I drive a 1992 Ford Explorer, a six-cylinder mid-size SUV with a minus-five-star rollover rating.
I'm generally the only occupant, and that probably is underutilizing its theoretical carrying capacity by a huge margin. But it's not uneconomical, in fact highly economical, because of one factor you're not considering: Miles traveled.
I work in a home office, and I doubt that I drive more than 200 miles/month. I'm certain that I have a much smaller carbon footprint than a commuter driving even a Prius 100+ miles a day. I'm not making payments, so my operating cost is proportional to usage. I go so long on a tank of gasoline that I have time calculate the appreciation on my investment in petrol; filling up in January, then again in April (I kid you not), I made about $12.
In principle I'd rather be driving an extremely high-mileage vehicle like a Prius, but the economics are insane unless you're a high-mileage commuter.
Getting rid of the vehicle and renting when I need transportation doesn't make sense either, because, as I said, I pay nothing to have the vehicle, only for the gas I put into it.
Make of it what you will, Bowser. I'm sure I'm not a typical American driver, so I'd understand if you tossed out my datum as irrelevant.
Flame » in reply to Another informal survey, this one on SUV occupancy.
My datum
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Another informal survey, this one on SUV occupancy.
- Formal numbers from Transportation Energy Data Book (DOE)
- re: Another informal survey, this one on SUV occupancy.
- My datum
- SUV occupancy.
