Sign In Join 



Death of the body-on-frame SUV?

106 messages,  Last post on Sep 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM

You are in the Isuzu Trooper Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Tahoe, Honda Pilot, Isuzu Trooper, Ford Expedition, Dodge Durango, Ford Freestyle, Volvo XC90, SUV


Messages Page 10 of 11
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#87 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [volfangary] by tidester HOST
Jun 13, 2009 (8:08 pm)
Reply

Replying to: volfangary (Jun 12, 2009 6:11 pm)

choice between protecting my family or protecting everyone else in society
 
One could argue SUV owners gain their safety at the expense of others upon whom they impose greater risk. But then I'm not sure that any of this is pertinent to the topic at hand.
 
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#88 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [motorhead15] by jim314
Jun 14, 2009 (5:01 am)
Reply

Replying to: motorhead15 (Jun 13, 2009 5:36 pm)

How are body on frame SUVs safer than unibody SUVs of the same mass?
 
The body on frame SUV is stiffer (less crushable). This doesn't mean it is safer in all types of collison. In fact in a single vehicle collision with a very stiff obstruction (tree, concrete wall, bridge, etc.) the extra stiffness of the body on frame will cause higher crash forces to the occupants.
 
In a two vehicle collision between vehicles of unequal mass, the occupants of the more massive one experience proportionally lower crash forces, and the occupants of the less massive one proportionally higher forces.
 
If you have to do serious towing or hauling, then the pick-up based RWD SUV is the best for the job. But these massive high powered vehicles consume fuel at a higher rate, which is a threat to our economic future.
#89 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [jim314] by explorerx4
Jun 14, 2009 (4:14 pm)
Reply

Replying to: jim314 (Jun 14, 2009 5:01 am)

traverse v6 (cuv) has a curb weight about 100 lbs more than a trailblazer ext v8 (suv).
it is making an assumption that the the 'frame' of an suv is not designed to handle a collision in any manner different than a cuv.
#90 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [motorhead15] by bobw3
Jun 17, 2009 (9:14 am)
Reply

Replying to: motorhead15 (Jun 13, 2009 5:36 pm)

"putting your family's safety before that of complete strangers"
 
Actually the "strangers" I'm thinking about are my brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, co-workers, etc..., who actually mean something to me, but then you're more concerned with yourself and the dog sitting beside you...hmmmm. And yes I know that anyone who thinks of others is called a "socialist."
 
Now let me go back to my Prius forum with rest of the socialists
#91 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [explorerx4] by jim314
Jun 17, 2009 (10:25 am)
Reply

Replying to: explorerx4 (Jun 14, 2009 4:14 pm)

The real heart of the matter is that people who drive heavy, stiff vehicles shouldn't be castigated as totally unconcerned about the safety of the occupants of other vehicles.
 
And people who drive body-on-frame SUVs shouldn't claim that those who drive more fuel efficient and less menacing vehicles don't care about the safety of their family or other occupants of their vehicle.
 
It's a continuum. These are all legal vehicles. But the fact is that the era of cheap petroleum is coming to an end. To preserve our economy and our natural resources we may have to enact tax policies that discourage the discretionary high consumption of petroleum.
#93 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [jim314] by bobw3
Jun 18, 2009 (9:02 am)
Reply

Replying to: jim314 (Jun 17, 2009 10:25 am)

"These are all legal vehicles"
 
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right...eg smoking in offices was legal even though at the time the 2nd hand smoke was killing co-workers, but it took years for the legal system to catch up with what was right. Car pollution standards that were legal 30 years ago that made the air unbreathable in many cities are now illegal. Again, it takes a long time for the legal system to get in line what society feels is the right thing to do.
 
Obviously people can drive whatever legal vehicle is out there. My point is not to castigate everyone drive a giant SUV, but just encourage them to think outside their box... My hope is that MPG standards will get so high that manufacturers will have to reduce the size of vehicles they produce just to meet the MPG standards. That will create the twofold benefit of less gas usage and less big cars competing wtih the small ones.
#94 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [bobw3] by tidester HOST
Jun 18, 2009 (10:08 am)
Reply

Replying to: bobw3 (Jun 18, 2009 9:02 am)

but just encourage them to think outside their box... My hope is that MPG standards will get so high that manufacturers will have to reduce the size of vehicles
 
That's not encouraging people to think outside their box, that's forcing them into yours. But I still think we should relegate the political discussion to another venue. hint, hint!
 
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#95 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [bobw3] by wlbrown9
Jun 18, 2009 (11:12 am)
Reply

Replying to: bobw3 (Jun 18, 2009 9:02 am)

I'm waiting for the Plug In Hybrid extended range SUV/CUV. One of these would cut my petro usage about 75% and NOT require that I downsize. 50 to 100+ MPG would be easy for me with an average daily comute of 40 miles. http://www.rasertech.com/news/raser-in-the-news/msnbc-reports-electric-hummer-in- -washington-dc
#96 of 106
Re: Vehicle Safety [bobw3] by dieselone
Jun 18, 2009 (12:00 pm)
Reply

Replying to: bobw3 (Jun 12, 2009 4:02 pm)

I really don't want to get into a pi$$ing match over how evil SUV's and their owners are, but I don't care what anyone drives or what others think of what I drive. I've had several SUV's over the years because I choose to tow a boat and a travel trailer. Plus we often bring our daughters friends along so, I occasionally have 6-8 people in the Expe. I like the SUV over a truck because it has a much better suspension for everyday driving, plus the extra room for passengers. But if the "high and mighty" econo car crowd win and make the SUV extinct, I'll just buy a diesel 3/4 ton truck and continue to use my boat and RV.
 
As for dangers on the road, obviously, I understand the physics of my 6000lb SUV broad siding a Civic. But, if a larger SUV like a Expedition/Tahoe/Suburban are so dangerous, how come they are so cheap to insure? I pay less than $60/mo on my 07 Expedition for full coverage with a 500k liability policy and $500 deductible. You'd think if the actuaries could prove that my driving a 6k lb SUV would mean I'm more likely to kill a family in a compact car, my rates would be much higher. I'm paying far less than I did for any car, and I have more liability coverage than I did then.
 
I did T-bone a person in a Grand Am with a Nissan Pathfinder about 6 years ago. I hit them right on the drivers door. I was going about 30mph (I was in an unfamiliar area and didn't see the stop light until I was basically in the intersection and it was raining (no question it was my fault). My air bad did not go off and she walked away unscratched. Did total her car though and did 7k damage to my 01 Pathfinder. You'd think by listening to this board, my accident should have killed the poor lady I hit.

Messages Page 10 of 11
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement