SUV's are obsolete

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poverty
  • 527 comments
  • 17,795 views
That's the model that went out of production in 2004, I can't say if all thoes specs are right or wrong at this time, but I can say I'm off to bed ;).
 
live4speed
That's the model that went out of production in 2004, I can't say if all thoes specs are right or wrong at this time, but I can say I'm off to bed ;).

Fair enough, and these are the types of discussion I enjoy having because not only do you bring your points across but you don't get anyone worked up about it.
 
BlazinXtreme
Never said it couldn't, I've been argueing for truck based SUV's not car based ones.

I'm not pointing at you alone here, Blazin, but to anyone who's thinking this way --

- "Car-based," unibody SUV's are still SUVs. If you can agree that they are pointless for hard work, and just as capable as a car, then we've just established that a good portion of the SUVs out on the road aren't needed.

- "Truck-based," body-on-frame SUVs only hold two trumpcards compared to their unibody brethren -- they can tow more, and they can usually go deeper offroad.

Which brings up the question, once again...do the majority of SUV owners tow large boats and climb mountains in the middle of nowhere? Anyone who doesn't live near a lake probably won't tow a boat, and anyone who spends most or all of their time in the city probably won't go adventuring down a forgotten trail. Even if an SUV owner does leave the city and go camping with it, I imagine most people won't stray from the main roads.

The SUV has simply become the "popular" alternative to the wagon or minivan, and in many cases isn't used for anything that the other two couldn't do.

If you drive an SUV because you like SUVs or are an SUV enthusiast, fine.

If you drive an SUV because you tow your speedboat to the lake every other weekend every summer, and enjoy tackling paths less travelled, fine.

If you drive an SUV like a car, but more quickly because you feel safe in it, doing nothing but commuting while jabbering on your cell phone, complaining about rising gas prices, sell it and buy a car. If you need cargo space, buy a wagon. If you need people space, buy a minivan. And opt for the smaller engine choice -- the slower your car/van is, the less likely you are to kill someone else when you crash into them in the middle of your cell-phone conversation.
 
- "Car-based," unibody SUV's are still SUVs. If you can agree that they are pointless for hard work, and just as capable as a car, then we've just established that a good portion of the SUVs out on the road aren't needed.

Car based SUV's aren't really SUV's, if it's unibody and FWD its more of a car then a truck. I don't really consider these things SUV's, they are big hatchbacks.

- "Truck-based," body-on-frame SUVs only hold two trumpcards compared to their unibody brethren -- they can tow more, and they can usually go deeper offroad.

A Cherokee is the only exception to this rule I would say since they are decent.

Which brings up the question, once again...do the majority of SUV owners tow large boats and climb mountains in the middle of nowhere? Anyone who doesn't live near a lake probably won't tow a boat, and anyone who spends most or all of their time in the city probably won't go adventuring down a forgotten trail. Even if an SUV owner does leave the city and go camping with it, I imagine most people won't stray from the main roads.

Well like Gil said they make 2x4's for a reason. If you aren't going to drive all over God's creation jsut get a 2x4. It's like driving a station wagon with more room and has the ablilty to do more things then a car would.

And if you live near a lake I would guess you'd tow a boat more since you are more likely to own a boat. In Oakland County (where I live) I think everyone lives something like no more then 5 miles from a lake. Which I think I can vouch for.

The SUV has simply become the "popular" alternative to the wagon or minivan, and in many cases isn't used for anything that the other two couldn't do.

So does that make sport compacts bad? I mean they are a fad and a popular alternative to "hot rods". Same logic, just because something is popular doesn't make it bad.

If you drive an SUV like a car, but more quickly because you feel safe in it, doing nothing but commuting while jabbering on your cell phone, complaining about rising gas prices, sell it and buy a car. If you need cargo space, buy a wagon. If you need people space, buy a minivan. And opt for the smaller engine choice -- the slower your car/van is, the less likely you are to kill someone else when you crash into them in the middle of your cell-phone conversation.

I drive my Blazer like a car and there is a good reason why I do, because I can and I can out handle quite a few cars, even stock I could out handle some cars. I talk on my cell phone while I drive, I complain about the gas prices (I get in the low 20's which is pretty average). But you know what? I bought my truck when gas prices were 1.20 a gallon, but some of us don't have the luxery to buy a new car when gas prices jumped.

And based on your fast logic no one should buy sport compacts, sports cars, or anything that goes over 70.
 
Wow, this thread has exploded since the last time I posted in here...

We are going to have to face facts here for a moment and realise that Americans arent going to change their ways unless something that is completely necessary changes it for them. Case in point: Gas going above $3.00 a gallon on a consistant basis. Americans are stubborn, and unlike Europe, we don't have out ways set in stone. Being that we live in a vast, and still expanding country, we arent confined by the cities we live in, and we often must travel upwards of a half-hour just to buy a gallon of milk... Very different than the several block trip that many Europeans can make.

Size is everything in the US, and it is going to be the older generations that are still focused on larger SUVs. Being that there is always a cultural backlash with the younger folks, rest assured that more of us will be buying the more moderately sized hatchbacks and wagons to carry our crap in the near future.

I personally have vowed never to own a truck or SUV unless it is necessary. I completely recognise the capability of vehicles like the Audi Allroad and Volvo XC70 in most weather situations, as well as their ability to haul cargo. But as I, and other truck owners have mentioned before, nothing will replace the capabilities of a body-on-frame truck to tow a boat, haul around the family and their crap, etc.

It is a difference of ideas and surroundings, but its going to be a while until things balance out.
 
BlazinXtreme
Car based SUV's aren't really SUV's, if it's unibody and FWD its more of a car then a truck. I don't really consider these things SUV's, they are big hatchbacks.

But still, they account for a part of the "SUVs" that some of us are arguing against.

BlazinXtreme
Well like Gil said they make 2x4's for a reason. If you aren't going to drive all over God's creation jsut get a 2x4. It's like driving a station wagon with more room and has the ablilty to do more things then a car would.

Actually, wagons tend to have more room than some SUVs (for an intra-brand example, the BMW 5-series wagon is more roomy and practical than the X3 or X5, and is also available in AWD). Also, if you aren't going to be towing anything, there's no reason to choose a 2x4 over a wagon, and if you want to go offroad, then you shouldn't be looking at a 2x4. ;)

BlazinXtreme
And if you live near a lake I would guess you'd tow a boat more since you are more likely to own a boat. In Oakland County (where I live) I think everyone lives something like no more then 5 miles from a lake. Which I think I can vouch for.

Indeed, there are places where lakes are prevalent. There are also places where they are not.

BlazinXtreme
So does that make sport compacts bad? I mean they are a fad and a popular alternative to "hot rods". Same logic, just because something is popular doesn't make it bad.

I never used the word "bad." My point is that many SUV owners don't need their SUV's capabilities, so they could have settled for something smaller, or less rugged, or more efficient. Instead, they decided to buy an SUV because it's the "in" thing to do, and they didn't want to look like a "soccer mom," or whatever it is that wagon drivers are called.

The same point applies to sports compact owners. Why buy a Celica if you just drive it like a Camry? Why buy a Civic Si when you would have gotten along just fine with the hybrid model?

BlazinXtreme
I drive my Blazer like a car and there is a good reason why I do, because I can and I can out handle quite a few cars, even stock I could out handle some cars.

Did I not say that SUV enthusiasts are o.k.? Would you not classify yourself as one?

BlazinXtreme
I talk on my cell phone while I drive, I complain about the gas prices (I get in the low 20's which is pretty average). But you know what? I bought my truck when gas prices were 1.20 a gallon, but some of us don't have the luxery to buy a new car when gas prices jumped.

Low 20's is pretty good.

Some people here at GTPlanet don't have the luxury to live in america, where gas costs about 1/3 as much as it does in most of Europe.

Also, some people here in america refuse to change their driving habits and save themselves some money...but I suppose that goes against the american philosophy of "it's not my fault."

BlazinXtreme
And based on your fast logic no one should buy sport compacts, sports cars, or anything that goes over 70.

A lot of people drive over 70mph on the highway -- as a resident of Michigan, you should know that. :lol:

I would agree that anyone who drives lethargically, at or under the speed limit at all times, taking corners so slowly that bodyroll is 100% nonexistent, and doing nothing but commuting between home and work, shouldn't buy a sports compact or sports car. There are a surprisingly large number of motorists who do this, in those cars. :indiff:
 
Actually, wagons tend to have more room than some SUVs (for an intra-brand example, the BMW 5-series wagon is more roomy and practical than the X3 or X5, and is also available in AWD). Also, if you aren't going to be towing anything, there's no reason to choose a 2x4 over a wagon, and if you want to go offroad, then you shouldn't be looking at a 2x4.

What are your choices for reasonabley priced wagons? You have a limited choice and I can only really think of the Magnum with the 3.5L V6 in it. Other then that you are going to pay an arm and a leg. Well I guess there is the Jetta and Focus but they are small.

I never used the word "bad." My point is that many SUV owners don't need their SUV's capabilities, so they could have settled for something smaller, or less rugged, or more efficient. Instead, they decided to buy an SUV because it's the "in" thing to do, and they didn't want to look like a "soccer mom," or whatever it is that wagon drivers are called.

The same point applies to sports compact owners. Why buy a Celica if you just drive it like a Camry? Why buy a Civic Si when you would have gotten along just fine with the hybrid model?

I don't think people buy SUV's because it's the in thing, people buy SUV's because they like em. Buy what you like, hell just buy a car, it helps the Michigan economy which is one of the worst in the nation.

Did I not say that SUV enthusiasts are o.k.? Would you not classify yourself as one?

I believe I am, but I'm more of a mini trucker and mini truckers need well a mini truck.

Low 20's is pretty good.

Some people here at GTPlanet don't have the luxury to live in america, where gas costs about 1/3 as much as it does in most of Europe.

Also, some people here in america refuse to change their driving habits and save themselves some money...but I suppose that goes against the american philosophy of "it's not my fault."

Gas went up so you know what I did? I drive slower, easier on the accelerator, and I make sure the trucks in tip top shape. Most people did that when gas went up and I went from getting an average 16mpg to 23mpg (last fill up).

But it's not my fault gas went up, it's OPEC's...and I have nothing to do with OPEC.

A lot of people drive over 70mph on the highway -- as a resident of Michigan, you should know that.

I know, but there is no need to drive that fast. Granted I've been known to go faster, but there is no need to.

I would agree that anyone who drives lethargically, at or under the speed limit at all times, taking corners so slowly that bodyroll is 100% nonexistent, and doing nothing but commuting between home and work, shouldn't buy a sports compact or sports car. There are a surprisingly large number of motorists who do this, in those cars.

Every car has it's posers. People buy hybrids because they are "trendy", people buy sports cars and hardly ever drive them fast or hard, people buy whatever and never do whatever in them. I see it all the time, either that or they buy the popular car at the time...the PT Crusier is a great example of how something so crappy could sell so well.

But SUV's have been around since the 1920's, in fact the Suburban has been around since then. It's not a new concept.
 
guess that makes me responsible.
I have an SUV and a Mini-Van. Depending on what the project is or the destination, determines which I'll use.
As for single person or 2-4 person trips, my wife says her Civic gets 37 mpg, My Camry gets 31, My #1 son's Metro gets 40 mpg. #2 Son's Lumina gets around 27 mpg, etc.

Of our 9 cars (yes, I know that's an excessive number, but 6/8ths of us drive.) The biggest "guzzler" of the regularly driven vehicles is either my Ranger or the Venture. Both get around 22 mpg. The truck has gotten 27, but that's the exception not the rule.
And of late, the truck has been doing a lot of sitting because the Camry uses about 20 gallons less a month than the truck. That's $50 a month.
I still love my SUV for long trips, snow, and hauling crap.
 
BlazinXtreme
What are your choices for reasonabley priced wagons? You have a limited choice and I can only really think of the Magnum with the 3.5L V6 in it. Other then that you are going to pay an arm and a leg. Well I guess there is the Jetta and Focus but they are small.

http://www.subaru.com/

The Forester is often referred to as a "small SUV," but it's really just a great wagon. :)

BlazinXtreme
I don't think people buy SUV's because it's the in thing, people buy SUV's because they like em. Buy what you like, hell just buy a car, it helps the Michigan economy which is one of the worst in the nation.

Some people buy SUVs because they need them, or like them. Others still buy SUVs because they need something with more room than a car but would never want to be seen in a wagon or minivan, or because it's the "in" thing.

The latter group is the problem.

BlazinXtreme
Gas went up so you know what I did? I drive slower, easier on the accelerator, and I make sure the trucks in tip top shape. Most people did that when gas went up and I went from getting an average 16mpg to 23mpg (last fill up).

But it's not my fault gas went up, it's OPEC's...and I have nothing to do with OPEC.

Good for you -- you were willing to change your driving habits, so your complaints about gas prices carry more weight in my eyes, but we've still got it easy compared to our European friends.

True, but that's not what I meant -- I meant that many americans are stubborn, and wouldn't even think about blaming their lead feet for poor gas mileage and more frequent fill-ups.

BlazinXtreme
Every car has it's posers. People buy hybrids because they are "trendy", people buy sports cars and hardly ever drive them fast or hard, people buy whatever and never do whatever in them. I see it all the time, either that or they buy the popular car at the time...the PT Crusier is a great example of how something so crappy could sell so well.

But SUV's have been around since the 1920's, in fact the Suburban has been around since then. It's not a new concept.

Exactly, and the only reason why I'm ignoring those other posers is because this thread is about SUVs. I'm not just singling out SUV owners for the hell of it -- those other posers are just as bad.

No offense, but what does the age of the SUV have to do with anything? :confused:

Gil
guess that makes me responsible.
I have an SUV and a Mini-Van. Depending on what the project is or the destination, determines which I'll use.
As for single person or 2-4 person trips, my wife says her Civic gets 37 mpg, My Camry gets 31, My #1 son's Metro gets 40 mpg. #2 Son's Lumina gets around 27 mpg, etc.

Of our 9 cars (yes, I know that's an excessive number, but 6/8ths of us drive.) The biggest "guzzler" of the regularly driven vehicles is either my Ranger or the Venture. Both get around 22 mpg. The truck has gotten 27, but that's the exception not the rule.
And of late, the truck has been doing a lot of sitting because the Camry saves me uses about 20 gallons less a month than the truck. That's $50 a month.
I still love my SUV for long trips, snow, and hauling crap.

Yes, that is being responsible. My scorn is not aimed at the likes of you. ;)
 
Thank you for that.
I guess I'm a bit "touchy" about the "All SUV drivers are supporting terrorism" BS.
IF Arianna Huffington was a man, I'd kick her in the "stones"...twice.:irked:
We're not all gas wasting fools. And the all-inclusive attitude of some folks gets to me.
 
Gil
Thank you for that.
I guess I'm a bit "touchy" about the "All SUV drivers are supporting terrorism" BS.
IF Arianna Huffington was a man, I'd kick her in the "stones"...twice.:irked:
We're not all gas wasting fools. And the all-inclusive attitude of some folks gets to me.

Thus, my frequent usage of the word "many" in referring to SUV drivers, and my observation of SUV drivers leading to the conclusion that SUVs are frequently used for non-SUV things, not that the specific people I see are irresponsible.

I don't even hate SUVs/trucks. I could just never see myself owning one, unless I wanted to do serious offroading.
 
Like I said, The Excursion gets out for road trips, and about once a month for a good "blowing out". My wife will take it up to Topeka, or I'll take it to Independence, MO for the day.
That gets her up to operating temp, and sorta clears the "cobwebs".
But as long as Diesel is more than Regular Unleaded, Old girl will not get much action.
 
Wow... lots of debate here, gentlemen (unless any ladies were part of the long debate).

I guess my fears about two-wheel drive SUVs (especially RWD) is that I normally get concerned about trying to control one of those, especially with RWD. Like, what if you try to avoid an accident in a RWD SUV and you end up rolling over and possibly being injured or killed? Many of those are top-heavy, and that's why I've always thought 4WD was the best method of control with marginal (at best) side effects. I usually say that you can't drive an SUV like a sports car. Blazin lowered his 'Blazer and so that's not a bad idea.

I'm just thinking too much about what SUVs can do, and how much of their capabilities can be put to use. I'll give you an analogy for this. Look in your closet. Do you have some form of cargo bottoms (pants, jeans, skirts, etc.)? What about carpenters? How often do you actually use the carpenter loop or the other cargo pockets? Well, I used to have a pair, but they don't fit me anymore. How about you GTPlanet ladies... do you have something like capris or flood pants? The analogy I'm getting at is that we usually get stuff for either using the product for what it's worth, or just having something for those just-in-case deals. Like, when I had my cargo jeans, I actually used the other two pockets for stuff at school and stuff. I'd be the same if I had an SUV. I wouldn't get an SUV if I'm likely to use it for intense and rigorous routines on the road. If I want something rugged and functional, most I'd probably get is a truck with a quad cab, or I'd go for that Dodge Ram Mega Cab. Only disadvantage would be that I'd have to a camper to house everything, especially groceries and stuff. So much like I selected cargo jeans from my closet to use its purpose, I'd want to be able to have all my capable needs and desires to be fulfilled by an SUV. I wouldn't get one just to have the biggest thing around and not use it for whitetail hunting or catfish fishing... but many others would find practical usage with an SUV. I'm fine with practical usage of an SUV and not for outdoor duties, but it would be near impossible to convince people to sell their SUVs and go for something more practical which doesn't involve the duties required of an SUV or a truck. Can you convince a Hummer H2 family who doesn't use the H2 for off-roading and hauling... to go for something like a Dodge Caravan or a Chrysler Pacifica? Or for non-American brands, can you convince a Chevy Tahoe family to go for something like a Honda Odyssey or a Toyota Sienna? No and no, because SUVs do have practical usage even if the owner doesn't intend on doing excessive hauling or treading rocky passes.

So to see something like this S-Class kind of makes you think. For those who want the sensibility of an automobile without the massiveness of an SUV, some probably would think this car would kill the need for an SUV to perform the same duties. Now, I'm being neutral about all of this, so don't think I'm taking sides. I just think it's pretty unusual to see a car tow something that's about three tons or more. It can also be more of "why not get an SUV? It costs much less, and you can do much more and then some." Different needs for different people. I'd probably say that you're a winner whether you take the S-Class or a regular SUV. They can haul, they can tread some rough spots, and if all this is true, choosing one or the other can come down to preference at best.
 
BlazinXtreme
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.

The SL 65 is a V12.

Yeah but both of those cars are weigh in at over 2 tons. The Z06 weighs only about 1500kg. Whilst the SL weighs 2,110KG.

So the engine makes alot more power, for the same capacity as a GM motor, yet you still want them to make double the mileage aswell? Did you just realise what you said. The front and rear end also sticks out too much from the wheels.

Also I believe the auto box eats more fuel than say a manual.

In europe we do get american style engines. We call them diesles. Big torque from lowdown adn not much of a revver. Good for fuel though :lol:


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

Yes they can be inefficient. Such as the X5 and Q7. I have never mentioned those cars as I hate them. Theyre so pointless. Atleast the Q7 seats 7 but the person could have gotten a people carrier.

Im just not the peson trying to say a SUV is something its not. If you plan on doing actually offroading or heavy construction work you are not going to buy a tahoe or X5 or Q7.

07_tahoe.jpg


Just looking at this pick you can see that the tahoe could deal with potholes and dips and a bit of mud, but dont even say you could take it to propper offroading. The wheelbase is way too long for that.
 
So I think its time we recap here.

1. Blazing has now agree that most people dont go offroading and many people have 2x4's.

2.BX has also admitted that most people dont tow 22foot boats and even if they did you could do that in a car. A 22foot boat would only take up about 3/4 of a cars towing capacity.

3. SUV's get crap economy compared to their wagon counterparts.

4. Wagons are faster and more enjoyable to drive.

5. Blazing has also realised that in most SUV's the 4wd system isnt up to the task of propper offroading.

6. Wagons often have more storage space than their SUV counterparts.


So why do people really buy SUV's?

1. It could be ignorance or lack of knowledge on their part that a car could do most things better or just as good as a SUV.

2. Because the likes of GM cant make anything thats good unless its a SUV or more recently a Z06.

3. Mercedes etc station wagons are out of most peoples financial reach.
 
No offense, but what does the age of the SUV have to do with anything?

Just stating that SUV's aren't something that just popped up that people want to buy.

I have never mentioned those cars as I hate them. Theyre so pointless.

I'm glad if you hate something, it becomes pointless. Wow that means everything that isn't an Audi is pointless.

And you realize people off road Suburbans right? Wheel base has something to do with it buy not a ton, if you have the ground clearence and the tires you'll do decently, if you have those and a good driver you'll be fine.

1. Blazing has now agree that most people dont go offroading and many people have 2x4's.

BLAZIN NO G!!! Anyways I've never said anything different and I've always known there has been 2x4's...I own one.

2.BX has also admitted that most people dont tow 22foot boats and even if they did you could do that in a car. A 22foot boat would only take up about 3/4 of a cars towing capacity.

A car can tow it but it isn't easy and it would very hard on the car, you should finish the statement.

3. SUV's get crap economy compared to their wagon counterparts.

I bet I get better mileage then someone with a V8 Magnum.

5. Blazing has also realised that in most SUV's the 4wd system isnt up to the task of propper offroading.

No I didn't

6. Wagons often have more storage space than their SUV counterparts.

How does something smaller have more space? What sort of Quantum Physics has the wagon industy done to do this?

So why do people really buy SUV's?

1. It could be ignorance or lack of knowledge on their part that a car could do most things better or just as good as a SUV.

2. Because the likes of GM cant make anything thats good unless its a SUV or more recently a Z06.

3. Mercedes etc station wagons are out of most peoples financial reach.

1. It's so you can do your task and be comfortbale with the space and when it comes time to tow something you are using a 1/4 of the capacity rather then 3/4...which is easier on your equipment.

2. GM makes decent cars out side of the Corvette and SUV's/Trucks. But I'll never convince you of that because for whatever reason you fail to see that we live in America.

3. That's why.
 
I bet I get better mileage then someone with a V8 Magnum.

Can you please do comparisons for like to like engines. The V8 in the magnun probably makes 3-4 times the power of your car.

How does something smaller have more space?

5 series touring has more space than the X5 in every department, can tow just as much and all while giving better economy, performance and more fun to drive.

I'm glad if you hate something, it becomes pointless.

Because I said that didnt I? Funny coming from the guy that doesnt like any german cars.

It's so you can do your task and be comfortbale with the space and when it comes time to tow something you are using a 1/4 of the capacity rather then 3/4...which is easier on your equipment.

Whats more comfortable? A mercedes E-class with ABC suspension package or a tahoe?

If towing a 22foot boat requires a 1/4 of a SUV's capacity they it only needs 1/2 of a car, done easily enough.

GM makes decent cars out side of the Corvette and SUV's/Trucks. But I'll never convince you of that because for whatever reason you fail to see that we live in America.

Name 3. No opel derived products though.
 
BlazinXtreme
And you realize people off road Suburbans right? Wheel base has something to do with it buy not a ton, if you have the ground clearence and the tires you'll do decently, if you have those and a good driver you'll be fine.
A longer wheelbase decreses the cars capabilities over hills and crests, as you go over a crest the front wheels lift off the ground at some point, then as they come back down the rear wheels come off the ground. The longer the wheelbase, the higher the chance the car will bottom out at this point leaving you a: stuck, and b: with damage done to the underside of the car if it's on a hard surface at least.

A car can tow it but it isn't easy and it would very hard on the car, you should finish the statement.
I agree with this, but that still leaves the argument open regarding the number of people that actually tow things with an SUV. I'm not convinced it's that high a percentage of SUV owners. Then I am specuating, and always will be because there are no figures to prove one way or the other so an argument based on either side of this point is pretty pointless imo.

How does something smaller have more space? What sort of Quantum Physics has the wagon industy done to do this?
It's not so much less physical space, it's more a case of available space, some estates are packaged in a way that what space they have is used in the best way it can be which has in some cases, though not all, resulted in a smaller car being able to carry larger loads.

1. It's so you can do your task and be comfortbale with the space and when it comes time to tow something you are using a 1/4 of the capacity rather then 3/4...which is easier on your equipment.
The thought behind this is sound, but it's not always as low as 1/4 of the SUV's capacity, and it's have to be a small car to be 3/4's of that's capacity. There are cars that could tow a boat and still have half of their towing capacity and more. Though the average SUV would still do it easier, the better the car you choose is at it, the less of a big deal it becomes.

2. GM makes decent cars out side of the Corvette and SUV's/Trucks. But I'll never convince you of that because for whatever reason you fail to see that we live in America.
The simple answer here is, we don't get them, we don't know, maybe GM does, maybe they don't, I'll probably never get first hand experience.
 
Can you please do comparisons for like to like engines. The V8 in the magnun probably makes 3-4 times the power of your car.

3.5L Dodge Mangum with 250hp gets 19mpg. I have a bigger engine and get that.

5 series touring has more space than the X5 in every department, can tow just as much and all while giving better economy, performance and more fun to drive.

X5 is a car based SUV, I've never once said anything about them.

Because I said that didnt I? Funny coming from the guy that doesnt like any german cars.

Hmmm I hate German cars huh? Guess thats why I want a MKV GTI. And since I assume you read my blog because you said you did, you would know this. Unless you don't read my blog and you made up the fact you think I'm a street racer.

Whats more comfortable? A mercedes E-class with ABC suspension package or a tahoe?

If towing a 22foot boat requires a 1/4 of a SUV's capacity they it only needs 1/2 of a car, done easily enough.

Since I've never been in an E-class I can't say, and since you've never been in a Tahoe you can't say either. But I can tell you the Tahoe has more leg room for the rear passengers.

Name 3. No opel derived products though.

Cadilliac anything, Buick LaCrosse, Grand Prix, Sky/Soltice (its not an Opel) and the new Malibu is actually quite liked...even though I'm not really a fan. And really Opel is GM so it doesn't much matter...so Saturns.



A longer wheelbase decreses the cars capabilities over hills and crests, as you go over a crest the front wheels lift off the ground at some point, then as they come back down the rear wheels come off the ground. The longer the wheelbase, the higher the chance the car will bottom out at this point leaving you a: stuck, and b: with damage done to the underside of the car if it's on a hard surface at least.

The Tahoe doesn't have that long of a wheel base, it's 116 inches. An A6 has a 112 inch wheel base and a Range Rover has 113inch wheel base. So the Tahoe doesn't have a huge wheel base. Now Suburbans might be another story, but I know you can take those off road because lots of people do just that.

It's not so much less physical space, it's more a case of available space, some estates are packaged in a way that what space they have is used in the best way it can be which has in some cases, though not all, resulted in a smaller car being able to carry larger loads.

Still the bigger the vehicle the more space it will offer.

The thought behind this is sound, but it's not always as low as 1/4 of the SUV's capacity, and it's have to be a small car to be 3/4's of that's capacity. There are cars that could tow a boat and still have half of their towing capacity and more. Though the average SUV would still do it easier, the better the car you choose is at it, the less of a big deal it becomes.

Except the cars that can do it are much more expensive then an SUV, a MB Wagon might be able to pull a boat, campers, whatever...but it also cost most then the SUV which will do the same job with a smaller price tag.

The simple answer here is, we don't get them, we don't know, maybe GM does, maybe they don't, I'll probably never get first hand experience.

Then I believe it's ignorant of Poverty to make such claims, you don't a number of GM's...however in America we tend to get a good deal of the cars you have.
 
Ive been in my fair share of american cars. my family has also had a fair share of vauxhalls/opels when I was a child.

Cadilliac anything, Buick LaCrosse, Grand Prix, Sky/Soltice (its not an Opel) and the new Malibu is actually quite liked...even though I'm not really a fan. And really Opel is GM so it doesn't much matter...so Saturns.

Every cadillac is a good car? They are good cars when compared to a saturn but they compete against audi, bmw, mercedes etc. When competing against those they are at the bottom of the pile.

Buick lacrosse :lol:

Pontiac grande prix :rolleyes:

Sky: 1 point.

Chevy malibu hahaha :lol: hahaha you serious?

04ChevyMalibuLT2.jpg




The thing about vauxhalls and opels is this:

The corsa sells. It is a main selling point for opel/vauxhall but throughout the rest of the range the cars arent all that. Ford especially out does them in every department. Vauxhalls are generally seen as the poor mans choice of transport.

Corsas are well liked due to boy racers wanting them. There isnt really anything overall good with them except that its kind of become a fashion item. A kids first car for most.
 
BlazinXtreme
But I can tell you the Tahoe has more leg room for the rear passengers.

I have been in a 2004 Cadillac Escalade and I was disappointed with the rear seats leg room, if the Tahoe has more room then great, but if not then well .......:indiff:.
 
Poverty
So I think its time we recap here.

1. Blazing has now agree that most people dont go offroading and many people have 2x4's.

2.BX has also admitted that most people dont tow 22foot boats and even if they did you could do that in a car. A 22foot boat would only take up about 3/4 of a cars towing capacity.

3. SUV's get crap economy compared to their wagon counterparts.

4. Wagons are faster and more enjoyable to drive.

5. Blazing has also realised that in most SUV's the 4wd system isnt up to the task of propper offroading.

6. Wagons often have more storage space than their SUV counterparts.


So why do people really buy SUV's?

1. It could be ignorance or lack of knowledge on their part that a car could do most things better or just as good as a SUV.

2. Because the likes of GM cant make anything thats good unless its a SUV or more recently a Z06.

3. Mercedes etc station wagons are out of most peoples financial reach.

Nice recap, you left a lot out.
 
BlazinXtreme
X5 is a car based SUV, I've never once said anything about them.

And Poverty never once said that wagons hold more than full-size body-on-frame SUVs. He didn't even say that wagons always hold more than SUVs, just that they often hold more.

BlazinXtreme
Still the bigger the vehicle the more space it will offer.

That's just it -- that's not always true. Especially since a lot of an SUV's "big" is height and ground clearance, which means a shorter wagon with the same footprint but a smaller engine (meaning a shorter hood) and an independent rear suspension could quite easily be designed to hold more.

BlazinXtreme
The Tahoe doesn't have that long of a wheel base, it's 116 inches. An A6 has a 112 inch wheel base and a Range Rover has 113inch wheel base. So the Tahoe doesn't have a huge wheel base. Now Suburbans might be another story, but I know you can take those off road because lots of people do just that.

That doesn't change live4speed's point in the slightest.
 
So I did a quick comparison on Edmunds.com between the best models available in the US market that do what we are looking to do, and that have been mentioned several times in this thread.

1) The Chevrolet Tahoe LT: 5.3L V8 w/Flex Fuel: MSRP $37,655
2) Audi A6 Avant 3.2 (4.2L V8 not available): 3.2L V6: MSRP $46,870
3) Mercedes-Benz E500 4MATIC Wagon: 5.0L V8: MSRP $62,000
4) BMW 530xi (4.8L V8 not available): 3.0L I6: MSRP $51,400

- Turning Circle:
1) Tahoe: 39ft
2) Avant: 39ft
3) E500: 37.4ft
4) 330xi: 39ft.

- Cargo capacity:
1) Tahoe: 109 cu ft
2) Avant: 59 cu ft
3) E500: 69 cu ft
4) 330xi: 58 cu ft

-Payload Capacity/Towing Capacity: None of the Germans are rated, no information available from Edmunds.

- EPA City/Highway:
1) Tahoe: 15/19
2) Avant: 18/26
3) E500: 16/20
4) 330xi: 19/28

Recomended Fuel Ratings:
1) Tahoe: E85/Regular
2) Avant: Regular
3) E500: Premium
4) 330xi: Premium

-Seating:
1) Tahoe: Eight
2) Avant: Five
3) E500: Seven
4) 330xi: Five

Check out the test HERE.

So the only major difference between the four is that the Tahoe is much, much larger, and is actually a truck based SUV. Fuel economy differences are minimal, the Tahoe can carry and tow more, and has a presumably greater capability offroad when equipped with the Z71 suspension option (comming later in the year I belive). Feel free to tear my research apart, but I thought I would add to the convo.
 
YSSMAN
So the only major difference between the four is that the Tahoe is much, much larger, and is actually a truck based SUV. Fuel economy differences are minimal, the Tahoe can carry and tow more, and has a presumably greater capability offroad when equipped with the Z71 suspension option (comming later in the year I belive). Feel free to tear my research apart, but I thought I would add to the convo.

Thanks for posting those. It's good to have some numbers to compare. I would put a bit of a disclaimer on the seven passenger report from the E500 since it's not really comparable to the quality of the 8 passenger seating in the tahoe.

It would also be nice to throw in ground clearance numbers, and maybe a minivan to compare against.

Very funny that the E wagon has the same fuel economy as the much maligned Tahoe.
 
Well, looking at Yssman's numbers, it seems that there IS infact a place for the SUV. Besides, Tahoe's really aren't that big anyway. Now and Excursion...that's big.
 
Swift
Well, looking at Yssman's numbers, it seems that there IS infact a place for the SUV. Besides, Tahoe's really aren't that big anyway. Now and Excursion...that's big.
Yeah, big and gone thankfully. I drove one quite a long time ago that belonged to my friend's late father. How on earth anyone can drive them and turn them is an amazement, imo.

Whatever the Tahoe case, if there's one thing it's doing more here than those wagons, it's selling like hotcakes.
 
If anything, I wanted to prove that the differences between the SUVs and the Wagons were minimal...
 
Those edmund figures are very different from the figures im getting from whatcar.com The avants get much better mileage than that according to UK sites.
 
Back