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
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
8676 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 1:07 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Naw, I'd never see any reason why someone can't drive a huge, heavy ugly block down the street, take up viewing space for everyone in the area, accelerating agonizingly slowly, rolling along with stupid looking bling-bling wheels and getting 10 mph. Why would anyone object to a rig like that? No, I've got no problem with women with toothpick small arms gripping their huge SUV steering wheels for all its worth, readying for out-of-control road situations at every turn with determined Detroit looks on thier faces, gabbing on their cell phones and offering to share their self-important lives on the roads by plugging them up with these huge excuses for Fo-Mo-Co to stay alive. Naw, count me right in there. I love huge overpriced, self-indulgent, gas-guzzling metal, rubber and plastic blocks. Do me a favor, car insurance companies. Take about 40% of my car insurance bill and blast it over to the group that feels that it is smart and stealthy to drive around in huge, gas-guzzling SUV's. SUV's that blow huge holes in several vehicles at once if they need to to plow their soccer-moms and who-fores forward to their next shopping destination. The domestic automakers have basically been driving while blind for the last 30 years, so, some people decide that to keep the American automotive industry in those good paying important jobs, they'll buy "American." Keep those jobs here, where they should be. Oh, you heroes! Has anyone ever told you how...ummm...brave you really are? How good of you. Considerate. Huge. Large. SUV-ish. Love ya! Glad you fully understand where I'm coming from. Large SUV's are living reasons to eliminate automotive usages for transportation altogether. Glad I could be of some help. 
|
|
|
Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Apr 01, 2008 8:50 pm) And now, let's twist this around and put the onus on the DRIVER, not the vehicle. That same SUV that could blow huge holes in several vehicles at once when it is the hitter, might also allow those same vehicles to bounce relatively harmlessly off of it when it is the hittee. Take my '85 Silverado for example. Okay, so it's a truck and not an SUV, but it'll still hit like one. Back in 2006 I got rear-ended by a 2000 Infiniti I-something-or-other. Probably did a good $4-5K or more worth of damage to the Infiniti. Damage to my truck? About $350. Now, had I been in a smaller, lighter, "softer" vehicle, I would have definitely taken more damage. That might have negated the damage somewhat on the Infiniti, but probably not reduced the repair bill. After all, a hood that's only buckled a few inches, versus a foot, still needs to be replaced. However, even in my big truck, that impact really sent me flying. I had to fight to keep from shooting into oncoming traffic, and it was just luck that the car in front of me happened to move forward as I got hit. No doubt if I had been in a lighter vehicle, I would have been thrown even further. So there's a greater chance I would've ended up on the wrong side of the road, or in the trunk of the car in front of me. So this is one of those situations where a bigger, heavier vehicle probably reduced the overall severity of the accident. The way I look at it is, it's not what you drive, but how you use it. If you're a bad, aggressive, tailgating, speeding, weaving driver, then a bigger, heavier, sloppier handling vehicle will only exacerbate it. But it's still the driver. The only difference is that if you go zipping through traffic in a Yaris or Mini, cutting people off and encountering a bunch of near misses, you're just an annoyance. Do it in a big SUV or standard-sized pickup, and you're a bully. But it's still the DRIVER. The vehicle is just a tool. Now, if you have a bad driver with a record, they should pay a surcharge regardless of vehicle. A smaller, lighter vehicle is more likely to get seriously damaged and easily totaled, while a bigger vehicle is more likely to inflict more damage. Either way, it's a liability for the insurance company. And the more powerful a vehicle is, regardless its size, the more potential there is for damage. |
|
|
|
|
no, I don't disagree at all with your points. I am just giving my personal opionion on huge bling-bling SUV's, vehicles that just don't fit in to the 2008's and on. They really don't. They just look like waste. Period. Self-indulgent waste. Of course insurance companies should peg them with higher rates if they use their large SUV's as ram-rods. I'm not saying all huge SUV drivers drive like that, but some do. It's just that large SUV's, with their huge set-ups that block vision for others on the road and get crappy ghastly mileage...ummm....don't win any points in the "look to the future" department. They represent a once-proud American vehicle product, one whose train has since sailed. I do realize that an idiot can drive a Mitsubishi Lancer GTS as well as an idiot can drive a 2005 Ford Expedition. It is a very individualistic thing, how we drive and how we view our privilege of driving. In light of $4.00 ghastly, I don't see how driving a Ford Expedition can do anything for a person but win them the Darwin Award. Nuff said. 
|
|
|
Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Apr 01, 2008 8:50 pm)  To be fair, about .001% of SUV owners actually do make use of their towing capacity and off road ability. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 02, 2008 7:58 am) And the real problem with the large SUVs, besides the obvious foreign oil implications of their sub-20 gas mileage, is the bumper height disparity with cars, something the NHTSA is derelict in its duty to fix. And andre: yes, it's ultimately the driver responsible, but we have little to no real driver education anywhere in this country, and we can more effectively regulate improvements in vehicle design and mix than we can solve this driver education problem. But when liability insurance for drivers of large trucks and SUVs approaches or exceeds twice the cost of the same insurance for drivers of small cars, it may provide a push for people to think twice about buying the largest vehicles unless they really, REALLY, need them. Gas costs will do the same.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 02, 2008 9:31 am) I actually had a hitch on my Forester and used it a bunch of times. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 02, 2008 9:31 am) That's a pet peeve of mine, compounded by the bozos who get their trucks "lifted" 
|
|
|
|
LOL....I was limiting my rant to just huge SUV's, but, now that you show that picture! Excess, right down to the size of the...ummm...never mind. 
|
|
|
Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Apr 02, 2008 10:48 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 02, 2008 11:14 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan Versa
2010 Toyota Yaris
2010 Honda Fit
2009 smart fortwo
2010 MINI Cooper
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
