SUV haters

The BBQ Pit
61

I thijnk I will join the fellow bicylists on this thread and condemn all of you.

I think this little USENET post sums up how be bicylists think about all of this Car/SUV thing.

However, one thing I did find amusing.

Back in to 90’s (97? 96?) we had a reeeallly big snowstorm in Philadelphia. I was living in the Fairmount section of Philly, and we go some 26+ inches of snow. Joy. The streets were impassible, etc. etc. You know the drill if you’ve ever lived through a blizzard.

Anyway, I was helping my roommate dig out his car from the massive amount of snow. He couldn’t go anywhere. minbd you, the street hadn’t been plowed. The Streets department had managed to plow the streets as far North as Spring Garden street, but no furhter, S.G street itself was plowed as well. There was still a good amount of slush on those streets, but nothing compared to the amount where my rommie’s car was.

Anyway, while we were digging we heard the soudn of a car with heavy-duty mega-wheel drive coming up Spring Garden. Seems some fellow had decided to tool around on his hyped up SUV. I didn’t think much about it, after all there were folks goign around on snowmobiles and in a city like philadelphia you must only get a chance to use those once a decade at most. Let people plat with their toys.

Well, the SUV in question stops at teh light and see the fresh, undriven snow on the street where my roomie’s car was. Unable to resist, the SUV driver makes the turn without a hitch and proceeds to head up 20th street in what will be a true demonstration of his car’s mighty muscle.

So he reaches the end of the slush, reach the snow line and…

stops dead.

We then (while shoveling) hear the following.

<VRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!>
<pause>
<VRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!>
<pause>
<VRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!>
<beat>
<Vrroom.>
<long pause>
<VRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!>
<beat>
<Vroom.>

At this point, some casually lounging strong young men who had been at the corner offer to help turn the car around and get it back on its way…back up the slushy street. For a fee I would guess. :smiley:

This alone was not noteworhty, but as we proceeded to uncover the car this process was repeated about five times. Eachtime an SUV would see the tempting snow and drive right into it, only to realise that General Motors marketing showing their brand of uber-SUV plowing through snowdrifts like they were made opf shaving cream was a tad…misleading. It seemed like every brand of SUV got stuck that day, although 1 taxi managed to get through (how!?) as well as a Humvee.

Each time they were helped out by the young men. I went down later and asked them if they had done something to cause the SUV’s to get stuck. Nope, they said, the snow was just the way it was. Mind you, all those spinning wheels didn’t make antying easier on the next one that came along, but that wasn’t anything they did.

I laughed. Grabbed my shovel and headed back in. As I rounded the corner for my apartment I once again heard a faded…

<VRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMM!>

62

That’s a little naive, to be honest.

First off all, the economic life span of a car is linked to its value. People will sooner replace a $10,000 Hyundai than a $200,000 Bentley. Therefore, economy cars changes hands often, and end up at the bottom of the market, having had 6 drivers in 8 years, missing 4 oil changes. They’re bound to be written off sooner, because their lower price makes them more of a convenience product than an expensive car will ever be. However, a lot of car parts are recycled these days (they are over here, I’m sure there are similar initiatives in America). Parts are stored for further use (mirrors, bumpers, entire doors, seats, what have you), or materials are recycled and reproduced. The times of 6,000 10 year old cars rotting away at a junk yard are long gone: your argument about a shorter life for lower-end cars doesn’t hold that much value, at least not from an environmental perspective.

Secondly, I can point out many cars that hold their value well, and are extremely unreliable, burn fuel like 10 SUV’s, and leak oil like a sonovabitch. They’re not even necessarily old: try a 10 year old Ferrari, or -more affordable- a 4 year old Maserati. Some cars do maintain their vaue because they’re so damn sturdy: that’s why a 10 year old Mercedes still isn’t cheap.

Thirdly, the mosr important factor determining resale value is demand. If the consumer wants SUV’s, SUV’s will sell at a premium, whether they’re reliable or not. And since the second (or third, maybe?) wave of buyers is starting to be able to afford a second hand SUV (because a new one would be out of their league), there is a demand for such cars. Hence the resale values. Good to know for people who own SUV’s, 'cause it might offset some of the extremely high maintenance and insurance costs. :wink:

I’ll believe you about the reliability of SUV’s when your wife’s Durango is still running trouble free in 2010, with 150k miles on the clock. But somehow, I doubt it’ll be as cheap to run then.

63

I’d like a side of fries with that, thanks.

64

Am I the only one who thinks Hamlet is a self-righteous little fucker for this comment?

65

One of the differences between minivans and SUVs is that very, very few people buy minivans to be “cool”. I can safely assume that everyone driving a minivan is doing so out of a need, rather than out of vanity. That makes me more tolerant of the inconvenience.

I’m certainly not one of the rabid anti-SUV crowd, but I don’t particulary enjoy driving around them. I also do not feel the need to defend SUV drivers who buy them for status symbol reasons, and face it, a lot of SUVs out there are nothing more than status symbols.

66

No, I second that emotion. Hamlet’s little throwaway line went unnoticed because there is good discussion going on around it.
His type of bullshit stereotyping is the very thing I railed against in my previous post.
Yes, we all laugh at people who overestimate the abilities of their vehicle. It’s always funny to watch as long as no one gets hurt, and it doesn’t matter the type of vehicle. Someone trying to beat me to the next red light in a Civic is just as dumb as the idiot in the Expedition who drives 10 mph over a grooved surface.
Yet and still, not everyone fits into a neat little category. I had an accident in my Malibu - I drove under a Jeep Grand Cherokee at about 15mph. Tore up my front passenger quarter panel. Maybe scratched his undercarriage. Accident was completely my fault. Now I drive a truck, after seeing what one can do to the average car. I bring that experience every time I turn the key to start my truck, and that makes me a safer driver.
But to some such as Hamlet, I’m a selfish prick.

Anybody seen my pot and kettle? They were both black…

67

Coldfire:

Forgive me, I’m going to go for a couple of low blows here:

It’s all very well and good for you to sit there in Europe driving your little Peugot, and talking about how wonderful things are with the auto industry, but I seem to notice in the news that your whole damn continent is covered in floods and mud!!!

Bet you had an SUV now, you sucker!

How reliable and durable do you think that little Honda Civic is while it’s floating around in a lake?

Why don’t you take your finger out of the dike Dutchboy and wake up to reality?
::Ahem::

You see? Being an inconsiderate, judgemental lout carries its privileges.
Anyway, I agree that the resale value alone is not the most effective measure of a cars durability as it’s diluted by demand.

However (again I’m being purely scientific here,) the fact is that in my Auto Locator (which is the premeiere publication for used cars in Central, PA) there are very few older economy cars listed at any price, while there are lots and lots of SUVs.

From this we could conclude that perhaps either people don’t choose to list these cars in the Auto-Locator, or else they simply aren’t around.

I think the latter explanation is the better one, because the evidence of my eyes indicates that there aren’t a whole lot of old economy cars floating around, but there’s lots of old SUVS.

Also, I rebuilt an old pickup truck back in '97 and an old Buick back in high school. I also know how to use a socket set. This qualifies me as an expert mechanic in my own mind.

Some of the old cars that you mentioned like the Accord actually had v6s in them which would tend to make them better IMO. Plus, Honda makes a nice V6.

From a mechanical standpoint though, there really is no getting around the premise that there’s no replacement for displacement.

A four banger engine is smaller with proportionally larger cylinders and thinner walls between them. Revving at higher rates produces more torque and wear and this is reflected in the materials over their usable lifespan. The materials themselves tend to be lighter and not as strong. They run at higher compressions. Good engineering can ameliorate some of these disadvantages, but they are still inherent in the product.

A four banger engine is simply not as strong, structurally as a large block engine. Yet that smaller engine runs at higher stresses.

Engines like the Chevy 350 are so massively useful because they are big and strong, and because they produce more torque at lower rpms, and run cooler and have less stress on the materials.

They are not as efficient as a 4 cylinder, but they will last a lot longer.

I’ve replaced the head gasket on both a Chevy 350 v8 and a geo metro. You need only open the hood and put your hands on the engines, hardly work on them to see the difference in quality.

4 bangers are lawn mowers. They are not built for long term service, and reliability. They are built to be cheap, and they are.

The same goes in the materials used in the rest of the car.

Take a 1983 Ford Bronco, and you have great big chunks of solid sheet metal and a massive frame on that bad boy. Your Geo Metro is tinfoil. You can punch through it with a screwdriver. They rot out quickly, and once they start to rust it’s downhill fast. A bigger heavier car has that much more sheet metal which can be sanded and refinished. Rust does not immediately destroy its integrity.

You bring up a good example with the Mercedes. Though I had one, and mine really sucked (I think it was a lemon, or had been wrecked before I got it,) the engineering techniques used produce a superior product in terms of serviceability. The Benzes have thicker sheet metal and they put a lot of care into the finish to preserve the cars body. Even the four bangers they put in the small Mercedes’ tend to be larger and produce less horsepower than a riceburner’s (although I reserve judgement on their current supercharged four banger.)

By definition the materials used in economy cars are cheaper and of lesser quality than in their more expensive brethren.

I mean Jesus, man, look at a KIA! They make Yugos look like a Bentley.

68

Total hijack: did you hear Yugo was coming back to the US.

Unfortunately there’s no punchline. They’ll be called ZMWs and will arrive in around 18 months.

Sorry, this is not a joke.

69

Hehe, one of my favorite pastimes in the mountains is watching some moron trying to show off in their brand new suburban or club-cab pickup on a two track. That huge wheel base may look tough on a comercial, but when they drop a muffler or bend the driveshaft getting high-centered on a ridge, or bury the grill in the side of the gully, I think get an epiphany as to why they are called Jeep trails. When off-roading a long wheel base is bad, but it’s amazing how many people don’t ever think about it.

70

…Isn’t she awake yet?

You could be sitting there, with the Dr. Seuss out, that little girl on your lap looking up at you with wonder in her eyes, thinking her Daddy is just the greatest thing in the world, but instead you’re parading your stupidity like a prancing asshole in front of thousands of people on the internet who are all really embarrassed for you.

71

I’m not very fond of SUV’s, I’ll admit. I thought about why this was when I read the OP, and you know what? It has little to do with the drivers or the vehicles themselves – it’s those obnoxious COMMERCIALS.

I hate SUV commercials. They often depict something like a goat path which the SUV is merrily driving along, uprooting the soil and disturbing the peace, the drivers either oblivious of what a garish sight they would be in such an isolated place, or else pleased about it. If they aren’t driving, they’re parked somewhere on a spire of the Grand Canyon or in the middle of a stream – yeah, the wilderness is just a giant parking lot for ugly trucks and SUV’s. If not that, then they seem to be feeding of the egos of those who would buy one so they can crush their ‘opponents’ – i.e., other people who are trying to drive the same roads.

It’s true that commercials can make a strong impact on how you perceive a product. Objectively, I’m not too concerned with SUV’s, but I usually have a gut distaste for them when I see 'em because of the advertising that I associate with 'em. Plus, they’re ugly – like most new cars, but at least I don’t picture ugly little compacts driving up my hiking paths.

72

Apples and oranges, Scylla. Of course the metal on a Bronco is thicker than that on a Geo Metro.

But I’ll tell you one thing: the average American car tends to rust a lot more than their German or French counterparts of similar size. Remember, cars are more expensive in Europe. That’s not just taxation: it’s quality of materials as well. I’m often apalled at the cheap plastics American manufacturers toss in for dashboards, for example. Take the Mercedes M-Class, which is built in America, with the American market in mind. It’s been raked over the coals by the European car press because of its poor build quality. It’s just not as solid as the European Benzes. And for that money it can’t be, because it has to compete with a Grand Cherokee.

American engines are simple, and hard to break. There’s no argument here. But you’ll notice that I never mentioned the engines as an argument before: I said the extra weight of an SUV makes for higher maintenance costs because of more wear on brakes, transmission, et cetera. Plus, of course, the added fuel load. 'Cause that four-banger Civic with half the BHP and half the mass logically ought to get the same MPG. Instead, it gets twice that of your Durango. Why? Because an SUV has a big, oldfashioned, uneconomical engine - and the aerodynamics of a barn. Reliable, yes. Economical, no. And trust me, that 100 BHP Civic engine will run for 200K miles just fine.

Japanese cars used to have a rust problem in the early 80’s, but I’m not sure where it stands now. I believe Toyota has always been solid, and Honda must be up there in metal quality.

I’m with you on the KIA’s. They’re utter crap. But again, apples and oranges. I see that Durango goes for about 27K in the 4wd version. 13/17 MPG city/highway.

Let’s take an “regular” car for that same budget: ah, let’s take this here 2002 Subaru Outback. Spacious, 4WD, and 26K.

21/27 MPG City/Highway, and it’ll outlast your Durango by at least 5 years. Plus, it might even beat it in the mud: Subaru is well known for their excellent 4WD systems.

4,600 pounds and 235 BHP vs. 3,500 pounds and 160 BHP is a similar power to weight ratio. And the Subaru will probably handle a lot better in an evasive maneouver.

I dunno Scylla, I’m not gonna tell you what to drive. But the things you claim an SUV does, another car does just as well or better. And their longevity? I just don’t see it, man.

73

Wow, that’s just mean.

74

You chose to quote two lines out of a paragraph which was taken out of a fairly comprehensive post and an ongoing discussion. To me, Hamlet seems to be neither self-righteous (anymore than most of the people here who post their opinions––we all think our opinions are right, thus making them our opinions) nor a little fucker (as I have nothing to base that on [though I have a very cute, cartoon-like picture in my head right now]).

As far as the OP, I don’t know much about the stats and reports, etc. offered here. I only know that if one is going to get behind the wheel of such a behemoth of a vehicle, one should show some common sense and common courtesy in the act of driving, parking, and general maneuvering. Need I say that I am aware that this does not pertain to all SUV drivers? I also don’t like the fact that these vehicles do not come in the color see-through.

75

If the S.U.V. drivers among us meant to argue that they aren’t a bunch of selfish hypocrites, they aren’t doing so well.

Really unaddressed by the S.U.V proponents is what costs are imposed by driving an overweight, high-riding, and sight-line blocking car. While it’s understandable that people wish to protect themselves, to do so at the expense of the rest of society is a trespass on the common good – one reason why we have government.

Should we accept a car that imposes more injuries on the public than it prevents for its owner? As Finagle alludes to, this is a losing game theory – if everyone had an S.U.V. we would be much worse off overall. Another way of calling out individuals who attempt to benefit themselves at the greater expense of the societal good is “damn selfish,” and from the posts here, I’d say that arrow flies true.

That the S.U.V.'s have the additional UNsafety feature of tinted windows is just the capper to the metaphorical flipping the bird that is the Suburban Ussault Vehicle – no need to wonder at the public anger, Scylla, when the message is “I have money, so your safety be damned.”

76

That was rather over-the-top, Uke. Scylla was being facetious, in accordance with the opinion expressed of him by Hamlet.

And that’s coming from a person who, in general, detests SUV’s and thinks that 90% of the people who own them deserve to be spanked and sent to their rooms without dinner.

77

I took nothing out of context. He called SUV owners self absorbed pricks. Period. The context of the rest of the post does nothing to negate that.

His assuming that he is better than me and that I am a wasteful, self-absorbed prick makes him a self righteous little fucker.

78

I’ve got a 1986 Accord in the driveway at home that has 253,000 miles on it. I think its first engine - four cylinders, btw - is finally feeling its age. And I will admit that, after the 15-year mark, a lot of little bits and pieces of interior finally decided they’d seen enough sun through the windows, and started to decay. But at 200K miles, it drove pretty much the same as it did at 60K.

And in January of 2000, my wife and I decided to buy a new 2000 Accord, rather than buying a '97 or '98. You know why? Because the price differential was too small to make it worth our while to buy used.

Our 2000 Accord has 56K miles on it, and drives like new. Only thing that’s gone wrong so far is when the dashboard clock’s lightbulb burned out. So my experience so far is that the durability of the Accord is nothing to sneeze at.

79

Nah, he’s still being facetious. I think his controls are stuck.

80

Am I the only one who thinks the above post as wasteful, prickish, and self-absorbed?