[Cars] Article in The New Yorker ripping into SUV's

I remember reading this earlier this year, very insightful.

For those of you who don't feel like reading that, the article makes a pretty persuasive case that the safety benefits of an SUV are almost all placebo.

In brief, the problem with SUV's is the following, is it safer in a collision than a Miata? Sure...but it's also many times more likely to get into an accident than a Miata. If you see a car coming at you head on, you'd much rather be in the Miata because you could get out of the way entirely or at least serve enough to not take the full head on impact.

In the end, the net benefits favor a smaller quicker car...and the statistics tend to show it too.

 

I've never thought of an SUV as being a much safer car (their bumper tests have been a joke). I've just liked the extra cargo room and the high line of vision.

I've thought often about rollovers.

 

The high line of vision thing is actually a negative...the further away you are from the road the worse your reaction time tends to be as you don't "feel" things the way you would in a lower car.

 

I used to have a honda accord coupe that i fixed up and had it dropped 2 inches and loved driving on the highway cause you could easily manouver through traffic.

I now have a 4runner, i like being up there but the high level of vision is not that big of a deal to me. it's not that much better than you think.

 

I've always preferred cars that were low to the ground...I just like the closer contact to the road.

Ive driven some of my family's SUVS, and it just doesnt feel right being that high from the ground...I always worry about rollover.

After comaparing...I'll stick with my SS...responsive..quick..and much easier to manuever.
If I need cargo hauling capabilities...well, thats what the company truck is for.

 

My parents were hit by an F-250 head on while they were sitting at a light in the left turn lane.

They were in a Suburban.

Both walked a way unscathed with the police officer commenting that if they had been in a car they would have been seriously injured or even killed.

 

Trying fitting an infant's seat into the back seat of a Miata.

 

You must have a giant infant to be driving the tank you bought.

 

I drive an SUV (if a Blazer is actually considered an SUV) just because it fits all my gear.

If I were a flute player, I'd probably drive a Maxima.

 

I would say that with all of the new, car-based utes like that new Chevy Equinox (looks nice for a GM car/truck), Acura MDX, RAV4 and others, the class is simply turning into all-wheel drive tall station wagons with car-like handling.

Now, as for me, I drive the Armada or my old International Harvester only from my house to the radio station and to tow my boat down to Lake Lanier. It's a big, big beast and the fact it sits up high and handles like a drunken cow makes me very nervous and cautious in traffic. But strap me in either my wife's Volvo, my good old Maxima or my 928 and traffic means little or nothing. But nothing and I mean nothing swallows gear like that Armada. It has bus-like space, so much so in fact, last time we went to the lake we brought my boat, the tent, a canoe, my gas grill and my old TV to watch the Braves.

SUV's have their place, but just not in the driveway of these little women who drive them as if they own the road.

 

I agree about the Armada.

We bought one a few weeks ago.

And Behad. Before you even posted that picture, I had posted that the Armada reminds me EXACTLY of the Canyonero. My wife loves it, but I am starting to dislike it.

 

Actually, my wife is so anal about cleanliness, she never eats or drinks in the car, nor does she allow me to.

Her main thing was, when we upgraded from a Pathfinder to the Armada, was to get something with alot of room in the back. She has very long legs, and putting the baby seat in the back of a smaller vehicle, means she has to move her seat way up so it doesnt hit the back of the seat.

Also, we have a stroller that takes up alot of room in the trunk area.

I had a full size Bonneville for a while, and I can say, without a doubt, that the car seat would not have fit in the back seat and the stroller would sure as heck not fit in the trunk.

I think we are acutually going to get rid of the Armada and get a Yukon. The Armada is just too big for what we need.

 

Yukon's pretty big too...I've never liked this car, but Lexus is coming out with a hybrid version of its RX 330 that is a half-second quicker(0-60) than it's gas-powered counterpart and still gets 50 MPG in the city.

I know it's a girly car, and I personally wouldn't drive one of the gas-powered ones, but the fact that could maintain that kind of performance in a hybrid is awesome. I'm almost 100% certain that with all the advancements being made in the industry, my next car will be a hybrid. If that's a big enough car for you, you would be doing the environment and your wallet a great service...

 

Minivan! cheaper and safer. Face it,the days of looking "cool" while driving are over for both you and your wife. You're domesticated fully at this stage...you can buy a porsche when the kids get older and you reach middle age.

 

A lot of people are finding out that the claims of mileage on hybrid cars are nowhere near what real world numbers are. Cars that are supposed to be getting 40-45 mpg are really getting around 30-35. There was an article somewhere on the 'Net that I was reading where people are pissed at what they think are BS numbers companies are touting as far as mileage for these hybrids.

 

True as that may be, that 30-35 still beats the hell out of any other 270 HP SUV(What they're projecting the RX to be). I'd say most SUV's in that class get like, what, 15-22 MPG? 30-35 isn't as eye-opening as the 50-60 that a lot of the hybrids are advertised to get, but it's still an improvement. I've never been very environmentally-conscious, but the steady rise in gas prices has had the side-effect of making me want to buy a more environmentally-conscious car.

I still wouldn't really want an RX, but that's just because I don't like the styling/bland drive. I could definitely see myself driving a hybrid TL or something of that sort in the future.

 

True, but that 30-35 is what's advertised - if history holds true, then it may only really get around 22-25 mpg. At that point, you have to wonder whether paying around $4-$6k more for a hybrid is worth it over the ownership of the vehicle.

The "savings" in money have been mostly a crock to this point when it comes to electric and hybrid vehicles. Read the section called "fuel-cost comparison" in the article below.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/20030507a1.asp

Keep in mind they use the EPA estimates for gas mileage for the Civic in that article. In reality, those estimates are WAY off of what people are actually getting. They're really getting something more close to what the "regular" Civic gets - maybe slightly more. That makes the comparison even worse if you're looking at costs.

The only real reason to buy one of these vehicles is if you want to lower the dependency on dino-fuel and if you're environmentally conscious.