[Atomic Rooster]

Fat barry is

anyways...

Every time a volcano erupts it does more damage than all the cars ever made have ever done to the atmosphere or ozone layer or whatever.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500

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.

Well, it'd be good if you compared the cars I actually own. The Jeep's a chipped TDi (loads more torque than the i6 - standard has the same - appearing from lower in the rev range). It's a manual transmission (standard on TDi). It's got a lower axle ratio (standard on TDi). It's got uprated springs (standard on TDi - not my mod). Uprated shocks (my mod). 1996 - Jeep changed specs for 97 MY.

The Focus is a 2004 1.6 (not a 2005 2.0). No modifications. The 2005 Focus is a completely different car than the 2004 one.

I think the Focus would hit it some in the slalom, but nowhere else. The Jeep would own on the skid-pad. This is not magazines or web sites talking. I've driven both today.

[suvsr4terrorists]

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.

Minivans don't usually have good MPG... almost SUV like, but not quite. Thing is, most minivans haven't been stuffed with a v8 yet, so they get like 19-27mpg, in general. They do, however, generally stop, accelerate, and handle much more like a car, are a lot less likely to flip over, and are a lot safer to be in an accident in, since they have more crumple zones. The reason nobody brings them up is that... well... think of the typical SUV owner... "YEAH LOOK AT ME I"M COOL IM IN A TRENDY SUV!". Even though they don't NEED to go offroad, and they basically only need a car or minivan, they don't want to hear 'just get a minivan instead' because of how LAME today's minivans are. It's just a such an uncool suggestion that it literally seals most SUV owners eardrums shut immeadiatly. I choose to instead focus on the performance of a car vs SUV. It's quite drastic. Again, most minivans don't have massive ground clearance, or super tall sidewalls. That means lower cg, and better handling. Generally. Not quite as good as a car, but still.

Grassroots Motorsports, a pretty sweet magazine, did a pretty neat article a few years back. They took a brand new honda odysey and pitted it against a vintage Porsche 356 and Jaguar XKE, all restored to 'as delivered condition'. The honda odysey beat both the porsche and the jag in 0-60, 60-0, 1/4 mile, and in road course lap times. They then put sticky tires on the minivan and it gained an even greater margin. That just goes to show you how FAR we've come in 40 years or so.... and it's all being thrown into the toilet by this SUV trend.

[suvsr4terrorists]

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.

Navigator= Ford F150= truck
Escalade= Suburban= truck
H2= Suburban
Armada= titan= truck

Very few fullsize SUVs use car chassis, they just can't handle the weight.

[budster101]

So, that's about half of all SUVs are based on automobile chasis' right? Do they get lumped into your numbers as well? If so, isn't that a little disingenuous?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy

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

What if one runs out from behind a parked car (or a parked SUV) where you can't see him?

What if some guy decides to run a stop sign and is now right in front of you?

What if something else similarly comes up from out of nowhere? You have a better chance avoiding the accident with a car than you do with an SUV.

A bike, on the other hand, is pretty hard to beat for maneuverability. And you get exercise...

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well, it'd be good if you compared the cars I actually own. The Jeep's a chipped TDi (loads more torque than the i6 - standard has the same - appearing from lower in the rev range). It's a manual transmission (standard on TDi). It's got a lower axle ratio (standard on TDi). It's got uprated springs (standard on TDi - not my mod). Uprated shocks (my mod). 1996 - Jeep changed specs for 97 MY.

In that case I have no idea. I just googled Jeep, TDI, Cherokee, etc all for about 10 minutes with no luck whatsoever. It seems you own a car that is only for sale, and nobody reviewed.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by budster101

So, that's about half of all SUVs are based on automobile chasis' right? Do they get lumped into your numbers as well? If so, isn't that a little disingenuous?

Well yes and no. The really small ones are SUV in styling only. They generally have All-Wheel drive or front wheel drive and are pretty much just station wagons. They do sit higher, so they affected by the higher center of gravity and are more unpleasant to others in a crash. All the extra hardware for the All-Wheel drive also adds weight, lowering fuel economy and performance. And for the downsides, what are you really gaining? They tend not to be suitable for off-roading, they don't have much cargo or towing capacity and have small passenger compartments- the antithesis of what most people claim they are buying SUV's for. So while they aren't as "bad" as the truck-based SUV, they are kind of silly. You loose performance, economy and safety and gain "style."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

In that case I have no idea. I just googled Jeep, TDI, Cherokee, etc all for about 10 minutes with no luck whatsoever. It seems you own a car that is only for sale, and nobody reviewed.

I've seen plenty of reviews - but they're all on paper (i.e Top Gear magazine). You have to remember that the model was introduced before the web was invented.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I've seen plenty of reviews - but they're all on paper (i.e Top Gear magazine). You have to remember that the model was introduced before the web was invented.

I found some references, but they are all in German. Was is a european only model?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500

I found some references, but they are all in German. Was is a european only model?

Yep. Basically they popped a VM TDi engine in it (very weird thing - each piston gets its own head), gave it a manual box, modded the suspension and axle ratios, put nicer seats in it (i.e. even the base model has rear passenger headrests, which I don't think US models got).

[outsourced]

Seems like "SUV" is being generalized here. Are we talking truck chassis V8's? If so, I could agree with the handling (but I really like the Armada). Wait a minute! I thought the Armada had independent rear suspension.

Anyway, I had a Dodge Dakota (2000). That frikkin' solid rear axle caused me almost to go into a spin one time when going around a really shallow curve. I even slowed to about 40 before entering it. Now I drive a Subaru. Am I an SUV sinner? Is my Subaru an SUV? After all, I'm only getting about 26-30 MPG.

Why aren't we attacking motorhome drivers? Aren't they using all of my gasoline? (Nevermind. Motorhomes aren't SUVs...sorry.)

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by outsourced

Now I drive a Subaru. Am I an SUV sinner? Is my Subaru an SUV? After all, I'm only getting about 26-30 MPG.

No, it isn't. It's a wagon. 26-30mpg is quite good for a non compact or hybrid car.

Why aren't we attacking motorhome drivers? Aren't they using all of my gasoline?

Motorhomes generally get used for motorhome purposes: Occasional jaunts to a destination, but I've never met somebody who uses one for a daily commute. Also, motorhomes are not trendy, they aren't clogging up our traffic system at the moment because not everyone is trying to buy one. SUVs, on the otherhand, are everywhere.

[outsourced]

Anyway, like I mentioned earlier. I'm just waiting for the day when I can buy a hydrogen fuel-cell auto. Of course, we'll probably be paying $10/gal. for hydrogen. Too bad we just can't urinate into the fuel cell! Of course, that might cause emission problems of its own.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

No, it isn't. It's a wagon.

Depends what kind of Subaru it is. The Forester is generally classed as an SUV over here (but not by me).

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Depends what kind of Subaru it is. The Forester is generally classed as an SUV over here (but not by me).

And the previous forester wasn't. It still meets all auto standards, they just marketed it as an SUV instead of a wagon to attract the nimrods who refuse to admit wagons are cool, and SUVs suck. I've got a bit of seat time with one, and it's definitely a car.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. And BRussell is right about the game theory aspect of this -- it's a "death pyramid" as one of my profs used to describe it.

But being on the road with lots of trucks, especially over-the-roaders means bigger is safer. It has to be, on a case by case basis. Has anyone broken down those numbers (at the head of the thread) by who was 1) in the SUV, and 2) who was wearing restraints?

[sek929]

I drive two large vehicles for a living. My first "car" was a Suburban and I learned to drive in it.

I can drive ANY SUV like a friggin champ, however, they brake slowly, they handle poorly, and the entire vehicle reacts slower to driving situations. This does not include an "SUV" with a car chassis and a 4-cylinder so don't bother mentioning it.

The truth is, the large stance of the vehicle and the assuredness of 4WD makes most people driving them overly confident in their safety. When, if anything, they should be concentrating of keeping their massive vehicle between the lanes. The bigger the vehicle, the more care that needs to be taken while driving it.

As far as flipping an SVX over, ha, thats rich...its wider than my house.

Maybe you need to show Doofy a pic of it ca$h.

[busterhide]

Lets see, in Calif. Gas is pushing to $3.00 a gallon. Do you want to throw 25 to 30 dollars a week for basic transportation or 60 to 80 dollars a week. Oh yea and the cost of the vehicle effects your insurance premiums too. Just how much are you willing to pay for a cool status symbol. Lets see do I buy groceries or get gas this week. If you have money to burn have fun. But for the rest that extra cash means a full refrigerator and a full tank of gas.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by finboy

Agreed. And BRussell is right about the game theory aspect of this -- it's a "death pyramid" as one of my profs used to describe it.

But being on the road with lots of trucks, especially over-the-roaders means bigger is safer.

Again, wrong.

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.

[Fyre4ce]

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.

Sorry, the "It's a free country" argument doesn't fly with me on this issue. I think people should be allowed to do pretty much anything so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. But with petroleum reserves in short supply, gas prices at an all-time high, and global warming bearing down on us, your choice to drive a gas-guzzling vehicle definitely affects other people. Why should you be allowed to drive around getting 14 mpg driving up the price of gas for people who can barely afford it, not to mention polluting the air?

Here's what I think a good solution would be: Like that big SUV? Fine. You should pay a tax to drive it, and that money will go to other people so they can afford to buy hybrids or other fuel-efficient vehicles to offset your consumption. What everyone wants is gas to be cheap and plentiful but it's just not going to happen. We need to take some measures soon to conserve our oil supply or pretty soon gas will be so expensive that it will seriously bring down our economy.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Sorry, the "It's a free country" argument doesn't fly with me on this issue. I think people should be allowed to do pretty much anything so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. But with petroleum reserves in short supply, gas prices at an all-time high, and global warming bearing down on us, your choice to drive a gas-guzzling vehicle definitely affects other people. Why should you be allowed to drive around getting 14 mpg driving up the price of gas for people who can barely afford it, not to mention polluting the air?

This would be an interesting study- I wonder what the public health/infrastucture cost is of the SUV trend. I bet, dollar wise, all the SUV's are costing the country more than second-hand smoke.

More injuries and fatalities on the road, more polution, more rapid delpetion of resources, infrastucture damage (big things gotta be harder on the roads the the little guys), econimic consequences of poeple spending so much on cars.

Can't be good.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Paco500

This would be an interesting study- I wonder what the public health/infrastucture cost is of the SUV trend. I bet, dollar wise, all the SUV's are costing the country more than second-hand smoke.

More injuries and fatalities on the road, more polution, more rapid delpetion of resources, infrastucture damage (big things gotta be harder on the roads the the little guys), econimic consequences of poeple spending so much on cars.

Can't be good.

Look at all those spelling errors! Damn I hate posting without Safari!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Here's what I think a good solution would be: Like that big SUV? Fine. You should pay a tax to drive it

If you pay tax on your gas, then those running less mpg already pay a tax to use their vehicles.

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of idea I've heard thousands of times before from car-hating hippies - and the idea doesn't stop. Once the SUVs are off the road they'll come for supercars. Once the supercars are off the road they'll come for sports cars. They won't be happy until everyone is driving around in Citroen 2CVs. Is that what kind of World you want to live in?

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

We need to take some measures soon to conserve our oil supply or pretty soon gas will be so expensive that it will seriously bring down our economy.

Your economy is on the way down anyways. And it's not because of oil.

[Randman]

If people were better drivers, there would be fewer accidents.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy

They won't be happy until everyone is driving around in Citroen 2CVs. Is that what kind of World you want to live in?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

They won't be letting chicks wear lipstick or nail polish either.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you pay tax on your gas, then those running less mpg already pay a tax to use their vehicles.

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of idea I've heard thousands of times before from car-hating hippies - and the idea doesn't stop. Once the SUVs are off the road they'll come for supercars.

Wrong. Supercars aren't driven everyday. Nor are they used as daily transportation.

Once the supercars are off the road they'll come for sports cars.

Again, sports cars aren't driven everyday, nor are they used in place of minivans.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Randman

If people were better drivers, there would be fewer accidents.

True. Also, if people were driving cars that handled better and stopped better, there would also be fewer accidents. Hence, if all the people driving SUVs were in cars, there would be fewer accidents. Plus it'd be easier for everyone else to see, allowing for even fewer accidents.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Wrong. Supercars aren't driven everyday. Nor are they used as daily transportation.

Ummm... Yes they are. Especially if they say "Porsche" on them (the Turbo is a supercar, easily).

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Again, sports cars aren't driven everyday,

Yes they are - even more so than supercars. If you deny this then you're without a doubt living in some kind of bizarre parallel world. No end of people here go to work every day in their Lotus, their Evo, their MX5, their Impreza Turbo, their Type R, their Skyline... ...need I go on?

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

nor are they used in place of minivans.

And that was just a bizarre statement.

[Railroader]

This thread makes me wanna go H2 shopping.

The best part is that a H2 gives off less harmful emissions than any SVX on the road today. It legally has too.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I sort of define them by their off-road ability.

You bought a Cherokee for its offroad ability? You're joking right? A Cherokee is an SUV, it's not a 4x4's backside.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen Cherokees being pulled off the beach or out of the mud by other vehicles. I have a close friend who bought a Cherokee to tow his boat in South Africa. We launched the boat from the beach, so he had to tow it up and down the beach sand. With a Landrover or any competent 4x4, you simply let some air out of the tyres and drive slowly. The Cherokee couldn't do it and he tried everything. A Nissan Hardbody that cost half the price could do it with ease. We took the Cherokee on a windsurfing trip to Namibia and it got bogged down in sand. Do you think there was anywhere on the vehicle where you could put a jack under it when the chassis was touching? A Land Cruiser, you can pop the jack under the wheel arch or the bumper and jack it out of the sand. On a Cherokee, half the vehicle is plastic pieces. The bumper is plastic, the wheel arch is plastic. You should have seen that car when we came back from Namibia. Half of it got left behind on bushes. All these plastic bits that get hooked on stuff and fall off. Modern Jeeps are even worse - they're made for parking lots and wintery road not for serious offroad stuff.

If you want an offroader, the list of options if rather small. Landrover Discovery (or better still an old Landie), Toyota Landcruiser (the real deal not the SUV version or the Lexus), Isuzu Double Cab, Pajero SWB (older ones are better) Nissan Hardbody, Gelaendewagen (G Series Merc) or a Unimog. Of course, these vehicles handle like crap on the road because that's what they're designed for but they are actually capable offroaders. A Jeep is not. In Africa, you will only come across Land Rovers and Land Cruisers. When you actually depend on your car to get you out of tight spots, those are the only really reliable options.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Ummm... Yes they are. Especially if they say "Porsche" on them (the Turbo is a supercar, easily).

Yeah it's so often I see these cars driving around in the rain. Or snow. Or any day it isn't sunny.

Sports cars and supercars were NEVER the problem that SUVs are today, because they were NEVER replacing the 'family sedan'. Look out your window. What do you see? I'll check mine:

I see 16 sedans.
I see about 7 econobox coupes
I see about ... ****... looks like I have the only sports car, if you even consider an SVX one considering it has a freakin automatic.
I see 2 vans.
I see 8 SUVs.

Please note I live DOWNTOWN, where people do not go offroading. All of these SUVs are being used in place of a normal car.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Railroader

This thread makes me wanna go H2 shopping.

The best part is that a H2 gives off less harmful emissions than any SVX on the road today. It legally has too.

No it doesn't. It gets 6.8 miles per gallon. Thus in any distance, it's putting out about 3x what I do.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Troll

If you want an offroader, the list of options if rather small. Landrover Discovery (or better still an old Landie), Toyota Landcruiser (the real deal not the SUV version or the Lexus), Isuzu Double Cab, Pajero SWB (older ones are better) Nissan Hardbody, Gelaendewagen (G Series Merc) or a Unimog. Of course, these vehicles handle like crap on the road because that's what they're designed for but they are actually capable offroaders. A Jeep is not. In Africa, you will only come across Land Rovers and Land Cruisers. When you actually depend on your car to get you out of tight spots, those are the only really reliable options.

Where's the Wrangler?!?!

[Kevin]

Who gives a crap what people buy? Really. This ranting about who owns what car and for what reason is inane.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Where's the Wrangler?!?!

Yeah, it should be on the list too. I'm not saying that's a closed list. Those are just vehicles I've seen used offroad.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Who gives a crap what people buy? Really. This ranting about who owns what car and for what reason is inane.

YEAH! AMERICA! FREEDOM! I should be able to buy a 10,000lb vehicle that leaks oil and has a smokescreen behind it all the time! And I don't care if all brakes don't work except for one drum brake in the rear! And I don't care if the bumper is high enough to decapitate most people riding in cars! FREEDOM! YEAH!

[I was David B.]

I drive a lot and I must say here in germany the SUVs are driven like mad. The higher position and the fat engines lead to reckless driving styles. Like always Porsche drivers are ok although they have one of the most powerful machines, but VW Tuareg and BMW X5 and X3 drivers can be unbelievably brutal.

That combined with the knowledge that accidents with SUVs are much more dangerous for others makes me very angry. I am all against fire arms in personal posession but in this case I would often like to make an exception...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

YEAH! AMERICA! FREEDOM! I should be able to buy a 10,000lb vehicle that leaks oil and has a smokescreen behind it all the time! And I don't care if all brakes don't work except for one drum brake in the rear! And I don't care if the bumper is high enough to decapitate most people riding in cars! FREEDOM! YEAH!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

You bought a Cherokee for its offroad ability? You're joking right?

Does it look like I'm joking?

[macroy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Wrong. Supercars aren't driven everyday. Nor are they used as daily transportation.



Again, sports cars aren't driven everyday, nor are they used in place of minivans.

I'd disagree. In this (DC) area, there are plenty of sports cars (or GTs) driven everyday. In fact, in the garage of my office, the top floor is pretty much packed with S4s, M3's, 911s, E55's, SL55's and even a few Panoz's (sp?).

Having said that, I do drive my Honda Pilot on a daily basis and have a "weekend" car. But I also do use twice as much gas just driving my weekend car compared to the Pilot.

However the SUV bashers are putting it, you're still blaming a segment of drivers for issues/concerns that EVERYONE is contributing to. Its like small time crooks blaming bank robbers because they use automatic weapons and take more money.....

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Yeah it's so often I see these cars driving around in the rain. Or snow. Or any day it isn't sunny.

Well, it's almost never sunny here. Almost always raining. Yet I still see plenty of Porsche Turbos knocking around.

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Look out your window. What do you see?

A Jeep Cherokee. A Ford Focus. A Jeep Grand Cherokee. Two Ford Transit Vans. An R32 Skyline. A tractor. Two race horses. Some grass. A few cows.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by macroy

I'd disagree. In this (DC) area, there are plenty of sports cars (or GTs) driven everyday. In fact, in the garage of my office, the top floor is pretty much packed with S4s, M3's, 911s, E55's, SL55's and even a few Panoz's (sp?).

Count the number of all those cars you see in a day. Now count the number of SUVs you see.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Count the number of all those cars you see in a day. Now count the number of SUVs you see.

You've completely missed the point Rob...

..which was:

Once the Marxist hippies have succeeded in banning the SUVs, they'll then start looking for other things to ban. Because that's how Marxist hippies are - never happy with anything. If we start down this track then it won't be long before they ban everything with more than 50 BHP.

Do we all want to be driving around in Trabants or what?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You've completely missed the point Rob...

..which was:

Once the Marxist hippies have succeeded in banning the SUVs, they'll then start looking for other things to ban. Because that's how Marxist hippies are - never happy with anything. If we start down this track then it won't be long before they ban everything with more than 50 BHP.

Do we all want to be driving around in Trabants or what?

Yes, but nobody listens to marxist hippie. I'm not a marxist hippie. I think modern sedans are clean, and I have no problem with people driving them. They've come SO FAR from the cars sold in 60s.... it's amazing. Again, I reference the GRM issue in which they pitted a honda odyssey Minivan VS a vintage posche 356 and Jag XKE. Minivan beat them in all categories.

The problem is that people driving SUVs instead of today's sedans is they're effectively bringing us back to the 60s... 60s handling, braking, and acceleration (excluding musclecars). And what happened after the 60s? OIL CRISIS! If people learned from history maybe we wouldn't have to repeat it. :|

[Kevin]

Cash who cares? It's their money, their life, their choice. And if you was so worried about oil, you'd ditch your 6banger, get a 4cylinder, and NOT try to go 100zillion miles an hour down the highway. Which BTW is more dangerous than an SUV.

And no I don't want to hear about how you, at what 21 have the experience and know-how to do such things without them being dangerous.

Your selective rants are just that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Yes, but nobody listens to marxist hippie.

Oh, you'd be surprised. We have a bunch of them running our country right now. They're sneaky little buggers, they don't let on that they're Marxist hippies until it's too late to repair the damage they've done.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Does it look like I'm joking?

Well, no it doesn't look like you're joking. It seems you genuinely thought you were buying a 4x4 for using offroad which distinguishes you from 99% of SUV owners. None of those shots is particularly impressive though. I could show you tons of shots of Land Cruisers, Land Rovers and Unimogs doing stuff that's much more impressive than those shots. Heck, I could show you some shots of VW Golfs and Citroen 2CV doing some pretty impressive offroading. Whatever floats your boat. All I'm saying is that if you were chosing a car for its offroad abilities, most people would not consider a Cherokee in their top 5. If you go to countries in Africa or the Middle East where people actually use 4 wheel drive, you won't see a single Cherokee out there. In fact, 99% of the SUVs you see driving through Suburbia, you won't see out there. Because they don't work. An SUV is a sports utility vehicle. It's a compromise between offroad ability and onroad handling so it is necessarily not as good as dedicated 4x4's. Most people are buying SUV's because they're cool or tall or because they mistakenly believe them to be safer. Those are all valid reasons for getting them. Frankly, the people who buy SUV's for their offroad abilities are mostly posers who like people to think they have these active lifestyles where they need 4 wheel drive. The ironic thing is that those who do have active lifestyles like that wouldn't ever consider an SUV.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

The problem is that people driving SUVs instead of today's sedans is they're effectively bringing us back to the 60s... 60s handling, braking, and acceleration (excluding musclecars).

Oh. And...