http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0206_2002_ford_excursion/index.html
That distinctly says that the Excursion they tested averaged 18mpg. That's only hybrid milage if it's coupled to a really big engine to begin with.

Have you been to Vegas, or LA, or any large city on the west coast? They still drive SUVs in the city and there's very few places to go off-roading unless you go out farther. Plus serious off-roaders don't buy stock SUVs. They buy older ones and modify them so that it can handle what nature can throw at them.

I have heard of "amazing hybrid" stories (personally, I'd rather havea fun ride then save cash). Excusion diesels still get better MPGs. And the Ford Tri-Flex should be clsoe.

SUVs are just as common as full-size and mid-size sedans, like Ford Crown Victorias. The East coast is really the only place that people never go offroad. About 40% of people in rural West or North places use their SUVs for offroading (or have a good reason for owning one).

Comperable fuel economy isn't quite the right way to put it, and smaller cars is most certainly wrong (or at the very least, using some heavy, heavy spin).

You are right though, that SUV's aren't the only vehicles with fuel economy. However, how many hyper-wasteful sports cars and limousines do you see in a typical day? SUVs, on the other hand, are still commonplace. As for sedans and wagons, they still tend to be better, unless it's considerably smaller, and lacking a couple of cylinders. For example, the Ford Fusion with the six cylinder is rated for 21/29mpg, while the six-cylinder Escape (with FWD) only gets 20/24 (I don't know if the low highway economy is because of gearing or aerodynamics, I'll admit the city rating is fairly close).

And, I think the only reason you'll see fewer SUVs on the road is because people will eventually get fed up with them, the way gas prices are going (everyone's ego has a price).

And I find it interesting that you actually bring up the ability to see nature. I'd wager I've driven further offroad in a regular car than about 90% of SUV drivers.

Yeah, sure SUVs can let someone see nature to the fullest, but a majority of people who own SUVs do not take advantage of it.

BTW, some Insight owners have gotten close to 100 MPG on their cars. I have a co-worker who has a Geo Metro. People laugh at her until she tells people what kind of gas mileage she gets. The best was 52 MPG! On a gas-powered, non-hybrid engine!

I guess, but it still does not end the fact that most SUVs have comparable fuel economy to smaller cars. People blame SUVs, but what about V-12 sports cars, limousines and mid-size/full-size sedans and wagons, why blame it all on SUVs and trucks when in fact there are worse sedans?

And the reason I am so defensive of SUVs, is I have seen how fewer and fewer they are becoming. I am also aware of the unjust criticism they get. I know that the average person driving a Honda Insight cares nothing for the environment (but just about money) and is a snob, and thinks he is so big in his small car. I think people driving SUVs care more about the environment (at least on the North-West states), because SUVs enable them to seen nature to it's fullest.

It's not exactly fair to compare a V8 to a couple of four-cylinders (because you used the four-cylinder Element, not the six-cylinder Pilot), now is it? And the V8 Explorer gets the exact same milage as a 300C SRT-8, a muscle sedan with an extra litre and a half of displacement, and over 125 more horsepower. As I said, 4WD, extra weight, and poorer aerodynamics will lead to poorer fuel economy. There is absolutely no getting around that, and you'd be a fool to try and prove it wrong. There are alternatives, ways to reduce the waste, and so on. However, there is nothing you can possibly do to an SUV to make its economy better, that you can't do to a car, to widen the gap again. How about, for a laugh, you compare the Volvo V70 with the XC90, both with the 2.5T. Guess which one's got the better fuel economy?

As for safety, notice that the superminis average a two-star pedestrian safety rating, while the full-size SUVs average just one star. But, no one is trying to argue that an SUV can't be made safe for its occupants (and indeed, now that the public is aware that there are dangers, the manufacturers have taken action). However, it still doesn't get around the fact that bigger, taller, heavier vehicles possess a greater risk to the occupants of smaller cars.

It's great that you like SUVs, and try to use them properly, different strokes, and all that. But you've got to quit being so arrogant about it. Insulting other (smaller) cars, and talking about crushing them? No one wants to hear that.

Well, I guess I'll get proof to back up my point.

EuroNCAP SUV safety

Compact SUV and Crossover safety ratins (EuroNCAP)

Here is something you'l love EuroNCAP midget car safety . Notice how the SUVs got higher (or same) safety results for both passengers, drivers and pedestrians. And these are the smallest cars on the road!

Also, I was browsing EuroNCAP for pedestrian safety ratings, and what the hell, SUVs are safer or just as safe for pedestrians!

MSNAutos comparison test of a Ford Escape Hybrid SUV, a Honda Pilot (non hybrid) SUV and a Cadilalc DTS full-size sedan. Notice how that both hybrid and non-hybrid SUVs had higher miles per gallon. I already tried to explain that SUVs have the (about) the same safety ratings, about the same amount of pollution, but are more (oh how do I says this) better. Why not get a Volvo XC90 that has better safety ratings then most small cars, has the same fuel economy as the average full-size sedan or wagon (and if it were diesel it would not require gas) but can haul more and go more places? The Explorer has similar ratings to a Chrysler 300 in gas and safety, but offers more people and cargo room, and more power and towing capacity. And hell, cars like V-10 Vipers and Jaguars suck more gas then SUVs ever can, they make HUMMER H1s look fuel efficient.

Hecubus >> I already tried to convince Explorer4x4 of these facts about fuel econonmy and safety, but he does not want to understand

I don't know what numbers you have to prove that, but in every single case, the car gets better fuel economy.

Admittedly, car-based SUVs aren't too bad as far as economy goes, because they are relatively light. However, their highway economy will always suffer compared to a car, due to their aerodynamics. And with truck-based SUVs, the extra weight incurred by the heavy frame (which, admittedly, serves a purpose) causes more fuel consumption. And, of course, AWD and 4WD also use a little more gas than either FWD or RWD (although this last case is less of an issue, since AWD passenger cars have the same problem).

Of course, the Volvo will be safe, they stake their reputation on building safe cars.

As for the veggie oil, that's impressive, but a little irrelevant. The only reason you're more able to get trucks and SUVs with diesel than passenger cars, is because inasmuch as the North American public is still wary of diesel, the higher torque meshes well with typical truck duties. As our European members can no doubt atest to, there's no lack of diesel cars, we just don't get them. Oh, and technically, a diesel Excursion gets poor fuel economy no matter what fuel you run it on, veggie oil just happens to be free, reasonably clean (or totally clean, I'm not entirely sure), and renewable.

So, yeah, soft-roaders are only good to appeal to peoples vanities and insecurities (along with allowing car manufacturers to exploit legal loopholes), big SUVs are indeed practical in some extreme circumstances, but at the same time, it's overkill for people who don't need them.

Oh, and what's so great about buying something because it feels like an SUV? The whole point of car-based SUVs is so that it drives as much like a car as possible, which tells you something about the way trucks drive.