The Volvo V70 XC AWD and the Audi Allroad Quattro, to name but two.
True. What it does mean is that SUV-drivers should be opposed to more people driving SUVs, as that negates the safety benefit their own SUV gives them. SUV vs SUV is worse than car vs car.
Umm, wrong.
The Volvo V70 (2.5L (5 cyl)Auto-S5 4WD model) gets 18 mpg city. Compare that to the a Jeep Liberty (2.4L (4 cyl) Man-5 4WD model) which gets 19 mpg and you realize that the volvo wagon is just an SUV without the ground clearance. Similar engine displacement and similar cargo capacity means similar gas milleage. All Audis are “quattros”, so for the sake of argument, I’ll assume you meant the A4 wagon (3L (6 cyl) Auto-S5) because it has similar cargo capacity and similar engine displacement. It also only gets 18 mpg city. Just be glad I didn’t pick the A6 Avant, which only gets 15!
Care to take another shot at it?
Really people, you need to look at the EPA’s site on gas milleage before you put forth the gas milleage argument. I posted it once, but I’ll post it again = http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/wgn-03.htm.
Large 4WD drive wagons do not get better gas milleage than similarly sized SUVs and minivans do not get better gas milleage than similarly sized 2 WD SUVs.
Actually, if you compare similar power engines (208 HP I5 and the 210 HP V6) the volvo does a couple MPG better than the Jeep (18 vs 16), and at least 3mpg better on the HWY, depending on configuration.
[/quote]
Similar engine displacement and similar cargo capacity means similar gas milleage.
[/quote]
Again, not quite. Look at the Soobie Legacy Wagon, similar displacement gets you 4mpg better than the liberty city, in H4 or H6 trim.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Claptree *
**The Volvo V70 XC AWD and the Audi Allroad Quattro, to name but two.
[/quote]
**
I doubt that either can haul as much, and they are also missing the low-range, ground clearance and towing ability. Depends on what you need. I really like both of those cars, neither would work for me.
This is kinda tough as a GD because we really don’t know what people use them for. So, it starts to get personal.
For myself, safety isn’t the issue. Utility is. I shouldn’t have gone off on the safety tangent since I don’t really care about it enough to do good research.
Many have posted about how bad SUV drivers are. I live in a county where about 75% of the vehicles are SUVs and trucks. The bad drivers I see are usually younger, and in smaller vehicles.
Must be a regional thing. It kind of stuns me. It really isn’t hard to drive an SUV. Yes, you need some familiarization with driving in snow and a larger vehicle, but jeeze, it’s not a big deal. Not at all.
Back to the question from jsgoddess (and me previously)
How often do you need to use them to qualify for need?
How do you figure? Let’s go to the EPA’s site one more time.
Subaru Legacy Wagon (2.5L (4 cyl) Man-5 4WD) vs. the Jeep Liberty 2.4L (4 cyl) Man-5 4WD). These setups are about as close as you can get between the two models. With these setups the Subaru gets 21 city and the Jeep gets 20. Twenty one minus twenty ain’t four.
Anyway, we can compare different models all day and go back and forth, but if milleages are within 1 or 2 mpg, they’re similar, which was my point to begin with.
Sorry Monkey, I was looking at a different site comparing 2002 models. Was compaing 2002 Legacy 4cyl auto to the 4cyl liberty man 2wd Was 22 vs 19. The 6cyl’s were still 4 apart.
Regardless…
The really interesting thing is that both the Soobie and the volvo had more cargo volume than the liberty. (37cu ft Volvo, 34 Legacy, 29 Liberty)
Standard towing was also equal to or higher in the wagons. (Lib 2000, Leg 2000, Volvo 3300), although the maximum towing was highest in the Jeep.
None of this compares to the biggest behomths, of course, but for a given towing/cargo need, wagons simply do it better. 
For a given towing/cargo need, two wagons do it better than one Jeep. The sample size in your experiment is too small to be admitted scientifically.
Having taken a step back now, I simply do not understand why people feel so strongly about SUVs. You will never, ever find anyone arguing about the concept of Minivans, or Sport Coupes, or Quad Cab Pickup Trucks, and saying that any OTHER class of automobile has no right to exist. I didn’t give a damn one way or the other until I bought my Cherokee last summer, and in fact the only reason I give a damn now is because I feel obligated to defend myself from assholes who think the only reason anyone ever buys an SUV is that the driver is trying to compensate for having no penis by willfully destroying the environment.
(That’s a general “assholes who…,” not any specific person in this thread. To head off misunderstandings at the pass. The last paragraph is taken nearly verbatim from an Instant Messenger discussion with Gunslinger.)
So what is it that’s inherent in SUVs that make people feel so strongly about them? It’s been demonstrated that the fuel mileage/waste issue is a red herring, and that people DO have legitimate reasons to drive them, and yet the anti-SUV faction just continues tossing up reason after reason, all of which are readily argued with and none of which would, alone or together, be such a big deal that they would necessitate the destruction of all SUV factories. I just don’t get it.
Surely you don’t mean your Cherokee? The 15 mpg city I6? Or the one with LESS cargo capactiy than almost any other full size wagon? The one who goes through expensive tires much faster than a passenger car? The one that handles like the truck it is? With average to poor safety ratings (with the exception of rear seat side impact)? Higher Depreciation. Higher maintanence costs.
Aside from slightly higher maximum towing capacity (do you have a boat?), how exactly do you arive at the 2:1 ratio for your Jeep?
BUT, aside from your misconception that a Jeep is somehow more capable than and equivilant wagon, I don’t have a problem with you wasting your money on that hunk o tin. YOUR Cherokee only weighs 3100 pounds, and as such, poses a much greater danger to you than it does to me. You wanna kill yourself, go right ahead. Really, I’m fine with that.
My (and I’m guessing many car drivers would agree) problem is with the behemoths. The 3 ton plus crowd. Hummers and Expeditions and Excursions and Avalanches and Tahoes (5500, but still) and 2500’s and F-350’s and such. Doesn’t matter if they have a cover over the bed or not, that much steel in the average drivers hands is dangerous.
What I’m really surprised about though, is that you are not more concerned about the issue. Given the light weight and poor safetly record of the Cherokee, you are at a much greater risk then we are. An extra 4 inches of ground clearance isn’t going to save you when 8000 pounds comes through your door.
I was not even thinking specifically of my Cherokee in the first sentence of my last post. I was looking at the post immediately prior and responding directly to it and the example given. I didn’t realize that would be so difficult to understand. THOSE TWO GIVEN EXAMPLES OF WAGONS each perform better than the ONE GIVEN EXAMPLE OF SUV. Do you understand now?
15mpg? I’ll admit I don’t drive in any cities - small towns and rural highways are where I spend 98% of my driving time - but I’ve never gotten mileage that low. I keep a log book of my mileage, fuel consumption, and service schedules, and it’s been between 18 and 20 mpg since February.
Congratulations, you hate my car and don’t care if I die. Good for you - now why am I supposed to make my decisions based on your priorities?
My last car was a 1988 Plymouth Reliant in extremely poor shape. I feel safer in the Jeep than in that POS. I don’t drive like an asshole, I don’t care about my penis size (it’d be kind of hard for me to care about it), I know how to deal with 2WD, 4hi AND 4lo, I take care of my vehicle, and I fail to see why MY choice of vehicle bothers YOU that much. I don’t sit here bitching at YOU because of what YOU pilot.
2004 Volvo XC70 Styles
MSRP Price Range:
$35,145
2003 Model
2003 Jeep Liberty Styles
MSRP Price Range:
$18,520 - $25,805
2003 Subaru Legacy Styles
MSRP Price Range:
$20,020 - $27,220
Welp, that about answers it. Also, the wagons aren’t as tall, capacity wise. Longer, but not as tall.
Got to admit, the Volvo is nice, though. Course, both the Volvo and Subaru are just short SUVs.
Makes more sense. The previous phrasing followed the claim of other posters who were basically saying you needed several of any other car to equal the utility you get in one SUV. I apologize for flying off the handle at what I thought was a completely insane statement.
As for the small sample size, the Jeep actually fared much better than average. If you start to average in the 9mpg Excursions with the 45mpg Geos, the gap between SUV’s and cars grows rather large. An even more accurate look at economy would take actual usage into account. Something along the lines of “cost per mile per human”.
I’m going to say this one more time. YOU AND YOUR JEEP ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!! I would not personally drive your car, but I have my own reasons for that. I’m not going to flip you off as I pass you on the road, and I wish no ill will towards you. I am completely indifferent to your choice of vehicle.
We really need a new acronym for really big SUV’s.
Cargo volume is just that, volume. Height is a factor.
2004 Porsche Cayenne
MSRP Price Range
55k - 90k
What point were you trying to make?
Mmmm, bait…not hungry.
Also, 5 year TCO for the Liberty is estimated at $38k Legacy - $32K. Purchase price isn’t everything.
No, really, look at the Volvo and at the Volvo SUV. Only difference is about three inches of suspension.
Very, very, exceptionally nice car. It’s too big for me, but if I didn’t have to drive in the city, I’d really consider one.
So, given that Volvo has made primarily cars for so many years, and the XC is the only “suv” in the lineup, wouldn’t it make more sense to say that some suv’s are just tall cars?
Jacking up a car and calling it an SUV doesn’t make all cars short SUVs.
A tall cat is as big as a small dog, therefor, all cats are just short dogs.
I still don’t get the point you were trying to make about the prices.
Claiming that the Subaru is “just a short SUV” isn’t bait, it’s a valid point. The company even has Paul Hogan adverising the Outback as “The world’s first sport utility wagon”.
On a related note, a little googling brought up another Sport Utility Wagon (SUW), and the thing has zero emmisions! Check it out here
Again, Subaru adding couple inches to their suspension and platic body cladding doesn’t change the fundamental structure of the vehicle. Just like the Volvo, calling it Sport Utility Whatever, doesn’t mean it isn’t a car/cat.
Putting an outback in the same class as a Suburban is just ridiculous, regardless of what “the croc” says.
Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.
In my opinion, that’s not the problem with SUVs. They are ill-suited to be daily freeway commuter cars. They increase pollution and traffic congestion, and they make driving more dangerous for everyone. It doesn’t matter how well or how poorly individuals drive, the relative deficiencies are still there.
Good point. I agree, except to the extent that many (but not all) minivans get better mileage. But if drive an SUV that gets better mileage than a minivan, that argument doesn’t hold any weight.
The problem is when people are driving a vehicle that is much bigger than what they need. If you are making deliveries, you need a van. If you are hauling a large amount of merchandise, you need a semi. If you are driving to the office by yourself with only a small briefcase, you don’t need an Expedition.
Yes, but you seem to be making an assumption that everyone who drives an SUV has a good reason to do so. You and others pointed out some reasonable ones: Snow, towing, off-road driving. But I assure you that the vast majority of SUV drivers are simply using them to go places on the freeway. They don’t have a “problem” that requires an alternative. A car would suit them just fine.
Look, I can’t speak for the others, but all I’m suggesting is that if SUVs are going to be marketed as replacements for cars, they should be subject to the same regulations as cars. Get rid of the loophole, and then the auto makers won’t have such a big incentive to push these things on the American public. I’m not saying they should be banned; just stop encouraging them so much. That way, someone who has a genuine use for such a vehicle can buy one, but fewer people who don’t need them will be fooled into thinking they are better than cars.
As far as assuming your concerns are imaginary, I can see how that would bug you. But I don’t see how you can speak for the rest of the country’s SUV owners. Seriously, drive in L.A. for just one day, and then tell me that all these people NEED SUVs. There’s no snow, the roads are well-paved, and just a quick count on my drive home from work today came out with only about 1 in 5 having a trailer hitch. At least 4 of my friends that I can think of own SUVs and have NEVER used them for any of the above purposes. And that’s not even mentioning the countless families that own MULTIPLE SUVs. O.K., so maybe you have a boat that you tow to the lake once a year. Why do you need TWO SUVs to do that?
Because high ground clearance, large knobby tires, and extremely stiff frames are advantageous for off-road driving, but are actually a liability for highway driving. These things were originally designed for driving off-road. The “utility” part is just a bit of creative marketing. If you need a large vehicle, a minivan of similar size is a much more practical and safe vehicle for driving on the highway. If the purpose of SUVs weren’t to be driven off-road, there would be no reason for the extra ground clearance.
And just because they can’t beat a Baja Buggy doesn’t mean they weren’t designed for off-road; it just means they’re shitty at it compared to Baja Bugs. A Ferrari will kick the crap out of a Corvette, but both are supposed to be sports cars.