowa for 2.80 and real Wisconsin for 2.60. This my friends, factoring in inflation from 1959 is actually cheaper than 64 years ago during peak gas guzzling dinosaurs. And I would bet that giant F-350 with the road grader tires and the rubber nuts hanging from the trailer hitch (overcompensating much, Bubba?) gets mileage no worse than the aircraft carrier Continentals of the era. The American public has the long term memory of a goldfish, but we are living in an era of dirt cheap gas.
Maybe the United States just needs a stiff, severe recession as in the late 50’s or the late 70’s/early 80’s to drive people out of the full-size SUV’s and 4 door pickups and into smaller rationally sized cars. Maybe the U.S. needs a $1 or $2 gallon tax on fuel, although that would be political suicide for legislators proposing to enact it.
When the U.S. in large urban areas like San Francisco, New York City, Boston and Washington, D.C. start imposing tax on the amount of real estate occupied by vehicular behemoths in these cities, then there will be a rush toward more rational vehicles. I do not, however, like driving on I-65, I-70 or I-69 in Indiana next to endless caravans of semi-tractors and trailers, if I am in a car like a Lotus Elan or Austin-Healy Sprite, especially if there are going to be self-driving semi-tractors !!!!!
James, I agree that it can be intimidating driving a Lotus Elan around much larger vehicles, but it’s not an either/or situation — people either getting behind the wheel of a 6,000-pound SUV to drive to work with no passengers versus driving a tiny car. Perhaps it’s time for another round of downsizing like we saw in the late-70s and early-70s.
DeLorenzo (2023) suggests that the mid-sized Chevy Colorado would be a good-sized truck for many uses: “The dimensions of this truck are pretty close to the dimensions of what was considered to be a ‘standard’ pickup truck a little more than a decade ago.”
A posting in the 12/12/2023 edition of “Autoweek” about the European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP):
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a46104322/euro-ncap-crash-test-suv-weight/?source=nl&utm_source=nl_aut&utm_medium=email&date=121223&utm_campaign=nl33658467&user_email=98807caaf627918d07df7c58ce0700081b96acc991d0638712c0ff522c33e879&GID=98807caaf627918d07df7c58ce0700081b96acc991d0638712c0ff522c33e879&utm_term=TEST-%20NEW%20TEST%20-%20Sending%20List%20-%20AM%20180D%20Clicks%2C%20NON%20AM%2090D%20Opens%2C%20Both%20Subbed%20Last%2030D
It’s said that stereotypes contain (sometimes more than a) grain of truth; the assumptions that people drive huge vehicles to broadcast their wealth or they exist solely as a cash cow for automakers does have a hint of truth to it, at least in my eyes. You can’t argue against a more reasonable size of vehicle, but that’s prone to everyone’s definition of reasonable.
In my household we have a mid sized sedan, a seven passenger (not so) minivan and a compact SUV. We’ve been empty nesters for a while now, so I have no real need (in my view, hauling children and their detritus around), but it’s paid for and incredibly handy. I haven’t had seven people in that thing since summertime, and I won’t probably do it again anytime soon. But it’s nice to know I have the capacity to do so. Which is what I think a lot of the reasoning or rationalization that folks have for purchasing large vehicles.
I really remember the first Energy Crisis and the results of that time. The public had an outcry for more efficient vehicles, they demanded better results for fuel economy and rewarded the companies that could act quickly. Energy prices were a huge driver in inflation back then, although it has lessened some in the current day. Congress passed the CAFE requirements, and our domestic companies complied with a LOT of complaining. We eventually got there, but not before the domestics pissed off their customer base and drove them to the Asian carmakers (another issue for another time).
As long as fuel prices remain inexpensive ($2.75/gallon here in Western Michigan today, this is lower than it was at Christmastime 2006!), folks will not demand smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle. Fuel is cheap, the interest rates are nowhere near what they were in the 80’s for example, loan terms are longer than they used to be and many of those behemoths are actually a good value. Were fuel to go above $5/gallon or higher consistently, I think there may be some movement toward more fuel efficient vehicles. A higher fuel tax has been discussed for decades, but no politician has the stones to propose (and pass) such a thing.
Not that I disagree with the premise of the post, but I really don’t see a reason why people would change their habits, without a major change in the cost of running their vehicles at a minimum.
Yesterday when driving around town the gas prices tended to be around $4.65/gallon. The Republicans blame this on a state-level cap-and-trade law. This is a blue state but I wouldn’t be surprised if an initiative to unplug the law passes because low gas prices may very well be more popular than fighting climate change.
Remember that DeLorenzo’s basic beef is doing daily commuting with a 6,000-pound beast. My add-on is that an automaker could carve out a decent niche by more explicitly attacking the inefficiency of driving a dinosaur (if indeed one doesn’t need to).
Recall that Volkswagen managed to build a substantial market for the original Beetle even back when gas prices were low and the economy was often quite good. Why? There are other practical reasons for not driving a dinosaur besides the cost of gas.
It appears there a lot of folks who can afford to do so, but I think it’s ridiculous to daily drive a three-ton vehicle, too. But who knows? Could the higher prices of all vehicles, but especially SUVs and pickups ignite a demand in less expensive substitutes?
I already see some of this happening with the Ford Maverick, Hyundai Venue and the new Chevy Trax. All of these vehicles have attractive starting prices somewhere around $20K and can be nicely equipped under $30K. We’re in an interesting time where the advent of PHEV, BEV and ICE vehicles are all on the market at the same time. It’s hard to say how the market will shake out, but there are some very serviceable smaller vehicles out there. It’s up to folks to buy them.
I gather the Maverick is sold out. It’s actually a large vehicle for the price. Were a younger and a full nester I would really be interested.
Fuel prices are a major factor. Say at 3.00/gallon you have a typical suv getting 25 mpg, driving 1000 miles per month. You are spending 120 per month on gas. You trade it in for a compact sedan getting 40. You are saving a whopping 45 per month. Enough for a dinner for two at Applebee’s if you go easy on the drinks. Be still my beating heart. George D, just out of curiosity. How much of the minivan’s use begins with “Dad, can I borrow…”
Yes, when the kids want to borrow the van, they generally borrow me, too. Dad may not be smart, but he can lift heavy things…LOLOLOL
George & Kim,
One thing I learned very early in life was just how popular one becomes when owning a pickup truck or cargo van.
As I owned an automotive restoration shop, in addition to the “shop pickup truck”, I needed a large roll-back truck and both enclosed and open trailers capable of handling vehicles. I finally had to tell friends [and customers] that I wasn’t licensed as a towing operation, so I couldn’t use the trucks unless the vehicle had a repair order for work at my shop. I solved the “can I borrow the pickup” problem, by excluding anyone not in my employ from using the vehicles unless they were on the shop’s insurance policy. My modern Ram 2500 utility-bed pickup still has an exclusion policy that only allows me to drive it. As I’m retired, I do sometimes help other people, but I’m always the driver. [And that exclusion also lowered my insurance policy payment!]
That’s true in my neck of the woods as well. I occasionally pay a neighbor with a big rig to haul stuff to the dump. And once in a great while I’ll rent a truck to move big items.
I’m going to offer a counter-argument, but first I’ll state my priors. Personally, I think it would be better if more people wanted to drive smaller vehicles. I also think it would be better if more people wanted to live in smaller houses, closer to transit, and even better in walkable neighborhoods. I walk the walk on these preferences. I live in a small 1920s house in an urban neighborhood, take transit to work, and drive a Genesis G70 (with a manual transmission).
But I think one of the challenges in embracing pluralism is to avoid being judgmental about other people’s preferences. It might be easier to think people with other preferences have been misled, or are misguided, or worse, but it’s better to try and empathize with them so that our society does not become so polarized by our judgments about each other it falls apart.
I can cultivate empathy when it comes to people who buy big vehicles. I have a 6 year old son, an only child, who insists I ride in the back seat with him. I’m over 6’1″, and when I sit back there, I really do wish we had something like a Tahoe to support my thighs and give my knees and feet some space. I pay for deliveries for things I could pick up myself if I had such a vehicle. And on the rare occasion we take a road trip, I long for the isolation from NVH that a body on frame V8 excels at. I don’t need these qualities enough to change my lifestyle, but I do understand the people who want them. In the interests of atmospheric balance, I hope their big SUVs soon get electrified or run on hydrogen, but I don’t judge wanting one.
As far as judging manufacturers, I first of all don’t think the historical analogies cited hold.
The Rambler analogy doesn’t seem to hold because now, unlike then, there is a fairly linear correspondence between exterior vehicle size and interior room and cargo space, at least within the same vehicle type. You could sell a ’56-’62 Rambler sedan as having almost the same versatility as an Impala sedan. Today, a Suburban has roughly as much more interior space than a Trax as the difference in exterior footprints. Is there an analogous niche to be exploited now? Perhaps you could argue that it can exists across vehicle types. A minivan is more efficient than a comparably sized SUV/crossover. A tall hatchback like a Soul is more efficient than a comparably sized sedan. Which suggests that the Rambler of today is a vehicle with a lower ground clearance than the market has been sold on. But otherwise, I don’t see it.
The Beetle analogy doesn’t seem to hold now because of increased durability of used cars, not because of lack of product. Isn’t a Kia Rio a modern day developed world equivalent? Isn’t a Mitsubishi Mirage a modern day developing world equivalent? People could buy these if that’s what they wanted, but at those price points they prefer to buy used to get something bigger and more comfortable. In the day of the Beetle, a used car was unreliable and would only last a few more years. Today, a Corolla will run like a watch until it is 20 years old.
Otherwise, I think it’s an ad hominem argument to simply dismiss profitability as the reason for the way manufacturers do product planning as a lazy excuse. Product planning is a lot more professional today than it was half a century ago. Manufacturers today don’t put all their eggs in the large vehicle basket. There are some excellent small vehicles available from luxury brands. But would Kia rather sell you a Telluride than a Rio? Of course it would. Don’t forget also that CAFE is still in force. Which rationally drives manufacturers to build small vehicles down to a price rather than up to a standard.
No one is arguing that people with specialized needs shouldn’t get the most appropriate vehicle. At issue is whether the average daily driver needs to lug around 6,000 pounds to the grocery store. In addition, just as the average full-sized car did not suffer a loss of utility when they were downsized in the late-70s, today’s bigger SUVs and trucks could benefit from a nip and tuck. If the automakers aren’t going to do this on their own then perhaps it’s time for the government to tighten CAFE standards so we see another round of downsizing.
As far as your historical critique, I don’t get the impression that you’re understanding the core of my argument. Or maybe you just don’t want to; I can’t tell. For example, your comparison of the Rambler and the Soul is irrelevant to what I was trying to say.
If you go back and reread my piece you may notice that I said that the major automakers tend to offer a broad line from smaller to larger cars. So, yes, you can buy a Corolla, but look at the types of vehicles that Toyota emphasizes. Toyota has a vested interest in continuing to generate profits from its bigger vehicles so it does not market the Corolla with the aggressiveness that Romney did with the Rambler or VW did with the original Beetle. I wish that we had more niche automakers who would take on that role. In theory Mitsubishi could, but in practice it hasn’t. That strikes me as a missed opportunity.