[QUOTE]Originally posted by Strike
[B]Greg's last post seems to be consistent with the attitude of most SUV owners: It's bigger and heavier than a passenger car, therefore it's safer for ME.

 

Until that time SUV drivers argue they have an increased level of safety derived from the percentage of drivers of other cars (or 'Speed Humps' as they like to refer to them).

And when that time does come, I expect the SUV stalwarts will just buy tanks!

 

Whoa, I can't believe someone would resurrect this thread.

I didn't re-read any of it...it took place, I think, over a year ago. From what I do remember of it, it seems like I should have defined terms at the outset. I had a much more narrow definition of the term SUV. I only included trucks no larger than the 4Runner or the Pathfinder in my definition. I never included things like the Yukon or the Escalade, etc, in my definition. Perhaps had I done that, from what I remember, it may have made for a better discussion.

And my gripe has more to do with moronic drivers. I do agree that it's not a good thing to put a moron behind the wheel of a 6500 pound vehicle and they think it handles like their Camry they sold to get it. SUV's CAN be driven responsibly, it's just morons don't care to learn how and now they are behind the wheel of a tank and that scares me, as it would any other responsible and safe driver.

I actually agree with those who are critical of people in those giant trucks, to the surprise of some and had I defined the term SUV at the outset, then perhaps the discussion hadn't escalated as it did.

Oh, I've been happily driving my 4Runner (a REAL SUV) safely with not a single rollover for 2 years. I'm likely going to get a supercharged Xterra soon, as well. These vehicles are an apropriate size for my needs. And I drive it responsibly. Others may not and that sucks.

 

Here's everything you need to know regarding the menace of SUVs

From:
http://autoextremist.com/page6.shtml#table
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has developed new crash tests that determine how passenger cars withstand broadside impacts from larger SUVs. The results are so grim that the Institute is not releasing them to the public but instead is showing them to the manufacturers in the hopes that they will improve their vehicles' crashworthiness in these new tests. Which is all well and good, but short of all of us driving cars with full roll cages or switching to medium-duty tanks on the street, you can't fight the laws of physics. Ever look over at a full-zoot, full-size pickup when you're at a stop light and take a good look at how its front bumper is almost eye-level with you? Big heavy SUVs that sit high off the ground and lighter and lower passenger cars will never mix very well. These new "T-Bone" tests will only restate the obvious.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregstevens
[B]And my gripe has more to do with moronic drivers.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Strike
[B]Greg,

- Utilitarian? Name me one thing you've done with your SUV that you couldn't have done with a V6 powered P/U truck?


Well, you can't carry five, six, seven, or even eight people in a V6 powered pickup, can you? You might fit five in a pinch in an extended cab version (they wouldn't be comfy). That's what SUVs are good for - hauling people (better than a wagon, as well - more room). You'd need the fullsize four door version to fit a decent number of people in a p/u comfortably.

That said, I hate big SUVs - things like the Excursion and Suburban seem to be going a little too far. I'd gladly buy a CR-V, MDX, Grand Cherokee, or X5 if I needed room for kids (I don't....yet). I live in the snow belt and a SUV with AWD or 4WD makes a LOT more sense than a wagon (more ground clearance, lower gearing, plus I can put a plow on it). A p/u or wagon just can't do those things sufficiently more easily to justify putting up with the many discomforts they would cause.