<strong>If you have not driven one then you really cannot say whether or not the vehicle is good for your needs. I seem to remember a thread earlier that Jonathan started with him driving well in excess of 140mph. That kind of driving bothers me more than what some of you are complaining about. Thos people driving SUV's may not need them, but if they get into an accident with you it is not likely to kill you as if Jonathan hit you at 145+. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have nothing against SUVs. There are dumber habits and trends we should be worrying about first.
Actually, smaller SUVs don't really make as much sense as bigger ones. There are 6 people and 2 large dogs in my family. 4 of my family members are female.
Our choices were big van or big SUV, we picked a Suburban.
If it's emissions we hate, then I don't want to hear a peep from anybody who drives a car from the early-90s or earlier.
The only major problems with SUVs are injury related. You don't want to be hit by an SUV.
I do not in general like them. I had an '89 Blazer. Handled like crap, always skidded in the rain and was not great in the snow. Most idiots who drive these things tend to think they're great in inclement weather and drive as if conditions were normal.
As for the space issue, I can fit the same amount of passengers in my Saab and can pretty much fit the same amount of gear in the hatch that I could in the Blazer.
They don't drive like cars, they don't stop like cars and when you go into a corner too fast in 90% of them, you are going to flip...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote]<strong>(Jeep Liberty, anyone?)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No worse than a Toyota 4-Runner, a Nissa Xterra or a Mistsubishi Montero.
the fact that nearly none of em average above 15 MPG and some don't egt above 10 is not a major problem?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My 12 year old BMW averages very slightly better than my Suburban. Your point? I bet modern SUVs have better MPG than many of the cars people on this board drive. Sports cars also have worse MPG than regular cars.
The bigger problem is people in general...when people drive any car 4 blocks to g to a friend's house, or people who park on one side of a strip mall to purchase something at one store, and then get back in the car to shop on the other side. People who don't need SUVs probably shouldn't buy them, but that's an issue with people, not the product. And for Groverat, the same goes with cell phones. I have access to an SUV. I don't drive it unless I need it. I have a cell phone. I heed cell phone etiquette...in addition to not having any people that know my cell phone number. It's for calling out, emergencies, coordinating large groups affairs (group dinners, birthday parties...when multiple drivers need to know where they're going when the directions are wrong...)
My crystal ball says...
Viable alternative fuels are probably ~10 years away from being standard fare, so I don't see fuel consumption as a huge problem with SUVs.
Well, I bought mine becasue at 6'5", I need a little extra room. I also did not want a pickup or a "boat" luxury car, like a Crown Victoria or something, just to fit comfortably in it. I have a 1997 Explorer (Eddie Bauer )
I know the vehicles limitations and I rarely go over 60 in it (I tend to be a more cautious driver anyway). I never intend to take it off-road or anything, and I do not consider myself the outdoorsie type.
I do agree about the mom aspect which sucks. One listen to the Grand Theft Auto 3 in-game commercial for the Mybotsu (sp?) Monstrosity tells you all you need to know about the average "mommy with an SUV."
<strong>The need for additional space is a very pressing need and honestly I can see alot of people want more than the Minivan provides. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If space is the main criteria, you get more for your dollar from the minivan than the SUV. You'd have to go to one of the "super sized" SUVs to match the interior space of the "extended" length minivans. The shorter minivans still have as much or more room than the standard size SUVs do. The main appeal of an SUV, in my opinion, is some false sense of status. But, to me it says, "I'm willing to spend more money to get less, just to show off that I can." Of course, if space is not the main criteria, there might be something I'm missing.
P.S. The space comparisons are from old research I've done on more than one occasion. Statitistics are available in several magazines. I got mine from Consumer Report.
I used to drive SUV's for years (lived in VT for quite sometime) . When my wife and I finally decided to buy a new car we new that we needed either 4-wheel drive or all-wheel drive because we were still in the Northeast at the time. Decided to get a Subaru Outback Wagon and haven't looked back! Handles much better than any SUV I have ever had and handles bad weather like a champ. SUW is the way to go.
Most SUV drivers are wretches who don't need SUVs.
I drive a 97 Jeep. Don't think it qualifies as an SUV, or does it? I rarely drive it these days. Of the ~50k miles on it, most are from highway trips driving across country. The rest are mostly camping/canoe trips - in which case it comes in handy. about 20% of my usage is grocery getting.
The types of SUV I hate are those like the Cadillac Escalade. That thing gets stuck easier than most cars. There should be no such thing as a 'luxury' off road vehicle. Either you want luxury, or you want to be in mosquito territory. Pick one.
Real Jeep guys would laugh if they knew I had a CD player in mine.
Where I live, in the wild wild west, they have banned cars. Absolutely no one has a car. Well, I do, and if I park in a parking lot, it gets swallowed up in the sea of 4X4s and trucks and SUVs and the like.
When everyone else has one, you have to eventually get one yourself just so you can see around the other cars while you're driving.
No worse than a Toyota 4-Runner, a Nissa Xterra or a Mistsubishi Montero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I only mention the Liberty because it's a brand new vehicle that was flipped, not by CU or Consumer Reports, but by AutoWeek. They took the tone (since they, like most mainstream car magazines, are pretty much in the manufacturers pocket), that this was some random accident during the regular slalom test. Chrysler said it was because they did it in a parking lot. Like nobody ever makes an abrupt turn there.
[quote]Originally posted by eugene:
<strong>
The bigger problem is people in general...when people drive any car 4 blocks to go to a friend's house, or people who park on one side of a strip mall to purchase something at one store, and then get back in the car to shop on the other side.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You hit it with that one. My neighbors look at me like I am out of my mnd for walking to the grocery store three blocks away. By the time that I have gotten the car out of the garage, pulled out into traffic, and fought for a parking space in the lot, I can walk there and back.
I don't hate SUVs, it's the weak-minded masses who buy them because they are 'trendy' or 'hip' whom I dislike. The sort who are the reason TV commercials are made, why Tommy Hilfiger is rich, why McDonalds has over 6 billion served.
Mass marketing clearly works well. To bad it can't be used to achieve more ethical/usefull ends.
Comments
<strong>If you have not driven one then you really cannot say whether or not the vehicle is good for your needs. I seem to remember a thread earlier that Jonathan started with him driving well in excess of 140mph. That kind of driving bothers me more than what some of you are complaining about. Thos people driving SUV's may not need them, but if they get into an accident with you it is not likely to kill you as if Jonathan hit you at 145+.
that was on a track, buddy.
Actually, smaller SUVs don't really make as much sense as bigger ones. There are 6 people and 2 large dogs in my family. 4 of my family members are female.
Our choices were big van or big SUV, we picked a Suburban.
If it's emissions we hate, then I don't want to hear a peep from anybody who drives a car from the early-90s or earlier.
The only major problems with SUVs are injury related. You don't want to be hit by an SUV.
<strong>
The only major problems with SUVs are injury related. You don't want to be hit by an SUV.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the fact that nearly none of em average above 15 MPG and some don't egt above 10 is not a major problem?
But the way the world is moving I will have no way to avoid either.
As for the space issue, I can fit the same amount of passengers in my Saab and can pretty much fit the same amount of gear in the hatch that I could in the Blazer.
<strong>
They don't drive like cars, they don't stop like cars and when you go into a corner too fast in 90% of them, you are going to flip...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote]<strong>(Jeep Liberty, anyone?)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>
the fact that nearly none of em average above 15 MPG and some don't egt above 10 is not a major problem?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My 12 year old BMW averages very slightly better than my Suburban. Your point? I bet modern SUVs have better MPG than many of the cars people on this board drive. Sports cars also have worse MPG than regular cars.
The bigger problem is people in general...when people drive any car 4 blocks to g to a friend's house, or people who park on one side of a strip mall to purchase something at one store, and then get back in the car to shop on the other side. People who don't need SUVs probably shouldn't buy them, but that's an issue with people, not the product. And for Groverat, the same goes with cell phones. I have access to an SUV. I don't drive it unless I need it. I have a cell phone. I heed cell phone etiquette...in addition to not having any people that know my cell phone number. It's for calling out, emergencies, coordinating large groups affairs (group dinners, birthday parties...when multiple drivers need to know where they're going when the directions are wrong...)
My crystal ball says...
Viable alternative fuels are probably ~10 years away from being standard fare, so I don't see fuel consumption as a huge problem with SUVs.
Love my M3-ass-kickin', Dodge Carvan 2.4L 4-cylinder, t-passenger $14,000, brand new van even better!
The tires are REAL rubber!
(seriously, suvs are great, too. Don't think that I'm making fun of them and don't run over me!)
I know the vehicles limitations and I rarely go over 60 in it (I tend to be a more cautious driver anyway). I never intend to take it off-road or anything, and I do not consider myself the outdoorsie type.
I do agree about the mom aspect which sucks. One listen to the Grand Theft Auto 3 in-game commercial for the Mybotsu (sp?) Monstrosity tells you all you need to know about the average "mommy with an SUV."
<strong>The need for additional space is a very pressing need and honestly I can see alot of people want more than the Minivan provides. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If space is the main criteria, you get more for your dollar from the minivan than the SUV. You'd have to go to one of the "super sized" SUVs to match the interior space of the "extended" length minivans. The shorter minivans still have as much or more room than the standard size SUVs do. The main appeal of an SUV, in my opinion, is some false sense of status. But, to me it says, "I'm willing to spend more money to get less, just to show off that I can." Of course, if space is not the main criteria, there might be something I'm missing.
P.S. The space comparisons are from old research I've done on more than one occasion. Statitistics are available in several magazines. I got mine from Consumer Report.
[ 02-21-2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>
I drive a 97 Jeep. Don't think it qualifies as an SUV, or does it? I rarely drive it these days. Of the ~50k miles on it, most are from highway trips driving across country. The rest are mostly camping/canoe trips - in which case it comes in handy. about 20% of my usage is grocery getting.
The types of SUV I hate are those like the Cadillac Escalade. That thing gets stuck easier than most cars. There should be no such thing as a 'luxury' off road vehicle. Either you want luxury, or you want to be in mosquito territory. Pick one.
Real Jeep guys would laugh if they knew I had a CD player in mine.
that's my buddy's d90.
[ 02-21-2002: Message edited by: Jonathan ]</p>
<strong>
that was on a track, buddy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Reading through that thread there was more talk about driving very fast on "remote roads" then driving on a track. I stand by my assertion.
<strong>Gotta love the snorkel! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Any snorkel higher than the drivers nose misses the point
<strong>As BRussell says,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh god, don't bring that up again.
Where I live, in the wild wild west, they have banned cars. Absolutely no one has a car. Well, I do, and if I park in a parking lot, it gets swallowed up in the sea of 4X4s and trucks and SUVs and the like.
When everyone else has one, you have to eventually get one yourself just so you can see around the other cars while you're driving.
<strong>
I only mention the Liberty because it's a brand new vehicle that was flipped, not by CU or Consumer Reports, but by AutoWeek. They took the tone (since they, like most mainstream car magazines, are pretty much in the manufacturers pocket), that this was some random accident during the regular slalom test. Chrysler said it was because they did it in a parking lot. Like nobody ever makes an abrupt turn there.
[quote]Originally posted by eugene:
<strong>
The bigger problem is people in general...when people drive any car 4 blocks to go to a friend's house, or people who park on one side of a strip mall to purchase something at one store, and then get back in the car to shop on the other side.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You hit it with that one. My neighbors look at me like I am out of my mnd for walking to the grocery store three blocks away. By the time that I have gotten the car out of the garage, pulled out into traffic, and fought for a parking space in the lot, I can walk there and back.
Mass marketing clearly works well. To bad it can't be used to achieve more ethical/usefull ends.