Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obesity in motor vehicles


  • Please log in to reply
376 replies to this topic

#51 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:44

Yes the high driving position is more or less nullified when everyone has it, just as the weight of a heavy crash structure to some degree is. Physics says that in a car/car collision the heavier vehicle wins all else equal. Someone driving a 2500 kg vehicle is in a very real sense trading their own safety off against the safety of the guy in the MX-5 or Yaris or whatnot. Large heavy vehicles are unsafe in collisions--just unsafe for everyone else besides the people inside them. We tend to think of car safety, especially here in the US safely away from NCAP pedestrian standards, only in terms of the occupants. Having already stated my disinterest in talking politics here I won't go into the cultural or moral implications :lol:

Advertisement

#52 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:49

One of the big pushes towards SUVs comes from.... baby seats. It is much easier to load and secure a recalcitrant toddler into its seat if the seat is high and the door is large and a well aimed blow from the mite can't smack your head against the roof.


There are swings and roundabouts. Mine were old enough at 2 years that they could get into a sedan themselves, couldn't get into Grandpa's Landcruiser though. So the extra twisting and bending on one's back in a sedan gives way to earlier independance. SUV's are typically wider as well which gives the advantage to a sedan in a tight parking spot, which most are these days. I do occasionally consider the purchase of a Ford Territory chiefly for the ease of entry/exit but with the proposed changes to novated leasing in Australia, it's now pretty unlikely.

#53 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:53

Yes the high driving position is more or less nullified when everyone has it, just as the weight of a heavy crash structure to some degree is. Physics says that in a car/car collision the heavier vehicle wins all else equal. Someone driving a 2500 kg vehicle is in a very real sense trading their own safety off against the safety of the guy in the MX-5 or Yaris or whatnot. Large heavy vehicles are unsafe in collisions--just unsafe for everyone else besides the people inside them. We tend to think of car safety, especially here in the US safely away from NCAP pedestrian standards, only in terms of the occupants. Having already stated my disinterest in talking politics here I won't go into the cultural or moral implications :lol:


There was an accident a couple of years ago on the highway that we take to visit the in-laws that really put this in perspective for me. A VN commodore wagon carrying parents and 3 kids crashed into a Toyota Hi-Lux (most recent version). All but the mother (driver) died in the commodore and both occupants in the hi-lux had only minor injuries.

#54 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,281 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:22

There was an accident a couple of years ago on the highway that we take to visit the in-laws that really put this in perspective for me. A VN commodore wagon carrying parents and 3 kids crashed into a Toyota Hi-Lux (most recent version). All but the mother (driver) died in the commodore and both occupants in the hi-lux had only minor injuries.

Apart from any vehicle mass mismatch, you need to consider the height mismatch (strong Hilux chassis penetrating VN cabin at torso height vs VN bumpers impacting the Hilux at lower-leg height?), the age difference of the vehicles (older technology and potential deterioration) and always the element of chance - the geometry of the impact, the location of the occupants etc.

EDIT. No airbags in a VN either.

Edited by gruntguru, 22 July 2013 - 06:03.


#55 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 05:29

Apart from any vehicle mass mismatch, you need to consider the height mismatch (strong Hilux chassis penetrating VN cabin at torso height vs VN bumpers impacting the Hilux at lower-leg height?), the age difference of the vehicles (older technology and potential deterioration) and always the element of chance - the geometry of the impact, the location of the occupants etc.


Of course, and at the time the makeup of my family and age of my vehicle was much closer to the VN then the 4WD Hi-lux. For bonus points, if my father in law was not interstate at the time, he probably would have been a responder to the accident so the whole thing was all a bit close to home on the wrong side of the equation.

Edited by pugfan, 22 July 2013 - 05:29.


#56 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 15:47

no one's brought up Advertising -[ what's perceived as 'sexy and cool' ]

the new designs trend towards looking like the toys of the previous generation - ie the current purchasers childhood dreams



#57 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 22 July 2013 - 17:34

Bigs, as much as I understand your desire to defend your country, as much as anyone would in the same circumstance, in a post GFC world your 20% of worlds GDP is not a good argument.

Yes, I'm more impressed by countries that make a real effort on sustainability. I wonder what the over next generation will lean in school bout the gifts the US brought to the world.

Whether pickup truck have anything to do with penis sizes or not, I think we can all agree that penis enlargement pills that work would be a wonderful thing.

Unless you suffer from a different size problem.  ;)

Ohhh boy, the land of the free. It's amazing how obtuse you guys can get. Producing what? Buying from china, labelling and reselling. I guess cars are the only things left that when marketed in the U.S. by american companies are actually built in the U.S. The over achievers are the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps my friend. I have no problem with you chosing the cars you drive, my problem is with you using military force to procure the oil needed to run them.

Sometimes it seems nothing is ever learned from Vietnam, Iraq or the Russian adventures in Afghanistan. Securing a stable energy economy is never going to work if you rely on fossil or mineral sources. That is spending from your capital that will be needed to support future generations. Only renewable sources are going to do the job. Any country that isn't on a good sized renewable energy source by 2050 is heading for disaster. Energy sources for mobility are a bit special. They will continue to be chemical for long range transportation for a long time. But short haul metro traffic should be electric pretty soon (say 2035). Long term there is no alternative in my view to the use of chemical fuels that fit into a largely renewable energy infra structure like LNG.

This is true. And they are generally driven by a petite woman, who needs such an obscenely huge Chelsea tractor to accommodate her 5 year child on its half mile trip to and from school. Why anyone on the world needs a Q7, which is larger than the average London bus, is beyond me. Certainly not for reasons of economy or driving pleasure.

Same in Germany although we are taking the conversion of the energy system more seriously than most other countries, I feel. The emotional purchasing decisions are making the mind boggle. Only severe tax policy can alleviate this abuse. Heavy SUVs like a Q7 should be taxed at rates five times the family sedan IMO.


#58 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,291 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 22 July 2013 - 18:16

no one's brought up Advertising -[ what's perceived as 'sexy and cool' ]

the new designs trend towards looking like the toys of the previous generation - ie the current purchasers childhood dreams


Advertising is a massive part of it. There's a lifestyle associated with SUVs, calibrated to which version you get. You live an active, exciting lifestyle.


Truck ads - You're busy working hard
SUV ads - You're busy playing hard
Sedan ads - Quirky, because they've got nothing else to sell

#59 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 18:54

We can also look at large vehicles in another way...the same way we might look at sports cars like Ferrari or Porsche; how many actual miles does one drive in a year? We might say that driving a Ferrari or an over-weight pick-up truck is wasteful. However, they've all become much more efficient and safer with time...if one drives a Prius 100K miles a year and we compare that with a guy driving a pick-up truck 10K a year, the pickup truck driver use less fuel. Then, weight is perception gone wrong...

Edited by meb58, 22 July 2013 - 18:57.


Advertisement

#60 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 22 July 2013 - 19:20

Most people who drive large SUVs and PUs aren't using Priuses, Cinquecentos and Smarts to go do store runs for chips and beer.

#61 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,577 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 22 July 2013 - 19:52

I still like the advice from a pretty switched on dude, that amounted to: buy a basic car that fits your day to day needs. For that one week a year you tow jet skis to the lake, rent a truck. Or a convertible for that road trip. Or whatever.

I can often be found driving a car with a manual choke.


That's why god invented the station wagon.

#62 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,577 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 22 July 2013 - 20:04

One of the big pushes towards SUVs comes from.... baby seats. It is much easier to load and secure a recalcitrant toddler into its seat if the seat is high and the door is large and a well aimed blow from the mite can't smack your head against the roof.


This. Plus scared white women love them cos they feel big and safe. Station wagons somehow became stigmatised so people drive SUV's instead. i am not sure what it is with SUV's that somehow they have less boot space than a conventional wagon, why i don't know but my 9-3 wagon holds considerably more shit than my in laws Audi Q5 and they are about the same size on the outside.

This is all beside the point though, obese cars are obese cos they need to meet strict safety standards and people love power this and auto that and sensing this and nav that. All those gizmos add weight ... a lot of weight.

#63 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,656 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 July 2013 - 21:46

This. Plus scared white women love them cos they feel big and safe.

:confused: What does a woman's skin colour have to do with their fear level?


#64 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 22 July 2013 - 22:05

:lol: 'fisti will have to field that. He, however, knows whereof he speaks.

#65 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 22 July 2013 - 22:10

For many if not most Americans who buy them, pickup trucks aren't utility vehicles but lifestyle accessories, inefficient, gas gulping, road hogging dangers to everyone forced to share the road with them. Almost no rational human aside from people whose work requires a truck wouldn't be vastly better off just renting a truck when they need to haul something too big to fit in their trunk. I can rent a full size truck here for under $30 a day, you can't tell me it would be smart for me to buy a truck for the couple or three times a year I require one. But until pills are invented that actually enlarge penises, I suppose we're stuck with driving in a sea of surrogate devices.

Your rhetoric is a bit ignorant, at best.

The death of the U.S. full sized car, especially station wagons, forced people who need a vehicle large enough to carry bulky, heavy items, often, to buy trucks and "sport" utility vehicles.

I am not going to go out and rent a truck dozens of times a year, or even be put into the spot of having to have to do that.

I do not drive a truck but buy full sized U.S. sedans as they serve my purpose, plus I have a four by eight trailer, I rebuilt on the frame and ( rear-axel of a pre-war chevy truck) that my sig. other had the decayed hulk of, that has been used to haul dirt, full with in 12 inches of the top, for over fifty miles. (Although, ignoring the rumbling of the drive-shaft, I had, had, installed in 1974, after dad bent the original going over a curb, on my late father's 1971 Chevy Impala,[God bless Hardy Morningstar and the deal he gave me at what was then called Clutch and U-Joint] was not too smart as if dropped off one mile from home, BUT, the tow driver, who I knew, not only towed, against regulations both the Chevy and trailer home, [this guy was good] he backed them both into a tight spot so I could unload the trailer without have to wheel borrow the dirt more than thirty feet{On another note, I had, had installed a heavy duty replacement drive shaft in, and had not put new U-joints in since a trip to California in 1987, when the originals gave up at Laguna Secqa, and they no longer made the multi-U-joints necessary, so I had to have the shaft cut and the new style installed. THAT cost me half of what replacing the originals U-joints would have cost and less than what it would have cost me if I had found them and replaced them myself. I kind of miss the old ritual for disassembling and reassembling drive-shafts and U-joints, but not much})


I also found out that if you do it properly, one can get eight full sized retangular straw bales into a Buick Roadmaster

The fact people who do not have to work hard for a living can survive with fwd, econo-box crap wagons does not make them better people---- just extremely ignorant of what a good portion of the U.S. has to do to deal with daily living.

PS

Remember when Dodge brought out the new slim style pick-ups that resembled those from the thirties?

As much as I loved that look, it seems that it died within a few years; No one else picked it up, that, and Washington sticking its sh%t for brains ideas where they do not belong, is the main reason for the over sized items now available.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 22 July 2013 - 22:14.


#66 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,577 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:02

:confused: What does a woman's skin colour have to do with their fear level?


Do a search in the paddock for it.

#67 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 459 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:03

Bob I and I suspect most on this forum would not have a problem with any car you drove if it got say 30-35mpg average and you were paying the same price for fuel as I am.

#68 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,656 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 July 2013 - 03:30

Do a search in the paddock for it.

8 years here (that all - seems longer) and I've never ventured outside the Tech forum. I don't have permissions for the paddock.

#69 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,939 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:54

8 years here (that all - seems longer) and I've never ventured outside the Tech forum. I don't have permissions for the paddock.


You have served your time well Canuck...now, just ask for entry to the paddock...and raise the decorum of the place! :)

#70 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 23 July 2013 - 07:15

You have served your time well Canuck...now, just ask for entry to the paddock...and raise the decorum of the place! :)

:) Or run screaming back to the Tech Forum...

#71 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:24

Bob I and I suspect ......


What you bin smokin man

#72 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 459 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:55

Ha! I'll put that down to dieting and giving up coffee.

#73 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:32

Yes the high driving position is more or less nullified when everyone has it, just as the weight of a heavy crash structure to some degree is. Physics says that in a car/car collision the heavier vehicle wins all else equal. Someone driving a 2500 kg vehicle is in a very real sense trading their own safety off against the safety of the guy in the MX-5 or Yaris or whatnot. Large heavy vehicles are unsafe in collisions--just unsafe for everyone else besides the people inside them. We tend to think of car safety, especially here in the US safely away from NCAP pedestrian standards, only in terms of the occupants. Having already stated my disinterest in talking politics here I won't go into the cultural or moral implications :lol:

I keep hearing all this. But go to a crash auction or a wrecking yard and you seldom see a 'proper' 4wd with life threatening damage. Some of the toy ones maybe though I have regularly seen 5 star crash safety front drive eco boxes from all continents that are crushed. By hitting the scenery, other cars, general decent crashes. While they may be a bit top heavy I would sooner have a crash in the Landcruiser than a Honda Civic or a Golf. And a Falcon defenitly survives better than those cars too.
And the much criticised lack of roadholding is often rubbish. I often travel through wet dark hilly areas and the Cruiser is far better than a regular sedan in such conditions. And within reason actually quicker from point A-B. Constant 4 wd is the key ofcourse though even driving a Patrol feels better.
Obviously in good conditions a decent passenger car will be better. But less accidents happen in those conditions.
And being a semi crippled old fart the high driving position wins hands down for long distance comfort as you sit with your legs down instead of out in front of you.Which kills my back. That describes most commercial type vehicles. Though many of those ride and handle fairly average. My brothers new Dmax does nothing for me, and it is the upmarket model. But it rides like a work ute, which it really is.
Though so called passenger vans are plain bloody dangerous. Too high, too skinny and the impact resistance of a sheet of tin. Modern ones tend to be better but a passenger van based on a work van are just that. A work van, just ok to carry tools or parcels. Very convenient size wise for work though you have to work damned hard to keep them on the road in inclement conditions. So lets carry 5 kids and the wife in one!!! Yeah right!

As Greg said modern Station Wagons are almost a thing of the past. And what is left are 'Sports Wagons'
With that stupid slopey back that precludes the object of a wagon.To carry things easily. And the styling makes the things 6" shorter than they should be. That at floor level, at roof level they are 18" shorter than what they should be. A rep mate of mine groans about it every time I see him. His Commondoor wagon has the above less space than his previous model one and he can carry less stock. But the car is bigger, uses more fuel to do less paying work. Though he is happy the way it drives but the performance is less, hence using more fuel. A real step forward! NOT

#74 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:35

Your rhetoric is a bit ignorant, at best.

The death of the U.S. full sized car, especially station wagons, forced people who need a vehicle large enough to carry bulky, heavy items, often, to buy trucks and "sport" utility vehicles.

I am not going to go out and rent a truck dozens of times a year, or even be put into the spot of having to have to do that.

I do not drive a truck but buy full sized U.S. sedans as they serve my purpose, plus I have a four by eight trailer, I rebuilt on the frame and ( rear-axel of a pre-war chevy truck) that my sig. other had the decayed hulk of, that has been used to haul dirt, full with in 12 inches of the top, for over fifty miles. (Although, ignoring the rumbling of the drive-shaft, I had, had, installed in 1974, after dad bent the original going over a curb, on my late father's 1971 Chevy Impala,[God bless Hardy Morningstar and the deal he gave me at what was then called Clutch and U-Joint] was not too smart as if dropped off one mile from home, BUT, the tow driver, who I knew, not only towed, against regulations both the Chevy and trailer home, [this guy was good] he backed them both into a tight spot so I could unload the trailer without have to wheel borrow the dirt more than thirty feet{On another note, I had, had installed a heavy duty replacement drive shaft in, and had not put new U-joints in since a trip to California in 1987, when the originals gave up at Laguna Secqa, and they no longer made the multi-U-joints necessary, so I had to have the shaft cut and the new style installed. THAT cost me half of what replacing the originals U-joints would have cost and less than what it would have cost me if I had found them and replaced them myself. I kind of miss the old ritual for disassembling and reassembling drive-shafts and U-joints, but not much})


I also found out that if you do it properly, one can get eight full sized retangular straw bales into a Buick Roadmaster

The fact people who do not have to work hard for a living can survive with fwd, econo-box crap wagons does not make them better people---- just extremely ignorant of what a good portion of the U.S. has to do to deal with daily living.

PS

Remember when Dodge brought out the new slim style pick-ups that resembled those from the thirties?

As much as I loved that look, it seems that it died within a few years; No one else picked it up, that, and Washington sticking its sh%t for brains ideas where they do not belong, is the main reason for the over sized items now available.

Agreed. Though at a recent market I saw a young lady feeding seemingly endless plants into the back of a hatchback,early Mazda 3. Though when she left it was dragging the rear apron on the ground. It probably had a quarter of a ton in it. They do that with 4 full size adults too.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 23 July 2013 - 11:39.


#75 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:51

This was a comparison between perception and miles driven. What matters here really? Is it that someone wants to drive a big vehicle? None of my business. Is it that big vehicles use more fuel? If this is the concern then we should also consider how far the big vehicle in question is driven. If I drive a big vehicle 10,000 miles a year and a fellow driving the Prius drives 100,000 miles a year, the Prius driver uses more fuel. If that's oour concern with bigger vehicles, then we must also include service length...otherwise we are simply suggesting that big vehicles are bad. This is not an easy comparison on the surface.

Most people who drive large SUVs and PUs aren't using Priuses, Cinquecentos and Smarts to go do store runs for chips and beer.



#76 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,291 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 July 2013 - 13:05

I'd love to meet the person doing 100k a year in a Prius.

#77 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 459 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 13:26

I recall a neighbor who bought a new V8 Landcruiser, which I assume would equate with the full size SUV's in the USA. It was big, heavy and used around 20l/100km and it was used to take him, a friend and their golf clubs to various courses around the state. My reasoning at the time was that he had the funds and he paid for the fun. The negative views came later when he was describing how good it felt to feel safe as his car would come out of an crash with a smaller car so well. The issue that I felt was repugnant was that he thought that his safety, at the expense of any other road user, was totally acceptable.

#78 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 779 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 23 July 2013 - 13:52

I recall a neighbor who bought a new V8 Landcruiser, which I assume would equate with the full size SUV's in the USA. It was big, heavy and used around 20l/100km and it was used to take him, a friend and their golf clubs to various courses around the state. My reasoning at the time was that he had the funds and he paid for the fun. The negative views came later when he was describing how good it felt to feel safe as his car would come out of an crash with a smaller car so well. The issue that I felt was repugnant was that he thought that his safety, at the expense of any other road user, was totally acceptable.


Picking up on a similar point made a bit above, as a driver who does many ks in an MX5, I am very conscious that if I have a big one with a 4wd or similar, I will not be walking away from it, in fact I will be lucky to survive in better shape than your average vegetable. It does keep my attention levels high though.

I do hear this said from time to time, and one of these days I will have a couple of words on the subject with the speaker.

#79 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,291 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 July 2013 - 14:00

So they're supposed to trade down so it's a 50-50 chance instead of a guaranteed win for them? No, human nature won't come into that one at all...

Advertisement

#80 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 23 July 2013 - 18:02

Large heavy vehicles are unsafe in collisions--just unsafe for everyone else besides the people inside them.


Actually, before the widespread use of ESC, large sedans were overall safer than SUVs. Why? Because SUVs tend to roll in collisions. Mandatory stability control has reduced that phenomena significantly, to the point that SUVs are now considered safer overall.

In any case, if the height of SUVs gets much taller, you'll be able to drive over my FR-S without even touching it. Either that or my car will act as a ramp, launching you to your timely demise.

#81 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 18:42

Posted Image Posted Image

#82 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,586 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 23 July 2013 - 18:58

And the latest entrant in the obese and pointless SUV Stakes. Seriously, a Bentley SUV? Looking forward to seeing it win at Le Mans.

#83 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,373 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 23 July 2013 - 19:31

The points about babies and SUV's above are very true. Its part of the " its big so, I/We are safer in it" mentality.

To see just how necessary an SUV is to modern urbam parenthood look no further than your TV right now. Off go the two adult Cambridges from the now famous Lindo wing along with baby Cambridge strapped in by Wills. About 180lb of Wills, maybe 120lb of Kate and 8 lb of little TBN all needing 2,500lb of Ranger Rover SUV to go two miles down the road!

I bet the JLR product people are SOOOO happy tonight.

Edited by mariner, 23 July 2013 - 19:46.


#84 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 19:39

Got a friend who put 93K on his Prius in one year...not the kind of chair I would spend that much time in but he did.


I'd love to meet the person doing 100k a year in a Prius.



#85 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 July 2013 - 19:43

Approx. twenty years ago, give or take, a young yout pulled out, crosswise in front of my car and stopped to wait for traffic.

I got down to about five or ten mph before I t-boned him.

We pulled both cars off of the road and waited for police.

The officer spoke with him and them came over to me, he pointed to a parked car with a partially pushed in front end and and said "is that your car?}

I said no, that is mine and pointed to my 1974 Ford Galaxie.
He scratched his head and said, asked any damage.

I told him it probably pushed my front bumper back an inch or so.
He said, " well that boy just totaled his mother's new car".

It was Chevy's then current style of fwd crap-wagon bigger than a Vega but smaller than a Chevy II.

PS

My cousin had Dodge Intrepid, fwd vehicle which was in good condition, rust free etc.
A person with a truck managed to hit the front wheel and do nasty damage to the wheel, wheel only no body damage. That fwd crap-wagon suffered such damage to the drive train that it was totaled, as my cousin who is not the brightest with vehicles said after the wheel was fixed it was still really dangerous to drive.

The same cousin bought a Chevy mid 2000s Laguna and probably because he put E85 in once in awhile because he has brain-worms took out a piston.
He put a new rebuilt engine in it and now after more fwd related problems has approx. 12,000 into a car,including purchase price, worth 3,000 to a buyer who is as dumb as my cousin.

At the same time.

I had a 1968 Plymouth Fury III four door, which a medium sized For SUV hit in the right front corner hard enough to spin me around 270 degrees. He bounced of off me and ran head first into a van waiting to exit the gas station I was going to drive into.
Due the the situation, the police and insurance said we were fifty-fifty, each had to fix his own car, except he also had to fix the van he ran to. (A second party later said the SUV was totaled as was the van. They had to get a tow truck to separate the two. He also said they gave the SUV driver a ticket.)

I got out of the Fury after the accident to see what was banging under the hood, which still worked, when I tried to start it.
I pulled the radiator back an inch or so, and started it up with no problems other than a smucked in fender and bumper. ( The body man was able to make the hood work and fit fine as it had suffered minor damage.)
My repair costs, including body work was less than 3,000 dollars and this was in the nineties.

Any one who tells me cars are better nowadays, I consider just a bit off.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 24 July 2013 - 19:54.


#86 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 23 July 2013 - 20:35

Has anyone evernasked the silly old customer why they spend their dollars on an SUV instead of a wagon or minivan? Certainly in the USA some badly drawn regs pushed people away from wagons into SUVs, but there has to be more to it than that.

I think what happened was that wagons have tended to be a bit of a downmarket utilitarian derivative of the sedan on which they are based. When CAFE made SUVs financially attractive to manufacturers suddenly there was a whole new segment where there was lots of money to spend on gewgaws, and lots of marketing. When we developed the Territory the expectation was that model mix would be primarily RWD with medium trim. Ha. What actually happened was that people bought fully loaded AWDs. This rather made a mockery of the carefully establsihed justification for the vehicle, which identified a blank area on a scatter plot of price vs size vs SUVness. Still it is nice to fail upwards once in a while.



IIRC, the start of the SUV revolution came from the tax structure in the US which which made cars that were officially "trucks" not susceptible to luxury tax.... This meant lower prices... Also the segment was then cleverly pitched to moms of USA as a safe alternative, plus, I have to admit, people feel better in a high commanding seating position.
Being in automotive marketing myself, I will identify one more cause of the popularity.... your markets (and i mean USA primarily, and similar) just can afford such cars... Compared to avg income of the target populaton, they do not cost too much, and fuel is relatively affordable..
As a consequence, the "suv" has become sort of a fashion accesory.. and now we have a surprising new market segment of "SUVlike" vehicles that look like SUVs but more often than not do not even have a 4x4 of any sort... Even more so, there are now, in europe, normal sedans/wagons that get some higher suspension, and a bit of extra plastic trim, M+S tires and are marketed as crossovers..

This winter I went for a skiing holiday and took a test Volvo XCsomething that had only FWD... we had a bit of a snowstorm and I never ever felt so vulnerable as in that car.. roadholding was just pure crap..

#87 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 23 July 2013 - 20:47

About 180lb of Wills, maybe 120lb of Kate and 8 lb of little TBN all needing 2,500lb of Ranger Rover SUV to go two miles down the road!


First off, I'm pretty sure a normal Range Rover SUV weighs more than 2,500lbs. Second, I assume it's armored (armoured), which means you probably need to double or triple the normal weight.


#88 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,291 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 July 2013 - 22:21

There's barely even negative press against the royal family, I can barely imagine them actually being a target.

#89 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,281 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:27

all needing 2,500lb of Ranger Rover SUV to go two miles down the road!

2500 kg?

#90 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 24 July 2013 - 00:52

more like 2600 kg for the non armoured version.. :)

#91 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 24 July 2013 - 02:48

Any one who tells me cars are better nowadays, I consider just a bit off.

Anyone who tells me they're not, I consider a bit of an old fart.

Posted Image

#92 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 July 2013 - 05:33

Anyone who tells me they're not, I consider a bit of an old fart.

Posted Image

I really don't give squat about the fatality rate, especially as some here were moaning about how dangerous the trucks and utes were to their econobox crap-wagons.

If you want to go down that road, improved roads have had a big effect on fatality rates.
I remember well driving through the Rockies on vacation with my father and looking at the burned out hulks that went off the two lane, and less roads, that were then used.
I wonder how far down the mountain today's little crap-wagons would roll before they stopped.

But if you do not mind driving in cars that can be totaled at five to ten miles per hour, go for it. It is your money.

#93 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 442 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 24 July 2013 - 05:47

The arguement so often made that SUVs 'are safer for my kids' begs the question - why not restrict their top speed on motorways/freeways to 50 mph?

I'm sure they would object to that particular safety measure...

#94 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,373 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 24 July 2013 - 07:08

2,500 LBS Ooops - I did indeed mean kilos - its listed at 2,600Kg in Autocar for the top spec version.

What is interesting about the long term fatalities graph is how much is has flattened out since the first legistlative action in the 1970's.

Obviously going from 4 to 3 deaths around 1975 to 1980 is the same 33% as going from , say, 24 to 16 deaths in 1920 to 1926 BUT as an absolute reduction, which is what matters to victim's families, its far less.

Of course the road traffic is much higher now so absolute deaths saved yr. over yr. is probably similar to the 1930's.

What enginers have acheived in making cars safer in recent years is remarkable but the graph does show suggest that passive safety , which is the main recent development, is only one component of the downward trend.

It would be very interesting to see the data since 1911 for just the Los Angeles area where the whole city grew up with high car ownership and the bulk of the road improvements were complete before passive safety was legistlated into cars in the 1970's.

#95 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 24 July 2013 - 07:45

But if you do not mind driving in cars that can be totaled at five to ten miles per hour, go for it. It is your money.

Exactly, it's my money, and something that I can be made whole on by the insurance company. On the other hand, insurance companies can't give you your life back, we're not that good yet.

#96 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 July 2013 - 08:53

There's barely even negative press against the royal family, I can barely imagine them actually being a target.

With all the conspiracy theories around about Williams mothers death they most certainly are.
A normal Range Rover will weigh in excess of 4500lbs and the armored one probably grows a tonne on that.
A Corrolla weighs more than 2500 lbs, the eco box has gotten fat!

#97 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 July 2013 - 09:11

The arguement so often made that SUVs 'are safer for my kids' begs the question - why not restrict their top speed on motorways/freeways to 50 mph?

I'm sure they would object to that particular safety measure...

And what drugs are you on? The eco boxes should be restricted to the metro limits. They do kill a lot of people when they get blown off the road by a crosswind, a truck. Or just launch from a pothole into the scenery. Yet alone hitting wildlife. I have often driven little cheapo boxes around the outer metro area and it is often white knuckle driving. And when you want to overtake? The lumbering diesel 4wd is usually faster.

#98 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 July 2013 - 09:25

I recall a neighbor who bought a new V8 Landcruiser, which I assume would equate with the full size SUV's in the USA. It was big, heavy and used around 20l/100km and it was used to take him, a friend and their golf clubs to various courses around the state. My reasoning at the time was that he had the funds and he paid for the fun. The negative views came later when he was describing how good it felt to feel safe as his car would come out of an crash with a smaller car so well. The issue that I felt was repugnant was that he thought that his safety, at the expense of any other road user, was totally acceptable.

Steady on with economy myths. I own a V8 petrol Landcruiser. I get 600k +regularly on 90 litres of fuel on the open road and over 500 around town. With both tanks it is a range of 900km. Hardly economical maybe but my ex used to use 40 litres for 300km around town and actually used more fuel to do 700km than we had on the previous trip in a 4 litre Falcon. That from a 1.5 econbox!
Though she scared me driving the Landcruiser as she could not take in that a higher roll centre vehicle needs to be driven a bit differently than the pram. This out in the bush on reasonable dirt roads where you do not take the ecobox, ever!

#99 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 July 2013 - 09:47

But if you do not mind driving in cars that can be totaled at five to ten miles per hour, go for it. It is your money.



I just totaled a Buick Lesabre at <10 mph a few weeks ago. I drove into the back of a Hyundai SUV whose rear bumper height was a perfect match for my grille, missing my front bumper completely. As a result, it pushed the core support back about a foot. Very gentle impact, no airbag deploy on either vehicle. Scratched bumper cover for Hyundai, total loss claim for Buick.


Let me make clear I am not bitching one little bit about the total loss on the Buick. I think it's great, didn't even chip a tooth. Total loss? BFD. That's what insurance is for. And besides, IT'S ONLY MONEY. The Buick crashed beautifully, I wouldn't change a thing on it. If I changed anything it would be the Hyundai's rear bumper height. Last week I went and found another Lesabre just like the last one only a little nicer.

Also, I am feeling a little old over the episode. I think maybe ten years ago I would have stopped in time.


Advertisement

#100 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 459 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 July 2013 - 10:09

Myth Lee? you seem to be getting 18l/100k around town. On that scale another 2lt is just driver behavior.