Oh, and my hammer and nail analogy really doesn’t work does it? The resistance of the wood should cause both to go through the same acceleration I think. A more obvious comparison would be a Civic and a Semi.
45 mpg for a Sentra? What model is that?
The best mileage rating I find for a 2003 Sentra (any model) is 36 mpg (the typically exaggerated EPA rating), and other models are in the upper 20s-low 30s. Still pretty good, but close to overlap with the smaller/car-based SUVs.
Maybe you purchased a Sentra with the Fred Flintstone supplemental foot-power option. 
.
I am not against safety, but, many of the modifications people would like to make will reduce the capability of SUV’s. At least for me.
Lower bumpers and center of gravity will likely reduce ground clearance.
I think that crumple zones may require a uni-body. Whereas a ladder type frame seems to be best for towing, and overall strength.
I have a '94 Nissan Sentra XE(or maybe SE, I get confused), 2 door, limited edition, with a 5-speed manual transmission. I use regular gas (87 octaine or whatever the lowest is these days). I almost exclusively use my car to drive back and forth to work or to kung fu class, both of which are almost entirely on the highway (25 of 27 miles to work are highway, 48 of 50 are highway to school). Because my car has a problem with overheating, and I happen to be a ‘hot weather’ person (I don’t easily get hot) I almost never use the air conditioning. Provided I do not get caught in traffic, I get between 40 and 45 MPG out of my car. My average 10 gallon tank of gas gets me 417 miles, sometimes as high as 460. I take good care of the car, I have messed with the fuel injection system a little, keep all my filters clean, and keep my tire pressure at 32 (or thereabouts). I also try and keep my speed below 75 (which is fairly slow in my area of the country).
I think I missaid that all SUVs should be made this way. My intention was to convey a scenario where the greatest percentage of them were made this way. I think it’s fairly obvious that some people NEED a suburban or somethin similar. I just think that the percentage of Suburban-type SUVs compaired to safer and more effecient should more accurately match the need. If an SUV is going to be used as a commuter vehicle, like the majority of them are today, then the majority of them manufactured should meet the requirements of other commuter vehicles.
From StickMonkey-
Gotcha, missed this the first time.
One of the reasons we bought a Grand Jeep is the ground clearance, the solid axles and ladder frame. And it’s the right size, we really don’t need a Suburban. Hope we will continue to have these choices in the future.
ARE YOU SPYING ON ME AGAIN???ARE YOU???HOW DID YOU KNOW???!!!???
Hey Lynn Bodoni, are you ever going to come back here and explain what you meant by your statement that SUVs are “taxed differently” than cars?
Thanks.
Hey TaxGuy,
In Colorado, vehicles are taxed based on value. Your first set of plates can be a real stunner. I think we paid around $600 on my wifes Grand Jeep.
My '93 Pathfinder is down around $70 dollars or so.
My '76 truck is actually starting go go up a little $50… Change in the tax code I guess.
Seems to me that an easier and fairer way would be to base it on weight. But I guess, just like houses are taxed on value, they figure if you can afford it, you can pay the taxes.
I think this system keeps older, less efficient cars on the road, and is probably harder to administrate than a flat ‘tax on the weight’. Each year, the amount changes.
IMHO,
the problem seems to me not one of good versus bad drivers, or of social irresponsibility as far as the environment goes, but rather the blatant greed of the auto industry.
The light truck exemption from the car emissions and safety standards existed for a reason- so that small businesses and farmers could purchase reasonably priced work vehicles.
With the yearly fuel consumption decreases required for cars, the auto industry was facing tough times, therefore they exploited the loophole to make passenger vehicles- used for all intents and purposes as cars- into light trucks. Even the PT cruiser was classified as such by the expedient of ensuring a flat load bed could be created by folding the seats down.
Now the auto makers have created a new class of vehicle, exempt from the economy and safety standards of traditional cars, and set about creating a market. This they did extremely well, playing on the fears in the marketplace- oh, my family must be safer than everyone else-, and so forth.
But they ignored the statistics which showed how unsafe these new behemoths really were. I don’t care so much about rollovers- if you choose to drive these thing, the least you should do is study those stats first. The real problem is the crash compatibility of SUVs with other vehicles. Fine, so they’ve started to address this issue now with ‘blocker beams’ and other chassis lowering mods, but isn’t it too little too late?
OK, you may not have a social conscience about the environment or other drivers, but if you really want your family in an SUV consider the following:
SUVs (full size) are ‘full frame’ vehicles, ie body dropped on chassis rails. This pretty much eliminates the possibility of crumpe zones, so that in an impact the forces are transmitted undampened to the occupants. Don’t get me started on the inadequacies of brakes, tyres and suspension components.
Rollover accidents are much more likely due to the higher centre of gravity. You don’t have to be Mario Andretti to do this- a sudden 65mph lane change, or a flat tyre may be enough. Or consider the fact that most US highway Armco is too low to effectively stop an SUV and will more likely trip it. Of course, the risk of a blowout is greatly increased as the specific tyre pressure is usually derated to allow greater passenger comfort (they need some hysteresis to soak up the jarring from commercial type suspension).
The headlight problem is purely based on aesthetics- how less aggressive would an SUV look with low mounted headlights? Therefore they end up mounted high and pissing everyone else off.
Finally, what is the endgame for the SUV? Everyone buys one? Then as far as safety goes, we’re all back at square one. Really? No, were all in more peril than before.
For me, I’ll stick with my Celica. It’s relatively fuel efficient, is fun to drive, and has one of the lowest death rates- 14 per million rollover/73 per million all crashes registered in the US (far lower than the explorer at 150/273 per million).
Cite- High and Mighty, Bradsher
and personal experience, 8 weeks with a V8 explorer, 3 with a V10 excursion. Mucho fun with an Alltrac (4wd Celica)
No, I’m making the conclusion that folks who choose SUV’s because of vanity are being jerkish.
**
You’re ignoring one important factor: the danger & inconvenience to others. Making a choice due to vanity that imposes danger and inconvenience upon others is jerkish.
**
If he spent his kids’ child-support money, then he’s being a jerk.
**
Yes, because he is imposing danger and inconvenience upon others to satisfy his sense of coolness.
Again, the critical factor you continue to ignore is the extent to which the choice imposes inconveniences and/or dangers upon others.
milroyj and Canvas Shoes, you both are correct, and I apologize for unfairly labeling the SUV drivers as the assholes; asshole drivers come in every shape and make of car. As I found out this morning when I almost got t-boned by a moron in a Toyota. Car, not SUV. 
Anyway, back to the rest of your all’s regularly scheduled argument…sorry to interrupt.
There is one possible method, using existing technology, to increase the mileage of SUVs and light trucks: the new gasoline/electric hybrid engines. Think about it–rather than using the hybrids to increase the mileage of econoboxes, think how much gasoline could be saved by vastly increasing the mileage of much larger vehicles!
Of course there would be a weight penalty, though, which will undoubtedly affect hauling capacity and handling…
I will thanks. I’m curious though, I’m 44 and I remember all of the big ole Econolines and pickups back when I was a teen. And does anyone remember the Internationals and HUUUUGE older Chevy Suburbans?
And again, I personally think SUVs are a nuisance, but I don’t see them as the be all and end all of evil and selfishness as some people do.
So, what’s the difference between modern SUVs and their then, unlabeled ancesters like the Bronco, Blazer, etc?
IMHO, it’s that some people just want to force their opinions of what THEY believe is the “right and proper” type of vehicle to own upon everyone.
::Shrugs::
Who knows???
Like I said, I don’t have a “dog in this fight” I just don’t GET all the insistance that these vehicles are, rather than just an ugly nuisance with a seemingly larger than their fair share of rude drivers/owners, the very epitome of danger on the highways.
Just curious.
Since I tweaked a nerve about a page ago, I should note that giant SUVs are not the only vehicles that make lousy lane changes. But, I’ve noticed that many SUV drivers are not used to accounting for the humonguous ass end of the vehicle, or just think “out the way, shrimp!”. Throw in a heated argument on the cell phone, bad mirror discipline, and you have the hell that is driving even short distances during Survival… I mean Rush Hour.
The worst drivers, as a category, overgeneralizing, are young people: news flash! Followed closely by the very old.
Until you’ve seen enough carnage, or been hurt yourself, it’s hard to understand driving the way it really is. I’ve always been a hyper-attentive driver. It just goes with my personality. That’s probably the only way I survived my judgment between 16-22. The advantages of youth (senses) overcame the disadvantage (perceived invincibility) in my case.
Car type is the last thing I would look at. Find the guy with a Lingenfelter Corvette with 600 HP, you just found a guy who drives like a church lady 99%+ of the time, I’ll wager. Based on my experience, the really insanely fast cars are not driven that way on the street because they are HUGE investments.
Of course, the exceptions get LOTS of ink when they crash spectacularly.
From CanvasShoes
Don’t forget the station wagons, and just plain bigger cars. My folks always had a big ole Chysler wagon. Used it mostly as a people mover, and stuff mover. This is what the SUV and mini van replaced. Sheese, the, '72 Chrysler we had was not only bigger than my Pathfinder, it probably weighed more as well. And it got a LOT worse gas mileage.
I agree. I don’t know anyone that owns an SUV that dosn’t have some good reason for buying it. I have many reasons. Nothing else would really work for me.
That’s it for me for today, I’m off to install the windows in my addition.
Bolding mine.
EXACTLY. Once again, DRIVERS not knowing how to drive that type of vehicle. Not necessarily the type of vehicle.
And please, I’m not defending the SUV. I’m just wondering why the hatred. Aren’t full-sized pickups and luxury sedans (and if you’re talking luxury sedans then I DO have a “dog in the fight”) just as dangerous? Just as much gas guzzlers?
If a car needs extra stopping distance because of it’s size/type, then that’s the DRIVER’S responsibility to learn and become skilled at. (imho). It seems like I keep seeing the same argument in this thread.
And that is “well they’re (the SUVs) more dangerous, and here are the cites”. And sure enough the cites state that the stopping distances and size contribute to more injuries with small cars unlucky enough to be caught in that situation.
Well HECK. Once again. Big trucks have longer stopping distances too. So do the luxury sedans. But we aren’t seeing the venomous remarks directed toward these other vehicles.
I also haven’t seen many comments about what happens when it’s the small car’s fault (it’s not always the SUV driver who is at fault is it?).
So, say the SUV is driving along minding his own business and some dinky little Honda rear ends him because he’s yakking on his cell phone or whatever. It seems as if the attitude is no matter WHOSE fault the accident was, the SUV driver is the selfish jerkish one because his car was more solid, less prone to be smashed to bits and in being so, caused more damage to the smaller car.
Because of the bumper height, in part (if I remember right), the Honda driver is more likely to face severe injury. Okay, like I had mentioned before. If the dinky little Honda rear ended a telephone pole, or another Honda at a high rate of speed, pretty near the same thing. So again, why the hatred of SUVs?
Small cars ARE going to be more susceptable to more catastrophic damage to both vehicle and occupant than a larger vehicle is, no matter what they hit.
Yup, that’s what I think too. I also think that the fact that SUVs are suddenly such hated vehicles, (remember they’ve been around a LONG time, just weren’t called that), and are involved in really awful accidents (whether or not their drivers were actually at fault of if it was the other guy) that it’s made out in the papers etc to be really horrific and spectacular as well.
quote:
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
You’re making the assumption that folks who choose SUVs do to vanity means that they are being “jerkish”.
quote:
At any rate, to say that because someone has chosen a vehicle strictly due to the fact that they enjoy what owning that vehicle does for them regarding making them feel good about where they are in life, or just that they plain old (for some inexplicably imbued with bad taste reason ), LIKE the looks of the hideous things, is to say that anyone, choosing ANYTHING for his/her pleasure or what it does for them, is being “jerkish”.
So, what you’re saying is that, despite the “fact” that SUVs are more dangerous objects for a small car to hit, if a person chooses one because of what you deem “acceptable” reasons (not “just” for vanity), then they’re not being jerkish, but if they just like them, and simply enjoy the “coolness” factor, then they are?
First, merely driving and owning an SUV doesn’t cause danger and inconvenience to others.
In accidents where it’s the SUV driver’s fault, his/her inexperience/lack of skill caused the danger to others NOT his car.
In accidents where it’s NOT the SUV driver’s fault, but the other car’s you’re assuming that it was the SUV’s “danger features (like the higher bumper etc)” that created danger to the other driver, rather than the small car’s driver’s lack of experience, stupidity, etc.
In other words: more damaging car with which to collide does NOT = causes danger to others.
And as far as the inconvenience, again, in cases where it’s a driver pulling out too far when turning left, or not placing his car appropriately between parking lot lines, it’s the driver who is causing inconvenience, not the type of vehicle.
The little tiny fancied up “bitch car” that’s parked diagonally across 3 spaces so his door doesn’t get dinged is creating JUST as much inconvenience as the SUV driver did by not parking carefully between the lines so as to leave enough space on both sides.
Again, in these cases it is the driver.
Not exactly. If one drives an SUV to satisfy one’s vanity, one is being a jerk. If one drives an SUV for other reasons, one might or might not be a jerk. It depends upon the reasons.
**
Bzzzzt. For one thing, no matter how good a driver you are, if you drive an SUV, you will block other peoples’ views. And your lights will have a tendency to blind car drivers.
I suppose there’s no added danger if you KNOW you are a super-duper driver who will never ever run into another car. But the reality is that just about everyone on the road makes mistakes now and then. People who believe that they will never make mistakes are usually fooling themselves.
**
Don’t be ridiculous - SUV’s cause increased damage and injuries to other cars and their occupants in crashes. Thus, the resulting harm is a result of poor skills AND a dangerous car.
**
Like I said, no matter how great a driver you are, your SUV will still block my view.
Let me give you a reductio ad absurdum. Let’s suppose I equip my car with an automated nerve gas dispenser that goes into effect whenever the car collides with another object. I drive with a gas mask on, but I’ve set things up so that if I get in a crash, it’s certain death for the occupants of the other car.
By your logic, I’m not being a jerk since the cause of any resulting deaths is DRIVER error.
I have seen the following on several occasions:
Large sloped-nosed American sedan (typically a Buick LeSabre or Park Avenue, or a Bonneville )hits “safer in an accident” SUV.
The SUV winds up lying on its side or its top and too badly damaged to drive away once it’s been set upright.
If there are any injuries, they occur to the occupants of the SUV, not the car’s occupants.
The car might be missing a bumper cover and/or a light or two, but it leaves the accident scene under its own power.
You want to protect your wife? Give her the ultimate SUV killler–a big slope-nosed American sedan.
CanvasShoes, There is a reason you hear so much more about SUVs today than you did about similar/identical vehicles 25 years ago. Back then SUVs (and their bretheren) were uncommon vehicles, most families and well to do people had station wagons or large sedans. Today, SUVs are enormously popular, they (light trucks) account for about 50% of new car sales and, according to Some_User_Name’s link, (page 3) are about 40% of all registered passenger vehicles, double the percentage in 1980.
What people considered a minor annoyance then, they consider a major annoyance now.