SUVs and supercars...

[1X83Z]

Posing a question…

For the last several years, SUV’s have been the major target of attack by auto enthusiasts for the main reason that SUV owners purchase the vehicles then never use them ‘to their full potential’ (i.e. off-road) and instead drive around the city and block the view of Porsche drivers.

But aren’t sports cars like the Porsche 911 and Ferrari 360 used the same way? We know that every two-bit Hollywood star has a Vanquish or a 360 in his driveway, and every man in midlife crisis owns an SLK32 or Boxster S. But these cars – which are built for performance – are often driven at speeds no faster than the limit, if that.

So why do we not attack sports cars? Do their drivers always use those cars to their full potential?

PS – Another reason SUV’s are attacked is inefficiency. The top five least-fuel-efficient cars according to the Environmental Protection Agency are all supercars – not one SUV even graces the top ten.

 

[vat_man]

I like looking at supercars. SUV's are just station wagons on stilts.

I would point to engineering integrity as a matter for debate there, although the Porsche Cayenne is an exception there. Most of your SUVs are low tech/truck based vehicles.

And, more to the point, there are a hell of a lot more SUVs around then supercars.

 

[1X83Z]

And, more to the point, there are a hell of a lot more SUVs around then supercars.

Dunno - depends on your definition of supercar. Some people may consider nothing but the best to be supercars, whereas others might think a Ram Air is one.

 

[Duke]

No, I make fun of supercar drivers who don't drive them also. But there are several other issues going on here:

1) Supercars tend to be a hobby/nice weather/fun car, that gets driven occasionally. SUVs on the other hand tend to get driven day in, day out, even if you're not hauling anything bigger than a briefcase.

2) Porsches and other main stream sports cars tend to be pleasant and responsive to drive even at less-than-limits speeds (true exotics such as Ferrari/Lambo/etc. excepted). What works to make them suitable for high-speed driving makes them better to drive at highway speeds. So in the case of sports cars, their ability actually improves their daily driving, even if it is never used. SUVs, on the other hand, sacrifice highway ride and handling in the name of gaining marginal off-road ability (Jeep products aside) that is unlikely to ever be used. So there is a big compromise made for little gain; unlike in sports cars.

3) Notice that nobody mentions 'utility' in combination with sports cars. They are honest in their intent - to go fast and look cool, in that order. SUVs, however, masquerade behind an image of toughness and utility that most can't live up to. My Caravan will hold seven people much more comfortably than a Suburban will. Admittedly it won't tow a car trailer while doing it, but...

 

[12sec. Civic]

Sports cars are (usually) an expression of minimalism.

SUV's are an expression of excessiveness.

 

[Frustrated Palm]

Originally posted by vat_man
Most of your SUVs are low tech/truck based vehicles.

Most of the ones sold are high tech or car based actually...

 

[HRT_Maloo]

Yeah, and most supercars would use up more gas than the average SUV (575M delivers 22L/100km )

 

[ving]

dont like to see either used the wrong way.
I drive my astra faster than most "supercar" drivers would drive thier "super cars".
ansd SUV's just take up too much realestate and should therefore have to pay more in road taxes.

it is interesting to note that in australia, the Majority of SUV buyers seem to be chicks who think that the added height gives tham safety (tho we all know this to be not true as my astra is safer than almost any SUV).

I say that we also need to redifine the term "supercar" as cars like the toyotya supra are often overlooked when it comes to this category. but then we could also add the clio v6 as it is one hell of a performs... and dont forget the "hairdressers car" the MX5 SP which goes like the clappers.

in short for those who do not see the sarcasm in my comments, these "supercars" are ok on the raod but i really hate SUVs as they belong OFF-ROAD.

 

[HRT_Maloo]

I dont hate all SUVs. The (large) ones that pass in my books are LRs, Land cruiser, Partols, Pajeros, Jeeps, Isuzu/Holden models and Explorer. The rest can **** off since they are the ones that cannot be driven any further than a gravel driveway (M, X5 etc)

 

[TsLeng]

Why buy a SUV when a MPV or maybe station wagon can carry as much. Its not like you're using a dirt road to work everyday.
Anyway, cars like the Audi Allroad and Volvo XC(based on the V70)
offer car like economy, SUV like space and have the ability to travel off-road(not hardcore of course) courtesy of its adjustable suspension.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by neon_duke
No, I make fun of supercar drivers who don't drive them also. But there are several other issues going on here:

1) Supercars tend to be a hobby/nice weather/fun car, that gets driven occasionally. SUVs on the other hand tend to get driven day in, day out, even if you're not hauling anything bigger than a briefcase.

Again, this depends on your definition of supercars. The named cars - Boxster, 911, Trans Am - we all see everyday and are usually used as daily drivers.

2) Porsches and other main stream sports cars tend to be pleasant and responsive to drive even at less-than-limits speeds (true exotics such as Ferrari/Lambo/etc. excepted). What works to make them suitable for high-speed driving makes them better to drive at highway speeds. So in the case of sports cars, their ability actually improves their daily driving, even if it is never used. SUVs, on the other hand, sacrifice highway ride and handling in the name of gaining marginal off-road ability (Jeep products aside) that is unlikely to ever be used. So there is a big compromise made for little gain; unlike in sports cars.

Well wait - if you're making the case that supercars go marginally better on the highway (and that validates their use) then I could very easily make the case that SUVs go better over potholes and poorly-paved roads better, validating their use.

3) Notice that nobody mentions 'utility' in combination with sports cars. They are honest in their intent - to go fast and look cool, in that order. SUVs, however, masquerade behind an image of toughness and utility that most can't live up to. My Caravan will hold seven people much more comfortably than a Suburban will. Admittedly it won't tow a car trailer while doing it, but... [/B]

Two questions:
- What's your one biggest major gripe with SUVs?
- What year is your Caravan?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by ving


in short for those who do not see the sarcasm in my comments, these "supercars" are ok on the raod but i really hate SUVs as they belong OFF-ROAD.

I somewhat agree. SUVs belong off-road, since that's where they preform best. But under the same logic, supercars belong on the track.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by TsLeng
Why buy a SUV when a MPV or maybe station wagon can carry as much. Its not like you're using a dirt road to work everyday.

Hey! Driving on dirt roads is my job.

And, again, this country gets less than ten station wagons - simply not enough choices. We get gazillions of SUV's, some of them quite efficient (most more efficient than the allroad and XC70).

 

[Frustrated Palm]

Ford Expedition was listed as the third safest vehicle (forgot the magazine). And since it has a low profile in front it was safer for the car it wrecks into, unless the Firestone tires blow ...

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Frustrated Palm
Ford Expedition was listed as the third safest vehicle (forgot the magazine). And since it has a low profile in front it was safer for the car it wrecks into, unless the Firestone tires blow ...

New Expeditions use Michelin. There's a blue '03 outside.

 

[ShobThaBob]

A lot of families that get SUVs actually use them...lets see, like mine. My mom has an expedition. She hauls around my brother, his friends, and toooons of sporting equipment. Its also good for my dad and his guitar crap. they got that instead of a van because they think vans are butt ugly. Most of the people that get SUVs tend to use them to their fullest extent. Mind you, by fullest, i dont mean off road. Most SUVs...like the exped...would die after 2 min of being offroad. I took my explorer through mud trails a few time, and it went nicely...but yeah. Dont bash SUVs. Drive them right, and they get decent gas milage (over 18 mpg). Youll never see a viper making that, no matter how much of a hairdresser the driver is.

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by 12sec. Civic
Sports cars are (usually) an expression of minimalism.

SUV's are an expression of excessiveness.

Being an SUV-hater, I thought quite a bit about this question. I've come to the conclusion that 12sec-Civic is right. Neither type of vehicle does well in the fuel consumtption category, which I would guess is the point of this topic.

I think another good reason that people don't attack sports cars (er, supercars) is because there are so few of them on the road. In 2004, Joe Blow still can't go down to Ford and pick up a GT40. He may desire an Explorer just as much as the GT40, but for 1/5 the price he can get the Explorer. The high cost (both initial and in maintenance) of these cars almost prohibits them from being daily drivers, where an Expedition is driven everywhere.

Okay, so might doesn't make right. High consumption is bad under any circumstances (well, not if you want to go really fast...), but people generally attack what they see. Give a child electric shocks while surrounded by pictures of his mother and he'll never trust his mother again. (I hope that example wasn't lost on anyone because I don't think I can come up with something more horrid.)

Another reason could be that supercars just look so damned good. I'd rather see a Diablo filling up two desperately-needed parking spaces (to be safe) than an Expedition blocking my sunlight.

 

[HRT_Maloo]

Along with supercars, theres some SUVs I have stopped to stare at, but only the speced up models

 

[Joey D]

Being the owner of a SUV I'm going to agree with M5 on this one.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by 12sec. Civic
Sports cars are (usually) an expression of minimalism.

SUV's are an expression of excessiveness.

Being able to do 200 MPH is not excessiveness?

 

[sinbad]

I know what I'd rather be hit by, especially as a pedestrian.

 

[pedrodaman]

I don't mind SUV's but i hate to see that every tom dick and harry has one
And they never get used except to drop the kids off at school and go shopping WTF is wrong with this picture
If your gonna use a vehicle for that type of **** get a bloody corsa ..
It can do the job just as well if not faster as it's smaller and can get through the crowded streets of a big city better than a SUV
And also WTF are these idiots all about when they fit Bull bars to the front of their SUV,s i bet they don,t even know what Bull bars are actually for they just think they look good

And to top it off they are just downright dangerous as we all know with the rollover accidents that have occured

Unless you live in the Bush ,the mountains, the bloody desert or on a farm you have no need for an SUV..

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by pedrodaman
you have no need for an SUV..

Nor does any human being have any actual need for a car. 'Need' is a fairly subjective term - most if not all of us never have to actually realise our needs.

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by M5Power
So why do we not attack sports cars? Do their drivers always use those cars to their full potential?

Well, because I want a sports-car. I don't want an SUV. Fair enough?

When I lived in Gainesville, it was much more necessary to own an SUV. There's dirt/gravel roads, uneven pavement, and the occassionally flooded bit of road. Ground clearance is necessary at times.

But when you live in South Florida, the need for an off-road vehicle is just about nil, every road is paved (unless you work on a construction site), pavement is smoother, and flooding isn't a big issue. There's almost no local need for a glorified minivan/station-wagon.

However, there'e plenty of sports-car drivers around here whom break speeding laws, accelerate from stop lights, and pull g's. Maybe downtown Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Palm Beach don't allow for much in the way of performance, but once on the (semi-)open road, you can use the performance of a sports-car.

Yeah, the buyer of Ferrari Enzo or Diablo et al won't ever use 150+mph around here (unless he's running from the police); there's always these exceptions.

 

[ShobThaBob]

At least SUVs actually have an actual plausible use on the road. Who needs a sportscar? People who race. Its illegal to race on the streets. So by yall's logic (yes, im from texas and quite proud of it) then there is no reason to be owning and driving a sports car. But of course, some people like them. Just like some people like SUVs. Whats wrong with that? Nothing.

 

[Joey D]

Well I drive a suv because I can carry 3 other people and some stuff in the back. It rides nicely and has enough power to get on the freeway pretty good. It goes through the snow we get here and well I just think my suv looks damn sweet.

And it not made for the bush either. Its low and 2wd. THis seems more practical then a Trans Am to me.

 

[ving]

Originally posted by M5Power
I somewhat agree. SUVs belong off-road, since that's where they preform best. But under the same logic, supercars belong on the track.

but are not "designed" for the track. they are designed for sealed roads.
thets why they are road registerable
get it?

(I know suvs are road registerable too, but they are designed with off road in mind)

 

[HRT_Maloo]

Originally posted by pedrodaman


And to top it off they are just downright dangerous as we all know with the rollover accidents that have occured

And you are one of the fools that think its the cars fault, not the drivers

 

[Pupik]

Well, I bought a Honda CR-V because the trunk space and room can't be beat. I don't speed nearly as much in it, either, when I'm sitting as high, for some reason.

That's why I have it. Of course, Kathy pays for it now, and I drive the old Corolla every other day.

 

[pedrodaman]

Originally posted by HRT_Maloo
And you are one of the fools that think its the cars fault, not the drivers

If you do a little research on JEEP and FORD and you know anything about Physics you will know what im talking about

And i am no FOOL...