Your suggestoin for a SUV

Over driven by under skilled. Accidents will happen. Guaranteed.

 

Mr. Hernia:

Your poor knowledge of SUVs needs a serious upgrade.

Fact:
1) Many SUVs are darn fast - Lexus RX330, BMW X5, Acura MDX, Porsche Cayenne
to name a few.
2) Many SUVs can outhandle cars - Nissan Murano/Infiniti FX, Porsche Cayenne,
BMW X5 to name a few.
3) Many SUVs are not based on pickups - Lexus RX, BMW X5, Acura MDX to name a
few.

Once your wife get T-boned by a Chevy truck in your little two-door coupe,
you'll wish that you've bought her an SUV.

 

Depends on how he feels about his wife...<g>


Scott in Florida

 

It's a corollary of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: with four grown up
kids, you can never be certain of where more than half of them are at any
one time. So two parents plus four grown up kids equals four people at any
one time.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)

 

Actually, you've pretty much named all (the Porsche is also the
Volkswagon Touareg) the new "SAV"s as BMW likes to call their X5;
car-based all-wheel drive vehicles that are more like station wagons on
steroids than the original pickup-based 4-wheel drive vehicles that SUVs
originated from. They are the next step from the Subaru Forester and
Volvo XC70 (which begat the XC90), and now the Chrysler Pacifica, all
different points on a continuum that is nowhere near "real" SUVs like a
Land Rover or even a GMC Yukon.

Conversely, you'll wish you'd gotten your wife a station wagon when she
gets T-boned by a cabbie in a speeding Crown Vic that comes in below her
center of gravity and sends her rolling down the street. Saw that exact
thing happen to a Grand Cherokee making a U-turn in front of my street.

Sorry, there is no perfectly safe vehicle for all conditions, just
driving skill and luck.

 

Are you sure about the Touareg and the Cayenne? The dimension are
similar, but the engines are different and they look completely
different.

Touareg:

Dimensions

Exterior
Length: 187.2 in. Width: 75.9 in.
Height: 68 in. Wheel Base: 112.4 in.
Ground Clearance: 8.3 in. Curb Weight: 5086 lbs.
Interior
Front Head Room: 38.7 in. Front Shoulder Room: 57.7 in.
Rear Head Room: 38.3 in. Rear Shoulder Room: 57.4 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.3 in. Rear Leg Room: 35.6 in.
Luggage Capacity: 31 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 71 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 5

Cayenne

Dimensions

Exterior
Length: 188.2 in. Width: 75.9 in.
Height: 66.9 in. Wheel Base: 112.4 in.
Ground Clearance: 8.54 in. Curb Weight: 4949 lbs.
Gross Weight: 6746 lbs.
Interior
Front Head Room: 39.6 in. Rear Head Room: 38.5 in.
Front Leg Room: 40.6 in. Rear Leg Room: 35.9 in.
Luggage Capacity: 19.07 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 63 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 5

Regards,

Ed White

 

I'd say we're both right, in that they are built on the same frame (an
Audi frame actually), but yes, they are more physically different than
say, the Nissan Murano/Infiniti X35. They are still both car-based
vehicles that the makers seem reluctant to label "SUV"s.

 

Very well said.

 

Actually, the Hernia guy prefers sports cars.

 

If you want a real SUV get a Lada Niva - the cheapest Landrover on the
road. When it snows it's one of the few vehicles that will take it - and if
you are in America, no one will know what the hell it is. Great Kudos,
having a vehicle no one knows about, they will think it's great so they
don't look silly in front of their friends........... plus, they are so
cheap if you do manage to break it, just buy another one. But if you do
manage to break it, I'll be amazed.

Stuart..

 

You are recommending a Russian car/truck?

Wow.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)

 

The PC crowd (and other goof balls) hate 'em, so lacking any analytical
skills at all they make up nonsense (that they want to be true) about their
owners being dumb red-necks or stupid women or wanting to destroy the earth
(maybe even the universe) or wanting to crash into cars and chew them up or
have small private parts or...you get it.

The concept that people buy them because they like riding up high (better
visibility) and the storage space and the 4WD (very nice in rain and snow)
and the roominess and the ground clearance and the towing ability and the
durability (usually frame-on construction) and the good resale and even the
looks cannot penetrate the heavy bone of the PC crowd's skulls, so silliness
is generated by the little walnut sized gray matter inside that thick skull.

And yeah, SUV's definitely do have their down-sides, but owners know that
and, on balance, still think they are a "good thing" to have. Or they sell
the thing...to an eager buyer.


George

 

1. Visibility is better in the SUV, screw everyone else right?
2. Storage space is about the same as a midsized sedan but hell you fell
much more macho putting groceries into a truck.
3. 4WD is great in the rain and snow, it compensates for people that don't
know how to drive which is scary 'cause those same drivers haven't figured
out that 4WD does nothing for stopping the big rig once it gets going. A
better solution is learning how to drive and using appropriate tires.
4. It nice that most families have gotten smaller since the 50's and 60's.
Now people can afford bigger vehicles for their smaller families.
4. SUV's are trucks so they should be used for towing, not commuting.
5. Ground clearance isn't an issue unless you are into 4-wheeling through
mud bogs.
6. Body on frame is great for trucks.

 

An a pleasant afternoon to you, too.


George

 

SUV's are largely overkill for 99% of the time they're in use. But, to each
his own, as they say!

The visability item is a interesting one. Visability in a sedan wasn't a large
issue when most every other vehicle on the road were also sedans. Now that
over half the vehicles are "high profile" vehicles, it is. A "catch-22"
situation.

Being better in the ice and snow...hmmm....perhaps. The interesting thing
there is that I see a lot more SUV's in ditches during the winter months than I
do cars. It would be interesting to know why that is. I can only assume that
the vehicle gives the untrained driver a false sense of being "sure-footed" so
they "over-drive" the conditions and don't realise that they're really in
trouble until it's too late and they're already heading for the guardrail. Of
those, many wind up landing on their sides (or top) as well. In contrast, when
I do see an occasional car that has slid into a ditch, they are usually still
right side up, at least.

On the topic of "eager buyers". If gas hits $3-$4 a gallon, you won't be able
to give those 10-12 MPG machines away. Not many people are willing to spend
$75 to $125 just to fill their gas tanks up every few days.

For me...I'll pass on the SUV. It simply is not a very practical vehicle
overall. Sure it has some practical aspects, but the additional preiemum in
initial and ongoing costs are not worth it (in my view). But, hey...knock
yourself out (literally)!

 

My take on his points are.
1) If everyone in a theater stands up for a better view soon no-one
can see shit anymore. (this isn't an SUV issue though, It started
with the Dodge Caravan in 1984)
2) What's the point in buying a truck if you're not getting any more
storage space than a car?
3) Good tires on a 2wd vehicle with traction control is all that
anyone driving on surface streets will ever need.
4) Most folks are saying screw the families I want to drive the truck
that OPRAH recommends.
5) Ground clearance on or off road is useless if you're running low
profile tires on *BLING* rims. I've yet to see anyone off road any
distance on anything less than 70 series tires. Lets see ya go
plowing through a river bed on low profile tires. Bye Bye Bling !
6) Many SUV's are Unibody. I won't mention Honda, Suzuki, etc, etc,
etc. Body on Frame is a nice concept but if you're not plowing snow
it's really superfluous and pretty much a part of history.

 

SUV is a luxury.... so why complain?
if you hate SUV's then you should also hate Vettes and Lambos'

why not complain about pickups and (mini)vans. they also block your view.

i haven't seen a midsized sedan with a third row bench. storage space is
premium for large families. don't even bring up wagons.

4wd is great for pulling 2wd vehicles out of the ditch in the snow.

i know of many large families (including my own). and i know of many large
families that make over 100k annually (including my own).

Corvettes are used for racing. So why are they on the streets?

Ground clearance is an issue for vette's and lambo's.
It's also nice to know SUV's can clear unplowed side streets in the winter
time.
i don't plow my 500 ft driveway in the winter. No need to.

not sure what your point is here???

automobiles are not just for transportation. it never was.

-a|ex

 

Heh......I'll bet you and LBJGH have a hard time finding sheaths small
enough for your tiny pee-pee's.

H

 

My take on SUV's is that in general they are not any better then new modern
all wheel drive sedans in terms of getting through snow et al, and the new
AWD sedans (s-60, BMW 3 series, Infiniti 35 series, MB 4 matic, Caddy STS,
Audi Quattro, brand new not yet introduced Ford 500, Subaru mid
sized--forgot the name, Dodge charger version of the Chrysler 300 coming out
next spring) all have better handling and more storage space, are more fun
to drive, and get more MPH.

I do not like SUV's and would not own one.

Anyone has the right to buy whatever they want, and should not have to take
a load of BS. The Hummer owners have not only (IMHO) TPS (tiny penis
syndrome) even worse the Porsche owners, but they pay a heavy price at every
refill--even with the diesel option.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes your pick.

 

If the visibility is so much better than a 'sedan' how come the average
London driver of one is so reluctant to back up when they cause a jam in a
side street? And cause that jam by apparently not being able to judge the
width of the vehicle - strange again if the visibility is so good?