The thing of it is, SUVs are not inherently bad. The catagory has been around since the first CJ and was especially established by the first Jeep Wagoneers, everything else follows this line. For people who need the capabilities that an SUV offers: high ground clearance, rugged construction, towing ability, and four-wheel drive, these vehicles are very well designed. But, the SUV was never[I/] intended to be a family commuter vehicle, hence the Ford Explorer crashes, which were blamed on Firestone, but wereat least in partcaused by overloaded Explorers driven by people who did not understand the top-heavy characteristics of their vehicle. The Explorer, for example, is overloaded if all the seats are filled. So is the Nissan Xterra. The vehicles become unstable when used for a family.
Furthemore, their gross weight and slab-sided designs make them use fuel at a much higher weight.
I would argue that most SUVs make terrible cars and their distinct advantages are outweighed by their distinct disadvantages. The idea that SUVs are safer is outweighed by the shear evidence of data suggesting that they are more[I/] likely to be involved in a fatal accident in which the driver[I/] or passengers are injured, not to mention the likelihood of fatalities in the other car.
The whole Tahoe platform (including the H2) is a design disaster.
And lastly, doesn't the above advantages seem counter to a Luxury SUV? I think that the whole Luxury SUV catagory is an excess, the Lexus RX seems like a bloated tick compared to the rest of the line.
