Re: Best SUVs - Consumer Reports

The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles

> outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the > November issue of Consumer Reports.

Just another evidence that CR is a stupid useless magazine for evaulating cars.

People are dumping their gas-guzzling SUV's right and left and buying economy cars, due to the gas prices, yet CR is still bothering to review SUVs. Yeah, right, real intelligent there.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt
Loading thread data ...

What's the point of calling it an SUV if you cannot tow with it, or take it off road? Ever try towing with independent rear suspension? Not good for off road either. Did I forget to mention how small they are. People who buy these would be better off with a station wagon.

Reply to
me at

I don't know. Probably a marketing advantage. Calling something a mini-van or a station wagon makes it undesirable to a large portion of US consumers. Whether it makes sense of not, names do matter to many consumers. Do you think Toyota would sell as many RAV4s or Highlanders if they called them Camry Wagons (which is what they are)? If Ford renamed the Freestyle "Five Hundred Station Wagon," how well would it sell? Or worse yet, suppose they revived the Country Squire name and slapped on some vinyl wood trim on a Freestyle?

Yes, I towed often with my 2003 Expedition with IRS. It towed just as well as my 1997 with a solid rear axle.

Why would you say that? Only idiots who want to "lift" a truck are bothered by IRS. Doing a suspension lift on an IRS vehicle is very difficult in comparison to lifting a truck with solid axles. Unless you are doing some really weird rock crawling, or tying to drive across a swamp, highly lifted vehicles are ridiculous. For any sort of mundane off roading, IRS is better than stick axles.

Compared to?

Probably true for most people. And several of these really are station wagons.

Reply to
C. E. White

I would rather have an enema than own a Mercedes. Maybe this snobbery appeals to Americans, but Mercedes, IMNSHO, is a troublesome overengineered piece of shjit.

It has even been classified by CR as one of the poorest buys with respect to reliability.

SUVs are something etched into the minds of soccer moms and almost-ran junior corporate executives.

I wouldnt buy a Furd XC90, or an Audi Q7, and for damn sure wouldnt buy a Cataract Escapade.

Gas drops a few dimes a gallon and Americans start frenzy feeding again.

Reply to
hls

Because its true....

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Lift is irrelevant. Solid axles have a lower roll center, meaning they have better rollover resistance without massive sway-bars (this is troe ON highway, not just offroad!) Solid axles also articulate better when offroad with sway-bars disconnected, allowing each wheel to have a better contact patch (the "high" wheel actually helps plant the "low" wheel to the ground).

As far as IRs and towing, the differences are less dramatic than with offroading and rollover resistance. But all those added bushings and CV joints will *never* hold up to towing as well as a solid axle.

Reply to
Steve

I found little wrong with my Range Rover in any circumstances. It even lifted and lowered itself at my command. It had independent suspension all round. I also find little wrong with my Land Cruiser 100 although if I am forced to compare then in most circumstances the RR had the edge, especially in road handling and front end articulation [the LC has torsion bars while the RR has air springs]

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Where were the new 07 Rovers in the comparison? I really like the mew LR3 and sport - they have the best combination performance and luxury out there. Plus I like what they are doing with the new terrain system too.

Reply to
CaptainBennett

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.