Are SUV's that bad?

prospect

ds20prefecture wrote:

Some ludicrous assumptions there prospect. who says any of them are even remotely socially acceptable? Only idiots and badge buyers buy their car to be socially accepted. The car is not a socially acceptable thing.

To answer the specifics -
1. nobody buys an espace to be cool. how big is the boot in the vitara with 7 up?
2, a 5 litre merc and a 3 door soft roader both shout "I have a tiny penis!!!"
3. I can guarantee a lotus elise is more economical than any petrol SUV.

Why don't we all just buy diesel toyotas, octavias or BMWs? oh wait a minute - we already are.

Have you EVER heard anyone complain about someone buying a people carrier?

Have you EVER heard anyone complain about someone buying an SUV?

No ludicrous assumptions there methinks.

prospect

ds20prefecture wrote:

1. nobody buys an espace to be cool. how big is the boot in the vitara with 7 up?

BTW, if you are implying that the Espace has a big boot with the 7 seats in position, you are grossly mistaken. It is pathetic for a car its size.

maidhc

prospect wrote:

Have you EVER heard anyone complain about someone buying a people carrier?

This (as has been said a million times) is because people buying one actualy NEED one. No sane person will by a Hyundai Trajet to look macho.

The argument you are making seems to be similar to arguing that "Buses emit more pollution than Hummers, but the green party love buses, and that makes no sense..."

dts

Any car that can invoke this much emotion must be a good thing?

prospect

Anan1 wrote:

To answer your question, someone who drives an Espace does so out of necessity. My attitude to having my view blocked by a people carrier is much the same as if it were a bus, ie I wish I could see, but hey, other people need to get around too. SUV drivers, on the other hand, are imposing on others for no valid reason. They themselves, as well as other road users, would be safer & more comfortable had they chosen to drive an equivalent car.

Okay, I agree.
There is a place for 4XD vehicles, and large SUVs are pretty much pointless. But.

From your post above, you seem to think that all SUV drivers have no good reason to own an SUV.

So lets say I have 5 kids, and need a big 7 seater car. It is a necessity.
So in order to be as enviornmentally friendly as possible I will pick a car with a high MPG. Also, to be considerate to other road users, I am going to pick the shortest and narrowest vehicle so I dont use up too much road, and block others view.
So, I pick The Grand Vitara, as it is smaller and more econimical than the Espace.
But, juding by the responses on this poll, anyone driving the SUV is less considerate than anyone driving the People Carrier, when infact the opposite is true.

So, my point is, Are SUVs that bad? In this case it is the lesser of two evils, and yet necessary!
No I know there is also the option to buy something like a 307 7 seater. But why is the Espace acceptable and the SUV not? Why is it that people seem to think that because the SUV has higher ground clearence, and a 'jeepy' look that it is automatically a big heavy fuel guzzeling tank?

Also, based on further car investigation, the likely hood of getting a small SUV is now extreemly remote. But I just cannot understand why people have this attitude to certain cars, and not others?

BTW, sorry if I aggrivated anyone, just curious.

alias no.9

prospect wrote:

BTW, if you are implying that the Espace has a big boot with the 7 seats in position, you are grossly mistaken. It is pathetic for a car its size.

Compared to a grandvitara it is huge. I think the point here is that a fair comparrison would be between a grandvitara and something like an opel zafira or corrolla verso, both 7 seaters but significantly smaller than the grandespace.

prospect

maidhc wrote:

This (as has been said a million times) is because people buying one actualy NEED one. No sane person will by a Hyundai Trajet to look macho.

The argument you are making seems to be similar to arguing that "Buses emit more pollution than Hummers, but the green party love buses, and that makes no sense..."

see post 66

prospect

alias no.9 wrote:

Compared to a grandvitara it is huge. I think the point here is that a fair comparrison would be between a grandvitara and something like an opel zafira or corrolla verso, both 7 seaters but significantly smaller than the grandespace.

Perfect,

so why does the grand vitara get tarred with the 'incosiderate driver' brush, and the espace owner doesn't?

They both server the same purpose, they both suit the same "NEEDS", but the espace is a longer, wider, taller & less economical option!

dts

Could it be that these people who refuse to admit that the SUV is a good idea are just narow minded and so look for reasons to put them down.
Take one out for a drive and I think you will be sutably impressed. I was that SUV basher untill just one month ago.

alias no.9

prospect wrote:

Perfect,

so why does the grand vitara get tarred with the 'incosiderate driver' brush, and the espace owner doesn't?

They both server the same purpose, they both suit the same "NEEDS", but the espace is a longer, wider, taller & less economical option!

A grandespace will seat 7 adults in relative comfort. I'd wager than an adult would struggle to fit into the rearmost seats in a grandvitara, zafira or corrolla verso and what's more, I doubt there'd be much comfort for an adult in the middle row of seats in a grandvitara either. On top of this the espace will still have much more luggage space than any of the other three with the 7 seats in place. So you see, the grandespace and grandvitara don't really suit the same needs, and that's why I put forward a selection of vehicles that do, to make a comparrison.

dts

That didnt answer the question;

so why does the grand vitara get tarred with the 'incosiderate driver' brush, and the espace owner doesn't?

prospect

alias no.9 wrote:

A grandespace will seat 7 adults in relative comfort. I'd wager than an adult would struggle to fit into the rearmost seats in a grandvitara, zafira or corrolla verso and what's more, I doubt there'd be much comfort for an adult in the middle row of seats in a grandvitara either. On top of this the espace will still have much more luggage space than any of the other three with the 7 seats in place. So you see, the grandespace and grandvitara don't really suit the same needs, and that's why I put forward a selection of vehicles that do, to make a comparrison.

Fair enough, although there is a lot of assumption in that post...

But it still doesn't answer the question. No-one seems to be able to give a good valid reason why an SUV (small variant) driver receives this kind of 'bad-press' and yet the owner of the high powered coupe, huge executive car and large people carrier doesn't.
They all serve needs, and to me the SUV is not the worst offender.

Why doesn't Mr.Single guy who drives a 2.0L VW Passat not get targetted. He doesn't NEED such a big car? He should have a Smart car, or at a push a Toyota Aygo!!!

Why is it that the SUV seems to be a line that you cannot cross? And the basis of that line is the look of the vehicle, and nothing to do with its actual statistics.

JohnBoy

yikes

prospect i think almost everyone here is missing your point

I too would think less of the person who buys any 2+litre petrol car when there's generally a good diesel equivelant than I would of the rav4 diesel driver.

I do however think the 2wd rav4 is a pretty pointless vehicle, but then again from my perspective so's your mx5, thats my perspective though, and everyones gonna differ.

I drive a focus diesel estate, and i love it, it does almost everything I want a vehicle to do, bar tow any particularly large amount of weight or cope in fields. The number of times I do either is pretty small though so I'll soldier on for another bit.

I've owned a range rover for a bit, around 3 months last year.

It was the older range rover classic a 92 with a 2.5 diesel in it.

It got 27 miles per gallon on mixed driving. that, and the road tax cost caused me to sell it, I still miss it. yes the handling wasn't as good as the focus but once i adjusted my driving style to suit it didn't matter. the braking was also worse, although the focus is poor enough in that area compared to some of it's competitors.

there was more body roll than in the focus, but not much more than in my peugeot 405 estate that preceeded it.

but by god was it comfortable to travel in, sitting there in the drivers seat, cruising along, looking in over ditches seeing the countryside, able to drive in mucky fields and yards with confidence, and by god could she tow.

people talk about banning SUVs or 4x4s from city centres or levying extra taxes on them, but i've yet to see anyone come up with a convincing metric as to how to do it

size (maybe sqare footage of footprint)?
the presence of a 4wd system?
height?
weight?
minimum fuel economy standard?

so anti suv/4x4 people tell me, whats your objection based on, quantify it using the above parameters, or add some more if needs be, but they have to be basic mathematic parameters

BrianD3

My point of view would be similar to that of Gil_Dub. I drive jeeps a lot (vehicles are a Landcruiser and an L200 crew cab) But for normal driving i have a Laguna. The limitations and disadvantages of the jeeps in normal driving are plain to see. The L200 in particular is an awful choice of vehicle for this use.

I laugh at idiots who buy them to bring the kids to school. However it's also worrying as these things are more akin to a small truck than a car both in terms of how they handle and the damage they do to other road users in a crash. It also sickens me to see women trying to park them using "Touch parking" as they do serious damage to other cars even at parking speeds.

Never mind Grand Vitaras - I challenge anyoen compare an L200 to an estate car, small MPV or large an MPV and try to justify it for normal driving.

Anan1

prospect wrote:

But it still doesn't answer the question. No-one seems to be able to give a good valid reason why an SUV (small variant) driver receives this kind of 'bad-press' and yet the owner of the high powered coupe, huge executive car and large people carrier doesn't.
They all serve needs, and to me the SUV is not the worst offender.

Why doesn't Mr.Single guy who drives a 2.0L VW Passat not get targetted. He doesn't NEED such a big car? He should have a Smart car, or at a push a Toyota Aygo!!!

Why is it that the SUV seems to be a line that you cannot cross? And the basis of that line is the look of the vehicle, and nothing to do with its actual statistics.

In terms of environmental damage, I would agree. But, and this is a big but, my view of the road ahead and therefore my safety will not be compromised by an S600 or a Ferrari.

alias no.9

I'm not arguing with anyones choice of vehicle or calling anyone any kind of evil monster. I'm just challenging the comparrison between a grandvitara and grandespace, and attempts to justify one, based on the other, suggesting that there are more valid comparrisons (I'm not asking you to justify anything but when you publicly justify something based on a flawed comparrison, I'll offer an opinion, I appologise for being an engineer, if I was choosing again, I might try something different).

Personally, I think SUV's are for the most part pointless and would not buy one except if I needed it for towing or something like that, for anyone else it's their money. I think they range from agricultural to boring to downright dangerous as regards driving dynamics (SUV's I've driven include landcruisee, terrano, vitara, jimny, original rav4, ssangyong musso and santafe), but that's personal choice, I like sharp handling and a vehicle that goes in the direction I point it.

I hate people who put others at risk for their convenience, i.e. people who park on footpaths around schools (SUV's tend to do this more than cars simply because they can), but that's the driver, not the vehicle. I hate people who insist on bringing a vehicle, they're not capable of parking, into a busy carpark, ignorantly taking up more than one parking space, but again that's the driver, not the vehicle and the vehicle can be anything from the smallest car to the biggest SUV.

dts

But your view will be compramised by a ford transit or even a astra with blacked out windows. A caravan, a horse box, a truck and a tractor so why pick on the SUV?

dts

As for parking, I am more likly to park the Alfa across two spaces to stop people pranging it than the SUV. The worst offenders when it come to parking are the focus, astra etc where they just get out of the car and the door dosnt stop opening untill it hits the car next to it. Now that get on my nerves.
As for this touch parking I have never heard of this bofore, is it an Irish thing?

prospect

alias no.9 wrote:

I'm not arguing with anyones choice of vehicle or calling anyone any kind of evil monster. I'm just challenging the comparrison between a grandvitara and grandespace, and attempts to justify one, based on the other, suggesting that there are more valid comparrisons (I'm not asking you to justify anything but when you publicly justify something based on a flawed comparrison, I'll offer an opinion, I appologise for being an engineer, if I was choosing again, I might try something different).

They are both 7 seaters. Because it is a fairly small market, they are easily compared as such.

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, everyone is, and that is the puropse of this thread.

All I have learned from this so far is that nobody can give a good reason for the 'anti-social' attidute regarding small SUV's. You may disagree with the logic for buying one, but that is purely personal choice.
JohnBoy doesn't agree with my logic for buying an MX5, and that is fine.
I don't agree with the logic in buying any BMW and that is fine.
But why are so many people willing to publically deride anyone who owns/drives a small SUV, or softroader.

@BrianD3, I am not really referring to the likes of the L200. This is obviously a purpose built vehicle, and should be used only for that purpose. I am referring to 'softroaders'.

Personally I feel that this all started in the States. They have massive, petrol SUVs that would fit one of our small SUVs in the boot. There was obviously alot of bad publicity regarding these vehicles.
Over here, people jumped on the bandwagon and bought these vehicles, as a trend was set, albeit a bad one. The only thing is the actual vehicles here are much smaller and more econimical, and are continuing to improve with time. By the same rationale as the SUV trend making its way here, the same also happened with the 'anti-SUV' trend. But, it wasn't taken into consideration that our derivitaves were a completely different kettle of fish to the originals in the U.S.

dts

Try driving to work over the bog roads in an MX5 and see how long before you have no exhaust and a hole in the floor. An SUV is great at this and getting the family with dog and pushchair in. Oh and then when you get to the motorway it sits at 120 nice and comfortably.
It uses less fuel than my car used too so why is it not a good buy. Oh and on the back road when you come hurtling at me at some ridicules speed I can drive it in the gully to get out of your way.
I think you will find most SUV drivers drive slower than all those little cars.

AlanD

To be honest, I think bashing small SUVs which are just jacked up cars is totally off the point. I've never heard anyone criticise RAV4 owners or Vitara owners. They are small in comparison to the real culprits. Why drive a 5 seater ML320? or ML500 or ML55? Well I could see the point of the 55 (or maybe it'll be 63?), but these are the SUVs that people comment on. These machines emit a lot of carbon dioxide and are that bit bigger than your RAV4 type car.

If someone criticises you for buying or suggesting to buy a 7-seater grand vitara (which is the ugliest car on the road IMO), then you shouldn't care because you know that it's just the same in the basic sense that you describe as any other car. If you bought an XC90 with the petrol engine, or a V8 discovery or even the diesel discovery, then people have a right to ridicule the thoughts of an SUV. Just because people bandwagon the smaller SUVs, it doesn't mean they are right.

Prospect, you might be missing your own point in this really and being rude to others (i.e. unkel) who have valid opinions however different or slightly off the original point isn't showing the common courtesy you should have towards others opinions.

Good thread though.....

AlanD

dts wrote:

Try driving to work over the bog roads in an MX5 and see how long before you have no exhaust and a hole in the floor. An SUV is great at this and getting the family with dog and pushchair in. Oh and then when you get to the motorway it sits at 120 nice and comfortably.
It uses less fuel than my car used too so why is it not a good buy. Oh and on the back road when you come hurtling at me at some ridicules speed I can drive it in the gully to get out of your way.
I think you will find most SUV drivers drive slower than all those little cars.

Interestingly, Ryan Tubridy wrote about this in one of the recent Sunday papers. He was and is an SUV hater, but someone loanded him a new X5 to go somewhere and he was pleasantly surprised by it. He said it made driving over bad roads all the more bearable and liked the high driving position. He could see the point in getting one, but still didn't agree with their environmental and safety impact.

prospect

AlanD wrote:

and being rude to others (i.e. unkel) who have valid opinions however different or slightly off the original point isn't showing the common courtesy you should have towards others opinions.

Didn't think I was, but if i offended anyone, particularly unkel, I apologise without reservation.

AlanD wrote:

Prospect, you might be missing your own point in this really

How so?

AlanD wrote:

To be honest, I think bashing small SUVs which are just jacked up cars is totally off the point. I've never heard anyone criticise RAV4 owners or Vitara owners.

I have, alot of the time. Hence the opening post.

prospect

AlanD wrote:

but still didn't agree with their environmental and safety impact.

I wonder how he feels about the envioronmental and safety impact of huge people carriers, large executive barges (to coin a term I learned here on boards), and high capacity sports cars?

alias no.9

prospect wrote:

They are both 7 seaters. Because it is a fairly small market, they are easily compared as such.

A smart car and an mx5 are both 2 seaters and are just as easily compared in that case.

prospect

true.

JimmySmith

I drive a ford focus.
Why cant people just drive a car becuase they like it - just like in the old days.
If they want a jeep, a hiace or a merc and they are willing to pay what it costs then just leave them alone. Sounds like a lot of people here are jealous someone can afford a more expensive car than they can.
And as for that rubbish about typical SUV drivers being mothers who only drive to school - Everytime i ppass my local scholl there might be about 5 SUVs and the rest are Polos, micras, swifts and various other small cars.

AlanD

prospect wrote:

How so?

Well what I'm saying is if people criticise buyers of RAV4's and the other kind of jacked up cars, of which even a Skoda Octavia 4x4 would be one, then they are including vehicles that don't have the same environmental footprint as the bigger SUVs which are the real culprits. So, you're the one with the right answer, if they query your wisdom over suggesting such a car, then you will be able to clarify their points and show that yes, a Vitara is the same more or less as an Espace or whatever you want to compare it to. I think most people here agree with your assertion that soft-roader SUVs are basically cars. Yes, they use more fuel, but only as much more as a driver with a heavy foot would in a 1.4 petrol super mini.

Can you compare soft-roader SUVs with luxobarges with V8 engines? In a way you can. Although they have large engines, they are still cars. They still have aerodynamic efficiencies and they are as safe as any other car. Stick that large engine in a big SUV and the problems appear for safety, handling, fuel efficiency.

What can make anyone's argument very strong in this debate is how you quantify the problems a large SUV has. I think that article I posted quantified things pretty well, but without a measured approach, the bandwagon passenger will always find a way to include a RAV4 and other such jacked up cars in their anti-SUV protestations. Ask them why and they will always have an answer that's just as ambiguous as their point, but if you can counter with quantifiables, the point can be successfully made.

prospect

I see,

So basically then it could be assumed that one main issue with small SUV's is that they would undoubtly evolve, like cars, into physically bigger and more powerful versions of the concept?

AlanD

prospect wrote:

I see,

So basically then it could be assumed that one main issue with small SUV's is that they would undoubtly evolve, like cars, into physically bigger and more powerful versions of the concept?

I don't think I fully understand your point, but you could say the opposite actually, that large SUV's will eventually evolve in to more environmentally sound versions of the same concept. I don't see the SUV going away, small or large, but I reckon companies like Land Rover will start to work on making safer SUVs and more efficient SUVs, hence the Land-e concept or whatever it's called.

What drives the products is the market. You'll still have people who want a Freelander or an X-Trail or a RAV4 and you'll undoubtedly have people who want a Cayenne Turbo S or a Range Rover V8, for reasons entirely different from each other. I reckon that some people buy diesel big SUVs because they want a bigger SUV and the Freelander won't do. These same people who probably like a big Discovery with a 2.0 litre diesel that would do the same job. Making the Discovery weigh less than a RR Phantom would be a start, but that's where I think the SUV will evolve to.