SUV's are obsolete

[Joey D]

I can honestly say that my Blazer is fairly safe. I was in an accident a few years back and I walked away just being a little sore. Here is the truck...

I was hit by a Delta 88, I was going 30, it was doing 60. I know if I would have been in a smaller vehicle I would have probably been more injured.

 

[Dave A]

The burden of proof doesn't lie with me because I'm not claiming anything other than that you don't have proof. You're making the assumptions here. You're the one claiming you know how people use their vehicles, not me. Here's my side of the argument:

1) Many SUVs can be used in ways that other vehicles can't.
2) You don't have proof that people don't use them in those ways.

The first requires proof tha SUVs have capabilities other vehicles don't have, or, more specifically that SUVs have a combination of abilities that other vehicles don't have - and I think that's easy to prove and I have earlier in this thread.

Danoff, your a smart man and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but an arsehole to debate with . I just spent the last 10 mins desperately searching for a post where you caimed something, but to no avail. I'll give you that.

The second doesn't require any proof on my part except to debunk whatever proof you manage to come up with. All I have to do is poke holes in your claims. If we eventually come to the conclusion that there is no proof either way, I win.

Sure with more time to think about it, the situation doesn't require you to provide proof, however do you win if no proof is provided either way, no, because the truth is still the same whatever that may be, and if that happens to be that most people in Manchester don't take thier SUV's up hills and tow big boats etc, then that's the truth and means that thinking otherwise is wrong, proven or not. I see proof all the time, all the people I've know who've had SUV's are proof, can I tranfer personal expercence and observation into a tangible evidence for someone living in another country, no, I can to my next door neighbor because I can point it out to him and show right there on our streets, I can talk to the owners of SUV's here, but I can't do any of that for you.

By the way, we also have cab companies here that use minivans and full-sized vans. They run the full range, but I think they started using SUVs (probably V6s, maybe even 4 cylinders) because they wanted a little extra room for luggage but still only figured they needed to haul 3-4 people in addition to the driver. Maybe they could have gotten the same cargo capacity from a wagon, I don't know, I didn't make the decisions for those companies about what vehicle to use. You wanted an example of pseudo-mass-transit that used SUVs and I provided one.

Cab companies don't need SUV's, they arn't taking any advantage from an SUV that comes over and above something that's actually cheaper to own and run, they're never doing anything a cheaper Estate can't do, that was my point. My argument never has been that it's wrong to own an SUV, that it's wrong to prefer an SUV or whatever, it's when someone say's "I need an SUV, I've got 2 kid's and a husband", yeah, so, we did fine with a Vauxhall Cavalier. Can I provide unquestionable proof that most SUV owners could do without one, no, but you already knew that. But if you were here, I wouldn't have to prove anything, you'd see it for yourself. Do I hold anything against them for having an SUV, no, it's their choice if they want one they can have one, it's the claims some of them make about needing one that I don't like. If someone say's that they got an SUV because they like it, that's a lot better than "I need one to take the 2 kid's to school".

 

[GT4_Rule]

This argument is becoming a flame war....if I said it right

Let me ask this question to all SUV haters:

Why are SUVs/Trucks still in existance if everybody hated it and denounced it, like half of the people in this thread? Why is it the best-selling vehicle in the US (Ford F-150, Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra) The Toyota Camry is somewhere in 3rd or 4th in terms of gross sales.

SUVs and trucks were invented to do something that others cannot, thats why they survived.

A V8 E500 Wagon is basically a same thing with SUVs; large cargo area, RWD, gas guzzler, 5-or-7 seater, but without the towing capacity or the offroad capability. You dont know when the off-road capability comes in handy. Better to have as much features as you can, really.

 

[McLaren]

I can honestly say that my Blazer is fairly safe. I was in an accident a few years back and I walked away just being a little sore. Here is the truck...

I was hit by a Delta 88, I was going 30, it was doing 60. I know if I would have been in a smaller vehicle I would have probably been more injured.

Pfft, it looks more like it clipped you than hit you.

That proves nothing of safety. If it had really hit you at 60Mph, I'd doubt you'd still have it.

This is a REAL accident.

This Blazer hit a fence at 45Mph. I mean, HIT.

Honestly Blazin, your pics make it look like you bumped into a lightpost.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Pfft, it looks more like it clipped you than hit you.

That proves nothing of safety. If it had really hit you at 60Mph, I'd doubt you'd still have it.

This is a REAL accident.

This Blazer hit a fence at 45Mph. I mean, HIT.

Honestly Blazin, your pics make it look like you bumped into a lightpost.

But, even though that Blazers front is all messed, the occupant space is still saved and its still relatively intact. Do that with a Smart ForTwo and you wish you never bought that car.

 

[McLaren]

But, even though that Blazers front is all messed, the occupant space is still saved and its still relatively intact. Do that with a Smart ForTwo and you wish you never bought that car.

It doesn't matter though with any car.

Driver was reported doing 60Mph and got hit in the front. I see more of the front intact than that SUV. And that hit a fence.

But if you want my honest opinion, it doesn't matter if you're in a SUV or Car. If you hit something head on at 60Mph on the streets, you're most likely going to get hurt.

 

[GT4_Rule]

V12 = more sturdier than V6.

Oh and its a fence. Probably a thin wire fence. That Blazer looks like it took on a wood fence.

Oh and remember, that Explorer (thought it was a Blazer...) is from the early '90s according to the body shape. That SL65 is from '05. Now, how many new safety systems are standard on newer cars compared to '90?

 

[McLaren]

Reported at 40Mph.
Yeah, it looks intact, but does that mean the driver wasn't injured. It really doesn't matter. If you hit something at 60Mph, you're gonna bounce off into something else.

 

[GT4_Rule]

That looks bad...but thats a passenger car! Remember, this is about SUVs and Trucks.

 

[McLaren]

That looks bad...but thats a passenger car! Remember, this is about SUVs and Trucks.

I can find ones just as bad as SUVs and Trucks.

Saab Vs. SUV. Which is more intact?

 

[GT4_Rule]

The Saab is facing away, but the picture is small anyway. My conclusion is that the SUV was hit sideways, since the door on the SUV is off. Now, side impact is a total different thing. SUV or not, I dont think side impact differs a lot. Frontal crash, yes.

 

[Poverty]

Thats SAAB f&%!ed that SUV up

All those SUV pics show actually how unsafe they are. Look right above the cabin were the driver sits. Its bent up. Anymore and it could trap or squash the driver. Not safe at all. Good cars keep their cabin intact.

 

[Dave A]

This argument is becoming a flame war....if I said it right

No it isn't, it's doing quite well keep away from any flaming, if you mean what I said by saying Danoff is a arsehole to argue with, I meant that as a humourous nod to him being difficult to beat.

Let me ask this question to all SUV haters:

I don't think anyone's a downright SUV hater, I disslike them personally, I think they all look ugly and I would never need one, but I don't hate them, Peverty never said he hate's them.

Why are SUVs/Trucks still in existance if everybody hated it and denounced it, like half of the people in this thread?

No one's denounced them either, I mean it when I say that my argument isn't that noone should own an SUV, it's that people say they need them when they don't. If somone buy's one and say's he bought it because he like to drive a big vehicle and thinks it looks good, fine, if someone buy's one and say's they need it to take the kid's to school and they've got 2 kid's I'll ague that they don't need one for that, they're trying to justify them owning an SUV when all they have to do for that is to say they got it because they like it.

Why is it the best-selling vehicle in the US (Ford F-150, Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra) The Toyota Camry is somewhere in 3rd or 4th in terms of gross sales.

Because you like trucks and SUV's, obviousely.

SUVs and trucks were invented to do something that others cannot, thats why they survived.

And what, others failed, because I still see car's, van's, estate's and people carriers on the roads and I stil see people not using their SUV's for anything more than I see people using their 5 door hatchbacks.

A V8 E500 Wagon is basically a same thing with SUVs; large cargo area, RWD, gas guzzler, 5-or-7 seater, but without the towing capacity or the offroad capability. You dont know when the off-road capability comes in handy. Better to have as much features as you can, really.

Not really, I know I'll never have to drive up a muddy hill in a wooded area, so of what benefit to me is having a car that can do that that will over the years cost me a lot more to run, insure and tax over either of the car's I have. If at one point in time I do need something to be towed or a large ammount of items to be moved I'll ask someone to help or I'll hire for the day, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than owning an SUV that I'd never use for anything more than I can do in a Bora, I'm not the only person in this situation, most people with car's I know never would either except on the rare occasion such as a house/flat move, the people I know with SUV's don't either.

But, even though that Blazers front is all messed, the occupant space is still saved and its still relatively intact. Do that with a Smart ForTwo and you wish you never bought that car.

The Smart ForTwo has one of the safest cabins in any car, it was crashed into a concerete block at 70mph and still remained intact, regardess of the cabin not being crushed though a driver wouldn't walk away from that in any car, but I gaurentee you that a Smart's cabin would be the better one to be in in a 60mph head on crash between an SUV and a ForTwo. The Smart isn't representative of all car's though, it's exeptionaly good, but your assumption of them is very wrong. As for the occupant space being unchanged, have you see where the dash is, it's about 2 feet further back into the car, the steering wheel is almost over the drivers seat, that is not safe.

 

[McLaren]

The Saab is facing away, but the picture is small anyway. My conclusion is that the SUV was hit sideways, since the door on the SUV is off. Now, side impact is a total different thing. SUV or not, I dont think side impact differs a lot. Frontal crash, yes.

It hit more in the front, because the front bumper of that SUV is gone.

 

[Famine]

Just a brief point... In a crash you want as much of the front to be "messed-up" as possible. It IS, after all, a crumple zone. What you don't want to be "messed-up" is anything from the base of the A-pillar backwards. The passenger compartment should be as undamaged as possible, because that's where you are - you don't want to be IN a crumple zone.

Take this:

The A-pillar and roof above the driver are buckled. This means that some of the energy in the collision made its way into the passenger compartment. If the door didn't spring open as part of the impact, the driver will never get it open and escape any "seconds". We can't see the steering wheel or pedals, but they're in a zone which saw extensive damage (reference again the A-pillar and roof above the driver buckling) - they will have moved considerably and usually towards the driver, resulting in severe arm and leg injuries (your hands are on the wheel and your foot is on the brake when you're crashing) and possible chest injuries.

You cannot judge the severity of crash from how "messed-up" the front of the car is.

 

[Dave A]

You can see the steering wheel, if you go straight back from the wing mirror, it's popping up from behind the door, I zoomed into the pic and it definitely looks like the steering wheel. In that position the wheel is on your lap or pressing right into you depending on where your seat is positioned.

 

[Joey D]

I was hit by a Delta 88 with my truck, after I was hit on the driver side by a big Ford Van. I was spun into on coming traffic and hit. My truck recieved something like 7,000 dollars in damage. It was a fairly hard impact I must say.

And that Blazer is a first gen, 80's crash technology is stupid to compare to modern day.

 

[McLaren]

Well, maybe you should post more pics than that b/c from just those 2 pics, it looks like you ran into a lightpost.

 

[Poverty]

I thought that damage happened from his street racing

 

[El Gigante]

I thought that damage happened from his street racing

 

[Joey D]

Those are the only photos I have and it took place a few years back after I got the truck. There was a big hassle with it. I'm sure I have some poloriods, but I think they were handed over to the insurence company. But I'm not stupid enough to hit a light post with no reason.

And Poverty get it through your head...I OWN A BLAZER! Blazer = slow (for the most part).

0-60 in about 8 seconds, 1/4 in about 16, and top speed around 100mph. Does that sound like I could beat anything more then a stock compact or other trucks? No not at all. I'll play around on the free way, but since I never break 100 I can't do much and it's pointless to try...I don't want to be overly hard on my truck.

I do autocross a little with it, but then again the thing has better suspension then a lot of cars on it.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Not really, I know I'll never have to drive up a muddy hill in a wooded area, so of what benefit to me is having a car that can do that that will over the years cost me a lot more to run, insure and tax over either of the car's I have. If at one point in time I do need something to be towed or a large ammount of items to be moved I'll ask someone to help or I'll hire for the day, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than owning an SUV that I'd never use for anything more than I can do in a Bora, I'm not the only person in this situation, most people with car's I know never would either except on the rare occasion such as a house/flat move, the people I know with SUV's don't either.

A Chevy Tahoe is cheaper to buy than a E500 Estate and is the same or cheaper to run and insure than a E500. Its a widely known fact that M-B parts + service = expensive. Try to insure a M-B for less than a Chevy too, and you wont find much luck either.

The Smart ForTwo has one of the safest cabins in any car, it was crashed into a concerete block at 70mph and still remained intact, regardess of the cabin not being crushed though a driver wouldn't walk away from that in any car, but I gaurentee you that a Smart's cabin would be the better one to be in in a 60mph head on crash between an SUV and a ForTwo. The Smart isn't representative of all car's though, it's exeptionaly good, but your assumption of them is very wrong. As for the occupant space being unchanged, have you see where the dash is, it's about 2 feet further back into the car, the steering wheel is almost over the drivers seat, that is not safe.

I hope you are kidding - Smart Fortwo's cabin remained intact after being smashed into concrete wall at 70mph? That sounds like some mishap in testing...I never knew that the smallest cars on road were the safest!

 

[Dave A]

A Chevy Tahoe is cheaper to buy than a E500 Estate and is the same or cheaper to run and insure than a E500. Its a widely known fact that M-B parts + service = expensive. Try to insure a M-B for less than a Chevy too, and you wont find much luck either.

I never mentioned th E500, I said it's cheaper to own a car, pointing out my Bora, and when I need one, hire a van or whavever for a day. Beside's that, why point out the blatanlty expensive E500, theres tonnes of cheaper esates than that. A lot of Audi and BMW Estates are cheaper to buy, run, tax and generally insure than a Tahoe over here.

I hope you are kidding - Smart Fortwo's cabin remained intact after being smashed into concrete wall at 70mph? That sounds like some mishap in testing...I never knew that the smallest cars on road were the safest!

No, I'm quite serious, the Smart ForTwo has an absolutely superb design for taking impacts, basically you'll be crashing at speed's where you'll die of a brain hemorage before the cabin crumples. I hate Smarts, I think they look like invalid carriers, but I give credit to them for thier crash safety.

 

[GT4_Rule]

I was mentioning the E because someone said that is a much better alternative to a SUV; cant remember who though...

I did some background research. The results:

BMW 330i Touring MSRP: $44,00 CDN
Chevrolet TrailBlazer MSRP: $32,845 CDN

Fully optioned 330i Touring 4WD: $61,820 CDN
Specs: go here to see the model I built.

Fully optioned TrailBlazer EXT 4WD: $58,435
Specs: go here to see the model I built.

The TrailBlazer EXT is a extended wheelbase model, as a reminder, and if I chose the standard wheelbase model the price would be reduced by almsot $8000. TrailBlazer isnt a car-based truck btw. Look how many options I added that arent even available on BMW or is utterly expensive, and the TrailBlazer still managed to be cheaper than 330i Touring. Amazing! Oh and the 330i is the cheap estates from a premium brand, too.

Edit: The links all reset to the welcome page! =( Oh well you can trust me those figures are true.

 

[Joey D]

The only problem with the EXT is that the thrid row sucks. But then again as I believe danoff said thrid rows are going to suck on everything short of a Excursion.

But its nice to see other statistic that aren't from the US because that shows that they are more practical in other countries as well.

 

[Firebird]

No, I'm quite serious, the Smart ForTwo has an absolutely superb design for taking impacts, basically you'll be crashing at speed's where you'll die of a brain hemorage before the cabin crumples. I hate Smarts, I think they look like invalid carriers, but I give credit to them for thier crash safety.

Not that I think the ForTwo is unsafe, but a crash into a concrete wall is not indicative of what would happen in a ForTwo vs. SUV crash. Your assertion that "a Smart's cabin would be the better one to be in in a 60mph head on crash between an SUV and a ForTwo" is misguided.

Let's simplify the physics down to the very basics. This isn't really accurate, but for the purposes of my point it'll do. Assume a concrete wall to be perfectly rigid, that is to say it will not dissipate any of the energy the Smart possesses when it impacts the wall, and thus the Smart will have to absorb all of the energy itself.

Let's say for simplicity's sake the crash occurs at 108 km/h (67.5 mph or 30 m/s), and the ForTwo has a mass of 800 kg.

The ForTwo's kinetic energy: the energy it possesses as a result of its motion, is

KE = (1/2)*m*v^2 ,

where m = mass and v = velocity

So, KE = (1/2)*(800 kg)*(30 m/s)^2 = 360 kJ

So the ForTwo can successfully absorb 360 kJ.



Let's assume it's in a head-on collision with a 2500 kg SUV going the same 67.5 mph.

The SUV has KE=(1/2)*(2500)*(30)^2 = 1125 kJ.

The SUV is assumed to have a ladder frame which does not absorb crashes well. Let's assume the Smart must absorb 75% of the kinetic energy in the crash.

0.75*(360+1125)= 1114 kJ.

That's over three times the amount of energy it had to absorb when it hit the concrete wall. That's probably enough to destroy a ForTwo frame.


If you hit a concrete wall you'd want to be in a ForTwo over your average SUV, but you'd probably die if an SUV hit you head-on at 70 mph.

 

[Joey D]

Hence why crash test ratings are pointless, very few accidents envolve head on it a solid object. But the bigger the vehicle you are in the better chance you have of living in a car on car accident. I'm certian of this because you have more metal around you.

Take and Excursion (one of the biggest vehicles on the road) and have a Focus hit it anywhere...tranfer of momentum says the lighter car gets owned.

Sure there are cross members and airbags that off set this, but with out safety anything the bigger the better typically. But I won't disagree that the bigger the vehicle the higher the chance of a roll over.

 

[Tornado]

Take and Excursion (one of the biggest vehicles on the road) and have a Focus hit it anywhere...tranfer of momentum says the lighter car gets owned.

Well, that's relative. Let's say, for example, the Excursion has the "Isuzu Rodeo Effect," as shown by that first gen Blazer. If they head-oned at 60 MPH each, the Excursion driver would be dead. The Focus driver would not. Otherwise, spot-on. There are only a few cars I can think of that would out-do an SUV in crash protection.

 

[Joey D]

There are always acceptions to the rule.

But I give you momentum, courtsey of Hawaiian motorist who suck at driving

 

[Tornado]

What does that prove? An SUV hit a compact sedan in the weakest structural spot on the car. I'm sure if the Neon hit the Tahoe in the same spot it would do similar damage.