Last post on Apr 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM
You are in the Honda Pilot
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Tahoe, Honda Pilot, Isuzu Trooper, Ford Expedition, Dodge Durango, Ford Freestyle, Volvo XC90, SUV
#97 of 118 Re: Vehicle Safety [bobw3]
Jun 18, 2009 (5:51 pm)
Luckily large body on frame SUVs are selling less every year, so you're right Americans are making their choices, and more smartly now too for everyone.
That may be true but I just read an article yesterday saying that the dealers are selling every SUV and pickup on their lots. Supply is short because of the GM/Chrysler situation. Likewise, the prices on used Suburbans, etc are on the rise again.
Jun 19, 2009 (7:48 am)
It’s easier to control the rate of deformation of a uni-body vehicle than a full frame vehicle, which is probably a good thing in a low speed impact. Taking the Chevrolet Traverse, which someone earlier said does not have a frame. The weight listed on the Traverse is about 5,000 pounds. According to a certified “CAT” scale, the weight on my Expedition with a full tank of fuel and me in it is right at 6,000 pounds. In a collision with a stationary wall at 40 mph, the Traverse has lower crash forces transmitted to the driver than the Expedition, but this is with the vehicle striking a fixed object. Both vehicles are rated five stars for the frontal crash into the wall test. If the Expedition and Traverse hit each other in a head on collision at the same speed say 45 mph, the Expedition driver will incur lower crash forces because of it’s heavier weight than the driver of the Traverse. Additionally, if you look at the Traverse side collision numbers on http://www.safercar.gov you will see that the Traverse has worse numbers than the Expedition but still garners a five star side crash rating. Where the full frame vehicle comes into it’s own is in a severe two vehicle collision. Remember, in a frontal type collision, you want the front of the car to deform as much as possible up to the point of intruding into the passenger compartment. Some of the newer full frame vehicles have dimpled or weakened portions of the front part of the frame to help with deformation in a frontal collision. Remember that crumpling is good up to a point then you want deformation to stop completely, again before any intrusion into the passenger compartment occurs.
Framed vehicles such as full size SUVs and full size pickup trucks are built on a heavy steel frames so they can handle heavy loads. I’m not sure we will see the death of the body on frame vehicle because there will always be a need for a vehicle that can haul a five-ton trailer such as a boat, camper etc. and that takes a steel frame vehicle. Nobody will argue that heavier vehicles don’t have a huge safety advantage over smaller lighter vehicles in a high crash force accident. A strong steel frame just adds a greater degree of protection from intrusion into the passenger compartment. There will always be accidents that are so severe that no vehicle would offer sufficient protection.
By the way I found this video from IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) which is worth watching:
CRASH TESTS DEMONSTRATE THE INFLUENCE OF VEHICLE SIZE & WEIGHT
#99 of 118 Re: Vehicle Safety [dieselone]
Jun 22, 2009 (1:13 am)
Very interesting info about the results of your T-bone crash. . . It's very surprising that your airbag did not deploy. Even more amazing that the woman in the Grand Am walked away--truly miraculous outcome for her and you.
#100 of 118 Re: Vehicle Safety [tidester]
Jun 22, 2009 (8:09 am)
Sorry HOST, but with the forum with the title, "Death of the body-on-frame SUV?" I would think there would be some leway in the discussion, especially since I don't see hardly anyone here talking about the death of body-on-frame SUVs too much, just people talking about why they want to keep theirs.
And I don't see how I can "force" people to think one way or another just by posting here...I don't think my words here have that much power
But posting an opposing view in this forum is like going to an NRA forum and posting the obvious truth that if there were no guns available, then there would be no deaths from guns...but no politics right
#101 of 118 Re: Vehicle Safety [bobw3]
Jun 22, 2009 (10:10 am)
With upcoming CAFE regs I can see BOF SUVs going away except for maybe a Suburban and/or Expedition EL. I imagine Ford and GM probably will keep current designs around a while. While I'd hate to see the Expe and Suburban go away, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd just get a pickup to tow my toys.
#103 of 118 Re: Vehicle Safety [bobw3]
Jul 23, 2009 (3:52 am)
This might upset you but I have a 3/4 Ton Diesel P/U and a SUV. I just sold my VW to pick up the SUV too! Why would I want to do this, for a couple of reasons. While we are a pain for you to see around the added height gives us the ability to see further down the road to avoid danger, if you are at a proper following distance you too should be able to react in a timely manner. On week ends I like to spend time with my family and friends, when we go out it is nice to fill the eight seats in my SUV and take one vehicle over two, thus reducing the amount of vehicles on the road. Finally I enjoy being able to pick up my furniture, mattresses, and other bulky items myself and avoid the delivery trucks, which are much more difficult to see around and get far worse mileage than either my P/U or my SUV.
#104 of 118 SUV challenge to auto makers!
Jul 26, 2009 (10:30 am)
I challenge the auto makers to develop a 50-mpg or plug-in electric with fast-charge battery counterpart to our work-horse SUVs! I have a 1990 4WD, 6-cyl, automatic, Isuzu Trooper that I have used twice to move across California and back, evacuate twice to escape wildfires, enjoy desert jeep trails for hikes not accessible to 2WD, low-slung cars, haul picnic, beach, tail-gate party, gardening and home repair supplies, cat and dog in carriers, and of course passengers. This has been the best car ever, because it's comfortable enough for road trips and provides good visibility, off-pavement and load-carrying capacities. I save gas now by living close to work and consolidating errands but would like to do more traveling again. I'm considering cash for clunkers and wish there were a fuel-efficient or electric alternative. Instead of demonizing SUV owners, challenge the auto makers to design an environmentally friendly replacement; and I don't mean SUV cross-overs or hybrid station wagons weighed down with a 3rd-row seat.
#105 of 118 Re: Vehicle Safety [hoss416]
Jul 27, 2009 (9:00 am)
What model SUV did you buy?
#106 of 118 Utility
Sep 12, 2009 (1:50 pm)
I have to occasionally haul full sheets of Plywood. I occasionally pull travel trailers and utility trailers. And I regularly have 6 or more people sitting in my 2008 Expedition. When we have a group going out to dinner, we take 1 car instead of 3. I am also getting a little over 15 MPG around town, and 20-21 on the highway.
I have a tax client with a diesel Excursion. Combining their families, they have 6 kids. Seems like a no brainer to me. She is the neighborhood sports drive, so I seldom see it without at least a half dozen people in it.
Another client was bragging about trading in his 2 year old Suburban on a new Honda Civic and how he was saving $75 per month on gas. It was his wife that mentioned that their car payment is $150 higher each month because the trade-in amount was lower than their balance due. And they regularly have to rent a pickup for $100+ to take the boat to the lake for the weekend, and take the car because the truck doesn't seat enough people.