SUV's are obsolete

[Joey D]

Holy cow, a HUGE argument erupted while I was gone, eh??

I'll make my point.

Went to auto show yesterday in Vancouver. There were several Hummer H2s. It seated 5 of my friends inside, with absolutely no discomfort; it still had huge amounts of leg room, knee room, and headroom left. And my friends are around 5'8" - 6'1". I am 6'0". My point: Hummers are spacious, they are meant for it, and people who buys those kind of cars dont care much about gas mileage. Especially when the one I got into was priced at near $70,000.

About the Hummer H1 vs. Wrangler debate: Yes, Wrangler can do things that Hummer H1 can do for fraction of price, but not everyone is sensitive to price. Some people want style. H1 looks just like a Army Humvee, and thats why they get them. Tough looks. Wrangler doesnt have the tough looks, or the gunslit window, or seats 5 with spaces to spare.

Very well said indeed 👍

 

[GT4_Rule]

Thanks BX

To add -

The new Escalade was there also. As well as the 2007 Avalanche. No discomfort either in it. Great looking too.

As soon as my friends went over to a Nissan Murano, we had to squeeze in. Especially the back. That thing isnt even a real SUV, to be true. We were touching elbows and shoulders, and mind you, none of my friends are obese or weigh more than 180lbs. The same was with the new S-Class. Yeah, it was quiet, yeah, it has the silver arrow, yeah it has all the electronic gizmo, but guess what, buying one of that will cost probably $30,000+ than the H2. How much gas do you think you can buy with $30,000? A lot. Just as a reminder, those 5.4L M-B V8, 6.0L V12, 5.0L BMW V8 and other V8s from makers like Lexus, Infiniti and those kinds guzzle as much gas as 5.3L Vhevy V8. Dont even start to think Infiniti QX56, Nissan Titan, Nissan Xterra, Nissan Pathfinder, Lexus GX/LX 460, Toyota 4Runner and Toyota FJ Cuiser.

 

[Poverty]

Yeah but those 5.4L MB, 6.0L V12s etc will also make nearly twice the power

 

[GT4_Rule]

But they still guzzle gas as much as Chevy V8s.

 

[Poverty]

But they still guzzle gas as much as Chevy V8s.

whlst making twice the power so you only have to downsize the M-B, bmw etc engine.

 

[Gil]

Holy cow, a HUGE argument erupted while I was gone, eh??

I'll make my point.

Went to auto show yesterday in Vancouver. There were several Hummer H2s. It seated 5 of my friends inside, with absolutely no discomfort; it still had huge amounts of leg room, knee room, and headroom left. And my friends are around 5'8" - 6'1". I am 6'0". My point: Hummers are spacious, they are meant for it, and people who buys those kind of cars dont care much about gas mileage. Especially when the one I got into was priced at near $70,000.

About the Hummer H1 vs. Wrangler debate: Yes, Wrangler can do things that Hummer H1 can do for fraction of price, but not everyone is sensitive to price. Some people want style. H1 looks just like a Army Humvee, and thats why they get them. Tough looks. Wrangler doesnt have the tough looks, or the gunslit window, or seats 5 with spaces to spare.

Interestingly, both the Jeep Wrangler, and the H1 are based on vehicles designed for military use.
The H1 is basically the evolution of the the original Jeep.

Remembering that military vehicles are designed for simplicity, both the originals fit that to a tee.
Designed to be worked on by E-1 Mechanics, often with little skill and even fewer tools.
Durable almost to a fault.
And uglier than homemade sin.

The H2 is simply what happens when the "original" gets moved to the suburbs. There is an unholy number of the damned things here in KS.
They tend to be piloted by soccer moms. AS a rule the tinier the woman, the bigger the SUV she'll be driving.

 

[Joey D]

SL65 AMG with the 6.0L V8 gets 13 in the city, and that with an aerodynamic car. But my favorite is the G55 AMG that gets 12mpg in the city, that's Hummer mileage. But I don't care if they make more power, if they are so great they should be getting better mileage. A Z06 has 500hp and doesn't get that bad of mileage.

 

[GT4_Rule]

The last sentence is true

Ive seen this midget Chinese women driving a pimped-out H2. Talk about opposites.

 

[Dave A]

And all you've shown me is an Audi driving down a dry hard packed road.

Seriously Blazin, without knowing what the Allroad can or can't actually do yourself, don't be calling other people for saying what it can do. The Allroad can get around serious terrain, do you think theres no where in England that's anything like thoes pics with the Escalade in? An Allroad wouldn't struggle to do that, and what's more an Allroad pails in significance off road when compared to many Land Rovers who make the best off roaders. If you want to go off road in style, and with the best machinery, get a Land Rover which in the US, brand new, can be had for less than a brand new Escalade by as much as $10k. Simple as. Which backs my point about SUV's not being nessecary, why is the cut off for what's needed and what's not neatly above what an Allroad can do (though it can do everything the Escalade can) but below what a Land Rover can do?

 

[Joey D]

Looking at the numbers the Allroad can't do the same thing as a true SUV, I'm sorry it's still a car and it's meant to be a car. And really if anyone other then Poverty brought it up I would have been able to hear them out, but I'm pretty sure he only says things to get people like me worked up.

There probably is places like that in England, but without ever seeing Michigan back country, you don't know what it's like. England looks like it has quite a bit of peat marshes but you can't very well drive through things like that. I've never been there so I can only go on speculations which is what everyone here is pretty much doing.

Land Rovers are much more expensive, the Range Rover starts at 75 thousand and the Escalde starts at 57 thousand. And you aren't going to take either one off road, sure they can go off road (which I showed) but I never said you would.

06 LR3 Land Rover starts around 39, 06 Tahoe starts around 40. So they are close as well...and there is no way a LR3 is compared to an Escalade...hence why I compared it to the Tahoe, and to be fair the 06 Tahoe as well.

And I'm still saying the Audi couldn't pull as much, as efficently as an SUV. Go out an hook up an average 22 foot boat, put 5 people in the car, load it with all there gear, load the boat with it's gear and gas, and drive down in the Audi and tell me how well the car likes it. I bet it hates it every step of the way because you are right at the capacity. Now do the same to the Tahoe, it won't easy but it'll pull it a whole lot nicer since you have 2 more thousand pounds before you hit the max.


** And even though I hate them with a passion I can't leave out the Jeep Grand Cherokee...which is more then capiable of doing whatever needs to be done.

 

[Joey D]

Before someone jumps on me here is a true SUV:

Here is a not so true SUV:

 

[Dave A]

Looking at the numbers the Allroad can't do the same thing as a true SUV, I'm sorry it's still a car and it's meant to be a car.

It has a bit less space etc, but my point was along the lines of what kind of terrain it can go over, and it's impressive.

There probably is places like that in England, but without ever seeing Michigan back country, you don't know what it's like. England looks like it has quite a bit of peat marshes but you can't very well drive through things like that. I've never been there so I can only go on speculations which is what everyone here is pretty much doing.

Absolutely true, 100%.

Land Rovers are much more expensive, the Range Rover starts at 75 thousand and the Escalde starts at 57 thousand. And you aren't going to take either one off road, sure they can go off road (which I showed) but I never said you would.

The Range Rover's do, but Land Rover's in general don't. You can pick up a Discovery for $10k less than an Escalade, they seat 7, can tow 5500lb's in the High range settings and more in the low range. They are the type of car you would take off road if you wanted to, it was designed for it. A Range Rover is more classy, I've seen plenty off road over here though.

And I'm still saying the Audi couldn't pull as much, as efficently as an SUV. Go out an hook up an average 22 foot boat, put 5 people in the car, load it with all there gear, load the boat with it's gear and gas, and drive down in the Audi and tell me how well the car likes it.

Mayb not, I don't know.

I bet it hates it every step of the way because you are right at the capacity. Now do the same to the Tahoe, it won't easy but it'll pull it a whole lot nicer since you have 2 more thousand pounds before you hit the max.

Likely true, but if were talking about general SUV owners, you have to count people besides thoes in Michigan who all appear to have a 22 foot boat. The vast majority of people don't.

 

[Joey D]

It has a bit less space etc, but my point was along the lines of what kind of terrain it can go over, and it's impressive.

For a car yes, but it still does not compare to a truck or SUV.

The Range Rover's do, but Land Rover's in general don't. You can pick up a Discovery for $10k less than an Escalade, they seat 7, don't know exact figutres on what they can tow but I've seen them tow a lot and it'd probably be more than an Escalade, they are the type of car you would take off road if you wanted to, it was designed for it. A Range Rover is more classy, I've seen plenty off road over here though.

They don't sell Discovery's in America accroding to the Land Rover website

http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Vehicles/home.htm

**Oh wait they are older, they sold em in 2004 and they started at around 40 grand. They could pull 7,700 lbs. which is slightly less then the Escalade but still amazing. Although they got 12 mpg! Good God! The G-Wagon gets better mileage.

***And Sweet Lord they were small, 100 inch wheel base? It's the size of a Blazer! There is no way you can compare this to an Escalade...try a Trailblazer or Cherokee (which is proabably goes up against).

Likely true, but if were talking about general SUV owners, you have to count people besides thoes in Michigan who all appear to have a 22 foot boat. The vast majority of people don't.

A lot of people own trailers though, whether its just a simple like trailer that can haul things or a big whomping one. And if you don't have a trailer then you know somebody with one.

 

[GT4_Rule]

I agree with BX.

Here's a not-so-real SUV that looks ugly too

 

[Joey D]

Now I actually like the FX45, it's one of the fast SUV's ever made up there with the Cayanne and the Typhoon...although I'd take the Typhoon over it in a heart beat.

And the Typhoon was a pointless SUV, although it was fast as hell.

 

[McLaren]

That looks like a photoshop, and I've seen the bigger models of those FXs with their V8(?)'s towing loaded trailers full of furniture, trees, and what not.

 

[Joey D]

That looks like a photoshop, and I've seen the bigger models of those FXs with their V8(?)'s towing loaded trailers full of furniture, trees, and what not.

Except it only has a tow rating of 3,500lbs. which is fairly week for something with that much power. My guess is that it's on car suspension...I don't know though. I just know they are fast as hell.

 

[Tornado]

Before someone jumps on me here is a true SUV:

Exactly. All I was trying to say was that a good extended cab truck can do anything that can do...

Here is a not so true SUV:

...and a good wagon or hatch can do anything that would need to do. Usually for less then and better than in both cases

They don't sell Discovery's in America accroding to the Land Rover website

It's called the LR3 in America for some reason.

Here's a not-so-real SUV that looks ugly too

Truth be told (and while I do agree that SUV's of that ilk; along with the BMW X3 and X5 and Mercedes ML class, are very pointless) that is basically a Infiniti M45 wagon, as is the Murano a 350Z wagon.

But my favorite is the G55 AMG that gets 12mpg in the city, that's Hummer mileage.

The G55 is basically a German Hummer, so I'd say that's fairly acceptable.

 

[GT4_Rule]

I think thats the concept

But still, that thing makes me

 

[Gil]

The thing is that most SUV sold in the US (Michigan notwithstanding) will never ever turn a wheel in mud, and probably less than half will ever turn a wheel in snow. That's why the damn things are available in 2WD versions.

I have to admit that when I agreed to the Excursion, I thought the 4WD was superfluous. Then I got stuck early this winter, 40 miles from home with my underpowered 2WD Ranger, and my wife came and "rescued" me in the Excursion in 4WD-hi. Then I drove it that way until the snow melted. And have used the 4WD several times since then.
In point of fact every time I think the weather is going to provide snow, I take the Excursion. My wife is less chicken, and will brave the snow in the Camry or the Civic.

And those "SUV's" from Mercedes, and BMW, and Porsche aren't pointless. Doctors and Lawyers still "need" to be able to look "richer" than the rest of us when the weather sucks.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Its sold in 2WD to save fuel when not necessary - not because most SUVs wont go off-roading. Who needs 4WD when its dry? But when its snowing, you can simply switch it on, and plow your way through.

 

[Joey D]

Exactly. All I was trying to say was that a good extended cab truck can do anything that can do...

Except seat more people and keep your gear out of the rain...unless you buy a cap, which most people do not.

...and a good wagon or hatch can do anything that would need to do. Usually for less then and better than in both cases

Never said it couldn't, I've been argueing for truck based SUV's not car based ones.

It's called the LR3 in America for some reason.

Which is more on par with the Trailblazer after looking at its size.

The G55 is basically a German Hummer, so I'd say that's fairly acceptable.

I'm just pointing out the fact to Poverty that think German cars are better then God that they can be just as inefficent.

 

[Dave A]

For a car yes, but it still does not compare to a truck or SUV.

No, the Allroad can, it can't do everything a Tahoe can do overall, but it can cross the same terrain.

They don't sell Discovery's in America accroding to the Land Rover website

According to Land Rover they do, 2006 models are on sale, lhd as well.

**Oh wait they are older, they sold em in 2004 and they started at around 40 grand. They could pull 7,700 lbs. which is slightly less then the Escalade but still amazing. Although they got 12 mpg! Good God! The G-Wagon gets better mileage.

Compinded MPG is 18.8mpg.

***And Sweet Lord they were small, 100 inch wheel base? It's the size of a Blazer! There is no way you can compare this to an Escalade...try a Trailblazer or Cherokee (which is proabably goes up against).

The wheelbase is more than that as well, it's 114, so it's 2 inches shorter than the Escalade, but it's better packaged inside and I can vouch for that from experience of sitting front and back in both cars.

A lot of people own trailers though, whether its just a simple like trailer that can haul things or a big whomping one. And if you don't have a trailer then you know somebody with one.

I do know some people with trailers, but compared to the number of people I know without one, it's minimal.

 

[Joey D]

According to Land Rover they do, 2006 models are on sale, lhd as well.

I was informed they call them the LR3 now for some strange reason.

The wheelbase is more than that as well, it's 114, so it's 2 inches shorter than the Escalade, but it's better packaged inside and I can vouch for that from experience of sitting front and back in both cars.

I was looking at the 2004 since that was the only one I could find that was labeled Discovery. I'll need to look at the LR3 to see about the 2006 year.

 

[Tornado]

Except seat more people and keep your gear out of the rain...unless you buy a cap, which most people do not.

Then you can buy a good conversion van: Dodge Sprinter, GMC Savanna, Ford E-150, etc.

Never said it couldn't, I've been argueing for truck based SUV's not car based ones.

Oh.

Which is more on par with the Trailblazer after looking at its size.

True. Can't the EXT have three rows as well?

 

[Gil]

I have a reciever, but don't even own a ball. And the last time I tried to tow something, the U-Haul trailer seemed to be in such bad repair, I decided to "drive" the second car back to Kansas from Colorado.

 

[Joey D]

Then you can buy a good conversion van: Dodge Sprinter, GMC Savanna, Ford E-150, etc.

Conversion vans now a day are pointless, they are the size of an SUV...unless you get a 15 passenger G-Van, but don't have the ground clearence (well a lot don't) and typically don't have 4WD although some do. But really I couldn't tell you why more people don't buy em, I mean they have room and can tow with no problems.

True. Can't the EXT have three rows as well?

The thrid row of a Trailblazer EXT is a joke, unless you are a small child it pretty much is useless. But I guess if you don't have the extra money to get a Suburban you can get that...but I wouldn't.

 

[Dave A]

I was informed they call them the LR3 now for some strange reason.

So they do, quite why beats me. What a waste of a board meetings.
"Everyone, let's re-name the Discovery, the LX3."
"Why?"
"Becuse we can."
"Oh, err, ok."

I was looking at the 2004 since that was the only one I could find that was labeled Discovery. I'll need to look at the LR3 to see about the 2006 year.

I've checked a few sites and they all seem consistent with their specs.

 

[Joey D]

I used www.cars.com which seems to always have the most information on it.

Here is what I was looking at:
http://research.cars.com/go/crp/res...myid=5452&section=features&mode=&aff=national

 

[GT4_Rule]

They call it a LR3 because they wanted to distance themselves from the ill-fated Discovery (the build quality, etc) so they assigned a new name.

3rd row seats on many SUVs except for those ultra-full-sized like Excursions are a joke. Not just TrailBlazer.