Here is the result what happens when an SUV flips at 75mph and 5400lbs of energy is dissipated into the top of the vehicle after impact with a tree. Notice how the whole frame is wrapped upward from the impact. I'm not trying to say that a car would have survived this impact better, I am trying to say that a car may not have flipped over under the same cirucumstances and not hit the tree on the roof - possibly sparing the occupants. I am also saying that the damage wouldn't have been as severe with a car as the 'energy' from the momentum wouldn't have been so large. I shudder to think that there was a family in this 'family hauler':

 

Exactly!.. the people driving these urban tanks aren't qualified to do so.. i think they should be required to get the same license truck drivers do. which would include learning out to back up and parallel park a semi without crushing anyone or anything.

Greg, if you chose to take offense to the SUV bashing on the board as directed specifically to you.. why didn't you say that.. in general yes.. its seems to be an epedemic that SUV drivers are not qualified to handle that much of a car.. but there are always exceptions to the rule.. if you know your a good driver and aren't one of the a-holes driving like idiots that were talking about.. why take offense. you relize yourself and have admitted in this thread that there are oversized bohemeths on the road.

i don't think anyone has a specific problem w/ your 4runner unless of coarse someone you hit is on the board.

 

Furthermore, on the exact same site I found 60 out of 119 Expeditions that were flipped with badly damaged roofs, 24/44 Suburbans and 5/7 Xterras.

I found 1/218 Accords with extensive roof damage and 0/77 Maximas. They all had front rear and side impacts, but very few flips. And the ones that did flip didn't have the same type of damage as the SUVs.

Case closed for the 'safety' argument.

 

I sense that there are some ruffled some feathers here. I guess I

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason Saini
[B]Furthermore, on the exact same site I found 60 out of 119 Expeditions that were flipped with badly damaged roofs, 24/44 Suburbans and 5/7 Xterras.

I found 1/218 Accords with extensive roof damage and 0/77 Maximas.

 

Greg,
You're kind of backwards. When most people think of SUV's they AREN'T thinking about 4-Runners and Pathfinders. That's why most of the comments aren't directed to those size SUV's. I don't know why you keep choosing to focus on the driving aspect of the conversation. That is just one of many issues and you've pretty much ignored the rest.
I don't think that many people are that worked up. I know I'm not. Sondra seems more worked up than anyone.

Sondra,
According to Nissan's website the Xterra gets either 19/24 MPG (4-cyl) or 17/19 (V6). Neither figure is EXACTLY the same as the S2K which is rated at 20/26. For some reason I suspect you won't be getting the 4-banger when you get your new one.

 

Hehe... my feathers are not ruffled, and I don't need a valium! You asked *why* people don't like SUVs, and I'm answering with fact, figures and pictures. Maybe this is more of a case of you not liking what you read. Also, I'm not some green-tree-hugging SUV activist marching the picket line at the Expedition plant. I don't even put much thought into it... but your thread caused me to do some research and I am disgusted by what I have found. For instance:

[QUOTE]For example, the federal regulations allow SUVs to waste 33 percent more gasoline than passenger cars. The federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards set the fuel economy goals for new passenger cars at 27.5 miles per gallon (m.p.g.). But under the law, SUVs (and other light trucks) only have to achieve 20.7 m.p.g.(2)

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregstevens
[B]The bottom line is if you are that worried about them running into you and rolling over your car, perhaps you should drive a little more defensively.

 

SUV . . . sport utility vehicle. What elegant terminology. It's a friggin' truck, already! If I go 55 mph, an SUV will pass me going 70+ mph; If I go 70, they'll go 80+. Rain, shine, come what may. I swear these folks drive like they are invincible. It makes Scot look like a sane and safe driver!

 

I remember discussions about the use of the word 'rice'. Some people suggested that if you are offended by it the you are too sensitive. I didn't personally agree in that instance, but I think it may be more valid in this case.

Greg, you live in a winter wonderland and the S is just out of the question for 4 months of the year. Sondra, you like to carry around a lawn mower and two dogs and meet strangers who drive into ditches . These are all perfectly good reasons for having an SUV.

But 50% of sales are SUV's!

Pick a number: 10%? 20%? 30%?. Whatever the difference is between this number and 50% is close to the % of SUV drivers who give SUV's a bad name.

Yes it's a generalisation. Yes it's unfair. GET OVER IT!

[Edited by AusS2000 on 03-27-2001 at 09:23 PM]