Talk:SUV

CAFE

The wikilink for CAFE may be bad for search function, cause of cafe. anobo 07:58 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Fixed: linked to (presently stubby) Corporate Average Fuel Economy instead.

I think we need to find a better photo, though. The vehicle pictured (a Subaru Forester) is barely even an SUV; it's a wholly car-based vehicle without even significantly higher ground clearance, created by Subaru when they found that their vehicles, even though just as off-road capable as most SUVs, didn't have an upright enough stance to appeal to many people in that market. Thus the Forester is only a quasi-SUV. We really need to show some more typical car. —Morven 09:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

4WD != SUV

It has always irked me when SUVs are referred to as Four-wheel-drives; I'm glad this article points out that not all SUVs have four-wheel drive. Isn't it also true that not all four-wheel drive motor vehicles are SUVs? I'm not sure, or I'd amend the paragraph; perhaps someone who knows can make mention of this if it is true. Quill 03:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is true that not all four-wheel drive motor vehicles are SUVs. I have the 2001 Passat wagon with 4motion. It's a true (3 differentials) four-wheel drive that is excellent at handling the combination of hard acceleration, sharp turning, and slick black ice. It's low enough to bottom out with about 4 inches of snow. Porshe and Lamborghini also make four-wheel drive vehicles, generally powering the front only if the rear starts to slip. AlbertCahalan 21:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed all-wheel drive cars: all Subarus, most Audis are AWD. Toyota also used to sell 4WD versions of the Camry and Corolla. -- In fact, it's very hard to tell wheter the Toyota Matrix is a 4WD car, a small SUV or a mini-minivan. (somebody who didn't sign)

Question: is a Land Rover or other real off-road 4x4 (Lada Niva, etc...) an SUV? I question the use of the word 'Sport' from 'Sport Utility Vehicle' in these cases.

Also this article is entirely American based - and this should be mentioned in the first sentence.

Spiggot 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Land Rovers are considered to be SUVs, as are Jeeps. The actual off-road ability of an SUV isn't usually considered when determining what is an SUV. --SodiumBenzoate 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road Crash Safety

In fact, SUV drivers are far more likely to perish in an accident with a smaller car than is the driver of the other vehicle. One reason for this is that SUVs are more than 16 times more likely to "roll over" in an accident, and this has become more publicized in recent years. Is there any definite proof of the above statements that can be cited? Also, there are many cases (dispute this statement too please ^.^) where a car and an SUV collided, and the higher clearance of the SUV, heavier weight and front bull-bars at times have caused much more damage to the OTHER car than if it were a car-on-car crash. I also think that there is an attitude of bias (both ways) in the language and content. elynnia

No, that's completely wrong. I removed that section. And there are waaay too many cases to count (the vast majority) where the SUVs' heavier weight, higher ground clearance, and stiffer construction severely harmed the car-passengers. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest data I've seen (though I can't remember where) said that while the bigger weight of SUVs does increase safety, this effect is neutralized by the rollover tendency, thus making them no safer than a midsized sedan. In fact, a midsized sedan may be the safest class of vehicle given they have more weight than a compact while being more nimble than an SUV when it comes to accident avoidance.71.194.153.46 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUV Benefits for Small Busines owners

Am I the only one who thinks this section sounds incredibly biased? Aside from the fact it sounds less like an encycolpedia and more like an justification/apology, claims like

Compared to a Mini Van a SUV is more fuel economic thus better for their wallet and the environment

Compared to Mini Vans these SUV's can be parked more easily in (European) innercity area's.

SUV's are considered safer than Mini Vans.

need to be backed up. Then there's the ending

Popular and economic SUV's for Small Business Owners are the Jeep Cherokee, Land Rover, Nissan Pathfinder and Kia Sorento.

You can't see on the outside of SUV's if the owner is using it to make a living or bought it for other reasons, so don't judge SUV's and their owners.

Even if one were to keep the section intact, at the very least shouldn't it be presented at the very end, after the criticisms; this section should work as (if anything) a rebuttal and not as an opener. Why is it even in under the SUV design characteristics heading anyways?

I'll hold off making any edits for the time being to get other people's opinions on the matter.(Rubenfh 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The whole paragraph needs to go - I removed it. One more point, SUVs and minivans have comparable mileage. Compare the Honda Pilot and Odyssey for example. Rhobite 03:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about "Trivia" section

not sure it tells us anything we care about ... what do others think? —Morven 23:16, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

No complaints, so it's gone. Here is what was there:

== Trivia ==
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that, when polled, 29 percent of Americans say
that Jesus would drive an SUV, while 33 percent say that he would not.

—Morven 01:43, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Since he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, he'd probably drive a Yugo or a Citroen 2CV.

—Gerfriedc Aug 10th 2005

or what about a poetntially unsafe vehicle for the occupants like the logan ;-)

Basing this on our local carpenters/joiners, I think he'd probably drive either a double-cab pickup or a van.

Soft-roaders

Ashley Pomeroy added:

In the UK, SUVs are often referred to in derogatory terms as Soft-Roaders.

Not quite true, I believe; the term applies only to the 'never actually taken off road' segment of the market. Things like the Porsche Cayenne, BMW suvs, Toyota RAV4, etc. The US term 'SUV' encompasses all those, but also all Land Rover models, Toyota LandCruiser, and other models whose true off road capability is undisputed (whether or not most buyers actually need it). At least, that's the way that the British car magazines I read use the term. 23:48, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-SUV activist suffers martyrdom

SUV-crazy U.S. judge sentences medical student for crimes against Hummers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/s...reut/index.html

Is there a Greenpace commando that could free him?

I hope not - what gives him the right to dictate to others what car they buy? I somehow think this isn't an "SUV-crazy" judge but one who regards criminal damage with the distaste it deserves (as I would hope any judge would).

Buy what you want. But I have the right to smash your SUV's windows, if you do not respect my rights.

merger

who calls for merging Four wheel drive with Sport utility vehicle as the SUV article states that all SUVs are, without exeption four-wheel-drives. So aren't this just two articles about the same thing? I think geographical separation is the only difference and the two articles should be merged, for a wider prespective. mexaguil 219.88.206.183 12:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not I. For one, the "four wheel drive" article is linked to by many non-SUV-related artlcles. For another, not all SUVs have four wheel drive, and I fail to see where that statement is made in either article. --SFoskett 13:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, many 4 wheel drive vehicles are not SUVs. It is normal for Scots and Scandinavians to drive compact and subcompact models that are 4WD. Something to do with better performance on snow coupled with expensive fuel.--Fergie 12:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When was the term SUV coined?

Is SUV a retronym since the term lasted for a couple decades although the type of vehicle itself has been around for several decades? --SuperDude 01:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I'd love to know the origin of the term.

Point of view

The line "The popular stereotype of a large SUV sporting "Support Our Troops" and "W" (George W. Bush) bumper stickers is a favorite object of contempt for anti-war, pro-environment liberals" seems somewhat biased and seems to me to be conforming to the right-wing, condescending view of liberals. Please venture your opinions on this matter, and if I am convinced, I will be happy to remove the POV tag. Andrew Graham 05/07/05 09.12 GMT

Also it is specific to the USA and meaningless to the rest of us--Fergie 12:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that sentence was just over the top. I've removed it 'cause I can't imagine anyone seriously supporting its inclusion. --SFoskett July 5, 2005 14:38 (UTC)

Stability control

Consumer's Union talks about SUV stability control: http://www.consumersunion.org/products/saseny500.htm

Trying to find some other cites that talk explicitly about stability control etc. in SUVs specifically. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also this NHTSA preliminary report on stability control shows reduction of single-vehicle incidents by 35 percent in passenger cars and by 67 percent in SUVs: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790.html —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Keith Bradsher's book

High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the Suv to High and Mighty: SUVs--The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way

because the latter book is more often publicized and more in-depth. Last Avenue 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The proper citation for the claim of doubled pedestrian risk is Accident Analysis and Prevention Volume 36 page 295 I will add it shortly if someone else does't. --208.41.98.142 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add it, and the author/editor, too. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why there is a criticism section, when there is blatent criticism throughout the article? I understand that it is a touch subject, but why is EVERY section littered with silly nicknames and snide remarks? This is NOT helping people understand what an SUV is. I plan on revising the entire article to INCLUDE the criticism but ONLY in the proper place. As it is written now, it needs to be cleaned up DESPERATELY. PabloMartinez 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The marketing practices is absolutly horrible!!! Talking about specific people's opinions has nothing to do with the subject and if even nessesary should be placed on a comments section. The same argument can be made for cars as they race around curvy roads and full throttle. This section needs to be more informative/balanced or removed.

Agreed. Comparisons of pedestrians being hit by SUVs and pedestrians being hit by smaller cars yield obvious conclusions and are purely cited to provide fuel to the chest-beating "I hate big cars" brigade. Why not compare the relative risks of being hit by SUVs and vans? Or SUVs and mini-buses? Or SUVs and regular buses? SimonUK 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biased article

This article is extremely biased against SUV's. Attempts to reflect more neutral or even positive sides of SUV's have been deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.188.213 (talk • contribs) .

Can you point out any specific examples of deleted content you feel should be added back? -SCEhard T 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is biased against SUVs. I've never quite understood the particular hostility that SUVs come under; in the UK at least, you have to pay through the nose for poor fuel economy. Considering the patterns of fuel duty seem to bear little relation to pollution reduction objectives and far more to government revenue generation, it could be argued that SUV owners are actually performing a social service by contributing so much to the communal pot. Personally, and this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't own nor intend to own an SUV, I think it's just a form of modern class-envy. Just as SUVs have a status symbol aspect to them, so they are attacked as all status symbols are. Still, that's neither here nor there, more important is the fact that this article equivocates on so many points. Most of the article is spent complaining about the risks to other road users but any car is a risk to another road user. Everyone's ideal would be to have no other cars present. People buy cars to be safer for themselves, not for others. It could be argued that SUVs are more of a problem than the average car but on this point the article flip-flops around. At one point it says that SUVs are falsely perceived as safe by the drivers of them (the statistics on accidents need far tighter referencing) and then at another point it says a collision with an SUV is more dangerous for the other smaller car. So it is possible for an SUV to be correctly regarded as safe. If everyone's got an SUV, you're at a disadvantage to not have one.

Other signs of bias include comments like "There are a number of places where an SUV can be of benefit to its occupants. Areas such as the Australian Outback, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia" Implicit in this is that SUVs are not of benefit elsewhere. A more NPOV comment might be the "all-terrain aspects of SUVs make them particularly suited for areas such as..."

Criticism is pervasive in this article, as mentioned by Pablomartinez. Even the most tenuous comments are given space, e.g. "Many critics see these features as simply unnecessary for normal commuting. Other points of criticism: the gadgets may become troublesome (adding to repair bills), they add to the overall weight of the vehicle, the luxury features are simply toys for the rich and provide additional opportunities for the owner to flaunt himself/herself, and – in some instances – serve as distractions to drivers and causing an accident risk." Point out to me a modern car designed for citizen use that doesn't contain features that are in excess of what is required for commuting or convey some aspect of status. All cars contain luxuries, even in their basic styling.

Basically this article needs paring down dramatically. Relegate criticisms to the criticism section and then offer rebuttals on the basis that most of the complaints are simply against private car ownership in general. Panlane --129.11.76.229 09:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. It is true that many SUVs only give 25 or so miles per gallon, but then so do many very large engine saloon cars. Another criticism of SUVs is that they "add to congestion" because they are bigger than other cars, and therefore should be "banned". Presumably then all busses, lorries and vans should be banned as well, because they're the same size, or larger than an SUV. It is also true that the footprint (amount of space on the road) taken up by a typical SUV is no more, and in some cases less, than an estate car. The problem that most people have with SUVs is not safety, it's not congestion and it's not environmental concerns. It is in fact the same problem that everyone had with Jaguars in the 1970s, XR3i's in the 1980s, and BMWs in the 1990s - JEALOUSY THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD ONE. Thats the facts, deal with it. SimonUK 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is a fair one, but does not negate valid criticism of SUVs--Fergie 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of cars get less than 25 mpg, at least according to the EPA estimates, including cars with moderately sized engines like a V6 or a turbocharged I4. --SodiumBenzoate 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article is so biased, throughout, that it is funny. Most of it is on the lines of "My mum told me that SUVs are dangerous" Greglocock 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

129.11.76.229 and Greglocock: might I suggest that you stop moaning about the article and start editing it instead? Any reasonable edit will eventually take root even if a few partisans are intent on removing it. Fergie 10:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the paragraph out about the luxury models. I didn't see the point. You can get power seats, nav systems, etc. on any vehicle. Also the stuff in this paragraph about "...toys for the rich" and "opportunities for the owner to flaunt himself/herself" is kind of offensive. This delete also made this article a little less lopsided. It still has more criticisms than anything else but it's getting better. BDSIII 09:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit 2/14/2006

This article was ridiculous and needed a complete overhaul. I rearranged and removed the petty comments. In no way is this article done, but I believe the content has been made more clear and less garbled. Feel free to edit and wikify. I will vigilantly remove any bias. --PabloMartinez 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)]] 14:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kept most of the information changed, but re-instated the layout of the article, albeit moving things around. Having two sections, 'about SUVs', and 'Criticisms', and no intro paragraph is too narrow and deep of a layout. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am making an attempt to separate the criticism and the actual information from the article. Let's try and keep them separate. --[[User:PabloMartinez|PabloMartinez 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)]] 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested removal of "Hybrid" discussion advertisement

Discussing Hybrid Gas-Electric vehicles does not really belong in this article. Especially references to specific vehicles, which sounds like advertisement. It is perhaps only relevent in terms of Fuel economy. Perhaps one when noting the poor gas millage of SUV's compared to other passenger vehicles, the "hybrid" gas milage could be mentioned. "While the average fuel economy of SUV's is less than 20 mpg, some gas-electric hybrids can get 30 mpg".

The pages for Truck, Van, Minivan, Car, and Bus should be referenced. There is little to no reference to hybrid gas-electric in these pages. It really is not part of the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GodWasAnAlien (talk • contribs) .

Added ((confusing)) template

The article still needs some organization. Especially from the "Criticism" heading, and below. I think there is a lot of good information there, but its too disorganized to be of much use. Help is appreciated! --PabloMartinez 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of article

At present, this is a poor collection of trivia, "common knowledge", guesswork and hearsay rather than a proper encyclopaedia article. Just an observation from someone randomly reading articles (my editing interests are elsewhere). zoney ♣ talk 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most of this article belongs in the category of "green politics". Such a link from this page would be appropriate but diluting useful information about vehicles with this thinly-disguised political diatribe is very annoying. This sort of undisciplined off-topic moralizing is becoming commonplace on Wikipedia and could ruin it for everyone. --Kven 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

Just some notes about Erroneous information this article gives - Firstly, in the "SUVs in remote areas" section - You rarely see an SUV Used outside of the city - More commonly used outside the citys are either 4WD Utes(Such as a Toyota Hilux), or proper FWDs - Such as the Holden Jackaroo, the older Model Land Cruisers, Nissan Patrols(Mostly 2002/3 models backwards), and the Mitsubishi Pajero. The Average SUV would propably not Survive the Beating a Vehicle takes in the Australian Outback, unless one Treated it rather Gingerly.

Secondly, the claim "In Australia, the automotive industry and press have recently adopted the term SUV in place of four wheel drive in the description of vehicles and market segments." This Is unfortunately not true - In the Australian Market, Press, and To consumers, an SUV and a 4WD are still two Very distinct Vehicles - For example, A Toyota Rav-4 or a Honda CR-V Would be classed as an "SUV", But a Toyota Land Cruiser or a Holden Jackaroo are Still Called "Four Wheel Drives"

Lastly, just a personal observation - Down here, SUV's definitely have a Place - but that Place is in the City and the suburbs, or maybe doing very light offroad driving. They are not seen as a serious offroad Vehicle.

Also, I might note that this article is written from a very America-centric perspective, but Really, that's nothing to worry about - 90% of Wikipedia Is written the exact same way, as a vast majority of Wiki editors are American. Still, Just thought I'd say.

Yes, but your contribution is extremely Autralia-centric which is even more irrelevant to the rest of us--Fergie 10:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV check

The criticism section of this article is way out of control, reads like a leftie blog. Imagine if Global Warming contained this large a criticism section the left leaners would throw a hissy fit--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]