Stupid SUV's

[Desperado]

Happy as a clam.

God bless 'em.

When it comes to cars... that is all that matters. Personal Choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obviously we are all free to do stupid things. My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra. No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck. Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.

God bless 'em.

About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.

That is actually pretty typical for an SUV.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?

SUV’s (and “crossovers&#8221 are big, heavy, and inefficient. They handle terribly, don’t stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features. They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle. (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).

Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous. If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires can’t handle, then YOU SHOULDN’T BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT. And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero. The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick. Police and Fire excepted.

Regardless of how much money you are budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING. It’s not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUV’s – their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUV’s.

One of the worst features of SUV’s is the one that cause many women to favor them: You can see over the roofs of cars. But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS – for no reason other than your own self indulgence. How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to what’s coming because there are so many stinkin’ SUV’s blocking her view?

The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you don’t need. Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie O’Donnel in your back seat all the time. It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine – for the life of the car.

OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows don’t know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.

When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevy’s and Ford’s that didn’t even have posi-traction. Amazing, isn’t it?

Want to know what is really stupid? Trying to justify your claims in this thread.

Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records? The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy. And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.

I am 6'2". My sons are 6'4" and 6'5". Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?

I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years. It was far more comfortable than most sedans. I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.

Yes, families got around without Posi-traction. They got into more accidents too. The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.

Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead. I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown. Same height and handier with the 8'bed. The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices. If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.

Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).

I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better". To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car. The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes. Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing. What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability. And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat. I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug. And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.

Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.

Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'. That's a no-win.

In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures. Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.

Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV design is stupid. Which it is, no question. We don't design the cars -- Detroit does. Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.

Just my read.

Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or, perhaps, they like having a truck because it means they can haul their own garbage, move their own furniture. Or maybe because they just like it.

Why do you CARE why they like trucks? How is it any of your business if they use their truck for the things YOU think they should, as frequently as YOU believe they ought to, in order to *justify* having a truck?

See the majority of us never consider our car choice as something to be justified. We don't walk around apologizing for our existence on the earth to everybody who will listen. We don't feel GUILTY that we take up a spot that is 8 foot by 15 feet, as opposed to 7 feet by 10 feet, in a parking lot, or only get 18 as opposed to 25 mpg. We don't care. We like pickups. So fucking what?

They might use it to park their Prius.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People can always argue the merits of whatever it is they like...the bottom line is, calling people "stupid" for their personal preference based solely on your own personal preference is..well, stupid.

It's like calling a guy "stupid" because he likes red heads.

If I want to drive a Monster Truck, how is that indicative that I'm STUPID? It doesn't. Anymore than driving a tiny little electric bucket that you have to fold yourself into is indicative of homosexuality.

You drive whatever you want. I think, again unless I missed it, that he's calling the design stupid. Which it is; it cannot be justified except in terms of pure unabashed profit. And the foisting of them on the public is cynical, manipulative and selfish. And those adjectives are aimed squarely at the car industry.

Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?

That and the high water that comes with em.
You can see better out of a truck,they ride just as good as cars do these days,you can haul your crap around,they're safer in an accident,you can look down into cars for that perfect seat belt boob and cleavage view,you dont get stuck on the beach.
The only draw backs are slightly lower gas mileage,and people asking you to help them move. And the moving thing can be avoided by not having friends who are to cheap to pay someone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What kind of idiot drives a pious into deep sand?

Uh - I think you just did.

Not sure if stupid.......oh hell you're stupid and we all know it.

Willfully ignorant is worse than stupid.

 

[koshergrl]

Hey now I have a friend with a pickup helping me move on the 31st lolol...

He's moving the big furniture. I'm able to move everything else in my EXPLORER!

 

[Howey]

I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.

Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.

Don't forget you need a tank to support your fat ass.

For most needs, unless you're towing, a mid size SUV is sufficient.

However, just like men with their HUGE pickup trucks, I believe both are overcompensating for something. Women - power. Men - penis size.

 

[koshergrl]

No, that's what you would be doing if you drove one. Because you don't have a life.

I do. It includes kids, dogs, luggage and toys...and travel in all sorts of weather over all sorts of terrain.

I like the Explorer. Tell me what you drive, and I'll run you over next time you try to cut me off in your fagmobile.

 

[Pogo]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.

The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.

What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.

So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.

So you're saying if they dont drive around with something in the bed at all times they dont need it?
You better get rid of all those extra seats in your car. What a fucken tard.....

No, I'm saying it's space that's not being used; in other words whatever they bought the truck for, they're not using it anywhere near its capacity. On the whole.
It's not my place to say what they "need", nor did I intimate that. I'm saying the idea of using the bed to transport things is from empirical evidence not the factor that explains their sales numbers. Therefore something else is.

And the seat comparison is valid. I use mine for cargo. They fold down. Duh.

Sorry if the point went clear over your head but maybe you should do less ducking.

 

[Pogo]

What kind of idiot drives a pious into deep sand?

Uh - I think you just did.

Not sure if stupid.......oh hell you're stupid and we all know it.

Read your own spelling. R e a l s l o w...

Again, duh. Guess observation isn't your strong suit.

 

[Pogo]

Want to know what is really stupid? Trying to justify your claims in this thread.

Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records? The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy. And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.

I am 6'2". My sons are 6'4" and 6'5". Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?

I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years. It was far more comfortable than most sedans. I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.

Yes, families got around without Posi-traction. They got into more accidents too. The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.

Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead. I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown. Same height and handier with the 8'bed. The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices. If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.

Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).

I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better". To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car. The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes. Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing. What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability. And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat. I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug. And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.

Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.

Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'. That's a no-win.

In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures. Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.

Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV design is stupid. Which it is, no question. We don't design the cars -- Detroit does. Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.

Just my read.

Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?

EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.

Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.

Good thing nobody did then.

 

[Pogo]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?

That and the high water that comes with em.
You can see better out of a truck,they ride just as good as cars do these days,you can haul your crap around,they're safer in an accident,you can look down into cars for that perfect seat belt boob and cleavage view,you dont get stuck on the beach.
The only draw backs are slightly lower gas mileage,and people asking you to help them move. And the moving thing can be avoided by not having friends who are to cheap to pay someone.

Ah. Given the evidence that pickup beds are not being used much for transport, we now have the answer to what their selling point is:

"Boob and cleavage view".

Actually I seem to have a pretty good boob view right here

"Safer in an accident" is another part of that myth. If I didn't complete the point, to spell it out: the safe vehicle in an accident is the one that isn't in one. Therefore the safer vehicle is the one that's able to avoid getting into one in the first place. I had two serious encounters with pickup trucks with my little SW2 wagon. That is, they would have been encounters, and really messy. I got out of both of them unscathed. Had I been driving what they were driving I wouldn't be here to tell the tale. Nor would that motorcyclist who was coming the other way. He got away clean too.

 

[WinterBorn]

Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?

SUV’s (and “crossovers”) are big, heavy, and inefficient. They handle terribly, don’t stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features. They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle. (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).

Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous. If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires can’t handle, then YOU SHOULDN’T BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT. And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero. The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick. Police and Fire excepted.

Regardless of how much money you are budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING. It’s not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUV’s – their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUV’s.

One of the worst features of SUV’s is the one that cause many women to favor them: You can see over the roofs of cars. But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS – for no reason other than your own self indulgence. How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to what’s coming because there are so many stinkin’ SUV’s blocking her view?

The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you don’t need. Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie O’Donnel in your back seat all the time. It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine – for the life of the car.

OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows don’t know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.

When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevy’s and Ford’s that didn’t even have posi-traction. Amazing, isn’t it?

Want to know what is really stupid? Trying to justify your claims in this thread.

Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records? The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy. And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.

I am 6'2". My sons are 6'4" and 6'5". Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?

I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years. It was far more comfortable than most sedans. I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.

Yes, families got around without Posi-traction. They got into more accidents too. The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.

Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead. I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown. Same height and handier with the 8'bed. The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices. If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.

Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).

I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better". To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car. The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes. Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing. What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability. And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat. I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug. And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.

Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.

Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'. That's a no-win.

In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures. Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.

Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV design is stupid. Which it is, no question. We don't design the cars -- Detroit does. Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.

Just my read.

The idea of "bigger is better" in an accident works if you base it on the premise that you are not at fault in the accident. Namely, that you are hit by another driver. As a careful driver, I can only control what I do. Most of the near misses I have had were someone else being an idiot.

I took the OP as calling those who drive SUVs as stupid, or that the SUV is a stupid choice.

 

[boedicca]

I love my SUV. I bought an Explorer in the late 90s and switched to a sedan in 2004. I never liked driving the sedan, and am now happily back to an SUV. This time, it's a small Japanese version.

Given the horrible traffic in the Bay Area, I want a bit of iron around me. I find it shocking when I see morons driving Smart Cars (what an oxymoron) on a crowded freeway. Those drivers must have death wishes.

 

[WinterBorn]

Obviously we are all free to do stupid things. My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra. No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck. Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.

God bless 'em.

About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.

Chevrolet Suburban Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos

The Chevy Suburban has a listed MPG of 22-23 on the hwy.

Your figures are sound, but still --- that's exactly half of what my SW2 would do, regularly.

The Suburban is never going to be an economy car. My point was in reply to the comment that an SUV getting 22mpg should be reported to Guinness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better". To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car. The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes. Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing. What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability. And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat. I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug. And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.

Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.

Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'. That's a no-win.



Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV design is stupid. Which it is, no question. We don't design the cars -- Detroit does. Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.

Just my read.

Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?

EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.

Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.

Good thing nobody did then.

Let me see if I understand the position that you are staking out here.

You are claiming that bigger cars are not safer than smaller cars. You also claim that CAFE standards are completely irrelevant to the debate because smaller cars are actually safer. You base this on the belief that smaller cars are more maneuverable, and thus the drivers are able to avoid accidents.

Did I get that right? I just want to know before I tear you a new asshole and you come back and say that wasn't what you said.

 

[Pogo]

Chevrolet Suburban Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos

The Chevy Suburban has a listed MPG of 22-23 on the hwy.

Your figures are sound, but still --- that's exactly half of what my SW2 would do, regularly.

The Suburban is never going to be an economy car. My point was in reply to the comment that an SUV getting 22mpg should be reported to Guinness.

And you are correct, that was out of left field.

But at the same time with the volume of driving I do I could never settle for 22. I'm unhappy right now with 31.