To SUV or not?

Gerard · 2 May 2001, 21:58 (Ref:88117)

What is it with SUV's?
Whenever I read something, especially on the Internet, about SUV's, I have the impression most of the articles are there to ridicule SUV's and their drivers.

Is it because most SUV owners never take them off-roading and don't use them what they are designed for?
Is it because people think SUV owners want to look 'trendy' and 'tough'?

Although I don't drive one myself, I like most SUV's and don't understand the negative way in which some people talk about these cars.

Where does all this criticism on SUV's come from, or is it my imagination?

Ray Bell · 3 May 2001, 00:50 (Ref:88166)

The term in Melbourne is Toorak Tractors, and if you saw the line-up of them picking up suburban kids from school each day you'd understand!

Polished to the nines, obviously never seen a dirt road, possibly nothing further from the suburban streets than the freeway, they represent the greatest waste of resources since the last war. Whoops, there's another war still going on, isn't there? But you get the idea?

Most people do think they need these for safety. Some get them because of carrying capacity allied with better status than a people mover, which can be valid reasons.

Some just dream of being able to get off road...

Onto roads most of us would comfortably drive in any old motor car.

I saw the term Suburban Assault Vehicle ascribed to them recently, not quite SUV, but close enough to pass quick inspection. And how true it is in many cases. Whether or not the drivers know they are menacing your average Suzuki Swift-monted grandma, I can't say, but they do.

Maybe I have strong views on this, but I detest the waste. Tyres that cost a fortune and are intended for dragging a vehicle out of a bog being worn out on bitumen... all that mechanical equipment that will be used less than 1% of the vehicle's lifetime, the fuel it costs to drag it all around...

That's my view, but what of others?

Valve Bounce · 3 May 2001, 04:02 (Ref:88212)

The 4WD vehicles are not that great to drive and are not as safe as their drivers believe. Apart from the waste in petrol, the reputed space available if someone wanted to squeeze passengers into the rear luggage area is most uncomfortable. I think many drive them because of their size and they think its a status symbol. I drive a Volvo V70 AWD, the low one before the Cross Country came out. I wanted to go ski-ing without having to worry about putting chains on. The car is a pleasure to drive, and the safety features are just incredible - I have the Side Impact Protection system, side air bags (the new Cross Country has air curtains as well), TRACS, AWD, ABS, fog lights front and rear, dual brake systems, and of course the low pressure turbo makes it great fun to drive. I have seen a silver V70 AWD from New South Wales with the R engine that must be the ultimate AWD car. And what do I think of the huge 4WD SUV's? There is an advertisement here for a well known Japanese SUV that features an in-bred dysfunctional family in a country town who drive around in an SUV. That says it all.

elephino · 3 May 2001, 11:01 (Ref:88271)

Mainly that they are rarely taken off-road.

I know 4 people with off-road style 4WDs. 2 take them offroad, the other 2 use them for towing (ie they are heavy). I can live with that, it's the people who buy them so that people think they take them off-road, off the beaten track. And especially the faux-4WDs such as Honda HR-V.

Valve Bounce, one minor problem with the V70R is that you have to replace all 4 tyres everytime otherwise it upsets the 4WD system, but yes it is a great car.

Marshal · 3 May 2001, 14:12 (Ref:88345)

The other thing about SUV's is that if you ever have the misfortune to hit a pedestrian, you are 3-4 times more likely to kill them than in a conventional road car. This is mainlydue to the fact they are that that much higher off the ground the likelehood of the pedestrian getting his head hit are vastly increased.

As an aside you might be more likely to hit that pedestrian, as SUV's are demonsrably less good at stopping or making emergency changes of direction.

One final thought, you might not even be safer inside one, as the separate chassis tends to transmit more of the impact energy to the occupant, as well as inflicting more damage on the other vehicle.

You might have spotted I'm not a fan.....

Ray Bell · 3 May 2001, 16:13 (Ref:88369)

On the subject of towing, as this has been raised, while I see the advantage of the trucklike construction for this task, it's been accepted over the years that cars are also capable of this task to a fairly high limit.

Where twenty and thirty years ago the average caravan was trundled along behind the average Holden or Falcon (or Vauxhall or Zephyr), today very few are. Most are hitched up to Patrols and Landcruisers. The only reasoning is that caravans are also getting heavier, but this doesn't account for the use of the 4WDs with camper trailers... or does it?

Emfa · 3 May 2001, 17:16 (Ref:88400)

If I may offer one observation regarding the ridicule and bad press that SUV's receive (particularly here in the States) ...

As noted above a (large) number of people buy these things for prestige or carrying capacity. They will also often have a sedan or sportscar parked next to them in the garage. The unfortunate thing is that too many people think that they can drive their SUV like a regular sedan (sad but true) and end up getting into serious trouble. Several years ago I made a trip down an eastern interstate during atrocious weather. Guess what type of vehicle was best represented on the median, or on it's roof, or in the scrub - yup, the SUV's! Overconfidence probably was a major factor as well - there are some things that a SUV can do better, but there are a lot that it can't do as well.

BTW, here in the Rockies a "Colorado Cadillac" can be quite useful!

Neil C · 3 May 2001, 20:05 (Ref:88479)

It is interesting that SUV owners have been assigned a place in the food chain just above pond scum and a touch below cigarette smokers and child molesters.

For some reason, the media seems to create a ground swell of public animosity and we all like to join in the ridicule. "The hunchback always notices the hump on the other fellows back"-Italian proverb.

I have owned "SUV's" twenty years before the term was invented. They are great for hunting, fishing and camping. I used my '72 International Scout to tow my first racecar. Try doing that with your average environmentaly friendly, fuel-starved, detuned econobox. I live in a climate where winter is winter. 4WD can be a matter of survival if it's needed. And if it isn't needed...do you throw away your emergency first aid kit because you've never used it?

As for those who own one simply for "status", I don't know what status is derived from being one of "those" people who are cloging the roads and ruining our environment by driving a SUV (never mind that they run cleaner and more efficiently than the station wagons they replace). Besides, it's their money. They can spend it however they like.

The danger, it seems, is the false sense of security they create. I see many 4 wheelers get into trouble on icy roads because they can get you going faster than anything, but they offer no braking advantage. Most of the problems are created by drivers who overaccelerate then find themselves unable to stop. But they are probably idiots who will get themselves into trouble no matter what they are driving.

Ray Bell · 4 May 2001, 01:24 (Ref:88572)

Colarado Cadillac, eh?

Nobody should deny people the right to spend their money as wisely or unwisely as they choose. Nor will anyone deny anybody the right to own a vehicle of any type. We would no doubt agree that if you live somewhere or go somewhere fairly regularly where you can take advantage of the 4WD capabilities, then go for it.

The decrying is of the suburban housewife with the monolith that drives to every corner of the parking lot, both ends of the suburb, to Mother's on Tuesday and then lets her husband take it to golf in the next suburb on Sunday.

Valve Bounce · 4 May 2001, 04:22 (Ref:88647)

Quote:

Originally posted by elephino

Valve Bounce, one minor problem with the V70R is that you have to replace all 4 tyres everytime otherwise it upsets the 4WD system, but yes it is a great car.

[B]How on earth did you know this? [B/] You have no idea how much trouble I have had in the past two months. Just before Christmas, I gave myself an expensive present of a set of Michelin Pilot Sports. 4 only as the spare is a thin wheel. Two months ago, I ran the car too far on a flat tyre and ruined it. (running on the flat low profile tyres around town offers no indication of a flat). There were no Pilot Sport tyres available in Australia to replace it and Michelin France twice refused to fill Australian orders. The Michelin rep offered to relace the tyre with an MXN, which I was most unhappy about, and I had to telephone the Michelin National Manager who, fortunately, agreed to help me on April 24th. They have just found a tyre in Taiwan two days ago and are air freighting it here for me.
I HAVE BEEN DRIVING AROUND WITH A TEMPORARY RELACEMENT ON THAT WHEEL, A DUNLOP, AND I GET AXLE TRAMP WHEN I GO AROUND TIGHT CORNERS LIKE MINI ROUNDABOUTS. (Sorry for the caps)
I think the trick is to swap the front tyres with the rear on the same side of the car.

I really mean it - how the heck did you laern of this problem??

Ray Bell · 4 May 2001, 06:00 (Ref:88679)

Well... this is a part of what the forum is for!

We can help each other.. and now you know how vital it is to not only avoid one unmatched tyre, but two...

Thanks elephino, throwing in that gem might have helped somebody else!

Valve Bounce · 4 May 2001, 09:59 (Ref:88772)

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Well... this is a part of what the forum is for!

We can help each other.. and now you know how vital it is to not only avoid one unmatched tyre, but two...

Thanks elephino, throwing in that gem might have helped somebody else!

I learnt this from Scueria Veloce in Canberra [B] AFTER[B/] I bought two Indonesia tyres to replace my front Michelins two years ago. Even two differrent tyres on teh rear axle caused axle hop in the roundabouts.

elephino · 4 May 2001, 11:34 (Ref:88808)

It helps to be part of a car club, in this case a Volvo car club.

I learnt this wonderful piece of news through the club, can't remember when though. It is the way the 4WD system on the Volvo works, that too much wear or different tyres on any of the wheels may cause problems and confuse the system. Probably not too much affect in normal driving but it could be a problem in an emergency.

VB, what do you think of the Pilot Sports? I drove an Audi A3 Turbo a few weeks ago and I actually expected a little more grip from them.

Scottie · 4 May 2001, 17:05 (Ref:88923)

WOW, a great topic.
I have owned 4 SUV's and currently own 1996 GMC Jimmy. Neil C is absolutely right. SUV's tend to give a false sense os security, but on the other hand, if one recognizes that fact, they can be one great winter vehicle. Here in Canada, we can get real bad winters, with ice, rain, snow, all in the same day. My wife drives the SUV and gives her a sense of security while driving in winter. As long as she is comfortable with that, we'll always have one for her!
I drive a Hyundai Tiburon in the winter (also the SUV in bad weather), and a Corvette in the summer. SUV owners here in Canada, also get the same rap as everywhere else it seems. They do tend to drive a lot faster in the snow that those of us driving cars, and lack the patience to maintain the same speed as the other vehicles on the road.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Valve Bounce · 6 May 2001, 04:52 (Ref:89556)

Quote:

Originally posted by elephino
It helps to be part of a car club, in this case a Volvo car club.

VB, what do you think of the Pilot Sports? I drove an Audi A3 Turbo a few weeks ago and I actually expected a little more grip from them.

Why in heaven's name are you in the Volvo car club when you drive a Nissan Pulsar? Most guys in Qld won't admit even to sitting in a Volvo!!

As for the Pilot Sports, they are superb around town, in the wet, or whatever, with the AWD, because the handling does not seem to be affected by the wet conditions.(I have TRACS also). My car is low on the road (not the Cross Country) and handles superbly with the low profile tyres. However, I can't throw the car around like I used to with the two wheel drive Peugeot, because I really don't know how the AWD handles on the limit. I was going to take the car up to Mt. Glorious when the rear tyre when I damaged the rear tyre. When my new Pilot Sport arrives, I will empty all the stuff from the rear compartment (like roller blades and dog travelling cage) and go for a run up there.

Scottie, driving around in those SUV's you mention are really not that safe. In fact their rigid bodies make them less energy absorbing in a frontal crash, and you are more likely to get injured. They do not have better road holding than the normal car except going uphill on ice, when the normal car will start to sit there with the driving tyres spinning helplessly. If you want good safety in all respects, including side window curtains as well as side air bags and frontal air bags, and SIPS, then check out the Volvo Cross Country. The have AWD, TRACS, ABS, and you just cannot compare the road holding and handling if you drive an ERSATZ SUV.

elephino · 7 May 2001, 11:06 (Ref:89868)

Must be the old Michelin trick. They work better with more weight in the car.

I did own a Volvo, and my family have had 5 Volvos but now have a Lexus.

Airhead · 7 May 2001, 21:19 (Ref:89984)

Quote:

Originally posted by elephino
It helps to be part of a car club, in this case a Volvo car club.

I learnt this wonderful piece of news through the club, can't remember when though. .

I can't believe this! One person freely admits to Volvo ownership and another comes out of the closet drapped in a pink towel to admit to being a member of the local lawn bowls club. This is the guy who is a moderator in the BIKE forum!

Ok, I know this is a road CAR forum but...

Among those with the good sense to ride - Volvos are Darwinian Theory in motion. Those why are waiting for the next world drive around merrily dispatching others ahead of their time.

Volvos, bloody Volvos, I can't believe it. If you must drive, go with Henry and get something with a blue oval on the bonnet.

Valve, you know better than this, Eliphino you should know better.

Airhead · 7 May 2001, 21:20 (Ref:89986)

Quote:

Originally posted by elephino
Must be the old Michelin trick. They work better with more weight in the car.

I did own a Volvo, and my family have had 5 Volvos but now have a Lexus.

Oh my God! Please deliver me from evil!

Neil C · 8 May 2001, 18:20 (Ref:90351)

Quote:

Originally posted by Valve Bounce

Scottie, driving around in those SUV's you mention are really not that safe. In fact their rigid bodies make them less energy absorbing in a frontal crash, and you are more likely to get injured.

Sorry Volvo Bounce, but your assertion that SUV's have rigid bodies and are therefore, less safe, is based on the assumption that they are all body-on-frame construction.

Many, like my Ford Escape, are unit-body construction and are just as energy absorbing and have all of those ABS, AWD, letter-soup thingies you mention. Just like your Volvo Cross Country, but without the faux skid plates and ground-effects road clearance that wouldnt clear a rabbit if it were not already flattened by another street sweeper.

Forza Ford

Airhead · 8 May 2001, 21:16 (Ref:90484)

Quote:

Originally posted by Neil C

Sorry Volvo Bounce..........

Forza Ford

Music to my ears

elephino · 9 May 2001, 11:46 (Ref:90661)

Moff, I have never hidden the truth about Volvos and me. I have mentioned many times the S40 screaming around Mt Panorama and have mentioned Volvos many other times.

I still appreciate and like other cars and readily admit there are better cars than Volvos.

KC · 9 May 2001, 20:24 (Ref:90803)

SUVs in and of themselves are not dangerous. They won't go out and run ver anything without a driver. Drivers are dangerous. Especially those who are incompetent in a one ton vehicle, much less a three ton vehicle.

In the States you see a lot of things on the road that often defy description. A 5 foot tall woman driving a 6000 pound Ford Excursion she can barely see out of with three kids playing romper room in the back seat, none belted in. You see guys driving around in a old beater pickup trucks with three different brands and sizes of bald slick tires losing as much gasoline out of the tailpipe as the engine is burning and it has a brand new safety inspection decal on it. In the Tulsa area we have had three single car fatality accidents in less than a month. Two involved the rolling of an SUV and one was a cell phone distraction.

Last month a friend of mine was struck broad side on his Suzuki FZR by a woman in a Cadillac Escalade. She claimed she never saw him. The guy has more facial hair than two people normally have on top of their head and weighs over 400 pounds. How do you miss that?

elephino · 10 May 2001, 10:44 (Ref:90961)

KC, it happens amazingly often. Someone ran up the back of me in a car park of all places by not noticing me...after having followed me for at least 20 odd metres too.

And my mum was hit by a little car pulling out of a parking space (what is it with my family and parked cars?). The other driver claimed to have looked in her blind spot and therefore it was my mum's fault. Of course it helps to make sure there aren't cars approaching too...