[stefls]

I wanted to use this piece of text as a response to something someone said over in this thread, but then I realized it was a little bit off-topic. I've (quickly) been searching the forum for a comparable thread, but I haven't found one. So there it goes: a dedicated thread about the blessings and 'blessings' of SUVs.


In my contribution I'll focus on other things than energy efficiency and the risk of tumbling over.

Research from ADAC shows that:

* When an SUV collides with a 'normal' car, chances that serious injuries are incurred are eight times higher for those in the normal car as compared to those in the SUV.
* At the same time, the seriousness of injuries for those in an SUV is worse than it would have been if they would have used a 'normal' car.

Research done by TNO and AVV shows that:
* If an SUV and a 'normal' car collide, chances that someone involved in the accident dies is six times higher as compared to an accident where two 'normal' cars are involved (chance is even higher if the SUV has a bullbar).
* If the SUV has a bullbar, risk for serious injuries amongst pedestrians and cyclists is higher
than when they get hit by a 'normal' car (see also American experiments

Research by Edwards (2003) shows that:
* 4.5% of those pedestrians that get run over by a car dies. For small SUVs this percentage goes up to 7.8%, while for big SUVs this figure is 11.5%.

I haven't studied all these figures in great detail, but it seems to me that something is going on with SUVs. Then again: if you take your kid to school with an SUV instead of a Honda Civic or your bicyle, chances YOUR kid doesn't get hurt are much higher. Such are the sad things of life

For the exact source (Edwards) and a bunch of other references, please take a look at http://www.nieuwsbank.nl/inp/2005/07/13/V020.htm (scroll down for references).

[suvsr4terrorists]

Also:

Federal roof standards have stagnated since 1972. The standard? A vehicle can support 1.5X it's own weigh, on it's roof. How is it tested? By evenly distributing the weigth, and very slowly. No forceful impact, no loading the corners. People always say the bigger vehicle has an advantage in a 2 car accident, which it does to some extent. The problem with this line of thought is that SUVs don't crumple very well. In order to be good at offroading and impress the journalists, SUVs must have very stiff frames, which translates to less crumpling, and more energy being transferred to their occupants. The other issue is that most accidents are SINGLE CAR accidents.

Here are some other facts:

"The fatality rate per 100,000 SUVs is 3X higher than it is for the same number of passenger cars"
- Dr. Jeffery Runge, Head of the National Highway Traffic Administration
Only 5% of all SUV drivers actually use 4wd.
SUVs pollute up to 5.5X more than a passenger car.

Links:

http://www.suv.org/environ.html
http://www.suv.org/safety.html
http://www.suvsuck.org/
http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stefls

* When an SUV collides with a 'normal' car, chances that serious injuries are incurred are eight times higher for those in the normal car as compared to those in the SUV.
* At the same time, the seriousness of injuries for those in an SUV is worse than it would have been if they would have used a 'normal' car.

Reading this, it strikes me that this is a classic game theory dilemma. Game theory dictates that you're better off getting an SUV rather than a car, even though in the long run, everyone would be better off if everyone just had cars.

[chris v]

* When an SUV collides with a 'normal' car, chances that serious injuries are incurred are eight times higher for those in the normal car as compared to those in the SUV.

This reads as "I'm 3X more likely to crash into you in my unweildy, hard to steer and handle beast, but who cares, because I'm not gonna die-- you are."

That represents the antithesis of what civilized society is all about, as far as I'm concerned.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Game theory dictates that you're better off getting an SUV rather than a car, even though in the long run, everyone would be better off if everyone just had cars.

Only on the surface. Since SUVs weigh more, are taller, have higher centers of gravity, have tires with really tall sidewalls, they all handle, brake, and accelerate poorly. Emergency handling is very poor. What does this mean? It's harder to AVOID an accident in the first place.

Throw in the rigid frames that transfer more energy to the occupants, the probability of a rollover thanks to the high CG, the weak roofs that cave in and crush people, America's road barriers that aren't designed for tall vehicles so instead of stopping you flip over, and the fact that the MAJORITY of auto accidents aren't 2 car accidents..... take that all into account, and the odds swing back towards driving a normal passenger car.

[Fat Barry]

One time, I had a tall Starbucks ice coffee and my then girlfriend, Darlene, had a venti frapp, and when she reached over me to roll down my driver's side window at the KFC drive thru (I was double fisted with fresh burritos, still), she knocked those drinks over. Damn! I had coffee running down my legs, but there was lake of frapp with whipped cream in my lap! I had to get out later and wash off my custom pedals and carpets anyway, from all the fry crumbs and root beer that tend to build up, but it brassed my balls that it was that damn expensive coffee that got wasted and not just another Hires.

Let me tell you, bigger always causes more damage. Always.

And on the dance floor, where I rule supreme, I promise I damage the egos of all those skinny-ass broke trash.

----
Yeah, I edited this puppy because I didn't nail it right. Fixed the spelling of Hires (from Hiers), cause you can't disrespect the man!

[boardsurfer]

In after the elusive Fat Barry

[ort888]

It could also have something to do with the majority of SUV drivers driving like aggressive a-holes.

It's like having a big car empowers you to do whatever you want. It drives me crazy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

they all handle, brake, and accelerate poorly. Emergency handling is very poor.

Bulldust.

Some SUVs exhibit these characteristics, not all.



Oh... and #1 positive reason for driving an SUV: if you own one, you're less likely to turn into a whining, sanctimonious Marxist hippie tosser who whines about SUVs all the time.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bulldust.

Some SUVs exhibit these characteristics, not all.

This isn't rocket science or magic. A vehicle with more ground clearance has a higher CG. A taller vehicle has a higher CG. The heavier a vehicle it is, th worse it handles, brakes, and accelerates. Any SUV you can think of handles, acclerates, and brakes poorly compared to the same SUV that's lighter and lower.

Oh... and #1 positive reason for driving an SUV: if you own one, you're less likely to turn into a whining, sanctimonious Marxist hippie tosser who whines about SUVs all the time.

Or you turn into a ****ing asshole who thinks he's being a 'mayon' by driving an SUV to make up for his pathetically sized dick, and thus ignore all logical reasoning presented to him, and then choosing to remain ignorant and stupid of factual information and resorting to calling people dirty hippies when he can't counter their arguments.

- Rob

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Or you turn into a ****ing asshole who thinks he's being a 'mayon' by driving an SUV to make up for his pathetically sized dick, and thus ignore all logical reasoning presented to him, and then choosing to remain ignorant and stupid of factual information and resorting to calling people dirty hippies when he can't counter their arguments.

Oh, I didn't mean you Rob. I meant all the hippies. But if the cap fits (and you seem to think it does).

1) I've got no idea what a mayon is.

2) Stop sneaking into the bathroom trying to get a look at my dick. And put your glasses on next time you do as you're obviously myopic.

3) I'm not using logical reasoning - I'm using experience. I've been driving sports cars and SUVs since you were in your pram. Your theoretical meanderings don't translate to the real world to the extent that you think they do. Let's take that other thread with those pictures of rolled Jeeps. Are you honestly expecting me to believe that there aren't a similar number of rolled SVXs on that site?

[outsourced]

If people want to get crushed to death in their Mini, so be it. People with families can't put everyone/thing into a puny POS Honda Civic or Mini or <insert micro-car name here>!

Geez. And modern SUVs (not the 1980s behemoths) get good MPG.

And how the **** does a modern SUV using the same emissions components as a compact emit WORSE emissions. Note that I'm not talking about QUANTITY of emissions.

Ever been stuck behind a bus in traffic? Which stinks (ie: more particulate matter) more? The public transport or the SUV?

Also, the driver in the SUV is going to see more of the road ahead because they sit higher -- therefore, they can avoid accidents (if the driver is competent) better than someone in a slammed micro-car.

Of course, the ultimate outcome of this argument is that we would all wind up either walking or riding a bike. Let's just go back to the frikkin' stone age then, and live in caves. Sorry, no heat or light for ya. Don't want to pollute the air.

Anyway, I can't wait until I can buy a hydrogen fuel-cell powered auto. The hybrids are shitty technology.

[BoomStick]

Just what kind of milage does some riceboy's "tuner" get.


I used to race Datsun 510's and VW's and I can tell you I never got above 10mpg with either once the HP was pushed up over 150.

[outsourced]

Holy c**p, BoomStick! You almost had to measure as gallons per mile! 10MPG? That sure puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Are you honestly expecting me to believe that there aren't a similar number of rolled SVXs on that site?

Considering how many SVXs were produced (less than 25,000 worldwide, less than 17,000 in the states), yes.

But considering how low the CG is, wide the car is, and how well it stops and handles in almost any weather, yes.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by outsourced

Ever been stuck behind a bus in traffic? Which stinks (ie: more particulate matter) more? The public transport or the SUV?

I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but please. If you're going to compare the public transportation to something else, you're going to have to compare it to all the combined emissions of all the vehicles that each passenger in the bus would have had to drive, not to a single SUV.

Also, the driver in the SUV is going to see more of the road ahead because they sit higher -- therefore, they can avoid accidents (if the driver is competent) better than someone in a slammed micro-car.

Really now? I've driven one of those things before. They are almost impossible to stop unless you put your foot on the brake way ahead of time. You just have to hope that some kid doesn't run in front of you or something...

Of course, the ultimate outcome of this argument is that we would all wind up either walking or riding a bike. Let's just go back to the frikkin' stone age then, and live in caves. Sorry, no heat or light for ya. Don't want to pollute the air.

Oh, so those of us who ride bikes are in the stone age now, huh. Apparently civilized people are the ones that weigh so much that they couldn't fit into anything but an SUV.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by outsourced

If people want to get crushed to death in their Mini, so be it. People with families can't put everyone/thing into a puny POS Honda Civic or Mini or <insert micro-car name here>!

Not saying you need a small car. More people in the family dicates a bigger car. It does NOT, however, dictate a TALLER car, a car capable of offroading, or a car with a rigid trucklike frame. In fact, I would say it dictates a larger SAFER car, one with that is LOWER, handles and brakes extremely well, and has crumple zones to protect you from impacts instead of a rigid frame that transfers energy to it's occupants.

Geez. And modern SUVs (not the 1980s behemoths) get good MPG.

H2: 6.8mpg Navigator, Durango, Escalade, Suburban, Cherokee: 12-14mpg Excursion: 10mg Explorer: 14mpg Nissan Armada: 13mpg

Want me to keep going? These are all 'modern' SUVs that get about the same MPG as the land barges sold in the 1960s. I love 60s cars! I just don't think they're a good idea for daily transportation.

And how the **** does a modern SUV using the same emissions components as a compact emit WORSE emissions. Note that I'm not talking about QUANTITY of emissions.

The majority of SUVs sold are basically a truck chassis, truck engine, with more weight. Truck engines, basically v8s, date back quite a ways for the most part. Dodge's 318 for example, has been around for over 3 decades. The chevy 350 has been around even longer. Also, if you're talking about emissions, more fuel=more emissions= more bad. Hence, WORSE. Think of two identical cars, except one gets 30mpg, the other get 15. The 30mpg car will emit half the emissions, since it can go twice as long on the same amount of fuel.

Ever been stuck behind a bus in traffic? Which stinks (ie: more particulate matter) more? The public transport or the SUV?

Unfair comparison. Buses can carry over 45 people. Considering most SUVs seat 6... maybe 7, I'm not sure what would be worse: One bus or 8 SUVs. Also, buses are general diesels.... SUVs generally aren't. You're comparing totally different engines.

Also, the driver in the SUV is going to see more of the road ahead because they sit higher -- therefore, they can avoid accidents (if the driver is competent) better than someone in a slammed micro-car.

But what happens once everyone has something as tall as an SUV? Then what? Get a taller one? Instead of looking over everything while yapping on your cell phone and driving something with piss poor handling and braking, if you were driving something that didn't require so much room to stop or manuver you wouldn't have to see so high, eh? Use your ****ing signals too, *********.

Of course, the ultimate outcome of this argument is that we would all wind up either walking or riding a bike. Let's just go back to the frikkin' stone age then, and live in caves. Sorry, no heat or light for ya. Don't want to pollute the air.

Or let's not buy offroading 4WD vehicles unless we actually plan on offroading, eh? If you're a ****ing commuter who doesn't need 8" of ground clearance, don't get an SUV. It's a step in the right direction, which is conservation and moderation, not going back to the stone age, and not a blatent disregard for our resources. There is a middle ground. You just refuse to accept it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Really now? I've driven one of those things before. They are almost impossible to stop unless you put your foot on the brake way ahead of time.

Maybe you were driving a bad example. My XJ stops quicker than the aforementioned Ford Focus - in any weather.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

You just have to hope that some kid doesn't run in front of you or something...

Shouldn't you be looking at the sides of the road, anticipating kids running out on you anyways?

It's all about how you drive the things. If you're hopping from a normal car, have left your brain at home and you're expecting it to drive the same, you're going to get problems.

Likewise, if you step from a normal car into a pre-993 Porsche 911 and carry on driving the way you have been doing (or, more accurately, the way most people do - with no throttle around the corners), you're going to put yourself through a hedge. Backwards.

Likewise if you try to drive a RWD car like it's FWD.

It's about the quality of driving.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by BoomStick

Just what kind of milage does some riceboy's "tuner" get.

Was that a question? Or a sentence?

Either way, I don't know. My 68 Charger which I drove only in the summer on nice days to school and back (about 1 mile) got about 12mpg. Sold it. Not practical.

My modified 97 Neon SOHC 5spd got about 35-43mpg. I got 27 once when I was going 112mph for an hour or so in South Dakota.

My modified SVX gets about 20mpg city, 24mpg mixed, and 28mpg highway.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

There is a middle ground. You just refuse to accept it.

As do you, Rob.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

My modified SVX gets about 20mpg city, 24mpg mixed, and 28mpg highway.

My modified XJ gets 26.5 (US - 32 UK) mixed. Wanna shut up now Rob?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Maybe you were driving a bad example. My XJ stops quicker than the aforementioned Ford Focus - in any weather.

Focus's stop in 130 ft or so. I'm not sure what the "XJ" is, but if it's an SUV a marque would be nice. Also, if it's an SUV maybe you should compare it to a sedan of similar size, not an econobox.

Shouldn't you be looking at the sides of the road, anticipating kids running out on you anyways?

Of course! Problem is, if you do this with a vehicle that stops and handles poorly, you're STILL more likely to get into an accident. You can't see into the future, thus the vehicle that stops and handles the best gives you the greatest chance at avoiding things.

It's about the quality of driving.

Indeed.

Some people think a vehicle that stops, accelerates, handles, has good emergency avoidance, is safe and fuel efficient is a quality driving experience.

Other people think driving something that handles, stops, accelerates like poop, can't avoid things very well, has a tendency to rollover and a more rigid frame to transfer more energy to it's occupants while getting crap MPG..... but looks 'tough', is a quality driving experience.

It basically boils down to people who want actual performance, and posers. Heck, I'd say most SUV owners are BASICALLY like riceboys who put on bodykits and stuff on their civics, trying to look tough without any actual performance!

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

My modified XJ gets 26.5 (US - 32 UK) mixed. Wanna shut up now Rob?

Not really. What's an XJ, first off.... secondly, is that in GALLONS or some weird imperical measurement? Lastly, my car is from 1992. It also has 190,000 miles. I think a better comparison would involve an SUV from the same vintage.... unless you'd like me to bring up some new cars....

[Mastrap]

The problem with most SUV drivers is that they perceive themselves to be safer than they would be in a normal car. This, in my personal experience, can lead to more aggressive driving.

It also leads to being laughed at, loudly, especially when driving a Hummer.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by outsourced

If people want to get crushed to death in their Mini, so be it. People with families can't put everyone/thing into a puny POS Honda Civic or Mini or <insert micro-car name here>!

I've got a family and a Civic, and it's just fine. I've got two kids, but we could fit a third in the back if we wanted, or upgrade to a slightly larger car. It just depends on your expectation. Most people drive SUVs, so that's the norm. It's lost in a sea of trucks at the parking lot at CostCo, but I'm satisfied with the fact that, unlike them, I'm not putting my family into debt because of our vehicle. And the Civic isn't a POS by any fair measure - good price, good mpg, good safety record, good reliability record.

That's the other issue with SUVs for me - I just don't want to spend as much as they cost (both the vehicle and the upkeep, including gas). There are a range of prices to be sure, but when I see the vehicles around my town, I know that the majority of those people can't really afford them. Many of them are spending a year's salary for purchase, and so finance them for 4 years or more; that's just crazy.

[BigBadWolf]

First off, anyone driving a Neon has no right to talk about anyone else's car. I drive an '04 Toyota Landcruiser, I get about 14 mpg. I like my suv. If you don't, I don't care. It is my right as an American to drive whatever vehicle I decide. BTW, my car has better saftey ratings than your neon.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Focus's stop in 130 ft or so. I'm not sure what the "XJ" is, but if it's an SUV a marque would be nice. Also, if it's an SUV maybe you should compare it to a sedan of similar size, not an econobox.

An XJ is a Jeep Cherokee. Not a Grand Cherokee (different vehicle entirely - which has a ZJ, WJ or WK designation).
I don't have a similar size sedan handy for comparison.

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Of course! Problem is, if you do this with a vehicle that stops and handles poorly, you're STILL more likely to get into an accident. You can't see into the future, thus the vehicle that stops and handles the best gives you the greatest chance at avoiding things.

Problem is, it doesn't stop and handle poorly. It's way better than the Focus. I suspect it's due to the fact that the XJ hasn't got ABS, and as such the XJ's wheel lockup combined with the wide tyres gives plenty of friction. (note: my XJ is completely controllable whilst under locked-wheel situations - in fact, in the wet I can lock it up and mimic a controlled handbrake turn using only the foot brake. I used to be able to do this in the dry until I put Pirellis on it).
Oh, not forgetting it's got uprated shocks on it - I couldn't cope with the "US highway" tuned standard shocks (which were far too floaty).

Inherently, all SUVs aren't death traps. The way they're presented in the US may well enhance their death ability, as you guys tend to like your ride soft.

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Heck, I'd say most SUV owners are BASICALLY like riceboys who put on bodykits and stuff on their civics, trying to look tough without any actual performance!

I do have to agree with that one. Most are posers. Mine's about performance.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Not really. What's an XJ, first off....

Cherokee.

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

secondly, is that in GALLONS or some weird imperical measurement?

26.5 mpg US, 32 mpg UK. As stated.

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Lastly, my car is from 1992. It also has 190,000 miles. I think a better comparison would involve an SUV from the same vintage.... unless you'd like me to bring up some new cars....

1996. 90,000 on the clock.

TDi engine (modified marine engine, as supplied in all Euro TDi Cherokees), chipped to 280 lb/ft.

[budster101]

What if everyone just got SUVs?

[Mastrap]

Death rate would skyrocket. SUV vs SUV = not pretty.

[Buckaroo]

Well, all I know is, I have never seen a SUV that was in an accident, and has not flipped over.

They should call them AUV's, Accident Upsidedown Vehicles.

[Doofy]

Less lion problems though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/4155674.stm

Small cars driving through a safari park in Merseyside have been chased by confused lions who think they are prey. Staff at Knowsley Safari Park are monitoring smaller vehicles, including Smart cars and Mini Coopers, after the lions started paying special interest.
David Ross, park manager, told the BBC News website that a group of lionesses chased after one Smart car after being confused by its compact appearance.
He said staff were stationed near the enclosure to keep visitors safe.

Unusual features on cars can also spark interest by the 12 lions at the park, which are more used to seeing larger saloon cars. All vehicles are monitored by park staff on the way in. Mr Ross said: "The lions will take an interest in peculiarities on cars and we always keep a close eye on the cars coming in.

"With Smart cars and sometimes Mini Coopers the lions definitely raise an eyebrow. It sparks their interest because of their size.

"We had an incident of two ladies in a car being chased by lionesses."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Well, all I know is, I have never seen a SUV that was in an accident, and has not flipped over.

You don't watch enough "World's Wildest Police Videos" then.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Problem is, it doesn't stop and handle poorly. It's way better than the Focus.

This defies reason and logic. I'm not saying it's not true, but do you have any numbers to back this up?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by BigBadWolf

First off, anyone driving a Neon has no right to talk about anyone else's car. I drive an '04 Toyota Landcruiser, I get about 14 mpg. I like my suv. If you don't, I don't care. It is my right as an American to drive whatever vehicle I decide. BTW, my car has better saftey ratings than your neon.

What leads you to believe the LC has better safety rating than the Neon (which he no longer owns)? The NHSTA hasn't rated the LC. Where are you getting your ratings from?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500

This defies reason and logic. I'm not saying it's not true, but do you have any numbers to back this up?

No, sorry. Just seat-of-the-pants being there.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bulldust.

Some SUVs exhibit these characteristics, not all.

But they are sold as "car replacements," though they do NOT drive like cars, so if you drive one using car techniques you ARE going to find those negative characteristics. And the car companies are not telling buyers any different.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oh... and #1 positive reason for driving an SUV: if you own one, you're less likely to turn into a whining, sanctimonious Marxist hippie tosser who whines about SUVs all the time.

You haven't seen the Volvo SUV, have you. Or the number of "Land Rovers" that are really only "I'm a RICH soccer mom in a funky truck" vehicles.

SUVs are built to TRUCK safety specifications, which are substantially looser than safety requirements for cars. What the OP didn't post was what happens when the loser in the Expedition slams into the jerk in the Navigator; they are BOTH far more likely to sustain injuries no matter WHAT IMPACT CONFIGURATION the accident is in. Side impact standards for trucks are way lower, crumple zones and front impact engine safety is terrible, and most especially rear impact handling is rotten-including gas tank protection.

The only thing SUVs to better in accidents is damage "normal cars" and their occupants.

[macroy]

How come "mini-vans" never get lumped into these conversations? I don't know if they actually have worse gas mileage than their sedan counterparts... but they are by far the worst drivers based on my experience in the DC area. And I'm assuming they are also less safe to drive based on the SUV characteristics (height, weight etc) that's given here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

You haven't seen the Volvo SUV, have you.

Yep. I don't even class them as proper SUVs. They're just jacked up wagons (and let's face it, Volvo has always been about slightly upper-middle class wagons).

Originally Posted by ghporter

Or the number of "Land Rovers" that are really only "I'm a RICH soccer mom in a funky truck" vehicles.

Yep. Land Rovers are standard farm vehicles over here, nowt special (think F150). Range Rover is a rich man's motor, for sure, but all the rest in the range are run-of-the-mill.

Originally Posted by ghporter

SUVs are built to TRUCK safety specifications, which are substantially looser than safety requirements for cars.

Only your domestic ones. All the ones available in Europe are built to the same safety specs as cars (granted, our safety specs are lower than yours; for example, it's not a requirement to have airbags or ABS).

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by BigBadWolf

First off, anyone driving a Neon has no right to talk about anyone else's car. I drive an '04 Toyota Landcruiser, I get about 14 mpg. I like my suv. If you don't, I don't care. It is my right as an American to drive whatever vehicle I decide. BTW, my car has better saftey ratings than your neon.

I don't drive a neon. I used to. It was a great car. Great handling, braking, and acceleration, along with pretty stellar gas mileage. I guarantee you it would destroy whatever SUV you have in a road course, or accident avoidance. That said, it had a cheap rattly interior that drove me bonkers. And it had no AC, rear window defrost, etc etc etc etc.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by macroy

How come "mini-vans" never get lumped into these conversations? I don't know if they actually have worse gas mileage than their sedan counterparts... but they are by far the worst drivers based on my experience in the DC area. And I'm assuming they are also less safe to drive based on the SUV characteristics (height, weight etc) that's given here.

Because MOST mini-vans are based on car platforms, ride lower, have front wheel drive, weigh less, get better gas-milage and perform better in crash tests than MOST SUV's.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. I don't even class them as proper SUVs. They're just jacked up wagons (and let's face it, Volvo has always been about slightly upper-middle class wagons).

See, that's the thing. What is a "proper" SUV? A Hummer (nothing in the world is "proper" about those pieces of filth)? A Mercedes X5? I think of vehicles like the Chevy Suburban and its GMC counterpart as the seminal vehicles in the genre, and ther is NO WAY you can consider them anything but trucks with nice interiors-and that's FINE, because you won't try to drive one like a car.

I'd love to have a Land Rover Defender, but you can't find them at "normal" Land Rover dealers, because there are too many Discovery's and various Range Rover models crowding the lot. I agree with you about the Volvo; it's a high-ground-clearance station wagon. But then, so is our Honda CRV, which makes no pretentions about being an SUV. AND it's built to domestic AUTO safety standards.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Only your domestic ones. All the ones available in Europe are built to the same safety specs as cars (granted, our safety specs are lower than yours; for example, it's not a requirement to have airbags or ABS).

That's true; and with the more stringent limitations on drivers in some European countries, it'll be a while before people discover that morons without common sense (or an understanding of basic physics) are dangerous when they can herd a tonne or so of steel at high speeds. I do not mind paying for air bags, door reinforcements and the like-it means when the morons manage to close in on me I have a better chance of survival.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, sorry. Just seat-of-the-pants being there.

According to this:

http://www.intellichoice.com/reports...on/specs/type/

and

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/...rap/index.html (I know, it's a '97, but I doubt the specs got worse).

The Focus is faster 0-60, does better on the slalom, and better on the skid-pad. They did not rate braking distance for the Cherokee, but who knows it could be better.

You may say that your upgraded tires and suspension close the gap, but the same upgrades on the Focus would have the same effect.

No sir, it doesn't perform better.

[budster101]

I think most SUVs are based on car platforms as well.... someone correct me if I'm wrong though but many are based on cars.

[chris v]

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, people. Fat Barry posted in this here thread, and you all are prattling on as if you're tiny little opinions mattered at all, and you hadn't been totally pwned.

What the hell is this place coming to?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by budster101

I think most SUVs are based on car platforms as well.... someone correct me if I'm wrong though but many are based on cars.

The compact ones (RAV-4, Freelander, CR-V, etc.) are. MOST of the bigger ones (4-Runner, Explorer and up) are based on trucks.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

See, that's the thing. What is a "proper" SUV? A Hummer (nothing in the world is "proper" about those pieces of filth)? A Mercedes X5? I think of vehicles like the Chevy Suburban and its GMC counterpart as the seminal vehicles in the genre, and ther is NO WAY you can consider them anything but trucks with nice interiors-and that's FINE, because you won't try to drive one like a car.

I sort of define them by their off-road ability. Must have a low ratio option on the transfer case, etc..

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'd love to have a Land Rover Defender, but you can't find them at "normal" Land Rover dealers, because there are too many Discovery's and various Range Rover models crowding the lot.

I didn't think you could get Defenders over there due to there being no airbags and them not having made the NAS for a while?

(note: until blinged-out version 3 came out, even Discoveries were just lowly farm vehicles).

Originally Posted by ghporter

That's true; and with the more stringent limitations on drivers in some European countries, it'll be a while before people discover that morons without common sense (or an understanding of basic physics) are dangerous when they can herd a tonne or so of steel at high speeds.

Oh, we know about it alright.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

An XJ is a Jeep Cherokee. Not a Grand Cherokee (different vehicle entirely - which has a ZJ, WJ or WK designation).
I don't have a similar size sedan handy for comparison.

Thank you for using the actual name of the vehicle instead of it's chassis code.

Problem is, it doesn't stop and handle poorly. It's way better than the Focus.

Then your focus is defective. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I found that a focus stops from 60mph in about 130ft. The best data I can find for a regular cherokee is about 145 ft, many being more like 150 ft. Maybe you should bleed the brakes on your focus, or adjust the drums. Something is wrong. It might be your perception. Some cars have a rock hard pedal without much travel that stops the car quite quickly. Others require more travel in order to stop it, resulting in a stronger 'fee', but it could be less braking performance.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1998/jee...ntent..4.Jeep* 145ft

Inherently, all SUVs aren't death traps. The way they're presented in the US may well enhance their death ability, as you guys tend to like your ride soft.

True. Another reason why most SUVs handle so poorly.

As for your very very optimistic MPG ratings, I don't believe you. Almost every website that has data on the regular cherokee says it's MUCH lower:

http://www.allpar.com/reviews/2000/cherokee.html 16-20, usually 18mpg
http://www.nctd.com/review-final.cfm...e&ReviewID=133 20-23mpg
http://www.epinions.com/content_118995127940 20mpg
http://www.carsurvey.org/review_36387.html 19-24mpg
http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews-all-1849.html 18-20mpg
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymod...Cherokee.shtml All jeep cherokee models available, mpg ranging from 15-23
http://www.carsdirect.com/research/j...erokee/1996/se 19mpg
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1996/jee...denav..6.Jeep* 20mpg

I do have to agree with that one. Most are posers. Mine's about performance.

In comparison to other SUVs, yes. In comparison to cars, no.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Paco500

This defies reason and logic. I'm not saying it's not true, but do you have any numbers to back this up?

None. The worst brake specs I can find on the focus (wagon base model) are better than the best cherokee brake tests I can find. I think he's equating pedal stiffness to better braking.

[Jacob]