Why buy an SUV ??

[IBrake4Rainbows]

From what i understand Honda and Toyota actually recommend you inflate your tyres on the Prius and Insight to quite high PSI, as there is less of a footprint on the road and you get better fuel economy, but hey, they only have a bit of a car on top.

The best thing about 4WD'sis that they resond really well to changes in PSI. Lower PSI means better grip, higher gives better fuel economy. and they also handle differently, i'd imagine having a lower PSI would create a stickier footprint for the car during cornering.

for what i know, i like 4WD's, not SUV's, such a subtle difference to, say, Karrmann but thats like saying all Hybrids look alike (They kind of do, the whole space age thing they have going on.....)

If it has road tyres, it's a road car, if it has 4WD tyres, it is a 4WD, if it has in-betweens, then it's driven on both surfaces.

Pretty simple.

[henk4]

It's certainly nice to drive one. i've driven the rx300 and my parents' range rover. it's great. i loved it. i enjoy it much more than driving a sedan for example. it's more comfortable. much more room.

Welcome, countryman, to these forums (fora). This being your first post I am not going to be hard on you, but I really would like to hear two things from you: Why did your parents buy a Range Rover and when was the last time that it was used off-road. We both know what the driving conditions are in Holland, almost all roads are paved and the ones that are not are mostly not open for motor vehicles.

[Matra et Alpine]

From what i understand Honda and Toyota actually recommend you inflate your tyres on the Prius and Insight to quite high PSI, as there is less of a footprint on the road and you get better fuel economy, but hey, they only have a bit of a car on top.

Neraly. When anyoen does economy runs they have run tyres with pressures as high as 120-150PSI !! It can make a lrage difference.
It comes from 2. First the smaller contact patch.
But the greater part comes from the tyre deformation.
As the tyre wall compresses in as that part of the tyre comes into the footprint and then expands as it leaves it uses up power due to the increased rolling resistance this physical deformation adds.

The best thing about 4WD'sis that they resond really well to changes in PSI. Lower PSI means better grip, higher gives better fuel economy. and they also handle differently, i'd imagine having a lower PSI would create a stickier footprint for the car during cornering.

Yes, the reason I'd asked

[drakkie]

Welcome, countryman, to these forums (fora). This being your first post I am not going to be hard on you, but I really would like to hear two things from you: Why did your parents buy a Range Rover and when was the last time that it was used off-road. We both know what the driving conditions are in Holland, almost all roads are paved and the ones that are not are mostly not open for motor vehicles.

the only one near us that isnt paved and you can go on by car is the autostrand(beach.the only in europe for cars).almost all others are paved or closed off.maybe at the parkinglot for a horseshow there might be a tiny bit of mud.

[henk4]

[QUOTE=drakkie]the only one near us that isnt paved and you can go on by car is the autostrand(beach.the only in europe for cars)./QUOTE]

And also that will be permanently closed off pretty soon.

[drakkie]

[QUOTE=henk4]

the only one near us that isnt paved and you can go on by car is the autostrand(beach.the only in europe for cars)./QUOTE]

And also that will be permanently closed off pretty soon.

unfortunately , yes.in oktober they are gonna close it off .stupid ZHL

[Fleet 500]

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.

I finally found something which was being discussed. I couldn't find the thread it was on, so I put it here.
It's about the how Volvos were reinforced for safety commercials.
Eventually, Volvo apologized and paid a $300,000 fine.
Info is from "Top 10 Almanac" 1991.

[labomba]

All these people presuming that in an SUV they are more safe need to get a clue.

Fair enough if you're in a more modern progressive monocoque Car based SUV with all the stability systems added.

Otherwise....
Serious accidents don't happen at walking pace. Accidents happen at speeds where its not possible to avoid them. Accidents happen when at speeds where you are not in control.
'Body on chassis' vehicles such as trucks and SUVs preform much MUCH worse than Modern monocoque vehicle structures that are designed primarily to absorb energy in an impact.
If you think you are safer because you are higher up and further away from bumper height... What are you hoping will happen? The higher your centre of gravity the more likely you are to destabalise and roll over in an accident.
Are you hoping that you'll simply drive over a Honda in an accident? No you will get thrown off your wheels!! Onto the side or the roof... and because you have a ladder
chassis the passenger compartment will have collapsed.
So all those kids that you are transporting...... NUff said

Meanwhile if its a modern Honda, subject to Euro NCAP tests and the like, then it will most likely still be on its wheels. The DESIGNED crash structure having done its job.

Remember... serious accidents happen when you out of control at higher speeds. A car that is more stable in the first place is going to be in shape to avoid the accident in the first place. Then during the accident it will be more controlled and predictable, allowing those crash structures to do their job.

Saab and Renault/Nissan are the current safest cars... Even Volvo don't match their crash results.

[Matra et Alpine]

I finally found something which was being discussed. I couldn't find the thread it was on, so I put it here.
It's about the how Volvos were reinforced for safety commercials.
Eventually, Volvo apologized and paid a $300,000 fine.
Info is from "Top 10 Almanac" 1991.

excellent and proably highlights the different humour and litigation mindset of Europe

Volvo advertisements depict a so-called "monster truck" event, in which an oversized pickup truck drives over a row of automobiles. In the advertisements, the "monster truck" is shown crushing all of the cars with the exception of a Volvo 240 station wagon, which remains intact.

The ad represented, directly or by implication, that the monster truck event included unaltered cars, which had been subjected to equal treatment, and that the results shown accurately represent the comparative performance of actual, unaltered Volvos and competing cars under the depicted conditions.

In truth and in fact, the monster truck event did not include unaltered cars subjected to equal treatment and the results shown did not accurately represent the comparative performance of actual, unaltered Volvos and competing cars under the depicted conditions. Among other things, certain of the Volvos used in the demonstration were structurally reinforced, certain structural supports in the competing cars were severed, and the Volvos were subjected to less severe treatment than the competing cars by the monster truck. Therefore, the representations set forth in PARAGRAPH FIVE were, and are, false and misleading.

Volvo and the advertising agency were both held liable for the deceptive ad. The FTC explicited stated that an agency is responsible for deceptive claims unless it can show that it had no knowledge nor reason to know that substantiation for the ad's claim did not exist or was not credible; that the agency "neither knew nor had reason to know that the demonstration, experiment or test did not prove, demonstrate or confirm the representation. "

No doubt they were guilty.

But over here we'd have had a good laugh and KNOWN that it was a mockup as NO CAR could survive the truck running over it and hence it was a joke and NOT a substantial claim. For anyeon to BELIEVE it real is even funnier

BUT to take from it that it was deliberate woudl be like saying the war was over WMDs and that they exist in Iraq -- oh wait --- um --- forget it


It's like our national drinjk - "irn bru" with it's famous slogan "Made in Scotland from girders". Everybody KNOWS it's not made from girders and nobody's dumb enough to think it an sue them. I'd love to know if it has that slogan in sales in the US

[crisis]

All these people presuming that in an SUV they are more safe need to get a clue.

Fair enough if you're in a more modern progressive monocoque Car based SUV with all the stability systems added. .

That makes up for driver deficiency. Alternatively learn to drive.

Otherwise....
Serious accidents don't happen at walking pace. Accidents happen at speeds where its not possible to avoid them. Accidents happen when at speeds where you are not in control.

So the trick is not to travel at speeds where you are not in control or will not be able tocontrol the car in an emergency.

'Body on chassis' vehicles such as trucks and SUVs preform much MUCH worse than Modern monocoque vehicle structures that are designed primarily to absorb energy in an impact.

Certainly in the area where they will be required to absorb impact. In the situation where they hit a smaller,lighter object (car) they do not neccessarily fair as badly as the do when crash tested into cement blocks.

If you think you are safer because you are higher up and further away from bumper height... What are you hoping will happen? The higher your centre of gravity the more likely you are to destabalise and roll over in an accident.

Firstly , on country roads, where most accidents happen in Australia, yuo are availed greater visibility. This aids in overtaking, where also a lot of accidents occur. Secondly the Kangaroo is more likely to bounce of the roo bar (oops I said a bad word) and not come through the windscreen. (perhaps not an issue in Europe. Thirdly cars roll in certain situations, not all accidents. My Lancruiser has a 4" lift but very firm andf progressive suspension. As long as I dont corner at sedan speeds ther is no danger of a roll over. that of course comes back to driving according to the conditions and within the safety envelope of the car. Conversly if you cant, you best get something with enough electronic aids so as to ensure you are not a danger to other drivers.

Are you hoping that you'll simply drive over a Honda in an accident? No you will get thrown off your wheels!! Onto the side or the roof... and because you have a ladder chassis the passenger compartment will have collapsed.
So all those kids that you are transporting...... NUff said

Yes , I think so.

Meanwhile if its a modern Honda, subject to Euro NCAP tests and the like, then it will most likely still be on its wheels. The DESIGNED crash structure having done its job.

And you will all live happily ever after.

Saab and Renault/Nissan are the current safest cars... Even Volvo don't match their crash results.

Well we should all get one of those then.

[Waatz]

I would buy a SUV to tow the boat (if I had one)
My girlfriend realy likes the way you are above lots of other cars.

[Rog]

This convo is pretty much dead, but I remembered reading some info a few years back about how passengers in bigger and heavier vehicles tended to survive accidents more than people in smaller and lighter weight vehicles. While I didn't find that original article, I did find this one --

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/14/pf/a..._bigger_safer/

As per "crumple" vehicles.. I understand the concept to be that the body absorbs the impact which then transfers less of the impact to the passengers ... but it hits me that the cost to build a corrugated body has got to be higher than a non-crumpler... not to mention repairs. Certainly a crumpling body might be better in a hard crash, but the bottom line is, you're probably dead either way.. and since the crumpler costs more, what's the point? We're likely not talking high rates like 9000 out of 10,000 bad crashes you live in a crumpler versus 1000 of 10,000 in a non-crumpler.. if it's better it's likely marginal, NOT extreme like the car builders wants you to believe. A company is in business to make money. period. They have to say and do something to get you to buy their's instead of someone else's vehicle.

I think it's all a moot point though, we're being crushed for gas-mileage.

As per the laughable statement someone made that the Euro is taxing to regulate gas consumption.. HAHAHAHHA.. ok, so then like.. billions upon billions of that tax money must be being invested into alternative fuel research right? Put your money where your mouth is.. where is the research that is supposed to ultimately alleviate the problem you're trying to help prevent? Come on folks... the reason for that tax is so that someone somewhere can make money. That's the reason. If they genuinely cared then there would be tons of research in order to remove the problem as quickly as possible. But there isn't, is there? Maybe because an alternative to gasoline would mean the loss of business for oil companies... naw they couldn't be THAT greedy.. naw... billions of barrels of oil per day down to a few million barrels..? a small loss in sales? imagine if they were reduced to just doing lubricating products?

They own us, and either our "leaders" (all of them around the entire world) are owned by them, or they're just plain stupid. I lean towards stupid with the pres, but I guess it's a toss-up considering his state of origin.

There's an interesting lead towards using directly injected hydrogen ... and it is stored safely in your vehicle. You can just plug a generator into a wall socket at home to produce the fuel for your car. They're doing some last fleet testing before they begin selling the product to the general public.

How is it safe? There are 3 ways to store hydrogen, and 2 of the 3 ways are dangerous to say the least, but the 3rd way is very safe as discussed on this site.

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

(I'm not endorsing these folks, just pointing out that there's more going on out there than big business wants you to know about...)

Also, on a side note, I saw an ad for some kind of new gasoline fuel that is composed of only 25% of the amount of crude oil as current gasoline, the rest of it by a substitute (corn?). The 25% crude kind of supports what the hydrogen people mention about liquid fuels doing some lubrication.

Rog
--
Keep on drivin'...

[Matra et Alpine]

Well it is not really a significant extra cost to manufacture a crumple zone than a solid one. The extra time is in the design stages where clearly a deomrable zoen is harder to desing than a 6" I beam

Taking a crude analogy, crumple-zone cars are almost always lighter than their cruder competitors, so on a cost-of-steel basis then crumple is cheaper

Better being "marginal" is dubious ignores all the accident statistics over the last 20 years !!!

How are they generating ? Home based has a few issues, either in the wasted distribution of energy and the length of time to make sufficient fuel ( kind of like the early all electric car solutiosn that needed 18 hours to fully recharge again ), the energy it uses and the "waste" products ( ie catalytic generation prodices lots of CO2, for for an industrial producer who sells the CO2 too , bad for every home to get a CO2 generator added in a bid to reduce CO2 from car emissions ) Any tech info on it ????
There are already a few Hydrogen filling stations around the world.
Hyrdogen has been having a lot goign on in it for ages. What makes you think it's not known about ?? .... or news ????

Bioethanol fuels have been round for ages. Brazil is a major user.

[jcp123]

I have never been an SUV fan until recently, and even then in a limited capacity.

For one, I still don't believe that most people in an urban environment have any need for an SUV, aside from if they run a business, tow a lot, or are in construction, etc. And if you don't tow or go off-road, there are a myriad of AWD wagons, minivans, etc. that would probably work better for those needs, like handling bad weather. If I still lived in California's Bay Area, a large metropolitan area, I most likely would not drive an SUV.

But, now that we're out here in the country, priorities have changed. For one, I kind of like driving the thing. But seriously, maintaining our land means sometimes, we have to venture out there and pull down a dead tree, or re-grade the ground after it's been chewed up by the dune buggy. With the sand they call soil here, anything less would get stuck. Now granted, there are a lot of smaller 4x4's out there that would work, but we also have to tow our dune buggy and lawn tractor in for warrantee service now and then, as well as towing the odd car home for restoration. That's where the power of a full-sizer like my Bronco comes in. That's just the first half of why we got it. Knowing we needed those capabilities, we also wanted something with a large cargo capacity for moving from California to Texas, about 3000km or 1900 miles. And lastly, it was for sale at the right time by a friend who needed the cash and had a good price on it.

SUV's I think have their place in this world, but not as a status symbol and not as the urban vehicle of choice for evey mom on a cell phone. Taken back to their roots in the '60's and '70's as more hardcore vehicles, their true place is better revealed than by the overdone fake SUV's most have nowadays.

As for alternative fuels, I think Hydrogen just isn't there yet. It's not space efficient, takes a lot of energy to produce, and there are concerns as to how to protect the high pressure tanks in an accident. It still has potential, but is not really ready for consumption yet.
E85 Ethanol, which is catching on here, is probably a more viable interim, although I don't know much about it.
Diesel seems to me to be the best solution right now. It can be made using existing facilities, and has been proven in every way more efficient burning than gasoline. At least until the next big thing, I am a huge proponent of diesel vehicles.

[Vettribution87]

I really don’t like the Toyota Kluger. It looks so bland.
Worst of all is the name "Kluger". It’s like the name of some corrupt government official from Miami.

"Mayor Kluger is facing trial today under charges of embezzling public funds in collaboration with a notorious Colombian drug lord for cocaine trafficking" LOL

Well I’m sure the vehicle itself is OK.

Assuming that the purchase of an SUV is more for reasons of preference then practicality, I really do not understand the appeal of buying one unless you do a moderate amount of off road driving (say every weekend). I can understand the appeal of pick-up 4x4s in spite of this, but those 6 or more seaters just don’t seem to stir the enjoyment of driving unless off the road.
I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that my Corvette has been in the paint shop for well over a month and I have spent the mean time borrowing my old man’s Land Rover Discovery Tdi.
One time I took the Landie down to the pine forest trails and had a lot of fun driving over soft sand in low-range with the diff-lock. It was quite an interesting sensation, kind of like a weird slow-motion version of drifting at 5mph (The odd sensation of acceleration and deceleration introducing a steering effect).
As a sports car guy I’ll admit that I’d never had so much fun at such a laughable slow speed.

Q: What goes 5mph and yells WAHOO!
A: A guy using an SUV for what it was truly designed for. Off Road.

On the weekday trip to work however, driving the Landie is just a boring chore. A lot like driving a big, slow van. This is likely because on the road the Landie (like most SUVs) IS a big, slow van (or more accurately becomes one).

Now as far as I know, few people derive much pleasure from driving a van (except maybe Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson) so given this I am somewhat bewildered as to why someone buying a car for pleasure would consider a big SUV when their lifestyle may dictate that it will only be the ticket to adventure promised on the brochure maybe 20% of the time, and every other time a big, heavy, and surprisingly thirsty van.