Yeah, this should help gas prices!

That chart does not make SUV's look very safe since there are more small cars on the roads than SUV's and the number a injuries exceeds the proportional difference.

I have not seen the proof that SUV's make up 50% of the market. I find that hard to believe since trucks are separated out. I did find one reference that stated SUV's, minivans, and light trucks make up nearly 50% of cars on American highways though.
 
I love the idiots who point at people with low-MPG cars and claim they are red-necks. Not everyone can afford to get a car that gets great mileage.
Click to expand...
But this isn't about the people who have to buy cars simply within their price range. If one can afford two grand for a pickup truck or an old Suburban one can afford to get a Celica or even a Metro that gets two to three times the gas mileage.

There are a lot of other factors to consider in buying a car, of course, but fuel efficient cars are no more expensive than gas guzzlers when you're buying used.
Banning all of the gas-guzzling SUVs from the road would do little to reduce gas costs. If someone wants to drive a SUV - let them.
Click to expand...
NO ONE IN THIS THREAD HAS SUGGESTED BANNING THEM.
You want to make things better? Remember the 'Space Race' during the Cold War? How we glamorized the idea of children growing up to becomes the engineers and scientists who would put us in first place and on the moon? Subsidize schools to develop newer technologies for both alternate fuels and more economical usage of existing fuels. If the USA creates that technology first - BOOM we are back on top again and we will be churning out jobs that make the Tech Boom look pathetic.
Click to expand...
Agreed. :D

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/0684835509

We choose to go to Mars.


665px-Mars_Hubble.jpg



It's just a shame that America hasn't been at the forefront of scientific achievement in a while. We're not longer considered the best place in the world for a scientists in nearly any field to find good work. Too many people are afraid of what science means.
 
But this isn't about the people who have to buy cars simply within their price range. If one can afford two grand for a pickup truck or an old Suburban one can afford to get a Celica or even a Metro that gets two to three times the gas mileage.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you need a truck or van though.

The thing that bothers me is that trucks could get so much better gas mileage than they do but are held back.
 
I
Playboypenguin said:
did find one reference that stated SUV's and light trucks make up nearly 50% of cars on American highways though.
Click to expand...

I won't offer much support for this either as it is just a generality that I've heard many times, but it's probably close.

At any rate I'll refer you to my previous question "Which small fuel efficient car would you put your kids in?"
 
It should come as no surprise that the modern X-over SUVs on the "Top Safety" list all weigh just about 4000 lbs. The Acura RDX, for example, weighs 3950 lbs.
Click to expand...
Dude, how many times must this be pointed out?

An Acura RDX, like virtually all "crossover" SUVs, is a unibody construction. They are built like cars, not trucks. Suburbans and Tahoes and Excursions - y'know, what people usually mean when they refer to SUVs - are body-on-frame and have an entirely different design philosophy than a crossover.

And again, the vast majority of the changes in engineering that have made such vehicles safer are very recent. Most of the trucks on the road perform like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lB0araA0T_k
 
Sometimes you need a truck or van though.

The thing that bothers me is that trucks could get so much better gas mileage than they do but are held back.
Click to expand...
I know, that's why I mentioned there are other factors involved. But to say that people have to buy gas guzzlers because it's all they can afford is simply untrue.

For the record, my list of currently registered vehicles so no one thinks I'm some truck-hating hippie driving a Prius :D:

1999 Chevy K1500 Silverado Z71, averages 14mpg regularly, 11 when towing/hauling
1998 Nissan 240SX with a transplanted LS1 (averages 24mpg even with [legal] racing)
1991 Audi V8 Quattro, currently taken apart because it will also be receiving some American V8 luvin'.

I'd love to drop a Duramax into the Z71 but the suspension is more tuned for light offroading and it would screw up the weight distribution. I'm considering just getting a 2500HD at the end of the year. :o Mmmm, biodiesel.
 
I have not seen the proof that SUV's make up 50% of the market. I find that hard to believe since trucks are separated out. I did find one reference that stated SUV's, minivans, and light trucks make up nearly 50% of cars on American highways though.
Click to expand...
I actually have to dispute my own statement. I just reread the information and it said SUV's, minivans, and light trucks made up almost 50% of new car sales in 2005-2006...not of all cars on the road. :o
 
Apparently you don't read and comprehend well. I have pointed out in every post that the IIHS includes both body-on-frame and unit-body construction in the overall category of SUV, as well the performance differences between them.

Redworm said:
y'know, what people usually mean when they refer to SUVs
Click to expand...

...is not a design criteria I subscribe to, and is sufficient cause to dismiss your comments.
 
I read quite nicely, it doesn't change the fact that my initial argument has always been specific to the construction of the vehicles since their construction also determines their use. You cannot tow with an RDX what you can tow with an F150.

The problem isn't people who are buying an RDX because it's safe, the problem is people assuming that because a unibody RDX is a safe SUV that their late 90s Suburban must be safe as well. Those reports you're posting don't seem to differentiate between the two types of SUVs (because y'know, small SUVs can be body-on-frame as well) and thus skew the conclusion.

hurfadurfadurf
 
It's just a shame that America hasn't been at the forefront of scientific achievement in a while. We're not longer considered the best place in the world for a scientists in nearly any field to find good work. Too many people are afraid of what science means.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have really changed in outlook from a nation of people "who look for solutions to problems ourselves" to a nation "who expects others to solve the problems."

I'm guilty of it too - but it really gives the 'hungry' nations an edge. Lots of people out in the world who have an education and are capable of producing great things - with the added edge of being one generation removed from being dirt poor. Nothing sharpens the focus so much as the experience of having nothing and knowing your work directly impacts your ability to make something of your existence. So easy for so many of us to coast a bit and get by. Unfortunately we are becoming a nation that does that.

But who the hell am I to talk - here I am typing at work. I should be building the better mousetrap or something or striving to make my workplace more productive. :)
 
Had to comment...

For the record, my list of currently registered vehicles so no one thinks I'm some truck-hating hippie driving a Prius :

1999 Chevy K1500 Silverado Z71, averages 14mpg regularly, 11 when towing/hauling
1998 Nissan 240SX with a transplanted LS1 (averages 24mpg even with [legal] racing)
1991 Audi V8 Quattro, currently taken apart because it will also be receiving some American V8 luvin'.
Click to expand...

You are destroying our ozone layer with that 240SX...I know that dont run that clean...:D
 
Meh, runs a lot better with the LS1 than the turbo SR20 I had in there before. :p More power, less weight, better fuel efficiency and a hell of a lot easier to work on.

Illinois smogs so I have to keep the cat on there and I had to finagle with the computer so it wouldn't throw codes. Plus I have to keep the power down because I don't trust the stock rear end with anything over 400 and I haven't found a good replacement from a 300zx yet. :o

I can average in the high 20s and highway into the 30s because of the strong torque curve and the t56 tranny having such a wide 6th gear but as it's warming up I'm spending more time on the track which tends to eat up the dino juice. :D The Audi is a lot heavier so mileage will go down so right now it's the most efficient car I have. I'm just not a fan of anything wrong wheel drive so I can't see myself in an econobox.

At least I reserve the truck for towing/hauling/snow duty.


um, to keep it on topic...as I mentioned before, I would like to put a Duramax in the truck and run on biodiesel but since they're so much heavier I don't think the suspension will like it very much so what I'll likely do is relegate to the truck to standby duty and get an '09 2500HD

biodiesel would be a good way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. at the very least converting the majority of the trucking industry to biodiesel would do us all a huge favor in the long run. we would just need to make sure that the prices aren't used to subsidize unnecessary farmers like the whole ethanol fiasco
 
Yeah, I don't exactly drive a Prius either. I've got a 4WD Ranger, because it's the only 4WD/AWD I could find in my price range and I live out where the plows don't always show up in a timely fashion (and go to school in a town that's not big on the plowing either). It gets 21mpg at best, and that's when I drive conservatively.

If I lived in a climate that was more amenable to them, I'd be happy to put my kids into one of the several midsized cars that still get better mileage than the average SUV and are just as safe. There's plenty of middle ground between the Yaris and the Suburban.


And yes, I agree that encouraging research and development of alternatives is probably the best way to reduce our oil consumption. The best way to make that happen is to ensure that the alternatives will be cheaper than oil...a large part of that is happening without any intervention anyway.
 
73 Jock

For each vehicle type (car, pickup, SUV), the rates of driver deaths per million registered vehicles in 2006 were lowest for the largest and heaviest vehicles.
Click to expand...
You sure have alotta balls by introducing facts into an emotional debate.
 
Gas prices reflect crude oil prices and the results of speculation. Also, in case people hadn't noticed, the U.S. dollar is IN THE TOILET, which also effects oil prices.

An additional point is the following, the sub prime mess or dbacle, whichever term you might prefer, and the fact that the fast buck boys and girls in the banking and mortgage game, as wll as Wall Street types have been stealing us blind, ergo the Credit Crunch, which readers might have heard about.

A question that you might think of posing to your elected things strikes me as follows. Re the sub prime hustle, notwithstanding a certain level of individual stupidity, possibly dishonesty too involved therein, the lenders spelled bankers, brokers and their agents, the "bundlers" are all complicit in what seems to be criminal activity. Re this, the above referenced question comes out as follows. When are we going to see some real criminal prosecutions, as opposed to the usual Dog and Pony Shows that are so often put on?

I realize that this might amount to a dumb question, if it so strikes you, sorry about that, I thought it just might be worth raising.
 
Last edited:
Playboypenguin said:
That chart does not make SUV's look very safe since there are more small cars on the roads than SUV's and the number a injuries exceeds the proportional difference.

It is just unfortunate that those facts did not take percentages into account but instead just overall total injuries.
Click to expand...

from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

Computing driver death rates per million registered passenger vehicles allows for comparisons of fatal crash risk across vehicle groups. The computed rates reflect the influence of vehicle designs plus their patterns of use and the demographics of their drivers. Driver death rates are based on 1-3-year-old vehicles only so as to minimize the effects of vehicle aging. Rates based on fewer than 120,000 vehicle registrations are considered unreliable and are not included.
Click to expand...

Of course this is merely the research and findings of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They haven't taken into account your gut sense of "proportion" or the reams of statistical data that you have presented to support that.

My assertion is that the most fuel efficient vehicles are the most likely to fatally injure their occupants in collisions, and I have presented studies adequately supporting that claim.

The larger argument follows that increasing fuel efficiency by reducing vehicle size/weight presents an unacceptable public safety risk.
 
Okay, I get it. The drawback to these iPhones is you either are two far away to so far away you cannot read the fine print or so close it is hard to follow graphs.

When I was doing my research on my vehicle I did use my friends help. The one thing he says surveys like this leave out is miles driven. They are seldom the only car in the family and tend to average only 1/3-1/2 the total yearly miles as smaller cars and trucks. This skews the numbers in there favor since their are fewer of them on the road at a time as well as being on the road less often per vehicle.

There were some other fancy mathematical factors he mentioned that are way above me and I could not begin to remember or relate them here. He also said that numbers are rapidly catching up with SUV's as they start to be more common and driven more often as primary vehicles and the numbers are completely changing to where insurance companies are starting to consider SUV's as more risky than mid-sized passenger cars. Mainly because of single vehicle accidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top