Of course being in a bigger car than you need might kill someone else in an accident unnecessarily.
For example, I would not like to be in a giant SUV involved in an accident with a smaller vehicle where some kids n the smaller vehicle was killed partly due to the fact that I was driving a vehicle much larger than I needed instead of something more reasonable that would not have caused some kids to get killed in the smaller car. But that's just me.
Or in the 72 car pileup example, while the folks in the big SUVs may have been less injured (although I don't see any facts indicating that was the case in this example) they probably did cause more injuries to others due to their vehicles having more weight and probably not able to stop as quickly. If everyone in that 72 car pileup was driving mid-sized sedans and no-one was driving trucks or giant SUVs, then maybe the overall number of injuries would have been less. Again, some people look at the needs of themselves only while others look at society in a number of issues.
I don't dispute the fact that in small vs large car collissions the large car will sustain less damage. I just think for society as a whole, the way to make the most drivers safe is to reduce the number of large vehicles on the road and not the other way around. And based on car sales, it looks like society is heading that way boosted by the price of gas and the price of cars...all a good thing.
"I would not be real quick to let our government decide what we drive. You may not like what they decide to regulate next. " Totally off subject, but I think many folks in America are paranoid of regulations, while the lack of regulations is a major cause of the problems in the economy or the lack of gun control is what causes violence to result in deaths versus injuries (eg...a kid goes wacko with a gun is going to cause a lot more deaths than if he's goes wack with a knife). And on the other hand land use regulations are what allow you to live in single family developments instead of having a polluting factory next door to you. Or look at photos of LA or any big city in the 1970s as compared to today and you'll see the benefit of regulations pretty clearly.
I haven’t done any actual research on breaking distance differences between SUVs and small sedans. I suspect that the difference in braking distance is probably less than 5%. Considering the difference in weight, my SUV is much more efficient in braking than a smaller sedan like a Honda Accord/Civic or something similar. I have seen the rotors (braking surface) on a Honda Civic and they are about the size of a coffee saucer. The rotors on my Expedition are massive and closer in size to a large dinner plate. Ford knows that I might want to pack a half dozen people in my SUV, load it up with camping gear, a 9,000 pound boat and drive up and down the Rocky Mountains. Trust me when I say that the brakes on my SUV are massively oversized/over designed and are less prone to overheating/fading/failure than those on small front wheel drive cars. Speaking of front wheel drive, that’s another reason I like my Expedition. Rear wheel drive is far superior to front wheel drive. Ever wonder why the most expensive cars in the world use rear wheel drive and the cheapest ones use front wheel drive? It all boils down to this. If someone wants to buy an 8,500 pound F-350 pickup to drive and someone else wants to ride around in a 2,500 pound Honda Civic, that’s their choice. Personally I choose to allocate more of my financial resources to the cost of driving a larger, safer vehicle because safety is of paramount concern to me. Freedom of choice is what makes America the greatest country in the world! Everyone should keep one thing in mind when operating an automobile, it’s not a matter of if you will be in an automobile accident, but when. Choose wisely grsshoppers.
The reviews I've read indicate that braking on Expeditions are spongy as compared to other similarly sized SUVs. "Trust me when I say that the brakes on my SUV are massively oversized/over designed" are you an engineer for the government? Rollover rating on the Expedition is pretty poor too. You can avoid an accident with a smaller and more nimble vehicle. Luckily large body on frame SUVs are selling less every year, so you're right Americans are making their choices, and more smartly now too for everyone.
Plus at least if you're going to spend the $$$ on an Expedition, do everyone else a favor and take a professional drivers course to keep those around you safe...happy driving and keep a safe distance in front of you and keep off the cell phone too. People driving huge SUVs are sort of like those legally carrying concealed weapons...sure it's legal, but they ought to take extra precautions.
Sorry to disappoint you Bob. I have owned several SUVs and large trucks. This Expedition out brakes and out handles all others that I have owned to date. My Expedition also came from the factory with Pirelli tires. These particular tires are highly rated for traction, temperature and wear. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s no sports car but then again I don’t drive it like that. I drive it well within its design limits. How do I know the brakes are massively oversized on my Expedition you ask? Several things… It will go down long mountain grades with several thousand pounds of trailer behind it without any ill effects; general observation and comparison with automotive brakes over many years and the belief that a company that has been building automobiles since the first part of the last century might actually know a thing or two about automotive braking systems.
Poor rollover rating? Very few and I mean very few automobiles have a five star rollover rating. Almost every small sedan has a four-star rollover rating. The Expedition with all wheel drive also has a four star rating. I have the two wheel drive model which causes the rating to barely slip to a three star rating. I don’t worry about that too much though as rollovers are reasonably low with regard to the types of accidents that occur. Additionally, my Expedition has a plethora of safety technologies to minimize the chance for rollover. The statistic that I have is that the electronic stability control (ESC) reduces the chance of rollover 70 to 80%. This combined with the roll stability control (RSC), traction control etc. minimizes the chances of rollover in my Expedition. The interesting thing about the roll stability control on the Expedition is that it uses, among other things, a gyroscopic sensor, which monitors the roll and yaw of the vehicle approximately 100 times every second and can cut engine power while simultaneously engaging brakes either individually or collectively to maintain the vehicle’s stability.
Yes Bob, certain types of avoidance accidents, like running into the back of someone, might be avoided by being able to quickly steer around them but staying a safe distance from them would accomplish the same thing. The accidents I worry about are not minor fender benders so much as someone running a red light doing 45 mph and hitting me in the drivers side or a head on collision. As I previously stated, if a 6,000 pound truck/SUV has a head on collision with a smaller vehicle weighing half as much, the people in the smaller car are eight times more likely to die than the person in the larger of the two vehicles. Another advantage of riding higher in my Expedition is that if I am hit in the driver side door by a Honda Civic or something similar, the main impact will be at the level of my feet. Consequently, if my Expedition impacts the driver’s side door of a Civic, the strongest part of my vehicle (the frame) will impact the Civic driver predominantly in the area where his vital organs are located. Personally speaking, I hope I never have to find out how safe my Expedition is and I pray to God that neither of us ends up seriously hurt in an auto accident.
Bob it seems that you are worried about being hit by a big vehicle. Why don’t you just buy something of reasonable size and safety? Additionally Bob, if you want to come back at me, please come up with something substantive and not just some meaningless, factless, emotional filled dribble. I’m getting tired of schooling you and unless you can come up with something better than you have in your last three posts, I’ll probably just ignore you.
You know all this talk about saving the world from killer SUVs is putting me in the mood to run out to my front yard, throw my arms around the nearest tree and give it a big ol’ hug.
"Expedition out brakes and out handles all others that I have owned to date." Wow...Then your previous vehicles must have really sucked in these areas.
"How do I know the brakes are massively oversized on my Expedition you ask? Several things It will go down long mountain grades with several thousand pounds of trailer behind it without any ill effects;" If there were ill effects simply from this then it shouldn't even be on the road...this is just an example of the brakes doing their basic job, not an example of them being massively oversized.
"Additionally Bob, if you want to come back at me, please come up with something substantive and not just some meaningless, factless, emotional filled dribble." That may be your opinion, but there's no denying the fact, like you pointed out, that a person driving a huge SUV is 8 times more likely to kill somone in a smaller vehicle, so the less huge SUVs out on the roads the better for the millions of people who cannot afford to own, maintain and put gas in a $50,000 huge SUV.
You ask why I don't buy something bigger, but of course you're missing the point again on the needs of society over individual needs. When you're sitting up there in your huge SUV that you don't need, why not try for a few seconds to think about the other drivers on the road and think about their safety.
"As I previously stated, if a 6,000 pound truck/SUV has a head on collision with a smaller vehicle weighing half as much, the people in the smaller car are eight times more likely to die than the person in the larger of the two vehicles." This fact alone is reason why I think it's not responsible driving a 6,000 pound truck/SUV if you don't need to. The less of these types of vehicles on the road the less deaths there will be because the less likelyhood you'll have these types of collisions.
The bottom line is that to me at least, the safety of the millions of people driving small and mediums sized vehicles is more important then the safety of the few individual wanting to drive these huge SUVs. You can respond if you want, but every fact you provide just proves my point more.
Got to agree with Motorhead15 on this. Seen to many small cars flattened by SUV's and the car always comes out the loser. As for me, I want my family and myself the safest I can be in a big vehicle. Hate paying for more gas... but worth it for safety.
I'm not denying the fact that in a contest between a 6000lb vehicle and one half its size that the 6000lb vehicle will come out ahead, I'm just saying that reducing the number of 6000lb vehicles out there on the road will make it safer for the vast majority of people not driving 6000lb vehicles.
Something sized liked a Highlander, Acadia, Pilot, etc will provide plenty of safety and the up-high feeling but won't be so damaging to smaller cars as the really huge SUVs. I'm not saying that owners of huge SUVs have to buy Smart cars, but just something more reasonble to their needs to provide themselves and others safety.
Again...my opinion is that safety goes beyond my own safety. What about your friends and family? Are they all driving 6000lb SUVs all the time? If not then think about how much safer THEY would be if there were less 6000lb SUVs on the road...unless you're rich enough to buy all your friends and families 6000lb SUVs!
Extremely well put. Gets to the heart of the errors in the argument that "if you really value the safety of your family" you'll buy the heaviest and stiffest vehicle available.
For the safety of one's family one should also seek to free our economy from the balance of payments deficit from our consumption of imported oil.
"For the safety of one's family one should also seek to free our economy from the balance of payments deficit from our consumption of imported oil. "
Exactly...the problem with most Americans is that they are too short sighted and don't look much beyond the mirror when making decisions. Like little kids...they want everything right now and who cares about anyone else here now or in the future.
Regardless... I for one will do everything in my power to keep my family safe. Who wouldn't want to do everything possible to protect their family? Safety to me is more important than where oil comes from. Most of my friends also drive big trucks or SUV's. Those who don't have made the decision not to for various reasons and I accept that. I wish them no harm, but they realize they are no match against a large vehicle. I owned a motorcycle for several years when I was younger, but after being hit three times by cars, I decided size and protection does matter. You can call us "short sighted", but at least we will be safe.
"but after being hit three times by cars, I decided size and protection does matter" I wonder if a huge SUV hit you instead of a car if you'd be here today??
well bob i have 4 kids ...i love hunting and i love fishing...first i had a 4runner but then the 4th one force to upgrade to a bigger one...right now a suburban.....until i change it for an expedition...and then maybe another one....
and here in quebec let me tell you it's not the big suv you see every night on the news smash to a pulp....it's those small cars young people drive to insane speed....that's the real problem here....
"...The bottom line is that to me at least, the safety of the millions of people driving small and mediums sized vehicles is more important then the safety of the few individual wanting to drive these huge SUVs. You can respond if you want, but every fact you provide just proves my point more. "
Motorhead needs a large SUV to tow. You can't do that with a small car, and (depending on the weight being towed) possibly not with a crossover either.
I rented an Expedition 4WD once in New Mexico. I was going out to some rugged areas. The one thing I instantly noticed was that the gearing on the vehicle caused me to drive more aggressively. I found myself starting to pull up behind smaller vehicles on the freeway, simply because the truck had so much power. I had to consciously ensure that I kept my distance. After I realized the issue, everything was fine so far as my driving behavior. But it was enlightening. I had to keep repeating to myself that I was driving a 3 ton vehicle - because it felt like a sports car so far as acceleration goes.
BTW I'd ordered a smaller 4WD, but they were out and "upgraded" me. I didn't want the size or MPG, but there you are. I must say that truck was comfortable in all situations, and the 4WD was awesome.
"...The bottom line is that to me at least, the safety of the millions of people driving small and mediums sized vehicles is more important then the safety of the few individual wanting to drive these huge SUVs. You can respond if you want, but every fact you provide just proves my point more. "
IIRC, close to half of the vehicles sold are pickup trucks, SUVs or CUVs. So, I don't get your millions to a few argument. BTW, this is the US of A where freedom of choice is our right, within limits of course. If you want to dictate away our rights, then you might as well change the name of the country, IMHO.
I agree that we need to cut dependence on foreign oil. I see a very good way to do that is go with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. One company has developed a version of that for demonstration on a Hummer H3. 30-40 miles on electric charge then after that 30-40 MPG running on generator to rechage and power the electic motor. My normal commute is about 40 miles. With something like this I could probably cut fuel usage from 800-1000 gallons per year to 150-200 gallons per year and NOT give up my SUV. If we could get enough of these on the road, we could cut usage of gasoline a lot in the short term (until hydrogen fuel cell or whatever) is available in XX? years. This is a similar concept to the Volt, economical for short drive distances, extended range on fuel that is supplied from our current infrastructure.
Volfangary stated a few posts back: “Regardless... I for one will do everything in my power to keep my family safe.” Very commendable Volfangary. I too purchased my vehicle with safety as the primary consideration. Years ago old hotrodders had a saying. “There’s no replacement for displacement.” They were referring to engine size but perhaps that adage applies to vehicle size as well.
By the way I found out why Bobw3 is so scared of big SUV’s? Here’s the scoop… He drives a 2,500 pound econo-box. Heck Bob, I would be scared too if I drove a Honda Fit. There are literally thousands of Ford F-350’s and other assorted heavy-duty diesel pickup trucks running around the Austin area. Personally I would have chosen something safer for your family to ride around in but that’s your choice. By the way, I looked up your 2007 Honda Fit at http://www.safercar.gov . Did you know your car has only a three star crash rating for the rear passengers? Bob, you should seriously consider buying a safer car to haul your wife and two small babies around in. I know I mentioned it before but it is worth repeating. You should read “Buying a Safer Car” http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/DOT/safercar/pdf/BASC2008.pdf and utilize the government website where this document is located to help you make a more informed decision about purchasing a safer vehicle for your family. Getting 35 mpg should not take precedence over your family’s safety. Another thing Bob, please stop asking people to give up their larger vehicles just to reinforce the bad decision you made to put your kids in the backseat of a car with a three star crash rating. It is not my responsibility or anybody else’s to drive something smaller just so you can get 35mpg.
"By the way I found out why Bobw3 is so scared of big SUV’s? Here’s the scoop He drives a 2,500 pound econo-box. Heck Bob, I would be scared too if I drove a Honda Fit. "
Looking back bobw3 seems to have driven a Ford Freestyle in the past. That was in the CUV class. I remember he thought highly of it. So, if he has a Fit now he must have downsized his ride.
Funny how you're interested in what I drive (actually I drive both a Fit and Freestyle)...I guess I struck a nerve with some (feeling guilty, making you think...huh?)! Like I said, what several times now, it's not about ME but the larger SOCIETY. Like I also said, the more uneducated and selfish views posted by those only looking after themselves, the more it proves my point...so post on! My bottom line is still the real bottom line in that the less large SUVs out on the road the safer it will be for everyone driving something smaller and that can't be denied. I'm comfortable with my choice of vehicles for a variety of reasons and only one of them is good MPG. Don't be so worried. There's no bills in Congress outlawing your car...but if there were I'd call my representatives asking them to vote for it! Happy driving.
If you really think that the mllions of people that aren't driving huge SUVs because they can't afford or don't need one are endangering their families that's a pretty sad attitude from some who's actually participating in the endangering. That's like blaming a shooting victim because he's not carrying a gun, but then you probably think that everyone should walk around with AK-47s over their shoulder to defend themselves too! Actually, if you're so concerned with safety you should armor plate your SUV and hire a professional driver. If you go read your statistics you'll find that you're more safe that way too.
If you want to keep repeating your same reponse unnecessarily, again that's your decision, but don't keep implying that everyone not driving the same vehicle as you is endangering their family. It's simply not true. Actually if you want to be really safe you'll stay off the road in any vehicle and as a bonus, you'll be risking less lives too. By the way, since you brought up the "epitaph" phrase at least mine won't say "I only cared about me and my dog."
Anyway motorhead, you can continue to repeat the same thing if you like...it's a free country...and I'm sure you'll be happy when some others agree with your views. But I'm glad I made you think beyond yourself even a little bit...and you know I did (but I'm sure you'll say I didn't...that's okay too)!! Goodbye and happy motoring
P.S. Since you are driving a big car that you've said will crush the little ones, try and be extra carefull out there...hopefully you're never on the cell phone while driving, nor driving tired, not having your dog jumping on your lap, or otherwise distracted. With the freedom to drive whatever you want comes added responsibility that you have whether you want it or not.
Bob... If it's a choice between protecting my family or protecting everyone else in society, my family will win each time. If you want to put society first, that's your decision and I respect it and hope you respect mine. Happy and safe motoring to all!
choice between protecting my family or protecting everyone else in society
One could argue SUV owners gain their safety at the expense of others upon whom they impose greater risk. But then I'm not sure that any of this is pertinent to the topic at hand.
How are body on frame SUVs safer than unibody SUVs of the same mass?
The body on frame SUV is stiffer (less crushable). This doesn't mean it is safer in all types of collison. In fact in a single vehicle collision with a very stiff obstruction (tree, concrete wall, bridge, etc.) the extra stiffness of the body on frame will cause higher crash forces to the occupants.
In a two vehicle collision between vehicles of unequal mass, the occupants of the more massive one experience proportionally lower crash forces, and the occupants of the less massive one proportionally higher forces.
If you have to do serious towing or hauling, then the pick-up based RWD SUV is the best for the job. But these massive high powered vehicles consume fuel at a higher rate, which is a threat to our economic future.
traverse v6 (cuv) has a curb weight about 100 lbs more than a trailblazer ext v8 (suv). it is making an assumption that the the 'frame' of an suv is not designed to handle a collision in any manner different than a cuv.
"putting your family's safety before that of complete strangers"
Actually the "strangers" I'm thinking about are my brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, co-workers, etc..., who actually mean something to me, but then you're more concerned with yourself and the dog sitting beside you...hmmmm. And yes I know that anyone who thinks of others is called a "socialist."
Now let me go back to my Prius forum with rest of the socialists
The real heart of the matter is that people who drive heavy, stiff vehicles shouldn't be castigated as totally unconcerned about the safety of the occupants of other vehicles.
And people who drive body-on-frame SUVs shouldn't claim that those who drive more fuel efficient and less menacing vehicles don't care about the safety of their family or other occupants of their vehicle.
It's a continuum. These are all legal vehicles. But the fact is that the era of cheap petroleum is coming to an end. To preserve our economy and our natural resources we may have to enact tax policies that discourage the discretionary high consumption of petroleum.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right...eg smoking in offices was legal even though at the time the 2nd hand smoke was killing co-workers, but it took years for the legal system to catch up with what was right. Car pollution standards that were legal 30 years ago that made the air unbreathable in many cities are now illegal. Again, it takes a long time for the legal system to get in line what society feels is the right thing to do.
Obviously people can drive whatever legal vehicle is out there. My point is not to castigate everyone drive a giant SUV, but just encourage them to think outside their box... My hope is that MPG standards will get so high that manufacturers will have to reduce the size of vehicles they produce just to meet the MPG standards. That will create the twofold benefit of less gas usage and less big cars competing wtih the small ones.
but just encourage them to think outside their box... My hope is that MPG standards will get so high that manufacturers will have to reduce the size of vehicles
That's not encouraging people to think outside their box, that's forcing them into yours. But I still think we should relegate the political discussion to another venue. hint, hint!
I really don't want to get into a pi$$ing match over how evil SUV's and their owners are, but I don't care what anyone drives or what others think of what I drive. I've had several SUV's over the years because I choose to tow a boat and a travel trailer. Plus we often bring our daughters friends along so, I occasionally have 6-8 people in the Expe. I like the SUV over a truck because it has a much better suspension for everyday driving, plus the extra room for passengers. But if the "high and mighty" econo car crowd win and make the SUV extinct, I'll just buy a diesel 3/4 ton truck and continue to use my boat and RV.
As for dangers on the road, obviously, I understand the physics of my 6000lb SUV broad siding a Civic. But, if a larger SUV like a Expedition/Tahoe/Suburban are so dangerous, how come they are so cheap to insure? I pay less than $60/mo on my 07 Expedition for full coverage with a 500k liability policy and $500 deductible. You'd think if the actuaries could prove that my driving a 6k lb SUV would mean I'm more likely to kill a family in a compact car, my rates would be much higher. I'm paying far less than I did for any car, and I have more liability coverage than I did then.
I did T-bone a person in a Grand Am with a Nissan Pathfinder about 6 years ago. I hit them right on the drivers door. I was going about 30mph (I was in an unfamiliar area and didn't see the stop light until I was basically in the intersection and it was raining (no question it was my fault). My air bad did not go off and she walked away unscratched. Did total her car though and did 7k damage to my 01 Pathfinder. You'd think by listening to this board, my accident should have killed the poor lady I hit.
Luckily large body on frame SUVs are selling less every year, so you're right Americans are making their choices, and more smartly now too for everyone. ____________________________________________________________________ That may be true but I just read an article yesterday saying that the dealers are selling every SUV and pickup on their lots. Supply is short because of the GM/Chrysler situation. Likewise, the prices on used Suburbans, etc are on the rise again.
It’s easier to control the rate of deformation of a uni-body vehicle than a full frame vehicle, which is probably a good thing in a low speed impact. Taking the Chevrolet Traverse, which someone earlier said does not have a frame. The weight listed on the Traverse is about 5,000 pounds. According to a certified “CAT” scale, the weight on my Expedition with a full tank of fuel and me in it is right at 6,000 pounds. In a collision with a stationary wall at 40 mph, the Traverse has lower crash forces transmitted to the driver than the Expedition, but this is with the vehicle striking a fixed object. Both vehicles are rated five stars for the frontal crash into the wall test. If the Expedition and Traverse hit each other in a head on collision at the same speed say 45 mph, the Expedition driver will incur lower crash forces because of it’s heavier weight than the driver of the Traverse. Additionally, if you look at the Traverse side collision numbers on http://www.safercar.gov you will see that the Traverse has worse numbers than the Expedition but still garners a five star side crash rating. Where the full frame vehicle comes into it’s own is in a severe two vehicle collision. Remember, in a frontal type collision, you want the front of the car to deform as much as possible up to the point of intruding into the passenger compartment. Some of the newer full frame vehicles have dimpled or weakened portions of the front part of the frame to help with deformation in a frontal collision. Remember that crumpling is good up to a point then you want deformation to stop completely, again before any intrusion into the passenger compartment occurs.
Framed vehicles such as full size SUVs and full size pickup trucks are built on a heavy steel frames so they can handle heavy loads. I’m not sure we will see the death of the body on frame vehicle because there will always be a need for a vehicle that can haul a five-ton trailer such as a boat, camper etc. and that takes a steel frame vehicle. Nobody will argue that heavier vehicles don’t have a huge safety advantage over smaller lighter vehicles in a high crash force accident. A strong steel frame just adds a greater degree of protection from intrusion into the passenger compartment. There will always be accidents that are so severe that no vehicle would offer sufficient protection.
By the way I found this video from IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) which is worth watching:
Very interesting info about the results of your T-bone crash. . . It's very surprising that your airbag did not deploy. Even more amazing that the woman in the Grand Am walked away--truly miraculous outcome for her and you.
Sorry HOST, but with the forum with the title, "Death of the body-on-frame SUV?" I would think there would be some leway in the discussion, especially since I don't see hardly anyone here talking about the death of body-on-frame SUVs too much, just people talking about why they want to keep theirs.
And I don't see how I can "force" people to think one way or another just by posting here...I don't think my words here have that much power
But posting an opposing view in this forum is like going to an NRA forum and posting the obvious truth that if there were no guns available, then there would be no deaths from guns...but no politics right :surprise:
With upcoming CAFE regs I can see BOF SUVs going away except for maybe a Suburban and/or Expedition EL. I imagine Ford and GM probably will keep current designs around a while. While I'd hate to see the Expe and Suburban go away, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd just get a pickup to tow my toys.
This might upset you but I have a 3/4 Ton Diesel P/U and a SUV. I just sold my VW to pick up the SUV too! Why would I want to do this, for a couple of reasons. While we are a pain for you to see around the added height gives us the ability to see further down the road to avoid danger, if you are at a proper following distance you too should be able to react in a timely manner. On week ends I like to spend time with my family and friends, when we go out it is nice to fill the eight seats in my SUV and take one vehicle over two, thus reducing the amount of vehicles on the road. Finally I enjoy being able to pick up my furniture, mattresses, and other bulky items myself and avoid the delivery trucks, which are much more difficult to see around and get far worse mileage than either my P/U or my SUV.
I challenge the auto makers to develop a 50-mpg or plug-in electric with fast-charge battery counterpart to our work-horse SUVs! I have a 1990 4WD, 6-cyl, automatic, Isuzu Trooper that I have used twice to move across California and back, evacuate twice to escape wildfires, enjoy desert jeep trails for hikes not accessible to 2WD, low-slung cars, haul picnic, beach, tail-gate party, gardening and home repair supplies, cat and dog in carriers, and of course passengers. This has been the best car ever, because it's comfortable enough for road trips and provides good visibility, off-pavement and load-carrying capacities. I save gas now by living close to work and consolidating errands but would like to do more traveling again. I'm considering cash for clunkers and wish there were a fuel-efficient or electric alternative. Instead of demonizing SUV owners, challenge the auto makers to design an environmentally friendly replacement; and I don't mean SUV cross-overs or hybrid station wagons weighed down with a 3rd-row seat.
I have to occasionally haul full sheets of Plywood. I occasionally pull travel trailers and utility trailers. And I regularly have 6 or more people sitting in my 2008 Expedition. When we have a group going out to dinner, we take 1 car instead of 3. I am also getting a little over 15 MPG around town, and 20-21 on the highway.
I have a tax client with a diesel Excursion. Combining their families, they have 6 kids. Seems like a no brainer to me. She is the neighborhood sports drive, so I seldom see it without at least a half dozen people in it.
Another client was bragging about trading in his 2 year old Suburban on a new Honda Civic and how he was saving $75 per month on gas. It was his wife that mentioned that their car payment is $150 higher each month because the trade-in amount was lower than their balance due. And they regularly have to rent a pickup for $100+ to take the boat to the lake for the weekend, and take the car because the truck doesn't seat enough people.
Well it happened. I was involved in a minor accident. Yes it was the first accident I have been involved in that was my fault in over 30 years of driving. I was turning left at an intersection in my 2008 Expedition (full box frame vehicle) and collided with a 2008 Honda CRV (unibody). I was doing less than 10 miles per hour. The other vehicle had slowed down and was probably doing less than 20 mph. Both of us turned to avoid the accident. Airbags did not deploy in either vehicle and no one was hurt. The Expedition is approximately 2,500 pounds heavier than the Honda. Naturally the Expedition came out better. The radiator, engine and transmission on the Honda was turned completely off axis and was shoved into the Honda's firewall. The Honda went through the Expedition's cosmetic pieces like the fender and bumper cover but once it hit the Expedition's frame, the Honda didn't go any further. The Honda would not move and had to be winched onto a flat bed wrecker and hauled off. I drove the Expedition for a week until I had time to get it into the body shop. I'm not sure if the Honda was totaled or not but I would not be surprised if it was as it had some major damage not only to the body/unibody but also to the entire drive-train of the Honda. The main thing here is that nobody was injured. Had the same collision happened at higher speeds, it wouldn't have been pretty for the Honda. Again, thank God nobody was hurt.
Comments
For example, I would not like to be in a giant SUV involved in an accident with a smaller vehicle where some kids n the smaller vehicle was killed partly due to the fact that I was driving a vehicle much larger than I needed instead of something more reasonable that would not have caused some kids to get killed in the smaller car. But that's just me.
Or in the 72 car pileup example, while the folks in the big SUVs may have been less injured (although I don't see any facts indicating that was the case in this example) they probably did cause more injuries to others due to their vehicles having more weight and probably not able to stop as quickly. If everyone in that 72 car pileup was driving mid-sized sedans and no-one was driving trucks or giant SUVs, then maybe the overall number of injuries would have been less. Again, some people look at the needs of themselves only while others look at society in a number of issues.
I don't dispute the fact that in small vs large car collissions the large car will sustain less damage. I just think for society as a whole, the way to make the most drivers safe is to reduce the number of large vehicles on the road and not the other way around. And based on car sales, it looks like society is heading that way boosted by the price of gas and the price of cars...all a good thing.
Totally off subject, but I think many folks in America are paranoid of regulations, while the lack of regulations is a major cause of the problems in the economy or the lack of gun control is what causes violence to result in deaths versus injuries (eg...a kid goes wacko with a gun is going to cause a lot more deaths than if he's goes wack with a knife). And on the other hand land use regulations are what allow you to live in single family developments instead of having a polluting factory next door to you. Or look at photos of LA or any big city in the 1970s as compared to today and you'll see the benefit of regulations pretty clearly.
"Trust me when I say that the brakes on my SUV are massively oversized/over designed" are you an engineer for the government?
Rollover rating on the Expedition is pretty poor too.
You can avoid an accident with a smaller and more nimble vehicle.
Luckily large body on frame SUVs are selling less every year, so you're right Americans are making their choices, and more smartly now too for everyone.
Plus at least if you're going to spend the $$$ on an Expedition, do everyone else a favor and take a professional drivers course to keep those around you safe...happy driving and keep a safe distance in front of you and keep off the cell phone too. People driving huge SUVs are sort of like those legally carrying concealed weapons...sure it's legal, but they ought to take extra precautions.
Poor rollover rating? Very few and I mean very few automobiles have a five star rollover rating. Almost every small sedan has a four-star rollover rating. The Expedition with all wheel drive also has a four star rating. I have the two wheel drive model which causes the rating to barely slip to a three star rating. I don’t worry about that too much though as rollovers are reasonably low with regard to the types of accidents that occur. Additionally, my Expedition has a plethora of safety technologies to minimize the chance for rollover. The statistic that I have is that the electronic stability control (ESC) reduces the chance of rollover 70 to 80%. This combined with the roll stability control (RSC), traction control etc. minimizes the chances of rollover in my Expedition. The interesting thing about the roll stability control on the Expedition is that it uses, among other things, a gyroscopic sensor, which monitors the roll and yaw of the vehicle approximately 100 times every second and can cut engine power while simultaneously engaging brakes either individually or collectively to maintain the vehicle’s stability.
Yes Bob, certain types of avoidance accidents, like running into the back of someone, might be avoided by being able to quickly steer around them but staying a safe distance from them would accomplish the same thing. The accidents I worry about are not minor fender benders so much as someone running a red light doing 45 mph and hitting me in the drivers side or a head on collision. As I previously stated, if a 6,000 pound truck/SUV has a head on collision with a smaller vehicle weighing half as much, the people in the smaller car are eight times more likely to die than the person in the larger of the two vehicles. Another advantage of riding higher in my Expedition is that if I am hit in the driver side door by a Honda Civic or something similar, the main impact will be at the level of my feet. Consequently, if my Expedition impacts the driver’s side door of a Civic, the strongest part of my vehicle (the frame) will impact the Civic driver predominantly in the area where his vital organs are located. Personally speaking, I hope I never have to find out how safe my Expedition is and I pray to God that neither of us ends up seriously hurt in an auto accident.
Bob it seems that you are worried about being hit by a big vehicle. Why don’t you just buy something of reasonable size and safety? Additionally Bob, if you want to come back at me, please come up with something substantive and not just some meaningless, factless, emotional filled dribble. I’m getting tired of schooling you and unless you can come up with something better than you have in your last three posts, I’ll probably just ignore you.
You know all this talk about saving the world from killer SUVs is putting me in the mood to run out to my front yard, throw my arms around the nearest tree and give it a big ol’ hug.
"How do I know the brakes are massively oversized on my Expedition you ask? Several things It will go down long mountain grades with several thousand pounds of trailer behind it without any ill effects;" If there were ill effects simply from this then it shouldn't even be on the road...this is just an example of the brakes doing their basic job, not an example of them being massively oversized.
"Additionally Bob, if you want to come back at me, please come up with something substantive and not just some meaningless, factless, emotional filled dribble." That may be your opinion, but there's no denying the fact, like you pointed out, that a person driving a huge SUV is 8 times more likely to kill somone in a smaller vehicle, so the less huge SUVs out on the roads the better for the millions of people who cannot afford to own, maintain and put gas in a $50,000 huge SUV.
You ask why I don't buy something bigger, but of course you're missing the point again on the needs of society over individual needs. When you're sitting up there in your huge SUV that you don't need, why not try for a few seconds to think about the other drivers on the road and think about their safety.
"As I previously stated, if a 6,000 pound truck/SUV has a head on collision with a smaller vehicle weighing half as much, the people in the smaller car are eight times more likely to die than the person in the larger of the two vehicles." This fact alone is reason why I think it's not responsible driving a 6,000 pound truck/SUV if you don't need to. The less of these types of vehicles on the road the less deaths there will be because the less likelyhood you'll have these types of collisions.
The bottom line is that to me at least, the safety of the millions of people driving small and mediums sized vehicles is more important then the safety of the few individual wanting to drive these huge SUVs. You can respond if you want, but every fact you provide just proves my point more.
Something sized liked a Highlander, Acadia, Pilot, etc will provide plenty of safety and the up-high feeling but won't be so damaging to smaller cars as the really huge SUVs. I'm not saying that owners of huge SUVs have to buy Smart cars, but just something more reasonble to their needs to provide themselves and others safety.
Again...my opinion is that safety goes beyond my own safety. What about your friends and family? Are they all driving 6000lb SUVs all the time? If not then think about how much safer THEY would be if there were less 6000lb SUVs on the road...unless you're rich enough to buy all your friends and families 6000lb SUVs!
For the safety of one's family one should also seek to free our economy from the balance of payments deficit from our consumption of imported oil.
Exactly...the problem with most Americans is that they are too short sighted and don't look much beyond the mirror when making decisions. Like little kids...they want everything right now and who cares about anyone else here now or in the future.
I think that is an unfair generalization and isn't particularly cogent in making your case.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
and here in quebec let me tell you it's not the big suv you see every night on the news smash to a pulp....it's those small cars young people drive to insane speed....that's the real problem here....
Of course, an Expedition wouldn't have helped much in that case either.
(your logging roads are a whole 'nother story too!)
Motorhead needs a large SUV to tow. You can't do that with a small car, and (depending on the weight being towed) possibly not with a crossover either.
I rented an Expedition 4WD once in New Mexico. I was going out to some rugged areas. The one thing I instantly noticed was that the gearing on the vehicle caused me to drive more aggressively. I found myself starting to pull up behind smaller vehicles on the freeway, simply because the truck had so much power. I had to consciously ensure that I kept my distance. After I realized the issue, everything was fine so far as my driving behavior. But it was enlightening. I had to keep repeating to myself that I was driving a 3 ton vehicle - because it felt like a sports car so far as acceleration goes.
BTW I'd ordered a smaller 4WD, but they were out and "upgraded" me. I didn't want the size or MPG, but there you are. I must say that truck was comfortable in all situations, and the 4WD was awesome.
IIRC, close to half of the vehicles sold are pickup trucks, SUVs or CUVs. So, I don't get your millions to a few argument. BTW, this is the US of A where freedom of choice is our right, within limits of course. If you want to dictate away our rights, then you might as well change the name of the country, IMHO.
I agree that we need to cut dependence on foreign oil. I see a very good way to do that is go with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. One company has developed a version of that for demonstration on a Hummer H3. 30-40 miles on electric charge then after that 30-40 MPG running on generator to rechage and power the electic motor. My normal commute is about 40 miles. With something like this I could probably cut fuel usage from 800-1000 gallons per year to 150-200 gallons per year and NOT give up my SUV. If we could get enough of these on the road, we could cut usage of gasoline a lot in the short term (until hydrogen fuel cell or whatever) is available in XX? years. This is a similar concept to the Volt, economical for short drive distances, extended range on fuel that is supplied from our current infrastructure.
More on the plug-in extended range hybrid http://www.rasertech.com
“Regardless... I for one will do everything in my power to keep my family safe.” Very commendable Volfangary. I too purchased my vehicle with safety as the primary consideration. Years ago old hotrodders had a saying. “There’s no replacement for displacement.” They were referring to engine size but perhaps that adage applies to vehicle size as well.
By the way I found out why Bobw3 is so scared of big SUV’s? Here’s the scoop… He drives a 2,500 pound econo-box. Heck Bob, I would be scared too if I drove a Honda Fit. There are literally thousands of Ford F-350’s and other assorted heavy-duty diesel pickup trucks running around the Austin area. Personally I would have chosen something safer for your family to ride around in but that’s your choice. By the way, I looked up your 2007 Honda Fit at http://www.safercar.gov . Did you know your car has only a three star crash rating for the rear passengers? Bob, you should seriously consider buying a safer car to haul your wife and two small babies around in. I know I mentioned it before but it is worth repeating. You should read “Buying a Safer Car” http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/DOT/safercar/pdf/BASC2008.pdf and utilize the government website where this document is located to help you make a more informed decision about purchasing a safer vehicle for your family. Getting 35 mpg should not take precedence over your family’s safety. Another thing Bob, please stop asking people to give up their larger vehicles just to reinforce the bad decision you made to put your kids in the backseat of a car with a three star crash rating. It is not my responsibility or anybody else’s to drive something smaller just so you can get 35mpg.
Looking back bobw3 seems to have driven a Ford Freestyle in the past. That was in the CUV class. I remember he thought highly of it. So, if he has a Fit now he must have downsized his ride.
P.S. Since you are driving a big car that you've said will crush the little ones, try and be extra carefull out there...hopefully you're never on the cell phone while driving, nor driving tired, not having your dog jumping on your lap, or otherwise distracted. With the freedom to drive whatever you want comes added responsibility that you have whether you want it or not.
One could argue SUV owners gain their safety at the expense of others upon whom they impose greater risk. But then I'm not sure that any of this is pertinent to the topic at hand.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
The body on frame SUV is stiffer (less crushable). This doesn't mean it is safer in all types of collison. In fact in a single vehicle collision with a very stiff obstruction (tree, concrete wall, bridge, etc.) the extra stiffness of the body on frame will cause higher crash forces to the occupants.
In a two vehicle collision between vehicles of unequal mass, the occupants of the more massive one experience proportionally lower crash forces, and the occupants of the less massive one proportionally higher forces.
If you have to do serious towing or hauling, then the pick-up based RWD SUV is the best for the job. But these massive high powered vehicles consume fuel at a higher rate, which is a threat to our economic future.
it is making an assumption that the the 'frame' of an suv is not designed to handle a collision in any manner different than a cuv.
Actually the "strangers" I'm thinking about are my brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, co-workers, etc..., who actually mean something to me, but then you're more concerned with yourself and the dog sitting beside you...hmmmm. And yes I know that anyone who thinks of others is called a "socialist."
Now let me go back to my Prius forum with rest of the socialists
And people who drive body-on-frame SUVs shouldn't claim that those who drive more fuel efficient and less menacing vehicles don't care about the safety of their family or other occupants of their vehicle.
It's a continuum. These are all legal vehicles. But the fact is that the era of cheap petroleum is coming to an end. To preserve our economy and our natural resources we may have to enact tax policies that discourage the discretionary high consumption of petroleum.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right...eg smoking in offices was legal even though at the time the 2nd hand smoke was killing co-workers, but it took years for the legal system to catch up with what was right. Car pollution standards that were legal 30 years ago that made the air unbreathable in many cities are now illegal. Again, it takes a long time for the legal system to get in line what society feels is the right thing to do.
Obviously people can drive whatever legal vehicle is out there. My point is not to castigate everyone drive a giant SUV, but just encourage them to think outside their box... My hope is that MPG standards will get so high that manufacturers will have to reduce the size of vehicles they produce just to meet the MPG standards. That will create the twofold benefit of less gas usage and less big cars competing wtih the small ones.
That's not encouraging people to think outside their box, that's forcing them into yours. But I still think we should relegate the political discussion to another venue. hint, hint!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
As for dangers on the road, obviously, I understand the physics of my 6000lb SUV broad siding a Civic. But, if a larger SUV like a Expedition/Tahoe/Suburban are so dangerous, how come they are so cheap to insure? I pay less than $60/mo on my 07 Expedition for full coverage with a 500k liability policy and $500 deductible. You'd think if the actuaries could prove that my driving a 6k lb SUV would mean I'm more likely to kill a family in a compact car, my rates would be much higher. I'm paying far less than I did for any car, and I have more liability coverage than I did then.
I did T-bone a person in a Grand Am with a Nissan Pathfinder about 6 years ago. I hit them right on the drivers door. I was going about 30mph (I was in an unfamiliar area and didn't see the stop light until I was basically in the intersection and it was raining (no question it was my fault). My air bad did not go off and she walked away unscratched. Did total her car though and did 7k damage to my 01 Pathfinder. You'd think by listening to this board, my accident should have killed the poor lady I hit.
____________________________________________________________________
That may be true but I just read an article yesterday saying that the dealers are selling every SUV and pickup on their lots. Supply is short because of the GM/Chrysler situation. Likewise, the prices on used Suburbans, etc are on the rise again.
It’s easier to control the rate of deformation of a uni-body vehicle than a full frame vehicle, which is probably a good thing in a low speed impact. Taking the Chevrolet Traverse, which someone earlier said does not have a frame. The weight listed on the Traverse is about 5,000 pounds. According to a certified “CAT” scale, the weight on my Expedition with a full tank of fuel and me in it is right at 6,000 pounds. In a collision with a stationary wall at 40 mph, the Traverse has lower crash forces transmitted to the driver than the Expedition, but this is with the vehicle striking a fixed object. Both vehicles are rated five stars for the frontal crash into the wall test. If the Expedition and Traverse hit each other in a head on collision at the same speed say 45 mph, the Expedition driver will incur lower crash forces because of it’s heavier weight than the driver of the Traverse. Additionally, if you look at the Traverse side collision numbers on http://www.safercar.gov you will see that the Traverse has worse numbers than the Expedition but still garners a five star side crash rating. Where the full frame vehicle comes into it’s own is in a severe two vehicle collision. Remember, in a frontal type collision, you want the front of the car to deform as much as possible up to the point of intruding into the passenger compartment. Some of the newer full frame vehicles have dimpled or weakened portions of the front part of the frame to help with deformation in a frontal collision. Remember that crumpling is good up to a point then you want deformation to stop completely, again before any intrusion into the passenger compartment occurs.
Framed vehicles such as full size SUVs and full size pickup trucks are built on a heavy steel frames so they can handle heavy loads. I’m not sure we will see the death of the body on frame vehicle because there will always be a need for a vehicle that can haul a five-ton trailer such as a boat, camper etc. and that takes a steel frame vehicle. Nobody will argue that heavier vehicles don’t have a huge safety advantage over smaller lighter vehicles in a high crash force accident. A strong steel frame just adds a greater degree of protection from intrusion into the passenger compartment. There will always be accidents that are so severe that no vehicle would offer sufficient protection.
By the way I found this video from IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) which is worth watching:
CRASH TESTS DEMONSTRATE THE INFLUENCE OF VEHICLE SIZE & WEIGHT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmUBgTHppv8
Very interesting info about the results of your T-bone crash. . . It's very surprising that your airbag did not deploy. Even more amazing that the woman in the Grand Am walked away--truly miraculous outcome for her and you.
Jim
And I don't see how I can "force" people to think one way or another just by posting here...I don't think my words here have that much power
But posting an opposing view in this forum is like going to an NRA forum and posting the obvious truth that if there were no guns available, then there would be no deaths from guns...but no politics right :surprise:
my bof after meeting a wrong way driver
This might upset you but I have a 3/4 Ton Diesel P/U and a SUV. I just sold my VW to pick up the SUV too! Why would I want to do this, for a couple of reasons. While we are a pain for you to see around the added height gives us the ability to see further down the road to avoid danger, if you are at a proper following distance you too should be able to react in a timely manner. On week ends I like to spend time with my family and friends, when we go out it is nice to fill the eight seats in my SUV and take one vehicle over two, thus reducing the amount of vehicles on the road. Finally I enjoy being able to pick up my furniture, mattresses, and other bulky items myself and avoid the delivery trucks, which are much more difficult to see around and get far worse mileage than either my P/U or my SUV.
I have a tax client with a diesel Excursion. Combining their families, they have 6 kids. Seems like a no brainer to me. She is the neighborhood sports drive, so I seldom see it without at least a half dozen people in it.
Another client was bragging about trading in his 2 year old Suburban on a new Honda Civic and how he was saving $75 per month on gas. It was his wife that mentioned that their car payment is $150 higher each month because the trade-in amount was lower than their balance due. And they regularly have to rent a pickup for $100+ to take the boat to the lake for the weekend, and take the car because the truck doesn't seat enough people.