If you mean interior space, I suppose I can understand that, though.

I don't know about the US, but interior space can ber very misleading as well. For example, a LandRover Discovery looks like it should have loads of interior space. In reality it actually has less usable space than a Ford Galaxy MPV (I know, I have used both to move large piles of junk around).

http://www.autobytel.co.uk/carquest/category.asp?Project=JATO-CARQuest-AutobytelGB&Specs=JATO-CARQuest-SSCGB&LanguageId=1&Options=&UID=468254+196066+

In reply to:

---

The arguments of supporting terrorists by owning an SUV is weakened greatly by the blatantly glutanous life styles all around us especially of those
leading the charge such as Huffington.

---

I don't know that this is necessarily true. It is possible to just try to resolve one problem at a time while admitting that there are also other problems. I also don't know how much other parts of people's lifestyles trace back as directly as fuel/oil consumption. Heating their homes is one possibility (i.e. oil consumption at the power plant), but a friend of mine made a good point that there is a layer of abstraction there -- by upgrading the plants, we "cure" the problem for many houses, as opposed to every SUV being a tiny little problematic power plant.

In reply to:

---

Yes SUVs are bigger than other vehicles but they themselves are shadowed by semis and other trucks with drivers who may or may have not slept in the last 24 hours.

---

Just because there are other trucks that may be larger doesn't make SUV's less bad. Besides, look at the numbers. As of 1997, there are 7 million "large trucks" registered and 67 million "light trucks" registered (and 124 million cars, incidentally). So yes, they're crappier but there are a much smaller number of them on the road.

In reply to:

---

I guess we justify the loss of life they create when in accidents because they are "needed".

---

Not that the large truck argument is really relevant, but as of 1997, large trucks account for only 12% of fatalities in the US. That leaves 88% of fatalities behind the wheel of SUV's and passenger cars.

In reply to:

---

I see as many bad drivers in smaller vehicles as I do in SUVs. It simply does not take a rocket scientist to realize that a bad driver is indeed a bad driver
whether in an SUV, a tractor-trailer or a sub-compact.

---

The original discussion wasn't about bad drivers. I think everyone agrees that 98% of people are jackasses (1997 number too ).

In reply to:

---

It all comes down to choice. If someone CHOOSES a smaller vehicle they run a higher risk of injury.

---

This is not necessarily true. I'm looking for the numbers on this one. For instance, my Cooper S has like 8 airbags. Apparently it turns into a huge balloon in an accident. The numbers do show that in an accident involving "large trucks" and smaller vehicles, there are more injuries in the smaller vehicles. I do agree that momentum is not on the side of the smaller vehicle. If this DOES turn out to be true, then how many more fatalities are caused by people having huge SUV's hitting passenger cars and killing the passengers?

In reply to:

---

But for someone to choose a smaller vehicle and then try to force these riskier vehicles on others is ridiculous.

---

The aim is not to "force" people to not buy cars, but to educate and inform people about the decisions they are making about the cars they drive. My preference is to have people speak and influence car manufacturers with their wallets, not to outlaw options.

In reply to:

---

I personally could not live with myself if I forced a person to purchase a car that they would have otherwise not chosen themselves.

---

First of all, could you really "not live with yourself"? Somebody's a drama queen . As far as the forcing part, see above. Personally, I tend to LIKE to be well-informed while purchasing a car, which often means I refer to reviews by other people and magazines. This information often affects the choice of the car that I perhaps originally set out to buy.

Think of it like a train hitting a bus, the train was not designed to implode when it hits something and yet, they tend to barely get a scratch when they are involved in an accident.

What relevance does that have to the current discussion. A train has many, many times the mass of the bus. The relative masses with the train and bus are far higher than the relative masses of the car and SUV (or even car and truck).

For instance, my Cooper S has like 8 airbags. Apparently it turns into a huge balloon in an accident.

ROFL!

Sometimes I think that the whole gas-guzzling thing is just a red-herring. Why are people really so pissed about SUVs? Is it because they feel jealous of people that own them? Because they feel unsafe driving in traffic with them? Or possibly because they once knew somebody they didn't like that drove one.

I think the biggest reason people hate SUVs is because they believe they are pretentious, a flagrant display of wealth in, what they believe to be, a ridiculous useless fashion. If it is for some reason besides gas mileage, get to the point. The extra money I spend on gas comes out of my pocket, not yours/

How many of the people complaining about SUVs drive the new hybrids? Always turn off the lights? Turn the thermostat way up in summer and way down in winter? Install a 3/4 gallon toilet? Watersavers on their sinks and showerheads?

Do you buy products that come in tons of packing material? Do you donate to greenpeace, the sierra club, or another environmental advocacy group? Do you recycle everything you can, even if it means going out of your way?

If you can't answer yes to all those questions, why not try to change your own environmentally-harmful behavior before trying to tell other people how to live their lives...
[/rant]

I don't mean this as a personal attack on anybody here and do not want to start a flamewar. Everybody here has been civil at least. I am just getting fed up with all the BS I keep hearing.

Amen.


SUV's use a lot more gas than small economy cars. BUT SUV's can also carry a lot more people and tow a lot more than small economy cars. Some people need big trucks and some people don't, but either way they are paying for it. To consume a lot, you have to produce a lot. During the Great Depression, my great grand parents may have thought it to be wasteful to use more than one square of toilet paper to wipe their ass, but things are better now and I can afford all the toilet paper I need and half the time I even clog the pipes using too much paper. If Joe Bob American or Carl the frickin' bricklayer want to spend all their money on gasoline to just go set it on fire and watch it burn, that's fine with me. It's fine with me because they produced the goods or services to earn the money to buy that gas.

Yeah, let's take care of our environment. And not be wasteful. But to be honest, the only reason I (and most other people, including europeans who pay outrageous taxes on gas) would choose not to be wasteful as far as gas goes, is to save myself money. I (along with most other people) could care less if I waste .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the world's oil. In fact, if I was a millionaire, I would be driving gas guzzling cars, trucks, planes, boats, jet ski's, atv's all the live long day. Everyone ask yourself this question: "If I was a millionaire, would I still be driving this little piece of shit Geo Metro economy car? Am I driving this car because I want to save the world or am I driving this car because it's all I can afford?" Be honest. If you were rich, you wouldn't give a damn about the gas mileage on your yacht. And I think that's kind of how it should be (in a capitalist society). To get rich and consume, you have to produce. It's what makes the world go 'round. And let's not forget, that if it weren't for all these people producing goods and services (ie, the FedEx truck driver delivering the package that Acme Inc built and that was bought by Billy Joe who builds trucks in detroit that are driven by FedEx drivers, etc), then oil would be pretty much be useless. And if people stopped burning oil with their recreational machines(ie, atv's, jet ski's, RV's, big trucks, fast cars), then a lot of people would be out of work and a nice chunk of the economy would be gone.

Now, as far as running out of oil goes, I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, or prices would go up since there would be a diminishing supply, and usage would drop. If we ever run out of oil, I am willing to bet that by that time we will have many other options for sources of energy.

Driving an SUV is supporting terrorism? Give me a break. Smoking a joint is supporting terrorism? Smoking a joint is supporting some mexican farmer, and I would say is good for the economy. I don't think very much marijuana gets imported to the US from overseas, much less from the middle east, and even much less from a terrorist.

BUT SUV's can also carry a lot more people and tow a lot more than small economy cars.

I'd have less of a problem with this argument if 99% of all SUVs I saw had more cargo than one 95 lb. woman with a cell phone plastered to her ear.

Totally tangentially, it bothers me that so many people walk around talking on their cell phones in public places at the top of their lungs, as if I want to listen to them all the time. But what weirds me out even more are those people who walk around holding a cell phone to their head who never say a thing. What are these people doing?

I'm 6'4" 245 lbs (193cm 111kg). I don't fit in a Miata. Literally. In the passenger seat of my roommates Miata, my knees nearly touch my chest. I don't fit well in a lot of small or even medium size cars.

I drive a Chevy Blazer, which is a modestly sized SUV. Although it doesn't get great gas milage, I don't think it is excessive in the least. I frequently use the nice amount of cargo space it provides, and I can tow a trailer when the occasion arises (as it does several times a year.)

Just remember, when you lump together a whole group of vehicles, you lose the good with the bad. Do I think that Excursions are necessary? Not for most people. But for that drummer who has to haul around his rig, or that rider that carries saddles, I think they should have the freedom to buy whatever vehicle meets their needs. I that means they have to be available to soccer moms too, so be it.

If someone CHOOSES a smaller vehicle they run a higher risk of injury.

Fine, f*ck it, I'm gonna get me one of these.

The aim is not to "force" people to not buy cars, but to educate and inform people about the decisions they are making about the cars they drive.


Exactly. And also to inform Detroit that some people actually prefer smaller vehicles, so that larger families have the chance of buying a non-SUV.

At the moment, I'm having a hard time thinking of a decent US built station wagon. Volvo, VW, Audi, Saab; all have relatively desirable vehicles that could comfortably carry a typical family of 5 (with luggage) on a weeks vacation around the country, whilst achieving a reasonable mpg. Where are the US equivalents?

But what weirds me out even more are those people who walk around holding a cell phone to their head who never say a thing. What are these people doing?

Several of the newer cell phones have radios built in.

But what weirds me out even more

...is handsfree kits being used in public. Here's these respectable looking men (and women) in suits talking to themselves. What's with that?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
but a friend of mine made a good point that there is a layer of abstraction there -- by upgrading the plants, we "cure" the problem for many houses, as opposed to every SUV being a tiny little problematic power plant.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Every fuel-consuming engine is a problematic powerplant from lawn mowers to Boeing Airliners the focus seems to single out SUVs as the first "layer" to correct. This simply doesn't make sense to me.



____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just because there are other trucks that may be larger doesn't make SUV's less bad. Besides, look at the numbers. As of 1997, there are 7 million "large trucks" registered and 67 million "light trucks" registered (and 124 million cars, incidentally). So yes, they're crappier but there are a much smaller number of them on the road.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________



I think the number of large trucks (which include panel trucks, tow trucks, pickups as well as semis and others) on the road must be greater than SUVs. Using your logic cars are not "less bad" than SUVs


____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The original discussion wasn't about bad drivers. I think everyone agrees that 98% of people are jackasses
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________


Point taken.





____________________________________________________________________________________________________
First of all, could you really "not live with yourself"? Somebody's a drama queen
____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Maybe a bit overdramatic but I take exception to the Queen comment!

Totally tangentially, it bothers me that so many people walk around talking on their cell phones in public places at the top of their lungs, as if I want to listen to them all the time.

I hate that embarrassing moment when you realise that the person next to you on the street that you just said "Pardon ?" to was not talking to you, but to their concealed cell phone. At that point you know they are just about to turn round and look at you as if you're mad...

Another bizarre thing is those young women that you see in supermarkets who manage to carry on a loud, thirty minute conversation with their girl friend while frantically shopping with their one free hand.

I'm 6'4" 245 lbs (193cm 111kg). I don't fit in a Miata. Literally. In the passenger seat of my roommates Miata, my knees nearly touch my chest. I don't fit well in a lot of small or even medium size cars.

I can vouch for that...

I'm 6'3'' and 250 lbs. I drive a Miata and my head brushes the roof when I drive it first thing in the morning. Come the evening however my spine has compacted by half an inch or so and I then have a little head room to spare.

Actually, no come to think of that I can't vouch for that. You must have very long legs and a short trunk, because on the rare occasion I sit in the passenger seat I have lots of spare leg and knee room.

You must be an odd shape

Good choice. But seriously, my point was not that people in small cars deserve to get into bad crashes or had it coming. Its just a fact that along with the choice of buying a smaller vehicle comes the possibility of a higher inherent risk of injury in a crash. Something I personally take into account when buying a vehicle.

And Subaru - the Legacy is a decent sized estate car, and in the turbo 2.0l version, pretty damn zippy! Even the Impreza hatchback is reasonably comfy for 5, and can fit the luggage in (or on the roofrack)

In reply to:

---

Every fuel-consuming engine is a problematic powerplant from lawn mowers to Boeing Airliners the focus seems to single out SUVs as the first "layer" to correct. This simply doesn't make sense to me.

---

I agree, actually. I personally think effective mass transit is the way to go in general. I think the reason SUV's are singled out is that they are dramatically less fuel efficient than smaller cars, which in many cases would suit the needs of a lot of SUV drivers. Give me a reasonable replacement to the car and I'll go for it, but currently the combustion-engine car is the smallest vehicle that is a reasonable means of transportation. I do think there should be more pressure on car manufacturers to accelerate R&D on alternative fuels.

In reply to:

---

I think the number of large trucks (which include panel trucks, tow trucks, pickups as well as semis and others) on the road must be greater than SUVs. Using the same logic cars are not "less bad" than SUVs

---

SUV's (as far as I can tell from other searches) falls into the "light truck" category and outnumbers large trucks, but obviously does not outnumber passenger cars. I agree that cars are not "less bad" either. As I mentioned up there, show me a good alternative. In most cases, there are much better alternatives for people than SUV's (except obviously if overall design and styling is a primary factor -- there's not much that can be argued on this one).

In reply to:

---

Maybe a bit overdramatic but I take exception to the Queen comment!

---

Incidentally, I did find the numbers on SUV-car collisions and people in cars are something like 47 times more likely to die Their point on the page I found that on (admittedly an anti-SUV page) was that SUV's were killing more people in other cars than they were saving people in SUVs.

I may sound a little fascist, but while I agree the drummer should be allowed these vehicles, the soccer mom should not! Okay, it isn't enforceable, but I reckon an offroad vehicle should require offroad training, certification and at least 12 offroad excursions a year, so anyone who wants one has to show they're using it

And in response to Lectric>>The more mass an object carries, the more intertia. The more inertia, the less damage to said object.

That last sentence? I don't think so. What you'll find is the more inertia, the more said object wants to go through or over other objects. This can in fact result in more damage to said object.

Apologies for correcting basic physics errors.

If you were rich, you wouldn't give a damn about the gas mileage on your yacht. And I think that's kind of how it should be (in a capitalist society).

Well, evidently a lot of millionaires would agree with you. And perhaps the reasons I disagree with you on this are some of the many reasons I'll never be a millionaire (without hyperinflation, anyway). But I think that just because something's possible, that doesn't make it a good idea: even though the market happens to have priced (a) your salary and (b) oil at relative levels such that you can afford to use a lot of gas, doing so is still pretty irresponsible.

Advocating the guzzling of gas because it's affordable ("I can so I will") seems no different from advocating that the largest kid in the school can beat up the others because Nature has afforded him the strength to do so, or that the largest military power in the world can beat up the others because Manifest Destiny has given it the strength to do so. This is not, of course, an exclusively US attitude.

Now, as far as running out of oil goes, I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, or prices would go up since there would be a diminishing supply, and usage would drop.

That, sadly, would require some link between 10- to 20-year forethought and today's oil pricing. No such causative link exists. Oil company shareholders, and thus oil companies themselves, simply do not care about issues on that sort of timescale.

Peter

Test Scores: Front 11(69%) Side 14(78%) Overall 25(74)% Pedestrian 7(19%)

I was reading some more of these pedestrian ratings, and no one does very well, which I understand (sort of), but most of the remarks say things like ``the bumper and leading edge of the bonnet were hard''. Duh. Are they supposed to be made of foam rubber? And, even if they were, how would that really help a 30 mph auto v. pedestrian accident?

so anyone who wants one has to show they're using it

Why? Why should anyone care how much someone makes use of something they worked for and paid for? The day that happens I might as well move to china.

Why? Why should anyone care how much someone makes use of something they worked for and paid for? The day that happens I might as well move to china.

I don't think one needs to be a communist to believe it to be immoral to consume a larger than necessary proportion of a scarce resource.

And if philanthropy isn't your bag, how about selfishness? Would you rather guzzle gas for the next twenty years of your life and then walk, or sip gas for the next forty?

Peter

Edit: 20 and 40 are made-up figures, of course, but the principle still applies whether it's longer or shorter.

Only if said object is bigger, therefore carrying more momentum. That larger an object, the more likely it will transfer it's energy to the smaller object. Look, if a 300 pound (american) football player crashes into a 175 pound player, who is going to get more hurt?

I was reading some more of these pedestrian ratings, and no one does very well, which I understand (sort of), but most of the remarks say things like ``the bumper and leading edge of the bonnet were hard''. Duh. Are they supposed to be made of foam rubber? And, even if they were, how would that really help a 30 mph auto v. pedestrian accident?

Bumpers on some cars are effectively made of foam rubber with a think plastic skin already, for precisely this reason. There has been a lot of research that shows that you can dramatically reduce pedestrian injuries with redesigns to the front of the car, even in fairly high speed collisions.

The next generation of European cars will be starting to use the results of this research, by making the front ends of cars more deformable, changing the angle of hoods, leaving a larger gap between under hood components and the hood etc

The bits on the research I saw made a particular play on that last point. Apparantly lots of injuries occur as the nice bendy hood deforms as the pedestrian hits it, only to expose the solid immovable components beneath it.

They are even investigating airbags built into car hoods to protect pedestrians, which sounds kind of mad...

My boss reckons we should take the Russian tank armour approach to pedestrian protection and strap explosive charges to the pedestrians so that cars bounce off when they hit them ! (for those of you that don't know, the Russians developed "active" armour for their tanks, which were essentially an explosive charge fixed on the outside of the tank that deflected a shell when it hit the charge)

Look, if a 300 pound (american) football player crashes into a 175 pound player, who is going to get more hurt?

No one is arguing about that, all other things being equal if a heavy thing hits a light thing then the light thing is going to come off worse.

But in the case of SUVs vs. mid/large cars all other things aren't equal. The basic design of modern cars differs from that of SUVs.

An SUV may well end up with less damage to it in an accident than a car. But that isn't generally a good thing for the person inside. Well designed, modern cars are designed to have a solid, stiff passenger shell with easily deformable stuff around it. That way the deformable parts of the car soak up the energy, rather than the soft human slamming into the hard inside of the hard car and taking the damage.

Most of these huge SUVs are not designed this way, they take a heavy chassis and stick a body on the top. A very different approach, they don't have the same monocoque design that modern cars do.

Many of the latest European SUVs now take the same approach as the cars do and therefore bahave similar ways in crashes. They still have some of the problem of being a menace to other smaller road users though, due to the height of their bumpers.

...is handsfree kits being used in public. Here's these respectable looking men (and women) in suits talking to themselves. What's with that?

I feel really stupid when I'm talking to an onstar operator. It's something I try to limit as much as possible. I don't like being "that guy" that looks like he's talking to himself

You must have very long legs and a short trunk, because on the rare occasion I sit in the passenger seat I have lots of spare leg and knee room.

You must be an odd shape

Or it could be a different year Miata. I think his is a '91.

(and yes, I have long legs)

BUT SUV's can also carry a lot more people and tow a lot more than small economy cars.

And my Honda Odyssey has more cargo capacity than ANY SUV ON THE MARKET. It's also far lower to the ground, gets much better gas mileage, and is easier to handle. It also has just as good an engine as most SUVs (V6 200hp VTech).

I can carry a larger bulk item than almost any SUV with a lot more ease. Need to carry an EIGHT FOOT couch? I've done that. Simply fold the third row down, quickly remove the middle seats, and in 30 seconds you've freed up an 8 foot long, 4 foot wide, 4 foot tall cargo space.

I drove a Land Rover Discovery for a while. It was a very nice car, and very well built (it was made by BMW at the time). However, it lacks in every category I've mentioned in this post. That thing scared the sh*t out of me on entrance/exit ramps. Those turns at 40mph felt like I'd tip over, and I know someone who did in a Discovery. As a previous SUV driver, I have to say that they are useless.

If you don't drive your SUV off-road, or tow a lot, there is no point to your vehicle. I'm not saying you shouldn't drive it, I'm just saying it is useless, and you are driving it for the image. An image that doesn't even really exist anymore.

ps-I also agree with Bitt about the height. I got sick of climbing into my Discovery. We had to get runners on the car so my mom could hoist herself in. My Odyssey is right at a**-height, so it's easy to just slide in

Or it could be a different year Miata. I think his is a '91

That would make no difference, mine is a '96 and in that area at least they are identical.

But for that drummer who has to haul around his rig

Why does a drummer need an SUV? The drummer in my band used to carry his whole kit around in his sedan, along with a few speakers and PA equipment.

Now we stick all that in my minivan