PROOF: Bigger cars are deadlier in collisions.

[Northstar]

Yay for my 18ft long land yacht. Oh wait.. I think my car bursts into a nice big fiery ball if it gets rear ended hard enough. Much like the pinto. Gotta love how my car's gas tank s in the crumple zones!

I'm guessing your talking about your Interceptor, I thought they fixed that.

 

[homeforsummer]

The same reason people buy Range Rovers.

Range Rovers aren't utterly hateful and shoddy though. They have a certain grace on the outside (as much as is possible from a two tonne brick) and a fantastic interior. An Escalade is brash and ostentatious on the outside without any flair whatsoever, and the last one I sat in (at the Brit motor show a year or so back) had a woeful interior. Neither are economical but the RR is more so, and they also perform better.

There are so many more reasons to get a Range Rover than an Escalade it's almost unfunny.

So as mentioned, I can't see why any right-minded person would buy the Caddy. That their two biggest exponents are rappers and footballers - two of the world's biggest groups of absolute knobs - is good enough reason for me to deride them.

 

[Joey D]

There are so many more reasons to get a Range Rover than an Escalade it's almost unfunny.

So as mentioned, I can't see why any right-minded person would buy the Caddy. That their two biggest exponents are rappers and footballers - two of the world's biggest groups of absolute knobs - is good enough reason for me to deride them.

I agree I would have a Range Rover over and Escalade any day of the week. However, many Americans are of the mindset that they will only buy a vehicle from GM, Ford, or Chrysler and scoff at anything else, whether it's better or not. Since Chrysler doesn't make a luxury SUV and Ford has the ghastly Navigator which I don't even know if they make any more since I can't recall seeing one on the road in quite some time, the only choice left is the Escalade.

 

[Omnis]

Well I just saw a new Sequoia in a parking lot the other day. That thing is monsterly huge. It's bigger than my uncle's Bronco. The bumper would choptop my car.

 

[Northstar]

Chrysler has the Aspen and Pacifica, there is also the Denali from GMC. There are other choices out there but you are right that most people think on Escalade when they think of luxury suvs.

 

[Joey D]

Chrysler has the Aspen and Pacifica, there is also the Denali from GMC. There are other choices out there but you are right that most people think on Escalade when they think of luxury suvs.

They still make the Aspen? Wow, didn't know that to be honest and had to check the Chrysler website to be sure. I think it's been an even longer time than the Navigator in terms of seeing one. Plus it's dreadfully ugly. That Pacifica is a useless crossover that seats four people and if it's Chrysler's idea of luxury I'm a bit concerned.

So I stand corrected though, there is apparently the Aspen out there and the Denali if you want an American SUV. However, judging by the way all three look the Escalade is the easy choice I suppose.

 

[Tornado]

Range Rovers aren't utterly hateful and shoddy though.

Neither are Escalades.

Neither are economical but the RR is more so

Not really. They are rated near-identically, with the Cadillac having a 1 mpg highway advantage.

and they also perform better.

Not really. Unless you mean off-road, the Cadillac outhandles and outpaces the Range Rover. The Range Rover does have better brakes, though.

So as mentioned, I can't see why any right-minded person would buy the Caddy.

It isn't notably worse than the Range Rover but costs 20,000 cheaper for a top of the line one? You also have to understand that Cadillac had 4 years to build up brand recognition with the Escalade until BMW brought out a Range Rover that wasn't complete garbage.

That their two biggest exponents are rappers and footballers - two of the world's biggest groups of absolute knobs - is good enough reason for me to deride them.

The exact same clientele buys both vehicles in America. Different kind of football, though.

 

[Northstar]

They still make the Aspen? Wow, didn't know that to be honest and had to check the Chrysler website to be sure. I think it's been an even longer time than the Navigator in terms of seeing one. Plus it's dreadfully ugly. That Pacifica is a useless crossover that seats four people and if it's Chrysler's idea of luxury I'm a bit concerned.

So I stand corrected though, there is apparently the Aspen out there and the Denali if you want an American SUV. However, judging by the way all three look the Escalade is the easy choice I suppose.

It's still made but I think it will be discontinued at the same time as the Durango. Which are both ugly as sin.

 

[Philly]

Well I just saw a new Sequoia in a parking lot the other day. That thing is monsterly huge. It's bigger than my uncle's Bronco. The bumper would choptop my car.

There's one in Holland that I've seen a couple times. It's definitely one of those vehicles that makes you wonder why. I mean, it even looks ghastly with that Tundra front end, which doesn't work out so well on a luxury SUV.

Chrysler has the Aspen and Pacifica, there is also the Denali from GMC. There are other choices out there but you are right that most people think on Escalade when they think of luxury suvs.

Don't forget that the Escalade is totally Gangsta yo. Although I suppose that might end up causing a security risk to people who buy them to be safe...

 

[YSSMAN]

Nope, apparently he drove a 300C before becoming president.

Which he traded in for a Ford Escape Hybrid. Good taste with either, really.

=-=-=-=-=-=

Big SUV of choice?

I'll take an Avalanche. Yes, I'm biased. We've had two (2005 and a brand-new 2009), and I like them both. A lot.

Why? It functions well both as a (pickup) truck and an SUV. Our '09 is more awesome than I ever would have expected, much nicer than its cousin, my Grandfather's '07 Yukon. The extra power, the six-speed gearbox, and other "functional" touches make it a good option for the price. Why I'm blathering about this, I don't know...

 

[bicycleshorts]

That's all very well and good, but ultimately if I'm going to buy a car, I want (primarily) to make sure I am safe. When I, as a hypothetical American parent, goes out to buy a family car, whose safety am I going to put first? The chances are that, when handing over the $28,000 for my new Honda Pilot, I'm not going to suddenly think 'hang on, what about the poor driver in the Yaris I might hit?' and throw the keys back in the salesman's face before asking to look at the Fit again.

If you're going to make a statement like that, then you can brandish pretty much every car buyer in the world as selfish too. Again, let's say as the hypothetical parent I go and do the 'unselfish' thing and buy a Honda Fit. If I hit an Accord, I'm screwed (apparently...). But what if I drive into a Geo Metro? They're going to be wiped out by my larger, far more modern car. So I'm selfish again, surely?

Ok, so instead I buy a Geo Metro. If I hit pretty much any car, I'm coming off worse. Great. But wait, what if I hit a bike?


...you can't win.



But I do get where you're coming from.

I get you

Ideally I should've said "ALL"... Survival of the fittest and what-not.

 

[JCE]

Well, I have a few observations as well:
It's a 4 ton SUV.
DON"T cut me off from the stoplight. It's not easy for me to stop this behemoth. So signal, and get some distance before you cut into my lane and inexplicably slow to a crawl. Signalling also alerts me to your intentions, so that I may act accordingly.

Oh, did I mention that I'm well award that I have a longer stopping distance? DON"T rush to jump in front of me, and then slow to a crawl.
I realize that it is often difficult to see around me.
Please realize when I'm going slow infront of you, it's because some dude in front of me is going slow, and I've given him a wide berth in case he decides to do something stupid.
When you "slide around" and cut me off, you effectively erase the safety margin I've left for stopping behind the slow guy. And I'm glad that you are no longer tail-gating me...However, Now if there is an emergency stop situation, Your car is now in the space I tried to leave for a safe stop. If you do the math, that means I'll be stopping where you are, or in front of you. If I stop in front of you, or where you are, YOU will be UNDER a 4 ton SUV.

And I'm the one that doesn't care about anyone else's safety?

See, I believe you secretly harbor some sort of death wish. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You can't possibly just be stupid...so, you cut me off because you want to die.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have obliterated my safety zone. You've gained a whole 50 feet by cutting me off. And you've effectively put yourself in a position where you are way more likely to get crushed between "mr. Slow", and an SUV. What other conclusion is there?

How late are you that cutting 5 seconds off your trip by cutting me off is worth your life?
I know it's only about 5 seconds because I just pulled into the parking lot pretty much on your tail.

Please don't stereotype SUV drivers as being ignorant to the safety of people in cars.
EVERYONE needs to drive aware.

Post of the decade. 👍 100% correct.

Forget a Fiesta... I'm getting one of these:

I want.

Depends what you get hit by. Small cars can be safe. There are umpteen videos of Smarts crashing into various things on youtube, and they do seem to come out of them relatively well. It shows the benefits of a well-designed safety cell, and probably more so, a strong shape - that of effectively a sphere, and we all know that circles are naturally resilient and spread the force of an impact in all directions. It's why a skull is the shape it is, why a crash helmet is the shape it is and why the Smart makes a point of showing off it's safety cell.

And it is interesting that the new C-class faired better than the old S-class in versus the Smart.

Nope, apparently he drove a 300C before becoming president.

must...resist...making...generalizations...

A lot of SUV's pulling out in front of people can be attributed to cranial rectal insertion.
A good deal can also be attributed to people not having the first clue how to properly adjust the outside rearview mirrors.
With the mirrors adjusted like most people tend to (so they can see the back end of their own vehicle), it is likely they pulled out in front of you because they simply didn't see you.

You should set your outside mirrors so that you can eyeball the car in the adjacent lane till the point it becomes visible in your peripheral vision. This applies to all vehicles.

+1

 

[niky]

Kind of misleading... (I've seen this article on "The Truth About Cars")... The IIHS results should read: "Subcompacts fare poorly in crashes against larger cars with excellent crash test scores."

Obviously, if you've got a 4-star sub going up against a 5-star midsizer, the 4-star sub is going to suffer.

But if you've got a 3-star (or lower) truck going up against a 4-star or 5-star compact or midsizer, the case may be quite different.

Out here, the biggest crash risk is a sleeping/drunk/high/all-of-the-above truck driver running straight into you... in those cases, the crash survivability of even large vehicles is very suspect (and has been proven fatally lacking... especially in rear-enders, which no agency tests for). More important than size, I believe, is the distance of the passengers from the ends of the vehicle and the strength of the safety cell and crumple zones. But it won't matter if those crumple zones are a mile long if the safety cell itself isn't up to the task of keeping you safe.

Oh. And +1 on Gil. We'd all be a lot safer if we weren't surrounded by absolute idiots on the road.

 

[Jondot]

And it is interesting that the new C-class faired better than the old S-class in versus the Smart.

Indeed... In fact, the S-Class test used the previous generation Smart with a lower crash test rating. So either the Smart has got progressively worse, or Mercedes have really done some improving!

Again, here's another previous gen Smart plowing into an E-Class:
http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?id=4785

And as far as I can work out, that's in a far better state after the crash than in this new test. What gives?

Smart themselves are also finding this result slightly odd... and thoroughly annoying, and have fought back! How? No, not another scientific crash test, but a um... customer crash testimonial site. Hmm...

 

[Adamgp]

Which he traded in for a Ford Escape Hybrid. Good taste with either, really.

He had to ditch the Chrysler after he campaigned in Detroit and slammed the big three for building big V8 gas guzzlers and was criticized for driving one.

It was on ebay not too long ago but I don't remember how much it went for.

 

[homeforsummer]

Neither are Escalades.

I beg to differ, but personal opinions and all that 👍 I'm not a massive fan of the Range Rover, to be honest, but at least it's not brash, ugly and ostentatious.

Not really. Unless you mean off-road, the Cadillac outhandles and outpaces the Range Rover. The Range Rover does have better brakes, though.

From the few comparative reviews I can find, the RR is apparently the better overall to drive. Perhaps not as quick in a straight line, but that's more academic, and they're both very quick for the size of them anyway. The RR apparently rides and steers better. And yes, it'll decimate the Caddy if you venture off-road.

It isn't notably worse than the Range Rover but costs 20,000 cheaper for a top of the line one? You also have to understand that Cadillac had 4 years to build up brand recognition with the Escalade until BMW brought out a Range Rover that wasn't complete garbage.

Huh? There's never been a terrible Range Rover, except perhaps their first turbo diesel back in the early 80s ish in which the turbo lag could be measured with calendar. Bear in mind also that without the original Range Rover, the luxury SUV as an entity probably wouldn't exist.

And cost isn't everything. I doubt the sort of people who buy the Caddy don't do it because they can't afford a Range Rover.

The exact same clientele buys both vehicles in America. Different kind of football, though.

Over here however they are often bought for their abilities and quality as much as their image. The same is true of all Land Rovers, though some more than others. I suspect people buy the Escalade not because it's better than the opposition (which arguably it isn't), but because it's bling. And bling is a hateful, awful thing. It's a word that epitomises more money than taste.

---

To keep this vaguely on topic, they are both supposed to be good in a crash. I'm unaware whether there are any videos of either being crashed into other things though which could add to the thread.

 

[Joey D]

To keep this vaguely on topic, they are both supposed to be good in a crash. I'm unaware whether there are any videos of either being crashed into other things though which could add to the thread.

Here's a video of various GMT-900's (they are all the same) and GMT-800's being crashed into things.



And here is a Range Rover being smashed into things.



I'm not going to lie, watching vehicles hit things is rather entertaining.

 

[Giancarlo]

Please don't stereotype SUV drivers as being ignorant to the safety of people in cars.
EVERYONE needs to drive aware.

In a city like mine, i stereotype all drivers. I don't discriminate; i hate everybody. 👍 I wish more people were conscious drivers like you, Gil.

The issue is that for most people, driving an SUV poses no difference to driving a Corolla. They try to drive them in the same manner, which leads to terrible accidents. That's also why i think the allure of "safety" in an SUV is a complete crock. You have to tone down your driving habits for that to be the case, just as the driver of a semi does. But rarely is that the case.

So i wouldn't say that small cars are less safe, i would say that big cars are more dangerous. If that makes sense.

Oh and don't even get me started on how many episodes of parking-space blue balls i've gotten because monstrous SUVs block anything parked next to them...

 

[Gil]

In a city like mine, i stereotype all drivers. I don't discriminate; i hate everybody. 👍 I wish more people were conscious drivers like you, Gil.
(snip)
So i wouldn't say that small cars are less safe, i would say that big cars are more dangerous. If that makes sense.

Oh and don't even get me started on how many episodes of parking-space blue balls i've gotten because monstrous SUVs block anything parked next to them...

I wasn't always. But then I had kids. Then I had to teach them to drive.
MOST of my guys drive like cautious little old ladies. I'm so proud!
I also decided that I didn't want to die in a flaming, oily wreck.

Actually, my father was one of the best drivers I ever saw. He taught me. It took till I was like 30 till I started heeding his best advice:
1. Keep one car length for every 10 MPH between you and the car in front of you.
2. Drive no more than 5 over, OR whatever the traffic flow is doing. Going too slow is just as dangerous as going too fast.
3. Look WAY up the road. If something happens up there, you want as much time as possible to stop behind it, or open options to get around it.
4. IF your wipers are on, your headlights are on. NO ifs, ands or buts.
5. In bad weather, imagine gas and brake as raw eggs. Apply pressure to them accordingly.
6. A car is as dangerous as a loaded gun, treat it accordingly.

I've tried to teach these to all my kids. Some are gonna take a bit to get it completely. But mostly they've got it.

 

[Jondot]

I suspect people buy the Escalade not because it's better than the opposition (which arguably it isn't), but because it's bling. And bling is a hateful, awful thing. It's a word that epitomises more money than taste.

If I may butt in, I think the difference in opinion here has a little something to do with the differences between our countries. A little culture lesson, I think...




Here, Range Rovers are a symbol of all that's great with our country. A beautiful, classy, go anywhere machine that's built by us, in Birmingham.

Here's our typical RR driver:

That's right, Helen Mirren. I mean the Queen. A great endorsement here in the United Kingdom of England land - if the woman with her face on money is buying them, they've done something right.






Caddys, Chevrolets and GMCs however... are not. They're all very 'bling', which isn't good. We look and feel stupid just saying the word, so we've got no intention of looking it either.

Here's our typical Escalade driver:

Tim Westwood - a 51 year old rapper who looks far too much like a manager of a garden centre to be taken seriously. Oh dear.





I think that pretty much sums up why we don't like American SUVs over here...

 

[Jim Prower]

uhm, yes...

Escalade, I could see that, but over here, GMC and Chevrolet are Blue-collar brands...

Mind you, still driven poorly, but the guy in the Tahoe is more than likely less a gangster and more than likely a card-carrying Union Member...

Unless the wheels have magically upsized themselves to blingy 24s. and I've seen Blue Collar boys rocking those, too.

 

[Keef]

When you work for a union you can afford things like that.

 

[Tornado]

Huh? There's never been a terrible Range Rover, except perhaps their first turbo diesel back in the early 80s ish in which the turbo lag could be measured with calendar. Bear in mind also that without the original Range Rover, the luxury SUV as an entity probably wouldn't exist.

Most of this argument is highly subjective anyways, but I'll touch upon this: In America, the only thing that the second gen. Range Rover is known for is breaking. Unless you are a car guy, at which point it was known for breaking and for having an old Buick engine in it. When the Lincoln Navigator came out in 1997, it essentially had no competition; and I think its release (as well as the Escalade that followed the next year) had far more of an effect on creating the segment than any Range Rover ever did.

 

[Philly]

When you work for a union you can afford things like that.

Unfortunately, it turns out that way. And apparently people with no more than a high school diploma deserve no less than that?

 

[JCE]

I'm not going to lie, watching vehicles hit things is rather entertaining.

As long as its not something cool and that we like. 👍

I think that pretty much sums up why we don't like American SUVs over here...

Except you guys like the Cherokee for some reason.

When the Lincoln Navigator came out in 1997, it essentially had no competition; and I think its release (as well as the Escalade that followed the next year) had far more of an effect on creating the segment than any Range Rover ever did.

You are absolutely correct. The Merc ML came along afterwards and before the Cadillac which would seem to indicate that Germany came second in the Luxury SUV segment before the UK.

 

[homeforsummer]

Jon - nice example

Most of this argument is highly subjective anyways, but I'll touch upon this: In America, the only thing that the second gen. Range Rover is known for is breaking. Unless you are a car guy, at which point it was known for breaking and for having an old Buick engine in it. When the Lincoln Navigator came out in 1997, it essentially had no competition; and I think its release (as well as the Escalade that followed the next year) had far more of an effect on creating the segment than any Range Rover ever did.

I'm unsure how much development the Rover V8 got over there but by the time RR stopped using them over here it was very different from the Buick engine it was originally based on. You're right that overall they aren't the most reliable things in the world, but over here at least there are still plenty of them about so they can't be too bad. They certainly improved as Ford and BMW both put more and more input into them.

Except you guys like the Cherokee for some reason.

We like Jeeps in general, but we've had them for years in the form of the Wrangler and Cherokee - they've always been about and we've got used to them. The same can be said for Chryslers - the Neon and PT did pretty well here, yet most other American cars fail pretty quickly.

 

[JCE]

The PT was and is trash, you should dump them all into the ocean quickly. Why that sold well there (and here) boggles my mind. Its one of the worst vehicles ever.

 

[homeforsummer]

The PT was and is trash, you should dump them all into the ocean quickly. Why that sold well there (and here) boggles my mind. Its one of the worst vehicles ever.

We went over this once. Here (pg4 onwards). It wasn't pretty the first time so I'll leave my response this time simply as "I disagree"

 

[Tornado]

I'm unsure how much development the Rover V8 got over there but by the time RR stopped using them over here it was very different from the Buick engine it was originally based on.

I know, but the "Buick engine" bit was frequent joke whenever American publications got a hole of the Range Rover.

 

[JCE]

We went over this once. Here (pg4 onwards). It wasn't pretty the first time so I'll leave my response this time simply as "I disagree"

Fine with me.