Best small/medium SUV?

[oldjones]

If you won't take your daily driver offroad you obviously don't have much faith in its construction
As for scratching up the doors on the trail, you just have to buy one that the doors come off of!
I would hardly call logging roads, farm fence lines, and tractor paths offroading. We usually take things like logging roads TO the trail.

And here I thought off road was something sporty and good for you, like on foot.

Good thing so many folks believe SUVs will help them survive, because they have more accidents than non-SUV's. But no one ever believes they're going to have an accident do they? It'll be the guy in the little car you crush who has it, right?

I just remember all the SUVs that passed me in storms last winter, that I'd pass in the ditch a mile or so later, while my little FWD Nissan motored on.

 

[Why Not?]

There is a hybrid version, the 400h, if you drive a lot:

http://www.lexus.ca/lexus/experience/en/home/vehicles/HW31UP2006/veh_intro.jsp?model=HW31UP&year=2006

Price from $62,200.00##

Is it a price issue that you prefer the RX330?

Buy the 330. The base price of a 400 is $12,000 more than a 330. You'll never drive enough miles in your lifetime to save this extra price in gas costs. And they are an unproven technology when it comes to longevity. Go ask a Lexus dealer what a replacement battery pack costs. Hybrids are just a gimmick whose lifetime will be short.

 

[Why Not?]

Land Rover Freelander.

This would be the same Landrover who, when compared to all other vehicles sold in North America, ranks second to last (better only than Kia) in the JD Power intial quality and 3 year reliability studies?

Save yourself the aggravation. For full size SUV's buy American. For small and mid size buy Japanese.

 

[DateMasamune]

This would be the same Landrover who, when compared to all other vehicles sold in North America, ranks second to last (better only than Kia) in the JD Power intial quality and 3 year reliability studies?

Save yourself the aggravation. For full size SUV's buy American. For small and mid size buy Japanese.

But I thought Land Rovers were manufactured under the supervision of BMW, how can their quality be so low?

 

[poorboy]

But I thought Land Rovers were manufactured under the supervision of BMW, how can their quality be so low?

BMW quality is low too compared to certain Japanese and domestic names like Buick and Cadillac.

People don't buy a vehicle, they buy an image.

 

[DateMasamune]

BMW quality is low too compared to certain Japanese and domestic names like Buick and Cadillac.

People don't buy a vehicle, they buy an image.

I disagree. If people want to buy an image, they would buy a Benz, not a BMW. Benz is more of status symbol then a BMW. Nonetheless, with the AMG badging on the whole Mercedes line, they are definitely competing head on with BMW Motorsports ...

You can call me a product of successful BMW marketing, but I think that when one buys a BMW, they are buying it for what it can do and the "feel" of driving. I have driven many cars, BMW, Jaguar, Lexus, Acura, Cadillac, Oldsmobile and Mercedes and none of them drives as well as a BMW, especially going in and out of a corner.

 

[SirWanker]

But I thought Land Rovers were manufactured under the supervision of BMW, how can their quality be so low?

The X5 was designed & built by BMW but Land Rover is now owned by Ford.
I own a 2002 Freelander and have not been disappointed by it.

 

[goodtime]

But I thought Land Rovers were manufactured under the supervision of BMW, how can their quality be so low?

UK automakers are not known for reliability, even under foreign ownership
Mini cooper, Bentley, Jags, etc.
More of an image than reliability.

 

[goodtime]

Bimmer, driver's car

...
You can call me a product of successful BMW marketing, but I think that when one buys a BMW, they are buying it for what it can do and the "feel" of driving. I have driven many cars, ... and none of them drives as well as a BMW, especially going in and out of a corner.

Agree with you there. Even if I can afford one, I wouldn't buy as it crammy for passenger. Comfort is important, even for my passengers, consider the mileage I log.

 

[DateMasamune]

UK automakers are not known for reliability, even under foreign ownership
Mini cooper, Bentley, Jags, etc.
More of an image than reliability.

Yeah, I guess you are right about British cars being image driven. Nonetheless, those Brits make some fine cars like Lotuses and Listers.

Ah, the legendary Mini Cooper. It's got to be a "S" though, or else no good. Then it's the Mini that's under the tutelage of BMW, not the Land Rovers. My mistake ...

 

[goodtime]

Hmm...

This is not David and Goliath, it is straight Physics. The inertia of a Ford Expedition through its weight would just make it roll over the Smart Car. Also, some European countries (Sweden?) don't allow the Smart to be sold for safety reasons.

btw, i am no fan of SUVs

I'm not fan of the big deadly SUV, just the smaller agile heavy duty frames and height clearence to take rough punishment. 4x4 is waste of money, extra weight and repair bill. I opt for better tires in FWD to get by any 4x4.

Physic is also about crumble zone, force distribution at least for survivability of occupants. Not Bumper car or demolition derby.

Refer to www.smart.com note the pull down of countries available. Unless this is a fake site and those were smuggled smart cars I saw in Europe... The PlusFour & 4x4 version won't be coming to North American.
Smart is not making much $ as the expensive R&D and technology packed in each car.

 

[frankcastle]

Glad to see there are some people out there who are anti SUV.

I agree that they can be useful but for most drivers they will never use the SUV to its full potential. Most people never go off road and only carry big loads a few times a year. Also, its funny that people might say this and turn around and buy the smaller to mid sized SUVs which aren't ideal for these applications (no this is not targetted at any posters here on terb).

Plus with the way gas prices are going they are a waste of money.

On the safety side, I believe that SUVs are classified as trucks and thus governed by less stringent safety standards. Not to mention the higher centre of gravity.

As for being higher up, this can be accomplished in a car by giving more space between you and the person in front. As someone mentioned earlier its driving habits that make the difference not what you drive. I agree with that since its a moot point what will be better in an accident if you don't get in one in the first place.

Actually no one has mentioned this but in terms of hitting pedestrians I think cars are safer because they hit the person lower. While an SUV hits the person higher and most SUVs have a solid metal bar on the front instead of a plastic fender. I mention this because a lot of families look towards SUVs and I just shudder to think about all these chest level metal battering rams cruising around.

 

[goodtime]

Bush bars

...
Actually no one has mentioned this but in terms of hitting pedestrians I think cars are safer because they hit the person lower. While an SUV hits the person higher and most SUVs have a solid metal bar on the front instead of a plastic fender. I mention this because a lot of families look towards SUVs and I just shudder to think about all these chest level metal battering rams cruising around.

Bush bars turn smaller person or child into crash-test dummies. There was a U.S. bill to outlaw them on urban & sub-urban vehicles. Hummers/Yukon/Suburban & Bushbars are deadliest combination.

 

[frankcastle]

Thanks for filling me in on what those things are called GT. I'm more of a Camry, Accord, Taurus kinda guy. Maybe I'm just bitter that I don't have cash to throw around on $40 k + cars. I'd much rather spend 30 ish and take the left over money to the MP or donate it to a church whatever place I step into first.

But yeah I think they should be banned.... after a friend pointed it out, everytime I see those bars I think of a little kid on a bike taking that to the melon...... which is probably like taking a homerun swing to the head by Barry Bonds with an aluminum bat with a fraction of the give since aluminum is notriously soft while the bar looks to be solid steel.

 

[DateMasamune]

Another thing is, SUVs' are dangerous to the drivers behind them cause they can't see what's goingn on in front of the SUV cause it's so high up. I hate following behind a SUV, it pisses me off like crazy. Especially if it's a huge ass one like the Escalade, Armada or Navigator. It's worse if it has tinted windows ...

 

[Meister]

Physic is also about crumble zone, force distribution at least for survivability of occupants. Not Bumper car or demolition derby.

You are trying to bend physics. The SUV will always win over Smart or many other regular cars due to weight and higher ride.

check this:

http://www.suv.org/safety.html

CRASH COMPATIBILITY

While SUVs pose serious safety problems for their occupants, recent studies are showing that SUVs are greatly increasing the danger on our roads for drivers and passengers in other cars. Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car.(9) In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV.(10) In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.(11)

SUVs simply are not compatible in accidents with smaller-sized cars. It is natural to think that SUVs would cause more damage in accidents, because they tend to be heavier than other cars. However, the danger from SUVs appears to be caused by more than just their weight. Comparisons between vehicles that have similar weights, like the Ford Taurus, a mid-sized sedan, and the Ford Ranger, a pick-up (which provides the platform for the Ford Explorer), have shown disproportionate impacts in accidents.

The increased damage results in large part from the design of these vehicles. On average, light trucks and SUVs are designed to ride eight inches higher than a car. SUVs also have a more rigid frame - usually consisting of two steel rails. Most cars only use one rail. These two design factors greatly increase the damage caused in a crash with a passenger car.

 

[oldjones]

you might also consider:

As to the rarity of rollover accidents, once again we must look at NHTSA figures. For the 130 million cars, there were 29,000 fatal accidents in 1998 -- a death rate of 22 per 100,000 vehicles. For the 16 million SUVs, there were 4,500 fatalities, which means a death rate of 28 per 100,000.

taken from http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=43

 

[prelations]

i'd rather ride in an SUV.

anything happends between me an a honda or whatever other small car is on the road, more often than not, I'm going to be fine. I'll answer any questions later, most likely I'll be the only one able to answer those questions.

When i had a car, I'd be cutoff by motorcycles, got my front end clipped by cars weaving and racing in traffic, and just poor drivers in general. could i claim my front end to the insurance company? no, why would I? I just had to fix it myself. Now, if they cut me off, it's more than likely they'll be hurt more than me.

"Hey nice rims! do you want me to tell them to bring the jaws of life for ya?"

 

[Why Not?]

But I thought Land Rovers were manufactured under the supervision of BMW, how can their quality be so low?

Land Rover was owned briefly by BMW. It was bought by Ford several years ago. (BMW kept Mini though). The higher end LR's had BMW V8's for a while but that has been replaced this year by a variant of the Jaguar V8.

Scroll down to the bottom of this page if you don't believe me about their rankings in reliability. (By the way Mini is the 3rd worst nameplate so I guess BMW isn't that good at managing other peoples factories.) BMW itself has a pretty good initial reliability rating though.

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/advice/windowshop.aspx?contentid=4022707&src=home&pos=Edit2

 

[nato75]

If cost and objective reporting are important, it may be useful to check out the recent Consumer Reports missives - http://www.consumerreports.org

Their picks include the 2005 Subaru Forester (best small SUV), 2005 Lexus RX330 (best mid-sized SUV) and the 2005 Toyota Land Cruiser (best large SUV).

And in the fuel efficiency category, their picks are the 2005 Subaru Forester (small SUV category) and the 2005 Toyota Highlander (mid-sized SUV).

And in terms of luxury, their favourites are the 2005 Lexus RX330 (mid-sized SUV category) and the 2005 Toyota Land Cruiser (large SUV category).

But have you ever thought of getting a station wagon?