OT SUV Safety

While I agree SUV's are generally a waste and probably will never own one, it still boils down to personal choice. I think aircooleds are hip and they have their safety issues as well but driving one is my choice. A lot of this ranting and raving against SUV's is economic jealousy and judgement. And speaking of safety, a lot still depends on the drivers. Two door Ford Explorers are more likely to roll over than four door models not because they are less stable but because of the people that prefer two door models. Corvettes drivers are disproportionately more prone to rollover fatalities than most SUV's even though the Corvette has a low center of gravity. But no one is complaining about Corvettes.

I could afford an SUV if I wanted one, as can anyone with a decent credit rating, so I don't think "jealousy" is the issue here. I ddon't like the damn things because if I get hit by one in my vintage VW I am toast, but so likely would be anyone not driving one of those land yachts. The other issue is pollution: they pollute more than a passenger car. I wouldn't be surprised if they pollute almost as much as a vintage VW. And lastly, they consume too much gas. It cracks me up to see yahoos driving their SUVs with their little plastic American flags plastered on the side. Must feel good to know that thousands of miles away young Americans are shedding their blood in part so they can maintain an economically and ecologically unsustainable lifestyle.

--Dan E

I guarantee you that I do not suffer from any sort of jealousy against an SUV, not after 25 years of enjoying one of the most honest vehicles ever built, the VW bus. A post-'68 VW bus, by the way, can handle easily as well if not better than a Ford Explorer, and if it does flip, it will take a multiple roll-over far more safely than an Explorer. The shameless contempt evident in the marketing of an Expedition or Navigator or Escalade against other motorists and our precarious dependence upon foriegn oil, has always rendered me mystified. Ford knew early on that the Explorer was prone to roll-overs. The track was too narrow for the CoG and their "answer" was to demand a dangerously low tire pressure to help introduce a premature loss of traction. While Goodyears and Michelins could handle it, crap Firestones could not. Finger-pointing between Ford and Firestone ensued. What a waste of lives, what an immoral display of indifference. Meanwhile, the manufacturers continue to lobby against sensible fuel economy standards, against passenger car emissions/safety standards for SUVs, and the NHTSA barely passed the bumper height standards to prevent Navigators from running the hell over a hapless Saturn.

Meanwhile the ancient Porsche 911 has a phenomenal roll-over safety record because the thing is designed to hold up. The decision-making of our manufacturers has a rich history of not caring. Go the the progressive.com site and download the 40 mph offset crash videos of the Ford F-150 and the Dodge Ram 1500. Unbelievable! Then look at a Tundra take the same hit. Priorities. . . . Colin

It is not jealously on my part. Just relaying what the facts are. SUVs are unsafe for the occupants as wells other vehicle that they collide with. The only reason that they are still classified as trucks for more lenient pollutions standards is because of some lobbyists employed by the U.S. automakers. When we bought a new car for my wife, we went with a sedan because of the SUV rollover problem as well as excessive expensive premium gas consumption. I was several cars behind a Bravada that rolled on I-75. The noise of metal crunching on the cement is not the most pleasant sound in the world. I had left the house 20 seconds earlier, I could have been involved in that unnessary rollover.

Bill Berckman Cincinnati VW/Porsche Family Reunion Show 2003 Pictures

Didn't mean to imply that was the case on your part. I think it is a part of what fuels the sentiment though - at least with people I know. The one thing I will never get is how they demonize some guy in his Explorer (with class overtones) while they happily drive all over the country in their vw's and subaru's. When I point that out to them, they shriek "fascist!" and try to explain how their road trips are more virtuous than Explorer-mans commute. In their minds, there is a very distinct line - that they get to draw - between evil fossil fuel use and virtuous fossil fuel use (even if they actually consume more). Same thing goes for safety - acceptable virtuous safety risk vs. unacceptable demonic safety risk. They always deny it but I know they're uncomfortable about it and I do enjoy baiting and tormenting them.

Some of us need an SUV. And we use 'em for hauling and camping, and towing. I've a corvette as well. And a bug. The key is to drive them like you have some level of intelligence. My c-5 averages about 24mpg...it gets driven the most. I was not aware the c-5 was prone to "rollovers" Must be a negative gravity effect, eh? My Bronco sit higher off the ground, it is designed that way. Comes in handy when launching a boat or travelling on a friends ranch with unimproved roads. Both the owners manual and sticker on the visors state the vehicle is not designed for the same kind of driving style as the c-5 is capable of. Its the moronic drivers that tailgate, never signal turns, and weave in and out of rush hour traffic, and drive like fools in slick conditions that cause the problems. Drivers cause the problems.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:26:50 GMT, "K5" ran around screaming and yelling:

The statistic showed people dying in Corvette rollovers at a higher rate than most cars. My guess is that it wasn't the design of the car, but a combination of losing control at high speed, going off the road and rolling.

I agree totaly. I have an SUV as I need something with 4X4 to deal with the snow & mud. On the streets or pastures. But I hate my jeep cherokee with a passion and it will be gone in the spring. Will break down and buy a 4X4 pickup.

I see way to many drivers in SUV's and Mini vans that think the damned things are supposed to handle like sports cars. They don't. Main problem is they are just to top heavy. Go around a corner to fast or even swerve to fast in a top heavy vehicle and you are either going to roll it or lose control. Either way, you're an idiot.

Randy

A VW bus is a virtuous safety risk. You are killed instantly in a head-on, which is merciful, the insurance payout is less, and the bicyclist you hit will live with just a sore leg. A Ford Expedition is a demonic risk. The cell phone toting soccer mom will spill her latte when she stoves in the school bus full of special needs children. She will sue Lords & Taylor for not having Scotch Guard impregnated in her pants suit. She will sue Verizon Wireless, for having an attractive nuisance ( her phone) without a warning to not call when driving, as well as the stock brokerage firm, whose hold music drove her to distraction, just like Martha Stewart claimed. Colin

I once watched a mid 70's - early 80's 'vette do an inverted roll on the freeway...............The guy was driving so fast that he passed me as if I were sitting still and he was doing 90 or so............I was driving about 55. It was raining. He was driving too fast for the car to maintain traction in a very generously curved portion of the road,...................that means it was wide enough and straight enough to make it at the 100mph or more in dry weather.............Definitely driver caused the issue.

I watched and my heart started pumping quite rapidly as he just lifted off the ground and *over* the guard rail and went up a hill as the car disintegrated around him...................scared me to death, and I lived without a scratch...........................I was very young and was scared to even stop and see if he lived or was in multiple pieces..........no idea how he did.

I know that wasn't the right thing to do. But I do believe ( still ) I would have been little or no help ..............might have even caused more harm than good, I was so frightened. ( cell phones weren't even around then )

Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply MUADIB®

Guess I won't chime in too much either way, since my SUV (Nissan Xterra) has a two-star rollover rating. Oh well. OTOH, my wife's minivan only got a three-star rating (Chevy Astro).

I've been driving my Bug more now, especially since gas is back up to $1.55 a gallon here. I'd much rather get 27 mpg than 19. OTOH, the run my wife and I made this evening to Sam's Club and Office Depot netted way more cargo than the Bug could hold, so we drove the SUV.

If I could just get her to like riding in the Bug more often...

Malcolm '69 Bug (Gus) '71 SB (Herbie)

I usually drive a sedan. Not yet an ACVW. (Wish list.) The problem with the SUV is usually not the SUV it's the driver's mental attitude that he is so much safer in an Stupid Useless Vehicle. I see so many people roaring by me in the snow in their SUVs. Hey, I want to get to my destination in one piece, eh? SUV's have not managed to repeal the laws of physics. We used to say that you had to fail your inteligence test to qualify to drive an SUV. You don't get infinite traction out of 4 wheel drive, and the braking system still only works on 4 wheels . . . . Trust me, I've driven a friend's 4x4 pickup when the snow was so deep that was the only way to get where I was going at the time. . . .

Charles of Palatine.