You ever look at some of the SUVs today? Unibody construction… road treads…
Sorry, handsome, half of them are tall minivans. Or, like the BMW X5, tall cars. High ground clearance creates aesthetically pleasing high seating position, which is actually pretty good for civilized driving conditions.
Yep. Real big difference. You’re still pushing a heavy square block through the air there, and most minivans drive like an anemic puppy.
The point is, SUVs are not meant to be driven offroad, anymore than a WWII Jeep was meant to be driven offroad. They are meant to provide utility functions to their drivers, and they do that.
However, there is a new list of vehicles coming out, such as the Volvo SUV… which, according to you, is not a SUV? and the Outback, and the Chrysler Pacifica, which are basically larger, higher station wagons. They’re called “crossover” vehicles.
Do they meet your approval, oh great one?
In short, what the heck is your problem? You can’t understand the difference between a Ferrari and a Corvette? (Hint: A Ferrari is not a sports car. It is a supercar)
For myself ( ), I see the anti-SUV folks doing the same thing. Massive generalizations.
This gets irritating pretty darn quick.
Especially when it comes from an individual that doesn’t appear to have any experience with SUVs, 4x4 etc. ( I’m not referring to any one in particular here).
So, we are left with observations. What do you see people using SUVs for? Problem is, for every 30 times someone drives to work, they may tow or haul only once. This then gives an inaccurate impression that they are only used for commuting.
No. I am saying that just as my reasons to drive an SUV were hidden from you, so too could the reasons of some of the people you’re complaining about. But because we can’t talk to everybody, we can’t determine precisely why they buy and drive the vehicles they do. Saying that the manufacturers say that few people use it for off-roading doesn’t address this issue.
So, my assumption is that people might have reasons for what they do. And their reasons may not simply be “I am too stupid to understand that this isn’t the car I want.”
So, if you can define what “need” is, perhaps I can better understand why you assume that most people don’t need an SUV. How often must a person use the functionality of an SUV for it to constitute need?
Who are you to claim that you have the slightest idea of what someone else “needs” for their transportation? You appear to be making pretty big assumptions on your part as much as anyone else.
If they paid for it (Sales tax) keep it registered (road taxes) keep it filled with gas (paying road taxes again) then they should be able to drive it regardless of whether you feel that their vehicle choice is a sound one.
Typical, if a situation occurs in L.A. or N.Y. then it must be happening everywhere else in the US. If a SUV is not suited well for L.A. then they surely can not be better suited for anywhere else, as the US revolves around L.A.
To make my point clearer, take off your Los Angeles blinders and please see that there is a big country to the east of you. In that country we have varied weather, less than 1 hour commutes, and air that is actually “clean”. Where we live, we can actually have found a use for larger vehicles that you may find to be revolting or otherwise completely unecessary to your way of life.
We have found that we like big trucks, some of us are completely sure of our masculinity (ie. penis issues) and can afford the extra gas and insurance rates that go hand in hand with driving the SUV.
OF COURSE I’m generalizing. That’s the whole point. When one talks about social trends, that is what one is doing. For societies to solve problems, we sometimes HAVE to generalize. What is astonishing is how many people want to take offense at it. If I point out that many people who are using SUVs don’t need them, it is not a personal insult to you if you DO need one.
It’s customary here in G.D. to address the person to whom one is speaking. It kind of sounds like you are addressing me, but then you stuck in a bunch of arguments that I never made, so I have no idea who you are talking to. You also need to calm down. “What the heck is your problem?” isn’t a reasonable argument, and borders on breaking the “don’t be a jerk” rule. Care to try again?
Nice dodge, blowero. The question remains, what the heck is your problem with SUVs? Are you simply annoyed that people do not use them to go offroad? That they are too large to make you comfortable? That they are not fuel efficient? Point by point, please.
Gotta say- you folks sure get emotional about the subject. Who am I? I am the guy who is debating you. You make it sound like I have no right to express an opinion here. I thought we were having a debate - hope that’s O.K. with you.:rolleyes:
I don’t think I’m making an assumption. I am expressing an informed opinion based on reading and my own observations. If you think my conclusions are unwarranted, I invite you to demonstrate that I’m wrong. So far all we seem to have gotten is a handful of people saying they personally need SUVs (which I am not disputing), and assuming that everyone else who buys SUVs also needs them.
Excuse me, but when did I EVER advocate telling people what kind of car they can or can’t buy? The only thing I have suggested is that SUVs be subject to the same regulations as cars; please tell me why you think that is unwarranted or unfair. Try to remember that my expressing an opinion about how well-suited SUVs are for daily highway driving is NOT tantamount to restricting anyone’s choices.
Strawman. I never said that. In fact, I explicitly conceded that SUVs are suited for certain things. And again, people who buy SUVs in remote areas where they are needed is not the problem. The problem IS all the people in large cities (BTW L.A. and N.Y. are not the only 2 large cities in the U.S.) who are using them simply to drive to work or get groceries.
I wish people would actually read what I wrote, instead of inventing what they imagine I said. I don’t have “blinders” on; it’s just that L.A. is a perfect example of millions of people driving SUVs that they don’t need to be driving. In fact, when you acknowledge that your needs are different than those of more urban dwellers, you only tend to prove my point.
For the record, I never said anything about masculinity issues. I have consistently argued that SUVs are ill-equipped for the purpose that many (not all) people are using them for, and are being sold in huge numbers in part because automakers are motivated by a loophole in regulations to aggressively market them.
Please folks - Let’s keep the strawman arguments to a minimum, try to keep clear who has advanced what position, and keep those emotions at a low simmer.
I take it as a personal insult when others that are not as polite as Blowero make it such. Lumping all drivers of SUVs together as soccer moms or general dipshits is a common tactic on SDMB and other places when the SUV discussion arises.
I don’t see SUVs as a problem. Others do. Because they are a useful alternative where I live, I feel a bit anxious when I see others in L.A. or N.Y. stating that most people don’t “need” one. The bottom line is that I am a selfish prick from time to time, issue to issue. This is one of those cases, and I am happy to admit it.
I know there are plenty of people that don’t get 10% of the usage out of their SUVs as I do mine. However, I would never suggest to them that they drive something differently though.
If you want to drive your Honda 2000 that’s great. I could, but wont ask why you need such a fast car. If you want to drive a Lexus 430, I wont tell you that you don’t NEED such an expensive car. I choose to drive a 2002 Tahoe. My decision. Mine alone.
I agree. I thought the poster who made the “penis” comment was joking, but you’re right that it would have been better not to have said it at all. I’m just asking that you not confuse me with those who have made such comments. I thought we were having a pretty interesting debate for awhile until it started turning into everyone growling and bristling at each other.
Yes I know this. However the locals that inhabit those towns forget this fact from time to time. Since I live in cheap seats here in the midwest, we get to put up with the East Coast/West Coast mindset all the time.
Again, I don’t assume everyone who buys an SUV needs an SUV. I assume everyone who buys an SUV probably wants an SUV. I also assume that some of the people who buy SUVs need them by any objective measure.
What I want is a specific definition (and I’ve asked for it before) of what constitutes “need” in your view so that we can then have a slightly more rational debate on how many people “need” SUVs.
If you want, I’ll start. How about:
If a person uses the functionality* of an SUV once a week, they need an SUV.
*Functionality, for the sake of this argument, will be any function that cannot be provided by my car. A four-door sedan with 170 hp and front wheel drive. (The Contour is tricky because the back seats do not fold down. The bastards! But for the sake of this, I’m willing to say that we can assume the back seats fold.)
The whole ‘People in SUVs are bad drivers’ argument is a real pet peeve of mine. And if I worry about anyone, it would be the people that are scared by larger vehicles. This doesn’t say much about their confidence in there own driving ability.
Other arguments like ‘Just buy a mini-van, it does the same thing’ is irritating too. People make casual observations about people on the road, and make conclusions when they no nothing about the people driving them or EVEN THE VEHICLE.
Oh, not in this thread, but I’ve debated with people that apparently have X-ray vision when it comes to mini-vans, but my mid-size SUV blocks their view. :rolleyes:
JS- I use 4x4 every day from about November to May. Then use it for hauling and such a couple of times a month in the summer. And tow a trailer as well.
But -
I know people that only use them to tow boats in the summer. So in my opinion, your once a week is too high.
As we already knew, there just aren’t any good substitutes for towing other than a truck.
Hmmm…I wasn’t aware that I had avoided any requests by you for a definition. When I talk about whether someone “needs” an SUV, I mean do they need the features that an SUV has that are unavailable in other types of vehicles, i.e., high ground clearance; built on a truck frame; off-road type tires. As I have pointed out, these things are useful for off-road driving, but actually make the vehicle more dangerous and/or less efficient for highway driving. To the extent that SUVs don’t have all these features, it’s a step in the right direction. For example, employing unibody construction helps safety, but doesn’t eliminate the risk of rolling over if the vehicle still has a high center of gravity.
I think you need to go a step further. You also have to include functions that can’t be provided by a minivan. If you simply need a vehicle that will hold a large family or a lot of stuff, you still don’t need that high ground clearance or the truck frame. So we need to say “any function that cannot be provided by a car or a minivan”.
I think we need to differentiate between a “casual” observation, and a “general” observation. One can make the observation that a minivan is the more rational choice for highway driving, based on crash statistics. That is a general observation, but it is not a casual one.
FWIW - during my informal survey yesterday, I saw a minivan with a trailer hitch. Apparently the owner wasn’t informed that minivans can’t tow.
I disagree because minivans do no get good gas mileage and are not, therefore, any better than SUVs for the majority of the complaints in this thread.
Also, each of the functions of an SUV is important. If you need the 4wd once a month, but you need the people moving twice a month, you then have three uses for an SUV over a sedan. To do it your way, you have one use for an SUV and two uses for a minivan over a sedan, thus introducing another, redundant vehicle into the picture.
), I see the anti-SUV folks doing the same thing. Massive generalizations.
