I ignored it because once I saw these words

2003 Chevrolet TrailBlazer—an enormous
five-thousand-pound S.U.V.—

I knew it wouldn't be anything more than a rant on the evil SUV and its evil driver. A TrailBlazer isn't "enormous" and comparing its handling and braking to a Porsche seems silly. But it was an interesting read, although I think they confuse "safety" (avoiding or preventing injury and damage) with "security" (feeling at ease and comfortable).

 

You said it well KennyMooper .

Boognish, I love your story ! Just a few weeks ago we remodeled a bathroom, my husband went to Lowe's to look at vanities, he of course was in the Mini and he found one, I laughed hysterically when he came home and I saw that it fit in the mini , it is amazing what you can pack in that car.

 

So you didn't read the entire article, simply because they chose two near-extremes to make a point? The point was still valid, by the way, even if you think the comparison was ridiculous. It was to demonstrate what the SUV lacked that a sports car had, yet many people have this "idea" in their head that the SUV is safer. Yes, I said safer, because the average person out there makes the confusion mistake you mentioned ALL the time.

It wasn't just a "rant". What -I- typed was a rant. What the article did is present a theory, in an extremely easy to read and digestible way, including quotes from SUV manufacturers!

It isn't something that should be ignored. If you didn't read the whole article, please do.

 

I hate this attitude that people should only have an SUV if they tow something or go off-road. That's ridiculous.

If you really want to enforce vehicle purchase based on need, then no one would have convertibles, CD players, or an engine with more than 100 hp.

Some people like an SUV because of it's style, ride, or any other subjective measure. And that's good enough. Who do people think they are that they can question someone else's choice or justification of any vehicle?

One of the terms often used when describing SUV drivers is "snobby". Well, when you look down on an SUV owner who doesn't off-road or tow anything, for simply buying the vehicle that appealed to them (just as you did), then that term is better used to describe you.

 

I do. In my mind there is a difference between legitimate questioning and the infamous judgement. I think I'm a person who drives a car that takes care of my needs as well as being an awesome experience...it isn't a behemoth on the road and doesn't impede another person's line of sight, most of the time, needlessly. Perhaps I'm just lucky that all I want is a car that is all I need and nothing more.

And yes, I realize that no one truly needs a vehicle, if someone cared enough about the argument of wants and needs they could use public transportation, carpool, bike or walk to all of their destinations. However there is some line to be drawn when it comes to practicality.

 

When I had my cooper back in 03 I went to Best Buy to get a new TV. Bout a 27 inch (not flat screen). The guy brings it out to the lot and I can see the look on his face (saying yeah this isn't gonna fit) as I pull the MINI up to the front curb. Sure enough the box fit with about a half inch of space on each side of the car.

 

So let's say the government passes your dream legislation that outlaws SUV's for being too big and dangerous, and blocking people's line of sight. Oh, and the minivans have to go for the same reason. And the giant pickups. And the panel trucks. And the semi's.

Oh, did I mention that in that same bill MINI's are also outlawed for being too small and not being readily visible in a side view mirror?

That's ok though. We can all drive mid-sized 4-door sedans. That's all we need, after all...

 

Edge, this wasnt directed at you either. I see the Anti-SUV sentiment in most MINI forums. For example, its also prevalant in the OL.I agree 100% that some people buy whatever they want for, IMHO, dumb reasons: keeping up with the Jones, Bigger is better AND never use it as intended. No argument there. I also believe there is a good proportion of SUV owners do that do go off-road. I would love to live in AZ or Moab and have a land rover or something like that.

I think we agree in this area. I just dont understand the sentiment because I believe "To each their own"

Yes, Ford or whoever just builds bigger SUVs because they make money. Money drives just about everything.

This statement is a bit shaky "I firmly believe that people "should" buy vehicles based upon their needs for 95% or 99% of the time, not based upon the 1% or even 0.01%"

I don't need to do 0-60 in 6.5 nor do I need to go 142 MPH, nor drive around cornes fast in the twisties so all things being relative, your statement applies to most sports cars too so thats a wash. If someone would rather a sedate appliance vice a sporty car ... to each their own. I really doubt that outside of people who track their MINIs that 99% dont come anywhere near using them to their potential.

Arguments about gas guzzling ... I can say from experience that I know some Expedition owners and when gas when to $3.30 or so ... they don't care. I asked those questions ... what about $5 or $10. They dont care. They can afford it so they just dont care.

I'll add that I have a 4WD RAV4. Its about the smallest SUV you can get outside of maybe a Suzuki. I wish I had got it when they were selling two door versions. It gets about 22 mpg on regular. The MINI gets "maybe" 26mpg on Premium. On the highway, they get about the same mileage so the MINI is more expensive in paying for gas. In terms of paying for gas, the Toyota wins.

The curb weight is 300 pounds more than the MINI
The length less than 2' longer. Noticeable but not by much.
On the other hand, the MINI trunk is 5.6 cubic feet vice 29 cubic feet. You can fold down (in fact I can take out) the rear seats in both so no need to discuss folding down the seat because that would give the Toyota a huge advantage

I think they are the perfect compliment to each other and I do use it all the time to haul stuff around. When people say:"just rent a truck" thats so laughable. For example, I aint putting my lawnmover in that MINI ... not going to happen. I aint hauling 30 bags of compost or dirt in the MINI either (i'm not talking size here, I'm talking "dirt", etc, etc, etc, I cant tell you how many times I had the entire back filled up with stuff, every week.

Going off-road? Its not meant to, not true 4 x 4, its softroad meant for snow, something we dont get much of here Bottom line I can't have two small cars so if I'm going to have a second larger one, I prefer AWD (for possible) snow, large enough to haul things a regular car can't, but as small as possible with the lowest possible gas cost ... I think i found it.

So, to each their own

 

Such a fuss over a picture! I thought the picture was neat. I own a MINI and a 4Runner (as well as 2 bicycles). But I digress to the origins of this post.

But to the topic at hand, if I wanted to live in a socialist state where I was restricted in my choices I would move to Canada (sorry Lot15) or France or Italy. The USA is trying to become more socialist but I'll fight it with every breath I have. To each their own. If they want an SUV, then have it. If they want a Yugo, then have it. If they want both, then have 'em. But don't tell me what I can and can't have. I'll make that decision thank you very much.

...Les

 

I have pics of my classic parked between an explorer and an expedition. I need to get a copy in hand so I can post it here.

funny shot man

As foir the fuss over SUV's

PLEASE COMPLAIN/GRIPE/WHINE TO THEIR OWNERS AS WE DRIVE MINIS AND DO NOT WANT TO HEAR IT. WE JUST WANT TO SEE THE PICS AND LAUGH AND MOTOR!!!

Please keep things positive and remember what they were paying PER MILE after Katrina and be happy you have a MINI.

I have not read the gripe, nor the complaints about the gripe, and if this makes complaints I will likely not read them either. Have fun, go look at a mod forum for your next project the pic was funny no need to rant about the state of cars in America.

Former Ford Bronco owner of 13 years...

 

SUV bashing aside, I think the only reason they are popular in the U.S. is that fuel is so cheap for us. When fuel is cheap, people don't see a problem driving a bigger less efficient vehicle. When fuel becomes expensive, they stop buying them because they cost too much to operate. SUV's will always be around, and they've been around for a very long time. Fuel cost, however, will directly impact their use. GM and Ford have learned a very hard lesson - relying on markups on SUV's for your profits can be risky.

Take a trip across the pond (Europe) and you'll still see SUV's despite fuel prices that would make most American's blush. One difference, however, is that you'll find folks also driving SUV's with smaller more efficient engines, diesels, etc. In the American market, a large SUV typcially has to come equipped with an equally large and powerful engine for drives to feel that the vehicle isn't sluggish. This trend has created the 300+ hp full size gas SUV and the 400+ pound torque diesels to move big vehicles around as fast as cars. I remember my grandpa's really old diesel ford. Slow as molasses...but he got 20 mpg driving into town for years. I don't know anyone with a diesel these days that gets mileage like that anymore. Sure they can go a LOT faster than he could. But it costs them in fuel. (Two trucks at work - a Ford F250 and Chevy with a Duramax. Niether of them gets more than 15 mpg on even the best day!)

When gas prices hit $3 a gallon here in CA, what I immediately noticing driving around was more and more folks buying a Prius and the number of 4 cylinder sedans from Europe and Asian was noticeably climbing. Now that Hybrid vehicles can drivin the carpool lane during rush hour, the Toyota Prius has become the "badge of honor" of the daily commuter and the big SUV is being left at home more and more. I fall into this crowd. Three years ago, this was a 2 Jeep & 1 Toyota V6 family. Gas prices went up and our commutes changed. Now this is a 2 Mini family and the Toyota truck is now a 2005 4 cylinder model. The highway mileage on the Mini's is running about 32 (twice the Jeeps) and the new truck is running about 22 (a good 5 mpg better than the V6).

Consumer's have driven the current desing of SUV's. As much as we love them, we (consumers) are our own worst enemy. For example, when designing SUV's GM did market research to find out what consumers wanted most. In the example that I saw, one of the questions was (something along these lines):

Which of the following is worth $5,000 in added cost to the vehicle?

A) Leather interior, DVD and LCD TV for four passengers, climate control zones for all passengers, sun roof

B) Steel safety cage, off road tires and offroad suspension, navigation system, GPS, roof rack, centrally inflatable tires

C) Carbon fiber and Kevlar structural components, light weight engine components, increased fuel economy

You can pretty much guess what is at the bottom of the list for most folks looking for an SUV. The focus in the SUV market (and Minivan market) has largely been on what I call "creature comforts". For example, Ford added leather, entertainment, fancy paint and navigation to the Expidition years ahead of independent suspension which provided better handling for roll over protection.

The only SUV manufacturer to offer a hybrid model is Toyota - the Highlander Hyrbid - incredible fuel economy for an SUV but unfortunately a high sticker to boot. Apparently, though, it is working. These are fetching MSRP pricing in most markets, and Toyota is back ordered even though the average driver will spend 2+ yrs to recover the extra cost in fuel savings. Oh, but it can be ordered with NAV, leather and entertainment. The Prius is still in high demand even though gas prices have dropped, as more folks have discovered that the Prius is a good all around car.

Bear in mind that regular autos (Mini included) have suffered some of this same fate, but since the baseline mileage is already higher, cars don't have as significant of an impact on the fuel utilization curve. The SUV is here to stay, but consumers must start demanding fuel economy and better safety for the SUV and the occupants of other vehicles.

I'll be interested to see what happens to SUV sales when the EPA changes the mileage testing in coming years. All too many SUV's have stickers that say "19 mpg" or "22 mpg" but the driver soon find out that real world mileage is much lower. The same holds true for cars too, but when my Mini is hitting 33 mpg on the highway, I'm okay with that, cuz' it's still so much better than 16.

 

It's SIMPLE, scooterboy... even if you ignore the gas consumption (OK fine), the fact that SUVs pose a greater danger to regular cars makes it EVERYONE'S argument. Same as "second hand smoking". So I think I have every damn right, thank you very much.Hey, I never said a darn thing about legislation outlawing SUVs, neither did anyone else on this thread. Stop stuffing words in other people's mouths. The only "law" issue I brought up was that SUVs & pickups should be regulated like cars in terms of fuel efficiency, since the original law was intended for farm-type use of them, not daily drivers.Point taken... the difference is that a decent sports car is neither sucking ridiculous gas (during casual driving), nor posing a greater threat to other vehicles around it. So while the "need" may not always be there, at least there is no imposition on others.Well then it makes perfect sense for you, because you actually need increase capacity... you exceed the "1%" argument I made before. Although for onroad use a Minivan with fold-down seats would blow away the RAV4, in terms of capacity, acceleration, braking, handling and fuel efficency... except for 4WD, but you and I both know that 4WD is unnecessary in the DC area! If you don't want to read it, don't. Won't stop people from posting if they want to. These aren't personal attacks.Good, we're in agreement then. We won't miss you in the conversation. The discussion about SUVs was gradual, it happened... it wasn't a direct response to the pic itself.Actually you forgot the Ford Escape Hybrid, but your point is still true - limited hybrid SUV choices.

 

Oh yeah, I always forget about the Escape. Of course, it's using Toyota's first generation hybrid drive (which Ford licensed jointly when Toyota licensed some diesel technology) so in a sense, it was out of date when it hit the show room floor.

Here's some good info it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Escape_Hybrid

 

Toyota wants you to believe that they are the ultimate "Green and happy company" and while they happily brag about their fuel efficient "Hybrids" (Yeah right) they are shoving down our backs gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks that have as poor or worse fuel economy as their Detroit counterparts.

Examples? Toyota Sequoia, Toyota Land Cruiser, Toyota line of full size pick ups,. Lexus SUVs, etc.

So for every green and happy hybrid Toyota sells, they are selling 100 gas guzzling trucks.

Probably I am the only one that refuses to drink the Toyota Kool aid.

 

Across the board, Toyota and Honda are still be best average. See my other post - Toyota only sells what consumers say they want. When I wanted a fuel efficient truck, I chose a Toyota 4 cylinder model - among the best mileage of any small truck. By percent of sales, Toyota's smaller truck (Tacoma) is one of their best sellers. It is far more efficient and less polluting than the best sellers of the big three makers - their best selling trucks are all full size V8 trucks. So the kool aid isn't that bad.

The Camry is Toyota's top seller, and for its vehicle class is a good fuel efficient car. A friend at work has one - a 4 cyl with an Auto tranny gets 34 on the highway. That's pretty darn good, and better than most of our Mini's are getting! So I doubt they are selling "100" big trucks for every green vehicle, since many of their regular (non hybrid) cars are also "green" vehicles.

Check this out:

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/modelselector/mpg.html

That's a decent balance all things considers. Try and find a GM or Ford diagram to compare....

 

Whew!!! You guys gotta lighten up a little. I do fundamentally agree with Edge. Personally I do not like SUVs for all the stated and some unstated reasons, but do understand why they exist. That having been said, the fact is, SUVs are not designed per auto standards. When, in the future, this becomes mandatory (I welcome the day), their prices will rise, and their desirability will fall. Though I doubt the auto makers, or anyone else for that matter, can anticipate far enough into the future, they are making some downsized (negative?) SUVs and cross-overs, which are intended to bridge the expanding gap - there will always be something for everyone. We can't all have a different vehicle for every possible use (I'd need about 7 vehicles), so hopefully we make choices based on the best fit for our "perceived" overall needs. Regardless, there are and will continue to be those of us who ignore or misinterpret fact, who can't see the forest for the trees and who buy to keep up with the Jones; as well as those of us who can ignore peer pressure and who buy only what they need - need being subjective!.

 

SUV's are bigger and heavier, so yeah they're going to do more damage to a smaller car in a collision. That's physics. So what? You made your vehicle choice - so did they.

And why ignore the gas consumption? Let's demand that SUV's get comparable gas mileage with other vehicles. I'm all for that, as long as all the other vehicles that get the same or worse mileage are made to meet the same requirements. Like 12 cylinder sports cars, giant pickup trucks, luxury boats (cadillacs/towncars), etc.

That wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the comment about "line of sight". We're driving MINI's. By choice. The only way other vehicles aren't going to block our line of sight is if they're not allowed to be made that big. Hence the legislation comment.

 

No I agree with you....Toyota has done an EXCELLENT job of marketing this green image while being just as bad as any other manufacturer.

 

So by your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for people to commute, pick up groceries or take a road trip in a real army tank (unarmed) on the public roads? Weighing 20,000 pounds or more? Surely we can agree that at some point it gets ridiculous and unjustified. The only thing we likely disagree on is WHERE that point is. I venture that in the vast majority of cases for SUVs and large pickups, that point has already been reached. Unnecessary larger and heavier vehicles (with emphasis on unnecessary) DO pose a greater threat to the average motorist in public. There's no getting around that. That doesn't mean that they should all be outlawed, but it does point out to just how stupid the "trendy" attitude toward these vehicles is.I never ignored it, I simply allowed that argument to drop temporarily as a reason against your "Who do people think they are" comment. I set that argument aside briefly (even though it was valid), focusing on the safety concern. You never addressed my comparison to second hand smoking, did you?Let's see what you said...By claiming it was "your dream legislation" (mine, or anyone elses), you suggested that we were pushing for that. Those two words (your dream) made an inference towards an intent that was not there. Hence my objection.

 

Those crazy commies are trying to take my SUV away! And they want me to care about someone other than myself! AAAaaaarrrrgghhhh.....:impatient :impatient :impatient

 

Oh please. That's why we have entities that set safety guidelines for vehicle manufacturing, and laws that mandate certain requirements of a vehicle. If you're correct about the danger of these larger vehicles and the statistics bear it out, then the powers that be will do something about it. Hasn't happened yet, and how long have SUVs been around now? Long enough for some statistical significance I would think.
No, because it's a bad analogy. Second hand smoke can affect innocent bystanders even when there's been no accident/altercation and the smoker has done nothing illegal. Sitting next to an SUV at a stoplight is no more dangerous than sitting there next to a Civic.

And you never addressed my point about all the other types of vehicles that get worse mileage than SUVs. Do you agree that those vehicles should be regulated efficiency-wise before SUVs should?
Yeah I may have stretched a little there, but tell me how else besides outlawing big vehicles would "line of sight" not be a problem?

 

Tanks and heavy vehicles aren't allowed not because of safety. It because they tear up the roads. If you want to drive around in an armoured wheeled vehicles you can.

Paul

 

There IS statistical evidence, and has been for some time... take a look at the article I posted (PDF file) to see what I mean. You do realize that the politicians are slow to react because they are also protecting the oil and automobile industries? Especially the "Big Three"... SUVs have been a huge cash cow for them - minimal investment (slap a cab onto a truck frame and charge a premium), maximum profit. Please don't tell me you're naive enough to think that evidence of safety concerns is going to automatically cause the "power that be" to do something? Not as long as they can get away with selling the "bigger is safer" total BS that they have been.I disagree it's a bad analogy, because we're not talking about SUV drivers staying away from public roads (compared to "smoking at home") - they are out there everywhere with other people. The fact that SUVs accelerate, brake and handle very poorly relative to properly designed cars also increases the chance that an uninformed driver (as so many SUV owners are) will be unable to prevent an otherwise avoidable accident. And when the said accident occurs, it will cause greater damage to others. Accidents aren't completely avoidable, no... but the number and the severity of the said accidents IS affected by what we drive in addition to how we drive.If the overall impact is greater, sure... they should be targeted first... but you are ignoring the multiplication factor. 10,000 SUVs suck a LOT more gas and put out a LOT more "truck level" emissions combined than 500 tractor trailers do. You can't compare one vehicle against the next for gas guzzling (or pollution) factors without ALSO comparing the number of those vehicles out there in use. The Ferraris and Lamborghinis of the world may get TERRIBLE gas mileage but the numbers are so few that it is statistically insignificant. Can you see my point?Simply by slowly but surely changing people's thinking, ideally via education (especially TRUTH in advertising), but also with surcharges, increased insurance rates for "risk to others" (I wonder how much insurance companies currently take personal injury liability into account based upon vehicle type?).

 

OK, to satisfy your point... replace "20,000 lb army tank" with "20,000 wheeled armored personnel carrier (APC)". Satisfied?

The caterpillar drive used in tanks was not the point of the argument. It had to do with the increased risk to others in the event of an accident.

 

No the point is. You can drive an armoured wheeled vehicle as long as the road way can handle the gross vehicle weight...it has nothing to do with safety to others.

I beleive this thread is spinning out of control and is political in nature and needs to be locked/removed.


Paul