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
|
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.”" |
|
|
The highway safety institute results were on small SUV's, and those results were based on a larger SUV or pickup hitting it. I'd like to see that same barrier smash into a Focus. I bet it would crumble. Many of the larger SUVs do very well in this test as does my Rendezvous. Now people will not get bigger and bigger vehicles just because. Lets be reasonable. It costs a lot more to fuel up my SUV than a VW. Now I know someone with a Yukon and another with an Escalade. I assure you, not many people want or can afford to pay hundreds a month to fuel a large SUV. So as most other people against SUVs get overly worked up, you have made points that are beyond reason. You also are using crash tests of small SUVs as your argument. Get your facts straight and then make your point. Visit http://www.hwysafety.org/ and click the April 16, 2003 status report link three articles down on the left. It details how SUV's win over smaller vehicles essentially always. Enjoy |
|
|
But stiffness does not equal safety, not at all. In fact you want the opposite - crumple zones to absorb energy. It all depends on the type of collision. A heavy body on frame truck will damage a light car, sure. But let's slip that argument. Can you even imagine what a Cadillac Deville would do to a Suzuki Samurai? I'd much, much rather be in a Forester hit by a Tahoe. Realistically, you have to compare cars/trucks in the same price range, so looking at a Suburban vs. a Rio is ridiculous. For the price of a Suburban, you could buy an extremely safe Volvo S80 or a Saab 9-5. Conversely, for the price of a base Accord you'd be stuck with a stripped pickup truck with 2wd and zero safety features. Just food for thought. I tend to prefer active safety, i.e. accident avoidance, vs. the idea that you are a sitting duck and need as much mass protecting you as possible. Look at all the heavier-than-Forester SUVs with poor scores. -juice |
|
|
|
|
really is an issue. superior handling, braking and acceleration with an experienced, alert driver at the wheel can avoid a lot of accidents. further, one of the biggest safety issues in taller vehicles is rollover. biomechanics have confirmed there is no amount of stiffness , crumple, etc that will protect you or a passenger in a rolloever...the force of the head accelerating into the ground as the vehicle rotates loads the spine beyond anything short of diving into an empty pool, even if there is no vehicle crush...thus the fallacy of roof stiffness=greater safety. i have no issue with SUV's, only with the widespread operation of fuel guzzling behemoths, including all the new 350 hp sedans, where the utility of the vehicle is rarely if ever used or needed. i went on vacation to the beach last week and paid close attention to the vehicles on the road...guess what? by a huge majority, the vehicle most likely to be towing or car-topping cargo was a mini van, followed by a motorhome. i saw not a single towed boat, trailer, etc. behind a mercedes, BMW, lincoln, land rover, hummer or cadillac SUV, and dont even think about the new crossovers! most of the luxury SUV's dont even have hitches! likewise, in over five hundred miles of driving on the interstate, i saw no towed recreational load (excluding those towed by motorhomes)larger than a trailer with two jet skis being towed by a dodge caravan and a pop up camper with 4 bikes mounted on top towed by a toyota highlander. BTW, i had the 94 explorer with 4 bikes on the hitch-mounted bike rack,loaded to within 100 lbs of the max GVW. and the blur that raced by me in the left lane going the fastest? a ford f 150 pick up with two teenage boys aboard. a cayenne red WRX wagon passed by that made my heart yearn, but thats another story...... Mark |
|
|
Subewannabe wrote, "biomechanics have confirmed there is no amount of stiffness , crumple, etc that will protect you or a passenger in a rolloever...the force of the head accelerating into the ground as the vehicle rotates loads the spine beyond anything short of diving into an empty pool, even if there is no vehicle crush...thus the fallacy of roof stiffness=greater safety." I don't even begin to understand what you're saying. People survive rollovers all the time! Four members of my family (me included) have survived four separate rollovers over the years. One of these was in pre-seatbelt days, the others were in lap-belt-only years. The purpose of your seat/lap belt is to keep your butt on the seat so that (as long as the roof doesn't cave in) your head won't contact the roof with lethal force. In each case involving people in my family, the roof and supporting pillars succeeded in keeping the roof from collapsing. If I'm choosing between two otherwise-equally-desirable vehicles and one has a stout structure supporting the roof, while the other doesn't, I'll choose the former every day of the week, and I'll be the one with the greatest chances of surviving a rollover. - jack |
|
| Philly88's link a few posts back made the safety argument for the Station Wagons. It had a graph showing the death rates for every kind of vehicle (car, SUV, pickup) depending on their weight. The lowest death rate came for cars between 3500 and 4000lbs. Even lower than 5000+ lb SUV's. What cars are in that weight class? - station wagons. | |
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
