SUV's are obsolete

[Wolfe]

Have you been to new york city!? You will certainly NOT find as many SUVs there as other places.

I admit that I have not been to New York City -- have you? Every movie, TV show, or photo I have ever seen of New York traffic has included plenty of SUVs, and Chicago, a big city that I have been to, has many SUVs driving around. Maybe not as many as in Michigan, as Blazin describes it, or in rural areas, but just as many (proportionately) as smaller cities and towns.

SUVs have significantly more torque, and will more often than not blast a minivan out of the water.

Yes, SUVs have torque, because they're designed to be able to tow large, heavy things (honest, truck-based ones, anyway). Minivans are designed to haul people and stuff.

SUVs and minivans both tend to accelerate from 0-60 in about 7-8 seconds, which is on par with most family cars. SUVs that go any faster than that tend to be car-based, and/or sacrifice utility for speed/style.

Again, as I said before, SUVs, minivans, and family cars are all faster than they have to be anyway.

This one particular reason isn't valid for 5-seater SUVs (which is why I compared it against 5-seaters). It IS , however, valid for 7, 8 passenger SUVs.

I never said it wasn't. I was pointing out that most SUVs on the road are 5-seaters, and most SUVs available for purchase are 5-seaters. Therefore, buying an SUV for additional seating capacity isn't a valid reason for many SUV purchases.

I love how you twist and misinterpret what I say to make it sound like I'm talking nonsense...

Sure, passenger capacity doesn't apply to those who don't have passengers. Gas mileage doesn't apply to those who don't drive. What's your point? I posted reasons why people purchase SUVs, if people don't tow, they won't buy it for that reason.

I should have been more clear, there -- many people don't use their SUVs to tow things, so that reason does not apply to a significant portion of SUV drivers.

If by "serious" you mean insane, then you're wrong. It applies in any instance in which there are ruts or large rocks.

I've destroyed a transmission by driving on a perfectly flat bit of dirt because of the presence of a rock. I would certainly have not done that damage if I'd had more ground clearance.

Deep ruts and large rocks qualify as serious off-roading. Shallow ruts, gravel roads, and campsite driveways do not count.

You also wouldn't have done that damage if you had seen the rock -- if you were driving down a forgotten backroad and a low-hanging branch smacked your windshield, damaging it, does that mean that you should have had a shorter car? S*** happens.

Ok, then they're stupid. So what? Some people think astrology is real.

I take it you've never seen an SUV driver slam into (or almost slam into) another motorist because they were driving too fast in the snow, and/or thought they could start braking later?

Man you like to make assumptions.

"I wouldn't be surprised if..." != an assumption.

...and until someone amongst us pulls out charts, graphs, data tables, and testimonies from a large sample of the population, everything in this thread is assumptions, generalizations, and opinions.

Agreed. So what?

If 4WD is useless in warm conditions, it rules out the possibility of 4WD being a valid reason for purchasing an SUV in areas with those conditions. That's all. It's just a small, simple point.

Agreed. What's your point?

Again I should have been more clear -- the cargo capacity advantage that an SUV offers over other types of vehicle is useless if you don't use it. And many people don't use it (the advantage, not just the space). Just because an SUV has X more cubic feet of space than a sedan doesn't automatically mean the SUV is a better choice for grocery shopping, or for going on a weekend trip.

In some combinations, but you certainly won't find all of those in ANY vehicle. Which combination the consumer is interested in will guide his purchase.

That's pretty much my point, there. Many consumers don't need an SUV because they don't need all of those things, and more often than not can get away with something smaller and more efficient.

It means I weighed the options and was more happy with the SUV. I will never purchase a vehicle that I don't find attractive - which pretty much rules out minivans. I consider it a phenomenal waste of money to buy an ugly car.

Tell that to Aztec owners.

Anyway, you pretty much summed up my point -- you didn't need the SUV, you were simply more happy with it.

If it ended there, that would be fine, but there are SUV owners who have convinced themselves that they needed the SUV, and that the minivan wouldn't have been enough. Also, there are those who complain about gas prices when they could have bought something more efficient that still met their needs.

Honda Odyssey, 25 mpg.

20/28mpg (Odyssey) is better than 15/19mpg (Tahoe), last time I checked.

Sorry that's pure B.S. The price difference alone pays for thousands of gallons of gasoline.

There is no price difference. I said "luxury SUVs." I'm not trying to claim that the E-class wagon is amazing -- the only one that is in my eyes is the AMG version, and that's simply because of the humor behind a hellishly fast wagon. You asked for a 7-seater wagon, and Blazin and I pointed it out to you. You then dismissed it because the seats were too small, and I didn't care.

Nobody "needs" any car. Do you hate people who don't "need" their Ferrari?

I hate people who never drive them, or rarely ever push them anywhere near their limits, yes.

Howabout "cars in general are not needed by most of their drivers".

You're absolutely right -- but that's a given. How about "SUVs are not needed as a replacement or alternative to smaller cars by most of their drivers?" Clear enough for you?

Scapegoats for what? What am I blaming on you? Not a goodd*mn thing.

You do enjoy twisting what I say to make it sound like I hate all SUV drivers, or that I hate SUVs, or that I'm discriminatory against SUV drivers and don't mind any other type of driver. You've also made blanket comments towards the members who are on the anti-SUV side of this argument.

If you don't read or listen to anything else in this post, just read this Wolfe. You don't make any sense. You're arguing nonsense, you won't stick to the point, you argue tangents that don't have any relevance. It's intellectually lazy and I'm tired of it. If you want to convince yourself that you're right by finding a way to retort to everything I say, go right ahead, I'm finished playing along. If you want to have a real discussion, try sticking to the original point when you respond.

The point was whether or not SUVs are "obsolete," which evolved into whether or not SUVs are really needed by their owners. Everything we've discussed has revolved around that, or has at least been related to it. Many of the tangents have been initiated by yourself, as you take something I say and twist it so that I'm insulting someone, or discriminating against a group of people, or making poor assumptions here or there.

Throughout this debate you've made assumptions about me, and made contradictory and hypocritical statements that really don't help the discussion at all. All along, you've maintained an "I am holier than thou" attitude, refusing to back down on even the smallest of points without at least belittling them first, so that they no longer matter.

I guess you have some sort of reputation around here, and I've seen some of your posts in the opinion forum, so I had high expectations for your argumentative skills here, and was looking forward to a healthy debate. I'm sorely disappointed.

Go back to arguing politics. You're better at that.

 

[GT4_Rule]

If 4WD is useless in warm conditions, it rules out the possibility of 4WD being a valid reason for purchasing an SUV in areas with those conditions. That's all. It's just a small, simple point.

Mud, then. Or rocks. Maybe even through rivers.

 

[Wolfe]

Mud, then. Or rocks. Maybe even through rivers.

That falls under the category of serious off-roading, and is an activity that the majority of SUV owners do not take part in.

When I said, "4WD is useless in warm areas," I was referring to the lack of snow -- in other words, on-road driving.

By the way, if you were wondering what Famine was saying, he was showing us how all of the equipment he used for that GT4 meet fit into his little MX3.

 

[JohnBM01]

As I say, this is a good thing for GTPlanet in getting to know different cultures and peoples. Some people would rather keep to themselves and stick to their own perceptions of the world. I don't think every SUV type in Europe will buy an S-Class and sell off their Land Rovers. Conversely, I don't think American buyers will start importing S-Class vehicles and haul stuff. You know how people say "everything's bigger in Texas?" Well, bigger (yet capable) vehicles seem to suffice here. Many people love vehicles capable of fulfilling multiple disciplines, and traditional SUVs are no different.

If this S-Class is praised for its ability to haul and all that, can you think of any other companies who want to create their own cars that can do the same thing this S-Class can, only cheaper or more capable? If so, who?

[UPDATE] Here is some extra discussion questions. We're talking about people who don't really use the full capabilities of an SUV. Why don't people take advantage of their capabilities? What specific capabilities to SUV's have that many people don't actually use? Is it then foolish to purchase an SUV if you aren't going to take advantage of its capabilities?

 

[Wolfe]

If this S-Class is praised for its ability to haul and all that, can you think of any other companies who want to create their own cars that can do the same thing this S-Class can, only cheaper or more capable? If so, who?

Audi. If I wanted a car that could go off-road, carry plenty of stuff, and tow something heavy now and then, I'd pick the Audi Allroad Quattro.

Here is some extra discussion questions. We're talking about people who don't really use the full capabilities of an SUV. Why don't people take advantage of their capabilities? What specific capabilities to SUV's have that many people don't actually use? Is it then foolish to purchase an SUV if you aren't going to take advantage of its capabilities?

One reason people don't take advantage of SUVs' capabilities is often because they never intended to. This is the most prevalent with off-roading capabilities. Another one is that SUVs are designed to be able to tow boats or trailers, but a lot of people don't own boats or trailers. Third, SUVs are large vehicles and sometimes have a 3rd row of seats, leading to very generous passenger accomodations, but they're often used by someone to commute alone, because that's what people do most often with their cars.

The capabilities that aren't used are:
- Off-roading
- Ground clearance
- Extra-large cargo space (compared to cars)
- Extra-large passenger accomodations (compared to cars)
- Towing capacity

Is it foolish to buy an SUV if you won't take advantage of its capabilities? Yes and no. It depends on the buyer. If someone is buying an SUV because they like it and want it, that's okay. If someone is buying an SUV because they need something to tow their boat/trailer, or to go on off-roading trips, that's okay, too. However, if someone is buying an SUV because it's more "macho" than a minivan, or because they think it'll make them look more important, or because it offers a higher view of the road and a higher sense of security and safety, that's not so okay...

 

[GT4_Rule]

Audi. If I wanted a car that could go off-road, carry plenty of stuff, and tow something heavy now and then, I'd pick the Audi Allroad Quattro.

The Allroad is almost like a SUV...4WD, V8, (somewhat) Ground Clearance, (somewhat) poor fuel economy.

 

[Wolfe]

The Allroad is almost like a SUV...4WD, V8, (somewhat) Ground Clearance, (somewhat) poor fuel economy.

Except it's just a beefier-looking A6 Avant that comes standard with a turbo V6, which gives it ever-so-slightly better fuel economy (16/23mpg). Regardless, I said I would choose that car if I wanted something that could tow, haul stuff, and go off-road, which means that those attributes would hardly be going to waste.

Otherwise, if I just wanted more cargo space, I'd get a BMW 3-series wagon.

On the other hand, I've always had the crazy idea of taking a high-tech luxo-offroader like the Porsche Cayenne or Volkswagen Touareg, beefing up the suspension, giving it huge offroad tires, and doing some hardcore offroading with it.

 

[Famine]

Whats that supposed to mean I dont get it.

Blazin said something along the lines of "you try fitting a wardrobe into a Mercedes E-class". I was pointing out that everything in the pictures in that post - TVs, wheels, PS2s and, yes, WOOD - fitted into a Mazda MX-3 coupe. And I could still drive it.

 

[Dave A]

Is it foolish to buy an SUV if you won't take advantage of its capabilities? Yes and no. It depends on the buyer. If someone is buying an SUV because they like it and want it, that's okay. If someone is buying an SUV because they need something to tow their boat/trailer, or to go on off-roading trips, that's okay, too. However, if someone is buying an SUV because it's more "macho" than a minivan, or because they think it'll make them look more important, or because it offers a higher view of the road and a higher sense of security and safety, that's not so okay...

👍👍:👍 You just summed up my line of argument here a hell of a lot better than I did.

 

[Joey D]

Audi. If I wanted a car that could go off-road, carry plenty of stuff, and tow something heavy now and then, I'd pick the Audi Allroad Quattro.

No body buys a 50k station wagon to off road. If you are just going to off road you buy a Wrangler, a Blazer, or any other small vehicle with 4x4.

 

[Poverty]

a blazer cant go offroad.

So your basically admitting people dont take tahoes and escalades offroad now.

 

[Joey D]

a blazer cant go offroad.

HAHA Oh God I'm sorry but you are pretty ignorant if you think that.

I give you the Blazer ZR2, which is 100% factory built...errr was factory built.

Or the even better Blazer...

They made several different Blazers. The K5 up untill the mid 90's was a bigger Blazer that was basically the two door Tahoe. The 1st gen S-Truck came in so many different forms I don't know them all, but they made a Tahoe edition and a Baja edition. The 2nd gens came in Xtreme (lowered 1.5 inches), LS (stock height with 4WD), and ZR2 (lifted 2 inches with big tires).

So you don't know what in God's name you are talking about when you say a Blazer can't off road. In fact that is the stupidest thing you've said in this whole thread. Quit being an idiot and realize that trucks and SUV's are better off road then anything else.

And people do take Tahoe's off road, go to an form of off road even in America and you will see Tahoe's, Suburbans, Broncos, etc.

 

[Joey D]

BTW here is a Blazer off roading, it's stock except for an intake...which does nothing on a Blazer

Actually there are 3 here

Oh and it's pulling a trailer...something you said they don't do

 

[Poverty]

lol its your fault. When I think of a blazer I think of your car which hasnt got much ground clearance because its been lowered. My mistake

 

[Danoff]

I admit that I have not been to New York City -- have you?

Yes.

Every movie, TV show, or photo I have ever seen of New York traffic has included plenty of SUVs, and Chicago, a big city that I have been to, has many SUVs driving around. Maybe not as many as in Michigan, as Blazin describes it, or in rural areas, but just as many (proportionately) as smaller cities and towns.

Good source.

SUVs and minivans both tend to accelerate from 0-60 in about 7-8 seconds, which is on par with most family cars. SUVs that go any faster than that tend to be car-based, and/or sacrifice utility for speed/style.

Think for second about your statement here. What did you prove? You proved that SUVs, minivans, and cars all tend to accelerate at about the same rate. Wow. Amazing conclusion. I'm SHOCKED at this conclusion. What the hell does it have to do with the fact that people will buy a V8 vehicle because it has more punch? Yes, you can get slow SUVs, my point was that you can get fast ones too (and yes, sometimes at the expense of utility). In minivans, speed is much less common.

It's just one of many reasons people might choose an SUV.

I never said it wasn't. I was pointing out that most SUVs on the road are 5-seaters, and most SUVs available for purchase are 5-seaters. Therefore, buying an SUV for additional seating capacity isn't a valid reason for many SUV purchases.

Way to go. I agree. Now let's compare against what I said shall we? I said, "here are a list of reasons people buy SUVs". You took that to mean, "if people don't need all of these things, they don't need an SUV". Which is incorrect. Yes, the people hauling capacity isn't a reason to buy a 5-seater SUV, can't get any more obvious than that. Did you really, honsetly think that I was claiming that people would buy a 5-seater SUV to haul more people than a 5-seater car? This is what I mean when I say "intellectually lazy". It's as though you're less concerned with actually making a point than you are with having some sort of response. The above in no way responds to what I wrote.

I love how you twist and misinterpret what I say to make it sound like I'm talking nonsense...

See above.

I should have been more clear, there -- many people don't use their SUVs to tow things, so that reason does not apply to a significant portion of SUV drivers.

Agreed. But that doesn't respond to my list of reasons people buy SUVs. It wasn't a necessary list of desires to validate the choice of an SUV, it was a list of potential reasons people choose them over other vehicles. I am well aware that people who don't use their SUVs to tow things won't buy them for that reason. That's about as obvious as it can possibly get and it doesn't respond to anything I wrote. Again, it's as though you're more concerned with having a response than actually saying something.

Deep ruts and large rocks qualify as serious off-roading. Shallow ruts, gravel roads, and campsite driveways do not count.

Agreed.

You also wouldn't have done that damage if you had seen the rock -- if you were driving down a forgotten backroad and a low-hanging branch smacked your windshield, damaging it, does that mean that you should have had a shorter car? S*** happens.

Agreed. But I wouldn't need to see every rock if I had more ground clearance. It was actually a fairly small rock that destroyed my transmission linkage.

I take it you've never seen an SUV driver slam into (or almost slam into) another motorist because they were driving too fast in the snow, and/or thought they could start braking later?

No I have not. I've never seen an SUV slam into anything due to over confidence. I've seen traffic accidents with SUVs that occured much the same way as ever other traffic accident, a misjudged distance or an unchecked blind spot. Blind spots, brings me to another point, it's a bit of a tangent (I'll admit that I'm going slightly off topic here). SUVs typically have convex mirrors to eliminate blind spots. Why do they not sell cars with those mirrors?

...and until someone amongst us pulls out charts, graphs, data tables, and testimonies from a large sample of the population, everything in this thread is assumptions, generalizations, and opinions.

No, actually it isn't. See this is another example of laziness on your part. You just ASSUME that I'm making assumptions , which I'm not (at least not any important ones). Go back and find examples of me making assumptions (I'm sure you can find a few). Here's the basic argument

You: "People don't USE their SUVs for what they were intended for."
Me: "You don't know that."

See that? That's me not making assumptions and you making one big gigantic one you haven't substantiated. Even if you could substantiate it I'd defend their right to purchase whatever they want for whatever reason they wanted, but I'd join you in calling them stupid.

If 4WD is useless in warm conditions, it rules out the possibility of 4WD being a valid reason for purchasing an SUV in areas with those conditions. That's all. It's just a small, simple point.

Lazy. Think mud.

Again I should have been more clear -- the cargo capacity advantage that an SUV offers over other types of vehicle is useless if you don't use it.

Really??!!!!??? WOW!! I didn't think of that. I must be the biggest idiot in the world!

And many people don't use it (the advantage, not just the space).

Assumption.

Just because an SUV has X more cubic feet of space than a sedan doesn't automatically mean the SUV is a better choice for grocery shopping, or for going on a weekend trip.

Brilliant. Why am I not this much of a genius?

That's pretty much my point, there. Many consumers don't need an SUV because they don't need all of those things, and more often than not can get away with something smaller and more efficient.

Assumption. No proof. Counter example? Me.

Tell that to Aztec owners.

Anyone who bought an Aztec needs their head examined.

Anyway, you pretty much summed up my point -- you didn't need the SUV, you were simply more happy with it.

Need is such a strong word. I agree that nobody needs a car. But if you had said "use" I'd have responded with "assumption".

If it ended there, that would be fine, but there are SUV owners who have convinced themselves that they needed the SUV, and that the minivan wouldn't have been enough.

Not exactly. "Need" is a misused word and often means "needed in order to avoid mildly irritating reprocussions". To which I would respond that they might be right.

Also, there are those who complain about gas prices when they could have bought something more efficient that still met their needs.

They complain yes. But perhaps if you find a sports car owner that complains about gas prices you can remind HIM that a smaller, more efficient engine could have met his "needs".

20/28mpg (Odyssey) is better than 15/19mpg (Tahoe), last time I checked.

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_full_specs.asp?ModelName=Odyssey&Category=3

It's 25.

There is no price difference. I said "luxury SUVs." I'm not trying to claim that the E-class wagon is amazing -- the only one that is in my eyes is the AMG version, and that's simply because of the humor behind a hellishly fast wagon. You asked for a 7-seater wagon, and Blazin and I pointed it out to you. You then dismissed it because the seats were too small, and I didn't care.

Yes well, the seats don't count if they're basically useless. Why do you not hate the V8 E-wagon? It gets the same gas mileage as the Tahoe but is way less useful for hauling people or cargo.

I hate people who never drive them, or rarely ever push them anywhere near their limits, yes.

Hauling people is much more practical reason for wanting a vehicle than hauling ass.

You're absolutely right -- but that's a given. How about "SUVs are not needed as a replacement or alternative to smaller cars by most of their drivers?" Clear enough for you?

No car is "needed" as a replacement or alternative to anyting. How about "SUVs are a desireable replacement or alternative to smaller cars"?

You do enjoy twisting what I say to make it sound like I hate all SUV drivers, or that I hate SUVs, or that I'm discriminatory against SUV drivers and don't mind any other type of driver. You've also made blanket comments towards the members who are on the anti-SUV side of this argument.

Ok, my bad... just 99% right? That's about the percentage that you figure doesn't use their gass guzzling planet killer. Am I right?

The point was whether or not SUVs are "obsolete," which evolved into whether or not SUVs are really needed by their owners. Everything we've discussed has revolved around that, or has at least been related to it.

See the above as examples of how you don't stick to the point (ie: don't actually respond to things I said).

Many of the tangents have been initiated by yourself, as you take something I say and twist it so that I'm insulting someone, or discriminating against a group of people, or making poor assumptions here or there.

See the above as examples of assumptions.

Throughout this debate you've made assumptions about me, and made contradictory and hypocritical statements that really don't help the discussion at all.

Please quote me.

All along, you've maintained an "I am holier than thou" attitude, refusing to back down on even the smallest of points without at least belittling them first, so that they no longer matter.

No no no. I've been attacking the holier than thou "I have a 30mpg vehicle and you should too" attitude. Remember?

You: "People don't use their SUVs"
Me: "You don't know that."

How is that holier than thou on my part and NOT holier than thou on your part?

I guess you have some sort of reputation around here, and I've seen some of your posts in the opinion forum, so I had high expectations for your argumentative skills here, and was looking forward to a healthy debate. I'm sorely disappointed.

Yes, it's much more fun to debate someone when you agree with them right?

Go back to arguing politics. You're better at that.

I think I'll do both.

 

[Swift]

Brilliant. Why am I not this much of a genius?

Brilliant! Sorry, just had to throw that in there.

That was quite the marathon post. But good stuff none the less.

SUV's in general are about one of two things. The possibility of hauling people/stuff or just trying to look cool because you "Think" an SUV makes you look cool. And it really, really doesn't. Oh well...

 

[JohnBM01]

From my past post, I've asked why many SUV owners don't use their SUVs for the purposes mentioned. My next issue is the "car-based SUVs" that aren't really meant for off-roading. Are their capabilities any more different from traditional SUVs? Would owners of car-based SUVs be better off with minivans than SUVs?

Just adding to the debate.

 

[Danoff]

From my past post, I've asked why many SUV owners don't use their SUVs for the purposes mentioned.

This has yet to be established.

 

[Poverty]

danoff for president. Hes good at twisting and answering questions but ultimately avoiding them.

 

[Danoff]

danoff for president. Hes good at twisting and answering questions but ultimately avoiding them.

Quote me, show me where I avoided them.

 

[Dave A]

This has yet to be established.

No, it has, just not in Michigan, which I'm fine with, you jsut seem blind to it. In Manchester, 99% of people with an SUV never take it on grass, how do I know this, by observing. The only SUV's I've seen ploughing through mud in the UK are doing so for show, for famr work or for motorsport. Most people with SUV's here take thier kid's to chool in them then park them outside Tesco's while they do thir shopping. This isn't specualtion, is an observation based fact. I also know a couple of people that own SUV's, none of them ever used them for anything more than you could do in a Fiesta. My partents used to own one, never used it for anything you need an SUV for, they sold it because of cost. In fact, I'm yet to go to any city and see SUV's being used for mass transportation, off road driving or anythnig that would require you to be in an SUV to do. And every city I've been in (that's a hell of a lot of cities) I've noticed SUV's. In the country, you still get people who never use them like that, then you get farmers, not all of whome see a need for an SUV, some make do with something else.

 

[Famine]

My dad bought an "SUV" once. A Ford Explorer.

He liked it because he could get in and out of it - with his heart condition and arthritis - without stretching and, post hip-replacement surgery, the auto 'box was useful too. He occasionally used it to throw vast quantites of gardening supplies in (including 1.5 tonnes of gravel, in 25kg bags. Thanks for that) and at least once drove it across a field, for a laugh.

 

[Danoff]

No, it has,

Where?

just not in Michigan, which I'm fine with,

Michigan?

you jsut seem blind to it. In Manchester, 99% of people with an SUV never take it on grass, how do I know this, by observing.

You observe all SUV drivers in Manchester at all times and have compiled data that leads you to believe that 99% of them never take it on grass? Would you mind scanning your logs from the logbook you kept during your observations? Would you mind explaining to me how the only possible way an SUV can be "used" is by taking it onto grass?

The only SUV's I've seen ploughing through mud in the UK are doing so for show, for famr work or for motorsport.

Innocent until proven guilty?

Most people with SUV's here take thier kid's to chool in them then park them outside Tesco's while they do thir shopping. This isn't specualtion, is an observation based fact.

Ok, so they use their SUVs to go shopping. So what? How does that imply that they don't use them other ways?

I also know a couple of people that own SUV's, none of them ever used them for anything more than you could do in a Fiesta.

So a couple of people you knew didn't use them and that's the basis here? What about me? I used mine when I had one. Blazin used his. I can list 6 people off the top of my head that needed theirs as well. Your couple of friends is hardly proof.

My partents used to own one, never used it for anything you need an SUV for, they sold it because of cost. In fact, I'm yet to go to any city and see SUV's being used for mass transportation,

We use them as cabs here.

off road driving or anythnig that would require you to be in an SUV to do.

I used to drive mine off road and into the city daily.

And every city I've been in (that's a hell of a lot of cities) I've noticed SUV's.

SUVs can be used in the city.

In the country, you still get people who never use them like that, then you get farmers, not all of whome see a need for an SUV, some make do with something else.

I see. Well there you have it. Proof positive that SUVs don't get used. I tell you what, I'm totally convinced. I'm so convinced that now I doubt I ever used mine when I had it.

 

[Dave A]

You observe all SUV drivers in Manchester at all times and have compiled data that leads you to believe that 99% of them never take it on grass? Would you mind scanning your logs from the logbook you kept during your observations? Would you mind explaining to me how the only possible way an SUV can be "used" is by taking it onto grass?

No, obviousely I don't since they must all sudeenly start driving up rock masses while I'm not looking. And I never said the only possible way to use an SUV is to go on grass, you miss-read me.

Innocent until proven guilty?

No, they are the only times I've seen SUV's off road in the whole of my reccolectible life in the UK, not counting gravel roads like the ones that lead to camping parks and holiday parks ect.

Ok, so they use their SUVs to go shopping. So what? How does that imply that they don't use them other ways?

I doesn't, I never said it did, so what's your point.

So a couple of people you knew didn't use them and that's the basis here? What about me? I used mine when I had one. Blazin used his. I can list 6 people off the top of my head that needed theirs as well. Your couple of friends is hardly proof.

I see my proof every day, you probably see yours, but if you can't accept that not everywhere is like where you live that's your problem, not mine.

We use them as cabs here.

That proves my point doesn't it, or do your cabbies take shortcut's up the kyber? An SUV as a cab is far less practical than a minivan, we use cars, estates and minivans as cab's. All a cab is supposed to do is ferry people from one place to another, so how is a low mgp vehicle with 4wd and a high ground clearence going to be a benefit here?

I used to drive mine off road and into the city daily.

So, your point is what? Your a single example that resides a slight distance from anywhere I've been.

SUVs can be used in the city.

Never said they couldn't, but most here arn't being used for anything more than you can do in an average hatchback. Prove me wrong, if you can.

I see. Well there you have it. Proof positive that SUVs don't get used. I tell you what, I'm totally convinced. I'm so convinced that now I doubt I ever used mine when I had it.

You know what Danoff, your entire counter argument, no your enitire show me proof argument is stupid, extremely stupid. Instead of you asking me to show you proof they don't go off road, why don't you provide proof that they do, the fact tht they can isn't proof neither is the fact that you did. I want proof, from you, that all or most SUV's bought privately are used to go up muddy slopes and to tow 22 foot boats. If you can't, don't ask anyone else to prove anything, I see my proof every day. Feel up to it?

 

[Danoff]

You know what Danoff, your entire counter argument, no your enitire show me proof argument is stupid, extremely stupid. Instead of you asking me to show you proof they don't go off road, why don't you provide proof that they do, the fact tht they can isn't proof neither is the fact that you did. I want proof, from you, that all or most SUV's bought privately are used to go up muddy slopes and to tow 22 foot boats. If you can't, don't ask anyone else to prove anything, I see my proof every day. Feel up to it?

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.

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.


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.

 

[Famine]

You know what Danoff, your entire counter argument, no your enitire show me proof argument is stupid, extremely stupid. Instead of you asking me to show you proof they don't go off road, why don't you provide proof that they do, the fact tht they can isn't proof neither is the fact that you did. I want proof, from you, that all or most SUV's bought privately are used to go up muddy slopes and to tow 22 foot boats. If you can't, don't ask anyone else to prove anything, I see my proof every day. Feel up to it?

I think perhaps you've misunderstood danoff.

He's got two points that I can see.

• Just because you often see SUVs not doing x, y, z doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't used for x, y, z
• Just because SUVs can do x, y, z doesn't necessarily mean that owners who don't do x, y, z with them aren't using them.

You're currently running into the first part - Poverty is running into the second one.

Now, I agree that, in many cases in the UK, SUVs aren't taken offroad/tow boats/eat commercial supplies, but I have a sample-size of one owner that I know the daily habits of and I know that on at least one occasion he has taken it offroad. So 100% of SUV owners I know have taken their vehicle offroad.

Even if he hadn't, that wouldn't necessarily equate to not using his SUV. After all, why is the vehicle supplied with factory-fitted road tyres, rather than mudpluggers, and a full leather interior?


Arguing that wanting one for a high driving position/feeling of safety is wrong is also quite silly. A high driving position gives you better visibility. The feeling of safety is not misplaced either - I'm sure we've all seen the video of what happens when an Explorer hits a Mini (a real one, not a BMW one). If you were doing the school run (or, as it's termed, "Soccer Mom") would you want your kids in the Explorer or the Mini?

 

[///M-Spec]

Arguing that wanting one for a high driving position/feeling of safety is wrong is also quite silly. A high driving position gives you better visibility. The feeling of safety is not misplaced either - I'm sure we've all seen the video of what happens when an Explorer hits a Mini (a real one, not a BMW one). If you were doing the school run (or, as it's termed, "Soccer Mom") would you want your kids in the Explorer or the Mini?

Well, if we want to talk about safety, here's an interesting piece of information somewhat relavant to the discussion.

*Forty-one percent of car occupant deaths in 2004 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 59 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 65 percent of SUV occupant deaths and 59 percent of pickup occupant deaths. This is a US accident statistic.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html

In addition, if you combine all vehicle types, 48% of all deaths in 2004 involved a single vehicle.

That means about half the time, when someone died behind the wheel of their car, pickup truck or SUV in 2004, they did so without hitting another car. Usually, they drive off the road and hit something or roll over.

Why is this important and what does this have to do with Famine's paragraph above?

It means half the time being in an SUV does not increase your odds of surviving an accident, if you have one.

If your Explorer or Tahoe or X5 hits a Focus or Corolla, you'll probably come out ahead. But if your Explorer hits a telephone pole or 100 year old Oak tree or rolls over into an embankment, the extra mass doesn't do much to help you. Furthermore, if you hit another SUV, the mass is a wash anyway.

In these cases, being in a traditional SUV may hurt you, because for years, SUVs were not engineered to the same safety standards as passenger cars. I strongly suspect this is largely because it is harder to design a frame on body vehicle (traditional SUVs and pickups) to have sophisticated energy absorbing crumple zones than a unit body (all modern passenger cars).

If you look up crash test reports, like from the NTHSA, you'll find that historically, SUVs do not generally perform as well as their passenger car counterparts. BUT in the last few years, with SUV safety making lots of headlines, a lot of companies have made big advancements in crash safety, so obviously things are changing. The '06 Ford Explorer scored 5/5 for frontal and side testing this year, so obviously things are changing.

Also, rollovers are still a leading cause of fatality for SUV drivers, and traditional designs still lag far behind passenger cars in that dept.

So if you asked me if I wanted to drive off the road into a massive tree at 45mph in a 2006 Ford Expedition or a 2006 Toyota Camry, I'd go with the Camry. But if you asked me if I wanted to be in the Expedition or the Camry if one hit the other, I'd go with the Expedition. (Maybe)

It is actually for these two reasons that I like unit body SUVs. They combine many of the positive qualities of passenger cars and traditional SUVs. They may not do everything as well as one or the other, but do a fairly broad number of jobs well.

But let me put my post into proper perspective. FACT: One-third of passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2004 were younger than 25. So the most important thing you can do to avoid dying in a car accident is not be 25 or younger.


EDIT: And all this is without touching on the subject of AVOIDING accidents all together, which is something SUVs have a big handicap doing.


M

 

[Wolfe]

Think for second about your statement here. What did you prove? You proved that SUVs, minivans, and cars all tend to accelerate at about the same rate. Wow. Amazing conclusion. I'm SHOCKED at this conclusion. What the hell does it have to do with the fact that people will buy a V8 vehicle because it has more punch? Yes, you can get slow SUVs, my point was that you can get fast ones too (and yes, sometimes at the expense of utility). In minivans, speed is much less common.

It's just one of many reasons people might choose an SUV.

You should be shocked, because you had stated that SUVs are purchased for their power and speed. The reality is that the faster ones tend to be car-based and sacrifice utility, therefore ruling out power/speed as a valid reason to purchase a utility-worthy SUV, and cutting down the number of SUVs out there that have been purchased for a valid reason.

Way to go. I agree. Now let's compare against what I said shall we? I said, "here are a list of reasons people buy SUVs". You took that to mean, "if people don't need all of these things, they don't need an SUV". Which is incorrect. Yes, the people hauling capacity isn't a reason to buy a 5-seater SUV, can't get any more obvious than that. Did you really, honsetly think that I was claiming that people would buy a 5-seater SUV to haul more people than a 5-seater car? This is what I mean when I say "intellectually lazy". It's as though you're less concerned with actually making a point than you are with having some sort of response. The above in no way responds to what I wrote.

Can you read? Yes, you said, "here are a list of reasons people buy SUVs," to which I responded, for each reason, "here's why those reasons don't apply to many or most SUV buyers." My point is that the reasons you posted may be valid in certain cases, but are often not valid.

I'm not attempting to disprove the validity of your list as possible reasons for buying an SUV. I'm attempting to demonstrate that the majority SUV purchases are made independent of those reasons.

Agreed. But that doesn't respond to my list of reasons people buy SUVs. It wasn't a necessary list of desires to validate the choice of an SUV, it was a list of potential reasons people choose them over other vehicles. I am well aware that people who don't use their SUVs to tow things won't buy them for that reason. That's about as obvious as it can possibly get and it doesn't respond to anything I wrote. Again, it's as though you're more concerned with having a response than actually saying something.

Read above, and read my post again.

Agreed. But I wouldn't need to see every rock if I had more ground clearance. It was actually a fairly small rock that destroyed my transmission linkage.

You also wouldn't need to watch out for tree branches if you had a shorter car.

It's unfortunate that this happened to you, but I don't see how it justifies Joe and Jane Suburbia buying an SUV.

No I have not. I've never seen an SUV slam into anything due to over confidence. I've seen traffic accidents with SUVs that occured much the same way as ever other traffic accident, a misjudged distance or an unchecked blind spot. Blind spots, brings me to another point, it's a bit of a tangent (I'll admit that I'm going slightly off topic here). SUVs typically have convex mirrors to eliminate blind spots. Why do they not sell cars with those mirrors?

I don't know. They should just build cars that have smaller blind spots and better visibility to begin with.

No, actually it isn't. See this is another example of laziness on your part. You just ASSUME that I'm making assumptions , which I'm not (at least not any important ones). Go back and find examples of me making assumptions (I'm sure you can find a few). Here's the basic argument

You: "People don't USE their SUVs for what they were intended for."
Me: "You don't know that."

There's an assumption right there.

The basic argument is more like this:

Me: "There are a significant number of people out there who don't use their SUVs for what they were intended for, and many of them could be doing the same things with a smaller car."
You: "You don't know what you're talking about. People do use them for what they were intended for, and wagons wouldn't have cut it."

See that? That's me not making assumptions and you making one big gigantic one you haven't substantiated. Even if you could substantiate it I'd defend their right to purchase whatever they want for whatever reason they wanted, but I'd join you in calling them stupid.

Your assumption is that I'm applying my arguments to all SUV owners, when in fact I am merely applying them to a large portion of the owners based on observation of traffic over the course of my lifetime.

Lazy. Think mud.

Lazy. Read the other post where I clarified this. Also, mud isn't found regularly on pavement -- you'd have to go off-road, which is a different part of our debate.

Assumption.

Yeah, and? It's an educated assumption -- it takes a helluva lot of stuff to take advantage of the extra space that an SUV provides over smaller cars. Grocery shopping won't cut it, hauling equipment to the kids' soccer game won't cut it, even camping trips require a lot of stuff in order to take advantage of the extra space.

Brilliant. Why am I not this much of a genius?

Because you refuse to open your eyes and read what I'm writing.

Assumption. No proof. Counter example? Me.

How are you, a single person, a counter-example when the claim itself makes exceptions? "...Many consumers don't need..."

Need is such a strong word. I agree that nobody needs a car. But if you had said "use" I'd have responded with "assumption".

How could I use the observation of thousands of SUVs on the road to determine how you use your SUV?

You may think I'm doing this, but I'm not. I'm referring to SUV drivers as a generalized group, not as the individuals I see out on the road.

They complain yes. But perhaps if you find a sports car owner that complains about gas prices you can remind HIM that a smaller, more efficient engine could have met his "needs".

And I would. You don't seem to understand that yet.

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_full_specs.asp?ModelName=Odyssey&Category=3

It's 25.

That's funny. Danoff, just look at your "25" number, then look a few inches to the right of it...

Although I admit I didn't know there was a trim that got less -- I only used the touring trim in my comparison on Edmunds.com

Yes well, the seats don't count if they're basically useless. Why do you not hate the V8 E-wagon? It gets the same gas mileage as the Tahoe but is way less useful for hauling people or cargo.

I don't hate the V8 E-wagon just like I don't hate SUVs. I've already explained this -- I hate the SUV drivers who are irresponsible with them and/or complain about the drawbacks that they brought upon themselves when they bought an SUV instead of a car.

Hauling people is much more practical reason for wanting a vehicle than hauling ass.

More practical, yes. More enjoyable for every single person? Not so much. You and I have already agreed that buying an SUV because you're an SUV enthusiast, or because you just really like it, is okay. If that holds true, then a sportscar buyer should be able to buy one because they really like it, and enjoy driving it.

No car is "needed" as a replacement or alternative to anyting. How about "SUVs are a desireable replacement or alternative to smaller cars"?

Sure a car can be needed as a replacement or alternative to something. If you had a low-to-the-ground sportscar and still lived on that deep-rutted road, you'd need an SUV or truck as a replacement/alternative.

For many people, that desire has been fueled by ad agencies and society telling them that they need the SUV.

Ok, my bad... just 99% right? That's about the percentage that you figure doesn't use their gass guzzling planet killer. Am I right?

Still a poor assumption. If I had to give a percentage, I'd say somewhere between 50% and 75%, but this depends on the "utility" that they aren't using -- for example, if we're talking about off-roading, the number would be higher.

See the above as examples of how you don't stick to the point (ie: don't actually respond to things I said).

See above as examples of how you make assumptions about me and my thoughts, and twist my words around.

See the above as examples of assumptions.

See this thread as examples of assumptions.

You might think you're standing in the middle of all of this, but your claims that our assumptions are wrong don't provide any more proof than we are, are assumptions in and of themselves.

If you weren't making assumptions, you'd be going around saying, "well, none of us know for sure," and wouldn't be contributing to the debate.

Please quote me.

Fortunately, I don't have to do any work -- they're already quoted in this post.

The assumptions parts should be easy to find, and examples of some of the hypocritical parts are tied into the assumptions.

No no no. I've been attacking the holier than thou "I have a 30mpg vehicle and you should too" attitude. Remember?

You: "People don't use their SUVs"
Me: "You don't know that."

How is that holier than thou on my part and NOT holier than thou on your part?

Because those are both huge assumptions on your part, and one of them has absolutely no weight behind it.

I never said anything along the lines of "I have a 30mpg vehicle and you should too," and if that's the way you've been viewing me this whole time, it explains perfectly why you refuse to actually read what I write, and constantly make incorrect assumptions about me and my points.

I referred to my car as an example of the difference between SUV enthusiasts and sportscar enthusiasts -- I want an inefficient sportscar, but drive an efficient car. Many sportscar fans are in the same boat. SUV fans, on the other hand, want inefficient uber-trucks/SUVs, but already drive inefficient SUVs.

We already buried that point, so there's no need to bring it up again, but it's comical how you made a wild assumption about me from it.

The other assumption is your summary of the debate, which I already mentioned above.

Yes, it's much more fun to debate someone when you agree with them right?

No -- it's much more fun to debate with someone when they don't look down on you, don't make assumptions about you, accept their mistakes and forgive yours, and read your posts with an open mind.

Scaff is a prime example of such a GTP member, as he and I have done plenty of intense debating over GT4's driving physics and Enthusia's driving physics. Niky is another great example, though we tend to agree, and so is YSSMAN, who always seems to calm things down in debate threads. live4speed and I disagree sometimes, though we tend to agree more often than not, and he is also a willing and friendly debate partner.

You, on the other hand, make crazy assumptions, evade questions and points (for example, by trying to prove how my arguments against your list of reasons were pointless, above), refuse to accept anything without belittling it, don't read closely enough, and initiate personal attacks.

As I said in my last post, I expected more from you.

 

[Danoff]

Me: "There are a significant number of people out there who don't use their SUVs for what they were intended for, and many of them could be doing the same things with a smaller car."
You: "You don't know what you're talking about. People do use them for what they were intended for, and wagons wouldn't have cut it."

I didn't mischaracterize my argument. Don't put words in my mouth. If you're arguing against me because you think this is my position, you're arguing for no reason.

If this:

There are a significant number of people out there who don't use their SUVs for what they were intended for, and many of them could be doing the same things with a smaller car.

...is your position, then we're done. I agree. The word "significant" makes this claim very easy to believe.

So there you go, perhaps this whole thing was a big misunderstanding, but I doubt it. I think you've mischaracterized your argument. Afterall, this is what you wrote on the first page

Hell, a Smart ForTwo can do what most everyday americans do with their SUVs, which is nothing more than just driving around town. Alone...

The above is a hell of a lot more difficult to substantiate than your previous quote. But if you're saying that you've changed your mind, then my job is done.

Edit:

You, on the other hand, make crazy assumptions, evade questions and points (for example, by trying to prove how my arguments against your list of reasons were pointless, above), refuse to accept anything without belittling it, don't read closely enough, and initiate personal attacks.

You're the first person to accuse me of not reading closely enough, but you could be right.

 

[Famine]

Well, if we want to talk about safety, here's an interesting piece of information somewhat relavant to the discussion.

*Forty-one percent of car occupant deaths in 2004 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 59 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 65 percent of SUV occupant deaths and 59 percent of pickup occupant deaths. This is a US accident statistic.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html

In addition, if you combine all vehicle types, 48% of all deaths in 2004 involved a single vehicle.

That means about half the time, when someone died behind the wheel of their car, pickup truck or SUV in 2004, they did so without hitting another car. Usually, they drive off the road and hit something or roll over.

Why is this important and what does this have to do with Famine's paragraph above?

It means half the time being in an SUV does not increase your odds of surviving an accident, if you have one.

If your Explorer or Tahoe or X5 hits a Focus or Corolla, you'll probably come out ahead. But if your Explorer hits a telephone pole or 100 year old Oak tree or rolls over into an embankment, the extra mass doesn't do much to help you. Furthermore, if you hit another SUV, the mass is a wash anyway.

In these cases, being in a traditional SUV may hurt you, because for years, SUVs were not engineered to the same safety standards as passenger cars. I strongly suspect this is largely because it is harder to design a frame on body vehicle (traditional SUVs and pickups) to have sophisticated energy absorbing crumple zones than a unit body (all modern passenger cars).

If you look up crash test reports, like from the NTHSA, you'll find that historically, SUVs do not generally perform as well as their passenger car counterparts. BUT in the last few years, with SUV safety making lots of headlines, a lot of companies have made big advancements in crash safety, so obviously things are changing. The '06 Ford Explorer scored 5/5 for frontal and side testing this year, so obviously things are changing.

Also, rollovers are still a leading cause of fatality for SUV drivers, and traditional designs still lag far behind passenger cars in that dept.

So if you asked me if I wanted to drive off the road into a massive tree at 45mph in a 2006 Ford Expedition or a 2006 Toyota Camry, I'd go with the Camry. But if you asked me if I wanted to be in the Expedition or the Camry if one hit the other, I'd go with the Expedition. (Maybe)

It is actually for these two reasons that I like unit body SUVs. They combine many of the positive qualities of passenger cars and traditional SUVs. They may not do everything as well as one or the other, but do a fairly broad number of jobs well.

But let me put my post into proper perspective. FACT: One-third of passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2004 were younger than 25. So the most important thing you can do to avoid dying in a car accident is not be 25 or younger.


EDIT: And all this is without touching on the subject of AVOIDING accidents all together, which is something SUVs have a big handicap doing.


M

And that's all fair game BUT...

The majority of school runs (in the UK) are short-distance, suburban/city roads. The likeliest accident is vehicle-vehicle at low to very low speeds. Rollover isn't even a concern (though it is possible to tip even a small hatchback at 20mph, if the circumstances are right).

Of course since every other bugger has got one, if you aren't in one yourself you place yourself at serious risk.

And while an SUV may not be good at avoiding accidents, the higher driving position affords greater visibility and the opportunity to use that visibility to not pull out of a side street underneath an articulated lorry because you couldn't see past that damn UPS van.