We really have no business driving SUVs

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hatchbacks and wagons FTW. They are as practical as SUVs for an average user who keeps their cars on the road, cost less, use less fuel, are much more fun to drive, you can still get them with manuals, and look way better and more hip, partly due to the fact that soccer moms have all migrated to SUVs.
I drive a Mazda3 wagon. I can fit my road bike and mountain bike together in the back with the rear seats folded without taking the wheels off. I get about 30mpg, I paid 16K for it. It looks great, and is a blast in the corners. I had a CX-7 loaner from Mazda, and it seemed like a Mazda3 with all the fun sucked out of it and inflated price, ride height, and fuel consumption. No thanks.

Yes, the wagon suggestion worked out well for James Kim.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hatchbacks and wagons FTW. They are as practical as SUVs for an average user who keeps their cars on the road, cost less, use less fuel, are much more fun to drive, you can still get them with manuals, and look way better and more hip, partly due to the fact that soccer moms have all migrated to SUVs.
I drive a Mazda3 wagon. I can fit my road bike and mountain bike together in the back with the rear seats folded without taking the wheels off. I get about 30mpg, I paid 16K for it. It looks great, and is a blast in the corners. I had a CX-7 loaner from Mazda, and it seemed like a Mazda3 with all the fun sucked out of it and inflated price, ride height, and fuel consumption. No thanks.

Yes, and when I go mtbing or hiking with three friends and our 4 dogs, we can all fit in a hatchback/wagon. Nope.

Mazada3? Why aren't you driving a more fuel efficient vehicle?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hatchbacks and wagons FTW. They are as practical as SUVs for an average user who keeps their cars on the road, cost less, use less fuel, are much more fun to drive, you can still get them with manuals, and look way better and more hip, partly due to the fact that soccer moms have all migrated to SUVs.
I drive a Mazda3 wagon. I can fit my road bike and mountain bike together in the back with the rear seats folded without taking the wheels off. I get about 30mpg, I paid 16K for it. It looks great, and is a blast in the corners. I had a CX-7 loaner from Mazda, and it seemed like a Mazda3 with all the fun sucked out of it and inflated price, ride height, and fuel consumption. No thanks.

Yes, the wagon suggestion worked out well for James Kim.

Are you suggesting that he would have lived had he been driving a tahoe or something?

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hatchbacks and wagons FTW. They are as practical as SUVs for an average user who keeps their cars on the road, cost less, use less fuel, are much more fun to drive, you can still get them with manuals, and look way better and more hip, partly due to the fact that soccer moms have all migrated to SUVs.
I drive a Mazda3 wagon. I can fit my road bike and mountain bike together in the back with the rear seats folded without taking the wheels off. I get about 30mpg, I paid 16K for it. It looks great, and is a blast in the corners. I had a CX-7 loaner from Mazda, and it seemed like a Mazda3 with all the fun sucked out of it and inflated price, ride height, and fuel consumption. No thanks.

Yes, the wagon suggestion worked out well for James Kim.

Are you suggesting that he would have lived had he been driving a tahoe or something?

Yes. He probably could have put it in low gear and it would have crawled out.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hatchbacks and wagons FTW. They are as practical as SUVs for an average user who keeps their cars on the road, cost less, use less fuel, are much more fun to drive, you can still get them with manuals, and look way better and more hip, partly due to the fact that soccer moms have all migrated to SUVs.
I drive a Mazda3 wagon. I can fit my road bike and mountain bike together in the back with the rear seats folded without taking the wheels off. I get about 30mpg, I paid 16K for it. It looks great, and is a blast in the corners. I had a CX-7 loaner from Mazda, and it seemed like a Mazda3 with all the fun sucked out of it and inflated price, ride height, and fuel consumption. No thanks.

Yes, and when I go mtbing or hiking with three friends and our 4 dogs, we can all fit in a hatchback/wagon. Nope.

Mazada3? Why aren't you driving a more fuel efficient vehicle?

You can't go riding with three friends and 4 dogs in a 5 seater SUV either, Einstein.
You can continue thinking that Mazda3 is inefficient, but 30mpg (5MT) for what it delivers for me is good. An SUV with similar practicality, such as CR-V or Escape would yield 5mpg worse mileage.

As far as James Kim comment, it makes no sense at all. I don't think he would have faired much better in an SUV like CR-V or a Rav-4 or Escape than he did in his Saabaru. The problem was his decision making, not the car. For the twisty roads I drive on, lower weight, higher cornering ability and limits are more likely to help keep me alive than big tires. If I want to go off road, I have a mountain bike for that.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hatchbacks and wagons FTW. They are as practical as SUVs for an average user who keeps their cars on the road, cost less, use less fuel, are much more fun to drive, you can still get them with manuals, and look way better and more hip, partly due to the fact that soccer moms have all migrated to SUVs.
I drive a Mazda3 wagon. I can fit my road bike and mountain bike together in the back with the rear seats folded without taking the wheels off. I get about 30mpg, I paid 16K for it. It looks great, and is a blast in the corners. I had a CX-7 loaner from Mazda, and it seemed like a Mazda3 with all the fun sucked out of it and inflated price, ride height, and fuel consumption. No thanks.

Yes, the wagon suggestion worked out well for James Kim.

Are you suggesting that he would have lived had he been driving a tahoe or something?

Yes. He probably could have put it in low gear and it would have crawled out.

Cue the video of Jeremy Clarkson getting stuck in a BMW SUV... repeatedly

 

[Mermaidman]

WE REALLY HAVE NO BUSINESS INDULGING IN MANY WASTEFUL LUXURIES IN ADDITION TO SUVS. PRIME EXAMPLE: BIG HOUSES WITH BIG LAWNS.

We really have no business indulging in many wasteful luxuries in addition to SUVs. Prime example: Big houses with big lawns.

 

[desy]

I think Jules should get rid of his motorcycle that can go 150mph and get a much more efficient 250, cause I mean hey get real nobody needs a motorcycle that can go that fast when the speed limits are half that.

I mean cmon 😉

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
WE REALLY HAVE NO BUSINESS INDULGING IN MANY WASTEFUL LUXURIES IN ADDITION TO SUVS. PRIME EXAMPLE: BIG HOUSES WITH BIG LAWNS.

We really have no business indulging in many wasteful luxuries in addition to SUVs. Prime example: Big houses with big lawns.

You are right.
We should all be living in 6x8' mud huts surrounded by dirt.
Come to think of it, who needs toilets? all that wasted water! Just dig a hole in the ground and go at it.

Going by Jules' take on things, I visited Central America a couple of years ago. People were living in Adobe homes with dirt floors, so that must mean the rest of the world does too. Americans are wasteful living in carpeted homes made of wood and mortar.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: potato28
OK, but how am I going to tow my trailer? Or how am I going to transport me and 7 friends up a mountain with 200-300 kilos of skiing equipment? They do have their uses, but very few people use them for what they were designed for.

Do you do that every day? or Every time you drive the SUV? Because otherwise you can take two cars or a wagon for those occasions and be more effecient on the other 95% of your drives

Except that a 2nd car requires payments on a second car, maintenance on a second car, insurance on a second car, a place to store a second car, registration expenses for a second car...

That's simply not practical for many people.

ZV

That's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that maybe one his other 7 friends had a car.

And how do you propose he tows a trailer then? Otherwise he needs the truck.

ZV

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: senseamp

As far as James Kim comment, it makes no sense at all. I don't think he would have faired much better in an SUV like CR-V or a Rav-4 or Escape than he did in his Saabaru. The problem was his decision making, not the car. For the twisty roads I drive on, lower weight, higher cornering ability and limits are more likely to help keep me alive than big tires. If I want to go off road, I have a mountain bike for that.

none of those count as a real off road machine.

your mazda would be useless 3 months out of the year here. steep hills+lots of snow(275 inches last season) + ice pack. its really nice to have an suv with real capabilities, also to drive to the great spots down logging roads to camp/fish.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
We ran into a Subaru with anti SUV stickers a couple of years ago, while on a trail in Moab.
It was mired in sticky red clay, miles from the nearest paved road. When we pulled their car to a drier section of the trail, the mud was so packed in the wheel wells that the tires didn't even turn. They had never been so happy to see an SUV in their life.

Jules, In your honor, I will leave the Prius at home tomorrow and drive the Jeep to work instead.

LOL
What were they doing in a Subaru in Moab??

They were attempting to do the White Rim trail.
While it's a very easy trail, give it some rain and that Moab mud can get pretty nasty.
(I'd be really impressed if they can take that Subaru to the outlook at Cliff Hanger 😉 )

That reminds me of something funny... and I"ll try to find the pic later.

My coworker and I were in the Gallatin NF north of Yellowstone and we found a Subaru Tribeca nose down in a little stream crossing... "stream" is an overstatement. I would have pulled him out with my WJ since I had a tow strap but he wasn't there. Either got eaten by a bear or went to get help.

I think Subaru drivers think AWD means they can tackle any terrain.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: senseamp

As far as James Kim comment, it makes no sense at all. I don't think he would have faired much better in an SUV like CR-V or a Rav-4 or Escape than he did in his Saabaru. The problem was his decision making, not the car. For the twisty roads I drive on, lower weight, higher cornering ability and limits are more likely to help keep me alive than big tires. If I want to go off road, I have a mountain bike for that.

i like how you mention SUV and then name 3 station wagons.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: senseamp

As far as James Kim comment, it makes no sense at all. I don't think he would have faired much better in an SUV like CR-V or a Rav-4 or Escape than he did in his Saabaru. The problem was his decision making, not the car. For the twisty roads I drive on, lower weight, higher cornering ability and limits are more likely to help keep me alive than big tires. If I want to go off road, I have a mountain bike for that.

none of those count as a real off road machine.

your mazda would be useless 3 months out of the year here. steep hills+lots of snow(275 inches last season) + ice pack. its really nice to have an suv with real capabilities, also to drive to the great spots down logging roads to camp/fish.

Don't care, and most people now are getting car based SUVs which are just wasteful versions of hatchbacks with few tangible benefits and clear tangible drawbacks. I've taken my 3 skiing in Tahoe, and it was fine. That's the extent of my off road adventures. If I need to do something more serious, I saved more than enough money through initial purchase price and improved mileage to pay for a weekend truck rental. Plus you make it sound like there is no snow in Europe. Swedes do just fine with their Saab and Volvo wagons, and their winters are no picnic either. Sure, there are some people who need an off roader, but most SUVs sold are not off roaders, they are just jacked up heavy and expensive hatchbacks with worse fuel economy and poor handling.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: senseamp

As far as James Kim comment, it makes no sense at all. I don't think he would have faired much better in an SUV like CR-V or a Rav-4 or Escape than he did in his Saabaru. The problem was his decision making, not the car. For the twisty roads I drive on, lower weight, higher cornering ability and limits are more likely to help keep me alive than big tires. If I want to go off road, I have a mountain bike for that.

i like how you mention SUV and then name 3 station wagons.

Not all SUV's are off roaders. The cars I mentioned are marketed as SUVs, not station wagons.

 

[krunchykrome]

My CRV can do everything that the next SUV can do. Same with a RAV4, an Escape, etc. Larger SUV's will allow you to haul around more cargo, but the trade-off is MPG.

Most people who buy SUV's don't go off-roading. These little "wanna-be SUV's" do everything that the Ford Explorer/Tahoe/etc can do. If you really wanna go off-road, buy an older Jeep, a Hummer, or a Defender. Everything else out there is anything but a "real off road machine".

 

[Munky]

Meh... some people just have to learn things the hard way, like paying $100 for a fill up at the gas station. Granted, my G35 isn't exactly a fuel sipper either, but it's sure a lot more fun to drive.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
These little "wanna-be SUV's" do everything that the Ford Explorer/Tahoe/etc can do.

Except tow a boat or horse trailer. Even a larger crossover like the Honda Pilot is crap as a tow vehicle.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: munky
Meh... some people just have to learn things the hard way, like paying $100 for a fill up at the gas station. Granted, my G35 isn't exactly a fuel sipper either, but it's sure a lot more fun to drive.

"Fun to drive" is a subjective thing. I'm sure that the G35 is much more fun for you, but it's entirely possible that, to someone else, an old Ford Bronco is more fun than the G35.

ZV

 

[ponyo]

Who's more annoying, OP or Al Gore?

 

[natto fire]

Not sure if you want to go about imposing your will on others, or if you are just voicing your opinion. Either way, this country is overstocked on both, and you will not change my driving habits. Perhaps you should give free will and capitalism a try, and keep crossing your fingers for higher gas prices?

BTW, the terrain here is not like in prime California, and I have had to use my 4wd to free myself where other vehicles would have to rely on another condemned vehicle to become free.
Also, I know you are an avid cyclist and all that, but I am sure you have driven your 4 door car with only one person. Can't a motorcyclist gripe about your driving habits just as much?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The rest of the world doesn't appear to need them nor do they want them. I've spent the last week or so in Spain and now Portugal and you see very very few SUVs and almost no pickup trucks.

Wake up America, time to be reasonable and stop wasting the world's resources.

Perhaps you should move......

😉

 

[Apex]

We have no business wearing cargo pants. No one seems to use these pants to their full potential, stuffing every single pocket full of junk. It's a total waste of resources; the cloth could go to better use.

Wake up America, fishnet is the only way to go.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Apex
We have no business wearing cargo pants. No one seems to use these pants to their full potential, stuffing every single pocket full of junk. It's a total waste of resources; the cloth could go to better use.

Wake up America, fishnet is the only way to go.

While I can see the potential advantage, the disadvantage would never be able to be burned from my mind.

 

[sandorski]

Most people who have/had SUVs don't need them. Some people, however, do need/use them for their practical purposes.