SUV Throwdown

My goodness. I step away for a few days, and all hell breaks loose. It's a sign of how emotional car enthusiasts get about SUVs that even this friendly community can begin bludgeoning each other in, of all things, the comments thread of a post about the poor, cringing 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass.

Now, several days later, that thread is overflowing with novellas railing against SUVs, some quasi-personal invective, and strategically placed body waste. The conversation was actually pretty good, minus the parts that were verging on insulting. It never quite got to the "YOUR AN IDIOT!!!1!!!" stage, but still, let's keep it polite, folks.

So, anyway, before I offer up my two cents, here's The Simpsons' take with, naturally, German subtitles:

So, anyway, to the conversation at hand.

How I feel about SUVs

Trucks and SUVs used to be exceptionally useful vehicles, optimized for truckish pursuits--towing, hauling, and traction in all conditions. The downside was that they were heavier, used more gas, were less comfortable, and accelerated, handled, and braked less well than their car and station wagon compatriots. Because of that, people used cars for everyday use and trucks when they needed the utility. The trade-offs were clear.

Now, SUVs are being used as cars. Some cars, like the Audi All-road and various Subaru Outbacks, are consciously being made more truckish. Trucks have become smoother, more refined, and perform better than they ever did. Some cars are now more rugged, can carry more, and have all-wheel-drive.

The lines are blurring, and that's frustrating to me because the innate compromises haven't gone away. Even today's SUVs aren't cars--they can't be. If they are to maintain any part of what makes SUVs special, they are inevitably heavier and taller. The resulting weight and height create dynamic problems that compromise every element of on-road performance--acceleration, handling, braking, economy, and emissions. Excellent engineering can diminish those compromises, but they inevitably exist.

More and more SUVs and crossovers--basically, tall wagons like the Dodge Colt Vista with a little bit of marketing fairy dust--are being made without skid plates and low-range 4WD gearing, both of which give SUVs the utility that makes them special. The reasoning is clear--people aren't using those features.

Most SUVs are now being used like cars--a role that exposes their compromises, without taking advantage of their strengths. The commenters who argue that the majority of SUV owners would be better off with cars, station wagons, and minivans are probably right. A cold-blooded, rational person who needs a vehicle that fits most people's everyday needs would probably be somewhat better off with a car, a station wagon, or a minivan.

Back when I was a teenage jerk, I had no trouble sharing that viewpoint. I was completely insensitive to my Mom when she bought a first-gen Honda CR-V. I had no compunction about questioning her intelligence. The CR-V was nothing but a Civic on stilts, I sneered, except it was more expensive, slower, and didn't even have a tape deck. I made her feel pretty bad about it. It was a horrible, reprehensible moment of bullying that I've regretted ever since. I made my own mother feel dumb about her car--a car that she went on to love and cherish for a decade, that got her home safe in snowstorms, that was able to move my sister's entire apartment in one 1,500-mile trip, that was nearly as easy-to-drive and economical as a Civic.

When my wife's aunt wanted to buy a CR-V, I'd matured a little. I accepted what she wanted, we shopped around, and now she's made her new Hyundai Santa Fe a proud member of her family. We borrow it all the time to haul things we need, and she doesn't have to chain up when she drives over Snoqualmie Pass. It does what she needs, and she's very happy with it.

My parents now own a Lexus RX330, and while it's not what I'd buy for the money, it's a pretty nice ride. It's just as comfortable as a Lexus sedan, and it fits a ton of luggage when they go road-tripping.

Not all SUVs are made equal

I think when people rail against SUVs, the outrage is mostly directed at full-size SUVs like the Hummer H2, Chevy Suburban, and Ford Expedition. Those are the biggest, most obvious offenders of public dignity. I can understand the outrage, if not share in its intensity.

But really, how offensive are the smaller SUVs? A Honda CR-V is a different animal than a Hummer H2. It seems to me that the outrage about massive SUVs is a bit out of place when SUVs are increasingly smaller and more car-based.

Speaking personally, my biggest insult with the smaller SUVs is to my intelligence. The Nissan Xterra is sold as a chariot of young, lantern-jawed extreme athletes who like to surf over waterfalls with gliders strapped to their backs. A whole recent line of GM SUVs was made up of made-over minivans, with uglier styling and slightly diminished utility. My mind rebels at the cynical marketing at play with sport-themed SUVs, the alphabet soup of non-SUV acronyms (SAV, for instance), and crossovers.

But most of the SUVs I see are powered by 4- and 6-cylinder engines; the mammoth V-8 sport-utes are much less common than they were a couple of years ago.

Do people really need SUVs?

It all depends on where you draw the line between need and want. I can say that the SUV owners I know use them to haul cargo from time to time, and they appreciate the fact that they have all-wheel-drive traction if they need it. A few of the short women who drive SUVs really like the fact that they sit up high--it makes them feel safer and in control. Are these needs? I don't know--but they are features people want when buying a vehicle.

One of the things that made me uncomfortable about the comment thread was the idea that people have to justify whether or not they actually need their SUVs. At one point, Rob commented to OldCarGuy:

"Your needs are very shallow at best. ... You say you need to go offroading... for what exactly? Now see if you can wrap your brain around this concept: Most people have no need whatsoever for owning an SUV, and try to come up with reasons why the 'need it'. You don't need it."

I like Rob a lot--he's funny, knowledgeable, and has great taste in cars. But I don't get where he's coming from here. OldCarGuy wanted an SUV. He bought one. If he really didn't need it, it's his money he's wasting. And if I was OldCarGuy, and Rob was getting in my face about whether or not I really needed my car, my response would have been to tell Rob to bugger off and mind his own business.

Here's the trouble, Rob. You own a delectable Subaru SVX (which, incidentally, I'd sell various body parts to get my hands on). Like an SUV, its everyday utility is compromised in some small but tangible way for capabilities that doesn't get used every day (in this case, speed and handling). The more you use the SVX's capabilities, the larger a danger you pose to others. It would really be safer for everybody for you to drive what you really need. In this case, we've decided all you need is a Toyota Echo. Enjoy!

It's not like I'm immune. Right now I'm lusting for a burgandy-over-burgandy 1975 Chevy Impala coupe for sale down the road. It's a massive gas guzzler. It pumps out roughly 10X the tailpipe emissions of any new car. It can carry at most two full-size adults in reasonable comfort. It accelerates, handles, and brakes poorly. Its level of traction and utility is completely reprehensible. Unless perfectly maintained, it's probably a safety risk to every other car on the road. I could get a 10-year-old Ford Explorer for the same price, and the Explorer would be the superior vehicle in every tangible way. Of course, for all of the intangible reasons, I badly want the Impala and wouldn't be caught dead in the Explorer.

So, when it comes to needs, I live in an incredibly fragile glass house, and there's no way I'm going to start throwing rocks.

Do people only buy SUVs because of fashion?

Some people do, no doubt. But even if we accept that people are just buying SUVs because of style and not because of need--a dubious, widely sweeping assumption--well, what's wrong with that? What part of our lives isn't impacted by the fashion of the time?

I have an analogous situation I'd like to throw out. I feel the same way about teenyboppers who wear their pink North Face fleece vests everywhere in the city as a style statement. High-activity, sweaty backpackers who are hiking in wet, cold conditions need fleece for its ability to insulate when wet. Those teenyboppers, faced with a challenging 65-degree mall atmosphere, really don't need North Face fleece. All they need is sweat pants and sweatshirts. Those expensive fleece vests will likely never be used as they were intended, but that's style.

I mean, a VW New Beetle is just a Golf with poor space utilization. But people buy them because of how they look. Sports sedans are more useful than high-end sports coupes, but people buy sports coupes because they're gorgeous. SUVs aren't really my taste, but even if people just buy them for the look, that's not exactly unique.

Most SUVs are pretty good at what they do

This might be the most controversial point here, especially after I just railed at length about the compromises inherent in SUVs. But while modern SUVs might not be great at anything, they tend to be pretty good at quite a bit.

I think minivans are better at carrying people; but SUVs are still excellent people carriers, with great headroom, width, and optional third-row seating. Cube vans are better at carrying lots of stuff, but SUVs are also highly efficient cargo-carriers, better even than my much-loved station wagons. Today's SUV's tend to also be nearly as comfortable as their sedan counterparts, are sure-footed in most conditions, and perform better and more efficiently than they used to.

So while SUVs might not be the best choice for most tasks, they do tend to be pretty useful.

What about safety?

Rob the SVX Guy: "Most importantly, people who CHOOSE to drive an SUV CHOOSE to endanger my life."

This is a great point. Not enough people talk about bumper incompatibility--an SUV's bumper is higher than a car's bumper and so collisions create more damage than in other collisions. It's a dangerous situation. And I hate the logic that leads to people choosing to drive an SUV to "win" collisions.

But I don't think it's so remarkably different as to justify making what other people drive my business. SUVs are slightly more dangerous than other cars in a collision under equal circumstances--but most of it comes down to the driver and the circumstances. And semis and omnipresent light- and medium-duty commercial vehicles are much, much worse from a safety perspective. A poorly- or too aggressively driven sports car is arguably more dangerous to other drivers than a reasonably driven SUV.

So what about Rob's chosen method of protest?

First of all, did anybody else realize how funny it was that Rob's most vocal ally in a thread in which he said he once pooped on a Hummer's hood was a guy named "Steaming Pile?"

I tend to think of people who vandalize cars as the worst kind of criminals. Key a car? You deserve time in the stocks. Steal a car? I think tarring and feathering is too kind.

But pooping on the hood? It's ridiculously unhygienic, but it makes me laugh, mostly because my absurdist sense of humor loves the idea of strategically placed fecal matter as a protest device. I'm interested in seeing it translated to other issues, such as education, foreign policy, and environmentalism.

My question--if bird droppings are acknowledged as one of the most serious threats to your car's clearcoat finish, what about human leavings?

So do you really like SUVs?

No, not really. There are a few exceptions, but they're not really my cup of tea, for all the reasons above. Like Mochi Mochi, I prefer the harder-edged trucks that maximize the utility without all the gingerbread. When I want to drive a car, I'll just drive a car. I can't say I really get or share the level of vitriol others have for SUVs, but I'm not planning on buying one either.

I'm just out of the business of telling people what they should and shouldn't drive. My own tastes just can't stand that level of scrutiny.

Some quotes:

Mochi Mochi: "But SUV's go beyond the pale. They are an expression of the worse excess and lack of imagination that has ever been conceived. They are a plague and an abomination. "

Wow! Mochi Mochi, getting biblical.

Steaming Pile: "The silver lining of $4 gas is that you don't see as many of those things on the road anymore."

Yep--full-size SUVs are already a tough sell. Nothing changes purchase behavior more than the pocketbook.

Steaming Pile: "End rant, and I don't give a damn if I offended anyone."

That's not a great attitude, SP. I know this goes against the grain of every other Internet community out there, but what I'd really like to have here is a community where people do care if they offend others because they share a mutual respect.

Cookie the Dog's Owner: "I don't get the intensity of the hate toward SUVs and their owners. I don't need or want an SUV myself. For some people, the four-wheel drive and ground clearance and cargo capacity may be a practical necessity. (I have farmer clients who fit into this category.) For the others, there's no practical need. They just want the manly big truck, for whatever irrational reason. So? As I see it, if someone's ride does what they want it to do, and the beast is mechanically reliable and complies with applicable safety laws, who am I to argue with their choice of wheels? It's their money -- including their gas money -- and it's a free country last time I checked. If I'm going to indulge my own passions with a turbocharged hot hatch, or "ooh" and "aaah" over Ferraris and Impala SS 409s and Jensen Interceptors, where do I get off telling someone else that they're morally deficient if they spend their automobile dollars in a different way?"

See, I could've just saved all of these keystrokes, because Cookie the Dog's Owner already did a great job nailing it. But why use one word when four will do?

David Drucker: "But keep this in mind: oil is a finite resource, and the sooner it's gone the sooner we'll get serious about finding alternative energy sources. That being the case, I feel a certain amount of guilt when driving my oh-so-efficient Accord. I get the sense that I should be doing more -- such as driving a Navigator -- to hasten the day when the pumps run dry"

This made me chuckle.

Mochi Mochi: "I don't hate the people. I don't even hate the cars. I just think that there is a serious lack of imagination that surrounds the SUV. 90 to +95% of the owners can't actually justify them, and are purchasing them for status and vanity only. We did not have them 30 years ago - not in the current plushed_out form - and we did not need them then. I don't think they are actually better in any way than an 83 Malibu wagon. "

Nicely played, sir--you know my weaknesses.

Rob the SVX Guy: "First off, my name is Rob, and I DO support vandalism, prejudice, hatred, and vulgarity towards SUV owners. I have defecated on the hood of an H2, and I will do so again in the future. I print out SUV poser tickets, and distribute them under SUV wipers. I seriously HATE them, and most people who drive them. I also flip off any luxury SUV I see, in any part of town."

Rob, if you wind up running for office in a decade or two, I'd suggest this not be part of your platform.

The photos here are just a smorgasbord of quasi-related over-the-top images that, when combined with the serious conversation here, made me chuckle.

--Chris H.

Comments

[Rob the SVX guy on April 13, 2008 at 06:33 PM]

SUV research paper, which supports why I feel the way I do, with citations:

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs27/f/2008/101/1/d/SUV_Research_Paper_by_cash68.pdf

I'd like anybody who's going to defend SUVs to read that before posting.

[Rob the SVX guy on April 13, 2008 at 06:50 PM]

Just read your post, and here's my response. My SVX doesn't currently fit my needs, as I'm in school, so it's been in storage for a year or two. I currently drive my 89 Accord with a whopping 98hp and a 5spd transmission. It fits my needs quite well, allowing me to haul a rather large amount of things in a car that handles great around town, is fun to drive, reliable, gets decent gas mileage, and is easy to work on. Once I graduate and have a job, with most likely a longer commute, the SVX will be brought back into action. Why? It DOES fit my needs. I commute, and I drive fast. I don't speed recklessly through busy traffic, but I am not shuffling along in the slow lane. Now, a car with better braking, handling, acceleration, and response is going to be easier to avoid an accident in, given the same conditions. This is why I value performance models of almost any automobile. They hold their resale value better, they're more fun to drive, and in my opinion, SAFER. I have replaced my entire suspension and brake system with components that outperform the stock ones, and now in traffic, if someone slams on their brakes, I don't have to worry about rear ending anybody. If somebody cuts me off (usually an SUV that doesn't use signals), I can quickly get out of the way. A toyota echo wouldn't really do quite as well, though it would still fit my needs. The problem I have with that? Echos are expensive. My SVX cost me $3600, 5 years ago. I dislike new cars, and I don't like spending a ton on something that's only going to depreciate.

One other thing.... all the people who say they 'need' 4wd or Awd.... unless they are rock crawling or traveling up a creek, they're probably full of crap. My Subaru was great in the snow.... but my 1989 Accord is MUCH better. Why? My subaru had all seasons, and with the accord I have a set of really aggressive snow tires I throw on during the winter. How many SUVs do you see with snow tires? I have never seen one, and I live in WI. Every SUV I have ever seen, in my entire life on earth, has had all seasons.* Because of this, I will probably never buy another AWD vehicle again in my entire life. It saps power, it sucks gas, it's more expensive to maintain, and honestly, you get better performance just by purchasing a set of snow tires for a FWD vehicle.

*: Excluding big jacked up 'man' trucks with super swampers/off road knobbies. I'm sure those might do well in the snow. Maybe.

And Chris, I appreciate the middle man perspective, but honestly, I think if you read up more you'd start to be swayed more in my direction (apart from the whole pooping on the hood of an H2 thing). I honestly believe that, and if you email me your address, I'm going to ship you a copy of a book that really taught me a lot about WHY suvs are such a problem, and will become even worse in the future, when teenagers and low income people who cannot afford to maintain them start driving them. It's called "High and Mighty: The rise of the world's most dangerous vehicle and how it got that way". It's an incredible book, which even covers why SUVs/Truck standards started to diverge from regular autmobiles: Frozen chickens. It's a great read, and I have no qualms about sending you a copy.

[Rob the SVX guy on April 13, 2008 at 06:59 PM]

Crap, one more thing about the issue of safety. You mentioned semis and large commercial vehicles being worse than SUVs. True! They lack any sort of crumple zones, bumper incompatibility, etc, HOWEVER, they all require special training to drive. You need to go through a more rigorous process in order to drive something like that, and obtain a whole seperate driver's license. Yet.... anyone with a driver's license, from a 16 yr old kid, to a 35yr old trophy wife, to a soccer mom, to a 75 yr old man, can legally drive an 8,000lb Hummer H2 without any special training whatsoever. That is absolutely ridiculous.

And sports cars? As I've stated, if driven responsibly, I think they're safer than almost any other vehicle on the road. They have the best braking, handling, acceleration, and response abilities compared to almost any other vehicle on the road.

There's one GLARING thing that makes both sports car and commercial vehicles completely invalid in comparison to SUV safety problems, and that is that NEITHER are replacing the family vehicle. I don't drive to school/work and see the average joe rolling in a ferrari or a Peterbuilt. It just isn't happening. SUVs, however, are replacing the minivan/wagon/sedan. People buy them without questioning them, without questioning their safety, and with zero regard for everyone else on the road. It makes me sick.

[Nathan on April 14, 2008 at 01:45 AM]

Rob the SVX guy:
I'm planning on buying an SUV.
Here's why:
I need a car that can seat at least 6 people comfortably. And 7 is probably going to be necessary if my wife gets pregnant.
And I need a vehicle that can two 3500 pounds of pop-up trailer safely and efficiently, without damaging the vehicle.

I nearly bought a mini-van, because they even had an advertisement photo of an Odyssey hauling a camper.

But the more I read, the less confident I felt that a mini-van could haul a trailer and still be working 2 years later.

So I plan on buying a used (2003 or 2004) Honda Pilot. It seats 8, is set up for towing, and gets mileage pretty much as good as a used sports sedan that would be my other choice (like an RL or TL).

If things break right, though, I might end up buying a 2006 Ford Explorer V6 for about the same price. It gets slightly worse mileage than the Pilot, but can tow more, and would still be under warranty with only about 1/3 the miles on it as a similarly-priced 2004 Pilot. Then again, there's a reason the Pilot holds its value longer, eh?

Now, if you can convince me (show me irrefutable evidence) that I can get that same utility out of a mini-van, I'll change my plans.

[Steaming Pile on April 14, 2008 at 05:59 AM]

I just want to say for the record that I did not condone anyone crapping on the hood of anyone's vehicle. It's frustrating enough that we have to put up with bird crap on our freshly-washed rides.

As for the comment I actually did get quoted on, I apologize.

[Mochi Mochi on April 14, 2008 at 08:14 AM]

I have been taking the perspective that it is not ok to take a dump on the hood of someone's car. I think I found the exception to the rule on interstate 10 between Tucson and Phoenix. Drivers who hog the high-speed PASSING LANE. They call it a "passing lane" because you are supposed to PASS the traffic to your right, NOT FORM A ROLLING INTERSTATE BLOCKADE. This is a pervasive problem in all states, for some reason between Tucson and Phoenix it is even worse. Traffic to the right eases by the slow moving cars (no they are not all SUVs or minivans) in the passing lane. It's like the world got turned up-side-down. You have to be in the "slow lane" to pass traffic that stubbornly refuses to yield to the law. This behavior is also present on the 5 between North and South CA, also called America's AutoBahn, but there are fewer rolling blockades. New Mexico seems to be the only state in the union where drivers are polite and actually still respect the law that states "move to the left, pass quickly, then return to the right lane".

The laws regarding passing are predicated on the design of our vehicles which have left-hand drive and the resultant safety issues associated with that design. World-wide this is understood and practiced. The Germans even have a word for "correct driving" - and using the "passing lane" to pass only is part of that.

I know that there are times when cars or trucks may have difficulty completing a pass. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people who unrelentingly hog the left lane and create unsafe conditions for all drivers around them. Are these people completely self-absorbed? What is it? Are they completely unaware that there are other cars on the road? Do they feel some entitlement to dominate the highway by holding the left lane as their own? Is there some kind of internal justification or self-righteous assumption about speed limits that magnetically draws these people to the left lane? I think a wake up call is needed and now I just have to figure out how to launch a turd at 75 mph (the posted speed limit in these areas).

I'm not as angry about this as I used to be - I have developed strategies for dealing with this problem. But it does make me rethink the whole turd on the hood thing :)

[Steaming Pile on April 14, 2008 at 08:57 AM]

@mochi - I hate that, too. We could do a whole thread on discourteous (and unsafe) driving practices. It's high time, too. Part of the enjoyment I get from driving is actually driving, that is, not having to adjust to other people who refuse to obey basic traffic rules, hold up traffic, don't pay attention while driving, won't maintain their vehicles (spewing noxious exhaust, busted signal lights, etc.), or any of a whole raft of issues.

So let me get started. In upstate New York, we have people who, as a general rule, drive 10 to 15 miles below the posted speed limit. These are usually elderly folks driving retired Ford Crown Victoria police cars, sometimes with Florida plates (damn snowbirds), who plainly are driving more car than they can handle. I don't want to speed - I can't really speed in a Scion xA - but I would like to go at least 50 in a 55. Can somebody get Grandpa a Corolla so he doesn't feel like he's driving a Sherman tank at the Battle of the Bulge?

[OldCarGuy on April 14, 2008 at 09:03 AM]

Chris: “It never quite got to the "YOUR AN IDIOT!!!1!!!" stage, but still, let's keep it polite, folks.”

Rob the SVX guy: “Also, to Oldcarguy: . . . You are full of shit.”

Whatever. I’m not interested in dragging this forum down. I'd like to continue enjoying it. I lust after all sorts of cars, and I dislike all sorts of cars. That’s why I immediately identified with the heading of this page:
“Interesting cars meet irrational emotion.” Little did I know.

I do think it’s interesting that lots of contributors on this forum sang the praises of the Jeep Grand Wagoneer and the Honda Ridgeline, and yet showed such disdain for other SUVs. I’m not a Ridgeline fan, but if you like it, fine. Being an OldCarGuy I am much more closely aligned with the Grand Wagoneer – I think it’s a classic. But what’s up with the wistful, misty-eyed treatment of, say a ‘70s Suburban, versus a 2000 Suburban? I have spent considerable time in both and feel that the 2000 model is superior in most respects. I know it gets better gas mileage, and is a lot more comfortable. While it’s no beauty to look at (I didn't buy it for its looks), in 20 years I’ll probably look back at it much the same as I fondly remember my old Jeeps and Bronco.

Ultimately I say,
Your money. Your ride. Your call.

Now can we please get back to lusting after some delectable, or sporty, or exotic, or sentimentally appealing, or just plain weird, automobiles?

[Chris Hafner on April 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM]

Rob, I'd be happy to read the book. I'll shoot you an e-mail with my address.

I read your paper, and it was well-done. But I still have one unanswered question. When you make clear your opposition to SUVs, how exactly are you defining SUVs? Just the body-on-frame V-8 behemoths? Are you including the little unibody SUVs as well?

[Chris Hafner on April 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM]

Steaming Pile: "As for the comment I actually did get quoted on, I apologize."

OldCarGuy: "Whatever. I’m not interested in dragging this forum down."

SP, thanks, and I appreciate it.

I realize I'm trying to nurture something a little out of the ordinary here--an Internet community based on mutual respect--and so those of us used to the more caustic communication used elsewhere may need to retune a little bit. It's inevitable we'll have a few bumps in the road, but we'll get through it.

OldCarGuy, bear with us--it's good to have you here.

[Chris Hafner on April 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM]

OldCarGuy: "But what’s up with the wistful, misty-eyed treatment of, say a ‘70s Suburban, versus a 2000 Suburban? I have spent considerable time in both and feel that the 2000 model is superior in most respects."

I think you're close to having your finger on it, OldCarGuy--the '70s Suburban gets treated differently because it's old and, in the context of roads full of modern cars, interesting. Hands-down, the new one is a better vehicle, but, well, "irrational emotion" is right in the title bar of the blog!

I fully expect to be waxing nostalgic about 2008 cars in 20 years, even while rationally realizing that my 2028 Kia is a better car in every respect.

[Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 14, 2008 at 10:15 AM]

Chris: I was a little troubled by the discussion, not because I'm an SUV defender (I'm firmly with Rob and Mochi on the small-and-agile side of things) but because of all the rage that came out. Rage isn't good for you, and it doesn't persuade the people you're supposedly trying to persuade. (I'm in the persuasion business (law), and I've never seen anyone scream his way to a favorable outcome.)

There are other places on the 'Net I can go looking for rage if I want it. Here, I want to talk about interesting wheels with a group of friends. I think that isn't too much to ask.

[Chris Hafner on April 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM]

Mochi Mochi: "I think a wake up call is needed and now I just have to figure out how to launch a turd at 75 mph (the posted speed limit in these areas)."

Seems to me like that would be a pretty challenging technical exercise. Not only would you be calculating relative trajectory and velocity, but you'd have to account for the effect a 75-mph wall of air would have on human waste.

[Rob the SVX guy on April 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM]

Nathan: Yeah. I can do that. You mentioned the 2006 Explorer V6, and Honda Pilots, which sell for about 12-15 grand. Considering that you probably will not be NEEDING 7 passengers on a daily basis (I'm guessing you do not take the entire brood to work), and you will not be NEEDING to tow things on a daily basis, I have discovered the solution that allows you to not waste gas and endanger everyone when you don't have to. It's called GETTING TWO VEHICLES. Get a car. Any car. And then get an older SUV, or full size van. Both can tow, and haul tons of people and gear, but the rest of the time, you'll be in a smaller, more agile, SAFER, more efficient vehicle.

You should really take the time to read the paper at the link I provided in the first post of this thread. You NEED to know how you are endangering your own family by putting them in an SUV, and that danger only increases when you fill it with people and gear and tow something. Read my paper, and learn about why SUVs are more dangerous for your family, and yourself, as well as everyone else on the road.

[Rob the SVX guy on April 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM]

@ Chris: My paper is mainly concerning large, body on frame SUVs with V8s, but a lot of the problems with SUVs apply to ALL of them. If something is sold as an SUV, even a small thing like a RAV4 or CRV, it is held to different standards than a passenger car. This makes bumpers incompatible, and the jacked up body equates to worse performance in every category, while raising the CG so it's more likely to roll over. Federal roof strength standards for SUVs/Trucks haven't increased since 1972, and the biggest safety issues with SUVs is the weak roof, the number one killer in ALL suvs is 'roof intrusion'.

So yeah, while I focus on the big V8 SUVs, I really don't like any of them. People would be safer, more efficient, and more able to avoid an accident in a passenger car, yet they keep saying they want their SUV because they're 'higher up', or some other nonsense. It's lame.

@OldCarGuy: The reason we don't mind older suburbans compared to the new ones is that the old ones are OLD. The new ones are NEW, and should be much much much improved, but.... they aren't really. They get a tiny bit better gas mileage, they might have a bit better braking, and maybe some airbags, but it's still basically the same vehicle. Also, in the 70s, the SUV was not the primary mode of family transport, nor was it purchased 'just because' like they are today. I think the disconnect you maybe feel towards me is based on our location. I live in Milwaukee, a rather large city, and I see SUVs ALL THE TIME doing nothing remotely like what they were designed for. You might live in a more rural area, thus see them being used as they were intended. So basically I'm just endangered for no reason.

[Anthony Cagle on April 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM]

Heh. Just wait until Insty links to this and we will have 500 posts of invective and then Chris's head will explode.

I went through all of these arguments 10 years ago when I was on the anti-SUV side. None of the arguments for or against are as clear as anyone says they are. We spent hundreds of posts going through crash statistics, test crash data, driver profiles, marketing data, etc., ad nauseum.

Contra what the good Mochi Mochi says (at least for many), I think it's all about the people driving them. In the '80s the Evil Car driven by Those People was the BMW -- and I happily derided them. Then Those People started driving minivans -- and I happily derided them, too. After that, Those People took up the SUV and I spent many happy posts whacking at them. Nowadays, I can acknowledge that BMW makes a great sports sedan, that minivans are practical, and SUVs don't have horns frowing out their front quarter panels.

In retrospect, my eipihany (only realized several years later, unfortunately) occurred during a local (Seattle) talk show hosted by a local news guy. Called Town Meeting, in fact, IIRC. The program was about cars and at one point a young lady stood up and said she was a real estate agent and bought a nice Mercedes because she thought that it projected the right image to her clients, she really liked it, etc. WELL. The two guests just lit into her like you wouldn't believe. How dare she buy a car just for its looks and to brush up her image. Obviously. . .*sniff sniff*. . .she knew nothing about cars. Sadly, I was rooting them on, but then later the same guys were defending the SUV because it fit in rather nicely with the "Northwest lifestyle" which, back then, I took to mean "driving to the Starbucks and going antiquing". Started me thinking that maybe I'm not the ultimate judge of what people "need" and don't "need".

You can't even say anymore that such-and-such a vehicle was "designed for" such-and-such an application and nothing else, and that anyone who uses one outside of that application is nuts. A lot of sedans have AWD -- are they only supposed to drive their cars offroad? What about 2WD SUVs? Are those okay? AWD minivans? AWD sports cars? Sports cars with auto transmissions? What about pickups with their high bumpers?

As I said, it's a fool's game.

[Rob the SVX guy on April 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM]

So SUVs have high ground clearance for what then? You just said they aren't designed to go offroad.... but why do they have high ground clearance? And taller sidewalls? And short overhangs with high bumpers?

Answer: Because they are designed to be able to go off the road.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on April 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM]

Rob the SUV guy:
Um, did you miss where I bragged about buying a 1998 626 for just $1k?
I will have my commute car (the 626), and we'll use it on our long drives to San Antonio, Austin, Houston, etc. But when my wife's parents come to stay (the last visit was 4 months), or we want to go out and do something with friends, or we want to go on vacation, we'll crank up the Pilot.
I don't expect to put more than 1k miles on it per year outside of vacations and in-law visits.
But the vacations are too long to rent an SUV for 10 days (that's $1k just for the vehicle, not including the gas!), and 4 months of in-law visits likewise.

...not to mention, if no one purchased SUVs, there would be no market for them, and then they would be unavailable to rent.

Rest assured, 90% of my family's transportation will be handled by a sedan. The other 10%, though, we just can't get around needing a medium-large SUV.
Please note, however, that I didn't even consider a V8-powered SUV.
I don't need one that large, and I hate the wasted gas. But from where I'm standing, I can understand the reasoning of those who believe they *do* need a V-8 powered SUV.

[Chris Hafner on April 14, 2008 at 12:52 PM]

Nathan, I'm not sure if you meant to call Rob "Rob the SUV guy," but I think it's kinda funny.

Just as an attempt to work through the issues here:
1. I think we all agree that our tastes run more towards fun small cars than big, heavy, high SUVs. Right?

2. I think we all agree that some people *need* SUVs.

3. I think we disagree on how many people *need* SUVs and what constitutes that need.

4. I think we all agree that buying and driving SUVs is legal.

5. I think we disagree on whether buying and driving SUVs is an immoral or unethical act.

6. I think (but am not sure) that we disagree on whether it's appropriate to hound somebody for their choice to buy and drive an SUV.

[Mochi Mochi on April 14, 2008 at 01:07 PM]

Sport Utility Vehicle. Utility is part of the name. Therefore it is fair game to be critiqued against how much utility it provides. And how well utilized it is. Seems fair.

I decry the Ferrari as a vehicle of excess and just as much as I decry the Escalade or the Pilot. I agree with you Anthony in your points. With the possible exception of the Marketing divisions in auto companies there are no sinners, and no one can claim sole rights to moral high ground. But I also think it is possible to look at this as a critical issue.

Most new car sales are more about fashion, ego and desire than need. Marketing's goal is to create "need", "lack", and "desire" where it would not otherwise exist. We can approach this in an unquestioned way, or we can employ critical thinking and evaluate what we are being sold, and how it is being sold to us. That's what I am advocating - questioning why we need what we are being sold.

Does a lawyer living in a city need 10-ton SUV to drive to WholeFoods to buy a loaf of organic bread. NO. You can't make me believe that. At the same time no one should be demonized (except for lawyers and marketing wonks :) for driving the cars they want. But we all have to admit that a Hummer is over-kill for a week's worth of groceries. There's a problem when what is being marketed to us is not really good for us, for our environment, or our country.

This is not a question of class or politics. Should you eat a deep-fried-big-mac? No, it's not good for you - but marketeers will try to make you think it is. If some one has the money and wants to stroke their ego by purchasing a car to keep up with the Jones, they can do it. It's not a fundamental moral failing or sin. But it's not a sign of moral rectitude either. It's a bit self-indulgent and does not really reflect well. I'd say that same thing about a new Mercedes or a new Ferrari. I'd be less likely to say that about a Yaris. As stylish as a Yaris is, it's just not that much of a status booster. At the same time there are a lot of people who want to be "seen" in a Prius Hybrid. You're right "it's a fools game". What fools these mortals be...

Anthony I think we agree more than we disagree, this is not a debate where there are clear lines and winners and losers. Last week's discussions caused me to do a lot of rethinking of my feelings about SUVs. That discussion has allowed me to be both more accepting of the SUV and simultaneously more critical of it - and other cars like the Ferrari. This is not a question of good and evil. As Anthony points out there's a lot of gray - nothing is black and white. In the end, sure drive the car you like. But be aware of why.

And what ever the hell you do DON'T BLOCK THE PASSING LANE. And don't drive way below the speed limit. I have been working with VW to develop a computer controlled, Turbo Diesel powered, Turd Launching Device (TLD). It can accurately hurl a turd at offending cars&drivers at speeds between 35 and 135 mph. It can adjust for windage and variations in the gravitational field. It is mountable on a Scion Xa, Honda Civic, and most other cars. I have this device in my possession and I am willing to use it. :) Though the last time I checked it was an Audi and a Saturn compact that were my intended targets.

Thanks to all, for restraint (or attempts at it) and for all the ideas and thinking. I've appreciated the opportunity to learn from all of you.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on April 14, 2008 at 01:19 PM]

Chris,
re: "Rob the SUV guy"
Actually, the first time I mispelled it I caught it; smirked a moment at the unintentional irony, and fixed it.
The 2nd time, pure typo.

MochiMochi:
The one thing I hate as much as people driving slow in the right line is the people who pull in front of you in order to drive slower than your original speed. Couldn't they have just waited a few seconds until you were past?

[Rob the SVX guy on April 14, 2008 at 04:58 PM]

Nathan: Spot on then. You are doing it right, the way most people should be doing it. I've never flipped off a hummer full of people and gear, because that would be a decent use of it. Then again, I've never seen a hummer filled with people and gear either. :P

[Steaming Pile on April 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM]

@Nathan - some people just like being the lead vehicle in the pack, even if you end up passing him/her back half a mile down the road. I see it on the Thruway all the time. Heck, I've even done it before.

[Mochi Mochi on April 15, 2008 at 08:27 PM]

Regarding Nathan's pet driving hate, I say If your going to lead then lead - that means don't run slower than the car you just passed. I love when someone passes me boldly and then zooms off into the great unknown. I respect that and I'll likely follow along for the fun. But don't get in front of me then go slow. Else you feel the sting of my VW TDI powered turd slinger. :)

[sponge bob on September 12, 2008 at 06:02 AM]

sweeet car man the one with the big wheels@!!! you should put spongebobs face on it