They're Here- 2006 Range Rovers

[EJBasile]

I just checked out Land Rover's site for the first time in a while.

They have more info on the 2006 Range Rover Sport and new details on the 2006 Range Rover. The main difference between the two is the sport is supercharged and more of a sporty interrior. The 2006 Range Rover (normal) has a new grill, head lights, tail lights, better visibility, and some new features such as intergrated BT phone support, new entertainment package, better GPS i think, etc.

I am tempted, very tempted to get one when they come out.

Lets see what happens.

[makisushi]

I love Range Rovers. My first one was a 94. My current one is a 2005 Westminster.


Let us know how the 06 feels.

makisushi

p.s. it is spelled SURGEON not SURGEN

[gwuMACaddict]

i thought your signature used to brag about having a few audis... not landrovers... do i have you confused with someone else? or did you switch up the fleet? :rolleyes:

[rdowns]

For what it's worth, I work for an auto warranty company and we (and most competitors) will no longer cover Land Rovers. Losses were staggering. Average claim was over $1,100 (average for all others is $527).

[edesignuk]

Now all I need is for my money tree to flourish...

[iGav]

It's a shame that Land Rover didn't decide to go with the Aston V12 for the Sport... that really would have made it something special.

[evoluzione]

i'd still have a defender, or a series one landie. not a big fan of the rr honestly

[combatcolin]

How can anyone drive an "off road vehicle" with leather seats and plush interior?

:mad:

Defenders are cool, proper off road, funtional and basic, the rest are for for poser with small willies.

[EJBasile]

How can anyone drive an "off road vehicle" with leather seats and plush interior?

:mad:

Defenders are cool, proper off road, funtional and basic, the rest are for for poser with small willies.

I like Defenders a lot too. Unfortunatly they are not available in the U.S. and if you want to buy one you can buy a used one with 75,000 miles on it for 50,000. Not worth it. Very few people who have Range Rover actually drive them off road, you could I guess if you wanted too.

Yes I did have an audi, but I traded it in for the mercedes just because I wanted even better gas mileage because the CDI gets like 40mpg highway.

[makisushi]

How can anyone drive an "off road vehicle" with leather seats and plush interior?


do you really think people buy them for the offroad capabilities?

[PlaceofDis]

Range Rovers arn't my favs but i do like their new look

ill never be able to afford one of those either sadly.

[EJBasile]

How can anyone drive an "off road vehicle" with leather seats and plush interior?

:mad:

Defenders are cool, proper off road, funtional and basic, the rest are for for poser with small willies.

How many consumers buy Hummers and drive them off road. All the people I know of that have Hummers refuse to take them off road, garage them, and treat them like babies. One guy refuses to drive it in the winter or when its raining.

[edesignuk]

How many consumers buy Hummers and drive them off road. All the people I know of that have Hummers refuse to take them off road, garage them, and treat them like babies. One guy refuses to drive it in the winter or when its raining.
Can you do me a favor and send your friend this link please? :D - www.fuh2.com (NSFW or little kiddies!)

[iGary]

I'd love to own the new Discovery (whatever they are calling it), but our art director had a Land Rover that has had nothing but electrical problem after electrical problem. Another friend had to have a transmission replaced (daily road use only) and yet another friend had chronic window leaks.


I love the look, I ilove ther performance, I love the mystique. But I am not plunking doen 44K for something with problems.

I'm in the market, and considering a Honda Pilot, though a new 3-series is tempting, and then this little voice tells me "your 4-year-old car is paid for."

And I want a new G5.

:(

[EJBasile]

I'd love to own the new Discovery (whatever they are calling it), but our art director had a Land Rover that has had nothing but electrical problem after electrical problem. Another friend had to have a transmission replaced (daily road use only) and yet another friend had chronic window leaks.


I love the look, I ilove ther performance, I love the mystique. But I am not plunking doen 44K for something with problems.

I'm in the market, and considering a Honda Pilot, though a new 3-series is tempting, and then this little voice tells me "your 4-year-old car is paid for."

And I want a new G5.

:(


Yea, Land Rovers are not the most reliable. With my 2001 the air suspension broke and cost a boat load to fix. My '01 also did have electrical problems. I haven't had anything with my 2004 yet so I guess I'm pretty lucky. The new LR3/Discovery 3 is very cool looking. I wish they didn't do the two step roof line on it though, I guess if they did not do the 2 step roofline it would look too much like the 2005 Pathfinder.

A lot of people around me seem have pilots or MDXs and they are very relaible being Hondas. The 3-series is so awesome looking. When they come out I'm definatly going for a test drive.

[combatcolin]

do you really think people buy them for the offroad capabilities?

Not really, i just think there wankers.

[iGary]

Not really, i just think there wankers.

You mean they're wankers. :rolleyes:

[EJBasile]

Not really, i just think there wankers.

Why thank you! [sarcasm]

[vixapphire]

Yea, Land Rovers are not the most reliable.

I wonder if that's still the case now that LR is owned by Ford. I currently own an '03 Jaguar S Type R and I'm not the first to say that Ford brought an incredible upward revision to Jag's standard of reliability, to the point that initial quality is second only to Lexus! In the near 15k miles I've put on this car I've had no problems at all, other than these worthless Continental Sport Contact tires that at nearly 10" wide seem to be nail-magnets...

The RR Sport is an interesting car. For one, it's built on the LR3/Discovery's smaller platform, but is fashioned to look like the Range Rover. For another, the supercharged version shares its drivetrain with my S-Type R (4.2 SC v8 and the same ZF 6-spd auto tranny that's also in the 7-series bimmer), which is very exciting. If they can keep the weight off the Sport, it will be the SUV to own - speed, control and reasonable fuel economy for what it is (i.e. a supercar w/ a truck body). If it's as bloated weightwise as most of the other SUV's out there, with that engine, I pity the suckers who'll be paying to gas those babies up!

v

[EJBasile]

I wonder if that's still the case now that LR is owned by Ford. I currently own an '03 Jaguar S Type R and I'm not the first to say that Ford brought an incredible upward revision to Jag's standard of reliability, to the point that initial quality is second only to Lexus! In the near 15k miles I've put on this car I've had no problems at all, other than these worthless Continental Sport Contact tires that at nearly 10" wide seem to be nail-magnets...

The RR Sport is an interesting car. For one, it's built on the LR3/Discovery's smaller platform, but is fashioned to look like the Range Rover. For another, the supercharged version shares its drivetrain with my S-Type R (4.2 SC v8 and the same ZF 6-spd auto tranny that's also in the 7-series bimmer), which is very exciting. If they can keep the weight off the Sport, it will be the SUV to own - speed, control and reasonable fuel economy for what it is (i.e. a supercar w/ a truck body). If it's as bloated weightwise as most of the other SUV's out there, with that engine, I pity the suckers who'll be paying to gas those babies up!

v



I'm not to sure on the RR Sport. It doesn't seem to have the heart of a land rover. Its too, i donno, too car based SUVish.

Its around $50 to fill up my Rovers and unfortuantly the gas prices are going up up up. Refular is estimated at $2.25 was it and my Rovers take premium. Also I wonder what diesel will cost?

[vixapphire]

indeed, with gas prices going where they're going (the President just reissued his call to begin harvesting oil in the arctic reserves - which has not exactly proven a winning/popular issue for him - so that's how bad it appears to be getting), a volvo v70R is looking like a saner choice for cargo-capable performance. it's only got a 5-banger rather than a hoary v8, after all...

[makisushi]

Not really, i just think there wankers.

Um...why do you say that?
I own one, and I don't think I am a wanker. I don't think EJ is either.
Have you had a bad experience with an RR owner?

[EJBasile]

Um...why do you say that?
I own one, and I don't think I am a wanker. I don't think EJ is either.
Have you had a bad experience with an RR owner?

I think hes just an environmentalist who doesn't realize that there are a billion other SUVs on the road and companies will continue to make them because people won't stop buying them.

That at least is my experience with threads relating to SUVs on MacRumors.

[combatcolin]

Um...why do you say that?
I own one, and I don't think I am a wanker. I don't think EJ is either.
Have you had a bad experience with an RR owner?

I could bang on about the enviromental issues or the danger to pedestrians or what happens if you turn at high speed or trying to navigate through small lanes.

But i won't. ;)

What does REALLY piss me off is people who buy these biblical monstors and then use them to ferry there 2.4 kids around and buy the shopping.

If you want space buy a people carrier (i belive you lot call them Mini Vans)
The Crysler (KNOW i've spelled it wrong!!) has these amazing seats that fold flat into the floor and all over the place - very impressive.

If you want a flash motor buy a Mercedes, even these big boys use less petrol/diesel than off road monstors.

Off roaders that have actually been used for that purpose look like the've just came back from a war zone, they don't have leather seats or plush interiors.

Of course in America they have people who would'nt be seen dead ina normal car, these twats are everywhere in every country, but the whole "bigger is better" ethos has perminated the minds of millions of simple mined morans.

On a last note, really quite surprised i got away with using the word Wankers, expected my post to be deleted! :p

[makisushi]

I think hes just an environmentalist who doesn't realize that there are a billion other SUVs on the road and companies will continue to make them because people won't stop buying them.

That at least is my experience with threads relating to SUVs on MacRumors.

True! I have an H2 to pull my boat and MacRumors members blasted me for that.

Oh well, I guess if it weren't for us, they would focus their anger elsewhere.

[makisushi]

What does REALLY piss me off is people who buy these biblical monstors and then use them to ferry there 2.4 kids around and buy the shopping.


Not to sound like a prick, but maybe the bigger issue is...why do you car what kind of car I drive to go shopping?

[edesignuk]

True! I have an H2 to pull my boat and MacRumors members blasted me for that.

Oh well, I guess if it weren't for us, they would focus their anger elsewhere.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone can possibly think the H2 is a justifiable vehicle. It's fuel economy is atrocious! At one point when an H2 was tested on Top Gear, the instant fuel consumption gage was showing 1mpg for god sake!!! Is it really any wonder America is the biggest polluter when it's residents consider the H2 a reasonable run around. Even the 4.6 HSE Rover is economic in comparison :eek:

No, I'm not an environmentalist, but, the H2 is just ridiculous.

[virividox]

im still in love with the old defender :)

[vixapphire]

Off roaders that have actually been used for that purpose look like the've just came back from a war zone, they don't have leather seats or plush interiors.

Obviously, you've never driven on the freeways or streets in the Detroit, Michigan area.

[vixapphire]

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can possibly think the H2 is a justifiable vehicle. It's fuel economy is atrocious! At one point when an H2 was tested on Top Gear, the instant fuel consumption gage was showing 1mpg for god sake!!! Is it really any wonder America is the biggest polluter when it's residents consider the H2 a reasonable run around. Even the 4.6 HSE Rover is economic in comparison :eek:

No, I'm not an environmentalist, but, the H2 is just ridiculous.

I agree far as it goes about the H2; plenty people in my neck o' the nape drive them and they're really annoying to have to navigate around in my Jag.

But, far as it goes, in my British Jaguar, and in many of those other British cars that are spotted about town here in LA (bentleys, rolls'), if one slugs on the pedal to pull ahead of someone, "at one point" (or more), you'll see 1mpg on the fuel consumption gage too. I believe this is also quite common when driving hard the autos made by Germans (bimmer 7's, benz 500/600s, etc.), the Japanese (Lexus 430's) - and I'm not even talking about the SUV's here, just the cars!

Methinks that in light of the foregoing, the mildly amusing if somewhat tired British-to-American arrogance/condescension in the implication that vehicles that inhale fuel are a uniquely American institution is without basis.

But I do enjoy reading your posts, and love the periodically-updated avatar photos (I know you've said before that they're not photos of you).

Best,

vixapphire

[edesignuk]

- vixapphire

I'm not completely ignorant, I know Hummers aren't the only motors with such stupid levels of economy. But then how many people can afford an H2? They are a LOT cheaper than a Rolls or a Bentley, and quite a bit cheaper than a big engined BMW/Merc (I think!).

Besides that, it's not just the economy thing, IMO they are just utterly ridiculous vehicles...just my opinion though :)

[vixapphire]

- vixapphire

I'm not completely ignorant, I know Hummers aren't the only motors with such stupid levels of economy. But then how many people can afford an H2? They are a LOT cheaper than a Rolls or a Bentley, and quite a bit cheaper than a big engined BMW/Merc (I think!).

Besides that, it's not just the economy thing, IMO they are just utterly ridiculous vehicles...just my opinion though :)

I share your opinion 100%. Saw a guy driving one while I was walking down Santa Monica Blvd a couple of days ago; it was big and black and obviously, the driver thought he was pretty cool (unlike his car, he was scrawny and white...). Two things struck me: first, how "over" and has-been the whole Hummer H2 trendiness is, only a couple years or so after it started in earnest (these gas prices are killing folks, and not softly either); second, while the dude was preening like a poseur behind the wheel, I couldn't imagine that my friends and I were the only ones laughing at and not with this guy for being the chump stuck paying $3/gallon for 5 mpg fuel "efficiency"! And GM's been taking a beating PR-wise from their customers, even after warning them that the H2 is a 5 mpg anchor.

But those Hummers begin somewhere around 50k, which is a hair cheaper than some of the Eurocars, but it's definite upper-middleclass style. I'd rather buy used and get a couple-years old Merc or bimmer for the same money, or just buy a volvo or something... those hummers look impossibly difficult to park, much less drive in city traffic.

[combatcolin]

- vixapphire

I'm not completely ignorant, I know Hummers aren't the only motors with such stupid levels of economy. But then how many people can afford an H2? They are a LOT cheaper than a Rolls or a Bentley, and quite a bit cheaper than a big engined BMW/Merc (I think!).

Besides that, it's not just the economy thing, IMO they are just utterly ridiculous vehicles...just my opinion though :)

Americans love big heavy engines because they think they are powerful.

Europe and Japan can get the same amout of power from lighter smaller engines, but this approach won't sell in America.

The only american cars to succed in the global market are those that that changed to meet global customer demands, for example Jeep.

Piss poor fuel economy dosn't help either.

[garybUK]

I dont see why anyone would buy a H2 they just aint practicle at all in this country, it doesn't help that 90% of Roads were designed for horse & carriage let alone normal cars and add on top pollution and the fact its usually 1 person in them they really annoy me!! grrr theres one moron with one in Town (Manchester) and he takes up like both lanes on the street I just refuse to move and make him pull up onto the pavement hoping that a traffic cop is near.

Land rovers I do see as practicle in a certain sense, I live up in the sticks on t'pennines and I know many people with them as second cars to get to farms / pull horse boxes etc and they are great for that. My mates mum has a older Defender .... fantastic cars!

I'll stick to my Fiesta 38mpg for now ...... ;P

[Abstract]

Oh here we go again.

Well firstly, there is a need for SUVs. I'll admit that. People need to haul stuff. Lots of stuff. Stuff that weighs tonnes. However, most people don't fit that bill. They could make due with a wagon, and it would still give them as much useful space, as the floor of a wagon usually offers as much (or more) space as the back of a typical SUV

"But I have a family of 4....plus a dog!!"

So what? I live in a family of 4, and not having an SUV didn't stunt my growth or make my childhood difficult or anything. Plus, minivans existed (although my family never owned one), which happen to be roomier.

Even if a family have to carry loads of stuff semi-occasionally, a 3 Litre 200hp/150kW engine should haul the things of most people just fine. Again, not every minivan had a 4.0 L engine 15 years ago, and guess what? People still hauled their stuff and family around just fine. I wonder how?

I think there's a perception by many Americans that a 4 L engine with no less than 250 hp is necessary to carry 4 people and groceries and hockey gear or skis. How did people survive 15 years ago with weaker engines when they had to haul the same stuff around? Its such a weak excuse. Ask your dad how he managed it.

[emotion]

Um...why do you say that?
I own one, and I don't think I am a wanker. I don't think EJ is either.
Have you had a bad experience with an RR owner?

no. the planet is having a bad experience with all the huge vehicle owners.

[absolut_mac]

For what it's worth, I work for an auto warranty company and we (and most competitors) will no longer cover Land Rovers. Losses were staggering. Average claim was over $1,100 (average for all others is $527).

What was the major reasons?

Losses due to accidents, or due to the car just falling apart due to shoddy workmanship?

[Xtremehkr]

Good looking SUVs, but still an SUV. Too pretty to ever take off road really.

I would consider a Freelander if it were a hybrid, reasonably sized and decent looking. Nah, you just can't drive an SUV like you can a car. If I needed to do a little offroading I would get a Subaru.

[vixapphire]

I think there's a perception by many Americans that a 4 L engine with no less than 250 hp is necessary to carry 4 people and groceries and hockey gear or skis. How did people survive 15 years ago with weaker engines when they had to haul the same stuff around? Its such a weak excuse. Ask your dad how he managed it.

Funny thing, that. I think it's less the engine size and more the size of the vehicle anymore, unfortunately. I had a '91 Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special (front-wheel drive version); it was large, albeit not as big as the RWD Brougham Fleetwood. interestingly, according to the stats, the engine was a 4.9 that gave 215 hp. pretty weak tea to pull a sled like that with. nonetheless, the torque was crushingly intense. this thing would fly off a stop like a corvette. and i got 25 mpg on the highway - better than i did with my benz SLK 320! better than the Benz 190E i owned as well.

i worked with a gal who drove a newish ford explorer SUV. when she had her second kid, she upgraded to a ford 'expedition'; like a chevy suburban in size. i couldn't believe it. we're talking about a family of 4, two of whom are in baby seats, and they needed this monstrosity? that sort of thing tells you that very few people are actually thinking rationally when they buy cars. thus, a lot of the chatter here about americans thinking this or that is a lot of hooey if you ask me; clearly, most americans aren't thinking when they buy a car - they're *feeling*; a huge difference. unlike Europe or Japan, in the states there's tons of wide roads close by; people here get sold on the ideas of freedom of movement and wide open spaces - they're less concerned about vehicle size than Europeans (who have to navigate much smaller streets) and less about fuel (less gov't taxes = cheaper fuels, plus that whole "land of plenty" thing...). the concern about fuel efficiency is changing here too, now, in light of the semi-permanence of the new oil prices and our limited refining capacity.

the idea that the US is the land of the open road (and for the most part, an open freeway into the heart of the big empty is only about 45 minutes away from anywhere in this country, including the heart of cities like chicago and LA), endow autos with a certain mythology (freedom of movement, which also carries with it the idea of reinventing oneself, etc.) that is perhaps stronger here in the US than anywhere. thus does having a larger, more capable car become the aspiration even though a commuter box will suit most peoples' physical needs.


nonetheless, as the baby boomers get older, their tastes will demand car-like rides in their vehicles, as opposed to the truck-like (truculent?) ride of most SUVs. this will change the face of the market and, in my opinion, accelerate the decline in size of the US automakers, whose profits have been almost exclusively based on truck/SUV sales for the past several years. buick may go the way of oldsmobile, but it looks like GM's betting on cadillac becoming something of a world player. the next 15 years in the auto industry will be very interesting to watch. just think, 15 years ago, chrysler was going down the toilet and the k-cars were just starting to happen. we've come a long way from that; imagine where it'll be in as much time forward from this moment!

v

[EJBasile]

I'll be intrested how the new Range Rovers 400hp engine will do in fuel economy. The jaguar with the same gas mileage gets 17/20mpg and my rover now with the 4.4 282hp engine gets around 14/16.

[vixapphire]

I'll be intrested how the new Range Rovers 400hp engine will do in fuel economy. The jaguar with the same gas mileage gets 17/20mpg and my rover now with the 4.4 282hp engine gets around 14/16.

I have the jag S type R with the same drivetrain. actual mileage is more in the 14/22 range (city/hwy). add however much more weight the LR3-based RR Sport will have and fuel 'economy' is probably a downward spiral...


v

[Lord Blackadder]

The only thing worse than a Hummer H2 is a Hummer H2 with spinners, which is what I see every day when I go downtown to work.

As for the new Range Rover, I'm sure it will be a big hit with hip-hop "artists", Although a few seem to prefer the erstwhile appropriately named G-Wagen. I wonder what it would be like if Land Rover was to sell a Range Rover that was stripped (no fancy options of any kind, roll up windows, cheap cloth seats) for a low price, like the ones used in the military etc. A volume model.

The true off-roaders still use modified Wranglers, (real) Humvees, and the occasional compact pickup (Tacoma etc.). Most current SUVs don't have the entry/exit angles or ground clearance that would give them actual credibility off-road. And besides, you'd mess up the $$$ interior.

Early SUVs were light/medium duty pickups with a new body. Since then, the SUV's poularity has caused a "feature creep" phenomenon leading to today's bloated monstrosities with all sorts of modifications to make them "carlike". The H2 has no practical reason to exist; If you like the style and have the cash knock yourself out but I don't see how it's anything other than the bastard child of a GMC 2500 pickup truck and GM's marketing department. Ditto the forthcoming "baby" hummer H3 (retch).

For towing a big boat a Tahoe/Expedition/Armada/Sequoia sized vehicle is fine but the premium you pay over a mechanically identical pickup is just not worth it for us financial mortals. Maybe I'm just really poor. :confused:

My point is that many current SUVs (of which the H2 is the poster child) do not represent engineering solutions to a problem but rather an appeal to popular style first and lip service to actual off-road cred, or any other cred. Jeep Wranglers, (real) Humvees, and various Land Rovers were originally designed the other way around, and only later became successful "passenger" vehicles. It's ironic how big sedans or wagons like the Crown Vic are "grandpa cars" when the immensly popular full size SUVs are so very similar. Maybe our kids will think the same thing about SUVs....

I don't want to flame here so please don't take anything personally. ;)

[/RANT]

[EJBasile]

I would never buy an H2. I've ridden in them and they aren't very nice. For $50,000 why wouldn't you spend on something nicer like a BMW X5 or a Mercedes M-Class. Or better yet buy a used Range Rover, they have such a big price devaluation even after a year. Most SUVs today are not expected to go off road. Yes some are capable including Jeeps, Land Rovers, and Hummers, but no one is going to spend that much to take a car off road and risk hurting it.

My 18 year old nephew has an H2 and my two of my neighbors own them also. They are pretty much expensive fad cars that are maintaining there popularity. [Fad cars as in VW bug, mini cooper, honda element (somewhat]. I was flipping through my TV channels the other day a while ago and saw on a music video some rappers driving a range rover. I will feel so bad if my car (2004 range rover) turns into the next esclade. You know with the custom chrome grill, 22" chrome wheels, body moldings, etc.

[combatcolin]

Um, er, can't really comment about what is and isn't popular in America as i havn't been there yet.

But heres a little tip. ;)

If you ever come over to Europe, don't, under any circumstances, call the Mini Or Beetle a "Fad"

You are as likly to be knocked out by a 40 something male petrol head as by a 20 year old female office worker.

[edesignuk]

You are as likly to be knocked out by a 40 something male petrol head as by a 20 year old female office worker.
...or a 21 year old frequent poster to MacRumors...http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/dogeyes.gif ...

[EJBasile]

Um, er, can't really comment about what is and isn't popular in America as i havn't been there yet.

But heres a little tip. ;)

If you ever come over to Europe, don't, under any circumstances, call the Mini Or Beetle a "Fad"

You are as likly to be knocked out by a 40 something male petrol head as by a 20 year old female office worker.

Yes I know its different in europe, obviosuly there are a ton of mini coopers over there since thats where they were made for years. Over here in America there are cars that I like to call fad cars because when they come out they are extremely popular and tons of people want to buy them, such as the bettle or the Mini Cooper and I think the PT Crusier (yuk) may have even been one.

[jayb2000]

So, for $50k, I can get a Land Rover LR3. Which is too plush and heavy to be really good offroad, but certainly not sporty for highway use either.
Or, I could get an Audi Allroad, which would handle far better at highway, and still be able to handle snow/dirt roads/etc as well as the land rover. Albeit not as much actual offoad.
Or better yet, I can buy a Jeep Wrangler, beat the heck out of it going offroad AND buy a Volvo/Audi/Volkwagen wagon, get the same space and more handling than the rover, plus have cheaper repair costs and insurance.


If someone wants the Rover, that's fine, but I just don't see any reason for it (or most other SUVs). They all seem like bad compromises between a truck frame for bad handling and overly plush interiors, so you don't want to haul stuff inside it (dirt for gardeing, wet suits and surfboards, etc). If you happen to be one of the few people who use it to tow a boat and the whole family to a lake for a weeks vacation or something, great, more power to you. But anyone who commutes in one of those is driving a low mileage, less stable, less safe vehicle.

Maybe SUVs are taking over for smoking as the "it makes me look cool, even if it kills me and others around me" hobby. :rolleyes:

[Lord Blackadder]

...or a 21 year old frequent poster to MacRumors...http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/dogeyes.gif ...

LOL. :D :D

It is very true that the (BMW) Mini Cooper is a bigtime fad/chick car here in the 'states, but that wouldn't stop me from seriously considering one if I was shopping for a car. It has good looks, good performance and a decent price if you don't go crazy with the options. Unlike the New Beetle, it may survive fad status and become a success in it's own right, although how do you restyle a retro car without losing the retro part? :confused:

It's like the previous generation Eclipse GSX turbo: chick car status but who cares because you'll love the performance.

Still, I'd rather have an original Mini - watching Mr. Bean driving one at breakneck speed or old films of the Rally Monte Carlo brings chills to my spine.

[iGav]

It's a shame that Land Rover didn't decide to go with the Aston V12 for the Sport

you mean like this one (http://www.autocarmag.com/news_article.asp?na_id=214366) iGav :p

[vixapphire]

I will feel so bad if my car (2004 range rover) turns into the next esclade. You know with the custom chrome grill, 22" chrome wheels, body moldings, etc.

dude, where do you live? out here in LA, your range rover has been the next escalade since about a year after the current escalade bowed. the rims, the smoked glass - the works, baby. i applaud these dudes for having the cashflow to put $25k worth of rims and tires on an $80k car! if only i were as fortunate!

which is not to say that's what i'd do with the dough, but a gal can dream, right?

[vixapphire]

But anyone who commutes in one of those is driving a low mileage, less stable, less safe vehicle.

Maybe SUVs are taking over for smoking as the "it makes me look cool, even if it kills me and others around me" hobby. :rolleyes:

less safe for people/cars outside the vehicle, not in it, if we're talking about commuting here...

SUV's only just now taking over? where has everyone been for the past 6 years? we're so far into the SUV trend that even the automakers are pretty much over it and well into their car-based "crossover vehicle" introductions.

on another point, i'm with Basile about this "fad car" business. if you knew how these things are marketed over here, you'd agree with the characterization whether you like the cars or not. and i love the mini. that doesn't change its being in a class of "marketed vehicles" like the PT Cruiser, Beetle and Hummer H2, though. at least in the US market.

[EJBasile]

less safe for people/cars outside the vehicle, not in it, if we're talking about commuting here...

SUV's only just now taking over? where has everyone been for the past 6 years? we're so far into the SUV trend that even the automakers are pretty much over it and well into their car-based "crossover vehicle" introductions.

on another point, i'm with Basile about this "fad car" business. if you knew how these things are marketed over here, you'd agree with the characterization whether you like the cars or not. and i love the mini. that doesn't change its being in a class of "marketed vehicles" like the PT Cruiser, Beetle and Hummer H2, though. at least in the US market.

I agree that the people in the small cars are more likely to get hurt if they hit an SUV. The SUVs are bigger, stronger, and have more material on them. Logical thinking and working in the ER you'll almost always find the smaller vehicle larger vehicle wins. For instance my father got in an accident with his Denali. The other car was a subaru and was totaled. The whole front end of the subaru was destroyed. As for his Denali he only had a small paint chip, cracked lug nut cover, and required a front end alignment. It was really quite amazing to see the pictures.

BTW its funny you call me Basile (my last name- like Basil the herb), thats what my friends call me LOL.

[jayb2000]

less safe for people/cars outside the vehicle, not in it, if we're talking about commuting here...


"People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars, the figures show. The government began keeping detailed statistics on the safety of vehicle categories in 1994."
http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=114&did=949

There are dozens more like this, but basically speaking, inside an SUV is LESS safe than inside a car. Saying its safer because its bigger/heavier/etc is like saying its safer to be in 57 chevy than an 97 honda civic. Sure one is bigger, but the ohter is less likely to get in an accident, and if it does, it has airbags, ABS, etc.

Because most SUVs are just trucks with bigger bodies, they do not have the same saftey requirements as cars, not to mention the rollover problems.

The crossover or car based SUVs like a Subaru Forester or such DO require the same saftey equipment, fuel economy, etc.

[vixapphire]

i suppose you're right if you're talking about people who drive SUV's too hard in cornering and flip them, etc., or if they don't wear their seat belts b/c the vehicle is so big. no doubt, they're easier to flip, and people can be lulled into a false sense of security being in a big vehicle - an older (say 50's to early 70's) american car will give the same feeling - lap belts can actually feel appropriate, although they'd rip you clean in half if you got into a front end collision...

but if you're talking straight line commuting, as in, drive a few blocks, get on the freeway, stand around awhile between spurts of mostly straightline driving, in heavy traffic where speeds and fast-cornering moves would be uncommon, i think your point is inapposite. i said "if we're talking about commuting", which was to restate the earlier poster's point. i'd be willing to bet that if we went back through the statistics and broke out the commuter accidents between SUV's and other cars and corrected for failure to wear a belt, the person inside the SUV wearing the belt would win most of the time. about a year and a half ago i saw firsthand what happens when a ford explorer meets a new beetle in an intersection when the explorer runs the light: the SUV flips, warping the truck "parallelogram-style" (viewed from behind) and the driver walks away after a bit of medical treatment; they call the preacher for the beetle driver, who is dead.

and that's a run-of-the-mill intersection collision, nothing special.

i think that if you belt in correctly and don't corner crazily, an SUV is safer than most of the plasticine cars on the road today. even if you've got all the airbags in the world, if your car is made of plastic bodypanelling (as most newer cars - even my 91 cadillac - are) and has little weight, when you get hit by a heavy-duty steelclad truck with a center of gravity closer to your car's windows than frame, there's no contest.

as the statistics say, though: in certain specific matchups or without filtering out non-commute driving (ie. fast freeway driving, joyriding, etc.), i agree that SUV's, by their nature as really unwieldy behemoths with different safety standards, are less safe than some cars.

but when your subaru forester gets ploughed into by a ford excursion or escalade esv running an intersection like the foregoing accident i witnessed, you probably won't be writing about it afterwards, regardless of the quantity of airbags the medics would have to claw through to remove your corpse! i don't think anyone would have much of a chance against one of those things.

v

[vixapphire]

when are they going to start making a "center console airbag", so that upon impact, passengers are basically frozen in place by airbags on all sides? i've been thinking about that since side bags first hit the market; is anyone offering/working on anything like that? i'd expect to see it from volvo or mercedes first, but they've got nothing.

maybe kia? :rolleyes:

[EJBasile]

when are they going to start making a "center console airbag", so that upon impact, passengers are basically frozen in place by airbags on all sides? i've been thinking about that since side bags first hit the market; is anyone offering/working on anything like that? i'd expect to see it from volvo or mercedes first, but they've got nothing.

maybe kia? :rolleyes:

Yea I'm surprised volvo hasn't come up with something like that. I agree with you if you go fast and take a sharp turn in your excursion you'll flip it. Now many of the SUVs including Volvo (who invented it), Nissan, etc have stability programs in there cars to prevent them from flipping. My Land Rover has the stability control along with the self adjusting/lowering air suspension which helps because when your going fast it lowers the car lowering the center of gravity and when you make that sharp turn the car wil use the stability program.

[jayscheuerle]

I think hes just an environmentalist who doesn't realize that there are a billion other SUVs on the road and companies will continue to make them because people won't stop buying them.


And they won't stop bitching when gas hits $3, then $4/gallon either..

[denm316]

This could be one of the best thread I have read...many differnt opinions.

I have currently been looking into an Acura MDX because I want to have the ability to transpot things and what not. To be honest I really could deal with a smaller SUV, something like a Ford Escape or Nissan X-Terra, the problem is the small SUV's dont have a wide feature set, such as Navigation, Bluetooth as well as others. These are features I really like and want, if smaller SUV's had these luxury items I would consider them more, but most of the time it seems as if small SUV's are only made for budget conscience people.

[EJBasile]

And they won't stop bitching when gas hits $3, then $4/gallon either..

I think everyone will be complaining when Gas hits $4-$5 in the US. I bought a diesel thinking it would cost the less, the same, or a little more than gas. Now that diesel is $2.47 or something like that I'm regreting my purchase, but then again my E320 does get 40mph highway.


For the person who wanted a small featured SUV I would look into the BMW X3. They start at $30,000. A couple people at my work have them and they like them. I've driven the 3.0 model and its nice. Its sporty driving like car but the size of a small SUV. My nieghbor has the MDX and they really like it. They says its nice and very reliable. Also the RX330 might be an option for you.

[hulugu]

I think hes just an environmentalist who doesn't realize that there are a billion other SUVs on the road and companies will continue to make them because people won't stop buying them.

That at least is my experience with threads relating to SUVs on MacRumors.


I would say that an objection to the sudden urge to buy the most elephantine-vehicle you can find is simply irrational, and an opposition isn't just environmental-wackery. Think of it this way, your best friend buys a Dual G5 with the works, spends thousands of dollars on a Cinema Display, extra drives, etc. He uses all this power and money to play mahjong on-line. :eek:
Millions of SUVs are out on the road, but that doesn't mean that lots of these people are just engaged in a new-form of 'look how big my johnson is.' Not only that, but consider the polution, the shear waste of materials—the average car weighs more now than in 1971—the higher injury rates, and you have an entire line of cars that fails almost every consideration of design except for 'empowering' the drivers, which usually means they drive like a jackass.
If you want an SUV, go ahead I won't stop you, but I might snicker a little because to me, especially now more than ever, the SUV is the new version of the mini-van, the new dork-mobile. Except now with twice the weight and much more likely to kill everyone in the car at highway-speed. Awesome!

[hulugu]

i suppose you're right if you're talking about people who drive SUV's too hard in cornering and flip them, etc., or if they don't wear their seat belts b/c the vehicle is so big....

but if you're talking straight line commuting, as in, drive a few blocks, get on the freeway, stand around awhile between spurts of mostly straightline driving, in heavy traffic where speeds and fast-cornering moves would be uncommon, i think your point is inapposite. ...

i think that if you belt in correctly and don't corner crazily, an SUV is safer than most of the plasticine cars on the road today. even if you've got all the airbags in the world, if your car is made of plastic bodypanelling (as most newer cars - even my 91 cadillac - are) and has little weight, when you get hit by a heavy-duty steelclad truck with a center of gravity closer to your car's windows than frame, there's no contest.

as the statistics say, though: in certain specific matchups or without filtering out non-commute driving (ie. fast freeway driving, joyriding, etc.), i agree that SUV's, by their nature as really unwieldy behemoths with different safety standards, are less safe than some cars...

But, that's just a reason to redesign the SUV. If an SUV driver can run a light and easily kill someone else that is a failure of design. We don't want to get into a position where the largest car wins because that will just result in supra-massive cars with heavy bumpers. And, just so you know the tensile strength between the thin aluminum body of a SUV and the plastic body of a Saturn are meaningless in a crash, it's the strength of the frame that matters.
Furthemore, I saw an accident when a Nissan Xterra was broadsided by a fast Buick LaSabre. The Xterra rolled onto its side, severly injuring both passengers. The point is, the faster a car is going the more kenetic energy it imparts. The problem in accident you saw is speed+mass. In another case a Lexus SUV was hit head-on by a tow-truck, the driver died on the scene.
If you look at the breakdowns for accidents the SUV is still high. According to the National Traffic and Safety Institute the proportion of vehicles that rolled over in fatal crashes (20.5%) was 4 times as high as the proportions in injury crashes (4.9%). In other words, your much more likely to be seriously injured in a rollover crash than any other. Furthemore, according to the same source, the majority of crashes happen with two vehicles going straight prior to the crash, the second happens in turns or emergency turns of which the typical SUV fairs quite poorly.
Lets face it, the common SUV—with exceptions—is less safe than the common passenger car. Everything else is happenstance and anecdote. Why do you think the insurance is higher?

[hulugu]

True! I have an H2 to pull my boat and MacRumors members blasted me for that.

Oh well, I guess if it weren't for us, they would focus their anger elsewhere.

Really an H2 huh, man that thing is fugly. I hate to tell you, but I had a micro-machine of the HUMMVEE, and if you made that thing Macro-size, you'd get the proportions of the H2. And after driving one, the sales guy made me, I have to say I hated it. The steering linkage is wrong, the shocks are too loose, the engine feels anemic and the tranny doesn't respond properly, and the build quality was lousy. But, that was just one test-drive, but to me for $50,000+ I think you could have gotten a much better boat-hauler.
But, I'll shut up now. Hope your experience was better than mine, I should sit here and slag you.


Except to say, what were you thinking!?

Sorry, couldn't help it. :D

[EJBasile]

I would say that an objection to the sudden urge to buy the most elephantine-vehicle you can find is simply irrational, and an opposition isn't just environmental-wackery. Think of it this way, your best friend buys a Dual G5 with the works, spends thousands of dollars on a Cinema Display, extra drives, etc. He uses all this power and money to play mahjong on-line. :eek:
Millions of SUVs are out on the road, but that doesn't mean that lots of these people are just engaged in a new-form of 'look how big my johnson is.' Not only that, but consider the polution, the shear waste of materials—the average car weighs more now than in 1971—the higher injury rates, and you have an entire line of cars that fails almost every consideration of design except for 'empowering' the drivers, which usually means they drive like a jackass.
If you want an SUV, go ahead I won't stop you, but I might snicker a little because to me, especially now more than ever, the SUV is the new version of the mini-van, the new dork-mobile. Except now with twice the weight and much more likely to kill everyone in the car at highway-speed. Awesome!

Umm no the SUV is not the new Mini Van. If SUVs are the new mini van and the "dork mobile" why have they been out for as long as mini vans have been but have not become unpopular. You have a very intresting concept. Mini Vans do not have 4WD, very much ground clearence, or a decent interrior. There are more accidents today probably because there are more cars on the road and cars can go faster today.

And its funny you say SUVs are cause more accidents because they are heavier. Think about a Ford Crown Vic, Lincoln Town Car, etc. For gods sake my fathers Bently Red Label weighs more than my SUV and gets worse fuel economy.

Additionally why do you car drivers always think SUV drivers are concerned with there privates.



But, that's just a reason to redesign the SUV. If an SUV driver can run a light and easily kill someone else that is a failure of design. We don't want to get into a position where the largest car wins because that will just result in supra-massive cars with heavy bumpers. And, just so you know the tensile strength between the thin aluminum body of a SUV and the plastic body of a Saturn are meaningless in a crash, it's the strength of the frame that matters.
Furthemore, I saw an accident when a Nissan Xterra was broadsided by a fast Buick LaSabre. The Xterra rolled onto its side, severly injuring both passengers. The point is, the faster a car is going the more kenetic energy it imparts. The problem in accident you saw is speed+mass. In another case a Lexus SUV was hit head-on by a tow-truck, the driver died on the scene.
If you look at the breakdowns for accidents the SUV is still high. According to the National Traffic and Safety Institute the proportion of vehicles that rolled over in fatal crashes (20.5%) was 4 times as high as the proportions in injury crashes (4.9%). In other words, your much more likely to be seriously injured in a rollover crash than any other. Furthemore, according to the same source, the majority of crashes happen with two vehicles going straight prior to the crash, the second happens in turns or emergency turns of which the typical SUV fairs quite poorly.
Lets face it, the common SUV—with exceptions—is less safe than the common passenger car. Everything else is happenstance and anecdote. Why do you think the insurance is higher?

If an SUV can run a light and kill someone in another car its not the SUVs poor design, its the car it hits poor design. Do you think car companies should put airbags on the outsides of cars? An observation performed by me shows that little cars to horrible in snow due to there lack of wieght and can slide off the road. Additionally if an SUV slides into a snow bank it has a greater chance of getting out.

Also is a honda civic going to pull a 30' boat? Whats a better a pickup truck- but many SUVs are based on pickup truck (Including the H2) frames so that would not be safe. I'm assuming it would be better to pull the boat with two or three civics?? Then again there must be a problem with boats too.

[cheekyspanky]

If an SUV can run a light and kill someone in another car its not the SUVs poor design, its the car it hits poor design.

So my car with large spikes positioned all over the hood (lets say, hypothetically speaking, this becomes the new trend..) crashes into an SUV and injures the occupants. This is nothing to do with my vehicle - it's the poor design of the thing I hit?

I'm not too sure I follow your logic. Consideration should be placed on the safety of all road users no matter if you're in a car or an SUV, and the corresponding design should reflect this - i.e lower bumpers on SUV's to stop them riding over smaller cars in accidents.

[EJBasile]

So my car with large spikes positioned all over the hood (lets say, hypothetically speaking, this becomes the new trend..) crashes into an SUV and injures the occupants. This is nothing to do with my vehicle - it's the poor design of the thing I hit?

I'm not too sure I follow your logic. Consideration should be placed on the safety of all road users no matter if you're in a car or an SUV, and the corresponding design should reflect this - i.e lower bumpers on SUV's to stop them riding over smaller cars in accidents.

Well I don't think cars would be made spikes sticking out of them. Its not the buyers fault that the SUV is designed poorly, its the engineers of the car. When a person buys a car I don't think they really care what happens to the other car if they get in an accident, and it probably won't even cross the persons mind.

[jayb2000]

....An observation performed by me shows that little cars to horrible in snow due to there lack of wieght and can slide off the road. Additionally if an SUV slides into a snow bank it has a greater chance of getting out.
...

Well, probably just anecdotal, but I remember driving up interstate 89 from New Hampshire to upper Vermont during a snow storm in a little lightweight honda civic hatchback. During the 3hr trip, we saw eight SUVs in snowbanks. 4x4 only means you can pull out of mud or snow better, it does nothing to help you stop better.
Maybe it was a coincidence that the only cars we saw off the road were Exploreres, Tahoes, etc, but I think the problem is that increased mass means longer stopping times and more chance of skidding.

Similar to the post I did earlier, some more statistics.
http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2000-07-06/cover.html
In 1999, 28 percent of the accidents surveyed involved SUVs -- approximately twice as many as would have been anticipated based on their sheer numbers.

So, basically, you have a 100% greater chance ( or 2-1 or however you want to say it) of being in an accident if you are driving an SUV.

I had a Jeep Wrangler, I loved it. I am going to get another one, but I will use it to go offroading and maybe get to the place to go offroading. For commuting, pretty much any car on the road (short of a corvair or pinto) is safer, better to handle, gets better fuel mileage, etc.

If anyone still thinks they are safer in an SUV, they really need to do some research. A couple of web links are not the proof, but NHTSA, insurace claims, Road & Track or Car & Driver, etc, all show SUVs to be less safe, worse for the environment, and worse on handling.

For anyone who NEEDS one, due to hauling boats, horse trailers, etc, great. That vehicle is something you need. For anyone taking kids to soccer, picking up an antique table, or commuting, its more expensive to buy, to operate, and more dangerous.

[combatcolin]

HEY AMERICA!!

I'll let you into a little secret the rest of the world has, we have 4 s
wheeled drive cars, that can pull a boat or motor home and go off road - and guess what?

They look very similar to an average 4 door saloon!!

[ddtlm]

jayb2000:

Well, probably just anecdotal, but I remember driving up interstate 89 from New Hampshire to upper Vermont during a snow storm in a little lightweight honda civic hatchback. During the 3hr trip, we saw eight SUVs in snowbanks. 4x4 only means you can pull out of mud or snow better, it does nothing to help you stop better.
Heh. I like in a very wintery location and you would not believe the number of truck/suv owners that run all-season (or worse!) tires all winter. Apparently 4x4 gets them started and after that they are happy. In case anyone here falls into that category, let me assure you that a quality pair of winter tires is amazing. Far cheaper and generally more effective than buying 4-wheel drive.

If anyone still thinks they are safer in an SUV, they really need to do some research. A couple of web links are not the proof, but NHTSA, insurace claims, Road & Track or Car & Driver, etc, all show SUVs to be less safe, worse for the environment, and worse on handling.
You should really qualify what sort of SUV you are talking about. Some of them are going to be as safe/efficient as minivans, because they essentially are minivans (where the floor is higher and 4-wheel drive is added). Also, I predict that the very large SUVs really are safer than cars, because the longer wheelbase makes it harder to loose control of them, and the much greater mass makes it harder for them to be knocked over. (Those being things that harm the safely of smaller SUV's.)

[hulugu]

Well I don't think cars would be made spikes sticking out of them.

I think he was just point out your logic which says in effect that each car should be girded against the damage caused by others without a single though put into that other car. Crumple zones protect both cars in the accident by assorbing kenetic energy, thus saving everyone, that's good design.

Its not the buyers fault that the SUV is designed poorly, its the engineers of the car.

Tell that to all those Pinto owners.

When a person buys a car I don't think they really care what happens to the other car if they get in an accident, and it probably won't even cross the persons mind.

What a narsistic and nihilistic attitude? You can't be bothered caring about others driving around you? It will if you hit a small car carrying a family and you kill someone because you had to have the biggest, baddest vehicle you could have. I have an old CJ-7 that included a massive safari bumper and tow hitch, I removed the tow hitch because not only was it unnecessary, but I just imagined how it could harpoon someone if I ran into them.
As for the SUV, I consider it a minivan, a lousy one at that, because very few even use the 4-wheel-drive, ground clearance, towing capability, or extra torque. And some SUVs, most on the market actually, have mediocre transfer cases, are sans differentials, are sold with AT tires, and do not have the approach and depature angles necessary to be an SUV.
You also mentioned, sometime earlier, that SUVs have been around for a long time. Yep, that's true, but most people used station wagons and then minivans to do all the duties people use SUVs for. Think of it, except for the Wagoneer and Chevy Suburban, people didn't need 4-wheel drive to haul around 6 kids until sometime in the early 90s. How did people do that, I mean how can you get to the grocery store without a V8 pumping out 500 pounds of torque at 4000 rpm in 6000 pounds of vehicle? It's almost as bad as walking!
Look, Basile, let's be totally honest. Buying a car is an emotional decision, not a realistic set of values. If people were honest they wouldn't buy Ford Mustangs (0-65 in just enough time to get pulled over) or SUVs (40 inch mud tires to cruise the mall parking lot), so let's stop pretending that anyone needs an SUV. No, if you live on your ranch in Montana or visit villages in the heart of the Amazon, never mind. If you tow a large trailer and lots of gear, never mind. If you want to go deep in the mountains to climb with your friends, never mind. But, if you're driving a Tahoe from the mall to your house, you're just being foolish. But, that's just my opinion.

[EJBasile]

I think he was just point out your logic which says in effect that each car should be girded against the damage caused by others without a single though put into that other car. Crumple zones protect both cars in the accident by assorbing kenetic energy, thus saving everyone, that's good design.



Tell that to all those Pinto owners.



What a narsistic and nihilistic attitude? You can't be bothered caring about others driving around you? It will if you hit a small car carrying a family and you kill someone because you had to have the biggest, baddest vehicle you could have. I have an old CJ-7 that included a massive safari bumper and tow hitch, I removed the tow hitch because not only was it unnecessary, but I just imagined how it could harpoon someone if I ran into them.
As for the SUV, I consider it a minivan, a lousy one at that, because very few even use the 4-wheel-drive, ground clearance, towing capability, or extra torque. And some SUVs, most on the market actually, have mediocre transfer cases, are sans differentials, are sold with AT tires, and do not have the approach and depature angles necessary to be an SUV.
You also mentioned, sometime earlier, that SUVs have been around for a long time. Yep, that's true, but most people used station wagons and then minivans to do all the duties people use SUVs for. Think of it, except for the Wagoneer and Chevy Suburban, people didn't need 4-wheel drive to haul around 6 kids until sometime in the early 90s. How did people do that, I mean how can you get to the grocery store without a V8 pumping out 500 pounds of torque at 4000 rpm in 6000 pounds of vehicle? It's almost as bad as walking!
Look, Basile, let's be totally honest. Buying a car is an emotional decision, not a realistic set of values. If people were honest they wouldn't buy Ford Mustangs (0-65 in just enough time to get pulled over) or SUVs (40 inch mud tires to cruise the mall parking lot), so let's stop pretending that anyone needs an SUV. No, if you live on your ranch in Montana or visit villages in the heart of the Amazon, never mind. If you tow a large trailer and lots of gear, never mind. If you want to go deep in the mountains to climb with your friends, never mind. But, if you're driving a Tahoe from the mall to your house, you're just being foolish. But, that's just my opinion.


Its not that I don't care that if I hit someone I won't care. I didn't spend 10 years in college/med school to become a doctor to not care about other people. I think people buy SUVs because they feel safer in them. I mean many of soccer moms that I see on my street and around town have a small SUV like a bmw X3 to a big thing like a suberban. Its true that many SUV owners get low gas mileage, drive a lot, and do not require such a powerful car. Its all personal preference though. As a Car and Driver reporter said when writing about the Land Rover Discovery "Most SUVs are just jacked up station wagons" or something to that effect.


I bought SUVs becasue I live in a town where they can barely get the main roads plowed let alone I live on top of a mountain which is only accesable by back roads. There can be a 8" of snow on the road and the road has not been plowed and I still have to get to work. Additionally when I go up to my ski house I have to go up some pretty tough unpaved/unplowed roads. One of my friends who lives in another part of my town has a volvo S60. When it snows he has to park his car at the bottom of his street and walk a 1/2 mile to get to his house because he lives on such a steep hill.

If I have to go to the mall or commute on a normal day I typically take my E320 CDI diesel. It gets almost 40mpg highway. Its a much more economical car although diesel is costing me $2.47 a gallon.

I feel that if you live in Navada or Southern California or somewhere where you get no snow it is silly to get an SUV. I think buying a ford escape, saturn vue, Rav 4, or small cheap SUV like that is equally as silly because they not really capable SUVs.

[hulugu]

Its not that I don't care that if I hit someone I won't care. I didn't spend 10 years in college/med school to become a doctor to not care about other people. I think people buy SUVs because they feel safer in them. I mean many of soccer moms that I see on my street and around town have a small SUV like a bmw X3 to a big thing like a suberban. Its true that many SUV owners get low gas mileage, drive a lot, and do not require such a powerful car. Its all personal preference though. As a Car and Driver reporter said when writing about the Land Rover Discovery "Most SUVs are just jacked up station wagons" or something to that effect.


I bought SUVs becasue I live in a town where they can barely get the main roads plowed let alone I live on top of a mountain which is only accesable by back roads. There can be a 8" of snow on the road and the road has not been plowed and I still have to get to work. Additionally when I go up to my ski house I have to go up some pretty tough unpaved/unplowed roads. One of my friends who lives in another part of my town has a volvo S60. When it snows he has to park his car at the bottom of his street and walk a 1/2 mile to get to his house because he lives on such a steep hill.

If I have to go to the mall or commute on a normal day I typically take my E320 CDI diesel. It gets almost 40mpg highway. Its a much more economical car although diesel is costing me $2.47 a gallon.

I feel that if you live in Navada or Southern California or somewhere where you get no snow it is silly to get an SUV. I think buying a ford escape, saturn vue, Rav 4, or small cheap SUV like that is equally as silly because they not really capable SUVs.

You're the perfect person to own a SUV, you need the capability, and I'm not saying you can't have one, I'm saying I think most drivers appear ridiculous, and I think that most SUVs are surprisingly lousy vehicles. Check out the stats and you'll see that most people are deluded into thinking that an SUV is safer; I once thought they were too.
SUVs are built in so many designs and versions because they make huge amounts of money for the manufacturers and have been sold with great fanfare to lots of people who would be better off with something else. Just like a certain OS.

[RealDeal]

an 02- best standard ground clearance except a hummer in the world- done 30 deg plus slopes in rain on garbage standard 235 tires never mind the 31x10.5 got now- 60mph on curves in mountains with a flat (great skid control)- any other SUV is lame and unsafe...

yup it does mid 30s mpg for gas, and cheap supercharger for fun- newest model a "yacht" with floaty handling...

[absolut_mac]

There are dozens more like this, but basically speaking, inside an SUV is LESS safe than inside a car. Saying its safer because its bigger/heavier/etc is like saying its safer to be in 57 chevy than an 97 honda civic. Sure one is bigger, but the ohter is less likely to get in an accident, and if it does, it has airbags, ABS, etc.

Actually, one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to see why the majority of SUV's are so unsafe.

High center of gravity, high mass, relatively narrow wheel base etc all contribute to a vehicle that has considerably less stability than your average car.

Just for comparisons sake, just compare the difference between an SUV and an F1.

Even although F1's are zooming around the track at well over 200 MPH and often are involved in minor scrapes, look at how few of them actually flip over compared to SUV's only doing 10% of their speed.

Wide wheel base, exceptionally low center of gravity etc are the main reasons for their stability.

And nobody mentioned the obvious either. The main reason I dislike most SUV's is not because of the vehicles themselves, but because most people driving them haven't a clue how to do so. That makes their vehicles exceptionally dangerous to both them and those around them, and the statistics bear this out.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Consumer Reports has been drecrying the pathetic crash-worthiness of SUV's for years. And getting sued for it every time they actually name names, just for speaking the truth.

Fortunately, even although the courts disliked some of their tactics, they couldn't fault them on the results and so CR has paid out zero damages to those who sued them.

[EJBasile]

an 02- best standard ground clearance except a hummer in the world- done 30 deg plus slopes in rain on garbage standard 235 tires never mind the 31x10.5 got now- 60mph on curves in mountains with a flat (great skid control)- any other SUV is lame and unsafe...

yup it does mid 30s mpg for gas, and cheap supercharger for fun- newest model a "yacht" with floaty handling...

According some quick research your 2002 4Runner has 11" gound clearence. My 2004 Range Rover as 11.1" of ground clearence when the EAS is set to the highest level. Addionally if you bottom out the EAS will try to raise the car even more. I forget how much my 2001 RR has but I know it can lower itself to 2.6" or 2.7 when for easy access in and out of the vehicle. My brother in law has the Toureg with the air suspension and he gets 11.8" of ground clearence at the highest setting.

For a car in the $30,000 price range and no air suspension that definatly must be one of cars with the top ground clearence. My cousin bought a 2002 4Runner SR5 with the sport package and she loves it. I like that car a lot and I'm sad they stopped making that version. I've driven it before and its a fun car.
--------

Question if an SUV lets say a GMC yukon and a honda civic drive straight into each other head on which driver has a better chance of living?

[vixapphire]

But, that's just a reason to redesign the SUV. If an SUV driver can run a light and easily kill someone else that is a failure of design. ...
Lets face it, the common SUV—with exceptions—is less safe than the common passenger car. Everything else is happenstance and anecdote. Why do you think the insurance is higher?

i'm not going to disagree with you, first because i don't, and second because the marketplace has been moving towards car-based suv's for the past 2-3 years and this trend will only accelerate as buyers get older and start demanding more comfortable, less truck-like rides, as i've stated at several places in this thread and others.

the SUV isn't a failure of design; it was a way to make truck platforms more profitable to the automakers while filling a need in the marketplace. that sounds like pretty good design to me - from the viewpoint that "what separates design from art is finding the solution to a problem", as someone once said. in an abstract, "art" world, yeah; failure. but these designers had a job to do and they did it better than their forbears -- SUV's are not corvairs, after all.

but, now that they've been around awhile, they're getting tweaked for the next generation of designs.

by your reasoning, pickup trucks (whose platforms the SUV's we've all been deriding are based on) are also failures of design, since they exhibit all the same characteristics as SUV's, without the leather interiors and glass boxes on the back. i don't think many folks who use their trucks for work would be too happy if their options were limited to el camino's and volkswagon rabbit pickups!

then again, i'll admit i missed the memo that lead to pickup trucks becoming the car of choice among young men in cities during the early/mid 90's. i think that's what started this whole "trucks (then SUV's) are the snizzle" thing in the culture. i've always preferred cars to trucks, regardless of all the gas/safety/etc. arguments. in fact, if the appeal to the consumer is going to be along the lines of gas efficiency, safety and the like, you can look forward to being very frustrated when no one listens! the automaker and ad agency that convinces the public that their newer car-based suv's (or even station wagons - v70R, baby) are what they can't live without will write their own ticket.

v

[vixapphire]

HEY AMERICA!!

...

They look very similar to an average 4 door saloon!!

speaking of which, i'm parched; barkeep, bring me a bottle!!!

[vixapphire]

Tell that to all those Pinto owners. [QUOTE=hulugu]

I think the courts basically did when they found Ford criminally liable for the Pinto's cost-benefit analysis based design.


[QUOTE=hulugu]
What a narsistic and nihilistic attitude? You can't be bothered caring about others driving around you? .... Look, Basile, let's be totally honest. Buying a car is an emotional decision, not a realistic set of values. If people were honest they wouldn't buy Ford Mustangs (0-65 in just enough time to get pulled over) or SUVs (40 inch mud tires to cruise the mall parking lot), so let's stop pretending that anyone needs an SUV. .... But, that's just my opinion.

go easy on the guy; I think his point about people not giving much thought to the "hmm, but what would happen to the other car if i got into an accident in this?" when making their buying decisions is a perfectly valid one. Don't impugn the messenger's integrity or values just because he pointed out something that's plainly obvious to anyone with commonsense knowledge of consumer behavior, much less anyone who's looked at the cars in an average parking lot within the past several years!

and besides, you've agreed with him by stating that peoples' buying decisions are primarily emotional. did you just need to get a bit of misspelled vengeance off your chest at the beginning of that outburst, or what? ;)

(for the record, it's "narcissistic", not "narsistic" :o )

best,

vixapphire

p.s., after reading your later posts clarifying "failure of design" (in response to a confused point about accidents being the fault of their victims' poor purchasing decisions or some such), i don't find much to disagree with, so my point above is a little moot.

[makisushi]

Really an H2 huh, man that thing is fugly. I hate to tell you, but I had a micro-machine of the HUMMVEE, and if you made that thing Macro-size, you'd get the proportions of the H2. And after driving one, the sales guy made me, I have to say I hated it. The steering linkage is wrong, the shocks are too loose, the engine feels anemic and the tranny doesn't respond properly, and the build quality was lousy. But, that was just one test-drive, but to me for $50,000+ I think you could have gotten a much better boat-hauler.
But, I'll shut up now. Hope your experience was better than mine, I should sit here and slag you.


Except to say, what were you thinking!?

Sorry, couldn't help it. :D
Is this supposed to be constructive criticism? Or just straight out bashing? Thanks, anyway...but, I am a big boy now and can make my own decisions, but I appreciate the thought.
I am sorry you didn’t have a good experience with the H2, but at least now you can drive whatever car you have now and think “My car is better than Makisushi’s car!”

I bought the H2 to because I wanted it. I bought the Range Rover because I wanted it. It should be obvious to anyone here that I didn’t buy them for their practicality.

[hulugu]

go easy on the guy; I think his point about people not giving much thought to the "hmm, but what would happen to the other car if i got into an accident in this?" when making their buying decisions is a perfectly valid one. Don't impugn the messenger's integrity or values just because he pointed out something that's plainly obvious to anyone with commonsense knowledge of consumer behavior, much less anyone who's looked at the cars in an average parking lot within the past several years!

and besides, you've agreed with him by stating that peoples' buying decisions are primarily emotional. did you just need to get a bit of misspelled vengeance off your chest at the beginning of that outburst, or what? ;)

(for the record, it's "narcissistic", not "narsistic" :o )

best,

vixapphire

p.s., after reading your later posts clarifying "failure of design" (in response to a confused point about accidents being the fault of their victims' poor purchasing decisions or some such), i don't find much to disagree with, so my point above is a little moot.

I could never spell narcissistic. My point was probably a bit too sharpened and delivered with more force than necessary, so thanks for calling me on it.

Is this supposed to be constructive criticism? Or just straight out bashing? Thanks, anyway...but, I am a big boy now and can make my own decisions, but I appreciate the thought.
I am sorry you didn’t have a good experience with the H2, but at least now you can drive whatever car you have now and think “My car is better than Makisushi’s car!”

I bought the H2 to because I wanted it. I bought the Range Rover because I wanted it. It should be obvious to anyone here that I didn’t buy them for their practicality.

Actually, I thought it was constructive criticism, I was disapointed by the H2, GM has certainly done better with the Tahoe which the H2 is based-on. I'm sorry to have offended you, I was just offering an opinion based on actual 'steering-wheel' time.
And my car is a piece-of-junk right now: my SUV is an old 1980 CJ-7. So relax, you've won the 'who has the best stuff' contest hands down.

We need to consider the world beyond our own windshield, the effects of our decisions with all the information we have at our disposal. We can make emotional decisions, but we must understand that those decisions have consequences. If you want/need a Nissan Armada, fine but you must understand that you might have to drive more carefully and be even more attentive to motorcycles, pedestrians, and the small car owner. Driving is a privilege and driving well requires thoughtfulness.
Car manufactures are not responsible entities because they are essentially amoral, it is up to consumers to choose the right vehicle for the right reasons and to insist on safer cars that are more environmentally friendly to boot. We can already insist on DVD-players, AC, and aluminum rims, so why can't we get the things that really matter?
'Nuff said. And I'll stop hijacking this thread so people can talk about the Range Rovers.

[jayb2000]

While I don't need or want one of the new Range Rovers, I do like the ad that shows the truck splitting at every fork in the road or stop sign. I think the tagline is something about "a road for everyone".

[Chappers]

While I don't need or want one of the new Range Rovers,.

Most people who have them don't need them

[combatcolin]

speaking of which, i'm parched; barkeep, bring me a bottle!!!

I was just about to

??????????

this when i got the joke, i think you lot would call it a sedan, 4 door family car.

[vixapphire]

I was just about to

??????????

this when i got the joke, i think you lot would call it a sedan, 4 door family car.



i know, but it was just too difficult to resist... :)

[EJBasile]

Most people who have them don't need them

In reality we could get around in horses and buggys too :). Its not that we need them its that we can.

Why do people do the things they do- because they can.