More SUV trivia - ya'll gonna love this - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

engatwork · #1 01-25-2003, 05:55 PM

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030120&s=easterbrook012003&c=1

and away we go

BENZ-LGB · #2 01-25-2003, 06:58 PM

..empty-heeaded arguments that have been posted here and elsewhere. To claim that people buy SUVs because of government policy that encourages automakers to make them is fallacious. GM and the other automakers do not drive consumer tastes, consumer demand drives what automakers produce. People buy for a number of reasons, but NOT because automakers create a demand. If automakers could artifically "create" consumer demand for a certain kind of vehicle, the Cadillac diesel would still be around, we would still drive Edsels and the Pinto or the Chevette would still be hitting the highways. No amount of Detroit hype could convince Americans to buy Caddy's diesel. Similarly, no amount of hype could convince people to buy SUVs unless they were SAFE, comfortable and a sheer joy to drive.

If we buy the argument that SUVs are dangerous to OTHER vehicles, then we better get rid of pick-up trucks (I have a friend in Georgia who would die fighting before they take away his collection of pick-up trucks), we better get rid of buses, panel vans, dfelivery vans, semi-trucks, and anything bigger than a Camry. If my SUV is dangerous to the driver of a Hundai, then the construction contractor who drives a full-sized Ford F150 is also a menace. Are we going to tell the contractor to get rid of his truck? I don't think so.

As far as the safety argument is concerned, in a crash of Schwinn vs. Chevy, the Chevy always win. Likewise, in the case of a crash between my YukonXL and a Honda Civic, guess what, the Civic loses. Now, some have argued that SUVs have a higher rollover rate than cars. Well, DUH! Those statistics include flimsy, tiny, narrow, lightweight sports-UTES, or SUV-wanna-be's. My own YukonXL is very stable (as I had reason to recently find out). Not as stable as a Benz SL500, but a heck more stable than other vehicles out there and certainly a lot more stable than some of the earlier generation Suburbans that I had previously driven.

In the case that my YukonXL should roll-over, however, there is enough headroom that even if the roof badly deforms, there is little chance that my head or neck will suffer injury. Try saying the same thing for some of the tiny, tinny, rice-grinders out there. The same tiny, tinny rice-grinders that the anti-SUV crowd wants us to drive.

Can SUV's be made more as efficient? Sure they can. My new Yukon gets far better gas mileage than my first, 1990 suburban, and it has far more power. Incidentally, my new Yukon puts out less pollutants than my first Suburban and far less pollutants than some other high performace cars out there.

This whole anti-SUV debate reminds me of when the communists took over Cuba. Class-envy and a desire to bring everyone down drove communists to destroy Cuba's once flourishing middle-class and its once flourishing economy. Scenes from The Godfather II notwithstanding, Cuba had the second highest standard of living in Latin America, right behind Argentina. Castro has managed to destroy all of that. The anti-SUV people for the most part (I am certain that there are some well-meaning anti-SUV people out there, but not the majority) want to bring everyone down. They want everyone to drive cramped, unsafe, tinny, crappy cars. They want families with children to ride in uncomfortabel cars. Anti-SUV people are a dour, sour lot. They don't have fun adn now they don't want anyone else to have fun eitehr. Well, it won't work. As long as there are families who need, and cherish large, comfortable vehicles, there will be SUVs.

Instead of wanting to get rid of SUV, make them more fuel efficient and make other cars strongers (just in case they run into my Yukon!). Vehicles are more efficient, more powerful, safer than ever before. Let's continue the trend.

OK, OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.

thanks for letting me vent.

blackmercedes · #3 01-25-2003, 10:17 PM

I am a car guy. I like driving, not "guiding." I like engineering efficiency and innovation, not a return to 1970's solid axles, underwhelming OHV V-8's or bloated curb weights. Driving any current SUV pretty much sucks compared to driving a good car.

So, those are the main reason why I don't like SUV's. From a traffic standpoint, they take up too much space.

I agree about the comments concerning aggressive driving. Most SUV drivers I see drive VERY aggressively. They tailgate, change lanes frequently, and expect people to "get out of their way."

Here's a quote from the above link:

"I also reflected that of all the causes taken up by well-educated people of the middle and upper middle classes--the same demographic that gave money to Al Gore and voted for him decisively in the last presidential election--the scandal of the SUV is not on the list. SUV buyers are disproportionately prosperous and well-educated, since most SUVs cost more than regular cars. Well-educated and prosperous people seem to have no complaints about SUVs because they believe that the fad benefits them: perhaps because they think that SUVs make them safer, or perhaps because SUVs satisfy some deep private need. Maybe some of these fine people privately long to bellow at the world to get out of their way."

So true! I love watching people bring a little bag of bottles to the recycling depot in their hulking Excursion. Uh, sure.

I think the idea that we directly support terrorism through fuel consumption is a long convulted road. However, the amount of oil that we do have on the planet is finite especially considering our current rate of usage. Using such a great amount more on a personal basis when not required seems selfish, egocentric, and just plain ignorant to me.

And I know, I have heard the "right to choose" statement over and over again. You're right. You also have the right to choose the more responsible option too, you know...

blackmercedes · #4 01-25-2003, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BENZ-LGB
[This whole anti-SUV debate reminds me of when the communists took over Cuba. Class-envy and a desire to bring everyone down drove communists to destroy Cuba's once flourishing middle-class and its once flourishing economy. [/B]

Hoping that people make responsible choices is always boiled down to some "the commies are coming" paranoia that has somehow crept right into the USA DNA.

Make SUV's meet all car's emissions standards. Make them meet fuel economy standards. I don't want an SUV ban. Just apply the same standards to them that cars have to meet. Bumper regulations (including height), safety standards, and both fuel economy and emissions standards.

"The same tiny, tinny rice-grinders that the anti-SUV crowd wants us to drive. "

Uh, huh? Tinny rice grinders? Why don't you just say "Jap cars" or "Slant-eye crap-mobiles?" Nice...

mikemover · #5 01-25-2003, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes
Hoping that people make responsible choices is always boiled down to some "the commies are coming" paranoia that has somehow crept right into the USA DNA....
...Uh, huh? Tinny rice grinders? Why don't you just say "Jap cars" or "Slant-eye crap-mobiles?" Nice...

Sounds like you're at least as "racially paranoid" as BENZ-LGB is supposedly "commie-paranoid"!

Mike

anthonyb · #6 01-26-2003, 12:20 AM

Well, that was certainly a harsh article.

Speaking for myself, I would be a whole lot less critical of SUVs if they were required to meet the same fuel efficiency standards as all other passenger vehicles (heck, even if they just got close, that would be an improvement), and were either 1. driven with far more attention and skill, or 2. designed so they could hit cars and not automatically kill/maim the people inside.

If SUVs are as common as passenger cars, if they are (by and large) used as passenger cars, and if people drive them as if they were driving a passenger car, then they should be classified as such and be designed to the same standards.

-anthony

mikemover · #7 01-26-2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by anthonyb
1. driven with far more attention and skill...

This could apply to ALL drivers...why just SUV drivers? We all know driver's license tests in the US are a joke....Cars don't have accidents (usually)...DRIVERS do.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthonyb
2. designed so they could hit cars and not automatically kill/maim the people inside.

SUVs don't always hit cars...Cars also hit SUVs! Once again...less bi+ching, better driving will help!

Mike

Lebenz · #8 01-26-2003, 01:04 AM

Just got back from another nice weekend. After “guiding” my SUV or perhaps I should write “FUV” about 70 miles down from the hills I will have to admit that the author makes many fine points. Rather than picking up familiar clubs with which to beat each-others views, for the 7th day this week, I will suggest the following: First, is that the MB ML has come up with an engineering solution to virtually every “complaint” the writer made. The point being, a) I'm glad I have an ml

and b) the ML proves that all of the safety, mileage, and performance issues the author suggested can and be resolved, if a buyer is willing to pay for them.........By itself, this makes the majority of the author’s comments stand out as the alarmist hooey it is.

Further, you can’t do much about folks emotional issues. The Open Discussion Forum is proof positive of that fact!

There is no way eliminating FUVs would change “road rage” or “stress” behaviors in the slightestl. After all, the guy with a heavy foot in a C230 can be just as aggressive, and just as “dangerous” and just as “stress” causing, and just as miss-guided as someone in a Hummer, driving with their knee and eating a piece of applie pie while dialing a cell phone. Right? So there goes another 25% of the author’s pomp, like the face shot it is, through the windshield.

Now to the more interesting question. You know, the US Senate can muster absolutely any power this planet has ever known. Just as an aside, if you could get 100 Senators to agree, they could even dissolve the US Government. They can do anything. So anyway, on to the question:

What might we do were our congress to mandate huge gains in mpg values vehicles achieve ***AND*** to pose heavy taxes on fuel. Say make gas $5 per gallon.

Obviously we would rip the heart and choke the lungs out of the fuel industry. The fuel industry is related to EVERYTHING in our economy’s infrastructure, and the economy of the world in general. Nothing terribly vital there! By this deed, as just one example, we’d make cartage of everything a *lot* more expensive. You would probably have to add another 0 to the shipping cost of your Fed Ex/Airborne/UPS package. A sack of potatoes would cost $15. A Big Mac would be $4 without the fries and Coke. Everything else would be proportionally higher as well. And then some. There would be “recession.” Untold 100s of thousands -- maybe millions out of work. And out of potatoes. Support needs would skyrocket. If you think a FUV is stress inducing, what about 20% of the work force running out of unemployment benefits?

Got rage?

Consider that along with this mandate would be an intestinal-clogging blockage of tax dollars flowing to the government. Mr., Ms., and Mrs. Jesus Immigrant family would not have the cash to drive beyond vital needs. Period. If they had anything other than a tar shanty to live in they'd be one of the "lucky" ones. Multiply this reduction on money spent for transportation by half of our population and we would have further, huge deficits, because there are still all these folks for whom to provide services.

Just as the Jesus Immigrant family is down to emergency management, next is perhaps an inability by the fed, the state, the city, etc. to fund a project here, to scare a terrorist strike away there, slow down a 3rd world country from developing nuclear weapons, er, nuclear power plants. And so on. All of the sudden, becoming the world’s traffic cop becomes out of our affordance. What comes after that? IMO nothing good, and nothing that anyone really wants outside of the inner circles of select groups in the mid-east. Hmmmmm.

So anyway, the question is: What do you see gained by reducing our dependency on mid-east oil? We’re not talking scenes from the narrow view of utopia. Were talking work-a-day cause and effect.

Why is all of this "excess" necessary? Because “The rules, you see, had been set up to reward waste.”

mikemover · #9 01-26-2003, 01:16 AM

The writer of that article obviously is the one with the deep-seated emotional issues...not the average SUV driver!

He repeatedly describes SUVs as "aggressive", "intimidating", "mean-looking", "cinematically ominous"
"road-rage-inspiring"...

...If this guy is actually THAT terrified by a motor vehicle, perhaps he should just NOT drive! He has quite an imagination...Perhaps he watched the movie "Christine" one too many times when he was a child!

His extreme rhetoric and reactionary babbling is what's intimidating. Jeep Cherokees and Chevy Tahoes are not.

blackmercedes · #10 01-26-2003, 02:41 AM

Tracy, you're right about gasoline taxes.

At first blush, they seem like a great idea to promote conservation. But, they are actually a form of regressive taxation, as you so wisely pointed out. Most low income families spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on transportation than higher income families. And often this transportation is to and from work. It's not a luxury.

$5.00 a gallon gas won't do it.

What do we do? What about heavy taxes on vehicles costing above a certain point? Isn't that a progressive tax, as only higher incomes can afford a higher priced vehicle? Well, yes. But, why bother?

We already have CAFE, emission and safety standards. Just include light trucks and SUV's. That's it. No taxes. No quotas. Just an even approach to standards.

Tracy, you're also right about the ML. It's not my taste, but they are the best of the SUV crowd. The specialized bumper engineering, the automotive driveline and sophisticated suspension all make sense for an SUV. I understand MB is re-engineering the ML into a uni-body vehicle to reduce it's curb weight.

And the thoughts about "road rage" are probably based on driving a car in inclement weather. Here, we get some terrible winter driving conditions. Showroom monkeys and aggressive advertising have convinced a growing number of people that SUV's can do anything. They can drive without regard to conditions. And that is why I see them tailgating and driving aggressively.

anthonyb · #11 01-26-2003, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
This could apply to ALL drivers...why just SUV drivers? We all know driver's license tests in the US are a joke....Cars don't have accidents (usually)...DRIVERS do.

I, for one, think that all drivers in the US should be required to pass much stricter tests, and undergo far more training than they currently are required to do. In this respect, I don't single out drivers of SUVs, however I think a case can be made that SUVs are fundamentally different from passenger cars, handle differently from passenger cars, and ought to be driven differently than cars.

Quote:

SUVs don't always hit cars...Cars also hit SUVs! Once again...less bi+ching, better driving will help!

Considering that a large number of SUVs weigh considerably more (in some cases, twice as much) than the vast majority of passenger cars, considering that SUVs carry much of that weight at a significantly greater height than the vast majority of passenger cars (often at a level where structural safety systems offer little to NO protection), and considering that it doesn't have to be this way, I think this is an ENTIRELY valid point.

When Ford Pintos started exploding after getting rear-ended, people didn't jump up and say "don't fix the gas tank, the problem was the guy that rear-ended you." No - they fixed the gas tank, because it was stupid to put it in the back of the car to begin with!

Quote:

Originally posted by ebennz
i think the people that drive around in these "pepsi can" cars need to get a grip, become better drivers and they won't have to worry about suv's or anyone else hitting them.

First, the idea that anyone can defensively drive themselves away from all the other vehicles around them is pretty wishful thinking. One of my coworkers lost his nephew last year when a truck blew through a stop sign and t-boned the guy. The year before that, one of my friends lost her roommate when a Suburban also completely missed a stop sign and plowed right through his car. Who knows, if it had been a couple of cars instead of a couple of trucks, they still might've died. But their chances would've been five times better that they would've survived. That's a pretty significant difference.

Second, it's not just the "pepsi can" cars that have this problem. If an SUV t-bones a 5,000 lb S-class, all the fancy calculations that went into making that great crumple zone and frame won't be worth much when that nice SUV grille goes clean through the window glass.

engatwork · #12 01-26-2003, 07:35 AM

Anytime we get to discussing SUV's it becomes a hot topic.

I suspect that over the next 10 -20 years the popularity of the big SUV will fad and heaven forbid the wagon or mini van type vehicle will come back to take its place

. There are already some pretty neat looking/performing wagons and mini-van type vehicles in the works at the car companies based on what I have read. The need IS there - just ask me next time I load up the family with all the assorted baggage, etc to take a trip to Fla or wherever. On the next trip to the Gatornationals I am considering renting an RV

.

Personally, it does not matter to me whether a person owns/drives a big SUV or not (note the CRV in my signature). I will say that when I lived in Saudi Arabia in the early 80's we used a full sized four wheel drive Surburban. By far, it was the absolute BEST vehicle for what we were using it for. Whether we were trekking through a single lane rut or blasting accross their "interstate" at 100 mph it did the job and did it well. If I were not so cheap I would probably have a full size turbo diesel Ford product sitting in my driveway.

I think it is going to be interesting to see what transpires when Dodge brings the Jeep Liberty and the Sprinter out later this year. I am going to at least go test drive the Sprinter passenger van when it is on the lot.

I do agree that there is a need for better/additional driver training in the US no matter what the vehicle.

#13 01-27-2003, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Second, it's not just the "pepsi can" cars that have this problem. If an SUV t-bones a 5,000 lb S-class, all the fancy calculations that went into making that great crumple zone and frame won't be worth much when that nice SUV grille goes clean through the window glass.

Stock SUVs should have some type of "crash compatibility" with cars. As far as I know, the only SUV that achieves this is the Mercedes M-Class. (I think I remember hearing something about the '02 Ford Explorer having something like this too).

Quote:

Try saying the same thing for some of the tiny, tinny, rice-grinders out there. The same tiny, tinny rice-grinders that the anti-SUV crowd wants us to drive.

That's why my family drives MB and Volvo. Get an M-Class if you want a safe SUV.

-Sam

stephenson · #14 01-27-2003, 02:40 PM

I wish I could believe that MB designed the ML to be "bumper friendly" ... inasmuchas the rest of the car is butt ugly (opinion only), I think it was simply a continuation of the theme.

"It's combat out there ... and, I don't want it to be a fair fight." (wife)

Statistics are funny things ... most of us aren't on the chart (or the database behind it). The ones that are, must, by definition, be Lions or Christians.

Sometimes you get to choose.

#15 01-27-2003, 06:02 PM

Well, what's there to believe? It's factual.

http://www.autoworld.com/news/Mercedes/SUV_Top.htm

"Auto safety experts maintain that two key factors determine crash compatibility, especially between vehicles of disparate size. First and foremost, the main structures of the two colliding vehicles must align and meet squarely, which means that the frame members of both vehicles must be about the same height above the road. This not only reduces the possibility of one vehicle overriding the other catastrophically, but also helps the protective crumple zones designed into both vehicles to serve their purpose in absorbing crash energy. "

"To address this point, the frame rails of the Mercedes-Benz M-Class are about 19.5 inches above the ground, within an inch in height of the typical passenger car. In most other sport utility vehicles, this dimension (measured from the mid-point of the longitudinal frame rails to the ground) varies from about 21 inches to as high as 28 inches. However, the M-Class still has 8.5 inches of ground clearance for good off-road performance."

"Secondly, the crumple zone of a larger vehicle should be somewhat "softer" than a small car, since a larger vehicle can safely absorb more crash energy and thus help protect the occupants of both vehicles. Mercedes-Benz designers have been fine-tuning crumple zone stiffness relative to vehicle size for years, and this sophisticated concept is likely to be adopted by other automakers."

Well......

-Sam