Why buy an SUV ?? [Archive] - Ultimatecarpage.com forums

SKHargan

05-16-2004, 12:01 PM

To be honest, in my own experience, the rolling easy is more a theoretical danger than a practical one. My grandfather bought a Jeep CJ5 in 1969, brand new, it's been in the family ever since, about half the time as a daily driver. We've never had a problem with it, and with teenagers driving it for a good many years of its life, I'm not willing to say that it's just because it's never been driven hard. And there are very few (if any) SUV's with a greater theoretical danger of rolling than an old CJ5 (short and narrow wheelbase, high center of gravity). We've owned Broncos, Grand Wagoneers, GMC Jimmys, and Suburbans, all driven hard but never rolled one. Never even came close.

So why have we owned SUVs for so long? A number of reasons:

- Safer. More metal around you, you're generally going to be safer getting in a crash with one of these behemoths than in a smaller car (note the generally). Hell, I even got hit in said CJ5 (don't worry, it's getting fixed - and no, it wasn't my fault) and wasn't hurt. The thing's built like a tank, and I was hit hard enough to bend the frame. I was fine (if you're wondering about the others, they were both taken to the hospital because they weren't wearing their seatbelts and their heads hit the windshield :mad: ). And to be honest, while some might say that I'm endangering other people by driving my SUV, I will reply that that's a risk I'm willing to take in order to keep my family safe. If more people took that risk, there'd be fewer fatalities on the road, IMHO. I'm not willing to put my family in danger in order to level the playing field.

- Do you know how much I can shove into the back of these things? Or tow? How many kids I can haul around? It's like owning a van with a pickup bed attached - I can do anything with it. My burb (the land barge, we call it) is extremely versatile with its foldable seats. I've shoved an entire garage door into the back of the thing (doors didn't close all the way, but hey). I've hauled around a dozen kids - and parents feel all right because the beast can climb over anything, I'm a good driver, and they know their kids are safe with that much steel around em.

- Lets talk about that climbing over/going through anything. I *love* that Burb's capabilities. High ground clearance, low range 4WD and big ol' V8, it can do anything. I can't imagine it'd be that great on sand just because it's got pretty wide tires (just going to float along the top rather than cut through), but there isn't much sand around here in Colorado. Usually when you see someone getting towed out in a Burb, they'd be just as helpless in a Subaru. They're just crappy drivers. A lot of people think the fact that they have low range 4WD makes them invincible to terrain, but it doesn't. You still have to use your head.

- MPG. Yeah, the Burb's mpg isn't that great. We get about 15 around town, probably 18 on the highway if we're lucky. But to be honest, that's a rather moot argument. Our old Chevy Astrovan only got 16-18 around town, and few people argue against mini-vans. Many of your dream cars get 15-16 mpg, or less. In my opinion, it's a worthy tradeoff for the practicality of the car. Oh, and as for environmentally unfriendly, the only thing wrong with it in that respect is the low mpg. My Burb has to meet the same emissions standards as your Civic. Yeah, hummers are different, but I'm not arguing for such...er...extravagant SUVs as Hummers.

- What else? Well, there's the beautiful ride that's given by a big SUV with a long wheelbase. It's quiet. It's powerful (can even be considered as adding to safety, as more than once that thing's decent acceleration has allowed me to avoid a rather poor driver). It handles better than most pickups (better weight distribution) but is more versatile than a van. It's luxurious. It's great for long road trips (much better than our old Astrovan). And, dammit, I just like it.

Yes, you could get a better ride, more luxury, and better mpg out of a smaller car. But those are just side benefits to our SUVs. The main ones are their versatility, their safety, their power, and their practicality.

-Shawn

Matra et Alpine

05-16-2004, 12:30 PM

....And to be honest, while some might say that I'm endangering other people by driving my SUV, I will reply that that's a risk I'm willing to take in order to keep my family safe. If more people took that risk, there'd be fewer fatalities on the road, IMHO. I'm not willing to put my family in danger in order to level the playing field.
so when does getting bigger SUVs to be safer than you stop for everyone else ?
Inflation doesn't just affect money !!
Smaller SAFER cars exist, why not swap to those ?
BTW, European cars score twice the ratings of American SUVs because the test includes measuring the ipmact the passengers encounter. The problem with big solid tanks is when you hit something equally hard or hared then all the internals get to absoorb ALL the decelration. If you've your seatbelt on then it's your internal organs !!
Crumple is better than solid for everyone.
But it's NOT in the American car makers psyche :)

I've hauled around a dozen kids - and parents feel all right because the beast can climb over anything,
Here we see the big-is-safe mentality at it's worst !!
Only half of those kids could have been belted in, so even hitting a puny French trash can would have resulted in serious injury to THOSE kids.

I'm a good driver, and they know their kids are safe with that much steel around em.
Obviously not seen the end result of a body being trhown around inside a car then.
Hopefully, this'll make you think a bit and maybe next time hire a passenger vehicle, take them in turn, take more than one vehicle or heven-forbid go by public transport :)

- MPG. Yeah, the Burb's mpg isn't that great. We get about 15 around town, probably 18 on the highway if we're lucky. But to be honest, that's a rather moot argument. Our old Chevy Astrovan only got 16-18 around town, and few people argue against mini-vans. Many of your dream cars get 15-16 mpg, or less. In my opinion, it's a worthy tradeoff for the practicality of the car. Oh, and as for environmentally unfriendly, the only thing wrong with it in that respect is the low mpg. My Burb has to meet the same emissions standards as your Civic.
You telling me Civics only get 20mpg ??
My A610 gets that gas mileage in town ( OK serious dip on track :) )

Get with the facts on gas, USA is using gas at a higher rate than anywhere else - though the Chinese are heading that way.
It's a finite resource and being bully on the block doesn't help the US image. It would be nice to see some real action to improve gas mileage by the US government. The justified reason for high gas prices through tax in Eureop is to try to curtail the usage and save it for future generations when some things can ONLY come from oil.

It's luxurious. It's great for long road trips (much better than our old Astrovan). And, dammit, I just like it.
Road noise ?

Yes, you could get a better ride, more luxury, and better mpg out of a smaller car. But those are just side benefits to our SUVs. The main ones are their versatility, their safety, their power, and their practicality.
You cite examples where you clearly have an SUV for the purpose it was intended. Going on unmade roads, cross-country, carry lots of stuff and passengers.
But the present SUV culture we all hate is the school-mom and the rap star wannabees !!

cls12vg30

05-16-2004, 12:50 PM

He didn't say the Suburban got the same fuel economy as a Civic, he said it had to meet the same emissions standards.

The justified reason for high gas prices through tax in Eureop is to try to curtail the usage and save it for future generations when some things can ONLY come from oil.

A noble intent, but like many Americans I feel strongly that the purpose of any government tax is strictly to raise the revenue necessary to fund the functioning of the government, NOT to influence the behavior of the populace. No government has any business putting any extra "excise" taxes on gasoline, tobacco, alcohol, or anything else. I oppose the current product-specific taxes on all these items, I consider it blatant social engineering which is not the job of the government.

Coventrysucks

05-16-2004, 01:12 PM

- Safer. More metal around you, you're generally going to be safer getting in a crash with one of these behemoths than in a smaller car (note the generally). Hell, I even got hit in said CJ5 (don't worry, it's getting fixed - and no, it wasn't my fault) and wasn't hurt. The thing's built like a tank, and I was hit hard enough to bend the frame. I was fine (if you're wondering about the others, they were both taken to the hospital because they weren't wearing their seatbelts and their heads hit the windshield :mad: ). And to be honest, while some might say that I'm endangering other people by driving my SUV, I will reply that that's a risk I'm willing to take in order to keep my family safe. If more people took that risk, there'd be fewer fatalities on the road, IMHO. I'm not willing to put my family in danger in order to level the playing field.

No, it isn't safer.
Your CJ5 is, as you say, very solid. It has no deformable crash structure to it, like many other American SUV's built on decades old technology.

Lets imagine that an SUV built on the same seperate chassis principles as most SUV's, hits someone head on in a vehicle of similar stature - an MPV, which is more car like it it's structure.

The forces in the SUV go straight through the chassis. (as demonstrated by the fact that it bent your frame when you crashed at what I assume was quite a low closing speed, as you wouldn't pass it off so lightly if it had been serious), through the floor pan, steering column, and passenger cell.
In a violent impact, this means that the passenger cell will collapse, deforming the door, which will require the occupants to be cut free. Also the pedals and steering wheel being pushed back into the passenger compartment, potentially causing injuries to the lower legs and chest area.
Also most of the force will put through the occupants, which can also increase the severity of injuries sustained.

The MPV, with deformable impact zones, and monocoque chassis will transmit all of the forces more evenly. A significant proportion of theforce will be absorbed through progressive deformation, and most of the rest will be dispersed through the monocoque evenly, and be directed around the passenger cell. This results in less cabin intrusion, and a gentler deceleration for the occupants.

Pimp racer

05-16-2004, 01:16 PM

I would rather buy a minivan then a suv.

GT500

05-16-2004, 01:34 PM

SUVs are roomy. I ony like the luxury ones, the rest are....well....rargle. Things like the Lexus RX and Infiniti FX are things I can live with. Things like the Suburban, Excursion, Exploder...I mean Explorer, Expedition and SRX are just wagons on steroids even if the SRX is a luxury SUV... [/badgrammar] ;)

Slicks

05-16-2004, 02:15 PM

I would rather buy a minivan then a suv.
reasons? I would much rather have an SUV. RWD/4WD, ride quality, off road capabilities, towing (although alot of van can tow heavy things). But mainly because of RWD, one of my biggest pet peaves is torque steer, and the fill of FWD while turing. RWD is so much more comfortable and smooth on steering.

MadiTex

05-16-2004, 02:22 PM

Coventrysucks

05-16-2004, 02:41 PM

Here's two good reasons: :cool:

SUV's: Now available with handling :)

JERNACE

05-16-2004, 03:41 PM

When you think of an suv you should a point of view. alot of people would buy it for its look (big size, ride hight), other for the name of the make.

Me personaly taking in mind i live near the deseart i would be looking for capabilitys. experiance with sand has shown that cars like the range rover, bmw x5, porsche cayenne are worth nothing in the sand especially sand dunes. their are 2 cars that have succeded taking in mind the price range, which is cheaper than the above cars, Nissan Patrol (4800), and the Toyota Landcrusier(V8,V6).

But if you want some thing that does the job and has taste plus luxury i would recomend the Mercedes G-class.

http://www.nissan-me.com/patrol/images/patrol_gal_b_img6.jpg
http://www.nissan.co.uk/fleet/img/sections/cars/patrolgr.jpg http://www.fast-autos.net/mercedes/g55.jpg http://www.fast-autos.net/mercedes/g552.jpg

Matra et Alpine

05-16-2004, 04:48 PM

He didn't say the Suburban got the same fuel economy as a Civic, he said it had to meet the same emissions standards.
You missed the point.
Meeting emission standards should be part and parcel of protecting and saving our environment which includes fuel consumption.

A noble intent, but like many Americans I feel strongly that the purpose of any government tax is strictly to raise the revenue .... I consider it blatant social engineering which is not the job of the government.
Yep.
THAT is AMERICAN democracy.
Other democracies around the world consider it ( and are voted in for it ) to be part an parcel of being residents not owners of the planet :)
The USA has been successful in the same way the British Empire was in the 16-18C. With infinet resources there IS no need for social equality.
As finite resources run out, hen greed will reap revenge.
We're drifting, but you should read Locke's treatise on government.
The American forefathers used it as the basis for the nation.
Shame that NOW only 10% of it is remembered :)

Matra et Alpine

05-16-2004, 04:51 PM

reasons? I would much rather have an SUV. RWD/4WD, ride quality, off road capabilities, towing (although alot of van can tow heavy things). But mainly because of RWD, one of my biggest pet peaves is torque steer, and the fill of FWD while turing. RWD is so much more comfortable and smooth on steering.
Not driven an American 4WD - only a Japanese one in Ca :( - so I don't know what they're like.
FWD does NOT have to include torque steer.
It's a sign of a poor design missing the necessary ( and now intelligent ) centre-diff(s) to avoid those.

Matra et Alpine

05-16-2004, 04:53 PM

If you've got a big family and need the room or you live out in the middle or nowhere. I have an SUV because I need it to lug a horsetrailer around when I show my horse. I doubt it is only SUVs polluting the environment, by-the-by.
No problem ( I've an Espace 4x4 for the horses too :) )
You need an SUV and will clearly use it's capabilities.
How many soccer-moms and rap-pimps tow horses ??????

Misho

05-16-2004, 04:59 PM

they use them to tow hoes, not horses Matra !! :D

Slicks

05-16-2004, 06:29 PM

Not driven an American 4WD - only a Japanese one in Ca :( - so I don't know what they're like.
FWD does NOT have to include torque steer.
It's a sign of a poor design missing the necessary ( and now intelligent ) centre-diff(s) to avoid those.
I know what your saying but most FWD cars have torque steer, whether it be very minor, or alot. Every FWD car ive driven i could tell was FWD just by how it felt, and i hate that. Being pulled every where is very annoying to me, and you cant let go of the steering wheel at all. I wouldnt exaclty call it a bad design though, cars are made to sell, and if company X puts center-diffs on their FWD cars, but they dont sell anymore than when they did not have the diffs, then it is a waste to the company. You have to remember, companies arnt trying to make the perfect car, there trying to make the car that sells the best. So companies wont add something that doesnt help the car sell better.

Matra et Alpine

05-16-2004, 06:33 PM

So companies wont add something that doesnt help the car sell better.
I just don't understand why US customers would accept something which we don't.
But I've never understood much about American 'culture' :)
Low-riders and Bigfoot for example ( yep I know the former is not US-wide )

IBrake4Rainbows

05-17-2004, 12:16 AM

Ah the age old debate, and the very first one i wandered into.

If you go to the Hummer area of UCP, you'll see a guy called BlackSunshine arguing with Henk4 and Myself over the pointlessness of an SUV.

and regarding the definition, why is it called an SUV (SPORTS-utility vehicle) if you aren't being sporty with it?

Suburbans are named as thus because they can fill a whole suburb, and rightly so! if people want to buy them, let them, I know there more unsafe than other cars, and I know they don't get the same fuel economy, but who are we to tell them any different?

I hate to admit it but my family does own an SUV (A Jeep Cherokee) but is it more roomy than our BMW? if you took away the back, no, it's actually rather cramped. Is it Safer? NO, but this point could be refuted simply because the Jeep is a slightly older design, it might be the square-headlamp design, but the basic design was done about the same time as the E36 3-series. Do I feel safer in it, knowing theres a hell of a lot of metal between me and an oncoming car? no, it doesn't have an airbag, anywhere. It rolls like it's a freighter in a Force 5 and in the end, the metals not going to absorb the impact, it's gonna pass it on to my head, my chest, my legs. I'm gonna be glad when we get rid of it, to be quite honest.

But in the end this is my opinion, and judging by the Apparent sales success of things like the Cayenne (A SPORTS utility vehicle if their ever was one, it's optimised for the road, no matter what Porsche says of it's off-roading ability), i'm out of step with what the public wants. It's certainly a cult figure in U.S. culture now, like the 1959 Cadillac was, Excess and Glitzy.

For my Avatar today i took a special think and decided on the Cadillac Escalade ESV, based on the Suburban. Does this type of car move the market foward at all? No. Does it show any innovation whatsoever? No. will I be buying one anytime soon? No.

Their is no greater Luxury, as the saying goes, as Space. Something which SUV manufacturers are keen to stress, more space to stretch out, granted. More space for stuff, Granted. More space between you and the oncoming car? I'll give them that one as well, but I'll also point out that more often than not you'll end up on top of the oncoming car, unless they are driving a bigger SUV than you.

The G-Wagen is a car made over 25 years ago, thats being rehashed to look cool and trendy, by looking like an 80's Land Rover Defender. It's still pointless, fitting it with Road tyres does nothing for it's off road ability, but hey, who are we to stop them? it's freedom of choice at it's most virilant, and i for one am not going to stand in it's way, no matter how pointless it might seem.

Slicks

05-17-2004, 06:43 AM

I just don't understand why US customers would accept something which we don't.
But I've never understood much about American 'culture' :)
Low-riders and Bigfoot for example ( yep I know the former is not US-wide )
Well for one half the population of the US is girls, and they cant tell a difference :rolleyes: , and there are very few FWD cars that offer a LSD, or center differentials. So in that case think of it as most of us dont even know about it, so you cant want to buy something you dont know exists. Most of the people buying FWD cars arnt doing it for perfomance too, with the exception of the ricers around here. So they deal with the torque steer beacuse their economy car get good gas milage. And another thing to consider is that alot of people have only driven FWD cars, and dont know how RWD feels. They could think that all cars feel like their FWD car.
BTW i kinda like bigfoot, 2000+hp NA V8 big trucks running over things... :cool:

cls12vg30

05-17-2004, 07:23 AM

I agree with Rainbows when he says, "who are we to tell them any different?", with the caveat that by "we" I mean via the government and regulations. I have no problem with the cultural backlash against SUV's that is currently underway, if the people of a society want to make something culturally unacceptable, by the gradual alteration of social mores (like what has happened with smoking), that is their right. I just don't feel the government should be involved. Then again I don't believe the government should be involved in most of the things it is currently involved in.

My father drives a 1997 Grand Cherokee, and it's the only SUV I've driven that I can say I liked. It's the first generation Grand Cherokee, which is not as large as the current model. It actually feels more like a high-riding car, it has a car-like driving position and uni-body construction. It also has a relatively efficient and fantastically durable 4.0 liter inline six, which is an updated version of an old AMC engine, and is one of the best engines ever built in the U.S. My parents live in Buffalo, NY, and the Jeep's AWD system and ample ground clearance have gotten my father home during more than one major blizzard when a lot of other people were stranded. So I feel he is justified in owning that vehicle. But a lot of people that I see commuting alone in Ford Expeditions have just bought into the trend, and I can't fathom spending the money to fuel such a behemoth just for the status.

drakkie

05-17-2004, 08:03 AM

For safety : buy a renault/volvo (very safe cars)
For the room : buy an MPV, like a opel Zafira, or a renault espace or just buy a (mini)van
For the offroad capabilities : buy a hummer or a LM02 (one of the few pupose built offroad vehicles)
For the looks: buy a sportscar
For the waste of money: buy an SUV
For the pollution : buy an SUV (normal (family)car is 'bout 1 litre on every 17 kilometers/ A SUV 1 litre on every 10 kilometers)
For the death of pedestrians: buy an SUV (The high nose , and the massive weight really hurt!!!)
For the horses: (buy a car with lots of torque, and when you have horses(=money), you can pay to let them be transported in a large trailer)

The town i live is pretty posh, and when you walk over the parking lot of the supermarket it looks kinda like this:

X5--HUMMER_TOYOTA-RANGE ROVEr (2X)
---------road---------------------------
KIA sorento- Range rover-land rover-hiundai santa fe-some kind of old wreck
------------road------------------------
X5-range rover-X3-Land rover-Toyota X-trail

It is exactly the same near the schools, when people that call themselves "mom" dump the kids on school.

sandwich

05-17-2004, 08:47 AM

Are you people retarded? I would've thought more open-mindedness from the UCP forums....then again, they could get away with calling this the "hate on American autos" forums.

There are people who need SUVs and people who don't. I don't think they should be as prevalent as they are. I weave my way through rich b.tches talking on their cellphones every day in traffic. They don't care, they've got a big car to protect them.

Drakkie, I'm not sure you have a clue. Have you ever had to pull a trailer? Have you ever seen anyone ever take a Lamborghini LM02 offroad? Are you nuts? If you're going offroad, the best vehicles are the Jeep CJ, the Ford Bronco, even the chevy blazer (particularly the older (k5?) model). These are cars that can handle being offroad. Take your 60 thousand dollar car and break an axle....then what? The same part costs thousands less in a real off-road car.

In addition, for the towing aspect, you're leaving out pickup trucks. Easily as large as an SUV (less the wagon) just as bad on everyother quality. These are perfect pullers though.

I hear you guys b.tch about monocoques versus steel frame/body again I'm going to retch. There are plenty of SUVs that are much further adapted to the road than a jeep from 85. My mother's GMC Envoy is one. It has a great ride, but it doesn't handle well. If you're doing 90 around corners in an SUV, you deserve to be wrapped around a tree. This car is great for her, and great for sludging through 8" of fresh powder. I'd love to see your Volvo, Renault, or MPV do that.

Waste of money? What the hell are you talking about? Where's your justification? Prove to me that your Volvo holds it's value better than a Blazer. Then prove it did better in crash tests. And fuel economy. Then let's talk about cargo capacity. Then let's discuss towing. Wait...you're Volvo can't do all that? Who cares? Somebody who needs to tow, haul, drive in snow, etc. needs all that.

Volvo's are safe because there's extra metal all around it. My friend drives one, and it's the biggest piece of sh.t there is. 18 mpg, RWD which sucks in snow, it has devalued immensely and replacement parts cost a fortune. And if you think this thing doesn't run rich and pollute more than the Envoy, then you're badly mistaken. Not to mention, I would rather be hit by the Envoy, as it is built with current crash testing in mind, rather than the sh.tty volvo that not going to "crumple" at all as it gently cuts my legs off.

Get over it people. SUVs have they're place. It's not on the track, it's not in the twisties, it's not on the dragstrip. It's off-road, in front of a trailer, driving through snow, and hauling lots of sh.t.

Misho

05-17-2004, 09:14 AM

i would have loved to read something new coming from you sandwich (thats a nice name :) ). but ur just stressing the point that some people need SUVs while others dont. is there anything else to this conversation ?

cls12vg30

05-17-2004, 09:36 AM

Well I would say that one good thing that has come out of the SUV trend is the compact SUV's and crossovers that have come out. The Toyota RAV4 and the Honda CR-V are two of the most practical vehicles I've ever seen, they're certainly not off-roaders, but there's a lot to be said for the practicality of an AWD small high-ceiling station wagon. And now we're seeing the "crossovers" such as the Suburu Forester and more recently the Chrysler Pacifica which have essentially brought back the station wagon, (just give it another inch or two of ground clearance and call it a crossover), giving families a viable alternative to the minivan.

Matra et Alpine

05-17-2004, 10:01 AM

..For the offroad capabilities : buy a hummer or a LM02 (one of the few pupose built offroad vehicles)
...
erm, the Land Rover STILL beats the competition when real off-road tests are done on production vehicles. The high axle articulation gets it out of big rocks better than any other vehicle.
Humvies are VERY poor in very rough terrain.
They're not designed for that, they're designed to be fast over mild terrain adn do the best job at that.
And as for an LM002 - as I've said here before, go check out the Top Gear episode. It failed the Italian army tests and nobody but a few arab states bought them for their intended purpose.
:)

sandwich

05-17-2004, 10:06 AM

is there anything else to this conversation ?

I don't really think there is Misho, and that's my point. Some people need them, others don't. The ones that don't probably should drive sedans, but the ones that do shouldn't go without them. The blind dismissal of an entire genera of automobile based on one person's limited opinion is silly and nothing less than ignorant.

Suvs can be just as fun as sports cars, but not in the "go-fast, corner hard" way.

Matra et Alpine

05-17-2004, 10:14 AM

Are you people retarded? I would've thought more open-mindedness from the UCP forums....then again, they could get away with calling this the "hate on American autos" forums.
Think you're confusing a hatred of the SUV-rash affecting America with the country. Don't know of anyone here who has a hate for the country or it's people.
Anyway to return to SUVs :)

There are people who need SUVs and people who don't.
That's been agreed already.
The moot point is what about all those who DON'T need one but buy them anyway.(sic)

If you're going offroad, the best vehicles are the Jeep CJ, the Ford Bronco, even the chevy blazer (particularly the older (k5?) model). These are cars that can handle being offroad.
You still can't beat a Land Rover for going REAL off-road without mods :)

I hear you guys b.tch about monocoques versus steel frame/body again I'm going to retch. There are plenty of SUVs that are much further adapted to the road than a jeep from 85.
THe point I make about body construction is the lack of design effort to make the cars deformable. That's a general US issue. You guys think it's terrible that Eureopan cars look messed up after accidents and forget they're designed to do that and protect the passengers better for it :)

My mother's GMC Envoy is one. It has a great ride, but it doesn't handle well. If you're doing 90 around corners in an SUV, you deserve to be wrapped around a tree. This car is great for her, and great for sludging through 8" of fresh powder. I'd love to see your Volvo, Renault, or MPV do that.
My Espace Quadra does it nicely thanks :) Also did 130mph on Autobahn with 3 adults, 2 kids and a big box on the roof !! BUT they stopped making them :(
Pulls a horse trailer out of 6" of mud too - towed a stuck Volvo couple of years back :)

Waste of money? What the hell are you talking about? Where's your justification? Prove to me that your Volvo holds it's value better than a Blazer. Then prove it did better in crash tests. And fuel economy.
Well it does here. But you're mileage may vary :)
European NCAP testing has shown how bad US cars are.
It's fact and demonstrable.
Hey it's also shown up how bad others are too.
The Ford Galaxy door pillars sheared off in one test years back. Not good for driver :(

Then let's talk about cargo capacity. Then let's discuss towing. Wait...you're Volvo can't do all that? Who cares? Somebody who needs to tow, haul, drive in snow, etc. needs all that.
No sdisagreement on someone who is constantly towing, carrying cargo or ferrying folks.
BUT, how often does a soccer mom ( or you ) need that ?
When I want to move a lot of stuff I borrow a trailer and hitch it on the back of the car(s).
If it's bigger I can hire a truck for 25 pounds for the day !!
I've public transport for lots of people or (again) can hir a bus for 100 quid and take 40 at a time :)

Volvo's are safe because there's extra metal all around it.
it also has lead the way in some of the innovations in passenger cell protection and personal safety. So it';s not JUST about metal.

My friend drives one, and it's the biggest piece of sh.t there is. 18 mpg, RWD which sucks in snow, it has devalued immensely and replacement parts cost a fortune. And if you think this thing doesn't run rich and pollute more than the Envoy, then you're badly mistaken. Not to mention, I would rather be hit by the Envoy, as it is built with current crash testing in mind, rather than the sh.tty volvo that not going to "crumple" at all as it gently cuts my legs off.
Unless your friends Volov is an old 200 series, then that's just bias.
Modern Volvos are excellent ( gad can't imagine I said that !! ) and have very good NCAP scores.
So don't know where that's coming from.
UNless you have an anti-Volvo bias ? Hell I do coz of the drivers they attract ( I'm a biker )

Get over it people. SUVs have they're place. It's not on the track, it's not in the twisties, it's not on the dragstrip. It's off-road, in front of a trailer, driving through snow, and hauling lots of sh.t.
Yep. BUT the annoyance for all the other road users is why so many OTHER folks own and drive them.
The spread of that mentality can't be stopped and we're seeing European roads full of gas-guzzling mosnters at schools and in store car parks !!

Matra et Alpine

05-17-2004, 10:18 AM

Well I would say that one good thing that has come out of the SUV trend is the compact SUV's and crossovers that have come out. The Toyota RAV4 and the Honda CR-V are two of the most practical vehicles I've ever seen
You wnat to find the old Top Gear episode when they did the rollovers.
Suzuki and Toyota did NOT come over well ( actually the WENT over very well that was the problem :) )

And now we're seeing the "crossovers" such as the Suburu Forester
Actuallyt the Forrestor pre-dates ALL of them and arguably started the 4wd with good handling trend.

giving families a viable alternative to the minivan.
and a good thing too.
One of the worst vehicles I've ever envouinterd was an Astrovan. Drove 1500 miles on business and it was the worst. A van with windows.
Made me glad to get back to the Matra implementation of an MPV :)

Coventrysucks

05-17-2004, 10:20 AM

Are you people retarded? I would've thought more open-mindedness from the UCP forums....then again, they could get away with calling this the "hate on American autos" forums.

Chill out man.
The reason Americans get slagged off for SUV's is that there are more of them about in the US.
If they were as prevelant anywhere else I am sure people would complain just as much.

One of the best things about this forum is that it manages to respect good American cars, without resorting to fanboy worship of Vettes and Vipers.

Don't take it so personally. :)

If you're going offroad, the best vehicles are the Jeep CJ, the Ford Bronco, even the chevy blazer (particularly the older (k5?) model).

If you're going off road, why not get a proper off roader?
A standard Pinzgauer will knock a standard Bronco or Blazer into a cocked hat any day. :)

http://www.bigbearlive.com/bigbearauto/pinzgauer/gallery/DSCF0046.jpg
http://www.bigbearlive.com/bigbearauto/pinzgauer/gallery/Front-Air.jpg
http://www.bigbearlive.com/bigbearauto/pinzgauer/gallery/Good-rear-air.jpg

NAZCA C2

05-17-2004, 11:00 AM

If you buy an SUV just to drive around town then you are an idiot. Some people do need SUV's. If you live in a place that gets a lot of snow or you use your SUV for off-road driving then a SUV or truck makes sense. You can also use SUV's to haul a lot of stuff unlike most cars.

sandwich

05-17-2004, 12:04 PM

meant to say some of the best, not the best exclusively.

werty

05-17-2004, 12:48 PM

meant to say some of the best, not the best exclusively.

alternative to not buying an SUV.......4 door truck-even more practical than SUV's

Slicks

05-17-2004, 01:39 PM

If you're going off road, why not get a proper off roader?
A standard Pinzgauer will knock a standard Bronco or Blazer into a cocked hat any day. :)

http://www.bigbearlive.com/bigbearauto/pinzgauer/gallery/DSCF0046.jpg

Haha, nice. Tell me though whats the ride quality like on the road? :rolleyes:
The thing is the SUVs are multi purpose vehicles, they can go off-road, on road with good ride quality, good in the snow and rain. Hell my friend has a 91 Blazer with 360,000miles on it, has replaced nothing major (only tranny at 180,000miles) and he goes off-roading any change he can get. That thing is tough as hell, and he has had no problems with it. Whether you guys like it or not they are practicle vehicles, more practical than perfomance cars. And everyone needs to stop complaining about the pollution from them, most perfomance car pollute just as much if not more than these SUVs. Another sad thing i would just like to bring up is the polluters are the small displaced perfomance engines BTW (i.e japanese mostly) So stop complaining about gas mileage.

Matra et Alpine

05-17-2004, 01:53 PM

....i would just like to bring up is the polluters are the small displaced perfomance engines BTW (i.e japanese mostly) So stop complaining about gas mileage.
evidence .....

Coventrysucks

05-17-2004, 02:50 PM

Haha, nice. Tell me though whats the ride quality like on the road? :rolleyes:

I didn't say it had any, or had to. ;)

GT500

05-17-2004, 04:46 PM

Ehhh I can understand if ppl who get 50 bazillion inches of snow every year (may be exaggurated.....;) ) need an SUV to get around, but people who have super off roaders like the H1 and H2 and keep them on road with their 26" spinnaz and what not is just plain wrong. You're just making yourself look dumb rolling around in an off roader and not even using it for what it was built for. Not to mention you're wasting gas and making people laugh at you.....ehh......w/e :rolleyes:

MrVette83

05-17-2004, 04:52 PM

I've not read all the way through this so my appologies if this has been covered. I would buy an SUV b/c in the area I live it does snow quite a bit during the winters some times and people need to be able to get places. For instance my mom works at a hospital and has to be there regardless and her Blazer has the room she needs for us "kids" and the 4WD capabilities for bad weather. My dad has an Avalanche b/c he travels on and off road quite often with his job.

Slicks

05-17-2004, 09:27 PM

evidence .....
Well compared to american perfomance cars
Corvette 19/27
Camaro/firbird 19/27
GTO 18/27
Mustang Cobra 17/26
Viper 10/20 (yeah it sucks)
Ford GT 14/21

Than there are the japanese small displaced
S2000 20/26
NSX 17/24
EVO 18/26
3000GT Vr-4 18/24
Skyline GTR R34 14/23
Supra Turbo 17/23

Matra et Alpine

05-17-2004, 10:50 PM

Well compared to american perfomance cars
Corvette 19/27
Camaro/firbird 19/27
GTO 18/27
Mustang Cobra 17/26
Viper 10/20 (yeah it sucks)
Ford GT 14/21

Than there are the japanese small displaced
S2000 20/26
NSX 17/24
EVO 18/26
3000GT Vr-4 18/24
Skyline GTR R34 14/23
Supra Turbo 17/23
Actually all those numbers show is that fast Japanese cars are equal polluters of fast US cars !!
There aren't any signifant differences and has already been pointed out performance cars use more gas :)

If you take the range of vehicles produced then you see the 'bunching' of US cars well below the Euroepan/Jap cars. The main reason is they're heavier, bigger engines, more power-consumming goodies. That is the US car market. Majority of the cars currently imported into the US are the top-end of the luxury or performance where the consumption IS worst. You don't see the hundreds of cars that are 2-3 times better than those figures.

Coventrysucks

05-17-2004, 10:58 PM

This snow excuse is wearing thin. :)

In Sweden where it snows a LOT, they managed to get by without an SUV untill last year.

A normal car equipped with snow tyres / chains and a competant driver will out perform an SUV with ordinary SUV tyres.

If it doesn't snow enough for you to need snow chains/ tyres you probably don't need a SUV for the 360 days it doesn't snow. ;)

Falcon500

05-18-2004, 05:47 AM

Well for my opions on the subjectmy parents just bought a toyota prado at large expense their reasons behind it...they want to have a capeable vehical for mild off roading....they wish to own a comfterble car that they can drive around in for when they eventually retier....they want to tow a caravan and see Australia.
Also as a foot note this toyota prado will be able to replace our grey studebaker as our towing car (which is off the road undergoeing restoration) and is a more comfterble car at long distances then mums 77 datsun 120Y....their considerations of safety where not a priority...one dissapointment was they couldent get a nudge bar...the options list didnt include one...they wanted a nudge bar to protect them from hitting kangeroos which are abundant in country New south whales and country victoria....

So thems are the reasons behind my parents decisions...

We also have a close family freind who owns a 60 or 70 seriesland cruiser he uses it to cart his large family around in (3 kids wife himself and sometimes the dog) he also freaquently uses it for its intended purpose off roading he makes regular camping trips and also recieved 4x4 training in his time in the army and even teached a 4x4 course at the local collage....also this is more of a family/requational vehical he drives a magna to work every day....he reguarly uses it as a towing vehical for family and friends too....And another close family freind (in a toyta prado) who lives a little out of town and sometimes gos to see other people who are further out of town...so a vehical with 4x4 capeabilitys are an advantage....he also owns horses so again its used as a towing vehical....

In general im against 4x4s but i dont fully agree with the anti sentaments here so im posting only SOME (and i am really stressing that) of the responable 4x4 owners i know i feel the karma in the room improving mildly :) :P

Matra et Alpine

05-18-2004, 06:37 AM

i dont fully agree with the anti sentaments here so im posting only SOME (and i am really stressing that) of the responable 4x4 owners i know i feel the karma in the room improving mildly :) :P
I wasn't aware of anyone holding a 'grudge' on all SUVs.
It's the SUVs owned by folks who would cry if their Gucci shows got a little dusty, never mind HEAVEN-FORBID getting mud on the tyres or worse the doros ! It might rub off on their Armani trousers !!!

Slicks

05-18-2004, 06:44 AM

Actually all those numbers show is that fast Japanese cars are equal polluters of fast US cars !!
There aren't any signifant differences and has already been pointed out performance cars use more gas :)

If you take the range of vehicles produced then you see the 'bunching' of US cars well below the Euroepan/Jap cars. The main reason is they're heavier, bigger engines, more power-consumming goodies. That is the US car market. Majority of the cars currently imported into the US are the top-end of the luxury or performance where the consumption IS worst. You don't see the hundreds of cars that are 2-3 times better than those figures.
My argument was about perfomance engines though :p

Falcon500

05-18-2004, 06:49 AM

I wasn't aware of anyone holding a 'grudge' on all SUVs.
It's the SUVs owned by folks who would cry if their Gucci shows got a little dusty, never mind HEAVEN-FORBID getting mud on the tyres or worse the doros ! It might rub off on their Armani trousers !!!
Well the name of the thread why by an suv doesnt give confidence....and the occasional bash has been made...
But i do see your point cheers for that :)

Matra et Alpine

05-18-2004, 07:45 AM

My argument was about perfomance engines though :p
yes, but on V4 engines made in 1968 then the USA cars are wya behind on performance and consumption.

See, it's non-sensical to take a group of cars in isolation.

Doubly so when NOT including SUVs in an SUV thread :)

A society either worries about resources and pollution or doesn't.
But hey, I hear Russia is not going to ratify the Kyoto accord either now.
So the once mortal enemies are now on the same side.
Shame it's the planet that loses :(
[ Oops took ti even FURTHER from SUVs ]

Slicks

05-18-2004, 08:41 AM

yes, but on V4 engines made in 1968 then the USA cars are wya behind on performance and consumption.

See, it's non-sensical to take a group of cars in isolation.

Doubly so when NOT including SUVs in an SUV thread :)

A society either worries about resources and pollution or doesn't.
But hey, I hear Russia is not going to ratify the Kyoto accord either now.
So the once mortal enemies are now on the same side.
Shame it's the planet that loses :(
[ Oops took ti even FURTHER from SUVs ]
My point was simple, first i said that SUVs consume about the same amount of gas as perfomance cars, which is true. Then i said that the smaller displaced perfomance based engines consume more gas than the larger displaced performanc engines. I said this to just get the point across that SUVs dont get bad gas milage because they have "big" engines.

Matra et Alpine

05-18-2004, 09:19 AM

My point was simple, first i said that SUVs consume about the same amount of gas as perfomance cars, which is true. Then i said that the smaller displaced perfomance based engines consume more gas than the larger displaced performanc engines. I said this to just get the point across that SUVs dont get bad gas milage because they have "big" engines.
Never in dispute.

BUT you're missing the point.
They get bad gas mileage. They get it because they're big and inefficient and THAT needs a big engine.
All those SUVs NOT being used to tow or mudplug are unecessary.

and any argument about having the right to use the fuel as an owner and his/her money sees fit just doesn't wash in a world with a finite resource.

Relative to the numbers on the roads versus the 'performance' cars it's ludicrous and a waste of a scarce resource. I'd tried to point out that inappropriate comparisons mean nothing.
Sorry it didn't get through :)

cls12vg30

05-18-2004, 09:52 AM

and any argument about having the right to use the fuel as an owner and his/her money sees fit just doesn't wash in a world with a finite resource.

I disagree. Most resources, right down to the amount of money available to an individual consumer, are finite, and thus fall under the perview of the laws of supply and demand. When you consider the world supply of oil, and current levels of consumption, it's going to start to run out, probably within this century, and alternative energy sources will have to be developed, whether 20% of U.S. consumers switch to SUV's or not. Much as it is hyped, the overall effect is negligible. I personally can't fathom spending the money to fuel an SUV, but if another person is willing to pay the price, I believe that is their right, and they don't have to justify it to anyone.

We as a culture can certainly make such a decision one that our society frowns upon, but when you allow a government entity to tell that person they don't need that vehicle, you will open up a huge can of governmental worms that should never be opened.

It's very easy to spout off about how the government needs to regulate this and that until that government decides to come after something that is important to you.

History has shown repeatedly that once such compromises of individual liberty begin, they spread like a virus, and progress inevitably toward totalitarianism, which eventually leads to violent uprising, revolution, or conquest, and then the cycle starts over again. Each phase of this cycle can last centuries, and is currently in various stages of progress both in the U.S. and all over the world, as it has been for all of history, but as free people our responsibility is to oppose and combat government interference in our lives and those of our fellow citizens as best we can.

Matra et Alpine

05-18-2004, 02:51 PM

I disagree. Most resources, right down to the amount of money available to an individual consumer, are finite, and thus fall under the perview of the laws of supply and demand.
You need to read Locke's Two Treatise on Government.
These founded the principles of British and American government of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Suppu and demand is only part of it and RESPONSIBILITY is crucial

When you consider the world supply of oil, and current levels of consumption, it's going to start to run out, probably within this century,
Predictions for this summer is the US will have a fuel shortage and UK is going to have gas (real gas :) ) supply issues.

and alternative energy sources will have to be developed, whether 20% of U.S. consumers switch to SUV's or not. Much as it is hyped, the overall effect is negligible.
It was always the smalleset most insignificant LAST straw which broke the cammels back, BUT every individual straw contributed.

I believe that is their right, and they don't have to justify it to anyone.
Shuold someone be allowed to steal food from you freezer because his family is hungry ?
No, responsibility ( through law ) comes to bear and should do in any society.

We as a culture can certainly make such a decision one that our society frowns upon, but when you allow a government entity to tell that person they don't need that vehicle, you will open up a huge can of governmental worms that should never be opened.
Americans are SO afraid of a socially responsible government that you struggle to see the benfits and let the extremem alternative run riot in your lives and think it "free".

It's very easy to spout off about how the government needs to regulate this and that until that government decides to come after something that is important to you.
with a social conscience then a government "goes after" those things which prevent injustive and provide a fair and just society for ALL.
The alternative is the power of a few.
Britain had it with it's baronies. US has it with it's corporations.

History has shown repeatedly that once such compromises of individual liberty begin, they spread like a virus, and progress inevitably toward totalitarianism, which eventually leads to violent uprising, revolution, or conquest, and then the cycle starts over again.
That is an excellent description of fascism, but is a long way from socialism and the ideals of communism ( note I say 'ideals' as it's difficult to make communism work successfully due to our inability to control nature.

Each phase of this cycle can last centuries, and is currently in various stages of progress both in the U.S. and all over the world, as it has been for all of history, but as free people our responsibility is to oppose and combat government interference in our lives and those of our fellow citizens as best we can.
I strongly disagree. The individual responsibility is to ensure a JUST society for ALL. In the UK it was called the "I'm all right Jack" mentaility. It's OK if you're the strongest. If you've any weakness then it gets exploited.
Being magnanimous is better in the long run to avoid being taken later :)

cls12vg30

05-18-2004, 03:43 PM

Matra et Alpine

05-18-2004, 04:18 PM

Well we've got different ideas about ideal government, Matra. (My ideal govt. would barely exist at all.) I believe when a government has to provide a "safety net" for some citizens, not only does it serve to perpetuate poverty for those citizens, but it inevitably has a negative effect on the productivity and innovation of those citizens that have no need of said safety net. Individual liberty and individual responsibility go hand in hand. I despise the idea of socialism with every fiber of my being.
How can you despise something you've never experienced and is reported SOOO negatively in the US press ?
McCarthy did a lot of damage to the psyche of the nation !!
To help , I strongly recommend reading Locke's treatise.
You'll understand the point of equality, better grasp the need for 'responsible' governments and maybe see the distortion capitalism above all has done to the intents of the founding fathers :)
Or maybe not.
As they say, shit can be warm, comfortable and safe ( reference to the bird/fox joke :) )

crisis

05-18-2004, 07:15 PM

Why?
Towing, offroad use, cargo space.

Why not?
Size, manouverabilty, fuel efficiency.

You can tow most things with a big V8 two wheel wheel drive with poor fuel economy. You can get cargo space from a truck or large wagon with poor fuel economy.
Large sedans are not as manouverable as smaller cars, or as fuel efficient.

So how big should a car be? How efficient should it be? What colour should it be?
Do we need sports cars? Two seaters make them inefficient for transporting people. Many have large and powerful engines that are bad for fuel efficinecy.

I and around ten of my freinds have large nasty 4x4s. None have been rolled. Im sure you can roll them if you try. You can crash a Corolla if you aim it at something.

The oil shortage is manufactured by OPEC. As at 2000, the known reserves are a trillion barrels (1 barrel equals 159 liters, 42 gallons, or 0.16 m3), the estimated world reserves, according are about 1.5 x 1011 m3. 1 trillion barrels of crude oil is enough to supply the world for about 50 years. This prediction is based on the present world consumption, however, world consumption is expected to increase.

Im going fishing next month in my mates supercharged 100 series Landcruiser. It is one of my vices.

Now can we ask why buy one of these? Kylie excepted.

IBrake4Rainbows

05-18-2004, 11:18 PM

Sorry if i seem newbyish, but i have read the thread, so here goes.

Now there is a place for the SUV.

Fishing, Hunting, Killing.

All good american pastimes also.

so the SUV's popularity can not be faulted.

Except when fashion becomes involved.

Can anyone honestly tell me that they (If they bought one) Would take a Cayenne/X5/FX3/45 off road? I certainly wouldn't, i've just spent a bloody fortune paying for this new SUV, and i'm not think of getting it dirty in the street, let alone trying to go to the farthest ends of the earth.

As for the whole "Hate on American cars" comments, we bag out Korean, Japanese, European, American and Australian cars, for that matter anything we see which doesn't come up to our standards. Most SUV's are fashion items and thus they fall out of my range, Anything fashionable is likely to go out of fashion as soon as you buy it, so it's only a matter of time before something happens to scare OPEC into hiking up prices and forcing us into smaller cars. Oh look, Here it comes now.......................................

Having a big car suits having a big ego (No offence, Crisis) and also having a big family/hobby/outlook on life, people only buy big cars if the world is prospering, it's always luxury cars that cop the brunt of a falling market, and although their might be a lot of new Luxury cars falling into the market, there falling into a saturated one. If i wanted a Luxury SUV i could have any number of manufacturers begging you for their cash, and this is the inheirant problem. People like having an SUV, it's the new Big sedan with a brand name. And when even Porsche gets in on the action, you know manufacturers are beginning to rely on the market for profits. When the Oil Crisis strikes again people with SUV's are gonna be stuck, like owners of Big Cadillacs were, and once again the cycle of Manfacturers struggling, getting comfortable, expanding and being blown up again will continue.

As for the whole 50 Trillion Barrels argument, ever heard of rationing? there trying to make it last as long as possible, so OPEC can get the profits for as long as possible. It's the way big business works, unfortunately.

crisis

05-18-2004, 11:59 PM

so the SUV's popularity can not be faulted.

Except when fashion becomes involved.

Can anyone honestly tell me that they (If they bought one) Would take a Cayenne/X5/FX3/45 off road? I certainly wouldn't, i've just spent a bloody fortune paying for this new SUV, and i'm not think of getting it dirty in the street, let alone trying to go to the farthest ends of the earth.

You get no argument from me.

Having a big car suits having a big ego (No offence, Crisis) .
Thats not offensive. My mates rekon its cause I have a little dick. Overcompensation.

As for the whole 50 Trillion Barrels argument, ever heard of rationing? there trying to make it last as long as possible, so OPEC can get the profits for as long as possible. It's the way big business works, unfortunately.
50 years is a long time. I dont think we will be needing oil by then.

Matra et Alpine

05-19-2004, 03:32 AM

The oil shortage is manufactured by OPEC. As at 2000, the known reserves are a trillion barrels (1 barrel equals 159 liters, 42 gallons, or 0.16 m3), the estimated world reserves, according are about 1.5 x 1011 m3. 1 trillion barrels of crude oil is enough to supply the world for about 50 years. This prediction is based on the present world consumption, however, world consumption is expected to increase.
This last year the oil industry has had to face the facts and have seen companies DRAMATICALLY changing their estimates of oil avilability. Shell has cut its estiamtes by 1/3rd !! It runs out the oil industry has never been that good at getting estimates right but as long as they could keep finding new major fields it wasn't an issue. It's different now. There ARE no "easy" fields any more and so the truth is starting to be seen.
The estimates also assume that new technology will come on stream to get the last 30% out of those existing fields. That technology isn't even KNOWN for the more diffifcult fields like the North Sea and Bering Straits !!
So already you MAY be looking at 1/3rd less than 50 years for the estimateion errors AND ANOTHER almost a 1/3rd for accessability.
Suddenly it's now within a single generation !!
And yet our consumption continues to increase.
There are is no point waiting till we have to befor ecutting consumption as by then it's too late. There are some things ONLY reasonable to produce from oil. Those other non-necessities will become less available and much more expensive.

An analogy easier to grasp. If you have wheat grain you have a choice.
You can have a feast NOW, eat it all and live in luxury till the wheat runs out.
OR you can plant 25% of it. Have enough to eat but not a feast and generations can live forever.

If we squander fuel now then it will be hard to make products REQUIRED in the future.

This doesn't mean NO SUVs ( or no trips ) but it SHOULD mean we should all be doing what little we can to curtail the inappropriate wastage. And dragging around 3 tonnes of SUV so mom can look pretty and kids can look 'cool' just is wrong.

Matra et Alpine

05-19-2004, 03:37 AM

Now can we ask why buy one of these? Kylie excepted.
Because they provide highly-efficient urban transport for 2-4 people and or items.
In 10 years time you WILL be driving one too, unless you are lucky and can afford $20 a gallon.
Esepcially with current state-of-art alternatives, the mass of the car needs to be low to balance the mass of the drivetrain. So get used to it.
Will Kylie in 10 years time still be as desirable - hope so :)

Matra et Alpine

05-19-2004, 03:44 AM

50 years is a long time. I dont think we will be needing oil by then.
You may not need it for propulsion in 50 years but it will still be the staple energy production fuel of the world.
most of the chemicals necessary to manufacture the goods in your home need petrochemicals as a basis for their production.
and it's 50 years in an optimistic world.
If we don't curtail consumption and increase efficiency then it's estimated shorter. There are assumptions made that we become better 'citizens'. As we can't agree the Kyoto accord then it's clear we're not :(

SOme of us remember the 60s (:() when everything was going to be nuclear powered. There are parts of our society think the same for wind/sea/sun electricity generation and alternative fuel transport. Call me cynical but I prefer to plan for a middle channel and not the Utopia of the "next big thing" being the salvation of all so keep steaming along !!

Falcon500

05-19-2004, 05:59 AM

As for the whole 50 Trillion Barrels argument, ever heard of rationing? there trying to make it last as long as possible, so OPEC can get the profits for as long as possible. It's the way big business works, unfortunately.
Well for that argument my father clearly rembers the fuel crisis and didnt pay much attention to them buying a XW GT when the ripples where being felt..."The world is a big place and we have had an oil crisis a few times in my lifetime and no doubt you will encounter a few...i personally think youll be long gone when a real oil crisis is a serious problem" he may be wrong he may be right from my personal experiance my father is rarely wrong so you all could easily guess where i stand on the finiti resource subject.....
And yes matra you are right polymers (platics) are a by product of pretrol production...but science i believe will be able to get around it...humans while destructive are ingenious beings....i personally think that we can find a happy medium...maybey im being an idealist but thats my view....

Misho

05-19-2004, 06:19 AM

what percentage of the world's oil production is used to supply fuel for cars ?

Matra et Alpine

05-19-2004, 08:46 AM

what percentage of the world's oil production is used to supply fuel for cars ?
Don't have the numbers, but it IS small compared to energy and chemical production.
Will ask riend who works in industry, he usually knows these things :)
However, cars and travel is one thing we can readily make individual choices on and control or better utilise. The big guys do that already - power gen turbines etc etc

crisis

05-19-2004, 05:58 PM

This doesn't mean NO SUVs ( or no trips ) but it SHOULD mean we should all be doing what little we can to curtail the inappropriate wastage. And dragging around 3 tonnes of SUV so mom can look pretty and kids can look 'cool' just is wrong.
No argument. No need for M series, X5s, Cayennes, Range Rovers, Audis. Also no need for sports cars if we are to reduce unneccesary wasteage. Ban motorsport, hugely wasteful. Make buses gas powered and trains electric.

crisis

05-19-2004, 05:59 PM

Because they provide highly-efficient urban transport for 2-4 people and or items.
In 10 years time you WILL be driving one too, unless you are lucky and can afford $20 a gallon.
Esepcially with current state-of-art alternatives, the mass of the car needs to be low to balance the mass of the drivetrain. So get used to it.
Will Kylie in 10 years time still be as desirable - hope so :)
Make it two people and a dog. I may be driving one but I will not be enjoying it. Kylie will be around 40 and I'll be 50. I'll take it.

crisis

05-19-2004, 06:05 PM

You may not need it for propulsion in 50 years but it will still be the staple energy production fuel of the world.
most of the chemicals necessary to manufacture the goods in your home need petrochemicals as a basis for their production.
and it's 50 years in an optimistic world.
If we don't curtail consumption and increase efficiency then it's estimated shorter. There are assumptions made that we become better 'citizens'. As we can't agree the Kyoto accord then it's clear we're not :(

SOme of us remember the 60s (:() when everything was going to be nuclear powered. There are parts of our society think the same for wind/sea/sun electricity generation and alternative fuel transport. Call me cynical but I prefer to plan for a middle channel and not the Utopia of the "next big thing" being the salvation of all so keep steaming along !!
Neccesity is the mother of invention. We will be less wasteful in alternative resources, grains, animal products etc. Industry is contiually becoming more efficient also. Not for ecological reasons, for profit. Make more (money) form less. I visited our local brewery ( no it was no a regular visit) and they explained how the recycled water, yeast and every by product that they used to discard. This is happening with many progressive industries. We have wind powered electricty in South Australia. I thought that was mickey mouse stuff. We will have wave generated power also. Im not infavour of wasteage, I just want to go bloody fishing. All this from you favourite cyninc.

IBrake4Rainbows

05-20-2004, 01:02 AM

Your right crisis, but the point with sportscars is you can slow down your performance, with SUV's, most are struggling to get going, and thats wherethey use their fuel.

Just remember with Electric trains however, most electricity stations are powered by coal still, so the positive of having an electric train is ruined by the fact the coal station pumps out heaps more CO2

Wastage is never a good thing in my book, i'll always buy more than i need though, sometimes i'll buy a 1.25 bottle of coke when i'll only drink 600 mls, but it's cheaper, which is odd, you get it cheaper because you buy more. Thats how americans get their fuel so cheap!

I'm a big fan of Bio Diesel, mind. The americans probably eat enought deep fried things to make it happen reliatively easy..........

crisis

05-20-2004, 06:16 PM

I'm a big fan of Bio Diesel, mind. The americans probably eat enought deep fried things to make it happen reliatively easy..........
Scratch that one, McDonalds is making salads.

Spastik_Roach

05-21-2004, 12:34 AM

Toyota Prado and the Isuzu Bighorn are the Blazer/ Explorer whatevers of New Zealand.

Personally, as shown on top gear, alot of families will have a 4WD instead of a MPV because they are cooler than the MPV. I can understand that, and its also a fact that quite a few modern 4wd's drive better than vans and MPV's...

But as I live in a rural town most 4wd's round here are used off road.

drakkie

05-21-2004, 01:33 AM

car feul is a small percentage of the worlds total fuel usage, but it is the quickest growing market of all.I dont now where , but I read somewhere, that if everyone buys a car that doesn 3l/ 100 km(volkswagen lupo for ex.), the world will have 45% less smog problems.And that is a LOT.

I read in the paper lately , that in the netherlands, 65% of the SUv are bought because of the high sitting position! :mad: :mad: !!and the "better (they call it safer)view on the road".It isnt safer at all, cos the people in smaller cars, cant see a bloody thing anymore driving between really big trucks and these f##king SUV's .

They arent safer at all, just check out www.euroncap.com for the crash results, smaller, cheaper,more luxury cars do better sometimes in the crash tests. On pedestrian safety, SUV score little or no points.

Fuel usage again.When my dad bought his last car he received a small boook, with fuel usage data of all cars on sale in the netherlands at that time(last year). SUV's use lots more fuel . Example :
BMW X5 --- 8,7/9,7 liters every 100km
BMW 316i --- 7,0 liters

that is at least 2 liters difference

other cars :

Range rover ---16,2 liters on every 100 km
renault Espace(largest engine available then) ---9,7 liters /100 km

that is almost 6,5 liters difference

last example:
minivan vs. SUV

mercedes vito ---8,1 liters/100km
land rover discovery --- 16,7 /100 km

ALMOST DOUBLE THE FUEL FOR THE SAME DISTANCE
They both tow lots of weight!!About the same amount!!!!
i compared cars with about the same space/size, and you see the difference straight away.

I still think it is a waste of the planet, but i guess we cant stop it :mad: :mad: :mad: :o :mad:

kitkat

05-21-2004, 02:10 AM

they use them to tow hoes, not horses Matra !! :D

they are not hoes, they are ladies. :D :rolleyes:

Nigel

05-21-2004, 08:35 AM

I only had an hour, so I only read 3/4 of this thread for now, and pretty much all my points have been covered.
I think there is some confusion between the sport is Sport utility vehicle and the sport in sports car. An SUV is a utility to the sports that you do. It is made for hauling gear etc. A sports car is a car the makes driving a sport.
Also, you cant bring emission stadards into this for the following reasons: after a certain weight they stop testing vehicles, and they test based on parts per million, so if you burn twice as much gas, there will be twice the CO, NO, NO2, and HC pollutants.
No matter what anyone says though, luxury cars are the safest out there. The only reason SUVs are seen as the safest is they are heavier so the plow other cars. If you hit a wall in a SUV, you are no better off then in a compact car.

I will finish reading the thread tomorrow to make sure that I didnt repeat someone at the end of the second page.

werty

05-21-2004, 08:50 AM

they are not hoes, they are ladies. :D :rolleyes:

speaking of "ladies" what is up with that avatar Kitkat?

Nigel

05-22-2004, 09:04 PM

Boats (mostly freighters, ferries, and cruise liners) Produce 4 times more emissions then land transportation. A large percentage of land transportion is shipping. SUVs, on a global scale, represent a small percentage of the problem. My problem with SUVs however, is the fact that they are unnecessary. One could say that driving a two seater car stripped of all emission reducing hardware is unnecessary and irresponsible, but we are not talking about me, we are talking about the global population.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that most people who own SUVs use them to get only themselves to and from work. If someone is going to pick a car to take them to and from work, what is better? a 1047kg toyota MR2? or a 3247kg H2? an approximation can be made that the fuel consumption of a car is roughly porportional to the weight of the car. The H2 uses a humble 20L to drive 100km, whereas the mr2 sips 8L in 100km, which represents a roughly linear relationship. Just something to think about when you buy a vehicle, if you get a car you are being more environmentally responsible then if you buy a truck/SUV.

Whether or not there is an iminent oil shortage is a debatable fact, and it has been debated here already. Global warming is a reality, although it is debatable whether human activities such as driving SUVs has a major impact as 97% of carbon dioxide comes from the fido plancton. The issue that is a reality is the localization of emissions. oxides of nitrogen emissions (which my car makes more than its share of) creates photochemical smog when localized in areas with calm winds, hot temperatures, and direct sunlight. This is harmful to humans and other life, and is a direct cause of automobiles, and is not attrubuted to any other cause. Acid rain, in some areas caused by localized nitrate emissions (in an engine: N2 +O2 + heat -> 2NO; in the atmosphere: 2NO +O2 -> 2NO2; under certain conditions in the atmosphere, the most notable of which being high concentration due to localization as a result of rush-hour trafic and the like, 4N2O +2H2O + O2 -> 4HNO3, a strong acid) I am not going to go into the effects of acid rain, as Im sure you have all read/heard about them. How do you deal with a problem such as photochemical smog or acid rain? You have to be responsible with the creation of these emissions, and that means not commuting in rush-hour trafic in an SUV.

Coventrysucks

05-22-2004, 09:37 PM

But you yourself said that the ammount of pollution that can be attributed to SUV's is, in the grand scheme of things, negligable. So it doesn't matter if you change to a car ;)

The major problem with pollution from cars of course, is not the ammount of pollution an individual vehicle makes, but the concentration of those vehicles.
Cities are more likely to be affected by the pollutants you mentioned, than the shipping lanes of the Atlantic, because there is a greater number of vehicles in a city centre. :)

The cure to SUV's of course would be to put US gas prices up to the level of the UK.
50% of the SUV owner population would have a shock induced heart attack on their first fill up at the new prices, the rest would probably ditch their monster jeep and head straight to the nearest Honda dealerships.

The motor manufacturers would suddenly realise that producing large SUV's is a profitless exercise, and stop making them. :D

KOT

06-03-2004, 11:45 AM

crisis

06-06-2004, 05:21 AM

I owed Niko FX a couple of photos of me and my Cruiser from ages back. Noting really thrilling but it suitable for this thread anyhow. Beach and dune (Toyota hill) at Robe South east South Australia, Mountain in Flinders Ranges South Australia.

crisis

06-06-2004, 05:37 AM

Flinders Ranges

Homem de Gelo

06-06-2004, 07:32 AM

People can buy SUVS if they search for veichles that are comfortable and reasonably versatile, being fast and comfortable enough put them on the road and enjoy a nice trip, or to take them on some not so harsh off road paths. Not to mention the status symbol and the pimpness.

There are reasons to buy SUVs, but I wouldn't buy one. I'd rather buy a sedan.

Homem de Gelo

06-06-2004, 07:34 AM

And speaking of safety, bad drivers will make any car dangerous for himself, the passengers and the pedestrians. Good drivers will make a SUV just as safe as anything else on the road.

Niko_Fx

06-06-2004, 09:03 AM

I owed Niko FX a couple of photos of me and my Cruiser from ages back.

Hell, your cruiser looks awesome.

Noting really thrilling but it suitable for this thread anyhow. Beach and dune (Toyota hill) at Robe South east South Australia, Mountain in Flinders Ranges South Australia.

Looks like a trip with a lot of action and beautiful sceneries :)

Thanks for the pics, post some more if you have!

EDIT: Regarding the thread question...

Yes, I would buy an SUV IF I had places to go such as Crisis' or if I lived in a country (or at least another state, cause here in Florida is not allowed) were I could place my SUV on the beach, open the trunk, put some music, beers and let the fun begin :)

Also if I had a store, market, some kind of business like that and had to carry boxes all the time... And I would probably get one too if I had a big family or something.

There's plenty of reasons to own an SUV.

UK CARS

06-06-2004, 09:32 AM

KOT

06-06-2004, 06:25 PM

they are not hoes, they are ladies. :D :rolleyes:

Well they look hoes to me )
I'd change ur avatar also... what up with it?

KOT

06-06-2004, 06:34 PM

Well... all I kno is that SUV, which means sport utility vihicle does not have anything to do with sport. I mean really. think about it. Id say its shit utility vihicle. what so sport about SUV's? They do a really good job with poluting, they dont look anywhere near good, at least most of them dont. They are bulky, hard to drive, and what's so save about them?? They are probably even more dangerous than a honda civic or something. In a critical condition on the road, it will be much harder to avoid an accident. Even though they are not really expencive, the fuel cost will be enormous. So I'd personally rather get a BMW or a Mercedes, more expencive, but better performance, better lookin, more fuel efficient.

mawi427

06-06-2004, 06:37 PM

i am very against people buying SUV's for around-the-town use. if you use it for off road purposes, however, i stand with u. my family owns a 1989 GMC suburban that we take hunting every year...it has been to northern wisconsin numerous times as well as nebraska, north dakota, and colorado.

p.s. i am against buying luxury SUV's such as the escalade navigator etc....y the hell not just buy a bmw or mercedes????

crisis

06-06-2004, 06:48 PM

Hell, your cruiser looks awesome.

Looks like a trip with a lot of action and beautiful sceneries :)

Thanks for the pics, post some more if you have!

EDIT: Regarding the thread question...

Yes, I would buy an SUV IF I had places to go such as Crisis' or if I lived in a country (or at least another state, cause here in Florida is not allowed) were I could place my SUV on the beach, open the trunk, put some music, beers and let the fun begin :)

Also if I had a store, market, some kind of business like that and had to carry boxes all the time... And I would probably get one too if I had a big family or something.

There's plenty of reasons to own an SUV.
You most kind. Its a bit rough around the edges and Ive stopped polishing out the scratches but i does the job. Got a pretty good sound system too. That was from three different trips. Robe is about 700ks or more from the Flinders. We do quite a bit of sittnig on the tail gate sucking down beers on those beaches. Im off with our fishing club (20 guys) next Saturday for a week to Elliston on the West Coast of S.A. Going in my mates supercharged 100 series. Plent of beaches to drive to and plenty of beer. Maybe even some fish.

Niko_Fx

06-06-2004, 06:57 PM

Im off with our fishing club (20 guys) next Saturday for a week to Elliston on the West Coast of S.A. Going in my mates supercharged 100 series. Plent of beaches to drive to and plenty of beer. Maybe even some fish.

Lucky you! :)

Make sure you take a camera with you.

drakkie

06-15-2004, 03:14 AM

seriously! why get an SUV?
Well I mean they do have some advantages:
Ground clearance
Practical for families
Well thats it!!
But now lets see the downsides:
Dont look pimp
Polutin
Low performance
But really! Get a real nice lookin high performance car! BMW, Mercedes, Cadillac, or at least a pimp Ford. In a perfect world I would of course get a Firrari, prolly F550, or a Lambargini, but I'll prolly never have the money, so in a real world Id go for a BMW. Those things are long lasting, for one, and statistics show that ppl drivin BMW's have the most sex!! :)
So here's the advice: forget those big azz SUV's, get BMWs!

What is the advantage of ground clearance ???You dont need it in normsl life , only when going to the desert where only a few people go!
Need a practical car take the in the pic i added!(renault espace)

you forgot a major downside :
as unsafe as hell!!!It rolls pretty fast when doing a evasive move!!(look at the tests that are done in norway to avoid a rendeer)
And steel esnt protect you!!Only a rollcage , and lots of airbags and the fact that the car crumples .

Also BMW's dont last very long! 'bout ten years, i guess.My uncle drives a volvo(22 years old) and has never had very much maintanance costs(apart from tires , exhaust, or a new battery)

IBrake4Rainbows

06-15-2004, 04:21 AM

Not quite true with the last comment.

Find someone named Bad Boy Barge on the forums, he has a 20 year old BMW doing just fine. Also we own a 1995 BMW, it's not quite 10 years old, but it ain't going to die anytime soon.

drakkie

06-15-2004, 04:57 AM

From what i've experienced BMW's dont last longer as other cars.All cars have a lifespan of about 10-15 years , BMW's have 'bout the same

drakkie

06-28-2004, 12:31 AM

Can any mod remove this thread pls ??I think it has become pretty dead and is just filling up useless place on the server

Matra et Alpine

06-28-2004, 02:42 AM

Can any mod remove this thread pls ??I think it has become pretty dead and is just filling up useless place on the server
obvious question - sorry - but what are you planning to do with the space it would clear up ?
There's plenty of space already.
And in the best engineering traditions, no need to fix anything not broke :)

drakkie

06-28-2004, 03:12 AM

well, matra.It is of no use anymore i guess, so why not remove it ??

Karrmann

06-28-2004, 05:37 AM

Matra et Alpine

06-28-2004, 06:07 AM

well, matra.It is of no use anymore i guess, so why not remove it ??
UCP isn't a paid-for forum.
mods do it out of love for the cars ( and the guys'n'gals :) )
So the idea of pruning takes time away from the little we've availabel to enjoy over here.
Unless a thread is clearly useless/pointless they'll live beside the 10s of thousands of others co it's just too much effort to go prune !!

drakkie

06-28-2004, 07:39 AM

UCP isn't a paid-for forum.
mods do it out of love for the cars ( and the guys'n'gals :) )
So the idea of pruning takes time away from the little we've availabel to enjoy over here.
Unless a thread is clearly useless/pointless they'll live beside the 10s of thousands of others co it's just too much effort to go prune !!

ok,peter

Karrmann

06-28-2004, 07:42 AM

I love this thread because I damn SUVS and support PRIUSES fully

drakkie

06-28-2004, 07:44 AM

thanks, me too

NAZCA C2

06-28-2004, 09:29 AM

There is nothing wrong with driving a car, truck or suv that gets bad gas mileage. The thing that is wrong is that people are soo dang lazy that they would rather drive everywhere they go. People should walk or ride a bike more often. Another thing is that people need to carpool, especially in large cities where there are a lot of people commuting to work. Has anybody ever been in a traffic jam in a big city? Usually there is only 1 person per vehicle! If there are 4 people who live near each other and work in the same area and they all drive their own cars to work, it doesn't matter if they are driving Honda Insights they are wasting gas.

Karrmann

06-28-2004, 12:10 PM

You totally mis the point, Just BUY A PRIUS and get rid of that damn suv!

Slicks

06-28-2004, 06:36 PM

You totally mis the point, Just BUY A PRIUS and get rid of that damn suv!
Why would you buy a prius, there one of the ugliest cars on the market, the only high point is the gas milage... I much rather have a small to midsize truck or SUV. :p

drakkie

06-29-2004, 07:24 AM

well, the new prius doesnt look that bad

Karrmann

06-29-2004, 02:17 PM

Why would you buy a prius, there one of the ugliest cars on the market, the only high point is the gas milage... I much rather have a small to midsize truck or SUV. :p

ok when we run out of fuel, were blaming you!

crisis

06-29-2004, 05:08 PM

well, the new prius doesnt look that bad
Yes the Prius looks that bad. It looks to me, like Toyota thought that all the work was done on the powerplant so there was no need to worry about styling. I imagine there are design constraints that are dictated by the inherent technology but until hybrid power is available in something that looks good these things will be the domain of the ecologically zealous.

Karrmann

06-29-2004, 06:44 PM

boy. We sure have a reason to worry about our fuel supply now.

IBrake4Rainbows

06-30-2004, 12:08 AM

drakkie

06-30-2004, 12:32 AM

[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows]If all you've got to worry about is looks, theres always stuff like the Lexus RX300/ Toyota Highlander Hybrid for you Crisis.

Then theres the Honda Civic IMA, the Toyota Crown Hybrid.......
[QUOTE]

it is a bit older, but how about that volkswagemn Lupo 3liter thing? Not that bad looking either crisis!!

crisis

06-30-2004, 12:36 AM

If all you've got to worry about is looks, theres always stuff like the Lexus RX300/ Toyota Highlander Hybrid for you Crisis.

Then theres the Honda Civic IMA, the Toyota Crown Hybrid.......

Looks are too subjective to base your dislike of a car on. I agree that until they look normal cars such as the Prius will always be on the back foot with the general public, but I happen to like the new one, very modern and foward thinking, And none of that bloody Bangle inspired "New for the sake of it" crap invading German Design......
Im not against hybrids or anything that helps to conserve fuel etc but they are in their infancy and not mainstream. I cant see everyone rushing out and buying them yet. They are also not exactly the type of thing we are on UCP for either unless your idea of the ultimate car is that it uses no fuel. (maybe it is).

IBrake4Rainbows

06-30-2004, 12:39 AM

I suppose it is in it's infancy, but it is the thing we are on UCP for, to further the development of the things we love driving: Cars. Everyone agrees petrol will be long gone in 25 years or so (I'm not going to debate any facts or figures.....) but if it wasn't for people like us (Enthusiasts) trying the new tech and helping it suceed, generations after us (Even me....) will not be able to experiance the thrill of driving......

drakkie

06-30-2004, 12:49 AM

They are also not exactly the type of thing we are on UCP for either unless your idea of the ultimate car is that it uses no fuel. (maybe it is).

My idea of the perect car is that it is not polluting, everyone can buy or get one, comfortable etcetera.....

Im not against hybrids or anything that helps to conserve fuel etc but they are in their infancy and not mainstream. I cant see everyone rushing out and buying them yet.

These cars arent in their infancy anymore, i think they are more like teenagers.The prius has been around for some time, and in that time they have developed the car to become better, in all views.This resulted in the next prius. Other manufacteresr(like honda) have started to make cars with the same idea, shortly after they found out the Prius sells.Not enough to really make a difference, but enough to make it profitable.
Out here in the netherlands they sold quite some priuses already, because people want to be more kind to the environment, and becuse if you buy one you dont have to pay any tax(about 50% of the price).

Karrmann

06-30-2004, 05:44 AM

If all you've got to worry about is looks, theres always stuff like the Lexus RX300/ Toyota Highlander Hybrid for you Crisis.

Then theres the Honda Civic IMA, the Toyota Crown Hybrid.......

Looks are too subjective to base your dislike of a car on. I agree that until they look normal cars such as the Prius will always be on the back foot with the general public, but I happen to like the new one, very modern and foward thinking, And none of that bloody Bangle inspired "New for the sake of it" crap invading German Design......

Hey you, there is a shortage of Priuses because people are wanting the Prius more than a poster of carmen electra. and I researched the SUVs hybrids and even though they are Hybrids I can name all gas cars that get better fuel mialage

sandwich

06-30-2004, 06:08 AM

I hope everybody buys a prius. Then, the demand for gas will drop, and I can put more in my Sports car.

Coventrysucks

06-30-2004, 06:46 AM

I researched the SUVs hybrids and even though they are Hybrids I can name all gas cars that get better fuel mialage

Well... yes.
An SUV is bigger, and heavier than a normal car, and is therefore going to use more fuel.

Similarly, there are "gas" powered cars, smaller than a Prius that get better mileage.

The point is that hybrids use much less petrol than a vehicle of similar size.
:)

Karrmann

06-30-2004, 05:30 PM

Niko_Fx

06-30-2004, 06:16 PM

but a prius gets like 30 more miles to the gallon than a hybrid SUV. hybrid or nt hey ar still gas guzzlers, and should stil be the last thing you'd think of as the family car. The Prius should be the forst thing that pops into a mind for the Family Car in my openion.

As far as I know a Prius gets like 52MPG. 52 - 30 = 22... So you are saying that a hybrid SUV only gets 22MPG? My non-hybrid civic gets more than that.

Blue Supra

06-30-2004, 06:16 PM

Yes the Prius looks that bad. It looks to me, like Toyota thought that all the work was done on the powerplant so there was no need to worry about styling. I imagine there are design constraints that are dictated by the inherent technology but until hybrid power is available in something that looks good these things will be the domain of the ecologically zealous.

the ecologically zealous... the ACT government been buying them like theyre the greatest thing ever and i wouldnt exactly call them ecologically zealous with their road plans. i think the prius has a future but that future is not going to really take off until there are some real incentives for people to buy them. i dont care if a car gets a million kays to a litre. im not going to buy it if its butt ugly! i think thats how many other people considering a family car feel.

Slicks

06-30-2004, 06:26 PM

As far as I know a Prius gets like 52MPG. 52 - 30 = 22... So you are saying that a hybrid SUV only gets 22MPG? My non-hybrid civic gets more than that.
It has to get more than 22, that sucks... My Dads Jeep gets 25+(hwy) and its a I6.

johnnynumfiv

06-30-2004, 06:32 PM

My mom's VW TDI bug gets 50 mpg. What does the pirus really get?

Blue Supra

06-30-2004, 08:35 PM

ok according to the toyota website... http://www.toyota-hawaii.com/vehicles/Prius/fuel.html
it averages 48 mpg or 566 miles per tank, i dunno what that is in kilometres per litre but its roughyl 956 ks to the tank which to me is impressive cause i get 500ks of a 50L tank.

it looks like crap but :D

Matra et Alpine

07-01-2004, 01:52 AM

but a prius gets like 30 more miles to the gallon than a hybrid SUV. hybrid or nt hey ar still gas guzzlers, and should stil be the last thing you'd think of as the family car. The Prius should be the forst thing that pops into a mind for the Family Car in my openion.

Well from both manufacturers based on the SAME UK test ...

Prius 65mpg

Citroen Xara Picasso 57mpg

So not really that spectacular :(

sandwich

07-01-2004, 05:48 AM

i get 42 mpg in my 92 civic doing about 85 on the highway...and about 30-35 depending in the city. I drive like a nutsack. This post had a point at one time.

What's the safety rating of the prius?

Karrmann

07-01-2004, 06:03 AM

My mom's VW TDI bug gets 50 mpg. What does the pirus really get?

a prius gets 60 MPG according to Toyota but it bests only 55 MPG (remember, this is america)

Karrmann

07-01-2004, 06:04 AM

Karrmann

07-01-2004, 06:07 AM

As far as I know a Prius gets like 52MPG. 52 - 30 = 22... So you are saying that a hybrid SUV only gets 22MPG? My non-hybrid civic gets more than that.

a SUV hybrid only gets 30 MPG, there are call gas cars like the civic, camry,corolla,Prelude,accord, VW bug, mini cooper,vw golf, vw lupo...etc.
that get better gas milage and simular ga smilage, if a hybrid can't boost it face it, we have to give up the suvs if we don't wanna be riding mules to work.

Coventrysucks

07-01-2004, 06:35 AM

we have to give up the suvs if we don't wanna be riding mules to work.

What have you got against mules?

Karrmann

07-01-2004, 07:34 AM

cause I don't wanna be riding one to work, so GET RID OF THE SUV!

Matra et Alpine

07-01-2004, 07:38 AM

What's the safety rating of the prius?
According to the Euro NCAP test - one of the hardest, it gets 5 stars for imapct, 2 on pedestrian and a 4 on the new child safety tests. These are all out of 5. That makes it on a par with the best Volvos :)

drakkie

07-02-2004, 01:27 AM

According to the Euro NCAP test - one of the hardest, it gets 5 stars for imapct, 2 on pedestrian and a 4 on the new child safety tests. These are all out of 5. That makes it on a par with the best Volvos :)

that is a pretty good score :eek: :eek: I didnt know that, but i am amazed of it!!! :eek: I looked up the crashtests of the SUv's, and i found outt that most of them, like the jeep cherokee get only 3 stars in front impact and only one or zero poinsts for pedestrian safety

Karrmann

07-02-2004, 05:09 AM

reason1,056,526,888,555,232,888 to buy a prius age throw out the sucking gas guzzling SUV SUVS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Matra et Alpine

07-02-2004, 05:16 AM

reason1,056,526,888,555,232,888 to buy a prius age throw out the sucking gas guzzling SUV SUVS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Hopefully Toyota bundle in an anger management course when you make your Prius purchase :)

Blue Supra

07-02-2004, 08:46 AM

buddy thats the fuel milage for the old prius. The new Prius gets way better gas milage

my bad.

anyways i think after looking at peoples opinions here that that the prius is simply a matter of taste. if you want good petrol consumption then yes it is a viable solution to SUVs (or people movers they're called here.)

however

if you want somthing that looks good and dont mind paying that bit extra for petrol and dont mind killing the environment that little bit more than i cant see any reason why not to get a people mover.

its simply a matter of what you need/want in a car.

Karrmann

07-02-2004, 11:55 AM

yoSUVs arent people movers, they are rock crawlers, Station Wagens are people movers.

Coventrysucks

07-02-2004, 01:09 PM

Yeah, yeah, SUV's suck, Prius' rock etc, etc.

Blue Supra

07-03-2004, 12:34 AM

yoSUVs arent people movers, they are rock crawlers, Station Wagens are people movers.

must be a american thing

ok ok then SUVs are called 4WDs (makes things real simple)
a people mover is like a Mazda MPV
a station wagon is a station wagon

happy?

Guibo

07-03-2004, 12:53 AM

European NCAP testing has shown how bad US cars are.
It's fact and demonstrable.
Hey it's also shown up how bad others are too.
The Ford Galaxy door pillars sheared off in one test years back. Not good for driver :(

Right, but when was the last time a Ford Galaxy was sold (or made) in the US? And how did the Blazer fare in the NCAP test? My guess is that it wasn't ever tested at all.

I wouldn't personally buy an SUV. I'd rather have a wagon like an Impreza, Outback, Magnum, AllRoad, etc. Closest thing to an SUV I'd consider is an FX35/45. But with that in mind, it's pretty clear why so many SUV's are built and sold: simple economics of supply and demand. Why people want them is a harder thing to figure out. May as well ask them why they prefer the color blue, instead of red. Or ask a sports car enthusiast why he salivates over an Elise or 360 Spider. That same person could have a strange (to some people) aversion to classic Lamborghinis. Any of these choices can be rationalized in some way, and if we don't understand why, well, that's mostly our problem.
The point about SUV's riding higher and offering a better view is a valid point to any mother who values the safety of her children. I'm not one, so I couldn't possibly know what they're thinking when they're shopping for such a vehicle. The problem with this, though, is that as SUV's have become more prevalent, the vision argument becomes less and less valid: in a neighborhood full of SUV's, you'd need a Peterbilt to claim any advantage.
Currently, though, cars are still the main form of transportation in urban areas, and the height of the SUV allows for more passenger safety in the event of an accident. The sheer physical distance allows for this. Obviously, there's a "flip side" to that advantage (pun intended). Nothing's for free.
One has to understand that America, with its vast roads (many at the edges of civilization aren't even yet paved) and cheap fuel, has a considerably different automotive culture than other places. What makes sense or doesn't make sense in Europe doesn't necessarily translate across the pond, and vice versa. That being said, SUV's are versatile, relatively safe, and now more and more stylish than the Blazers and Broncos of days before. And, when loaded with the luxury amenities and overall refinement you simply can't find in those dedicated off-roaders, it becomes easier to see why someone would want to buy one.
Sure, there are people with small-dick syndrome, with a He-Man / Mine's Bigger (and more expensive) Than Yours attitude who buy these things. Just as there among people who buy certain types of sports cars or luxury sedans. But there are indeed people who do get utility out of their SUV's, even if it's not as often as the rest of us would like for them to do so. I can recall watching on the news numerous cases of motorists being stranded in the east coast blizzards. But the SUV drivers were able to carry on as usual.

Guibo

07-03-2004, 01:02 AM

From what i've experienced BMW's dont last longer as other cars.All cars have a lifespan of about 10-15 years , BMW's have 'bout the same
My experience is quite the opposite. My daily driver is a '72 BMW. It's far from pampered. And this is likely why older BMW's feel so worn: they beg their drivers to damn near thrash them whenever they can. Properly maintained, they will last quite a long time. Only thing that really kills any old car is rust, and compared to most European marques, BMW's aren't noticeably worse in that regard.

Matra et Alpine

07-03-2004, 01:38 AM

Right, but when was the last time a Ford Galaxy was sold (or made) in the US?
Wrong Ford Galaxy.
The Ford MPV in Europe is the Galaxy.
It's an improved Aerovan/Astrovan ( can't remember which is the smaller one )
It was one of Ford's "global platform" developments and jointly manufactured with VW and Seat.

And how did the Blazer fare in the NCAP test? My guess is that it wasn't ever tested at all.
Yep.
They concentrate on cars sold across Europe and tere are few 'old' cars in the test. Partly because it's considerd 'unfair' to compare an old model :)

IThe point about SUV's riding higher and offering a better view is a valid point to any mother who values the safety of her children.
I always consider this an example of a poor driver using perceived tecnhologicaladvance to make up for not learning a new skill. Observation is NOT dependant on height. You need to drive slower, leave more gap to see better. Getting higher just creates the feeling of seeing better - it's like ABS on ice :)

the height of the SUV allows for more passenger safety in the event of an accident.
Well it's not clear that it does as SUVs aren't built to absorb impact in the same way.Thus t is atrasnferred to the occupants with lettle reduction in force and THAT causes injury.

I can recall watching on the news numerous cases of motorists being stranded in the east coast blizzards. But the SUV drivers were able to carry on as usual.
Always laugh at this one. Sweden and Norway get that kind of weather all the time. Yet you don't ( untill recently ) see many SUVs from the Volvo or Saab stable :)
My personal view is that with a heavy car then you NEED to go to big 4WD to be able to travel in poor conditions/roads. With a lighter, smaller vehicle you don't :) When Matra produced the Rancho in the 70s it was slaited for being a "lifestyle off-roader" becuase it was "only FWD". In fact tests against 4Wds of the day showed that it was capable of traversing all but ONE of the challenges in a head-to-head test !!

Guibo

07-03-2004, 03:57 AM

The Ford MPV in Europe is the Galaxy.
It's an improved Aerovan/Astrovan ( can't remember which is the smaller one )
It was one of Ford's "global platform" developments and jointly manufactured with VW and Seat.

Right, but where was it developed and manufactured? If it's built in America, and built to US safety standards, and it fares poorly in NCAP tests, well that'd be one thing. But if it's based on a "global platform" and built in Europe to European safety standards, and it fares poorly, that'd be something else. Surely, the Ford Focus RS isn't considered "American" now is it?

I always consider this an example of a poor driver using perceived tecnhologicaladvance to make up for not learning a new skill. Observation is NOT dependant on height. You need to drive slower, leave more gap to see better. Getting higher just creates the feeling of seeing better.
Ah, that would explain all those spy planes and satellites orbiting at belly level. :p
Being physically higher is not a perceived technological advance. It's simply being higher, meaning you will see over things you normally wouldn't. You have 3 people wanting to turn right to merge with traffic from a stop sign. 1st person is in an SUV. 2nd person is in a standard road car. 3rd person is on a Yamaha YSR50 mini motorbike. I don't think even Michael Schumacher would want to be on the vehicle that offers a 3' high line of sight. (And he's a really good driver allegedly.) The SUV could be the last vehicle in line and it wouldn't matter one bit.

Well it's not clear that it does as SUVs aren't built to absorb impact in the same way.Thus t is atrasnferred to the occupants with lettle reduction in force and THAT causes injury.

And you have the test results that show this? Keep in mind many of today's SUV's are built on car platforms (and thus have the same crumple-zone considerations built into them).
Two vehicles heading toward each other at the same speed, one of them a 4500-lb SUV, the other a 3000 lb sedan. What does physics tell us about the transfer of energy in this situation? And never mind a 90-degree impact, wherein the SUV's bumper is roughly at the car driver's torso level, or at the level of her kid's head in the back seat...

Always laugh at this one. Sweden and Norway get that kind of weather all the time. Yet you don't ( untill recently ) see many SUVs from the Volvo or Saab stable :)
That may be, but it does nothing to change the fact that drivers on the East Coast were stranded. It's easy enough to plow a single- or double-lane piece of roadway. Quite another to clear out a 4- or 5-lane (in both directions) interstate.

My personal view is that with a heavy car then you NEED to go to big 4WD to be able to travel in poor conditions/roads.

As it is mine. But the wonderful thing about the automotive marketplace is that it offers far more than what one merely needs. As people who (hopefully) have more than a passing interest in automobiles, we should all pray the day never comes when that is no longer true.

Karrmann

07-03-2004, 05:29 AM

Right, but when was the last time a Ford Galaxy was sold (or made) in the US? And how did the Blazer fare in the NCAP test? My guess is that it wasn't ever tested at all.

I wouldn't personally buy an SUV. I'd rather have a wagon like an Impreza, Outback, Magnum, AllRoad, etc. Closest thing to an SUV I'd consider is an FX35/45. But with that in mind, it's pretty clear why so many SUV's are built and sold: simple economics of supply and demand. Why people want them is a harder thing to figure out. May as well ask them why they prefer the color blue, instead of red. Or ask a sports car enthusiast why he salivates over an Elise or 360 Spider. That same person could have a strange (to some people) aversion to classic Lamborghinis. Any of these choices can be rationalized in some way, and if we don't understand why, well, that's mostly our problem.
The point about SUV's riding higher and offering a better view is a valid point to any mother who values the safety of her children. I'm not one, so I couldn't possibly know what they're thinking when they're shopping for such a vehicle. The problem with this, though, is that as SUV's have become more prevalent, the vision argument becomes less and less valid: in a neighborhood full of SUV's, you'd need a Peterbilt to claim any advantage.
Currently, though, cars are still the main form of transportation in urban areas, and the height of the SUV allows for more passenger safety in the event of an accident. The sheer physical distance allows for this. Obviously, there's a "flip side" to that advantage (pun intended). Nothing's for free.
One has to understand that America, with its vast roads (many at the edges of civilization aren't even yet paved) and cheap fuel, has a considerably different automotive culture than other places. What makes sense or doesn't make sense in Europe doesn't necessarily translate across the pond, and vice versa. That being said, SUV's are versatile, relatively safe, and now more and more stylish than the Blazers and Broncos of days before. And, when loaded with the luxury amenities and overall refinement you simply can't find in those dedicated off-roaders, it becomes easier to see why someone would want to buy one.
Sure, there are people with small-dick syndrome, with a He-Man / Mine's Bigger (and more expensive) Than Yours attitude who buy these things. Just as there among people who buy certain types of sports cars or luxury sedans. But there are indeed people who do get utility out of their SUV's, even if it's not as often as the rest of us would like for them to do so. I can recall watching on the news numerous cases of motorists being stranded in the east coast blizzards. But the SUV drivers were able to carry on as usual.

accually a SUV isn't safer, I have seen lots of problems of one of those bulky things flipping over when turning of being hit on the side, so a SUV is not as safe as a prius

and Coverty Sucks, drop the attitude.

sandwich

07-03-2004, 07:11 AM

guibo, did you read the rest of this thread? these guys won't let you live if you disagree, yet somehow, the survey is in favor of "yes, I would buy an suv"....odd, isn't it?

As for the snow thing you keep bringing up, I'm going to have to blatantly disagree with you. It may be possible for a FWD to keep up with AWD/4wd, but it'll never pass it. Case in point, my driveway covered in 6 inches of fresh powder. Mom's GMC goes right up it. Dad's maxima makes it up OK with good snow tires. Mom's old Pontiac Transport (FWD minivan) would not make it up at all, regardless. There are gillions of factors (eg tires, weight dist, differentials, etc.) but in the real world 4WD makes it safer for her to drive, because she can drive in a more controlled manner. Since 4wd/awd isn't offered on most minivans (AFAIK) they don't make for a good option in a snow storm.

Karrmann

07-03-2004, 07:49 AM

that doesn't matter all that does is that SUVS are not made for the city, lets get a Prius and leave the off road vehicles off road

sandwich

07-03-2004, 08:19 AM

that doesn't matter all that does is that SUVS are not made for the city, lets get a Prius and leave the off road vehicles off road

WILL YOU :mad: :eek: :rolleyes: :( ING RELAX WITH THE PRIUS CRAP?

As you should know, MOST OF THE ROADS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT, in fact, LOCATED IN A CITY. Do you even have a drivers liscense? Have you ever driven in snow? I have no idea how the prius will handle in awkward conditions, but I'd put money down that it'll probably blow pretty hard, especially when compared to an SUV with a solid drivetrain.

Also, news flash for you, this is a car ENTHUSIAST website. This covers all facets of cars, and even some other vehicles. It is not an environmentalist website. I concede that the prius is indeed a great commuter, it is a step in the right direction, and I am glad to see them becomming more popular and looking more like real cars and less like the "spaceship" that the insight was. However, this is not a performance car, it will never be a performance car, and it is not the be all end all of cars. I feel like I'm teaching 4th grade.

Matra et Alpine

07-03-2004, 08:28 AM

Right, but where was it developed and manufactured? If it's built in America, and built to US safety standards, and it fares poorly in NCAP tests, well that'd be one thing. But if it's based on a "global platform" and built in Europe to European safety standards, and it fares poorly, that'd be something else. Surely, the Ford Focus RS isn't considered "American" now is it?
Guibo, please go back and read what I wrote.
I commented about US cars and THEN went to the effort to point out the Ford Galaxy failed, So hence trying to stop it being a US v. Europe analysis. Pity it was lost :)

Ah, that would explain all those spy planes and satellites orbiting at belly level. :p
Oh I'm bleeding from the shapr wit - NOT :)

Being physically higher is not a perceived technological advance. It's simply being higher, meaning you will see over things you normally wouldn't. You have 3 people wanting to turn right to merge with traffic from a stop sign. 1st person is in an SUV. 2nd person is in a standard road car. 3rd person is on a Yamaha YSR50 mini motorbike. I don't think even Michael Schumacher would want to be on the vehicle that offers a 3' high line of sight. (And he's a really good driver allegedly.) The SUV could be the last vehicle in line and it wouldn't matter one bit.
Bias is REALLY stopping the points getting over today !!
What I was saying is that just being high is NOT a soltuion in ANY WAY.
Just like a tchnological advance, it doens't necessarily make it better. Some folks buy cars with ABS and then think that it makes them stop in the rain as well as in the dry so drive real close.
Bad driver + technology = bad driver.
Bad driver + better visibility = bad driver.
good driver = good driver.
So MS would position the car to GET the better visibility and use it to drive quickly and safely.
SUV drivers (IMHO) don't bother to USE the visibility and still talk on phoes, drink coffee, feed kids, talk to dog in back etc etc
40% of motoriboke deaths in the UK are caused by cars pulling otu in front of them. NOT speeding, not reckless riding. Just plain drivers NOT bothering to use their eyes and brains to LOOK. Being able to see is one thing, using it is another.
All those folks who SAY they buy to get better visibility, how many use it ??

And you have the test results that show this? Keep in mind many of today's SUV's are built on car platforms (and thus have the same crumple-zone considerations built into them).
Two vehicles heading toward each other at the same speed, one of them a 4500-lb SUV, the other a 3000 lb sedan. What does physics tell us about the transfer of energy in this situation? And never mind a 90-degree impact, wherein the SUV's bumper is roughly at the car driver's torso level, or at the level of her kid's head in the back seat...
The figures are well reported and please read them before continuoing on this point.
As for transfer of mass, it's about ABSOPRTION. If that 3000 lb sedan hits and allt heenergy is trasferred to the seated occupants then it's serious injury time !!
Not sure where you're going as you';ve already pointed out one of the worst aspects of SUVs in impact.

That may be, but it does nothing to change the fact that drivers on the East Coast were stranded. It's easy enough to plow a single- or double-lane piece of roadway. Quite another to clear out a 4- or 5-lane (in both directions) interstate.
Yep, bad day for getting the point.
So how about if the lesson were taken from Sweden, Norway, Finland et al then you'd have a 2WD car which DID get everywhere.
THAT WAS THE POINT BEING MADE.
SUVs ARE more dangerous, all the evidence is out there.
Is it better to spend the money and a little bit of hassle to save just one kids life ?? Be it road clearing, studded tyres, or public transport - whatever !!
BTW< USA isn't the only country with wide motorways :)

Karrmann

07-03-2004, 08:31 AM

WILL YOU :mad: :eek: :rolleyes: :( ING RELAX WITH THE PRIUS CRAP?

As you should know, MOST OF THE ROADS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT, in fact, LOCATED IN A CITY. Do you even have a drivers liscense? Have you ever driven in snow? I have no idea how the prius will handle in awkward conditions, but I'd put money down that it'll probably blow pretty hard, especially when compared to an SUV with a solid drivetrain.

Also, news flash for you, this is a car ENTHUSIAST website. This covers all facets of cars, and even some other vehicles. It is not an environmentalist website. I concede that the prius is indeed a great commuter, it is a step in the right direction, and I am glad to see them becomming more popular and looking more like real cars and less like the "spaceship" that the insight was. However, this is not a performance car, it will never be a performance car, and it is not the be all end all of cars. I feel like I'm teaching 4th grade.

I have only one thing to say, have you ever heard of a snowplow? :rolleyes:

DodgeNitroBIRM

07-03-2004, 11:25 AM

There are many reasons people buy SUVs, from looks, to utility, to need. I'm going to concentrate on the utility and needs of buying one because looks are a broad opinion.

The utility of the SUV is apparent due to it's basing on the truck platform. The frame, engine, and transmission are all based on it's truck brother and are designed for pulling and off/on-roading. Because of it's larger size, it can hold more than your typical extra-cab pickup truck and maybe even 4-door pickup. It will also protect your belongings better because they are covered. Yes, you can use a camper shell, but, after the price of one (a good one), and the hassle of putting it on and taking it off, the SUV begins to look like the better bargain. Also, as a mechanic, I can say that I'd work on an SUV before a car due to it's room in the engine bay. The car is cramped with covers and the engine, the SUV is not covered (typically) and is easier, especially when compared to a front wheel drive car.

The SUV also can cover what most cars can not, family room. There are a lot of families out there that have more than two children in the household and because of the size of the SUV, it can hold more people than even a station wagon can. The Ford Expedition can hold up to 9 adults with the third row option, however, this does take away from cargo room because the third row sits where the cargo would be held in at. Along with the family room, it can also haul much more than a station wagon because it can haul large trailers and small campers. The station wagon can only pull up to a medium sized U-Haul trailer and is not really designed for pulling. You can also get the SUV in 4wd/Awd and 2wd, this makes it great for camping and off-roading.

Now, I must clear up something that some of you maybe getting from this. I support the SUV as well as the Prius. I am only pointing out the reasons of the SUV purchase. I also must stress this point when buying ANY vehicle, consider the need, use, and what you plan on doing with the vehicle. Buy what's appropriate and not just what's popular.

Karrmann

07-03-2004, 11:37 AM

Egg Nog

07-03-2004, 02:02 PM

I see what you are saying, but thats what they have Min Vans for.and also, there are 1 child families that ar buying these, which is smaking me mad. They should be buying a Prius, it has everything you need. and you have only 1 damn child, why do you need such a big ass suv? it doesn't make sense.....

Instead of saying "Prius", you should say "(more fuel efficient) car". Then people would probably dismiss you to a much lesser extent...

Karrmann

07-03-2004, 02:57 PM

thanks egg nog

Karrmann

07-03-2004, 03:56 PM

someone took off 1 rep saying i should buy a prius, well, to you, I will be putting my name on a waiting list as soon as I convince my wife that we need a prius more than anything. so give me my rep back.

IBrake4Rainbows

07-03-2004, 08:32 PM

Oh boy.

The prius is a good car, but to compare it to an SUV is entirely irrational. For starters, one is a car, the other is a truck. 2: the Prius is purposely made to be a fuel efficient car, the SUV is not. So in these comparisons of course the Prius is going to smell like roses.

Until you compare it to a similar car.
The Volkswagen Golf 1.9, and a Diesel.

It may get more MPG, but it's resale, Percieved and Trade value are all down, and it looks odd and is a bit fragile to boot.

In the event of a collision both cars will protect you equally, WIth the GOlf having a bit better pedestrian protection (Check NCAP if you don't believe me)

One has the perception of being a bit green (It's all image, Dahhling) and the other of being a bit boring.

Given the choice most people would go the Golf IMO, they may think the Prius is cool, but do the words "Passing Fad" mean anything to you? give it 20 years and Toyota will probably look back and go "Why oh why did we do that! thank god Hydrogen came in when it did".

Give it time, Hydrogen is on it's way.

Guibo

07-03-2004, 09:37 PM

Guibo, please go back and read what I wrote.
I commented about US cars and THEN went to the effort to point out the Ford Galaxy failed, So hence trying to stop it being a US v. Europe analysis. Pity it was lost :)
Ah, but was it? If Ford of Europe, VW, and Seat can't build a crashworthy SUV...that really has no bearing at all on the safety of US SUV's in this environment, now does it?

Bias is REALLY stopping the points getting over today !!
And what have I said that shows bias, eh? I already said in no uncertain terms that IMO, there are better alternatives to SUV's. But then, I'm on the sunny West Coast of the US...
If we're to talk about my bias, then let's talk about everyone's bias. It's pretty evident you've got some of your own.

Just like a tchnological advance, it doens't necessarily make it better. Some folks buy cars with ABS and then think that it makes them stop in the rain as well as in the dry so drive real close.
Bad driver + technology = bad driver.
Bad driver + better visibility = bad driver.
good driver = good driver.
So MS would position the car to GET the better visibility and use it to drive quickly and safely.

At which point the nose of his car or motorbike is clipped because he edged too far forward, trying to peer around the other car or SUV.
Nor does a technological advance make things necessarily worse. In the case of those folks who buy cars with ABS, then drive too close, that's their problem. I have yet to see one single person admit they routinely drive closer now that they have ABS, compared to before when they didn't. I've never said technology or physical placement guarantees safety. You somehow seem to be implying that that's what I've said, when it's not the case at all. To those bad drivers, are you implying they shouldn't have ABS? ABS in general should be eliminated?
Bad driver + no technology + bad visibility = the worse combination we can think of.
Good driver + better visibility + technology = better than anything we've mentioned yet. Care to disagree? It's not by accident that even Formula One cars at one time had ABS until they were subsequently banned.

All those folks who SAY they buy to get better visibility, how many use it ??
Beats me. I've never talked to an SUV driver. So I don't know what goes on in their minds. Why don't we invite some SUV drivers into this conversation, because it's obvious this is going nowhere. If they say that they do in fact use the better visibility, are you going to accept that? Somehow, I don't think so.

The figures are well reported and please read them before continuoing on this point.
Yes, I've seen the figures. While the current crop of large SUV's (2003 and on) rate on average 4.33 stars against 4.57 stars for small family cars, that's hardly the blowout you seem to be predicting, what with truck-framed SUV's not absorbing energy and all. The SUV's aren't any worse than supermini's (3.88 on average, '03-'04), with quite a few SUV's outscoring the latter: The worst of them, the '03 Jeep Cherokee (still truck-based) scores as well as the Honda Jazz ('04), and better than the Renault Twingo and Fiat Doblo ('04).

As for transfer of mass, it's about ABSOPRTION. If that 3000 lb sedan hits and allt heenergy is trasferred to the seated occupants then it's serious injury time !!
The point you seem to be forgetting is that most cars have crumple zones designed around impacts with other cars. The world's best crumple zone isn't going to do much good if the SUV's bumper or leading edge makes impact above the expected point of impact or above the door beams, now does it? Unless the car is outfitted with side curtain airbags, we're talking about near guaranteed death. NHTSA did precisely this type of test with cars w/o side curtain airbags and in each case, the crash test dummy made impact with the leading edge of the SUV.

So how about if the lesson were taken from Sweden, Norway, Finland et al then you'd have a 2WD car which DID get everywhere.
THAT WAS THE POINT BEING MADE.
Wait. You know for a fact that the Swedes, Norwegians, and Fins always get to their destination? Surely, you can't possibly know that. That would be like assuming every US SUV driver got to his destination in blizzard conditions, when I've never said that.

BTW< USA isn't the only country with wide motorways :)
I never said it was. Nice of you to make that assumption.
If you still can't understand why some people want to be driving SUV's, then there's nothing more to be said. We'll leave it at that.

Egg Nog

07-04-2004, 04:02 AM

thanks egg nog

For what? :)

I think all we need to make specific the fact that the most practical people movers are efficient cars. This is as opposed to SUVs, or any other seemingly overbuilt and overpowered car. This is in direct reference to cars in the sense of practical transportation, and nothing more. There is really no reason at all to specify the Prius specifically. It is a great car, but there are also many other great efficient cars which would serve as a suitable alternative.

My perspectives - I...

a) Respect certain vehicles (despite being inefficient) for their off-roading capabilities, and the owners who buy them for this reason. It's great to see the serious off-roaders really working them through the trails.

b) Respect the true common sense posessed by people who own small cars for the purpose of transportation. People who buy a small car because it is small, and nothing larger would be necessary.

c) Do not respect the vast (over 90%) majority of people who own vehicles similar to those in a) for the purpose described in b).

d) Do not respect the oddly large number of people who seem to think a few days of winter, a steep driveway, or a local dirt road can justify owning a vehicle that is at least 30% larger than it needs to be.

e) Respect the minority driving category of sports car enthusiasts even though they sometimes own vehicles equivalent in emissions to those in a). Ideally, one of these people would own an efficient sports car, or two cars, one of them being something like what is described in b). Their high-powered car could be used for weekends, special events, trackdays, etc.

The argument of "freedom of choice", to me, makes owners of vehicles in a) seem like assholes. They chose the option of buying it, receiving all the intricacies of doing so (conspicuous consumption et al), and they were free to do so. Just because they were free to do so does not make it right. There are many examples of this in society.

Karrmann

07-04-2004, 05:50 AM

I don't mind this. They have A SUV for fun weekend OFF ROADING and doing the dirttrails, but they have a Prius to take the kids to school and go shopping and go around town and run aarons.

Matra et Alpine

07-04-2004, 08:30 AM

Ah, but was it? If Ford of Europe, VW, and Seat can't build a crashworthy SUV...that really has no bearing at all on the safety of US SUV's in this environment, now does it?

Guibo, listen ....

THAT WAS THE POINT !!

Dweeb !!!!!!!!!!!

I was TRYING to point out it was not just US SUVs that fair badly.

I'm not even bothering to read the rest of your diatriabe as it's pointless and undoubtedly based on lack of reading and opening eyes to remove YOUR ( yes it was yours ) bias I was talking about.

Man SOME PEOPLE :(

..... not read and deleted ........

Egg Nog

07-04-2004, 02:28 PM

I don't mind this. They have A SUV for fun weekend OFF ROADING and doing the dirttrails, but they have a Prius to take the kids to school and go shopping and go around town and run aarons.

It doesn't have to be a Prius! Did anyone read my post?

Guibo

07-04-2004, 03:33 PM

Guibo, listen ....

THAT WAS THE POINT !!

Dweeb !!!!!!!!!!!

I was TRYING to point out it was not just US SUVs that fair badly.

LOL. So much for being not being biased. We'll have to add immature to your resume.

You were trying to point out that it's just not US SUV's that fare badly...by introducing the Galaxy? Why would you introduce a European MPV into this discussion and from that, assume that US SUV's are not crashworthy? According to the NCAP results, the BMW X5 (which is a US-built SUV) got top marks, 5 stars out of 5. Meanwhile, the Volkswagen Sharan (which is mechanically identical to the Ford Galaxy) did poorly. NCAP website says they haven't even tested the Ford Galaxy, so I'm wondering where you saw this. Probably the same place that said a Chevy Blazer was NCAP tested and fared poorly.
So to sum up, you've tried to make US SUV's appear unsafe on the basis of Euro-market MPV's doing poorly in NCAP tests. Bravo.

Of course you wouldn't want to address those other points. That would only acknowledge how ludicrous your (obviously biased) assumptions are.

Matra et Alpine

07-04-2004, 03:53 PM

LOL. So much for being not being biased. We'll have to add immature to your resume.

You were trying to point out that it's just not US SUV's that fare badly...by introducing the Galaxy? Why would you introduce a European MPV into this discussion and from that, assume that US SUV's are not crashworthy? According to the NCAP results, the BMW X5 (which is a US-built SUV) got top marks, 5 stars out of 5. Meanwhile, the Volkswagen Sharan (which is mechanically identical to the Ford Galaxy) did poorly. NCAP website says they haven't even tested the Ford Galaxy, so I'm wondering where you saw this. Probably the same place that said a Chevy Blazer was NCAP tested and fared poorly.
So to sum up, you've tried to make US SUV's appear unsafe on the basis of Euro-market MPV's doing poorly in NCAP tests. Bravo.

Of course you wouldn't want to address those other points. That would only acknowledge how ludicrous your (obviously biased) assumptions are.

Guibo, you need to go read and try to take off that bias you are carrying.

The BMW X5 - German company, German design, built in US to avoid taxes !!

On one hand you go "they didn't test galaxy" and next you acknowledge the Sharon WAS tested and DID do badly. Man I love when people trip themselves up !! *YOU* stated the Sharon adn galaxy are the same, so why WOUDL NCAP test both ???

And I'll explain the Galaxy bit slowly ...

comments on US SUVs in NCAP tests show 'bad'
M&A points to another NON US vehicle also failed NCAP
thus disproving any misconception that only US SUVs are bad in NCAP.
SOMEHOW you didn't see it, then didn't see it when pointed out to you and THEN didnt' see it when you make the point yourself :)

No bias other than against stupidity :) :)

Next .... Blazer, I never said it WAS tested. AGAIN if you READ you will see I was pointing out NCAP tended to only test more modern cars and those sold in Europe. WHY do you bring this ?? Something odd going on :)

On your 'finally' . I've pointed to fact ... some US SUVs fare VERY badly in NCAP. *I* pointed out that they don't cover more modern SUVs - leaving responsible readers to make the inference that it doesn't mean all US SUVs are bad. I at this point am temptted to ask your age as your responsise would be mitigated if you were 10.

Finally "immature to respond". Actually as you learn maturity you'll realise that it is best not to engage in fruitless discussion with people who don't pay attention or act responsibily. So your post showed you weren't bothering to actually read ( or understand what was written ) so I didnt' see any point in spoon-feeding you on such a trivial post.

Guibo

07-04-2004, 04:35 PM

Matra et Alpine: I see your the type to get your jollies off by belittling others while ignoring your own shortcomings. So I'll try and spell it out for you (please, read along at this point):

Sandwich said:
"Prove to me that your Volvo holds it's value better than a Blazer. Then prove it did better in crash tests."

To which YOU replied:
"European NCAP testing has shown how bad US cars are.
It's fact and demonstrable."

He wasn't talking about US cars. He was asking you for proof that your Volvo does better in crash test than his Blazer. That's when YOU bring in Euro NCAP...because NCAP have tested the Blazer? That would be the only logical assumption, for why else bring in the issue of NCAP tests as it relates to the Blazer? Are we talking about the safety of US cars, or the safety of SUV's? :confused: I'm pretty sure it was the latter.
Your post might had made some resemblance of sense, had the Blazer been tested by NCAP. ;)

"The Ford Galaxy door pillars sheared off in one test years back. Not good for driver..."
And totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Oh wait, could it be relevant in showcasing your bias against Ford?

Yes, I brought up the Sharan because YOU specifically mentioned the Ford Galaxy being tested. Ie, you have seen such a test conducted by NCAP somewhere. Well, where is it?? Or did you mistake the VW for a Ford, because you wanted the Ford to look bad? And try to explain again how the peformance of MPV's is relevant to this discussion??

BMW X5. Built in the US to US safety standards (as well as the standards elsewhere; but the US is the prime market, is it not?). If some SUV's outperform some cars in crash tests (and vice versa), what does that say about the safety of cars vs SUV's? Not much really. And indeed, in looking at fatality rates for SUV's and cars in terms of per million miles traveled, there's not a heck of a lot between them. In fact, the main cause of death in SUV's in accidents doesn't have anything to do with energy absorption: most were killed when they were ejected from the vehicle (they weren't wearing their seatbelts).

IBrake4Rainbows

07-04-2004, 05:24 PM

I don't mean to be a little bit of a stickler here, but the Galaxy isn't sold in the US, so why does it's crash test score matter? And as for M et A's bias, did you not see that he quite likes Ford, esp. the Full Works Escorts?

Cars like the Chrysler Voyager and Jeep Cherokee (Liberty) might be a better yardstick. Both vehicles score quite poorly, with the Voyager (Albeit in 1999 form) getting 2 stars (of which a special note is made that it fared so poorly in the frontal impact it scored no points, so the score is made up of side impact really). Here are the comments:

The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head. The Voyager acquitted itself better in the side-impact test, but there was still a fair risk of the driver injuring his abdomen. Chrysler chose the child restraints used in the tests, but the company makes no set recommendations to buyers. Euro NCAP believes it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide proper restraint for every occupant and is surprised that Chrysler do not recommend a child seat for the Voyager. (Source EuroNCAP)

The Jeep Cherokee Did a little better, scoring 3 stars for the 2002 model, and the 2003 scoring giving it 4 stars for an intelligent seatbelt chime. Here are the comments:

From August 2003, the Cherokee is fitted with an intelligent reminder for the driver to buckle his seat belt. The Cherokee has therefore been awarded an extra point that now gives the car the four star crashworthiness rating. The Cherokee is designed for the USA and the thinking behind it differs from vehicles intended primarily for Europe. This proved a factor in the knee impact zone where a bolster was fitted to protect an unbelted driver, as required by US law. But the driver experienced fairly high loads on his body from the restraint system and these could have harmed him. The child restraints were effective, especially in cushioning heads during the side impact. Protection given to pedestrians proved to be poor, however.

They make a valid point, US cars are designed for unrestrained passengers to survive impacts, while European cars are primarily designed for the passengers and driver to be wearing seatbelts.

But we are getting off topic. the point is; if even the Golf and Megane can score 5 stars, and pretty well get the same score as the BMW X5, what's the point of buying a heavier car if it'll protect you the same as a regular hatch?

Matra et Alpine

07-04-2004, 05:26 PM

Matra et Alpine: I see your the type to get your jollies off by belittling others while ignoring your own shortcomings. So I'll try and spell it out for you (please, read along at this point):
Way wrong, mate.
I get my "jollies off" by helping folks enjoy cars and driving and why I'm here on UCP.

Sandwich said:
"Prove to me that your Volvo holds it's value better than a Blazer. Then prove it did better in crash tests."

To which YOU replied:
"European NCAP testing has shown how bad US cars are.
It's fact and demonstrable."

He wasn't talking about US cars. He was asking you for proof that your Volvo does better in crash test than his Blazer. That's when YOU bring in Euro NCAP...because NCAP have tested the Blazer? That would be the only logical assumption, for why else bring in the issue of NCAP tests as it relates to the Blazer? Are we talking about the safety of US cars, or the safety of SUV's? :confused: I'm pretty sure it was the latter.
Your post might had made some resemblance of sense, had the Blazer been tested by NCAP. ;)

Being SOOOOO analytical is one 'correct' analysis of the situation.
generally it's bad netiwuette to be so anal but point taken :)
But does ignore the atttempts I made to make it a balanced comment. Bad of you :)

"The Ford Galaxy door pillars sheared off in one test years back. Not good for driver..."
And totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Oh wait, could it be relevant in showcasing your bias against Ford?

Yes, I brought up the Sharan because YOU specifically mentioned the Ford Galaxy being tested. Ie, you have seen such a test conducted by NCAP somewhere. Well, where is it?? Or did you mistake the VW for a Ford, because you wanted the Ford to look bad? And try to explain again how the peformance of MPV's is relevant to this discussion??
Any NCAP test of the Sharon will be the same for the FOrd. They are the same - you know this already.
Here's the Sharon result summary, you could have found this with a simple search.
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=5
BUT, the pillar report detail was in a UK mag at the time. As you might imagine it got quite a lot of press coverage !!!

BMW X5. Built in the US to US safety standards (as well as the standards elsewhere; but the US is the prime market, is it not?).
I think that comment risks confusing the safety test with the safety.
Euro-NCAP are now recognised as one of the most difficult to 'pass'.
But that's for another day :)

If some SUV's outperform some cars in crash tests (and vice versa), what does that say about the safety of cars vs SUV's? Not much really. And indeed, in looking at fatality rates for SUV's and cars in terms of per million miles traveled, there's not a heck of a lot between them.
There is and it's been reported. So I'm not sure whre you get your numbers from. Perhaps you can start citing sources.

In fact, the main cause of death in SUV's in accidents doesn't have anything to do with energy absorption: most were killed when they were ejected from the vehicle (they weren't wearing their seatbelts).
The point of absorbing energy in an impact is to prevent that energy being transferred to the passengers. If 50%of the energy is absorbed that means there is 50% less force applied to throw that body. SO it DOES matter !!
As most Europeans wear seat belts, it's more about preventing whiplash, limb injury and internal damage. so more absroption is significant improvment.

Karrmann

07-04-2004, 05:30 PM

I never thought of the Ford Galaxy being plequed with problems. (i like the Ford Galaxy.)

Coventrysucks

07-04-2004, 05:34 PM

You were trying to point out that it's just not US SUV's that fare badly...by introducing the Galaxy?

Pointing out that not just US SUVs do badly in crash tests, by using a European vehicle that isn't an SUV as an example.

What is wrong with that?

According to the NCAP results, the BMW X5 (which is a US-built SUV) got top marks, 5 stars out of 5.

There is a Peugeot factory in Coventry.
Does that make the 206 a British car?

There is a Nissan factory in Sunderland.
Does that make the Micra a British car?

There is a Volvo factory in the Netherlands.
Does that make the V70 a Dutch car?

There is a BMW factory in America.
Does that make the X5 an American car?

No, on all accounts.

Meanwhile, the Volkswagen Sharan (which is mechanically identical to the Ford Galaxy) did poorly. NCAP website says they haven't even tested the Ford Galaxy, so I'm wondering where you saw this.

The VW Sharan is mechanically identical to the Galaxy, so why would its crash test results be different?

So to sum up, you've tried to make US SUV's appear unsafe on the basis of Euro-market MPV's doing poorly in NCAP tests. Bravo.

European NCAP testing has shown how bad US cars are.

Hey it's also shown up how bad others are too.
The Ford Galaxy door pillars sheared off in one test years back. Not good for driver

I don't see where he tried to make SUVs appear bad by using Euro MPVs.
The initial point, as I (and he) mentioned above was that

US SUVs aren't the only cars that perform badly in crash tests

The Ford Galaxy (Volkswagen Sharan), not a US SUV, does badly.

This proves that US SUVs aren't the the only vehicles that perform badly in crash tests.

Karrmann

07-04-2004, 05:37 PM

there is a big debate going on and I say all SUVS are unsafe, heck they are most likely to flip for god's sakes. peroid.

crisis

07-04-2004, 05:38 PM

Beats me. I've never talked to an SUV driver. So I don't know what goes on in their minds. Why don't we invite some SUV drivers into this conversation, because it's obvious this is going nowhere. If they say that they do in fact use the better visibility, are you going to accept that? Somehow, I don't think so.

Heres one. I have a Landcruiser and a Holden Sedan. Visibility is better in the Landcruiser (it also has a lift kit). Improved visibility is only useful if you are concentrating on driving, something most people dont do. My car probably impairs others visibility which is undesirable but unnavoidable. Other benefits of having a big 4x4 are that you can pick up large load without a trailer. I have to use the Cruiser for all my band gear, it wont fit into the Commodore and that a pretty big car (especially compared to a Pius,,,,,,, now thats a Fruedian typo if I ever made one, think I'll leave it). The fact is a Prius and any other ecologically sound small car is found wanting in doing much other than transporting 3 or 4 people around. Want to pick up a couple of bags of cement, transport some outdoor furniture for a party, pick up a new TV etc etc? Too bad. Im lucky enought to have two cars but 4x4s / SUVs are not cheap. SOme people who do want them for camping may have to accept that it will be their only car. I am with anyone who is critical of the SUV fashion craze at the moment. BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Holdenand all the other hangers on have contributed nothing to off road 4x4s. They have cashed in on the latest big thing. If your driving a X5, M series or Cayenne etc I would ask why. You will probably say because you can.

crisis

07-04-2004, 05:42 PM

there is a big debate going on and I say all SUVS are unsafe, heck they are most likely to flip for god's sakes. peroid.
I have at least ten mates and aquaintences who drive Landcruisers , Pajeros etc. Not one has gone arse up yet. In the hands of an idiot maybe, but even I havent rolled yet.

Karrmann

07-04-2004, 05:43 PM

well they are at a bigger risk to roll than a normal car i meant

Matra et Alpine

07-04-2004, 05:43 PM

I never thought of the Ford Galaxy being plequed with problems. (i like the Ford Galaxy.)
Not fair to say 'plagued'.

It did have a major issue in early crash testing which extra strengthening was added IIRC.

But I owned one for 2 years having had 2 Espace. Not a great experience.
I went back to Espace :)
Unfortunately, Renault now make the Espace simialr to all the rest - tinbox - so the advantages and car-handling/performance are gone :(

Oh, Until Phase IV the Espace was designed and built by Matra, but I seldom let bias sway my family car choice ( sports cars are another matter :) )

Karrmann

07-04-2004, 05:46 PM

so really, the ford galaxy is not the best MPV in the world i guess

Matra et Alpine

07-04-2004, 05:47 PM

.... I have to use the Cruiser for all my band gear
get rid of the drummer. Don't need all that excess kit and use a rhythm box to psis off all those non-musicians :)

The fact is a Prius and any other ecologically sound small car is found wanting in doing much other than transporting 3 or 4 people around. Want to pick up a couple of bags of cement
I asked about the occasional heavy stuff ( horsey bits ) or maybe even towing and the salesman was quite blunt. The car is designed to carry 4 adults. Anymore and the engine management won't be succesful in operating the 2 drive systems. Won't brake anything, but you won't get ANY enefits. Sounded like a major limit till we get hydrogen and the option for LOTS of excess power and BIGGER motors - or one-per wheel :)

Matra et Alpine

07-04-2004, 05:49 PM

so really, the ford galaxy is not the best MPV in the world i guess
Nobody was going to beat the Espace whilst it was galvanized chassis and plastic body. But now it's all tin .... any one could be the winner :)

crisis

07-04-2004, 05:57 PM

get rid of the drummer. Don't need all that excess kit and use a rhythm box to psis off all those non-musicians :)

We keep that as an idle threat. Every time he gets mouthy we mention the word sequencer. I dont transport his crap anyway.

Q. What do they call a guy who hangs around with musicians?

A. A drummer.

Karrmann

07-04-2004, 06:01 PM

I agree, when I say the word Prius, it seems an arguement sprouts.

Coventrysucks

07-04-2004, 06:06 PM

till we get hydrogen and the option for LOTS of excess power and BIGGER motors - or one-per wheel :)

http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/scratchchin.gif

I'll take one! :D

I would prefer it if most mainstream cars switched to hydrogen fuel cell powered electric motors, as they offer so many advantages over petrol/ diesel.
Not only in terms of propulsion, but the entire packaging and design of cars will take a huge step forward.

However, I want proper sports cars to retain internal combustion engines, burning hydrogen, as the deep thrum of a meaty engine is integral to the experience of owning a fast car.
Its why sports cars have loud exhausts.
:)

Egg Nog

07-04-2004, 06:11 PM

I agree, when I say the word Prius, it seems an arguement sprouts.

I still can't seem to comprehend why you are so steadfast with the Prius. It is an awesome car, but people get annoyed when you only talk about it. If you want to wage an SUV agument, use any fuel efficient car as an example, because that is what's important. You are a Prius fanboy, and I'm just hoping people don't think less of it because of you. Let me re-hash my arguments, as an example.

I...

a) Respect certain vehicles (despite being inefficient) for their off-roading capabilities, and the owners who buy them for this reason. It's great to see the serious off-roaders really working them through the trails.

b) Respect the true common sense posessed by people who own small cars for the purpose of transportation. People who buy a small car because it is small, and nothing larger would be necessary.

c) Do not respect the vast (over 90%) majority of people who own vehicles similar to those in a) for the purpose described in b).

d) Do not respect the oddly large number of people who seem to think a few days of winter, a steep driveway, or a local dirt road can justify owning a vehicle that is at least 30% larger than it needs to be.

e) Respect the minority driving category of sports car enthusiasts even though they sometimes own vehicles equivalent in emissions to those in a). Ideally, one of these people would own an efficient sports car, or two cars, one of them being something like what is described in b). Their high-powered car could be used for weekends, special events, trackdays, etc.

The argument of "freedom of choice", to me, makes owners of vehicles in a) seem like assholes. They chose the option of buying it, receiving all the intricacies of doing so (conspicuous consumption et al), and they were free to do so. Just because they were free to do so does not make it right. There are many examples of this in society.

crisis

07-05-2004, 12:43 AM

You are a Prius fanboy,
That is the most offensive spray you have ever given anyone! May I use it when I want to belittle someone.

Guibo

07-05-2004, 03:30 AM

Way wrong, mate.
I get my "jollies off" by helping folks enjoy cars and driving and why I'm here on UCP.

Helping folks enjoy cars...I had a good chuckle on that one. Helping them by asking them how old they are, when you already know damn well they're over 10? You believed I was over 10 in this thread:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3886&page=3&pp=15
Why the change of heart and petty insults? Out of curiosity, is it a common practice for Europeans (or just those in the UK) to ask the age of the person with whom they disagree on a matter that could just as easily be resolved and discussed without animosity? It's apparent you're over 10, but comments like "DWEEB!!!" tend to indicate quite the opposite, mentally.

Being SOOOOO analytical is one 'correct' analysis of the situation.
generally it's bad netiwuette to be so anal but point taken :)
But does ignore the atttempts I made to make it a balanced comment. Bad of you :)
Analytical? You flat out implied the Blazer was in fact NCAP tested when by all accounts it has not been. Incorrect implication on your part. Bad of you :).
Please don't try to explain the finer points of netiquette, after calling me Dweeb and stupid. You might do better by trying to set an example.

Any NCAP test of the Sharon will be the same for the FOrd. They are the same - you know this already.
Here's the Sharon result summary, you could have found this with a simple search.
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=5
BUT, the pillar report detail was in a UK mag at the time. As you might imagine it got quite a lot of press coverage !!!
Why are you sending me that link? :confused: Has it not already occurred to you that I've already seen it? For how else would I find the NCAP results for the X5, and the proclamation by NCAP themselves that they have not yet tested a Galaxy (but have stated they have tested the mechanically identical Sharan, and test results would likely be the same). Again, the point is not whether the Sharan would score any differently. The point is that you somehow remember a Ford Galaxy being tested, when in fact it was the Sharan that was tested. I'll ask you again: could it have been because you wanted Ford to look bad (and not VW, which was the actual marque tested)?

There is and it's been reported. So I'm not sure whre you get your numbers from. Perhaps you can start citing sources.
"In fact, there's virtually no difference in overall fatality rates between vehicles in the light truck category and passenger cars. In 2001, for example, there were 1.2 fatalities involving light truck occupants per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, compared to 1.28 for cars. As for injuries, passenger cars posted a rate 28 percent worse than light trucks.
Moreover, the most lethal injuries result when occupants are ejected from the vehicle - a tragic reality reinforced by the fact that 72 percent of those killed in rollover accidents were not wearing a seatbelt. In other words, the NHTSA appears determined to hold automakers responsible for drivers' negligence in protecting themselves."
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Misc/PNKatzSUV2003-11.html

http://www.motorists.com/ericpeters/headlines.html

Just for the hell of it:
"In fatal crashes between passenger cars and LTVs (light trucks and vans, a category that includes SUVs), the occupants of the car were more often fatally injured. When a car was struck in the side by an LTV, the fatality was 20.8 times more likely to have been in the passenger car. In a head-on collision between a car and an LTV, the fatality was 3.3 times more likely to be among car occupants."
http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/2255/event=view

These are statistics for the US market. I'm not saying things might not be different in the UK.

Guibo

07-05-2004, 03:41 AM

Pointing out that not just US SUVs do badly in crash tests, by using a European vehicle that isn't an SUV as an example.
What is wrong with that?
Nothing's "wrong" with that. It's just highly irrelevant, as it relates to the crashworthiness (or lack thereof) of a Chevy Blazer.

There is a BMW factory in America.
Does that make the X5 an American car?
No, on all accounts.
OK, guy. Tell me where I said the X5 is an American car. You won't find it, because I haven't said it. The X5 is a German design, but that doesn't mean it was designed primarily for the Euro market, as it clearly was not. As a result, it was designed to comply with American market demands, in a variety of areas including but not limited to safety. And it does well in tests conducted by NCAP. Tell me if any of this is wrong.
And if we can conclude that the X5 does well in NCAP tests (and it does), without regard to where it's designed or made (it could be made in France for all I care), then what does that say about the perceived lack of crashworthiness of SUV's? Apparently, SUV's can and have been made to be safe. Whether people continue to drive them as if they're sports cars, and end up rolling them, doesn't change the fact that they should be driven (like all vehicles) in a manner within the limits of their design.

The VW Sharan is mechanically identical to the Galaxy, so why would its crash test results be different?
I've already explained it to M&A. You can either take the time to read it, or ask him for the notes. By now, he will have hopefully understood.

Matra et Alpine

07-05-2004, 04:35 AM

Helping folks enjoy cars...I had a good chuckle on that one. Helping them by asking them how old they are, when you already know damn well they're over 10? You believed I was over 10 in this thread:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3886&page=3&pp=15
Why the change of heart and petty insults? Out of curiosity, is it a common practice for Europeans (or just those in the UK) to ask the age of the person with whom they disagree on a matter that could just as easily be resolved and discussed without animosity? It's apparent you're over 10, but comments like "DWEEB!!!" tend to indicate quite the opposite, mentally.
It IS my style to ask the age when someone shows an inability to use logic and understanding of the English language to continue a reasonable disucssion.
I have constantly had to point out to you that the Galaxy quote was precesliey for the reason to prevent others thinking it was only US.
You never grasped this.
I'd expect and adult English speaker to do so, so I asked you.
Frankly there are 13-16 year olds on UCP who grasp the copncept of discussion and sharing ideas WELL beyond their years.
I do NOT disagree with everything you say.
I *DO* disagree with the twisting you apply because you don't bother to view the other poitn of view. That shows immaturity and leads to people asking THAT question :)

Analytical? You flat out implied the Blazer was in fact NCAP tested when by all accounts it has not been. Incorrect implication on your part. Bad of you :).
Please don't try to explain the finer points of netiquette, after calling me Dweeb and stupid. You might do better by trying to set an example.
First setting an example. I tried to explain it3 times.
We;'re notr here to run all the rings round your POV coz you're too unwilling/lazy to view anothers.
So to make you see how unwilling YOU are to see other POV.
Consider THIUS as a reply to the Blaxer comment ....

WHere did I say the Blazer was tested ??

See you assumed it was implied that it was the Blazer. In Egnlish the original sentnce could have IMPLIED many things. You continue to cling on to the meaning YOU first took and avoided taking any other input to reconsider that erroneous POV.

So 'dweeb' becomes a term of endearment for that attitude :)

Why are you sending me that link? :confused: Has it not already occurred to you that I've already seen it? For how else would I find the NCAP results for the X5, and the proclamation by NCAP themselves that they have not yet tested a Galaxy (but have stated they have tested the mechanically identical Sharan, and test results would likely be the same).
Because you waffled on about the Sharon and not the Galaxy.
If you had read it why carry on like a child with that erroneous point ???
I expected by kids when they were 10 to keep saying the same thing in light of other evidence.
Rational adults tend not to do that. ( Unless they're Bush or Blair :) )

Again, the point is not whether the Sharan would score any differently. The point is that you somehow remember a Ford Galaxy being tested, when in fact it was the Sharan that was tested. I'll ask you again: could it have been because you wanted Ford to look bad (and not VW, which was the actual marque tested)?
Look, you did it again !!!!!
Recap ... the Sharon = Galaxy. The Sharon was tested, it did badly. The NCAP test would be the same for the Galaxy.
Now comes the only part you can question - or get off your ass and research - that the Galaxy was reported to have failed with an A-pillar shear. It was published WITH photos at the time. Show some respect for other facts presented to refute your nonsense and I may have been willing to do the search , but I'm not here to MAKE people believe or to do others research if they question/. I've presented the FACTS. Not implication or opinion. ( oh and in case this gets anal - I have mentioned opinion on Galaxy once )

In other words, the NHTSA appears determined to hold automakers responsible for drivers' negligence in protecting themselves."
Those are US tests on US vehicles and it's acknowledged rthat NCAP is ahead of the US in testing for passenger and pedestrian safety.
So the point tells me what ?
I could quote the orogianl Volvo test on seatbelts - not relevant to the 'latest' best-in-class and tests.

These are statistics for the US market. I'm not saying things might not be different in the UK.
Well when you wish to compare things in todays market, there is no point in regionalising it.
All vehicles can be sold in all markets - may need engineers reports but pretty much the case ( tho I've heard some US states are near impossible ! )
Would you say that a computer was not eligible to demonsitrate speed if it only operated an OS in French language ? Of course not.
So in any comparison of safety, it's inappropriate to ignore tests because they "don't apply".
PARTICULARLY in safety lessons should be learned from ALL regions and implemented by ALL manufacturers.
Some governments are more willing to push against big-money than others. The pedestrian safety planned for 2007 in Europe met LOTS of pressure to be blocked by ALL the manufacturers. Thankfully, the EU stood firm and told them to shut up and make safer cars.
Personally I am pissed off at having to pay for an air bag when seat belt prevented the injuries if they were only worn. ( Thos again I'll point out the obviosu so no confusion .... without driver air bags would we have developed side curtain bags ? So their may be a long-term advantage )

Anyway, so far, Guibo, I've asked you time and again to READ what I'd written and so far I've not seen a SINGLE comment where you've reflected on that input.
Shame coz you can see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. So far all you've done is stand on my toes and piss me off :)

Guibo

07-05-2004, 05:08 AM

WHere did I say the Blazer was tested ??

See you assumed it was implied that it was the Blazer. In Egnlish the original sentnce could have IMPLIED many things. You continue to cling on to the meaning YOU first took and avoided taking any other input to reconsider that erroneous POV.

"Egnlish"..."sentnce"...And you lecture ME about English, LOL.
It seemed pretty clear to me that the implication was that the Blazer was tested. Go ahead and read this again and see if there's another implication:

"Prove to me that your Volvo holds it's value better than a Blazer. Then prove it did better in crash tests."

To which YOU replied:
"European NCAP testing has shown how bad US cars are.
It's fact and demonstrable."

As you've already admitted to error (and in doing so, called me anal), it seems pretty clear even you can admit my interpretation of your comment was justified.

Now comes the only part you can question - or get off your ass and research - that the Galaxy was reported to have failed with an A-pillar shear. It was published WITH photos at the time. Show some respect for other facts presented to refute your nonsense and I may have been willing to do the search , but I'm not here to MAKE people believe or to do others research if they question/. I've presented the FACTS.
The FACTS so far indicate the Galaxy wasn't tested. NCAP website specifically says they never tested the Galaxy. Without the actual report presented here, you've offered nothing more substantial than opinion. You asked for a link that cites my evidence. And I did. You're not reciprocating, and now YOU'RE calling me lazy? LMFAO!

Well when you wish to compare things in todays market, there is no point in regionalising it.
That was offered up as a disclaimer in the event that your research finds things differently in Europe. Well, does your research indicate that things are different in Europe? If not, then you'd have to accept that the statistics in the US apply across the pond. I've not done enough research to come to that conclusion. Have YOU? I'm open to the possibility that accident trends may be different in Europe (gasp! What a novel concept!). Does this mean that I'm saying that they are different? You might think that, but then you'd have to be an idiot. Point of fact remains: The sites I showed were for US accident statistics only. Go ahead and refute that all you want. You can't.
But if you can show that things are different (as you earlier claimed; and have as yet to show any evidence of this), by all means do so.

Anyway, so far, Guibo, I've asked you time and again to READ what I'd written and so far I've not seen a SINGLE comment where you've reflected on that input.
Reflection...you mean like when you called me anal for pointing out that you failed to address the other guy's request for proof (and in the process offered up some jibberish about MPV's)?

Shame coz you can see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. So far all you've done is stand on my toes and piss me off :)
WTF??? I thought you said physical height doesn't mean anything. ;)
I find it strange you could be so pissed off in an automotive discussion. Get a grip.

Matra et Alpine

07-05-2004, 05:25 AM

"Egnlish"..."sentnce"...And you lecture ME about English, LOL.
I have a physical disability whic at times makes my typing seem dyslexic.
Fortunately, most folks worry about content and not presentation.
The difference was I'm talking about COMPREHENSION.

It seemed pretty clear to me that the implication was that the Blazer was tested. Go ahead and read this again and see if there's another implication:

"Prove to me that your Volvo holds it's value better than a Blazer. Then prove it did better in crash tests."

To which YOU replied:
"European NCAP testing has shown how bad US cars are.
It's fact and demonstrable."

out of context grouping is bad netiquette.
YOU continue to ignore that I posted the Galaxy comment so folks would NOT read it as all US SUVs bad.
But that wouldn't fit in your opinioin so will always be ignored.

As you've already admitted to error (and in doing so, called me anal), it seems pretty clear even you can admit my interpretation of your comment was justified.
Showing your bias and unwillingness to engage in rapport.
I pointed out how it COULD be taken and asked you to consider the other ways. You don't - your loss :)

The FACTS so far indicate the Galaxy wasn't tested. NCAP website specifically says they never tested the Galaxy. Without the actual report presented here, you've offered nothing more substantial than opinion. You asked for a link that cites my evidence. And I did. You're not reciprocating, and now YOU'RE calling me lazy? LMFAO!
Yes, because you again go wittering on about the Galaxy not being tested. The Sharon was. That the Galaxy and Sharon are identifcal beyond some trim, the engine option and the badge doesn't seem to be able to make the logical connection with you. I can't explain that any furhter. I've tried to get you to see sense. You refuse - your loss !!

Well, does your research indicate that things are different in Europe? If not, then you'd have to accept that the statistics in the US apply across the pond.
How can statistics of a lower test apply anywehre else ?
It is accepted practice in research that the most etensive are the 'better'.
Why are you defending old and lower tests ?
Even in the NCAP I had the decency and openness to warn against only comparuing old cars against new. You don't - your loss !

The sites I showed were for US accident statistics only. Go ahead and refute that all you want. You can't.
But if you can show that things are different (as you earlier claimed; and have as yet to show any evidence of this), by all means do so.
You forget I've already said often , that
1) you don't get the 'best' of cars in the US. It's up to you to take that up with your dealers, manufacturers and governments to allow you a FREE CHOICE. Fortunately we already get freedom to select and test. The reality in a free choice country is that we test and show up the limits across a wider range. You don't get to do that - tour loss !
2) We get to see reports and tests across a wider range of cars and safety mindset - UK drivers are forced by law to wear belts and not use mobile phones nad CAN be charged if eating/drinking coffee while driving. So there is a higher safety consiousness present than my experince in the US shows.
( others know in UCP I spend a LOT of my time working in the US, so speak often from first hand experience and from sharing with US friends/colleagues )

Reflection...you mean like when you called me anal for pointing out that you failed to address the other guy's request for proof (and in the process offered up some jibberish about MPV's)?
reflection in considering what another person is saying and how it is meant.
I'm not aware of ANY post that has been 'gibberish' in my whole time on UCP.
Difficult to understand and clarify possibly , but all resolved by seeing the other POV> Somethign you chose not to try to do evidently - your loss !

When you take a balanced POV and return I'll continue.
Reflect on everything you've said abotu the Glaxy v Sharon in tests and tell me you see commonsense and I'll return. Until then you show lack of basic understanding of discussion and don't deserve to have your hand held any longer to be led through the knowledge - your loss !

WTF??? I thought you said physical height doesn't mean anything. ;)
I find it strange you could be so pissed off in an automotive discussion. Get a grip.
erm, the "shoulders of giants" has notinhg to do with height :)
It was said by Isaac Newton to point out that his ideas were based on the knowledge of those who came before him.
It is often used in business to remind folks that working together and seeing others inputs is a better way for ALL to advance.

I get pissed off when I see people not bothering to put effort in for advancement and sticking stoicly to a perception in the face of evidence and not responding to the dissonance caused by facts. I've put effort in to help move things forward. you haven't and don't want to. that pisses me off. I could have spent my time engageing with others in UCP and helping/sharing with those who can benefit/appreciate.

Guibo

07-05-2004, 12:50 PM

I have a physical disability whic at times makes my typing seem dyslexic.
Right, my bad. You seemed to have been typing pretty well.

YOU continue to ignore that I posted the Galaxy comment so folks would NOT read it as all US SUVs bad.
I thought you said you meant it to be read that it's not just US SUV's that fared badly. That non-US SUV's fared badly as well, which doesn't deny your contention that US cars fared badly ("It's fact and demonstrable", etc). The CONTENT indicates that US cars as a whole fare badly, and there's no exception noted. Whatever.

Showing your bias and unwillingness to engage in rapport.
I pointed out how it COULD be taken and asked you to consider the other ways. You don't - your loss :)
Oh, I can see that you meant that it's not only US cars that fare badly. The POINT I was talking about was why you refuse to answer the question about the Blazer, but instead introduced another car that has nothing to do with whether your Volvo is safer than his Blazer. That is all.

Yes, because you again go wittering on about the Galaxy not being tested. The Sharon was. That the Galaxy and Sharon are identifcal beyond some trim, the engine option and the badge doesn't seem to be able to make the logical connection with you. I can't explain that any furhter. I've tried to get you to see sense. You refuse - your loss !!
You can't be so dense as to NOT see that I know the connection between the Galaxy and the Sharan. For who else FIRST brought up the name SHARAN in this discussion??
Again, you miss yet another opportunity to prove your point; you point to a test of the Galaxy that (so far) can't be found anywhere, yet overlook the fact that it was the Sharan that was tested. And the results of which were posted on the NCAP site, where they specifically state they hadn't tested the Galaxy. It doesn't matter one bit that the Sharan and Galaxy are mechanically identical (as I said before), remember. What does matter is that it was the Sharan that was tested, and the results can be found on NCAP's OWN WEBSITE, where they explicitly stated they had NOT tested the Galaxy. I'm not saying they've never tested the Galaxy; I'm just saying that on available and easily accessed information, it seems pretty clear that the VW was the one that was tested, NOT the Galaxy. Ie, this is not a question about the similarity between these two vehicles; it's about what you remember (or claim to remember) having been published.

reflection in considering what another person is saying and how it is meant.
I'm not aware of ANY post that has been 'gibberish' in my whole time on UCP.
Difficult to understand and clarify possibly , but all resolved by seeing the other POV> Somethign you chose not to try to do evidently - your loss !
Not seeing the other point of view...something that could just as easily be said of yourself. On the first page of this thread, you've made your point clear about your feelings regarding SUV's. By this last page, it seems your attitude has not changed. Even in light of the information posted (at YOUR request) showing no meaningful discrepancy in SUV fatalities vs passenger car fatalities.
"Difficult to understand and clarify possibly"...good. At least we agree on that.
Your query into my age is gibberish, when it was already clear to you from prior discussion that I'm well over 10. It's also gibberish to conclude that height doesn't matter with regard to vision, when basic geometry tells you height does in fact matter. Whether or not it's an idiot behind the wheel doesn't make any difference; once an idiot, always an idiot; on that we can agree. But driven conscientiously, the physical height advantage of the SUV can be experienced everyday.

erm, the "shoulders of giants" has notinhg to do with height :)
It was said by Isaac Newton to point out that his ideas were based on the knowledge of those who came before him.
It is often used in business to remind folks that working together and seeing others inputs is a better way for ALL to advance.
I don't see any advancement being made in calling people "Dweeb!!!" and stupid. Is that how you work together and see other inputs? Are you in the habit of addressing people you hardly know in your professional life in this manner? It appears so.
"Shoulder of giants"...yeah, I know the origin of the phrase. What's really quite comical is that you failed to see the humor and took it so bloody seriously. LOL! And to think that I'm overly anallytical. :D

I've put effort in to help move things forward. you haven't and don't want to. that pisses me off. I could have spent my time engageing with others in UCP and helping/sharing with those who can benefit/appreciate.
Oh, christ. Spare me your drama and just relax. By all means, if you'd rather help/share with those who can benefit, by all means do so. No one's forcing you to reply. And seeing how this is ultimately going nowhere, perhaps it's best we stop this pissing match. No one's going to miss it. Good day.

Matra et Alpine

07-05-2004, 01:52 PM

You can't be so dense as to NOT see that I know the connection between the Galaxy and the Sharan.
and YET you continue to get hung up on the NAME of the vehicle tested by NCAP and ignore it IS the same vehicle.
AND i pointed out to you it was pics from thoses tests published by the mags of the day in the UK,.
Your bias doesn't ket you accept a truth from anyone unless it matches exactly your POV.
Shame really.

you to reply. And seeing how this is ultimately going nowhere, perhaps it's best we stop this pissing match. No one's going to miss it. Good day.
Yep, no change, so it's dropped :(

taz_rocks_miami

07-14-2004, 10:46 PM

I guess SUVs took the place of station wagons. Remember those things? Did any of you here ever dread getting droped off at school by mom's station wagon? I remember praying that no one saw me in getting out of it. Which never happened by the way. At least SUVs are cool enough that kids today don't have to say: That wasn't me getting out of that!!!

Taz.

Matra et Alpine

07-28-2004, 01:31 PM

henk4

07-28-2004, 01:52 PM

Why SUV ? I think I've found the reason......
WHilst digging up an old reference to prove the barriers put up for foreign car imports in the US I found a reference to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy. This was brought in in the 70s to try to get US makers to produce more fuel-efficient cars.
In 2000 the CAFE was 27.5mpg for cars and 20.5 for light trucks.
The way CAFE works is that across the model range a manufacturier has to meet the CAFE average OR they are fined. Now it turns out that SUVs are classed as light trucks by the CAFE rules. So by getting consumers to buy SUCs the manufacturer only has to meet 20.5 to prevent penalties under CAFE.

Now THAT sucks for the world's environment - chalk up another 'win' for capitlaism

It was actually one of the more prominent Bush measures, serving two purposes: To increase fuel consumption (revenues go into the pockets of the US oil industry, staunch supports of guess who) and to please the richer part of the electorate.

(missed this thread completeyl, bloody holidays) I was overtaken by a Hummer yesterday, which then performed a stupid manoeuver so I had to step on the brakes, but could not see the driver because of darkened windows. No snow in sight whatsoever)

DodgeNitroBIRM

07-28-2004, 02:07 PM

Matra et Alpine

07-28-2004, 02:25 PM

Hey, Henk, maybe you should read this before opening your mouth again.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE05-07/Index.html

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes corporate average fuel economy standards for light trucks. NHTSA is setting a standard of 21.0 miles per gallon (mpg) for model year (MY) 2005, 21.6 mpg for MY 2006, and 22.2 mpg for MY 2007.
Apart from the childish abuse I didnt' get the point of the post, Dodge.

In 10 years that the worlds manufacturers took mainstream car consumption from an average of 25-30mpg and achieved 50-60 regularly and with ease AND at the same price points the CAFE didn't move. It looks as if it did move recently by 1mpg. Conspiracy theory would suggest Bush. Many papers have been written that point to favouritism by Bush during his time in Senate and President. I'll accept that Bush'ists will refute those articles.

But consider this, whilst the rest of the worlds oil companies have to survive in a free market where the consumption needs are driven by the consumer ( and in some countries reduced by government action- the UK ), the US oil companies enjoyed continued high consumption and high profits.

Can you explain the point again, as I said I didn't get it. Sorry.

DodgeNitroBIRM

07-28-2004, 09:27 PM

First off, Matra, I must correct you. President Bush was not a Senator, he was the Governor of Texas before he became our President.

Secondly, I must apologize to henk4. That was very childish of me and I do feel stupid for the comment. After the ridiculous comment I made, however, I do stand by it. The bar is being raised for Light Trucks, but at a rate in which those trucks can compensate for. The 2003 Ranger XLT with a five speed I used to own never reached 20 MPG, it got 19.25-.5. It had a 3.0 Liter V-6. Trucks and SUVs just simply can not get the gas mileage of a car and never will, they are heavier and use larger engines because they are designed to pull and haul.

Another thing I must comment on, this constant comparison of European and US cars is starting to get ridiculus. European and US cultures, roads, and vehicles are very different. You have to be here to understand and we have to be there to understand. The US will NEVER be like Europe and Europe will NEVER be like the US! End of story.

cls12vg30

07-28-2004, 10:20 PM

In 10 years that the worlds manufacturers took mainstream car consumption from an average of 25-30mpg and achieved 50-60 regularly and with ease AND at the same price points the CAFE didn't move

50-60 miles per gallon? What cars are these? Even a Prius has trouble averaging economy that high. The only car I've ever seen rated so high was the Honda Insight.

F1_Master

07-28-2004, 10:23 PM

Well, you do realize the Tourage, and the Cayenne have been doing very well. But I would buy a Cayenne Turbo S. I like a car with HP!

henk4

07-28-2004, 10:52 PM

50-60 miles per gallon? What cars are these? Even a Prius has trouble averaging economy that high. The only car I've ever seen rated so high was the Honda Insight.

The diesel revolution has passed you by obviously. If you would take an average two litre diesel car available over here and drive it according to the USA speed limits, you would easily get between 18-20 km from a litre of fuel. Somebody can do the calculation into mpg, but I am sure you will arrive at figures between 50 and 60. Small diesel cars, still capable of running 160 kph if need be, would on average use less than one litre every 24-26 km. And before you start bashing diesel cars as being noisy and slow, try a modern one first.

henk4

07-28-2004, 11:01 PM

Another thing I must comment on, this constant comparison of European and US cars is starting to get ridiculus. European and US cultures, roads, and vehicles are very different. You have to be here to understand and we have to be there to understand. The US will NEVER be like Europe and Europe will NEVER be like the US! End of story.

I have just spent four weeks on the road in Canada (comparable to the USA as far as car sales is concerned) and yes the roads are wider (but generally of poorer quality) and the vehicles are different. Cities, or rather the extensions around a 100 plus year old railway station, are laid out wide and open, parking spaces are much bigger, but all of this did not give me the impression that I really needed an SUV or a truck to thoroughly enjoy this. I have used a Pontiac Grand-Am (probably considered as a small car overthere) but I would have loved to have my own (similar sized) Citroen there, first of all to fully enjoy the long distance confort of a properly suspended car and secondly to enjoy the low price of diesel fuel, combined with the economy that enforced speed limits can produce.

Matra et Alpine

07-29-2004, 04:12 AM

50-60 miles per gallon? What cars are these? Even a Prius has trouble averaging economy that high. The only car I've ever seen rated so high was the Honda Insight.
BECAUSE YOU ONLY LOOK AT CARS AVAILABLE IN AMERICA !!

Come on guys I'm fed up pointing this out to you, waken up and smell the coffee :)

Ford Fiesta Duratorq 65.7 mpg
Ford Fusion 64.2 mpg
Citroen C2 68.2 mpg
Citroen C3 67.3 mpg
Renault Clio 67.3 mpg
Peugeot 205 65.7 mpg
Audi A2 64.2 mpg
Renault Megane 62.8 mpg
Toyota Yaris 64.2 mpg
Mazda 2 62.8 mpg
Mercedes A160 62.8 mpg
VW Lupo 64.2 mpg
Fiat Punto 62.8 mpg
Citroen Xsara 62.8 mpg
Peugeot 307 62.8 mpg
SEAT Ibiza 61.4 mpg
MINI One 58.9 mpg
Skoda Fabia 57.6 mpg
Citroen Picasso 57.6 mpg
MG ZR 53.8 mpg
Volvo S40 50.4 mpg

Smart fourtwo 60.1 mpg
Daihatsu Charade 58.9 mpg
Kia Picanto 57.6 mpg
Honda Civic 57.6 mpg
Vauxhall Corsa 58.9 mpg

even a Jag X-type's available with 50.2 mpg !!!

OK, I got bored after 5 minutes of research to get the above list.
Form the search I did there are OVER 30 MANUFACTURERS selling cars in Europe with consumption in the 50-70 mpg range. It hit over 1000 car MODELS - OK some of that is trim differences and some won't be the 'style' you want, but with so many different ones to chose from there will be one :) :) but still a hell of a lot. Have you got the point ??

I would now EXPECT anyone questioning facts stated to have the decency to do the research themselves as the lesson is better learned if self-taught.

( oh and before Karmaan adds it, of course there is the Prius :) )

Karrmann

07-29-2004, 06:45 AM

maybe I should start importing cars from england. :)

Matra et Alpine

07-29-2004, 07:07 AM

maybe I should start importing cars from england. :)
Small geography lesson ( and you do realise you've just confirmed all Europeans view of US ignorance :) )

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/graphics/loc-eur.gif

Scotland is NOT England and vice-versa and any suggestion is likey to end in a glasgow-kiss :)

Great Britain are the 3 nations of Scotland, England, Wales . The United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland.

Lonely Planet - http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/scotland/ - is a good web site for tongue-in-cheek descriptions of countries but also for useful info if visiting :)

Coventrysucks

07-29-2004, 08:06 AM

Matra et Alpine

07-29-2004, 09:22 AM

If you're so keen to keep Scotland seperate from England, why do your fecking Scottish MP's get to vote on legislation concerning England, but no English MP's are allowed to vote on legislation that concerns Scotland?

E.g. - University top up fees, nothing to do with Scotland at all.

Nothing to do with all the Labour MPs from Scotland is it Tony?
You've got it right. Labour know that Scotland's votes keep THEM in power in Westminster so won't want to give it up.
Your problem, not ours :) ( Ours is a 500 million POUND parliament building :( )

I personally consider Great Britain to be one "country", with Scotland, Wales and England as "super-counties".
We are all independant nations joined by the Act of Union 1707.
So it's really nations with UK being a "super nation" :)

Can we get a 'politics' Forum going as far too many threads have fallen off topic, mired in the fudgery of political arguments, as of late.
:)
Well the post you responded to was an educational piece, not political and the post before that was car consumption :)

Why did you want to bring up British politics - unless it upsets you that our students get FREE university education and our pensioners get FREE care ??

Coventrysucks

07-29-2004, 12:21 PM

I wasn't refering to this thread only, many threads of late have become Bush vs the world arguments, which are way off the original topic.

Personally I really don't care if people don't know the difference between Scotland and England - its their problem, not mine.

Why buy an SUV?

There is no reason.
If you need to traverse tricky weather and terrain - get a proper offroader, not a poncy X5 which cowers at the sight of damp grass.
If you need to tow things - get a diesel estate. Why bother lugging round the weight of a massive truck as well as the trailer?
Need to carry equipment? - get a "commercial" off roader/ truck. Much better for lugging stuff around than an Escalade.

SUV's aren't safer than cars.
SUV's aren't more spacious than minivans/ mpvs.
SUV's are slower, and more polluting than cars.

If no one bought SUV's in the first place, you wouldn't feel "intimidated" in a normal car, as everyone else would be in cars as well.

sandwich

07-29-2004, 12:53 PM

Why buy an SUV?

There is no reason.
If you need to traverse tricky weather and terrain - get a proper offroader, not a poncy X5 which cowers at the sight of damp grass.
If you need to tow things - get a diesel estate. Why bother lugging round the weight of a massive truck as well as the trailer?
Need to carry equipment? - get a "commercial" off roader/ truck. Much better for lugging stuff around than an Escalade.

SUV's aren't safer than cars.
SUV's aren't more spacious than minivans/ mpvs.
SUV's are slower, and more polluting than cars.

A little confused? An audi allroad weighs 4000lbs (1825kg) while a Nissan Frontier weighs 3600lbs. Perhaps in different leagues, but you want to make comparisons.

Secondly, I want you to do an experiment for me. Buy a SBC350 and bring it back to your house in your diesel estate. While I can do this with a friend's pickup with the help of four other guys, you're going to need an engine hoist, if you even want to get your pretty little interior oily.

Wait- so everybody who ever needs to haul stuff should buy a huge commercial, dual axle truck? Are you joking? There goes every comment that you made about efficiency.

I'm pretty sure the escalade was never intended to be used as anything other than a hiphopmobile, so let's move on, shall we?

Lastly, the X5 did pretty poorly in every test. To say that it speaks for all SUVs in less than perfect conditions is like saying Smart cars make up most of Europes automotive population.

Answer me this, what is a proper off-roader?

sandwich

07-29-2004, 12:54 PM

funny how all the nagging nancies on this bored complain so much, yet the vote has 11 to 8 in favor of buying an suv....

Coventrysucks

07-29-2004, 01:08 PM

My points are "in general", not specific comparisons between a Smart Miniscule and a Ford Humungous.

Also I'd like to make it quite clear that I am using the term "SUV" not "4x4", or "off roader", or "pickup", which have genuine uses.

What is a SBC350? A quick Google suggests a Chevy engine. How much does it weigh?

Americans obviously have a different meaning to "commercial off roader"
Try Nissan Navara, or Mitsubishi L200, Toyota Hilux etc.

I doubt very much that many SUVs can follow the likes of a Land Rover Defender et al off road. 90% of them are fitted with road tyres, so they're off to a bad start already.

I am not saying that all large vehicles with four wheel drive are useless, just SUV's.

RX7 FC3S

07-29-2004, 01:41 PM

I don't think it is fair to pick on SUV and trucks. There are many other cars that have poor gas mileage and emission. To address the environmental problem, we should look at the big picture rather than just a specific type of vehicle.

I could have said something like this:
SUV has more room than any 2seater cars
SUV has better mileage and emission than most of the racecars
SUV is safer than a bike
However, what is the point? Different cars are built for different purpose (despite of the marketing stuff from the company’s point of view). To me SUV has a combination of roominess, towing capacity, and off road capability, as well as the four-wheel drive (I do agree that people who buy two wheel drive SUV are probably having some mental problems) that provide better handling and power delivery on surfaces like snow or ice. Not many people have the money to buy and maintain multiple cars, thus a SUV might just fit their needs.

There are a few more points about the four-wheel drive issue. Yes, a skilled driver can handle RWD or FWD cars on rough or slippery surface at ease. However, not many drivers are skillful enough for that. And I have seen a lot of cars spin out of control even when the snow on the roads/highways are removed and properly salted. Removing the snow give the clearance for car to get going, it doesn’t guarantee car to have enough grip to handle well above certain speed. I am not sure about other people, but from my experience, four-wheel drive is more advantageous than FWD. Again, I haven’t driven enough cars to make it a statement, but it is my own experience. Agree or not is up to you.

Of course, there are people just want to buy a huge SUV to show off or things like that, that type of people deserve to get spanked in their S. However, it is the problem of their attitudes, not the car.

Personally, I don’t like big cars, and I don’t like cars that sip too much gas (I don’t have much money and gas cost a lot nowadays). However, I just don’t like the idea that SUV is the only type of car getting the bash.

RX7 FC3S

07-29-2004, 02:15 PM

I was still typing when you post your message, coventry. I just did a quick search over the vehicles you mentioned. They are all powered by diesel, right? I don’t think we have those models in the State and Canada (there is a chance that I might be wrong, because I just couldn’t find it on their official website). I still see some diesel trucks over here, but they are not common.
I am not sure about the State but in places where I have live in, not every single gas station offer diesel. This might be one of the reasons why people buy the gas version instead of the diesel one.

Matra et Alpine

07-29-2004, 04:21 PM

I was still typing when you post your message, coventry. I just did a quick search over the vehicles you mentioned. They are all powered by diesel, right?
It was me that posted the list to shoe evidence of a disputed fuel consupmtion figure I'd used earlier.

The first group ARE diesels.
The second group are petrol.

I don’t think we have those models in the State and Canada (there is a chance that I might be wrong, because I just couldn’t find it on their official website). I still see some diesel trucks over here, but they are not common.
Agreed, and why not ?
Becuse Ford, GM etal have a huge investment in big petrol engines.
To do a decent diesel they would have to pay LOTS of roylaties to PSA in France who have been major innovators in producing powerful, responsive, clean diesels !!

I am not sure about the State but in places where I have live in, not every single gas station offer diesel. This might be one of the reasons why people buy the gas version instead of the diesel one.
Yep, and 20 years ago in Europe nobody did unleaded.
Within a year of emissions controls EVERY garage had unleaded.
The question has to be why the American consumer isn't offered the choice of decent diesel cars. Personally I think because US trucks are huge soot-belchers and so everyone associates diesel with dirty. It doesn't have to be :)

Coventrysucks

07-29-2004, 05:32 PM

I still see some diesel trucks over here, but they are not common.

Some Irony (like goldy or bronzy) in connection with American SUVs (not capable off roaders, of practical trucks which people use out of neccessity)

Most SUVs are neither Sporty, or Utilitarian.

There is a pitiful percentage of diesel SUVs.
Not only would they benefit from better gas milage, therefore cost you even less to run, but they'd have huge ammounts of torque, which makes towing/ carrying heavy loads even easier.

crisis

07-29-2004, 05:50 PM

I doubt very much that many SUVs can follow the likes of a Land Rover Defender et al off road. 90% of them are fitted with road tyres, so they're off to a bad start already.

I am not saying that all large vehicles with four wheel drive are useless, just SUV's.
Poor Defender. The new design is now being agonised over. Do they make it more desirable to the mass market (yes they cant help themselves) or retain the integrity of a truly capable off roader (no, the market is dwindling). Hope Im wrong.

Slicks

07-29-2004, 05:52 PM

Some Irony (like goldy or bronzy) in connection with American SUVs (not capable off roaders, of practical trucks which people use out of neccessity)

Most SUVs are neither Sporty, or Utilitarian.

There is a pitiful percentage of diesel SUVs.
Not only would they benefit from better gas milage, therefore cost you even less to run, but they'd have huge ammounts of torque, which makes towing/ carrying heavy loads even easier.

Most American SUVs are capable of off roading, some in light conditions other in much harsher conditions. But I rather have and SUV off road than a small car.

Depending on how you define "sporty" and what your comparing it to SUVs can be sporty. Obveously there not going to be anywhere near a true sports car in sporty, but most will be more sporty than some of the "sporty" coupes available in America.
As far as utilitarian how are they not? There is far more room in an SUV than a small car, and some larger cars. Can a small car saftley tow a boat? What about carry furnature in the trunk? How about carrying 5+ people comfortably while towing?

Coventrysucks

07-29-2004, 06:20 PM

Most American SUVs are capable of off roading, some in light conditions other in much harsher conditions. But I rather have and SUV off road than a small car.

Depending on how you define "sporty" and what your comparing it to SUVs can be sporty. Obveously there not going to be anywhere near a true sports car in sporty, but most will be more sporty than some of the "sporty" coupes available in America.
As far as utilitarian how are they not? There is far more room in an SUV than a small car, and some larger cars. Can a small car saftley tow a boat? What about carry furnature in the trunk? How about carrying 5+ people comfortably while towing?

Have you ever heard of the phrases "tongue in cheek" or "sarcasm"?

drakkie

07-30-2004, 12:53 AM

As far as utilitarian how are they not? There is far more room in an SUV than a small car, and some larger cars. Can a small car saftley tow a boat? What about carry furnature in the trunk? How about carrying 5+ people comfortably while towing?

ever heard about the renault espace ?i dunno how much they may tow, but i see peeps with huge caravans(2axles, 6/7 meters and sometimes more!!) and they can tow it !so...... why get such a huge truck??i bet it even gets better mileage..... ;)

Matra et Alpine

07-30-2004, 03:12 AM

ever heard about the renault espace ?i dunno how much they may tow, but i see peeps with huge caravans(2axles, 6/7 meters and sometimes more!!) and they can tow it !so...... why get such a huge truck??i bet it even gets better mileage..... ;)
I tow 2 horses in trailer with my 14 year old Espace.
2 litre petrol, 4 wheel drive ( most of the time - long story ! ) and 150,000 miles on original engine and transmission.
Gets abused all the time.
Went to Paris and back in the same day to pick up a Matra chassis :) Got up to 80mph on quiet stretch !!!!!
The legal weight isn't particularly high as the car is light for it's size. But with the 4WD and even the FWD it's easy to pull a "snake" back into control.
Won't say the number of times I've pulled so-called off-roaders out of muddy fields at horse shows :)

DasModell

08-01-2004, 09:22 AM

the only reason why i would buy one ?? .. if it's cheaper then a Dacia :D :D

Coventrysucks

08-01-2004, 04:56 PM

Slicks

08-01-2004, 09:46 PM

Have you ever heard of the phrases "tongue in cheek" or "sarcasm"?
With out tone, sarcasm is hard to detect...were on the internet there is no tone of voice.

Slicks

08-01-2004, 09:48 PM

drakkie

08-02-2004, 02:48 AM

Only one problem, Renault isnt sold in America...

import one then :rolleyes:

drakkie

08-02-2004, 03:00 AM

BMW X3 = SUV
Reasons why not to buy one, as confirmed by Top Gear.

I have been "holding out" on the X3 untill I had seen some sort of evidence about how well it goes off road.

I had suspected from it's announcement that it would be crap, however I wanted to give it a fair chance.

It is great on road.
It is fairly useless off road.

Get a 5/3 series estate
Better on road.
Cheaper.
Doesn't look like a X5 with leprosy.

Need to go off road?
Buy something that will actually be able to tackle something more demanding than the kerb stone.
;)

i saw it and honestly it was like i had expected.i looked at bmw.de and i looked for the feul usage of the Z4 and the X3.
BMW Z4 2.5i : average 8.9l/100km
BMW X3 2.5i : average 11.2l/100km

this are the official figures of bmw.most of the times these figures arent completely right and may depend on how the person behind the wheel drives, but it gives a good indication.

The x3 ISNT SPORTY AT ALL, AND YOU CAN HAVE A LOT MORE FUN WITH AN Z4 WHILE POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE LESS !!!

here is the proof of my statements:
http://www.bmw.com/generic/de/de/products/automobiles/z4/z4/download/pdf/datasheet.pdf
http://www.bmw.com/generic/de/de/products/automobiles/x3/x3/download/pdf/x3_datasheet.pdf

Slicks

08-02-2004, 09:20 AM

import one then :rolleyes:
I rather not take the time and pay all the money to import a van when i can just buy an SUV and have it serve more purposes.

drakkie

08-03-2004, 02:32 AM

a espace isnt what we call a van out here.

Edit: in order to prevent any confusion about different namingss of car types here are pics of :
a van
a mpv
a suv
another suv

crimefighter196

08-04-2004, 08:26 PM

Why on earth should you buy an SUV??Its expensive, polluting,not very good in terrain(every day, lots are being pulled out of the sand on the beach near my place) and i can go on for hours about it. Can someone tell me why to buy an SUV, exept the status of having one?? :mad: :mad: :mad:

Haul People to work sites ,,, you see it all depends what one uses it for.
SUV has its uses,, I do hate the term SUV.

In my case my SUV is actually a BUS that can crawl through mud to get 6 hard working Mexican day workers to work.

so next time you see an SUV, don't be mad,, there are reasons why people has one,, same as people with small cars ,, or medium cars ,, or small cars with V8 engines.

the car that I think is most enificitent ?? its those 2 door/ 2 seat with massive engines ,, like a Corvette, Porshe,, etc, etc..

even a 2 seater Miata is just plain useless ,,..

crisis

08-05-2004, 12:17 AM

the car that I think is most enificitent ?? its those 2 door/ 2 seat with massive engines ,, like a Corvette, Porshe,, etc, etc..

even a 2 seater Miata is just plain useless ,,..
Thats it. Few cars are built purely for function. Just as few people buy cars purely for functionality. Thats why sites like this exist. And the hundreds of magazines and other paraphanalia the is dedicated to cars. If functionality and effeciency were the only paramaters we would all drive Prius's. Karmann nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

henk4

08-05-2004, 12:31 AM

If functionality and effeciency were the only paramaters we would all drive Prius's. Karmann nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

No sir, we would all be driving diesels!!!
(Forgot to add: French diesels)

Coventrysucks

08-05-2004, 03:02 AM

So next time you see an SUV, don't be mad, there are reasons why people has one, same as people with small cars, or medium cars, or small cars with V8 engines.

What reasons are there for owning a BMW X5 in the middle of London?
There is no where to off road, so you don't need four wheel drive.
Why not buy a 5 series. If you get the estate, there are 565 litres of space in the boot for your "equipment" compared to 465 litres for the X5, its a few thousand £s cheaper, when you do find some open road you get an extra 45bhp and 5mpg less, and it handles significantly better than the X5

The car that I think is most inefficient? Its those 2 door/ 2 seat with massive engines, like a Corvette, Porshe, etc, etc..

Even a 2 seater Miata is just plain useless.

If you spend 99% of your driving time on tarmac'ed roads, would you rather be driving round in something which was designed for use on the road, designed to give the best handling and best performance.
Or would it be a lumbaring leviathan that threatens to fall over at the first hint of a high speed corner?

I think that sports cars which are designed for the road, although they'll never be as efficient or as practical as a boring middle of the road car, have a more valid reason to be on the road than an off roader, which clearly aren't.

You may think that the Miata is useless, but more rational people think that it is one of the best handling cars in the world. And with only a 1.8 engine, although it isn't as blisteringly fast as a Ferrari, it is more fuel efficient and less polluting than your Tundra.

If there are only 2 of you, why not have a 2 seater car? 4 seats would be a complete waste, would it not?

cls12vg30

08-05-2004, 08:34 AM

What reasons are there for owning a BMW X5 in the middle of London?

Even a 2 seater Miata is just plain useless.

Arguments like this are exactly the reason that we must not continue down the slippery slope of making regulations, banning things like SUV's, etc.

If person A says, "There's no reason for anyone to own an SUV, they should be made illegal. Everyone should drive a small, fun car like my Miata.", then let's say enough people say that and it is made law. So now SUV's are illegal. Then what? Person B comes along and says, "Miatas are not practical. They are too small and are only driven for recreation. They should be illegal." And they convince enough people of that (like 50.1%), and the law is made. Now Person A's beloved Miata is banned, and what right does he have to complain? Person B did the same thing that Person A did. Whether or not SUV's or Miatas are actually impractical or wasteful is irrelevent. Enough people believed it to be true that both are now illegal. Where does it stop? What will be illegal next? Alcohol? Red meat? Organized sports? Criticizing the government? Making more than X amount of money?
Down this path lies totalitarianism and slavery.
As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This must ring true for all other personal decisions as well, if we wish to live in freedom. As we have seen, our individual beliefs and desires, which make perfect sense to us, may confound all the other people are not us. This is true for everyone. We must respect the personal decisions of our neighbors, if we expect our own to be respected.

Matra et Alpine

08-05-2004, 09:17 AM

Arguments like this are exactly the reason that we must not continue down the slippery slope of making regulations, banning things like SUV's, etc.
Well in context it makes sense.

If person A says, "There's no reason for anyone to own an SUV, they should be made illegal. Everyone should drive a small, fun car like my Miata.", then let's say enough people say that and it is made law.
But the law would be banning SUV from small town and congested city centres.

Then what? Person B comes along and says, "Miatas are not practical. They are too small and are only driven for recreation. They should be illegal." And they convince enough people of that (like 50.1%), and the law is made. Now Person A's beloved Miata is banned, and what right does he have to complain?
Yep, Miata's are then banned from pedestrian areas and cuycleways and buslanes.

Whether or not SUV's or Miatas are actually impractical or wasteful is irrelevent. Enough people believed it to be true that both are now illegal.
Illegal in congested streets and illegal in designated zones.
TOTALLY different from the suggestion yo've conjectured :)

Where does it stop? What will be illegal next? Alcohol?
It is if you're driving
Red meat? hmm, probably some hippy veggie tree-hugger commune somewhere :)
Organized sports?You can't play soccer in our planted borders in public parks.

Criticizing the government?
are we talkign otuside the US of A ?
Making more than X amount of money? It's called the law of diminishing returns and a taxation system :)

Down this path lies totalitarianism and slavery.
But that is one of many along where there are advances and benefits.
Why uproot the tree when only a branch needs pruned ?

As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This must ring true for all other personal decisions as well, if we wish to live in freedom.
No, there is a big difference between speech and action.
Voltaire would not defend the right to rape someone so don't confuse philosphy in attempts to bolster weak positions !!

As we have seen, our individual beliefs and desires, which make perfect sense to us, may confound all the other people are not us. This is true for everyone. We must respect the personal decisions of our neighbors, if we expect our own to be respected.
Definately and they must do likewise. ( The part soem dont' acknowledge )
IF they do liekwise then compromise is found and , to go back to our example, SUVers accept that they can't go into small villages and congested cities and all car owners accept they can't go in bus lanes and that it is all actually for a common good.

sandwich

08-05-2004, 10:14 AM

Well in context it makes sense.

stuff
stuff
stuff
stuff
devil's advocate.

how many cars do you own matra? Because for me, I own only one, and will own only one for many years into the future, simply because I cannot afford two. While I may need an SUV for all the things that I do, what sense does it make to limit where I can drive it? Or, let's say my father leaves me his old MGB, and I am too poor to afford anything else? Again I am limited to where I can go and what I can do with my car.

Removing rights is NEVER a good option. There needs to be a limit. While I agree that oversize SUVs driven by one person who doesn't feel the need to use a turn signal certainly are annoying, they have the right to be on the road, just as any other car that has passed inspection and is street legal. It certainly would be easier if everybody drove mini's in and around cities, but that is just insane. Cars are as much a personal decision as one's haircut. It's like racism with cars.

I would rather see better driver's courses than any limits on what I could drive. Maybe retesting every five years? I don't think the drivers in this godawful state could be any worse.....but they still have the right to drive what they want.

Coventrysucks

08-05-2004, 11:53 AM

Arguments like this are exactly the reason that we must not continue down the slippery slope of making regulations, banning things like SUV's, etc.

I never said the X5 should be made illeagal, just pointing out that there is little or no point in owning one in a big city.

If people would rather be wasteful, and spend more of their money on an X5 when a 5 series would do the job better, then that is their decision.

However, there is the argument of pedestrian safety.
In cities and built up areas there are more pedestrians, and getting hit by an SUV at 30mph is much more likely to kill you than getting hit by a car at 30mph.

That is the reason that bull bars:
http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~outback/LC100%20LARGE/LC70-large.jpg

which became a fashion accessory during the '90s, were banned.
They always caused serious damage to any adult who got hit by them, and there were a large number of children killed outright because the bars were at head height.

The fronts of SUV's are still at child head height, and are much more prevelant now. The only reason that the people calling for the outlawing of bull bars then, aren't calling for the outlawing of SUV's now, is because that is what they ferry their children around in.

C'est la vie

Matra et Alpine

08-05-2004, 04:40 PM

how many cars do you own matra?
OK, guilty, but they're all classics :) and 4 of the cars didnt' cost me what one new euro-box would.

While I may need an SUV for all the things that I do, what sense does it make to limit where I can drive it?
The ban for bannig SUVs is based on a simple fact. European cities were built 4-500 years ago. So narrow streets, complicated junctions, lots of windy twisty alleyways. An SUV takes up twice the space on the road as other vehicles. So some cities want to see them banned. Paris is well ahead and London is thinking about it.
We need to cut the congestion, so how do we do it ? They've tried the congestion charge and it helped a little and then people jsut accept it now and those who could afford SUVs don't mind the charge. So it did NOT work as the planned disincentive. So banning is the next choice. They didnt'' self-manage so must be controlled.
It's like a factory polluting a river. You hoep they have decent public concern but if they pollute you fine them, if they continue to pollute you take them to court and shut them down. Same for inconsiderate owners :)

Or, let's say my father leaves me his old MGB, and I am too poor to afford anything else? Again I am limited to where I can go and what I can do with my car.
No, the MGB will do great for you.
On the odd occasion you need to take someting that doesn't fit, then hire a van for 1/2 a day :)

Removing rights is NEVER a good option. There needs to be a limit.
Agreed.
But when persuasion hasn't worked and 'taxation' hasn't worked it has to become enforced.

they have the right to be on the road, just as any other car that has passed inspection and is street legal.
What of the common need ?
This is where unbridled capitalism falls flat on it's face and destroys it's environment.
People need to be considerate, if they're not then they need to be controlled.
We share the world, we do NOT have the right to grab for oursleves and 'devil take the hindmost' !!

It certainly would be easier if everybody drove mini's in and around cities, but that is just insane. Cars are as much a personal decision as one's haircut. It's like racism with cars.
It's like slavery with cars !
Slavery was finally recognised as wrong and not for the common good ( it was perfect for the "masters" )

I would rather see better driver's courses than any limits on what I could drive. Maybe retesting every five years? I don't think the drivers in this godawful state could be any worse.....but they still have the right to drive what they want.
Can you go out tomorrow and drive a 18-wheeler truck ?
No the law prevents you. You have to take an additional license and pay additional costs to operate an 18-wheeler. So you don't have the right, you EANR ( and pay for ) the right :)

Until you've tried to get through a Euroepan city in a car you'll never understand the need to reduce our car size, number of cars and single-use journeys :(

crisis

08-05-2004, 05:09 PM

What reasons are there for owning a BMW X5 in the middle of London?
While I agree, the father of all soft roaders , the ubiquitous Range Rover, emanated from the same country. Initially not as soft as it is today, it was designed for the well to do gentlemen who may wish to partake on the gentlemanly sport of fox hunting and the like. How many of these ended up doin gvery much what modern SUVs do now.

crisis

08-05-2004, 05:23 PM

However, there is the argument of pedestrian safety.
In cities and built up areas there are more pedestrians, and getting hit by an SUV at 30mph is much more likely to kill you than getting hit by a car at 30mph.

That is the reason that bull bars:
http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~outback/LC100%20LARGE/LC70-large.jpg

which became a fashion accessory during the '90s, were banned.
They always caused serious damage to any adult who got hit by them, and there were a large number of children killed outright because the bars were at head height.

The fronts of SUV's are still at child head height, and are much more prevelant now. The only reason that the people calling for the outlawing of bull bars then, aren't calling for the outlawing of SUV's now, is because that is what they ferry their children around in.

C'est la vie
Of course being hit by a passenger sedan is like being hit by a pillow. I witnessed the results of someone riding a bike being nailed by a sedan . The impact of the bike into the side of the car was enough for his (unhelmetted) head to put a dent in the roof of the car. If the impact doesnt get you al la head hight, the effect of being thrown into the air will ensure you land on the road from a great height. Which is what happened to this poor individual next. After the initial impact he was launched about 8 feet into the air (all this from an impact of less than 50kmh) and landed horizontally on the road slinging his head into it on impact. Lights out. I dont think he recovered. So while bull bars are hard and unforgiving, so is everthing else in an impact. They will remain a contetious issue for those who have them to protect themselves from pesky varmits (me) and those who dont have them and dont think anyone who has something they have no need for has any need for it either.

Coventrysucks

08-05-2004, 06:04 PM

Of course being hit by a passenger sedan is like being hit by a pillow.

I didn't say it was, but there are probably many statistics out there proving how much more likely you are to be killed by an SUV than a car.

A 2.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the abdomen/thorax region is going to do more damage than a 1.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the legs.
True, you are probably more likely to hit the windscreen/ roof with your head, if hit by a car. New legislation from the EU is addressing that issue.
Would you rather go over a car, or under an SUV.

The best option is to try and avoid contact with any vehicles at speed.

Sincerest apologies to anyone who might be offended by my slightly glib descriptions of getting run over.

Stay safe.

Matra et Alpine

08-05-2004, 06:12 PM

witnessed the results of someone riding a bike being nailed by a sedan . The impact of the bike into the side of the car was enough for his (unhelmetted) head to put a dent in the roof of the car.
Why in Europe the law REQUIRES proper safety equipment is worn and helmets are mandatory.
2 reasons
- saves lives, even the stupid ones deserve it.
- reduces costs to emergency services and insurance companies
90% of bikers in UK also wear full leathers with approved safety panels which absorb impact and redice friction wear. Full boots and gloves usually with lots of kevlar in all the necessary places. Having come off twice I wouldn't do anything BUT protect myself to the utmost !

Mainly because although I can do everything to ride safely I can't avoid the dozy git coming out of side roads etc I once got run into at a roundabout whilst stationery waiting to enter :)

sandwich

08-05-2004, 08:44 PM

Until you've tried to get through a Euroepan city in a car you'll never understand the need to reduce our car size, number of cars and single-use journeys :(

bingo- diffrent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Matra et Alpine

08-05-2004, 08:53 PM

bingo- diffrent strokes for diff'rent folks.
yep, as I've said before I'd not want to drive a lightweight higly tuned car at 55 mph for 8 hours !!

sandwich

08-05-2004, 08:53 PM

Stay safe.

Big SUV, big sedan, small sedan, I think the arguement is pretty moot. Getting hit is getting hit, whether you have one contact (bumper) or two (bumper, street) there is no good alternative. I guess crumple zones offer the only solution, but you can't put crumple zones on everything, including some sedans. Many of the "estates" as you call them are just as tall as some suv's. That may not make sense, but when you see two cars pulled up to a stoplight and they are the same height, it will. Hell, I've heard the Scion Xb called a compact, it's easily as tall as a minivan.

However, I can understand the desire to remove bullbars. The bumpers are there on a reason, and the bars serve no purpose in a city. In the bush, fine, offroading, fine, even in a less populated area, fine, but I can fully understand the ban in an urban environment.

crisis

08-05-2004, 11:20 PM

Why in Europe the law REQUIRES proper safety equipment is worn and helmets are mandatory.
2 reasons
- saves lives, even the stupid ones deserve it.
- reduces costs to emergency services and insurance companies
90% of bikers in UK also wear full leathers with approved safety panels which absorb impact and redice friction wear. Full boots and gloves usually with lots of kevlar in all the necessary places. Having come off twice I wouldn't do anything BUT protect myself to the utmost !

Mainly because although I can do everything to ride safely I can't avoid the dozy git coming out of side roads etc I once got run into at a roundabout whilst stationery waiting to enter :)
You misunderstand me. I was talking about a push bike. We have similar laws here including for pushys, still see people on pushbikes not wearing them. that incident changed me for bike helmets forever.

crisis

08-05-2004, 11:30 PM

I didn't say it was, but there are probably many statistics out there proving how much more likely you are to be killed by an SUV than a car.

A 2.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the abdomen/thorax region is going to do more damage than a 1.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the legs.
True, you are probably more likely to hit the windscreen/ roof with your head, if hit by a car. New legislation from the EU is addressing that issue.
Would you rather go over a car, or under an SUV.

The best option is to try and avoid contact with any vehicles at speed.

Sincerest apologies to anyone who might be offended by my slightly glib descriptions of getting run over.

Stay safe.
Ditto. I didnt mean to sound so sarcastic but the allegation of statistics proving this and that prove little. This morning 4 people died on a country road when their car hit a tree. The cop on the radio report said the thought speed was a contributing factor. I think the tree may have been too. Or the wet road or maybe lack of skill or innapropriate speed for the conditions. He only hit the tree at that spot so if he was travelling at that speed for any period before why didnt he crash earlier. Its the time old debate. But my point (at last you sigh), is that statistics are rarely to be trusted. This mornings accident could well be attributed to speed as the govenrment likes to justify the use of their revenue collectors. Oddly there have been more fatalities this year despite the use of these life saving devices, lower metropolitan speeds with their associated extra fines, more newer and safer cars on the road ( we have had record new car sales ) and all other associated police blitzs to fill the insatiable govenrnment coffers.

Another problem with the police reports and findings of accidents is that no accident can ever be duplicated to prove that different circumstances would have yielded a better/worse result.