This is bullsh*t.

[Dinan55]

I'm one of the assholes that owns the "Big Daddy" of SUVs - a '95 Suburban 4x4. I'm not trying to start a flame war, just emphatically presenting my viewpoint (somebody has to stand up for the SUV owners, hehe!):

I haul a "mix of the 2" as you call it. Explain to me what Wagon will pull a 3500 lb trailer and hold 6 people plus luggage, AND NOT BE OVERLOADED?

I've also, in the same day, carried eight 4' x 8' sheets of plywood, plus 2x4s, and then later that day transported 8 adults. Again, what Wagon or pickup truck would do that?

In the winter, the 'burban has been used several times to carpool 5 - 6 hospital workers to work during a blizzard with 18" of unplowed snow. My wife drove 35 miles so she could be on call for 30 hours during the blizzard - unplowed roads all the way. Doctors 5 miles from the hospital failed to show up because they couldn't get through. Subaru 4x4 wagons were useless, the 'burban laughed at the snow, and helped staff the hospital. Would it be OK with you if your loved one went to the hospital for an injury (i.e. snow blower accident) but was told "We have no doctors - they couldn't get thru the snow. Go die in the corner."



Pickup trucks are partial to spinning out because of the light rear end. A trade off - roll over or spin out. All full size SUVs are based on a pickup chassis - ride height is the same, so how can you criticize SUVs about ride height accidents but you recommend pickups??

My point is that full size SUVs have their place, and to arbitrarily judge someone who drives one is myopic - Isn't it the same as someone saying that all BMW drivers are corporate ladder climbing asshole yuppies who buy BMWs as a status symbol?

The SUV driver you scowl at on the road could be a doctor, nurse, paramedic, volunteer firefighter, plow truck driver, etc. who has valid need for a full size, high clearance SUV.

By the way, the Suburban is the original 4x4 sport utility vehicle. It has been around since the 1930s. Jeep was 2nd, Bronco came MUCH later in the '60s.

Then you'd be one of the guys who actually uses them, and that's alright. We're talking about the soccer moms who drive 3-ton excursions that are as useless on-road as they are off-road, for absolutely no real reason. Here's one of urbandictionary.com's definitions for SUV...

SUV: Sport Utility Vehicle. Neither a sport vehicle nor a utility vehicle. A whack, fakeass (and successful) attempt by the motor vehicle industry to lure in overpaid middle class workaholic moms who think that they need a 3 ton vehicle to carry their stupid kids to soccer practice.

"My old car got 38 miles per gallon and could carry only 4 people; despite the fact that i am a divorced mother of one, i had to upgrade to a vehicle that got 13 miles per gallon and could carry 10 people."

Those are the kinds of irrational people I don't like. I have to deal with hundreds of them every day on the way to school. Once I saw some soccer mom slam on the brakes of her suburban in order to avoid hitting this brand new Accord, too bad the damn thing slid for about 10 seconds until it finally came to a stop in the Accord's side. But instead of getting angry, I just sit back and relax, telling myself that they'll eventually get into an accident and come to the tragic realization that they're going to have to get rid of their SUV, or end up dead.

 

[tool fan]

I don't think a "suburban" actually qualifies as an SUV. I think the "rant" here is on people that have a $80,000 Escalade or Navigator (2 WD) that put those dumb ass 24" gold plated rims and tires with a 1 inch sidewall. They have custom made Louis Vuitton interior and NOBODY is allowed to sit in back. 14,000 dollar sound system. These vehicles are a menace to other drivers on the road. I laugh as I know a couple of soldiers that own such vehicles and they ship them to Germany. There are no streets wide enough to accomodate these vehicles over here. Parking garage? FORGET IT!!!!! And then they want to test the "performance" of their 5000 lb beasts on the autobahn against someone like me that has a BMW and then make excuses as to why their vehicle got smoked like some cheap mexican dirt weed. "Dude, my foot slipped off the gas!!!" or "I just washed her and didn't want to get her dirty" (on the autobahn) Or my favorite, " SHIT my F--kin tranny just blew!!!!" I love that one, american soldiers and their "high performance" vehicles are forever blowing their trannys trying to race on the autobahn. Don't people ever learn that american cars (aside from vettes and vipers) are not built for LONG DISTANCE high speeds.

 

[MrElussive]

Kirby, that was an absolutely ridiculous story. I am not filled with hatred every time I see a Suburban...only for the H2, and Escalade w/rims. As I said before, we have two SUV's ourselves! The ML500 and the RX300....two SUV's!!! I used the ML during the high school, and I absolutely loved it!

 

[Section_8]

Good post Kirby - you do represent the small % of folks that actually 'use' the vehicle for an intended purpose that makes use of the vehicle. I'd still argue any good sized wagon could do everything you mentioned (especially hauling stuff, come on wagons are typically longer in the rear anyhow!), short of pulling a few tons of material. (including driving through snow, imagine you don't have to 'plow' through anymore, just drive over it! 4x4 wagons, wooo!) But then that's what a beater truck is for.. (Wagon + beater truck = cost of monster SUV) A beater truck with a bed that doesn't matter what goes in it, what gets spilled, how messy it gets.. Cause it's the bed of your TRUCK, not the carpeted inside of your vehicle..

A truck is much easier to see around, or over the bed to see what's on the other side. Your view is not blocked by a 7-9 foot tall wall of vehicle(god forbid if they've put 24" under it as MR.E mentioned), that stretches some 20+ feet.. A wagon is like a car, has numerous windows to help other drivers 'see' around. And luckily 'At EYE level'.

And I would rather 'spin out' with a truck vs rolling over, how is that even a comparision? Come on, ROLLING your SUV is equal to spinning out with a truck? SUV's are top heavy, it's a simple fact of physics why they are prone to rolling (Some companies have done better at this, by extending the wheelbase, and moving the axels further front and rear to give the SUV a bigger 'base' to sit on).

No attacks were made on SUV owners, just the SUV themselves. I'm certainly not saying that you can't make good use of one which you obviously do (You can make good use of a pinto if you put your mind to it). The debate (rant, tirade?) is about folks that buy them, and then are the single passenger in this vehicle, and use it as a daily driver (especially in an urban enviornment). Short of large construction vehicles, tractor trailers and semis, SUVs are the worst thing on the highway for other drivers to have to contend with, period.

Just because you can put it to good viable uses to justify it's design and worthiness, does not justify it's impact to the safety of other drivers on the highway, and the impact to the current Gas price. (Lets just say 70% of the SUVs out there were replaced by wagons, with approx twice as good gas milage [A reasonable assumption]). Ok, lets say that was in total, 10 million vehicles. Lets just say for argument sake, that each one of them had a 20 gal fuel tank. Holy crap batman, you've just saved the US 200 million gallons of gas at the pump a day! Or better yet (at current gas prices) 400 million dollars a day! Woooooooo! This being hypothetical, I'm sure the actual savings would be MUCH higher.

The SUV driver you scowl at on the road could be a doctor, nurse, paramedic, volunteer firefighter, plow truck driver, etc. who has valid need for a full size, high clearance SUV.

I will continue to scowl at SUV drivers who treat their large awkward vehicles like they are sports cars; who drive dangerously and cut folks off because they don't know how to drive their 2 ton burden (SUV ass swaying waiting for a chance to roll). I'm of the mind you should have a special license for any vehicle over a certain length or height(sort of like a valet or trucking license), so that drivers (soccer moms, what have you) have to 'learn' how to handle their vehicle before being allowed to clog our streets with dangerous vehicles..

*handshake to Kirby*

 

[Bryan330i]

I think the "rant" here is on people that have a $80,000 Escalade or Navigator (2 WD) that put those dumb ass 24" gold plated rims and tires with a 1 inch sidewall.

...and have no real puroose for driving it...

I have an Expedition and believe me it gets used-just going away for a few days and the whole back of the thing is packed full. Try packing a double stroller, two portable cribs and all the other crap in a car; it’s not possible.

We are getting a minivan though. I know all the jokes about how minivans suck but the useable space in a minivan is actually better than the Expedition and we will not have a need to tow anything with the van

I think minivans get a bad rap when they really offer so much for people looking for space that do not have a need for towing capability. We are looking for the right Toyota Sienna, which is not easy to find given the redesign and the high ratings.

The Sienna actually has a lot more room in back with the third row seat in place than the Expedition, and with the third row seat folded they offer comparable space.

 

[Blue]

who wants a wagon + beater truck???

 

[MrElussive]

Bryan, I think you should reconsider. I agree that minivans are GREAT people haulers, but I would easily take a 7-seater SUV over a minivan any day. But hey, that's just me...anything that looks too utilitarian (i.e. station-wagon, minivan, full-size cargo van, etc.), I refuse to drive it.

 

[Section_8]

That Land Rover is doing exactly what it should be doing thank goodness.. That you driving?

Take that same vehicle, slap it on a major highway doing 70+ as a daily driver. Not what it's designed for at all. Surround it with many more like it, in fact, many more much LARGER than the LR. Now put yourself in a car (any car) in the middle of this pack. Don't blink!

 

[Bryan330i]

Bryan, I think you should reconsider. I agree that minivans are GREAT people haulers, but I would easily take a 7-seater SUV over a minivan any day. But hey, that's just me...anything that looks too utilitarian (i.e. station-wagon, minivan, full-size cargo van, etc.), I refuse to drive it.

I know what you are saying MrE. This was a difficult decision and at first my wife refused and said it looks like she is getting a BMW and I am getting a minivan. A few other factors come into play here also.

1. The Sienna runs 32,000.00 fairly well loaded.

2. It drives and handles much better than the SUV.

3. Averages about 8-10 more MPG

4. Much lower rollover risk.

5. Has full safety package including curtain airbags.

6. Reliability and safety ratings that are second-to-none.

7. The Expedition is continually in for service after only 27,000 miles.

8. Buying a new SUV could run 45,000 for a GM and I would rather have the van and then get a truck for say 60,000 together.

 

[Blue]

LOL, yeah, that's me out in Truckhaven, CA...it was my daily driver until I rear-ended an F150 in February. Accident on the I-10 had all traffic stopped dead in the tunnel in Phoenix - no chance of stopping in time - accidents everywhere. The fact is that a Rover modified for offroad use makes for a crappy daily driver. That's why I got the BMW. I'm rebuilding the Rover to be bigger & better (only cosmetic damage & airbags from the accident). It's great for hauling stuff around, but I'd be crazy to continue commuting with this underpowered, 12 mpg, hi-octane, dog. Especially when there's a nice little 325i parked next to it!

 

[dzervit]

So how did this turn into an SUV bashing thread?! Let people drive what they want, and for every 'unsafe' SUV driver you show me, I'll show you at least 3 bastards in 'sports cars' doing equally unsafe manuvers. I wanna be in my 3 ton beast to protect myself from those other maniacs, and I bet many soccer moms feel the same way. F' everyone else, I'm safe! Bwwwaaaahhh hah hah hah!

Anywho, how 'bout getting back to the injustice that the thread is about?!

 

[Dinan55]

Yea $0.05/gallon is too cheap.

 

[Kirby]

Good post Kirby - you do represent the small % of folks that actually 'use' the vehicle for an intended purpose that makes use of the vehicle. I'd still argue any good sized wagon could do everything you mentioned (especially hauling stuff, come on wagons are typically longer in the rear anyhow!), short of pulling a few tons of material. (including driving through snow, imagine you don't have to 'plow' through anymore, just drive over it! 4x4 wagons, wooo!) But then that's what a beater truck is for.. (Wagon + beater truck = cost of monster SUV) A beater truck with a bed that doesn't matter what goes in it, what gets spilled, how messy it gets.. Cause it's the bed of your TRUCK, not the carpeted inside of your vehicle..

Thanks for the positive comment. Again, no flame wars intended, just debate!
I'll still argue that I can put 4 x 8 sheets of plywood in my 'sub, no wagon can do that! I finished off my basement and used the 'sub to carry 50 sheets of drywall (several trips to say the least).

A truck is much easier to see around, or over the bed to see what's on the other side. Your view is not blocked by a 7-9 foot tall wall of vehicle(god forbid if they've put 24" under it as MR.E mentioned), that stretches some 20+ feet.. A wagon is like a car, has numerous windows to help other drivers 'see' around. And luckily 'At EYE level'.

And I would rather 'spin out' with a truck vs rolling over, how is that even a comparision? Come on, ROLLING your SUV is equal to spinning out with a truck? SUV's are top heavy, it's a simple fact of physics why they are prone to rolling (Some companies have done better at this, by extending the wheelbase, and moving the axels further front and rear to give the SUV a bigger 'base' to sit on).

The media has done a wonderful job in generalizing SUVs as rollover risks, but guess what? Minivans are also more prone to rollover than cars, with many SUVs being equal to or better than some of the minivans.

Most Minivans get 3 stars, cars get 4 or 5, SUVs are all over the range 1 - 4 stars. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/Cars/2003Vans.html

No attacks were made on SUV owners, just the SUV themselves. I'm certainly not saying that you can't make good use of one which you obviously do (You can make good use of a pinto if you put your mind to it). The debate (rant, tirade?) is about folks that buy them, and then are the single passenger in this vehicle, and use it as a daily driver (especially in an urban enviornment). Short of large construction vehicles, tractor trailers and semis, SUVs are the worst thing on the highway for other drivers to have to contend with, period.

Just because you can put it to good viable uses to justify it's design and worthiness, does not justify it's impact to the safety of other drivers on the highway, and the impact to the current Gas price. (Lets just say 70% of the SUVs out there were replaced by wagons, with approx twice as good gas milage [A reasonable assumption]). Ok, lets say that was in total, 10 million vehicles. Lets just say for argument sake, that each one of them had a 20 gal fuel tank. Holy crap batman, you've just saved the US 200 million gallons of gas at the pump a day! Or better yet (at current gas prices) 400 million dollars a day! Woooooooo! This being hypothetical, I'm sure the actual savings would be MUCH higher.

I absolutely agree that SUVs use more gas, but challenge your figures.

My Suburban gets 14 mpg around town, our company's fleet of three Explorers gets about 16 mpg around town (yes they are used for hauling, etc). If I were to buy a wagon, it would be a 325iT, fair choice for someone who already owns 2 BMWs. My 330cic gets 19 mpg around town. I'll bet the 325iT would get the same (smaller engine but extra weight). That's about a 25% - 30% improvement over my 'sub, less for an Explorer, certainly not 100% as you suggest. It's not realistic to argue that someone who selected an SUV for space would buy a Pontiac Vibe hatchback.

In either event you can't claim a full tank of 20 gallons of savings, you can only claim the DIFFERENCE IN USAGE as savings. In your example of twice the mileage the savings would be 10 gal, not 20 gal, and in reality it will be more like 5 - 7 gallons in your example of daily consumption. BUT - it just can't be every day! You can't really believe that 10 million SUVs go through a full tank (300 miles) every day. Come 'on.... 400 million dollars a day - exagerating a wee bit?

More realistically (and I am being generous), save 7 gallons a fill up, fill up twice a week-14 gal savings a week = 2 gallons a day savings = $40 million a day, not $400 million.

I will continue to scowl at SUV drivers who treat their large awkward vehicles like they are sports cars; who drive dangerously and cut folks off because they don't know how to drive their 2 ton burden (SUV ass swaying waiting for a chance to roll). I'm of the mind you should have a special license for any vehicle over a certain length or height(sort of like a valet or trucking license), so that drivers (soccer moms, what have you) have to 'learn' how to handle their vehicle before being allowed to clog our streets with dangerous vehicles..

I absolutely agree that soccer moms in SUVs are a bad thing. BUT soccer moms in vans are equally bad. (A soccer milf in a 325iT might be OK though!)

From Websites:
Length Overall (LOA) / MPG / Tread width
325iT LOA 176"/ MPG 19 city /27 hiway
Taurus Wagon LOA 198" / MPG 18 city 25 hiway / 61"
Freestar Minivan LOA 201" / MPG 17 city 23 hiway / 64"
Explorer LOA 189" / MPG 15 city 21 hiway / 61"
Expedition LOA 205" / MPG 15 city 19 hiway / 67"

The most popular SUV on the road is the Explorer; it represents a good Median in the range - Geo Tracker -> Escape -> Explorer -> Suburban -> Excursion

The "BIG SUV" Myth - Compared to Explorer:
The minivan and Taurus are LONGER
The minivan is WIDER
The Taurus is the SAME WIDTH

The minivan with tinted windows creates more of a visual wall than an Explorer. Certainly the 'sub and Expedition are bigger, but we are bashing/defending all SUVs, aren't we?

The van saves 2 mpg (15%)
The Taurus saves 4 mpg (25%)
the bimmer saves 4 mpg (25%)
None are double the savings. With that said, 25% savings is worth noticing.

The manufacturers specs say to me that the difference isn't nearly as much as many people want to believe, and in some cases are opposite the claims, so there must be a "perception vs. reality disconnect".

 

[Bryan330i]

Kirby you have a lot of good points. The rollover risk gets so much attention on television and I don’t think people fully appreciate how much worse a van can be than an SUV. This is primarily the reason we have stayed away from vans in the past.

Toyota seems to have resolved this issue nicely in the new model for 2004/2005 but I think an SUV is still a much safer option in most cases than any GM van product, most Chrysler products, and the larger Ford vans.

I should have been more clear in my list that I was speaking specifically about the Toyota for rollover and not all vans.

 

[BMW_FaNaTiC]

One of my friends have an Escalade with 26 in spinning rims, and i like it.

Its a very big car with such comfortable bucket seats and alot of room. They are safe too, if you get in an accident, you don't die, you kill the other guy! [kick]

I think they are fun to drive. Different from a sedan!