i don't understand your logic... why do you blame a corolla for

sulphur, when it is the oil companies that are to reduce it ??

also"___CO2 is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels. Its carbon stored in oil, CO2 is released as its combusted in an ICE and you can?t stick the CO2 back into the ground easily! What don?t you get?"

what do you mean ICE ?? never seen that in

any chemistry book before... are you talking about dry ice?? CO2 ice ??

How the hell would that form inside a combustion chamber in high temps ??

And your claims of more emmisssions in newer vehicles is stilll pretty wild.

Go ahead and make more wild claims..... I 'm gone.

Hi Bhp02:

___You did look to the bottom of the SUV’s listed in the EPA’s Green Vehicle guide I provided you, didn’t you? You might get a lesson again … As I stated above, the Toyota and Lexus SUV’s are some of the worst polluters on the planet! Toyota Sequoia = 0. Another Toyota Sequoia = 0. A Lexus LX 470 = 0. A Toyota Land Cruiser = 0. The large engine equipped Ford Excursion and Chevy Suburban are as much as 3X cleaner then the Toyota SUV’s!

___As for plants taking up the excess CO2, then explain why many scientists in the Environmental field are worried about higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere year after year after year? Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 as a percentage of all gases has increased 30%. Apparently plants are not reacting fast enough to absorb the excess or there wouldn’t have been the increase.

___Blame the Corolla for sulfur? You said Canadian engines were cleaner somehow? Kind of tough to be cleaner when the sulfur content of Canadian fuel is the worst on the Continent besides maybe Mexico. Wild claims? I haven’t seen a fact from you yet? The links are all there. Look up what you want.

___Do you know nothing about automobiles? ICE is an acronym for “Internal Combustion Engine”.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

and the MDX as the family hauler and my wife’s daily commuter.

what, is your wife going to the mall via the grand canyon?

do you take your MDX off-road, at all?

ok all you SUV buffs out there, why should i buy an SUV if all i do is light towing, driving on developed roads and spend most of my time in urban areas (90% of population), that is, what drives the purchase decision?

FYI, whilst i would call myself a left-winger, i am defenitely not a communist, jeff726.

ok, sorry about that jeff726.

it would be more beneficial to xcel if he were to compare a $38k SUV to a $38k car, or a $17k car to a $17k SUV. a comparison between a $17k car and an $38k SUV most would agree is irrelevant.

whilst i would call myself a left-winger....

Do you believe SUV's should be banned from manufacture, or that their ownership be restricted by government? Certainly Government is the answer.

Peace.

Costello

Do you believe SUV's should be banned from manufacture, or that their ownership be restricted by government? Certainly Government is the answer.

SUV's should not be banned from manufacture, i think i have made that very clear.

but, perhaps special licensing and training could be introduced to prospective SUV buyers. firstly it would flush out those who would have merely used it as transport, merely because iif it takes time, like a weekend or two or something people can't be bothered going the extra mile - unless they have to. special training would then ensure that SUV owners (new or used) are better trained to drive such a hazardous vehicle, and they know thier vehicle limitations. you can buy all the SUVs you want, but when you do a condition should be to do a training course. because, the main issue is people buy a SUV to take their kiddies to soccer in and treat it like a corolla, they chuck it around, and drive without the special care that is required.

special training would then ensure that SUV owners (new or used) are better trained to drive such a hazardous vehicle, and they know thier vehicle limitations.

Do you have data that SUV's are involved in a disproportionate number of highway accidents? Or are they only to be singled out because they are not 'necessary'?

 

Wouldn't the special training be better utilized on all drivers? Unless we already assume anyone who drives any other vehicle than an SUV is automatically more intelligent and a more safe driver than anyone who would choose an SUV. Therefore, if you are killed by a drunken slob in a Lexus, your family might rest ****ured, at least it wasn't 4wd.

Hi C2105026:

what, is your wife going to the mall via the grand canyon?

___No actually, that is what the Corolla is for unless she carries my children and their friends somewhere … Or unless she feels like running over some unsuspecting pedestrian’s or smashing into compacts and killing their occupants ___You may like the following?

 

___To bad the img tag doesn’t work in this thread? Here is the clickable link:

http://www.acuramdx.org/photopost/data/500...rockies-med.jpg

why should i buy an SUV if all i do is light towing, driving on developed roads and spend most of my time in urban areas (90% of population)

___Why should you buy a Corolla when an Echo might have been a better choice? As for your needs, do you often drive with 3 passengers or usually less? If less, do you think you could do the earth and your pocket book a favor and drive an Insight instead? You can find them used for less than a used Corolla w/ similar miles? What kind of mileage do you receive in your Corolla might I ask?

it would be more beneficial to xcel if he were to compare a $38k SUV to a $38k car, or a $17k car to a $17k SUV. a comparison between a $17k car and an $38k SUV most would agree is irrelevant.

___I thought this thread was about SUV’s? Not SUV’s that cost less then $38,000 or was it just domestic SUV’s. Until I brought up the MDX, I didn’t see anyone mention a particular SUV, did you? Maybe you meant to say we can exclude all large or Luxury SUV’s on the road including the Hummer given it is far more costly then $38,000. Maybe you really meant that only SUV’s costing $15,200 or less should be the topic of discussion? If so, you most certainly aren’t talking about large SUV’s, are you? What SUV’s might we include in the discussion about SUV’s given you are the authority on SUV’s and their shortcomings?

 

but, perhaps special licensing and training could be introduced …

___I think the authorities should flag all of those that don’t receive at least 10% above EPA estimates in any car, don’t you? I mean these individuals whoever they are obviously in need of some specific safety training and are definitely not safe given the jack rabbit starts and stops, exceeding the speed limits, and causing havoc on our nation’s highways. Just think of all of that imported oil we would save and pollution we wouldn’t have to breathe. Do you qualify for any of the above?

 

___Figures …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

The point of this thread was that SUV waste fuel and kill more people in crashes cause of the weight.

If you want to ban SUV bsed on above, you should consider minivans, tracks, etc.

I don;t wish to ban SUV's merely require them to meet comparable crash standards and require design constraints that will prevent isjuries to the dirvers of SUV"s and to those in the cars they hit.

 

THE POINT of the thread is that SUV"s are not as safe as people think they are because of thieir size and rugid construction. It's their size, weight and construction that make them hazardous ot eveyone on the road. The solution is ot change crash standards and possibly impose weight limits to all non-commercial vehicles with 2 axles.

SUV's and trusks are desinged this way because 1) it's cheaper 2) it allows for high towing capacities 3) did I mention it's cheap. SUV's have even higher profit margins than luxury cars because they have a high percieved worth yet are very simple to build and require very little R&D, chAssi design, and share parts with their highest volume products... full size trucks.

my budget was AUS$20k. echo sedan was hideous and a crap drive, echo hatches were too small, prius and insight double my budget. in fact the new echo autos were over my budget anyway (corolla was used).

use use your MDX off road? well then good for you, you are among the few that actually utilise your vehicles capabilities.

people usually make auto purchase decisions based on price, i.e. they have a budget. in this debate i simply think that all suvs and cars be compared, within respective price ranges, i.e. a $20k car to $20k SUVs and so on. that would make it more logical and fair.

data on SUV accident rates are found on 'www.drive.com.au' in the article 'the fors factor'

Hi Cherry128:

I don’t wish to ban SUV's merely require them to meet comparable crash standards and require design constraints that will prevent injuries to the drivers of SUV’s and to those in the cars they hit.

___Not to continue but the MDX was designed with lower bumper heights for the exact reasons you wish they did … you can look it up if that helps.

___As for safety of the SUV’s, I will take our MDX over our Corolla any day of the week. It is safer for all the reasons listed a few pages ago.

The solution is to change crash standards and possibly impose weight limits to all non-commercial vehicles with 2 axles.

___Maybe small cars should be required to meet stricter crash ratings so when the come into contact with a larger automobile that more people want, they won’t incur injury upon themselves or their passengers? In regards to your proposed weight limits, what should they be? 3,500 #’s? 4,000 #’s? 4,500 #’s? How about 5,000 #’s or greater? Many might say let’s impose crash standards on vehicles that weigh less then 3,000 #’s? What do you think?

 

___C2105026:

Echo sedan was hideous and a crap drive, Echo hatches were too small, Prius and Insight double my budget.

___Do you think most SUV owners think the Corolla is the most beautiful car on the planet or drives like a Lotus Espirit Turbo with the comfort of a Lexus LS 430? How many SUV owners think the Corolla is too small?

 

___As for the price of your vehicle of choice, have you checked into the price of a used Prius or Insight? You might actually be surprised.

___Good Luck to the both of you …

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

where i was buying (in a rural centre, pop.38,000) there were no used prius's available or insights. in fact, in australia i think they have sold all of 23 insights and about 600 priuses (this is in the WHOLE of australia, like, for 20 million people), so unless i go to sydney they are non existant used. i could have bought a used SUV (hell, a used range rover can cost as little as AUS$2500). but, guess what, i didn't. because the SUV i could have bought for $20k (say, 7 y.o. landcruiser) would have had inferior handling, safety and refinement to the corolla i got. if space is the ONLY driving factor in getting an SUV i feel that the prospective SUV buyer should look at a minivan first.

yes, i think the lotus is viagra on wheels (or just about), but the corolla was the most asthetically pleasing car i could have got (remember, mine is a sportier liftback in bright blue with a spoiler and cool hub caps, it looks a treat especially after waxing. i have received many compliments about that).

as for the data, there were 1.2 fatal accidents per 100 millionkm involving at least a 4WD, where the number for passenger cars is only 1.0. for the record heavy wheicles were 2.4. 68% of 4wd accidents were on higher speed rural roads, for cars its 51%. in fatal accidents, 35% of 4wds involved had rolled over compared to 13% of cars. 21% of fatal accidents in 4wds were rollovers that had no previous collision, 6% for passenger cars.

i think this data speaks for itself.

jeff, i am not saying its the vehicles fault, i am saying merely that SUVs are more hazardous to drive, particularly at higher speeds.

people have every right to drive, they have to right to choose an SUV. but, additional measures should be in place in western countries to sift out those who will need their SUV and those who don't. the right to drive an SUV must be preserved. but a responsibility could be to do a little course. have, say,a two/three weekend course. the average car buyer nowadays is quite busy. if deep down they know they won't need their SUV they won't do the course because they feel it is a waste of time. Those who still feel that they need an SUV will be more in tune with their vehicle handling characteristics, poorer braking.

The Australian Transport Safety Beareau don't have a liberal axe to grind.

i notice that you did not refute my data. why don't YOU admit YOU have a have an axe to grind about bringing responsibility and accountability to the SUV community? what is wrong with that?

at no point have i said that car drivers, motorcyclists or truckies shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility and all of road safety responsibility borne by SUV drivers. heavy trucks are 2.4 times as dangerous as a car. thus, in australia, trucks are speed limited to 100kmh, are subject to specialised speed cameras (known here as safe-t-cams), must use an open weighbridge if pAssing by, and one needs a special licence to drive a heavy truck. based on that data, motorcycles are 13.4 times as dangerous. that is why in australia you need to do a riding test, wear a helmet, and if you are a new biker for the first 12 months be restricted to a bike no larger than a 250cc. truckies and bikers have been signalled out, why not signal out SUVs as well as a specialised road user group. i have evry right to buy and drive a truck - but i need to get a special licence for that.

Some of you folks mentioned how in a collision, due to how high the bumpers on an SUV are that it is a hazard to passenger cars.

So what? Should an SUV owner feel sorry for you because you chose to buy a small car?

The comment was also made that a passenger car will haul just as much of a load as an SUV. Ummm, thats not correct. A Camry is rated for towing 1800 pounds. Even a lowly regular cab 4x2 Tacoma is rated for towing 3500 pounds. Also, the Tacoma is smaller than the Camry.

Also, the comment was made by someone who said that they drive faster than SUVs in the snow. If that is true, you are driving waaaaay over your head and you are a hazard to everyone. A 4x4 will ALWAYS be better in the snow than a front-wheel-drive car. Now before you tell me Im wrong just listen for a second. With a 4x4 you have the power divided amongs all 4 wheels. Lets just use a RAV4 or a Subaru for example. The RAV4 makes 160 hp which means that each tire takes 40 hp. The Corolla makes 130-140 hp, but being that only 2 wheels get power each tire must take 65 hp. Because of this, the RAV4 will have better traction in slippery conditions.

Also, when the tires spin on the Corolla, you cant steer. At least with a 4x4 all 4 tires lose traction and its more of a controlled slide than a "push".

Heres the bottom line folks, if someone appreciates the finer things in life and can afford an SUV, great. However, dont put them down or try to proove that you are right or better just because you either cant afford an SUV or just dont want one.

Wait a couple years when all cars will be run on Hydrogen. From what I'm hearing about it I think its great. You dont have to change the engine, Hydrogen can work on all Internal-Combustable engines. Hydrogen is all around us and it can be made from water, we did an experiment by shooting a curent of electricity through a rod and the hydrogen separtating. Hydrogen is just a combustable as Fossil Fuel and thats why its perfect. The only thing that comes out of the exhust is water vapor. Wouldn't that be great? We just need to figure out how to store it correctly. Many say that hydrogen is very explosive and dangerous. But wait, isn't gasoline the same? It wouldn't change the horsepower ratings whole lot. it might even increase it. There are many people who have done it in there backyards, and it really works. Many people are making them, this gives the manufactures something to look in.

then we wouldnt have to deal with those F***ing towle heads and be put through all the bulls*** of the war and are president who wouldn't give a damn about anything but oil. (this war is about oil). We would get out of the middle east and let those A-holes get swallowed up by the earth and are troops would never go back and the USA will never go back.

I'll be in line to get Hydrogen in my Corolla when its made available.

you have no critisim from me there, AWD is always better than 2WD, be it front or back, in snow rain gravel etc. but, you can have AWD without resorting to SUV - namely subaru models and audi models. audis are dear but they are in ideal choice for persons considering an upmarket SUV.they also have ample power - if you don't want to tow. towing WITH an SUV makes sense. using an SUV as a mere passenger car substitute is pointless.

if one can afford an SUV, i have no qualms with that - just that they should think long and hard about it due to safety and possibly environmental issues. if they can afford an SUV they could afford an even better passenger car. for the price of a suburban i could also choose a BMW 525i - now which do you think would be safer, better engineered etc. bear in mind that the BMW has a stability control system and traction control and yes the suburban has AWD but that is all (i think). hmm chevvy vs. BMW.........what would u pick???

no doubt people have a right to buy whatever they want. but, there should be controls in place to ensure that eventually the only people who choose to buy SUVs are the people who need them. get one by all means but there should be a course/licence to filter out the posers from the adventurers.

you have no critisim from me there, AWD is always better than 2WD, be it front or back, in snow rain gravel etc. but, you can have AWD without resorting to SUV - namely subaru models and audi models. audis are dear but they are in ideal choice for persons considering an upmarket SUV.they also have ample power - if you don't want to tow. towing WITH an SUV makes sense. using an SUV as a mere passenger car substitute is pointless.

if one can afford an SUV, i have no qualms with that - just that they should think long and hard about it due to safety and possibly environmental issues. if they can afford an SUV they could afford an even better passenger car. for the price of a suburban i could also choose a BMW 525i - now which do you think would be safer, better engineered etc. bear in mind that the BMW has a stability control system and traction control and yes the suburban has AWD but that is all (i think). hmm chevvy vs. BMW.........what would u pick???

no doubt people have a right to buy whatever they want. but, there should be controls in place to ensure that eventually the only people who choose to buy SUVs are the people who need them. get one by all means but there should be a course/licence to filter out the posers/soccer mums from the adventurers/bushies/farmers/tradspeople etc. (the latter needs suvs)

yes hydrogen is great, the only waste is water. as an australian i find the war even mor irritating - we didn't go for oil (we have plenty of that ourselves - 85%of our oil is domestic), we went because our prime minister john howard is so far up bush's a-hole i don't know where bush ends and howard begins!

very valid point, jeff, about fuel cells.

FYI, i think sddam is a nasty piece of work, but there are more nasty dictators who are worse. anyone who violates human rights in any way deserves to go to hell. there are many other democratic countries out there that did not support the war, like most of europe.

other dictators exist - eg. mugabe from rhodesia, err, zimbabwe, the little short guy from north korea, china ain't so rosy and so on. why didn't america topple these dictators? US left mugabe alone because he doesn't have any oil, and north korea/china was ignored because the states were afraid of picking on someone their own size.

do you have any other explanation?

for the price of a suburban i could also choose a BMW 525i - now which do you think would be safer, better engineered etc. bear in mind that the BMW has a stability control system and traction control and yes the suburban has AWD but that is all (i think). hmm chevvy vs. BMW.........what would u pick???

Not sure where you're goign wiht this.... the BMW is dramatically better designed and engineered. The BMW woud be a safer car in all respects. First it has crumple zones that will better distribute the force of an impact with any object... fixed or moving. Next a BMW is at least half as likely to be imvolved in an accident in the first place, because it stops faster, corners significantly better and accelerates better at all speeds. RWD in a well balanced car with even weight distribution in the hands of a skilled driver can be just as effective. I believe the 5 series can also be purchased now with AWD.

 

Accident avoidance is just as improtant as surviving the crash, but in the US, people presume safety by beffing surrounded by metal in something big, heavy and tall. Look at the types of vehicles driven in Europe compared ot the US, yet their accident rates are not higher.

I'm amazed that the conclusion is training for SUV driver's above and beyond any other driver on the road. Surely the safe driving practices you propose for SUV drivers apply for other vehicles also?

Your stats do not support the case you are making. The stats point out that per mile driven 4wd's have a higher accident rate. Care to guess what terrain 4wd's are navigating when those accidents occur in many cases? I'm ****uming that your 4wd's and passenger vehicles are not logging equal miles. If you suppose they are, then 4wd's are responsible for 54.6% of fatalities per 100 million Km's? (1.2)/(1.0+1.2) x 100=54.55%. That's hardly a mandate. I may be misinterpreting your data, so please clarify if I am. I'm just trying to understand (beyond the emotions) the proposed need to single out SUV's.

As far as the hydrogen tangent-

I'm all for fuel cell technology, it is certainly the wave of the future. But here's your food for thought:

Yes, hydrogen is as abundant as he water supply, and definitely combusts clean (in fuel cells it is a reaction that is not combustion) but- where does the electricity come from that is required to produce hydrogen?

Here are your choices:

Nuclear (egad we certainly can't have that the greens will say)

Fossil Fuel (egad and yikes, the globes warmer by the week, supposedly)

Wind and solar (it will fill part of the bill, but...refill your pipe and dream on until that can supply the total amount of power required)

So much for clean hydrogen. There is no free lunch.

As an engineer, my vote for producing electricity (for hydrogen production or otherwise) is:

nuclear (which are not being built in the states anymore)

the development of new technologies for cleaning emissions from fossil fuel plants. There will be breakthroughs on the low cost production of efficient solar cells in the next few years, but this is a long road.