SUV's are obsolete

[Joey D]

Quote from BlazinXtreme:

"I live near Detroit, the GM capital of the world, and I've seriously have seen maybe 10 H1's in the past 3 years. They are a niche vehicle that people buy when they have a ton of money. But you are wrong, Hummer H1's are awesome off road. They are hard to get stuck and can drive over almost anything. They aren't fast, but who needs speed? I think you should try to find some videos of the H1, they work extremely well off the pavement."

I once saw a Lada Niva beating a Hummer off road... (and the Lada costs 10 times less than a Hummer)

Lots of factors including the driver could have changed that.

 

[skip0110]

Also I remember that paris hilton and that richie girl were parked somewhere in their dodge ram and it got stuck in the mud. Why? because the suv didnt even have AWD.

Or perhaps because the driver was an idiot? I can get anything stuck anywhere, just give me enough time

 

[Jim Prower]

You know, I wish the SUV drivers around here would get less defensive.

It doesn't matter if you use your SUV off road. the Majority of people don't , and they don't tow, either. The existance of vehicles like the Chrysler Pacifica, Lexus RX330, (Which I absolutely despise) and Kia Sorento prove this theory. And, what's more, these vehicles are not that fuel efficient, even the Lexus RX400h, which is more about 0-60 times than saving the environment.

If you have an off road SUV, and you use it to slog through cow paths on your way to the quarry where you work every day, you need an SUV. But the Car-based ones...perfectly pointless.

 

[Danoff]

You know, I wish the SUV drivers around here would get less defensive.

I'm not an SUV driver, but I'm defensive for SUVs because I see the point.

It doesn't matter if you use your SUV off road. the Majority of people don't , and they don't tow, either. The existance of vehicles like the Chrysler Pacifica,

The pacifica is more of a minivan than an SUV, and it makes a lot of sense.

Lexus RX330, (Which I absolutely despise) and Kia Sorento prove this theory.

Agreed. Some SUVs, especially Lexus and BMW, don't make much sense.

If you have an off road SUV, and you use it to slog through cow paths on your way to the quarry where you work every day, you need an SUV.

...but nobody will realize it. They'll just assume you're another idiot who bought an SUV because they bought the hype.

 

[Tornado]

Little tires and high center of gravity. Physics wins on this one.

Aha, but physics can be countered by more traction control than a Lexus could dream about, which the Sprinter has. And you can't tell me you haven't heard of a SUV rolling anyways, so that's a crap argument as it is.

I live near Detroit, the GM capital of the world, and I've seriously have seen maybe 10 H1's in the past 3 years. They are a niche vehicle that people buy when they have a ton of money. But you are wrong, Hummer H1's are awesome off road. They are hard to get stuck and can drive over almost anything. They aren't fast, but who needs speed? I think you should try to find some videos of the H1, they work extremely well off the pavement.

I fail to see your point. I said it was a pointless, cramped impractical hog (I would even go so far to say that a Lotus Esprit is more practical than a Hummer H1, because at least you can fit in those). I never said it wasn't good off-road. Chances are you see more Jeep Wranglers in the area than Hummers, correct? Guess what, they cost 1/10th the price of a Hummer, are infinitely more practical (you can drive them on city streets!), actually have gas mileage, have more space in them (which is weird, considering how small they are), and, heres the kicker, can go anywhere a Hummer can go! And if it can't, then you spend $3,000 on it and make it so it can. The same goes for Toyota Land Cruisers, Mitsubishi Moteiros and the like. For the same price as a Hummer, you could also get a Mercedes G55 AMG. It was faster, nicer, more economical, just as good off-road, easier to drive and more practical than the Hummer ever was.

Let me say this again...NO ON BUYS STATION WAGONS IN THE US! It's a known fact that people do not buy them in the states.

That's why Ford sells the Fusion, Dodge sells the Magnum and Chevy sells the Malibu Maxx (sic). The simple fact that "no one buys them" doesn't mean that they shouldn't, as I can guarantee you less people use their SUV's as cars than they do as SUV's. If they did, most wouldn't have bought an SUV in the first place and would have bought a full-size truck instead.

Supercars are pretty much the least practical car that can be owned.

Not the way many SUV's are driven, I'm sure. I bet more people take supercars to track days than SUV drivers take their cars off-road (cross-over or otherwise).

 

[Danoff]

I bet more people take supercars to track days than SUV drivers take their cars off-road (cross-over or otherwise).

That's absurd.

 

[Joey D]

Aha, but physics can be countered by more traction control than a Lexus could dream about, which the Sprinter has. And you can't tell me you haven't heard of a SUV rolling anyways, so that's a crap argument as it is.

Traction can only help so much. And SUV's are getting much safer in terms of roll overs.

I fail to see your point. I said it was a pointless, cramped impractical hog (I would even go so far to say that a Lotus Esprit is more practical than a Hummer H1, because at least you can fit in those). I never said it wasn't good off-road. Chances are you see more Jeep Wranglers in the area than Hummers, correct? Guess what, they cost 1/10th the price of a Hummer, are infinitely more practical (you can drive them on city streets!), actually have gas mileage, have more space in them (which is weird, considering how small they are), and, heres the kicker, can go anywhere a Hummer can go! And if it can't, then you spend $3,000 on it and make it so it can. The same goes for Toyota Land Cruisers, Mitsubishi Moteiros and the like. For the same price as a Hummer, you could also get a Mercedes G55 AMG. It was faster, nicer, more economical, just as good off-road, easier to drive and more practical than the Hummer ever was.

I live in Detroit where everybody that is anybody for GM lives. So you'd think they would buy them, but they don't. The Hummer is a niche vehicle that's made for things other then the road. Hummer's are far more capialbe the Jeeps.

That's why Ford sells the Fusion, Dodge sells the Magnum and Chevy sells the Malibu Maxx (sic). The simple fact that "no one buys them" doesn't mean that they shouldn't, as I can guarantee you less people use their SUV's as cars than they do as SUV's. If they did, most wouldn't have bought an SUV in the first place and would have bought a full-size truck instead.

The Fusion is a sedan, the Maxx is a hatch back. The only station wagon there is the Magnum, which doesn't sell to well. Hatch's sell decently...the Golf, Focus, Matrix...they all sell decently well. And youre full size truck arguement is void...have you ever sat in the middle of the bench seat? Or better yet in the extended cab of a truck? Probably not, because it's almost impossible for anyone over 5'5" to ride back there. SUV's offer more room.

Once again a Mangum can't pull a boat, the engine can, the suspension can't and neither can the trasnmisson.

People shouldn't buy station wagons...they SHOULD buy what they like.

Not the way many SUV's are driven, I'm sure. I bet more people take supercars to track days than SUV drivers take their cars off-road (cross-over or otherwise).

I can think of 5 or 6 supercars in my area (Oakland County which is one of the richest counties) and I bet none of them take it to the track. I see more Miatas at the track then anything. SUV owners around here at least drive through the snow, mud, etc.


And I want to know one more then, what does this make me? I have a 2wd SUV that's no bigger then a four door Golf. It's also lower then one. Explain to me how my SUV is pointless.

 

[Swift]

That's absurd.

Exaclty, most supercar drivers would never risk messing up their supercar

They buy something excellent but not as expensive. Like a corvette.

 

[Kylehnat]

Exaclty, most supercar drivers would never risk messing up their supercar

They buy something excellent but not as expensive. Like a corvette.

Haha, yeah! Risk the Corvette; it's only $65,000!

 

[Poverty]

live in Detroit where everybody that is anybody for GM lives. So you'd think they would buy them, but they don't.

I live in England. MG Rover is now out of business.

 

[Swift]

Haha, yeah! Risk the Corvette; it's only $65,000!

Compared to the 150K+Ferrari, 125K+ Porshce and the 200K+ Lamborgini. Yeah, it is much less of a risk. Everything is relative. To you and me, the Corvette is elite, to some, it's taking it down a notch.

 

[Gil]

I was gonna mention an espace too. Let me go find out how much that can haul. My friend has one and he calls it his spaceship. There are 7 people in theyre family and 4 of them are teenage boys. They also have a fiesta for when 5 or less of them are travelling somewhere. They dont seem to think theyre cramped otherwise theyd jump into the espace which has more space than a tahoe and alot more economical.

A espace can tow 4000lbs. More than enough for a 22 foot boat.

Yes, that is true. But you also have to figure in the incline of the launch ramp, and the fact that it's gonna be wet and slippery.
So you want to at least double weight of your boat and trailer, and that will be adequate towing capacity. Not so much for putting the boat into the water. But you'll use it come time to get the thing out of the water.

You may also want to be able to drive all four wheels if the launch/retrieve ramp is wet.

 

[Wolfe]

If you had the cash, you probably would too. Don't pretend that you're driving your car to save the environment, you're driving it because you can't afford a Ferrari.

When did I say I was driving my car to save the environment?

Read carefully:
Supercars are inefficient. SUVs are inefficient.
Supercars are expensive. SUVs are not expensive.
If someone wants a supercar, they're most likely S.O.L. If someone wants an SUV, they go out and buy one.

My point? People who want supercars probably drive something more efficient. People who want SUVs probably drive SUVs. End of point. That's all.

Supercars are pretty much the least practical car that can be owned.

Driving fast is purely entertainment, yes. With an uber-SUV/truck, driving up the side of a mountain, or theoretically being able to tow it, are also largely entertainment.

How do you know? Did you ask them?

Everyone I know who has one, yes.

I owned an SUV and used the ground clearance on a daily (yes literally daily) basis. But I guarantee when I drove down the road I was just another example of someone who didn't need ground clearance to the casual observer who didn't know me.

Okay then, I'll bite -- how did you need the ground clearance every day? I have a feeling it isn't because you drove from your house in the suburbs to go to work in the city, or to pick up groceries...which is the most that many families use their SUV for.

Also, there's no need to take it personally. I never said "danoff doesn't need an SUV because..." Because I live in a city, I have every right to assume that many of the SUV drivers I see don't use their ground clearance on a regular basis, and I assure you that even more of them don't use it every day.

Some people will never buy second-hand. There are plenty of reasons not to. More on why wagons aren't good enough below.

Again (and you agreed to this), you can't argue against something just because people don't do already do it.

Johnny Collegestudent is probably increadibly over-confident because he's young.

He doesn't have to be over-confident at all. Regardless, I'm sure he'd be even more confident in an SUV, anyway.

When the first day of snow brings almost everyone in your city to a near-standstill out of fear, yet every other SUV you see is going 10mph over the limit, and bearing down on your rear bumper as you approach a red light, it's pretty logical to assume that size, weight, height and 4WD give people confidence.

I don't. I think it's hypocritical to lust after a supercar and criticize people for actually owning cars that get better gas mileage.

It isn't hypocritical if the critic values speed over utility.

Also, again, the sheer prevalence of SUVs on the road compared to supercars somewhat distorts your comparison.

Sure that's the reality. But I think it's fine to complain about reality. In the end they have to cope, but they don't have to be happy about it.

I never said they had to be happy. I'm just saying that, as you say, they have to cope with reality.

Now you're on to something. I agree, most SUV owners probably don't even HAVE three rows of seats (it isn't standard equipment in many of them, and many styles don't have that as an option). And I think it's almost useless to purchase an SUV that doesn't have them.

I think it's useless to purchase an SUV or wagon that does have them. Even if they can be folded away, it's just complicating things if you need the cargo space back there, and I doubt that very many SUV/wagon-purchasing families have that many people to carry.

Again, how do you know? Did you ask them? Did you do a survey? Or are you making assumptions about the people you see on the road?

Damn straight I'm making assumptions, not about the people I see on the road, but based on what I see on the road -- SUVs/trucks that don't have anything in the cargo area. SUVs/trucks that aren't towing anything. SUVs/trucks that aren't climbing anything. SUVs/trucks that have one or no passengers.

As much as you seem to think I do, I don't look at someone in an SUV and think, "God, what a ****." I've simply made a long-running observation that most SUVs aren't used for anything other than driving around.

People don't buy vehicles for one purpose and one purpose alone (except supercars). Most people like a versatile vehicle that can do lots of things, which is why they aren't designed to do the bare minimum and typically aren't designed for one specific purpose and nothing else.

SUVs and trucks that can drive from 0-60mph in less than 8 seconds aren't versatile. They're an illustration of the "speed inflation" that is taking place in this country. Twenty years ago, 0-60mph in 10 seconds was "adequate." Today, in Europe, 0-60mph in 10 seconds is "adequate." Today, in the U.S., 0-60mph in 8 seconds is "terribly slow."

 

[Poverty]

The only think id risk is a Evo FQ340

 

[niky]

That's absurd.

(regarding the idea that more supercar owners take their cars to track days than SUV owners who take their cars off road).

Actually, I'm on the anti-SUV side, and I agree with this... which is why I clap my hands every time I see an SUV covered in mud and dings, and every time I see a "sportscar" (be it an Evo, Porsche, Ferrari, or whatnot...) driven in anger...

I don't clap my hands very much... ...but i don't get out very far into the boondocks where all SUVs are mudsplattered.

As much as you seem to think I do, I don't look at someone in an SUV and think, "God, what a ****." I've simply made a long-running observation that most SUVs aren't used for anything other than driving around.

Sadly, even here, where road conditions and rural driving would seem to make SUVs more practical, I notice many of these shiny new SUVs doing commuting duty to and from the office, too. My car sports more mud splatters, rock dings and trail dust than most SUVs I see in the city.

Yes, I'd like one... but only because I'd actually use it for the purpose God intended...

I must be getting too politically correct in my old age... I'm really considering getting a Honda Fit as a personal commuter car, and reserving my sedan for when I need to haul my family around.

SUVs and trucks that can drive from 0-60mph in less than 8 seconds aren't versatile. They're an illustration of the "speed inflation" that is taking place in this country. Twenty years ago, 0-60mph in 10 seconds was "adequate." Today, in Europe, 0-60mph in 10 seconds is "adequate." Today, in the U.S., 0-60mph in 8 seconds is "terribly slow."

I can't understand that, either. For me, any of these new "fast" SUVs is bloody dangerous thing to be driving beside on the road... especially the way most of them drive, given that power, weight and commanding driving position... I know it's evil, but I've given quite a few of these guys a taste of some heavy brake-light action... (normally, it takes only a few dabs to make them back way off...).

I personally know of one or two guys who have gotten into trouble repeatedly because their SUVs could go faster than their brakes, tires and suspension could handle.

 

[Joey D]

This is fast and not dangerous, it's basically the Skyline of SUV's.

 

[Danoff]

When did I say I was driving my car to save the environment?

Read carefully:
Supercars are inefficient. SUVs are inefficient.
Supercars are expensive. SUVs are not expensive.
If someone wants a supercar, they're most likely S.O.L. If someone wants an SUV, they go out and buy one.

My point? People who want supercars probably drive something more efficient. People who want SUVs probably drive SUVs. End of point. That's all.

If that's the only point you were making, I'm in full agreement with you. It doesn't invalidate anything I've said.

Okay then, I'll bite -- how did you need the ground clearance every day? I have a feeling it isn't because you drove from your house in the suburbs to go to work in the city, or to pick up groceries...which is the most that many families use their SUV for.

I used it every day because I lived down a dirt road that most cars would (and did) bottom out on. Every time I left the house I used the ground clearance. I was very careful to make sure that I didn't kick up too much dust or kick up rocks, because I wanted to keep my SUV clean and ding-free.

Also, there's no need to take it personally. I never said "danoff doesn't need an SUV because..." Because I live in a city, I have every right to assume that many of the SUV drivers I see don't use their ground clearance on a regular basis, and I assure you that even more of them don't use it every day.

I drove into the city every day from my dirt road. I don't see how you can justify assuming that just because you see someone in the city, they necessarily came from the city and only drive in the city.

Again (and you agreed to this), you can't argue against something just because people don't do already do it.

As I said, there are many reasons that people don't do it.

He doesn't have to be over-confident at all. Regardless, I'm sure he'd be even more confident in an SUV, anyway.

Don't blame the car for bad driving.

When the first day of snow brings almost everyone in your city to a near-standstill out of fear, yet every other SUV you see is going 10mph over the limit, and bearing down on your rear bumper as you approach a red light, it's pretty logical to assume that size, weight, height and 4WD give people confidence.

See above.

It isn't hypocritical if the critic values speed over utility.

Perhaps, but the critic needs to keep in mind that others value utility over speed.

Also, again, the sheer prevalence of SUVs on the road compared to supercars somewhat distorts your comparison.

I think it's a perfect comparison to use if you're claiming that gas mileage is the all important factor. If you think people shouldn't drive SUVs because their gas mileage is too low, then you shouldn't want a sportscar because the gas mileage is too low.

I never said they had to be happy. I'm just saying that, as you say, they have to cope with reality.

Ok, that's what they're doing. When they b*tch about gas prices they're coping. Let them b*tch, they're being forced to change their lifestyle because of rising prices.

I think it's useless to purchase an SUV or wagon that does have them. Even if they can be folded away, it's just complicating things if you need the cargo space back there, and I doubt that very many SUV/wagon-purchasing families have that many people to carry.

See right there I gave you a way out of this coversation and you jump right back in. Anyone with 3 kids can get substantial added luxury out of an SUV with a third seat. Anyone with 3 kids, two of whom are in a carseat will get substantial added utility and luxury out of an SUV. That accounts for a large number of people.

Damn straight I'm making assumptions, not about the people I see on the road, but based on what I see on the road -- SUVs/trucks that don't have anything in the cargo area. SUVs/trucks that aren't towing anything. SUVs/trucks that aren't climbing anything. SUVs/trucks that have one or no passengers.

So it's safe to assume they don't get used often for hauling things if you see them used more often for not hauling things right? I suppose if I see a corvette driving slowly down the road I should be pissed that the driver doesn't ever use it to drive fast, or every time I see a parked ferrari I should be pissed that the driver doesn't drive it?

Just because someone drives a corvette slowly most of the time doesn't mean he doesn't drive it quickly often. Just because someone drives an SUV alone most of the time doesn't mean they don't haul people around often.

As much as you seem to think I do, I don't look at someone in an SUV and think, "God, what a ****." I've simply made a long-running observation that most SUVs aren't used for anything other than driving around.

I'm explaining to you how someone like me, who drove an SUV daily, alone, with no cargo, little dirt, and no trailer, into the city, would have been counted as someone who didn't use it - when in fact it was a necessity. If you can leave someone like me out, how many others do you misjudge?

 

[Wolfe]

If that's the only point you were making, I'm in full agreement with you. It doesn't invalidate anything I've said.

Sure it does. SUV inefficiency is a much bigger problem than supercar inefficiency, because SUVs are much more common than supercars.

I used it every day because I lived down a dirt road that most cars would (and did) bottom out on. Every time I left the house I used the ground clearance. I was very careful to make sure that I didn't kick up too much dust or kick up rocks, because I wanted to keep my SUV clean and ding-free.

Is that the main or only thing you used your SUV for? I can understand why you needed it, but a very large portion of the population, especially those who live in cities, don't live down an old, worn dirt road with wheel ruts that are too deep for cars.

I drove into the city every day from my dirt road. I don't see how you can justify assuming that just because you see someone in the city, they necessarily came from the city and only drive in the city.

Because I see the same proportion of SUVs in the driveways of neighborhoods...in the city. I also live smack dab in the middle of downtown Madison, which is surrounded on every side by smaller communities that stretch out farther and farther into clean, paved-road suburbs every year, and those suburbs are surrounded by many miles of paved country roads. Any road that I've seen in this area that isn't paved is still flat enough for any ordinary car to drive on.

As I said, there are many reasons that people don't do it.

That doesn't mean that I can't argue that those same reasons don't outweigh the advantages of a wagon.

Don't blame the car for bad driving.

I'm not blaming the car -- I'm saying the car is a factor. A superbike is more likely to make someone want to do wheelies than a scooter. A Porsche is more likely to make someone think they can drive like a racecar driver than a Geo. An SUV is more likely to make someone feel safe and secure than a Civic.

Perhaps, but the critic needs to keep in mind that others value utility over speed.

Yes, and that goes both ways.

I think it's a perfect comparison to use if you're claiming that gas mileage is the all important factor. If you think people shouldn't drive SUVs because their gas mileage is too low, then you shouldn't want a sportscar because the gas mileage is too low.

I understand this, but SUVs are more prevalent, and more of a problem than sportscars and supercars are.

There's nothing wrong with owning an SUV, and using it for its intended purpose. It's just that too many people own them, and many of them don't even use them for what they were built for.

If every other car on the road was a gas-guzzling supercar, and many of the owners never used them for what they were built for, I'd be presenting the exact same argument against supercars (in fact, I already feel that too many people own BMW M cars and waste gas when they could have gotten by just fine with a base-model BMW. ).

Ok, that's what they're doing. When they b*tch about gas prices they're coping. Let them b*tch, they're being forced to change their lifestyle because of rising prices.

They shouldn't be *****ing because it's their lifestyle that's wasting their money in the first place. If I drove full-throttle everywhere in my car and ended up having to fill my tank twice as often as usual, I wouldn't be *****ing about paying a lot for gas.

See right there I gave you a way out of this coversation and you jump right back in. Anyone with 3 kids can get substantial added luxury out of an SUV with a third seat. Anyone with 3 kids, two of whom are in a carseat will get substantial added utility and luxury out of an SUV. That accounts for a large number of people.

Point taken, but as you said, that doesn't account for the many SUVs on the road that don't have a 3rd row.

I would also recommend a minivan if they aren't going to be towing anything or going offroad. And that accounts for a large number of people as well.

So it's safe to assume they don't get used often for hauling things if you see them used more often for not hauling things right? I suppose if I see a corvette driving slowly down the road I should be pissed that the driver doesn't ever use it to drive fast, or every time I see a parked ferrari I should be pissed that the driver doesn't drive it?

Just because someone drives a corvette slowly most of the time doesn't mean he doesn't drive it quickly often. Just because someone drives an SUV alone most of the time doesn't mean they don't haul people around often.

Corvette -- Under the speedlimit, taking even slight corners lethargically as stupid people tend to do? Yes.

Ferrari -- No, unless it's all shiny and clean and sitting in the very back of some guy's gigantic garage, blocked from the entrance by several other shiny cars. Parking is a fact of driving.

You're right, just because someone drives an SUV alone most of the time doesn't mean they don't haul people around often.

When you see lots of people in lots of separate SUVs with separate lives and lifestyles driving an SUV alone, that means that lots of people spend lots of their time in their SUVs driving alone.

I already understand the concepts of research -- you can't base the trends of an entire population on only one test subject.

I'm explaining to you how someone like me, who drove an SUV daily, alone, with no cargo, little dirt, and no trailer, into the city, would have been counted as someone who didn't use it - when in fact it was a necessity. If you can leave someone like me out, how many others do you misjudge?

Living down a run-down dirt road isn't the best excuse to have an SUV. It's a legitimate one, and as far as I can tell you needed your SUV (I'm assuming that paving the road, or putting gravel on it, or petitioning to have the government do so was impossible), but your situation is hardly the norm.

Also, as I said above, I'm basing my judgements based on many people, a representative sample of my city's population -- not individuals.

 

[Danoff]

Sure it does. SUV inefficiency is a much bigger problem than supercar inefficiency, because SUVs are much more common than supercars.

I see, so I just have to find an uncommon SUV and suggest that it's the popular SUVs that are causing the problems because more people own them. I don't think I've ever used these before, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to break out the rolleyes.

Is that the main or only thing you used your SUV for? I can understand why you needed it, but a very large portion of the population, especially those who live in cities, don't live down an old, worn dirt road with wheel ruts that are too deep for cars.

You must know a lot of people.

Because I see the same proportion of SUVs in the driveways of neighborhoods...in the city. I also live smack dab in the middle of downtown Madison, which is surrounded on every side by smaller communities that stretch out farther and farther into clean, paved-road suburbs every year, and those suburbs are surrounded by many miles of paved country roads. Any road that I've seen in this area that isn't paved is still flat enough for any ordinary car to drive on.

Flawless logic.

That doesn't mean that I can't argue that those same reasons don't outweigh the advantages of a wagon.

Actually, it does.

I'm not blaming the car -- I'm saying the car is a factor.

...contradicted yourself.

A superbike is more likely to make someone want to do wheelies than a scooter. A Porsche is more likely to make someone think they can drive like a racecar driver than a Geo. An SUV is more likely to make someone feel safe and secure than a Civic.

...still contradicting yourself.

Yes, and that goes both ways.

Yup.

I understand this, but SUVs are more prevalent, and more of a problem than sportscars and supercars are.

What if we just lump them all into the same "low mpg vehicle" category?

There's nothing wrong with owning an SUV, and using it for its intended purpose. It's just that too many people own them, and many of them don't even use them for what they were built for.

You're an expert on the subject I'm sure.

They shouldn't be *****ing because it's their lifestyle that's wasting their money in the first place.

It's a change in price that's making their lifestyle an issue.

Point taken, but as you said, that doesn't account for the many SUVs on the road that don't have a 3rd row.

Agreed (still).

I would also recommend a minivan if they aren't going to be towing anything or going offroad. And that accounts for a large number of people as well.

What if they want the capability just in case?

You're right, just because someone drives an SUV alone most of the time doesn't mean they don't haul people around often.

Thanks.

When you see lots of people in lots of separate SUVs with separate lives and lifestyles driving an SUV alone, that means that lots of people spend lots of their time in their SUVs driving alone.

Uh huh. That doesn't mean they don't use them. It just means they don't use them for other things as much as they do for commuting .

I already understand the concepts of research -- you can't base the trends of an entire population on only one test subject.

You certainly can't base it on no test subjects.

Living down a run-down dirt road isn't the best excuse to have an SUV. It's a legitimate one, and as far as I can tell you needed your SUV (I'm assuming that paving the road, or putting gravel on it, or petitioning to have the government do so was impossible), but your situation is hardly the norm.

I lived around a few dozen people that also drove SUVs down the same raod into the city. (yes, paving the road would have been a private endevour)

Also, as I said above, I'm basing my judgements based on many people, a representative sample of my city's population -- not individuals.

You don't have a representative sample of your city's population. You have a glimpse of people driving back and forth to work - which is what most people do most of the time in their cars. No, most people don't haul a speed boat to work. No, most people don't haul their children, or their children's swim team to work. No, most people don't go off-roading at work. You see each person only a tiny fraction of the time that they drive. Yet you think you can use that fraction to figure out exactly how often they use their vehicle and for what.

 

[Wolfe]

I see, so I just have to find an uncommon SUV and suggest that it's the popular SUVs that are causing the problems because more people own them. I don't think I've ever used these before, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to break out the rolleyes.

So you're telling me that 100 barely-ever-driven McLaren F1's make just as much of an impact on the world's fuel supply as 1,000,000 daily-commuter Ford Explorers?

You must know a lot of people.

You must lead a sheltered life.

I thought it was obvious enough, so I didn't point it out -- you lived in the country (which eliminates any urban or suburban american citizen), on an old side-road (which eliminates a portion of country folk), which was unpaved (which eliminates more country folk), didn't have gravel (which eliminates a good portion of country folk), and had well-developed wheel ruts that were too deep for cars (which eliminates some of the folk that are left at this point).

That's a very specific type of road, and I doubt that it's common to live on such a road when you look at the U.S. Population as a whole.

Furthermore, I suppose old, run-down, unpaved, wheel-rutted roads are a dime a dozen in downtown L.A., San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, Denver, Miami, Las Vegas, Washington D.C....I could go on. And these cities are full of SUV drivers, who don't commute from out of town.

Flawless logic.

I appreciate the compliment, but it doesn't even apply -- I'm telling you where I live, and that all of the roads here are either paved, or covered in gravel. That isn't logic, I'm just telling you about my area.

Actually, it does.

Okay, so let me get this straight -- because people have reasons to not buy wagons or second-hand SUVs, I can't argue that they should?

You should go scold everyone in this entire forum for criticizing anything because -- Le Gasp! -- there are reasons behind whatever it is that they're criticizing.

...contradicted yourself.

...still contradicting yourself.

Where do you get that idea?

Something can be a factor, yet not be to blame. Wind can affect the trajectory of a field goal kick, but the kick is what sent the ball flying in the first place. A bully may affect a smaller kid's temperament by picking on him all of the time, but if the smaller kid brings a gun to school and shoots the bully, the smaller kid is to blame. An SUV provides a sense of safety and security, but if a driver is overconfident because of it, the driver is to blame.

Before you ask, "what's the point then?", I'll tell you what the point is --

I'm not advocating the removal of SUVs from the streets -- I'm advocating the removal of SUVs that have over-confident-idiot drivers who never use any of their SUV's utility-capabilities from the streets.

If you're thinking, "Don't you just want the drivers gone, then?" then pay attention --

If the drivers disappear, there will be no one to drive their SUVs, and those SUVs won't be on the road. Simple.

What if we just lump them all into the same "low mpg vehicle" category?

Sportscars don't always produce low MPG numbers. Supercars and SUVs? Yes, usually, but not always sportscars.

By eliminating the sportscars that actually aren't so inefficient, SUVs constitute an even larger portion of this "low mpg vehicle" category you'd like to create.

The low efficiency of SUVs is simply more of a problem in the world than the low efficiency of supercars.

You're an expert on the subject I'm sure.

We're both speculating here.

It's a change in price that's making their lifestyle an issue.

It's a change in lifestyle that would make the change in price a non-issue.

What if they want the capability just in case?

What if they know they probably won't use the capability?

What if they realize that you don't need ground clearance to go camping?

What if they realize that they'll only pull their trailer or boat a few times a year, and won't even have to worry about unibody damage, which is the only thing that separates trucks/SUVs and vans/cars of equal horsepower/torque?

Uh huh. That doesn't mean they don't use them. It just means they don't use them for other things as much as they do for commuting .

You don't have a representative sample of your city's population. You have a glimpse of people driving back and forth to work - which is what most people do most of the time in their cars. No, most people don't haul a speed boat to work. No, most people don't haul their children, or their children's swim team to work. No, most people don't go off-roading at work. You see each person only a tiny fraction of the time that they drive. Yet you think you can use that fraction to figure out exactly how often they use their vehicle and for what.

Many people don't own a speed boat. Many people don't haul their children's swim team (for every family that volunteers to haul the swim team, there are the other parents who aren't hauling the swim team). Many people don't go off-roading, and anyone who's serious about it has a separate truck for off-road duty only, and never uses it to commute.

You don't need an SUV/truck to pull a small/average boat. You don't need an SUV/truck to haul a swim team. You don't need an SUV/truck to commute to work.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the only things a wagon/minivan isn't good for are ground clearance and towing capacity. Toting passengers or cargo can be done just as easily, and you don't have to bother mentioning the 3rd row of seating, as we've already agreed that most SUVs around don't have that.

Even if every single SUV/truck owner used their SUV/truck for hard work and off-road duty, two simple facts would remain --

- Many SUV/truck owners still complain about gas prices, and...

- Many "ordinary" SUV/truck drivers feel dangerously overconfident in their vehicles.

 

[Joey D]

Actually you do need a truck to pull a boat since you need more tow capacity then the boat weighs to pull it and actually get decent mileage and make it easy on the car. Sure a mini van can pull a boat buy everything will be running near it's peak...and that's not good if you are driving say up to your cabin 500 miles away.

 

[Dave A]

How many people have boats? How many people have a cabin 500 miles away? Sure danoff's right, it's sepculation if I say most SUV owners never use them for anything that would be even uncomfortable in a car, I don't see anything wrong with someone buying an SUV because they like SUV's and can afford one. But I don't think they are nessecary for at least 70% of buyers. It's like TVR buyers, a TVR is not nessecary 100% of the time, but hell, that wouldn't stop me getting one. no one here has to justify why people they don't know buy an SUV, because at the end of the day, if it s just being bought for them to drive the kid's to chool in and to do the shopping, so what, it's that guy's money and it's his choice to get an SUV or not. They can be used for things that a car wouldn't be as versatile at, but I bet more often than not, they arn't. Sure I'm speculating, but I would be if I said it the other way round too.

 

[Joey D]

In Michigan just about everyone owns some sort of watercraft and quite a few people have cabins 200-1000 miles away from their home. Also more people in Michigan are outdoorsmen then not. I'd like to see a Audi go down a two track that has huge ruts in it while being loaded with hunting gear, fishing gear, camping gear, or a combination there of.

 

[xXSilencerXx]

I'd agree most owneres of SUV's don't really need them that much.

My dad own's an Avalanch but uses it to its fairly well as a truck rather than a commuter vehicle. He normally drives it to work every day and then on the weekends or after work he uses it for his deck business. We hauls all our equipment with and use it for towing rental auggers and other things. When the weather is warm rather than driving the truck to work he rides his motorcycle but since he only works an half our away he uses the truck in the winter.

So not all suv owners are not using their vehicles.

 

[JohnBM01]

Well, you have to remember. We do a lot of stuff in America and seem to have all sorts of tasks. Look at many of us. A lot of us do stuff like go outdoors, haul children and groceries, maybe even do some towing... I mean, we're active sons of guns here (not to say the rest of the world is lazy. Not taking the pro-American route). So we will need some vehicles that will be reliable and endurant as some of our needs and wants taking care of things.

Do you see this S-Class deal more as an alternative to SUVs and vans, or a luxury vehicle that can somehow be able to haul stuff?

 

[Poverty]

In Michigan just about everyone owns some sort of watercraft and quite a few people have cabins 200-1000 miles away from their home. Also more people in Michigan are outdoorsmen then not. I'd like to see a Audi go down a two track that has huge ruts in it while being loaded with hunting gear, fishing gear, camping gear, or a combination there of.

Europeans go hunting, camping and the likes and during the summer hundreads of thousands of people from the netherlands alone pack up their cars and caravans and head off across europe towards sunshine. Dutch people love their caravans and they have some big ones at that. They still use mercedes E-classes and audi A6's to tow them though.

Also I have come up with this theory. We all know mercedes, audi and BMW are at the forefront of car engineering. Well they have only just started making SUV's because they have noticed alot of people buy them? Now ask yourselfs why didnt they make SUV's before? Probably because they recognised that everything a SUV could do a car could do, but less effeciently and so thought no one would buy them.

 

[Joey D]

They don't make real SUV's, real SUV's are truck based meaning they have a body on frame design. Unibody trucks and SUV's are pretty pointless.

And if you took an Audi to the backwoods of Michigan it would get about 10 feet and get stuck. They don't have the ground clearence.

 

[Poverty]

They don't make real SUV's, real SUV's are truck based meaning they have a body on frame design. Unibody trucks and SUV's are pretty pointless.

And if you took an Audi to the backwoods of Michigan it would get about 10 feet and get stuck. They don't have the ground clearence.

If you took Tahoe up a ski ramp it would slide backwards

A real SUV is a truck or jeep and therefore if its one of those its not a SUV. I have absolutely no problem with trucks or jeeps as they get actually used. If your thinking of buying something to go offroading with you wouldnt think of an cayenne or tourage or tahoe or escalade you would get something like a mitsubishi warrior.

I wonder how the scandinavian people manage to travel with all that snow around them all the time. Saab doesnt make SUV's and volvo have only just made one.

 

[Joey D]

Saab SUV:

No body ever drives up ski ramps, so your point is pretty much useless. But I promise you no one in there right mind would take a $50k station wagon to deer camp in Michigan. You would never be able to get down the trails.

And you think Escalades can't off road?

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/FREE/60324004/1009

AutoWeek thinks so, and that is a pretty good representation of how you get to where you need to go while hunting.

 

[Poverty]

I forgot about that saab thing. I dont see the escalade actually offroading. The last one was a bit of a crap handler so I dont see how that one could go offroad.

Im going to make post soon asking people on this website if they ever haul 22foot boats or go hunting. We should then get a propper represenation of american life.

No body ever drives up ski ramps, so your point is pretty much useless.

Actually after seeing some audi's do it some guys got in a volvo and tried the same thing. The volvo exploded.