Definition of a SUV

I see Subaru is redefining the SUV. My definition is a vehicle I can strap ski's, bikes and canoe's on or take a load of trash to the dump with. I wonder what they think it is.

;-)

Reply to
nothermark
Loading thread data ...

They think it is something that will get them more money from folks who otherwise wouldn't consider a Soob.

Carl

nothermark wrote:

Reply to
Carl 1 Lucky Texan

That sounds to me like a station wagon.

Except I prefer to spend NZ$12 (US$8) to hire a trailer from the nearest gas station for a couple of hours if I want to take icky trash or very large objects somewhere.

Reply to
Bruce Hoult

Hmm, another thought. Checked - Stock Tribeca only tows 2000 lbs - less than Forester.

My real complaint is that what started as the functional vehicle for hauling stuff has degenerated into a land yacht useless for the basic definition of the class.

The Tribeca reminds me of the B-2. I used to work for a reserve pilot who was hot about the B2 bomber until he was briefed on it. It seemed it could hold more bombs, electronic countermeasures or defensive weapons than the B52. The problem was it could only do two of those three at one time. You eithe rcould go there and probably come back with no bombs or get detected and killed with them.

The Tribeca class SUV you can haul 4 or 5 largish folks without luggage for a week or two with luggage. Forget room for Toys. At least the Chrysler,Ford&GM units in that class will tow. The Tribeca appears to be an outsized version of the mini SUV that is neither sporty nor utility as opposed to the "dressed up truck". I don't see it as sporty or utility, but it's got "style". Not.

Reply to
nothermark

Oops, just heard another commercial. Make that 7 people without toys and luggage.

;-(

Reply to
nothermark

Then my wife's Honda Civic hatchback is an SUV.

Reply to
Tom Reingold

nothermark wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I think they are shooting more for the Chrysler Pacifica. SUV meets station (I mean) sports wagon.

Reply to
Fuzzy Logic

nothermark wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

S.U.V. = Stupid Useless Vehicle

Reply to
Larry Weil

Not true! look at it's roots. The original vehicles were really improvements on the old jeep CJ series. They provided a vehicle that one could load with tools, bags of feed, (utility) or gear and people with a trailer and/or roof racks and go into areas where one needed the extra ground clearance and 4 wheel drive to negotiate approach roads, boat ramps farm tracks, etc. The old IH Scout or the original Blazer are good examples. Unfortunately the federal government created a problem with the fleet milage laws. Trucks were exempt (as they need to be!) but SUV's were considered trucks. People who needed the towing capacity of their 57 chevy with room for the kids shifted to utilty vehicles. Detroit figured out they could add $2000 worth of comfort features and charge $10,000 more. One can still use many of the US made vehicles in those roles. The problem I see is that the automakers also cloned off the unibody look alikes that won't really do any of the basic uses well but are "pretty". I consider the Tribeca the epitome of the genre. The small ones make some sense as they won't handle a load but they are usefull for folks who need to just get small loads through a lot of less than ideal driving conditions. The big ones are a farce.

BTW, I used to know city folks with SUV's until I started driving in the city a lot. At least in the northeast I city streets in the winter are worse than farm roads because of potholes in the pavement and holes and ruts in poorly plowed side roads where there is no place to shove the snow to if a plow tries. Then you sit behind one a MickyD's and watch them pass in food to a family where momma goes better than 200 lbs, poppa looks like and ex linebacker and the 3 kids could use my Hyundai as a basketball. The durango's, expeditions and escalades fill that niche nicely if one can afford them.

Reply to
nothermark

In Bellevue here, lot's of men by their fat wives SUV's so they'll have something to fit them in.

It's pretty gross, but understandable.

Reply to
Bryce

Usually the inadequate males need big vehicles

Reply to
jabario

Reflecting on your genital shortcomings again?

It's really too bad when your preconceived biases get in the way of rational discussion.

Reply to
nothermark

The Tribeca will get a look from me, but I'm not sure I could stand having a vehicle with that difficult name.

This vehicle name really gets to me:

Grand Vitara

I immediately think of Spam or the "grand result: of viagara.

Reply to
Moon Guy

Oh my, not that gas eating monster I hope. Surely the Tribeca has a more worthly target.

Reply to
Moon Guy

Stupid Unecessary Vehicle is more like it for most.

Reply to
Moon Guy

Unfortunately he's correct in many cases.

Reply to
Moon Guy

The Isuzu "Bighorn" has to be the most unfortunate SUV name ever.

Reply to
Bruce Hoult

What would you buy if you had two or three teenagers to haul around?

Reply to
nothermark

A station wagon.

Reply to
KLS

Thank you - you made my point. A Detroit station wagon is an SUV these days. For that matter the Tribeca and the new Chrysler wagon seem to be looking at the same market as far as the looks cool folks.

Oh, and by the way, where does one buy a full size wagon with 4 wheel or all wheel drive? You may not need that in NJ unless you drive the sand roads but you do find it very usefull anywhere there is significant snowfall or unpaved roads.

It's fun to bash the SUV folks. I admit I do it too for some of them. However, the reality is that the vehicles also have a reasonable number of folks who buy them because they have a need part of the time. The bashers often don't bother to process that, given an unlimitied budget and parking situation a lot of folks soloing a Ford Explorer to work would swith to a smaller car by choice for that trip but they can't have two vehicles and they need the SUV for part of their life.

Reply to
nothermark

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.