[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roam:
Really? Not from where I'm standing, or what I've seen/experienced across the world. I'd wager you are the one stuck in a cave, pluckin' his banjo, especially based on the mondo bizarro world you talk about in here.

\
Whoooah. You need to start reading more, and spend less time verbally masturbating johnboy.

No one ever said "across the world'

We were just speaking about Americans in general.

Pay attention please.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
You shouldn't have sold that Landrover. That thing must be really cool.

I kinda felt guilty every time I drove it. You know, trying not to bugger up the planet so my children can breathe some fresh air etc and driving a Landy doesn't really go hand in hand.

I recently read that Canadians have the third largest ecological footprint of all the nations on this planet. To put this into perspective, if everybody on earth would live like we live we would need four more planets to support that lifestyle. That, I am sure you agree, can't be right.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Sorry, but that's just not true. Small engines do not need to be gutless.

Get yourself into a BMW with a 2 liter engine and you'll encounter all the torque you can handle. Get yourself behind the wheel of a turbo charged 4 cylinder Saab and prepare to be blown away. The same goes for Subarus, Porsches, Audis and many other high performance cars equipped with small engines. It's just a matter of intelligent engineering.

Now, question for the car people in here: Is the fuel consumption of a large engine comparable to a smaller, higher output engine?

And Cody: My old 1964 Landrover with all of 65 horsepowers from a 2.5 liter engine beats most modern SUVs off the road. I sold it because as much as I loved it I couldn't really justify driving it anymore, being a treehugger and all that.

Its not just the engine its how people drive that affects fuel. Some on in a 1.6L automatic will use more gas driving like a mad man with flooring it and forcing high speeds vs a perosn in a 2.6L Manual who changes gears at low RPM, accelerates slower and more steady, coasts in a higher gear on flat or down hill roads and drives at the posted speed limits. My 2.0L Manual Prelude can be great on gas or a real pig, just depends on how its driven.

[Zimphire]

Yup same with my 2.0 manual. BTW Honda should make the Prelude again.

It's really the only Honda I liked other than the CRX.

The new Accord isn't bad though.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I have a Suburban and it IS huge and clunky and big.

That's why I have it.

So, if someone smashes into me while driving like an idiot I have more protection than I would in a car, especially a flimsy small car.

FYI, you are more likely to die in an SUV than a car.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by dialo:
FYI, you are more likely to die in an SUV than a car.

Show me the real life stats (that's real life stats, not lab tests like NCAP).

[roam]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
\
Whoooah. You need to start reading more, and spend less time verbally masturbating johnboy.

I'm sorry, you clueless ****, many of us Yanks are ex-pats. Meaning, we don't always live in the homeland. Also, did you NOT read where I said it was IMO, and thus what I did in the US?

Here, slap some sense into your hick brain.

Doofus.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roam:
I'm sorry, you clueless ****, many of us Yanks are ex-pats.

Sorry, Your slang makes no sense.

Meaning, we don't always live in the homeland. Also, did you NOT read where I said it was IMO, and thus what I did in the US?

LOL!! Then why did you try to tell me I was wrong when it was just YHO? Wow that was a classic back peddle.

Here, slap some sense into your hick brain.

Doofus.

Hick brain?

The only thing you did is make a bigger ass out of yourself.

Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

[ThinkInsane]

Enough with the name calling.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Show me the real life stats (that's real life stats, not lab tests like NCAP).

According to the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the rollover rate for SUV's (98/1,000,000) is double that of all vehicles (47/1,000,000). Between 1991 and 1994, about 9,000 people have died from rollovers; 10,000 in 1996. This number is still on the rise with the increase in popularity of SUVs.

The structure of the majority of SUV designs is not deformable in a collision. This means that as more SUV are on the road and the probability of SUV /SUV collisions increases, the death rate in these collisions will rise rapidly, approaching the death rate for automobiles
before safety construction was mandated. No surprises here as the modern SUV is technically about as advanced as a 57 Chevy. Most are body on frame and suicide in a collision which does not also involve a modern safely built passenger car.

Ironically, the structure of the majority of SUV designs is readily deformable when inverted. Almost no SUV have any proper rollover protection for occupants. Routinely an inverted SUV will have a collapsed roof. Passenger cars are required to provide rollover protection. The bigger problem with the SUV in single vehicle rollovers is definitively NOT the rollover propensity (tall vehicles with high centers of gravity and relatively narrow tracks are always going to be prone to rollover, but these are legitimate design parameters for off road vehicles) but the absence of proper rollover protection for the occupants.

If you think you're safer in an SUV you're really kidding yourself.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
According to the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the rollover rate for SUV's (98/1,000,000) is double that of all vehicles (47/1,000,000). Between 1991 and 1994, about 9,000 people have died from rollovers; 10,000 in 1996. This number is still on the rise with the increase in popularity of SUVs.

I asked for death rates, not rollover rates. Put the figures (with links) in front of me for total deaths per 1,000,000, not just rollovers or deaths from rollovers.

Until you do that, there's no way of knowing whether those 10,000 rollover deaths is a higher or lower ratio per 1,000,000 than "other causes" in standard vehicles.

We've already decided that you're more likely to rollover in an SUV. I want to see the figures that back up the "you're more likely to die" in one.

[Mastrap]

From William Bradsher's book, 'High and Mighty":

The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars--8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000 occurred in rollover accidents. SUVs don't handle well, so drivers can't respond quickly when the car hits a stretch of uneven pavement or "trips" by scraping a guardrail. Even a small bump in the road is enough to flip an SUV traveling at high speed. On top of that, SUV roofs are not reinforced to protect the occupants against rollover; nor does the government require them to be.





From Parker and Weichman:

08/17/04 - The gap in safety between sport utility vehicles and passenger cars last year was the widest yet recorded, according to new federal traffic data.

People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars, the figures show. The government began keeping detailed statistics on the safety of vehicle categories in 1994.






Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "The thing that I don't understand is people, when they choose to buy a vehicle, they might go sit in it and say, 'Gee, I feel safe,' " said Runge. "Well, sorry, but you know gut instinct is great for a lot of stuff, but it's not very good for buying a safe automobile."

You can also check http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ for details.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
From William Bradsher's book, 'High and Mighty":

The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars--8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000 occurred in rollover accidents. SUVs don't handle well, so drivers can't respond quickly when the car hits a stretch of uneven pavement or "trips" by scraping a guardrail. Even a small bump in the road is enough to flip an SUV traveling at high speed. On top of that, SUV roofs are not reinforced to protect the occupants against rollover; nor does the government require them to be.

Ok, we can discount this guy (who the heck is he anyways? I could write an anti-SUV book and make a living out of it). We're discounting him on the basis of the sentence in bold - it's just complete rubbish (or I own the only SUVs which miraculously don't flip on small bumps at 80+).

Also, this guy goes on about "SUVs don't handle well". Sounds like the inherited knowledge of someone who hasn't actually driven any (or, just as likely, someone who doesn't actually know what "handling" is). I call BS on this guy (even the book title sounds like he's got a "cause").

Originally posted by Mastrap:
From Parker and Weichman:

08/17/04 - The gap in safety between sport utility vehicles and passenger cars last year was the widest yet recorded, according to new federal traffic data.

People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars, the figures show. The government began keeping detailed statistics on the safety of vehicle categories in 1994.

We'll let that stand. It may (or may not) be BS, depending on who's funding the company to produce the report, but it's acceptable.

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "The thing that I don't understand is people, when they choose to buy a vehicle, they might go sit in it and say, 'Gee, I feel safe,' " said Runge. "Well, sorry, but you know gut instinct is great for a lot of stuff, but it's not very good for buying a safe automobile."

You can also check http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ for details.

Again, I don't know this guy's agenda, but we'll let it stand. As usual for a government web site, it's impossible to find the data required without sitting here for the next 8 hours.

--
Right. So we've decided that the figures show that you're more likely to die in an SUV. However, we must ask what the reason for this is.


From http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...34/ai_20516475

* Occupants of SUVs are safer in two-vehicle crashes, even after adjusting for weight. The smallest SUVs had an annual occupant death rate in two-vehicle crashes per million vehicles of 54, compared with 89 for pickups and 83 for passenger cars weighing between 2,500 and 3,000 lbs. (1,134 and 1,361 kg). Within the 4,000- to 4,500-Ib. (1,817 to 2,041 kg) range, the risk falls to 29 per million vehicles for SUVs vs. 44 for pickups and 49 for passenger cars.

(assuming that these figures are correct, of course)

So, the main cause of deaths in SUVs is single-vehicle accidents - driver error, in other words. It would seem that provided the driver realises they're in an SUV and adjusts their driving accordingly, they're safer. Only the idiots who can't drive aren't.

So, we can sum up:
Drive an SUV like it's an SUV and you'll be safer.
Drive an SUV like it's a standard car and you'll die.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Ok, we can discount this guy (who the heck is he anyways? I could write an anti-SUV book and make a living out of it). We're discounting him on the basis of the sentence in bold - it's just complete rubbish (or I own the only SUVs which miraculously don't flip on small bumps at 80+).

*SNIP*

So, we can sum up:
Drive an SUV like it's an SUV and you'll be safer.
Drive an SUV like it's a standard car and you'll die.

Well said.

[VLich]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Sorry, but that's just not true. Small engines do not need to be gutless.

Get yourself into a BMW with a 2 liter engine and you'll encounter all the torque you can handle. Get yourself behind the wheel of a turbo charged 4 cylinder Saab and prepare to be blown away. The same goes for Subarus, Porsches, Audis and many other high performance cars equipped with small engines. It's just a matter of intelligent engineering.

It's a matter of physics, not engineering. An engine's torque is going to be proportional to it's displacement - engineering can't change that. Proper gearing can make an engine feel more powerful if you're willing to spin the engine faster or shift more often, but this applies to the larger displacement engines as well.

Drive that turbo Saab, and then drive something with a pushrod V8. The V8 will have immediate torque with no waiting for the turbo to spool up. That's the feeling that people buy a larger engine for. Even though the turbo engine may produce similar torque, it's that instant feeling of power that makes a V8 so fun to drive.

Now, question for the car people in here: Is the fuel consumption of a large engine comparable to a smaller, higher output engine?

Engine efficiency isn't strongly dependent on engine displacement. There seems to be a slight trend towards larger engines being more efficient per HP - for instance GM's LS1 V8.

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally posted by VLich:
It's a matter of physics, not engineering. An engine's torque is going to be proportional to it's displacement - engineering can't change that. Proper gearing can make an engine feel more powerful if you're willing to spin the engine faster or shift more often, but this applies to the larger displacement engines as well.

It's certainly engineering that dicates the torque and so on.
An engine's maximum torque (I think that's what you mean, as the torque of an engine changes whenever the vehicle is accelerated) also depends on the gear ratio arrangments, drive train, cylinder arrangement, fuel injection control,... just saying an engine's (maximum) torque is going to be proportional to it's displacement is over simplify the engineering of an engine.

I hope when you buy an vehicle you don't automatically assume that an 3L engine would produce 220Nm (sorry, you guys still talk in whatever imperial units of torque, right?) of torque, right?

Engine efficiency isn't strongly dependent on engine displacement. There seems to be a slight trend towards larger engines being more efficient per HP - for instance GM's LS1 V8.

Not neccessary. It's all depended on how the it is engineered. Certainly you can engineered an engine which has a (relatively) high displacement, yet it does not deliver as much power or torque compare to a smaller engine (who wants to buy such an engine is a matter of economics, not engineering).

Look at the Formula 1 engines, some of them only has 2L displacement, yet it has more power and torque than a lot of cars on the road!

Another good example is to look at the rotary engine (as the one used in the Mazda RX-8). Relatively small engine displacement, high power and torque, yet not energy efficent (compare to other engine with the same displacement). It's all engineering!

[VLich]

Originally posted by veryniceguy2002:
It's certainly engineering that dicates the torque and so on.
An engine's maximum torque (I think that's what you mean, as the torque of an engine changes whenever the vehicle is accelerated) also depends on the gear ratio arrangments, drive train, cylinder arrangement, fuel injection control,... just saying an engine's (maximum) torque is going to be proportional to it's displacement is over simplify the engineering of an engine.

I hope when you buy an vehicle you don't automatically assume that an 3L engine would produce 220Nm (sorry, you guys still talk in whatever imperial units of torque, right?) of torque, right?


Not neccessary. It's all depended on how the it is engineered. Certainly you can engineered an engine which has a (relatively) high displacement, yet it does not deliver as much power or torque compare to a smaller engine (who wants to buy such an engine is a matter of economics, not engineering).

Look at the Formula 1 engines, some of them only has 2L displacement, yet it has more power and torque than a lot of cars on the road!

Another good example is to look at the rotary engine (as the one used in the Mazda RX-8). Relatively small engine displacement, high power and torque, yet not energy efficent (compare to other engine with the same displacement). It's all engineering!

Engine torque production is limited primarily by displacement. Torque is generated by the pressure of combustion acting through the swept area of the cylinder. The pressure generated by combustion can only be changed a small amount (barring things like ceramic engines or super charging), thus the torque production will be roughly proportional to displacement.

Compare engines from the Ferrari F50, Cadillac XLR and Ford Mustang:
Displacements: 4.7, 4.6 and 4.6
Power: 515, 320, 300 (roughly)
Torque: 347, 310, 320

The Ferrari produces 60% more power, requires higher grade fuel and is no doubt tuned more aggressively. However, it only produces 10% more torque, less if you normalize for displacement.

It's true that you can simulate engine torque by changing the drive train gear ratios, but it doesn't make mechanical or financial sense to do this to the extreme to duplicate the performance of a larger engine. The larger engine would be cheaper and likely more fuel efficient.