A 71 Landcruiser in ANY condition makes you the owner of a museum piece in my book. And you don’t live & drive within the confines of the city so you can probably dodge the yuppie bullet.
The only people who need a Hummer are those who need a place to mount their .50-cal. The damn things are too expensive to be used ‘properly’ and are therefore the property of yuppies and soldiers. I’ve never seen a civilian version outside the city and then only after the plows have come through.
Aside from the “I like it. Fie on the ecologists.” response, the only other justification I can see for owning a steel elephant is, “I need it and no other car can do this.” This second argument is often usurped by yuppies who only get off road when they pull 'em up onto the lawn at bath time.
It’s hard to not paint all SUV owners with the same brush, but my GAWD look at how many people are commuting in them!
Not that you have to qualify your ownership to me, but what I’m asking is do you actually have a use for the off-road capabilities of the vehicle, other than demonstrating that it has off-road capability?
I drive to work in mine. I also have many other uses for it. It is far and away the most practical vehicle for me. My wife drives one as well.
For us, it’s a choice between SUV’s and full size 4x4 trucks. The SUV works much better as an all around vehicle. And if I need a truck, I have my old plow truck. Although I have to take the chains of the tires before I hit pavement. Or, if I have to haul something big, I have a two axle trailer that I can hook up to my SUV.
Back in high-school, I helped a friend drop a 327 into a '72(?) FJ40. The things we do for fun. I guess we’ll be defending fun next.
It doesn’t necessarily have to mean you’re a trend following yuppie. What happened to personal likes and dislikes? Just becuase someone has an eye that others happen to too, that makes you a trend following yuppie?
You are forgetting that while the navigator may have better emissions on it’s own, it won’t just reveal itself from the mud, bright and shiny.
It has to be built, and unlike his current land cruiser, the Lincoln would contain much, much more by way of electronics, plastics, and other unfriendly stuff.
Also factor in the emissions produced in the manufacture of the thing. While the emissions produced by the vehicle would be less, the emissions saved by Lincoln not producing the thing (and, the damage done by "disposing"of the old car) would be rather great.
That kind of argument is more akin to one of “Hey, throw out that polluting styrafoam Big Mac wrapper, and use one of these new biodegradable ones instead!”
We’re way out of GQ territory, but you’ve displayed some ignorance that needs fighting.
I fail to see the impact of you thinking someone is a trend-following yuppie. I don’t drive an SUV, but if I did and I never took it off road, I imagine I would somehow be able to sleep at night despite the fact that you would think I’m a trend-following yuppie.
You’ve set up a false dichotomy. In your world, either one takes their SUV off road on a regular basis or they bought it simply because of the “status” of driving an SUV. However, as has been pointed out by others, there are any number of other reasons one can drive an SUV besides the need to drive off road. Also, some people simply like SUVs and don’t give a flip what other people think about them.
As I’ve already pointed out, I think it’s dumb when peple want others to justify their need for a particular item. If someone purchases an SUV (or a boat, airplane, Rolex, etc.), then why should I care about whether that person actually needs that item? Also, “need” is such a fuzzy concept that under different definitions of that term I both “need” a computer at work and don’t “need” any clothes whatsoever.
I’m delighted to tell you that you won’t have to check again, because things haven’t changed much since the “last time you checked.” Of course minivans are an option. I’m just saying that SUVs are appealing to some people with children (aaaand, for the benefit of thoroughness, I’ll say that minivans are, too) because sedans and sportscars do not allow for the safe transportation of more than two children. Parents who choose SUVs over minivans may not have made the best choice for the environment or whatever else, but they might not have been MERELY trend-following flibertigibbets with unrealistic expectations about their future offroading opportunities.
To be fair, there are some SUVs today that get mileage comparable to that of a minivan. They may not have the horsepower or off-roading capabilities of a “true” SUV, but if you want an SUV and most of your driving is regular urban/commuting stuff, they’re worth considering.
I agree. I have 3 vehicles, all 4 wheel drive. An 87 suburban, a 91 Ranger, and a 66 Bronco (was running, now it’s not, so I guess it’s a project car). By far the one I use the most is the Ranger (291,000 miles so far), because it gets 22 mpg, but every one of them has been used in 4wd extensively. Pretty paint won’t be found on any of them, but you’ll find more than a few dings and dents.
When I see the shiny $50,000 Hummer next to me at a light, I think ‘Sure, your truck **can go ** more places than mine, but mine **has been ** more place than you’ll ever go’.
In most cases, you can determine what category an SUV is in based on the tires. Few people put up with full mud tires if they don’t need them.
As for old SUV’s (Landcruisers, Scouts, jeeps, etc.): Since when is dealing with old ignitions, carburators, manual chokes, etc. trendy? Admit it, you have baling wire and a pair of vice grips in the glove box and know how to use them, don’t you?
On the other hand, I’ve taken my Cherokee offroad with my stock Goodyear Wranglers. Since I liked to go out after (or during) rains, the mud was a little snotty and I slipped a little. (Which is an interesting feeling when you’re on a goat path with a long drop next to you, BTW.) But they worked well enough.
Just a note on FJ40 Landcruisers: Before I bought my Willys CJ2A I was looking at them. I like them a lot, but at the time I really wanted another flatfender Jeep. I saw restored examples goig for over $13,000 and so-so examples for $3,000. Depending on where you live, an FJ40 might be worth a bit even in rough condition. They are certainly in or near the “collectable” category. I don’t know how the market is in rural Idaho, but they’re very desireable in Southern California. Might be worth fixing it up.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that, merely to offer a rejoinder for someone giving that particular reason. I’m just saying that if hauling 3+ children is your only reason for getting an SUV, you would be better served by getting a minivan, and keeping those children safer to boot.
But let’s be fair - they certainly could be flibbertigibbets. Never rule out the possibility of flibbertigibbetiousness (flibbertigibbetosity, perhaps?).
Not all the time. My brother and his wife have 3 kids. For years they drove a mini-van, until baby #3 came along. With three kids, three car seats, and all the extra gear the kids require, they had to get a Suburban. My SIL is very safety conscious, and she feels the Suburban is a lot safer that the mini-van. I agree, the Suburban is bigger, and higher. The modern mini-vans seem like taller station wagons to me, but my 91 Safari AWD (dog hauler) is larger, and higher.
I almost mentioned this as well. SUV’s are great for ‘hauling’ around dogs. My wife almost bought the 'O2 Liberty, but the rear seat did not fold compleatly flat. So the area behind the driver was more like a ramp. Wouldn’t have worked for our dog (rest her soul), so we went with a Grand Cherokee. Great decision, about the same mileage, more power, more room. Real nice vehicle.
Had to get Suburban? Or wanted one?
I was born in 1980, my sisters in '84, '85, '88 and for years all we had was a minivan. It carried the 6 of us and our dog around comfortably, plus had room for the occaisonal relative or extra neighborhood kids. I think many people see SUVs as a status symbol and tell themselves they must have one, even though a van would work just as well and be easier on the environment. Granted this is not always the case. I know there is no such thing as always and that some people use them for actual work, hauling, etc…
Yup. Higher. And far more prone to rolling over, even in a relatively low-speed maneuver. The occupant death rates of SUVs are worse than the death rates for any other type of vehicle. True, in a car-to-car crash, the bigger, heavier SUV fares better than a smaller, lighter car. But there are also an awful lot of single-vehicle accidents, and that’s where the SUVs do very poorly. Also, if you run a big SUV into, say, a bridge abutment, you’re likely to be more seriously injured, because most big SUVs are built on truck chassis, and they’re less likely to be engineered to have energy-absorbing crumple zones.
The SUV manufacturers have been making improvements, but when it comes to the rollover problem, there’s only so far they can go in defying the laws of physics. A high center of gravity produces a vehicle that’s more likely to roll over. Period.
The bottom line is that, when you account for all types of accidents, you’re more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a big SUV than you are in a regular sedan, a minivan, or even a small, car-based SUV (like a Subaru Forester).
Yep, and it sucks. What they are doing is taking the U out of SUV. Lowering the center of gravity compromises the ground clearance. Putting them on uni-body’s instead of truck frames limits their towing ability and overall toughness. I don’t consider any of these things to be improvements.
There are people that drive SUV’s that don’t need them. There, I said it. However, I think that they get more use out of them than many people perceive. Doesn’t really bother me.
[rant on]
What does bother me is the people that want to protect ourselves, from ourselves. Yep, I know an SUV is more prone to roll over. I also know it’s safer in many car to car crashes. For some, it’s a trade off. For others, like myself, I really don’t care. It really doesn’t matter how safe a car like a Volvo is if it can’t get me back and forth to work. I don’t buy a car to admire how good it looks when it’s stuck in my driveway.
[/rant off]
enipla - on my way to pick up 20’ sections of copper and PVC. For my home, not my business, in my mid-sized SUV.
If you truly need it for the “utility” part, no problem. You sure as hell can’t put 20’ sections of copper and PVC in a Civic (well, you could, but the local constabulary might stop you for a little conversation!). But folks who buy them solely because they think their families will be safer in them need to look at the numbers a little more closely.
Just to clarify, the pipe will be strapped to a 12’ 2x6 that is bolted to the roof rack. 20’ is a bit long to do anything else with.
As far as safety goes, I don’t know. My car is a 93 Pathfinder and doesn’t have all the bells and whistles. I have been driving for 27 years and have never been involved in any kind of accident. Period.
So. I believe I’m not likely to screw up and have a single car accident. It is more likely that another car may cause me to have and accident, or just plain hit me. In that senario, even when I take into account that I could roll, I’ll put my money on the bigger vehicle every time.
As a side note, 70% or people killed in roll over accidents weren’t wearing their seat belts. I always do.
The actual rollover rate for Suburbans (the vehicle mentioned in the prior post) is not high. Though they are much taller than a car they are also wide, and the center of gravity is lower than you might think because of the frame construction.
The overall occupant death rate for a Suburban is lower than for small, medium, or large cars. (http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/deathrate/index.htm and http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov)
Checking the stats you’ll find the Suburban is among the lowest in occupant injury per mile. While it is true that you are more likely to be hurt in a single car accident (hitting the bridge abutment or running off the road) in the truckoid than many cars, it seems the typical Suburban owner is less likely to be involved in such an accident. And in the accidents they are more likely to be involved in, they do much better.
This does not hold true for the “sportier” SUVs like the Forester. (In my view, it’s probably not correct to call a Suburban an SUV at all. You are dreaming if you think there is any “S” involved… It’s just a UV.)
As to the crumple zone… after I was rear-ended by a Porsche, son Phage observed that the Suburban did have an excellent crumple zone after all… It was just all in the Porsche.
And mass works. The collision that triggered the Porsche airbag didn’t slosh coffee from my cupholder.
