California's SUV Ban...

It was on a Fifth Gear show (british show, with Tiff Needell). I saw it recently, but have no idea when it aired. But I get your point. The cars were ... err ... let me think ... the Bimmer was a 5 series 2 generations old (the one before the E39s), and the Volvo I think was a tad more recent. They weren't brand new cars anyhow ... so I do understand technology has improved very much since then ... yet am impressed by a survival at 150km/h (impressed, not doubting it!)

My comment about australians and american SUVs was incomplete... it was getting late I guess. What I meant is that you guys have a drooling choice of hard-core 4x4 (that kinda look like SUVs) compared to what we have here (we have 3-4 actually capable models of 4x4s, everything else is waaay to road oriented to my taste). And you actually have a huge space to enjoy true off-roading. I never thought it would have been such an issue over there too.

nwocorp, agreed on changing the whole driving license. And no, there are no roundabouts in the US or Canada. Actually, there are some ... but very very little. To give you an idea, in a city like Montreal, there is 1 (not a typo) roundabout.

Last thing I have to mention, I'm not american, nor do I feel actually canadian I'm not what you'd call a patriotic, I live wherever I think I'd fit, and if I don't like it anymore, I'll leave, I'm definitely not attached to any country whatsoever... so any point related to a country is rather pointless! LOL

 

I believe you started it first.

 

The primary reason your "german tank" is safer than the average car is because it's bigger than the average vehicle. Because american car manufacturers are promoting the purchase of bigger and bigger vehicles, the average size has increased. (a massive SUV is not out of the price range of most, and an Excursion will positively outweigh an S600). That's the problem, really - everyone wants to be safe, but you are suggesting that people do it at the proportional expense of everyone else's safety.
Think about it - the larger the average vehicle on the road, the less chance you have of surviving your next accident.

 

Bringing it down to simply weight is not right. I am positive that if you put a S class or a 7 series in a an accident with a generic pickup or your run of the mill SUV, the first would win, hands down.

That is engineering. Saying its just weight is too basic. Like saying that the bigger sumo wrestler will always win.

What I am suggesting is that the government should not impose itself irregardless in this regard. If I want to drive a little 4 banger, I would, but I should not be punished for wanting to drive a nice 12.

 

True - clearly you don't pay for only weight when you put down 100 grand on a car. There are significant active and passive safety devices built into cars like an S600 or 750i. They are designed to protect the occupents and other victims in an accident and do a quality job of it for the most part. That is what automotive safety should be - not "let's go get a car that'll crush our neighbor's".

And I don't believe that an S600 will "win" against a body-on-frame SUV in an accident. The merc or bimmer is designed to absorb impact through crumple zones and the like, but the truck cannot be designed like that since there are large pieces of steel that connect the front and rear bumpers. They are rigid and in a head-on they hit objects with full force. That force is transfered to other vehicles like a battering ram. The difference is like getting slapped verses getting clocked with a fist. Anyway, head-on crash tests aside, I think we can all agree that the unending line of SUVs I see on the freeway everyday is a menace to everyone except those responsible for piloting them. I don't even suggest banning or regulating them. I just wish people were more responsible about selecting their 80mph projectiles.

 

I second that!

Tell me this truck isn't gonna win, and I become a priest!
http://img.sportruck.com/events/sf04/266.jpg
or this one : http://img.sportruck.com/events/sf04/311.jpg
Or this one : http://img.sportruck.com/events/sf04/437.jpg

I know, I teasingly picked an extreme ... and before you all get crazy, remember these lifts and tires aren't legal in a lot of states.


LaFun, of course I started it, they're proud australians! Whereas I don't care ... I'm from nowhere and everywhere. I pick what I like from every country I visited.

 

Has anyone pointed out that the guy writing the article is simply wrong??

A vehicle with a 6000 lb GVWR does not WEIGH 6000 lbs.

GVWR = Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

It is how much weight that vehicle CAN carry (including the weight of the vehicle itself. That Hummer with a 8600 lb GVWR only weighs 6400 lbs (Yes, I realize that car in particular IS over -- but most of them are not.

For instance, the Escalade (6800 GVWR) only weighs 5400 lbs

The dude writing this article didn't do his research very well.

 

he did get it right it was a small blurb, but i think his biggest problem is those who are buissness owners and use the tax loophole to thier benefit. very narrow minded if you ask me, if we as self employed or buisness owners want to use the tax system to our benefit then so be it. possibly he can't and is bitter. but for those of you who are in that position we pay alot in taxes as it is so any break is welcome. now i'm not out saying land barges are the way to go but that cayane S is very nice and handles better than most cars. it irks me that people would rather ***** about those getting up and making something for themselves than work for it too. end of rant...

 

So I guess the people that a complaining would rather drive this...
http://www.goingreen.co.uk

Easy and fun to drive. It's only 2.6m long, it fits snugly in to parking spaces which are too small for other cars. Surprisingly good acceleration, a top speed of 40 mph (more than you'll need for urban driving conditions and speed limits) and a range of up to 40 miles.

Too bad there is no space in it to put your golf clubs or your significant other!!!!!!!

 

That be a Ford Mainline if I'm not mistaken.

 

Zorro,

Have you ever seen a truck tractor unit after an accident they are fncked ... and they are a lot bigger and heavier than your toy trucks . Separate chassised vehicles are NOT as rigid as unitarily construction and also do not have collapsable zones. Remember a trucks chassis is DESIGNED to be flexible so that all the wheels stay on the road ... they have no choice because the springs have to be extremely stiff to carry the large loads ... thus like a 20's vintage car they design in flex in the chassis.

Now the same concept is used in designing a 4WD SUV with a separate chassis EXCEPT one major difference ... they actually want the chassis to be stiff and the suspension to be soft (to follow the rugged roads, etc.) ... this is impossible and thus stupid. Some companies like Honda are forward thinkers who are not controlled by naive tough man marketing pressures and they do build unitary construction little 4WDs ... and it is funny watching the American company ads, saying how the Honda does not have a truck like separate chassis, like their car is actually better .... hahahahaha, great comedy. Another example of American manufacturers (and Toyota has to be included because they make a carbon copy of these monstrosities) FORCING old technology on their customers.

Thus what happens when these separate chassi'ed vehicles have an accident is the chassis does too things:
- fncks the other car they hit, because the heights are all wrong ... great, NOT (and again why drivers of these things need a special license ... truck drivers have one!).
- Once the separate chassis starts folding, the rest of the SUV collapses and you have a very bent SUV.

Remember just because they look tough and can handle the rough roads, does not mean they prang well. I'd much rather put my family in say an Aussie Ford Falcon car, than a Toyota Landcruiser ... one car was designed for prangs the other was designed for small men to buy with small penises ... that have to go off and drive the rough roads, shoot a gun and otherwise pump their chest out because they are not confident of their masculinity. Pathetic IMO

Pete

 

I would rather put my family in a MKIV rangerover or a porsche cayanne. Much safer then a Ford Falcon. All the benifits of both cars and suvs in one.

 

Interesting you should say that. I am no expert on either vehicles ... will do a little search, but I expect the Porsche to be very safe. NOTE: I also believe that both of these vehicles are NOT separate chassis designs ... Separate chassi'ed SUVs/4WD are the dinosaurs that should be an embarrassment for the company that makes them.

I remember reading many years ago about the accidents stats for the Range Rover in England. Many thought that inexperienced owners got into trouble because of the long travel suspension and thus the weight movement ... and thus lost control. Again extra training on how to drive a high CoG vehicle would help.

How you can think that a high CoG = safety ... I just cannot fathem. Yes the Porsche probably handles well, but it would handle HEAPS better with a lower CoG ... thus it is a compromised road car (as they all are). A car designed to be a true 4WD rough road vehicle cannot be the best it could be for a tarseal road ... imagine what the Caynne could have been if Porsche had simply added the 4 seating capacity to the 911/928/944 concept.

Pete
BTW: The Aussie Ford Falcon did very well in recent crash tests ... not my sort of car anyway, but safer than the separate chassied SUV's ... according to the experts (not me, I'm just quoting the experts).

 

The MKIV has been ground up designed by BMW. Having owned both the MKIII and MKIV, I can tell you that honestly its only a bristish rangerover on the surface and in the presentation, and a BMW every other manner.

Its ride and handling are far beyond any other SUV I have ever driven...and lightyears ahead of the MKIII. The brakes are monster rotors and calipers and made my mechanic friend take notice. It IS an E38 7 series with an upgraded suspension. Owning an E38, I can tell you everything is the same, in the interior, to under the hood. Major details like the engine and trany to lesser ones like the instrument cluster, down to the cigarette lighters.

Thanks in part to the various computer systems, as well as BMW's wonderful suspension and brake design. You seriously have to be pretty dense to mess up driving the thing.

It is all AL unibody too if I recall, with steel roof. (possibly steel underpinnings but I dont remember.

And I doubt that the falcon is safer then a 7 series, S class, or in this case, off-road capable 7 series. Not for any reason other then the fact that the manufac.'s all have big $$ to make sure they are number one.

I agree with your assessment of Higher CoG. You should note that both the pcar and the MKIV have variable air suspensions. For higher then 40mph, they lower to the ground a bit. Also when off roading is ness they can go higher (with the case of the MKIV to a level that gives it one inch more ground clearance then a H1)

 

Yes that is the difference ... unibody is how ALL cars should be.

I did not say the Falcon was safer than a 7 series, S class or the RR or Porsche Caynne ... but it is safer than ANY separate chassi'ed SUV. That was my point .

Pete

 

We shall leave it with that not all SUVs are alike

Aura wants the people off his back with the hate for his MKIV Where is the love?

 

aura is nice he win

 

Well how about trying to change your style of driving and not using the size of your MKIV as an intimidation for other road users

That is why the love is gone for these vehicles ... well atleast in Sydney, Australia.

Story time:
Not long ago I was walking along and this car pulled out in front of a Mitsi 4WD SUV TRUCK POS (whatever ). The young lady driver slammed on her brakes and this car must not have had ABS ... because it locked up and she turned the steering to miss ... but ofcourse the car didn't change direction. This car kept skidding along at my walking pace for fncken ages on its 4WD pathetic for tarseal tyres. I had enough time I reckon to have told the women how to cadience (sp?) brake ... but instead just watched with amazement that somebody could be such a bad driver and in control of fnck knows how much weight. Scary!

Pete
BTW: the cars did not hit in the end ... even after the SUV skidded for 10 meters or something

ps1: Aura. You choose to by one of these things then you have to live with the attitude towards your vehicle from others.

- I own a people mover ... I am perceived as some sort of non-car enthuisast person who does not understand birth control
- Porsche Boxter owners are perceived as poofters or hair dressers.
- Ferrari owners are perceived as tossers with tiny penises, etc.
- SUV owners are consider ancient technology enthusisastic wankers that believe they own the road, and do not consider other peoples safety. You would be in the rich category and thus not into the ancient technology

Somewhere there is a site that lists all cars and there perception by others ... Just trying to help you understand what others think as you cruise by

If I was forced by gun point into buying a SUV, I would choose the Range Rover too.

 

Wow. Horrific. Understandable, but that is why we have abs, and all sorts of traction controls, anti-yaw controls, pitch controls, etc.

Technology.

Makes the stupid look smarter and better then they are.

 

Aura,

Doesn't it worry you that they have to have all this technology to keep a flawed design working as well a much simplier one.

I used to work in mechanical design and the rules back then were if you had to start solving to many issues, etc. then you had started off in the wrong direction, and needed to look at your aims and goals, etc.

While I appreciate all this stuff is clever, I just cannot get my simple little brain past the point that they will never drive as well as a much cheaper LOW sedan ... this is why I went the impotent people mover direction, i.e my requirements were to move my large family in comfort. Many in my situation in Australia buy the 4WD truck/SUV because many models have an extra row of seats, and they find the people movers too dull, or a womens car, etc.

I do admit my Toyota Tarago is a bore to drive, but it is more fuel efficient than a 4WD (it costs hp to drive the other wheels) and as it will never see real 4WD conditions I do not need 4WD anyway (like 80% of the 4WD owners in Sydney . It does have ABS and is rear wheel drive, and the engine is on its side to try and keep the CoG as low as possible.

What I do find amazing is that manufacturers (until Honda's latest people mover which appears quite exciting, but have yet to drive one) think that just because you own a people mover you have to be a complete NON-car person ... as they are all boring to drive. My Toyota would be the perfect car if it had say a Turbo hanging off the engine and could wind out hard every now and then ... instead it just plods along (like just about all Toyotas do).

I will admit that I am interested in the new Ford Territory ... which is a SUV thingy, but for the first time that I know of a manufacturer has used their brain and you can buy it in 2WD form ... and it is NOT as high as other 4WD SUVs. Infact I notice that it is only as tall as the Toyota. Thus you get the tough man looks (sort of) and efficiency of 2WD ... still not as good as a sedan, but heck if you have the big family what else can you do.

Enjoy your Range Rover ... very classy car and yep my pick of the 4WD's.
Pete

 

I have to jump back in.

We are all here car enthusiasts and kinda know how to drive.

A friend of mine, on the other hand, has no clue how to drive.
Picture this. Slight downslope. slight left hander. 2 lanes, but one is cluttered with cars parked (hence 1,5 lanes left). It's around -10C and snowing, a couple inches of snow on the ground. Kinda slippery, but no biggie.
So he comes into the curve, kinda normal speed, but thinks he's going too fast, and locks up his wheels ... which makes him going straight towards the parked cars. No crash (since we were going slow enough to stop before hitting them), but a revelation.
Now tell me he would have faired better in a Holden than an SUV. When driving is so pathetic, no matter what car you're in, you will crash. And it won't be the car's fault.

Pete, FYI, a Cayenne Turbo is as fast as ... an M5 for spirited canyon drives. Quite amazing, isn't it?
And yeah, RRIII and Cayenne have uni-body.

Aura ... Range Rovers are great. I love 'em! BTW, how's the weight? 2.6tons seems hefty to me ... not too much body movement?

 

I'm very rusty on my physics (er, extremely rusty ) but I think the higher roll centre and CoG would make a difference ... but the main difference is this sentence:

If he had crashed, the car or person he would have hit would have faired heaps better with a lighter and lower height car hitting them.

Note also that the completely unnecessary, but apparently penis extending bull bars that most of these vehicles have also make the accident worse. In this case not only for the vehicle/person they hit but also for their own car ... why?. Because the bull bars cause the chassis mount points to have a load applied on them that they really were never designed for ... thus the chassis gets fncked. Bull bars are hardly ever as strong as they look and another proven danger to others in the city.

This is the problem with most 4WD owners ... they only think of themselves. 4WD vehicles bumpers, etc. are too high and thus in a pedistrian accident the pedistrian will be fncked. If a 4WD hits another car it will miss the carefully designed crash zone of the other car and cause way more damage. Auto manufacturers, er, actually not them but people who care, have spent mega bucks learnign about crumple zones, bonnet height (for pedistrian accidents), etc. and then these unnecessary 4WDs (in a city) come along and throw all that in the bin.

Thus again it is NOT just the driver and occupants of the 4WD but others around him ... and that is again why I say that many other road users (including myself) are loosing our patience with these vehicles and purchasers who obviously think that only they exist on the road and fnck everybody else! ... and we wonder why road rage exists when we have this mentality.

I have heard 4WD owners laugh about the crumple zone on their car being the other car ... yeah real funny, not. The fact, as has been proven over and over, for those that listen is that separate chassis vehicles do not crash well ... thus I wish them luck with that attitude, because they might not be so lucky.

I do notice that the Caynne and Range Rover do not appear to be as high as the laughable Toyota Landcruiser and Mitsi Pajero (btw do owners of this vehicle get the Mitsi joke ... Pajero means wanker in some South American language ... have a look through the Bikini thread and you will even find a link to a site called Pajero ... and it definitely is for that purpose ).

Yes, and if it was lower and lighter like a 911 Porsche it would be even faster than the M5 ... by heaps

Yes thankfully some manufacturers do not have their heard completely up their arse

Pete

 

I hate SUVs because they aren't used for what they were originally intended for. I've rented SUVs before to go snowboarding because I didn't have a 4wheel drive car with enough cargo space. But who really needs these to get to work unless you really carry a ton of stuff everyday.

But people have a right to own them. I just wish that there was common sense legislation to reflect our current urban landscape.

One of my pet peeves is having a huge SUV as the first car parked at the ends of the block, or driveway. There is no way in hell I can see around it in my little sportscar. 50% of the time, I just hope there's no one coming.

 

Ah yes, thanks for the correction. I keep thinking that Range Rover classic was MKI AND MKII...(thus making the latest MKIV) My mistake, it is MKIII not MKIV as I posted earlier.

And yes supprisingly little body motion considering...but then I dont take turns as fast as I do in other vehicles.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Need4speed, PM sent.