[Anti]SUV?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sage
  • 34 comments
  • 1,661 views
Sage

Sage

Staff Emeritus
Messages
12,533
United States
United States
Messages
GTP_Sage
This has probably been posted before, but neway...

What are YOUR views on SUVs? Do you love em? Hate em? Could you care less?

neway, my view is anti. SUVs have invaded America (I live in southern CA), and I have hated it... can't see over the darned things, and 95% of the ppl who buy them don't need them. However, I'm glad that the hype is starting to die off, and I'm VERy happy that the wagon/hatch market is gaining interest.
 
Pure, unrefined hatred. My next vehicular mod is twin .50 caliber machine guns specifically for eliminating the objects of my hate. 😈
 
They are a gross display of keep up with the Jones' philosophy.
The bigger the suv, the better and mightier you are and the manufacturers have really jumped on the bandwagon.
Ppl think they are invinceable when driving the ubiquitous suv and women are the worst. :rolleyes: :D
Now manufacturers are going to the suv wars and are concentrating less on the sport compact market like they should.
Enough of the rant, I feel better now. :D
Misnblu
 
Heh, I have actually seen an explorer roll over in an accident, not more than twenty feet away from me :p.

Some SUVs make sense sometimes... if you actually need all that room to keep stuff. However, a sedan can usually carry just about anything you would need, ive gone camping in an accord and we managed to fit four people and all the camping stuff in the car.

Anyway, I'm not going to try to stop people from buying them... but I will never buy one and I cant gaurantee that I won't laugh at the owners of them every once in a while :p.

Can we all at least agree that the Ford Ranger is a piece of crap? :)

-retsmah
 
Originally posted by mayorbill11
oh yeah, lets focus on the sport compact market, or as its called the "no torque" market.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you on the no torque sport compact market.
My z24 cavalier has 155 lb ft of torque from the factory and that doesnt include what mods Ive done to it. :D
The car manufacturers have really upped the ante with the sport compact market with higher hp and much more torque.
Not knocking what was said, but the statement was incorrect.
Now you may be talking about the imports that have the small displacement engines, Hondas and Mitsu's come to mind when I think about it.
Anyway, not all 4 cylinders are low torque.
Misnblu
 
Originally posted by mayorbill11
oh yeah, lets focus on the sport compact market, or as its called the "no torque" market.
Click to expand...

When you're not driving a 5000 lb. POS, you don't need 300 lb.-ft. of torque. Try driving a sport compact sometime...or do you not have to drive one to know?
 
Well I'll just comment on the SUV, and not on the ignorant comment about import cars. SUV's are fine if you have a boat, a lage trailer, etc. But when I see a freakin' man or woman using a damn Suburban as his/her everyday car, it ticks me off. There is no need to have a 7 passenger, gas guzzler, jacked up truck for a daily commuter unless you're hauling a lot of crap. So many women around her, and I mean petite women, driving Excursions and Suburbans because it gives them a "sense of security" being high above the rest of the cars. So I guess they're just using the suv as a crutch for their bad driving???
 
I think they're pretty cool. What's so wrong with them? You can't see over them, then change lanes!
 
Originally posted by misnblu

I disagree with you on the no torque sport compact market.
My z24 cavalier has 155 lb ft of torque from the factory and that doesnt include what mods Ive done to it. :D
The car manufacturers have really upped the ante with the sport compact market with higher hp and much more torque.
Not knocking what was said, but the statement was incorrect.
Now you may be talking about the imports that have the small displacement engines, Hondas and Mitsu's come to mind when I think about it.
Anyway, not all 4 cylinders are low torque.
Misnblu
Click to expand...

no, i wasnt refering to the cav, etc... more the likes of the civic, 1.6L I4 with like 110 or something lb ft of torque, not turbo either.

im not stupid, i know what torque is.

im just sick of all the SUV bashing.

as for torque vs high winding, ive heard people say, considering 1st gen MR2 vs the Pontiac Fiero, that the fiero is a much nicer daily car, with its V6, or even its 4, while the MR2 is a better racer, in my opinion, its just what you need the vehicle for, and not everyone can fit in a small car either. you dont take in to account the 200lb weight gain with a driver, if you have me driving a civic, for example.
 
I sure don't hate SUV's. In fact, there are several SUV's I'd trade my car for in a heartbeat...:)
 
Prepare for a long rant...

It's not the SUV's that are thr pobelm. It's the drivers. One of the biggest knocks on the SUv is the increased amount of pollution they produce. Well, lets do some math.

You have to carry eight people 300 miles. Your options are one big SUV or four Honda Insights. The SUV can carry everyone at once but gets 15 miles to the gallon. The Insight gets 50 miles to the gallon, but you need four of them.

300/15 = 20 gallons used in the SUV.
(300/50 = 6) 6x4 cars = 24 gallons used in the Insights

So, if you're carpooling, or hauling lots of cargo, or towing, the SUV is the right choice. If you're just driving by yourself and want to be environmentally concious... DON'T DRIVE BY YOURSELF. Carpool.

As for SUV's blocking roads & etc, again it's the drivers, not the cars. If an SUV is blocking your vision, you're following too closely. And I've seen peopel in every make and model of car drive dangerously and put others at risk. so it's not the car that makes the driver unsafe.

If people want to buy an SUV to 'keep up with the jonses', fine, they're wasting $20,000+ on something they don't need. I'll stick to my VW's.
 
An suv used correctly is good. Correctly means: hauling, towing, long family trips, etc.
It is when I am commuting to school in the morning and see this 30 year old woman driving an excursion on her way to work that the hatred pours out.
RE: sport compacts
they may not be rockets but most of them are light and they are quite nimble. You can throw one of those around very well without much skill needed. I think that is why they have so much appeal.
RE: 4 cylinder torque
all reasonably sized 4cyl engine are low on torque. It is just inherent in their design. Not enough displacement. There have been some 4cyl that went against this paradigm. BMW built an engine for f1 that output more then 1300hp at the crank. The actual figure is unknown because the dyno topped out at 1300. (the enigne was under 2.0l if i remeber correctly) There was also a 4.0l (mabey more) 4cyl that put out a mostorous amount of torque. Too bad it drank gas and was too large to be reasonable.
re: fiero vs mr-2
the fiero 6cyl was 2.8L and put out 110hp and 90ft-lbs of torque. it was a peice of crap american engine that could barely move the car. Now if you put a 350 in the back of that thing it is a completely different story. mr-2 had a real engine in it and was designed to be racey-er then the fiero (the fiero was designed and marketed as a commuter car).

I have run out of stuff to ramble about...
 
I'd drive an SUV any time. with or without people. but not every day though... gas guzzle. i'd drive a normal fullsize truck every day though.
 
I bought an SUV in 2000, but it's a Honda CR-V. I still have the old Neon. It's the stock 2WD, not the EX. 146hp does the trick, but I'd like to increas that one day, after all, it's just another Civic. I basically call my car a wagon, I'm not ashamed of that.

1. I drive a little slower in a taller vehicle, which is particularly helpful when you have amassed 30+ speeding tickets in your lifetime. I'm not sure why, but for me (and probaly only me, that's for sure)

2. More room. If you have two dogs, and still want people to sit in the rear seats without complaint, it's a good option. Hauling lots of stuff from Sam's CLub and Costco is also a benefit, and you can see out the rear of the car.

3. The CR-V was the olny one that had good fuel economy. Most of the rest have goofy controls, styling, or poor fuel economy. Or they're too expensive, anyway.

4. Not really made to attack corners, but definately better than an Explorer, Blazer, and others that I dove. The suspension is taught without riding rough.

5. The roads in Gainesville are rough. Not in a straight line, but between intersections, driveways, gutters, etc. The Neon would hit the bump stops every time due to it's low suspension movement, and scrape the ground. Ouch. The CR-V obviously doesn't do that. Plus, i drive on some gravel, dirt, and "unimproved" roads. Height + Suspension travel is a godsend on trails that looked like they were blazed 100 years ago.

What don't I like?

1. The seating position is a little awkward, and if it weren't for the dead pedal, I'd feel a bit more uncomfortable. (Maybe that's why I drive a little slower.)

2. No power-retractable radio antenna (Let me get this straight, my '88 Accord LX had one, but the '00 CRV doesn't)...but I rarely listen to the radio anyway.

That's it on the road test.
-----------
Why do I hate most SUVs in general? (Or, why have Ford Explorer owners seem to taken the prize for most idiotic car/driver combination?)

Some people think they're in a tank, and that they're indestrcutable in their car. Many of these people can't seem to grasp the fact that their car now weighs about 1000 lbs. more, so greater braking distances are required. They don't handle like cars, so they squeal the tires in every 90-degree turn. I won't even get into the cellphone usage along with an SUV.

So rarely are they taken off-road, they're just some sort of status symbol to most people. I think Mercedes is right, call it the M-class (Minivan-class!) and make fun of your buyers. And the equipment that some owners add (brush guards, bumper bars, etc) that only inflict damage to other cars in a wreck is just ludicrous. I laugh at them when I see them. Why anyone puts 20" low-profile tires on them is beyond me...they are making their car more unsafe.

And...(pupik is suddenly pistol whipped by a local Excursion Owner's Club)
 
I agree... Excursions are over the top... too huge... but i must say... they look quite agressive with a custom paint job, bull bar, and 35 inch tires... show vehicle mostly... i wouldnt go offroad with somthing that huge... (length wise)
 
Its funny when you look at the pros and cons.

I have heard many people talk highly of their SUV because they believe it is safer in a crash. However, they do not take into consideration they cannot avoid the crash. But, looking at the relative incompetence of most drivers in America, maybe that's what they need.

I particularly enjoy the GM commerical with the Denali SUV with the sports handling package lapping ahead of several sportscars and how it is touted as the best handling SUV on the market. I see it as this. A school bus with a Lotus suspension is still a school bus. Until GM repeals the laws of physics a 6500 pound truck will always handle like a 6500 pound truck.

Vehicles like this have a place. Towing large items, or hauling groups of people. Where they have no place is a replacement for a small ***** or lack of one. Far too many are sold to proudly display the fact that their vehicle is bigger and more expensive than yours. Why on earth anyone cares what a total stranger ever thinks is totally beyond me.
 
One point before moving away from the Fiero, Power and Torque for the V6 versions was not nearly as pathetically low as previously noted. Here are the official specs:

ENGINE HP, NET/ 135@4500rpm/
TORQUE (lb.-ft.) 165@3600rpm


Note the rather high torque at a kind of low RPM, that's why the Fiero was a better daily driver. Power and torque were in the RPM range that most people use during daily driving. It also explains why a Fiero GT could (stock) Chirp it's rear tires in the 1-2 upshift without tthe driver even trying to do so. you could also get the tire chirp at the 2-3 upshift, but you had to do that one on purpose. Remember, this is the same engine that had to propel a 3,400lb Camaro. So naturally it would make a Fiero, which weighed in at at least 1,000lbs less (fully loaded GT) Just flat haul ass in comparison. Plus, Fieros don't rust. Toyota can't say that about the MR2 :p
 
Originally posted by KC
Its funny when you look at the pros and cons.

I have heard many people talk highly of their SUV because they believe it is safer in a crash. However, they do not take into consideration they cannot avoid the crash. But, looking at the relative incompetence of most drivers in America, maybe that's what they need.

I particularly enjoy the GM commerical with the Denali SUV with the sports handling package lapping ahead of several sportscars and how it is touted as the best handling SUV on the market. I see it as this. A school bus with a Lotus suspension is still a school bus. Until GM repeals the laws of physics a 6500 pound truck will always handle like a 6500 pound truck.

Vehicles like this have a place. Towing large items, or hauling groups of people. Where they have no place is a replacement for a small ***** or lack of one. Far too many are sold to proudly display the fact that their vehicle is bigger and more expensive than yours. Why on earth anyone cares what a total stranger ever thinks is totally beyond me.
Click to expand...

Or the commercial that shows a Sierra C3 passing a 911 on the track. :dunce:
 
heh heh, my little subject here is quite... active. :D

NEway, let me clear things up a little bit on MY point of view... I too believe it is not the problem of the cars themselves, but of the drivers. Those dumbells who buy Excursions to haul to children tick me off (there is a parent at my school who has only two children and has an Excursion! That parent has also raised the suspension, even though I'm sure the only dirt that mass will ever see is the dirt from nursery plants). However, for farmers, trailer haulers, etc, SUVs make sense, just not in the way that 50% of Americans have them.

BTW, here's a neat little quote that I got from the July 2000 Automobile magazine "Letters" section:

"I'm not a fan of SUVs, and I generally flip through your SUV special issue with a fair amount of disinterest, but when I recieved your April 2000 issue, I spotted an interesting title on the cover and immediately proceeded to thumb through the magazine looking for an article in which one of your contributing writers had discovered the subatomic force or genetic defect (LOL!) that draws certain people to SUVs. These same thirty- or forty- something upper-middle-class people are barely capable of piloting a sedan with their full attention directed on the road and yet insist on hurling their extra-large vehicles down the highway while chatting on their cell phones. Not finding such an article, I returned to examine the cover. Imagine my disappointment when I realized that my dyslexia had struck again and the title was not: "The dope inside every SUV in America." Oh well, perhaps next year." -Ivans Chou

:D
 
Think the excursion was too big?
then get a load of this guys vehicle!


192002_61555-2-98.jpg
 
Originally posted by higgimonster
re: fiero vs mr-2
the fiero 6cyl was 2.8L and put out 110hp and 90ft-lbs of torque. it was a peice of crap american engine that could barely move the car. Now if you put a 350 in the back of that thing it is a completely different story. mr-2 had a real engine in it and was designed to be racey-er then the fiero (the fiero was designed and marketed as a commuter car).

I have run out of stuff to ramble about...
Click to expand...

um... thats what i said... the fiero is a more practical car, and you're stupid, cause the V6 2.8L has 130 HP, and more torque than 130lbft, i cant remember the exact number... 150lb ft or more or something.

its people like you that i hate "everything that is american is crap... [insert japanese manufacturer here] rules." i dont think so.
 

Latest Posts

Back