Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons Station Wagon vs SUV
1426 messages, Last post on Feb 21, 2007 at 8:37 AM
You are in the Wagons Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
|
|---|---|
|
the same folks who would "die rather than drive a mini van" would chew off their leg , at least, to avoid driving a station wagon...they would let their wives or nannies drive it. yeah, its about image and ego and millions of us get deeper into VISA and MasterCard every day on that track. now that it seems the forseter XT is getting lower than expected fuel efficiency, im gonna revist the normally aspirated forester and look again at the mazda 6 wagon that is supposed to be coming, or open the wallet wide and get a new sienna :24 mpg, seven seats and room for a 4x 8 sheet of plywood in back! okay, ill be giving up vroooom and handling for utility, but i wont be giving my neighbor's kid asthma attacks with the 8 mpg emmisions a 6000 lb SUV creates in dense city traffic, and i wont paralyze my neighbors wife in a rear end collision if i have an MI at the wheel at 35 mph. the tahoe is the latest "it" set of wheels for the drug-money urban noveau riche. dont tell me those 'rocks" are all that heavy! ranting against the machine... Mark |
|
|
boaz47 writes, "Of the 4,214,598 SUVs sold in 2002, 1,240,132 were crossovers. Most of those crossovers were the smaller ones." Just to be very clear, my rants against SUVs have never been directed at any weighing under 4,000 pounds. Those in the 4,000 to 5,000 pound category are beginning to get problematic UNLESS the owner has the actual need to tow substantial loads and/or or carry a lot of people regularly. It's the SUVs weighing more than 5,000 pounds (and cars weighing more than 4,000, for that matter) which, IMO, ought to come under stingent government regulation or be subject to extreme gas-guzzler taxes. Not necessarily to eliminate them altogether, but to ensure that nobody is buying them who cannot strongly justify their size, weight, fuel consumption, air pollution, and threat to everyone else using the roads. - jb |
|
|
I find those who argue against the large SUV's REALLY overstate the THREAT aspect. There is no data that confirms this at all. People will use stats regarding SUVs in a very slanted manner. When in fact if you look at the stats for all SUVs and cars, crash statistics show that there is no major difference in them. Owners of large SUVs already pay gas taxes when they buy the SUV at the dealership, plus they pay at the pump every time they fill up. So the argument that they should pay MORE is not valid, they already do. Now should people actually be penalized for buying whatever they want? Also, whenever someone brings up the point about sports cars that are way beyond any ones requirements and are often less practical than SUVs, the anti SUV crow never addresses that issue. Why are they not targeting speedsters on the road? |
|
|
one reason is it is easier to pick or popular targets. If indeed accidents were a driving force in the argument against SUVs wouldn't a simple solution be to tax drivers under 25 at a much higher rate than drivers over 25? I agree it is a dumb idea but aren't we all aware that percentage wise that group causes more accidents then their percentages should indicate? Some might say they already pay more in insurance so they are charged more. Sure they are and so are SUV drivers at the pump and in some states as registration fees. Will we get the 5000 lbs plus vehicles off the road? I have a fleet of 12 the lightest being 6500 pounds. Ask any one of my drivers why your neighbors wife was slammed into and smashed like a grape and more than likely they will tell you she cut over in front of them to hit the off ramp to the mall in her Toyonda civirolla peewee 5 speed. Here is what I will grant the pro wagon get no more than you can prove you need people. If a SUV does get into an accident with a micro car the SUV wins, every time. last night on 60 minutes or one of those shows it demonstrated how much of a death trap the Honda Element was when struck by a full sized SUV truck type vehicle. The 1998 NHTSA study said pretty much the same thing. By themselves or against each other large vehicles were no safer and sometimes less safe than a smaller vehicle. However SUV to car and the SUV was the vehicle with the survivor. However it might be nice to know that the Forester acquitted itself pretty well. The suggested that the people in the Forester would more than likely survive a 35 mile an hour accident with a SUV. Score one for Subaru. None of this has much to do with what a person should buy or will buy. It still comes down to what they want and if they are thinking of themselves or someone else. Most people don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about someone else when they are looking for a vehicle. So when looking for a wagon verses a SUV they picture themselves in each vehicle and see what they like best. To date a great number have decided they like the outdoors look of a SUV. Some are beginning to turn towards the crossovers because they can get the seating position, the look, and a bit better fuel mileage. Still it isn't going to happen over night and those big guys will always be with us. Unless you ban recreational sports. Wagons just have to find a way to get in on the game. |
|
|
"I find those who argue against the large SUV's REALLY overstate the THREAT aspect. There is no data that confirms this at all." I am astonished that data would be necessary to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that a 6,000 or 7,000 pound vehicle traveling at xx mph will do considerably more damage to whatever smaller vehicle (and occupants) it collides with than, say, a 3,000 or 4,000 pound vehicle would at the same speed. Are you seriously denying that the gigantic vehicle will impact with twice the kinetic energy? Sir Isaac Newton must be spinning in his grave. As for sports cars, you are wrong; the absurd arguments against them have indeed been dealt with. No one is excusing operators who recklessly drive at illegal speeds, which (in any event) SUVs are also capable of. My brother-in-law, who had just retired after 40 years at Tektronix, was killed a year ago when a 20-year-old scofflaw punk in a 4WD GMC Yukon weighing nearly three tons and racing at over 80mph on a 30mph city street slammed into his Olds Aurora. Don't talk to me about any "overstated threat" of oversize, overweight SUVs. That is pure denial. |
|
|
|
|
of physics, that is. i represent a lot of trucking companies. 70feet of tractor trailer and 100,000lbs of gvw will do an amazing amount of damage, and every day an accident happens that never should have involving a overtired driver on speed or a poorly maintained rig. the vast majority of truck drivers are far better trained and prepared to respond to an emergency than most of us, and they get annual physicals and the trucking companies do rigorous training and inspections...but that wont make any difference if there just isnt enough room to stop that much mass. the justification for those vehicles is utility..they get goods to market. etc. just because i want and can afford a bigger vehicle is a damn poor reason to drive one. for 9 years i have "utilized" a SUV, a ford explorer as much as anyone i know, including using the 4 wd every day. but im looking to go smaller, and if the escape hybrid could get up and down the grade every day with 4 passengers without creating a traffic hazard, i think it would be a realistic option. |
|
|
Ok, I am at least being honest here, but one main reason for me buying an SUV is its size and weight. With the growing popularity of SUV's and the extreme number of pickup trucks in my city (mining town) trucks and suvs are at least 50 percent if not more of the vehicles on my city roads. I don't want my wife and one year old son to be run over by an SUV either. Therefor, I have a larger vehicle. Again keep in mind I own a Rendezvous, so I'm not a king of the road SUV'er, but why should I cram my young family into a VW jetta wondering if a pickup truck with a snowplough on the front is gonna take them out. The argument that being hit in a smaller car by an SUV is more dangerous is a reason not to buy an SUV in my opiniun is backwards. If you don't want to be hit buy a vehicle 2000 pound heavier, then go buy one yourself. Now that is not the only use I have for an SUV, so don't go attacking because of that, I stated my other uses before, I am at least being honest that I selfishly want my family to be the bigger vehicle in an accident if you like it or not. |
|
|
Did you see the 12 SUVs IIHS side-crash tested, though? What seems like common sense just turns out to be plain wrong. Look at their top-rated vehicle: it's their lowest one, and probably the lightest one too. The Forester aced the tests. And the funny thing is that people often criticize the framelss windows. Well, look at the structure, and look at how well it performed despite having a seat probably 4-6" lower than competitors. Merely buying a big, tall truck does not guarantee anything. The heavier, taller Jeep Wrangler earned Poor scores. A light, low, modern unibody fares the best. OK, it had side air bags to help out, but the structure also did well. -juice |
|
|
philly88 wrote, "The argument that being hit in a smaller car by an SUV is more dangerous is a reason not to buy an SUV in my opiniun is backwards. If you don't want to be hit buy a vehicle 2000 pound heavier, then go buy one yourself." So lets say we started with (say) a fleet-average vehicle weight of 3,000 pounds. Some people, to gain a supposed safety advantage, start buying 4,000 lb. vehicles. Out of self-defense, others leapfrog and start buying 5,000 lb SUVs. Still others say "I don't want MY wife and kids at risk, so I'll get a 6,000 lb behemoth." After a few iterations of this INSANITY, half the population drives 8,000 pound Excursions - and so, following Philly's reasoning, the other half starts switching to Mack trucks. WHERE DOES THIS MADNESS STOP? Am I the only sane person on the planet? Are we all supposed to drive 10mpg vehicles purely out of selfish self-defense against other ridiculously oversized behemoths? As for the knee-jerk assumption that the biggest, heaviest vehicle is the safest for its occupants (completely disregarding everyone else), recall that these are TRUCKS - exempt from most of the design/engineering focus and crash testing that have led to improved safety in the auto fleet. The people who buy these monsters not only are placing everyone else at extreme risk, but the reality is that they're deluding themselves - they're most likely increasing the risk even to their own families! Philly just presented the most compelling imperative I've seen yet for the direct governmental intrusion we'd all rather avoid, because evidently that is the only thing that will prevent this unending, counterproductive escalation. - jack |
|
|
The test we saw on TV pictured smaller SUVs getting hit by what was supposed to be a full sized SUV. Sure Forester did very well, I am impressed. However in the 1998 NHTSA report the summation was that in an accident between a larger heavier body on frame vehicle with a smaller uniboby vehicle the larger one almost always came out more survivible. Many consumer groups tried to get the report amended or removed but it was published anyway. I may be shooting myself in the foot here but I might as well be honest. While I feel people should be able to buy what they can afford when a SUV and a Car do get in an accident the car is going to lose. The driver in the car is 4 to 5 times more likely to die than the driver in the SUV or Light truck. In support of some peoples position here is a report on that study. http://www.palmerlaw.com/Article%20-%20LTVs%20Safer%20at%20What%2- - 0Costs.htm I used to sail a lot and no matter what the rules of navigation say we had a final rule we went by, Sail boats on sail have the right of way over power boats unless you invoke the big boat little boat rule. That rule says the big boat will crush you so he has the right of way. I would like to point out however that it isn't simply weight but design that give the SUV and truck and advantage. That report also makes this observation: "A good example of stiffness incompatibility is that of a Ford Taurus passenger car compared to a Ford Ranger light truck. A Ranger must be hit with three times as much force as a Taurus to cause 200 millimeters of deformation.[xxv] In a collision between the two, the Taurus and its occupants will absorb a disproportionate amount of the crash energy even though the vehicles have equivalent mass and ride heights. A study found that the aggressivity effects of light trucks are present even when vehicle weights are equivalent, “suggesting the influence of frontal structure stiffness in the light trucks.”" |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
