SUV (Sport Utility Vehicles) and their Variations

[boombexus]

Originally posted by 240Z
Toareg? Cayenne? X5? Montero? Honda Pilot? Axiom?

That list could be disputed.

I think Doug is pretty right on with what he finds menacing.

I would say the VW emblem on the back of the Toareg is more menacing than the vehicle itself. Have you seen the size of that thing?
I see Cayenne's everyday and I don't find them menacing, nor do I think that of the X5.
The Pilot, well, I'm kind of on the fence about that one. I've had some decent seat time in a Pilot and at first the feel of it was a bit menacing to me and it is of decent size. But I've also driven the X5 and felt pretty at home in that one. A nice vehicle. I really like the light behind the rear view mirror that cascades a very dim, but warm feeling light over the center console. Really sets off the wood trim. I'd like to replicate that in my car. But I digress.

The Yukon, I've driven that one and it's both menacing behind the wheel and when ones coming up behind you on the road. The steering is so sluggish in that damn thing.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by 240Z
Toareg? Cayenne? X5? Montero? Honda Pilot? Axiom?

That list could be disputed.

It's pretty much based on size. At 182.6", the Isuzu Axiom is actually seven inches shorter in length than the Toyota Camry; at 67.2" tall it's only 5" taller than an Outback - if you think that's meancing, perhaps you're crazy.

 

[240Z]

To someone on a motorcycle, the vertical grille would be quite menacing. It is not neccesarily the overall size, the design of the vehicle plays a part as well.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by 240Z
To someone on a motorcycle, the vertical grille would be quite menacing. It is not bneccesarily the overall size, the design of the vehicle plays a part as well.

Motorcycles make up less than half of one percent of total vehicle sales. Plus, I could think up about fifty cars that are intimidating to motorcyclists.

 

[240Z]

The same is true for small cars.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by 240Z
The same is true for small cars.

No it isn't. I drive a 177" Audi A4 4-cylinder very frequently and I'm intimidated by nothing. The only people intimidated by midsize SUVs are 20-year-old women and the elderly, and the second group drives the largest cars on the market.

 

[240Z]

Smaller cars, then.

You must admit that SUVs are a danger to a smaller car in an accident.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by 240Z
Smaller cars, then.

Smaller than that? Our A4 is shorter than a Hyundai Elantra, Kia Spectra, Mitsubishi Lancer, Mazda 3, Nissan Sentra, Saturn Ion, Pontiac Sunfire and Chevrolet Cavalier - there aren't many smaller cars.

You must admit that SUVs are a danger to a smaller car in an accident.

Yes, but so are larger cars, minivans, and pickup trucks.

 

[240Z]

More than an SUV?

 

[Joey D]

What would my truck be considered? Its only has a 101 inch wheel base and I remember Doug once telling me thats smaller then a Corolla or Camery (one of the two). So I'm guessing I have a small truck? Beats me, I consider it a compact though.

 

[240Z]

Why?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by 240Z
More than an SUV?

Yes. A BMW 760Li, Dodge Ram Quad Cab, or Nissan Quest would cause more damage than a Toyota RAV4.

Perfectly fair comparison. 👍

What would my truck be considered? Its only has a 101 inch wheel base and I remember Doug once telling me thats smaller then a Corolla or Camery (one of the two). So I'm guessing I have a small truck? Beats me, I consider it a compact though.

At 176.8", your 2-door Blazer is shorter than both of them. Though according to 240Z you're an insecure menace.

 

[240Z]

I suppose I should have said a large SUV.
And don't forget this:

I'm not saying the people themselves are insecure. And how is a H2 not a physical menace to anyone driving down the road in a small car or a motorcycle? I'm not talking about the people driving them, just the size/shape of the car.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by 240Z
I suppose I should have said a large SUV.

And a large SUV, I've already conceded, is physically imposing.

And don't forget this:

By 'you're' I meant 'you and your Blazer.'

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by Firebird
You are mistaken.

The full-size SJ Cherokee debuted as a '74 model as a sporty two-door version of the Wagoneer. The smaller XJ Cherokee debuted as an '84 model. The YJ Wrangler's first model year was '87.

Maybe you think of CJ's as "Wranglers"...

I though jeep had links to WWII. *shrugs*

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
I though jeep had links to WWII. *shrugs*

They do - in fact, in my opinion, the Wrangler has not received a full redesign since then by the principle that 'steady evolution' does not constitute a redesign (same reason the Miata's never been 'fully redesigned') - the links between every previous generation of Wrangler are extremely evident. Same was true for the Cherokee until 2001 and the Grand Cherokee since it came out.

 

[Mike Rotch]

I would love a Wrangler. That arent THAT expensive either compared to other new cars. Here the basline Sports goes for around $28-29000 and the top of the range Sahara for $32000.

Useless fact: The Cayenne Turbo costs about $240000 here in SA.

 

[JohnBM01]

Do some of you think SUVs try to hard to grab the attention of car lovers by providing options and features which make them more like cars and not big trucks?

 

[Mike Rotch]

I think SUV's try to entice buyers by painting on lots of chrome ala the 60's, and also going by the idea that bigger is better.

As for making them more car-ish then truck-ish, I think they have many features found on luxury sedans, but the ultra-luxury (and similarly priced) sedans will always have newer and better items.

 

[boombexus]

I find that there are more options in SUV's that do not come in cars, such as DVD players. I'd buy an Escalade just for it's heated/cooled cup holders. Best invention ever!

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
I would love a Wrangler. That arent THAT expensive either compared to other new cars. Here the basline Sports goes for around $28-29000 and the top of the range Sahara for $32000.

Useless fact: The Cayenne Turbo costs about $240000 here in SA.

At $16300, the Wrangler is the cheapest convertible for sale in America.

And at $88900, the Cayenne is the second-most expensive SUV for sale in America, behind the Mercedes G55 (though try to get one for that - I managed to get mine around that because mine's used but a new one with any options is above $95000 - though that's probably true for the G55, which starts at $92700, also)

Do some of you think SUVs try to hard to grab the attention of car lovers by providing options and features which make them more like cars and not big trucks?

Unquestionably. Ever hear of the Nissan Murano?

I find that there are more options in SUV's that do not come in cars, such as DVD players. I'd buy an Escalade just for it's heated/cooled cup holders. Best invention ever!

The Escalade you're referring to there is the $68900 Platinum Edition, which has more standard features than any other vehicle ever sold in this country - it's also the only vehicle you'll find with a standard DVD and navigation system.

It's odd to me that Cadillac still calls the Escalade the most powerful SUV in the world. Ever hear of the Porsche Cayenne Turbo?

 

[Firebird]

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
I though jeep had links to WWII. *shrugs*

Originally posted by M5Power
They do - in fact, in my opinion, the Wrangler has not received a full redesign since then by the principle that 'steady evolution' does not constitute a redesign (same reason the Miata's never been 'fully redesigned') - the links between every previous generation of Wrangler are extremely evident. Same was true for the Cherokee until 2001 and the Grand Cherokee since it came out.

...do either of you even know what a CJ is?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Firebird
...do either of you even know what a CJ is?

Yes - we all know, CJ is a wholly different model from YJ - there's nothing even remotely similar about them.

Sort of like how the current Porsche Boxster and the 1999 model are different vehicles.

 

[Firebird]

Originally posted by M5Power
Yes - we all know, CJ is a wholly different model from YJ - there's nothing even remotely similar about them.

Oh good. I had the distinct feeling I was talking to a brick wall...

Originally posted by M5Power
Sort of like how the current Porsche Boxster and the 1999 model are different vehicles.

...and it turns out I still am (talking to a figurative wall, that is).


You can make whatever distinctions you want as far as the 'Universal' Jeep's evolution from the CJ1 'Agrijeep' to modern day TJ. The facts will tell you a CJ1 is extremely similar to a CJ2, CJ2A, CJ2B, CJ3A and CJ3B but only vaguely mechanically related to a '54-'75 CJ5, which is nothing like a '76-'83 CJ5, which is similar to a CJ7, which is nothing like a YJ (the first model named Wrangler, which was my original point), which is completely different from a TJ.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Firebird

You can make whatever distinctions you want as far as the 'Universal' Jeep's evolution from the CJ1 'Agrijeep' to modern day TJ. The facts will tell you a CJ1 is extremely similar to a CJ2, CJ2A, CJ2B, CJ3A and CJ3B but only vaguely mechanically related to a '54-'75 CJ5, which is nothing like a '76-'83 CJ5, which is similar to a CJ7, which is nothing like a YJ (the first model named Wrangler, which was my original point), which is completely different from a TJ.

See, the front air dam is different... and the wheels are different...

 

[Firebird]

See, absolutely everything is different. Different interior, different exterior, different chassis, different suspension, different drivetrain....

...and the wheels are different...

Maybe my memory is fading, but I remember a certain member stating that he knew next to nothing about any car before 1989....

 

[Firebird]

Here we are:

Originally posted by M5Power
I personally hate 95% of cars manufactured before 1989 so you know where I'm coming from. I can tell you practically anything about mainstream cars from 1989 on, but before that I know nothing and consequently I hate everything. If you ever see me commenting on pre-1989 cars again, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and move on.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I'm going to move on.

 

[boombexus]

Originally posted by M5Power



The Escalade you're referring to there is the $68900 Platinum Edition, which has more standard features than any other vehicle ever sold in this country - it's also the only vehicle you'll find with a standard DVD and navigation system.

It's odd to me that Cadillac still calls the Escalade the most powerful SUV in the world. Ever hear of the Porsche Cayenne Turbo? [/B]

That's the one. And if I could afford one, I'd buy one. Just for the cup holders.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by M5Power
At $16300, the Wrangler is the cheapest convertible for sale in America.

Stupid import tax

And at $88900, the Cayenne is the second-most expensive SUV for sale in America, behind the Mercedes G55 (

G55? IS that the ML55 under a different name?

ML55:

 

[JohnBM01]

A more unique SUV is that new one Mercedes recently released for around $80,000 and looks boxier than crap. I'm starting to like Mercedes-Benz nowadays. I note that some of the cars came with navigation, little phones on the dash, I mean, I don't know if they are more luxurious or sporty. But that specific SUV is more old-school in design. I think it should be for off-road use, but I'm not sure.