Time to give SUV drivers a break? 5

[jmw]

In an article in Novembers "What Car?"; "how green is your car?" (

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=222582)

According to CNW's table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, .......the Range Rover Sport finished higher in the list. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler ........

This is based on a "dust to dust" analysis which measure the "carbon footprint" for the car and takes into account not only the fuel use and CO2 emissions but the energy costs of production and end of life costs.

Of course, the report mentions the different manufactruing technologies involved so we should anticipate improvements as the hybrid car technologies improve (super capacitors? see thread769-165886) but will it improve enough?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Ussuri]

I feel the Chelsea Tractor is here to stay i'm afraid. I have no problem with people buying these cars when they have a valid use for them. To my mind, driving the kids to school doesn't count as that seems to be their main job in the UK.

 

[JAE]

"when they have a valid use for them"....hmmmm - WHO then decides if its a valid use? The individual or the government or the surrounding society or the current dictator or the supreme court or ....

 

[ivymike]

From the same site:
Toyota is also mystified why two models built in Japan and sold in the US, the Scion xA and xB, get different energy ratings - 46p per mile and 30p per mile respectively. That's despite being engineered with the same processes, built on the same production line, transported and shipped together and distributed through the same dealer network. They also have the same engines and gearboxes, differ in weight by just 20kg and both average around 35mpg.

In response, CNW says: 'Factory costs are higher for more complex cars. That can be the difference between an xA and an xB. More components, more cost.'

Sounds to me like "arrr, we don't know what we're doing."

 

[Ussuri]

JAE, to me 'Valid use' would be used for the purpose they are designed. For example, if you live in the country with poor roads, then I would say a 4X4 is being used for the purpose it was designed. If you live in London, New York, Tokyo etc where the closest you get to off-road is the pavement I would say not valid. I occasionally see Humvees driving around my city, which is very old one with lots of narrow streets. Interesting.

But I take your point that its is nearly impossible to define it. And I think if it was legislated against it would end up in the court of human rights.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> If you live in London, New York, Tokyo etc where the closest you get to off-road is the pavement I would say not valid.
Given the size, depth, and frequency of potholes, that argument may not hold much water, although the same count not be said for all the potholes.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[UcfSE]

Man, that didn't come off presumptuous. I sure hope I didn't offend anyone when I purchased my 9200-pound GVW 4x4 Chevrolet, or maybe I just don't give a mouse's donkey. A valid use means whatever I decide to use it for, whether hauling a trailer uphill through loose sand or my 260-pound butt around town.

That is an interesting article. It shows that there's always another way to look at something.

 

[JAE]

Ussuri - I agree....very difficult to legislate and that was sort of my reason for posting. If you say that a vehicle I purchased for a particular use was "not valid", that can take many forms.

One would be: "in my humble opinion its not valid and I may try to convince you that its not valid through reason and argument." I'd defend that response any day. You have every right to verbally question someones behavior in a civil way.

Another form would be: "I don't think your use of that Humvee is valid, so I'm going to take steps to convince the government to ban the use of that vehicle for your particular purpose." I would say that a citizen of a country should have the right to petition the gov't to consider certain laws, but at some point governments get way to involved in the free choices of citizens who choose certain types of cars, certain styles of clothing, what foods to eat, etc.

 

[casseopeia]

I think the whole concept of government regulation of what vehicle you chose to drive is not only wrong-headed, but a dangerous intrusion of the society police into the private lives of people. Who decides valid use? Someone who gets their panties in a bunch whenever he sees a mom driving her soccer kids around? What other ‘behaviors’ would you like to regulate? I think watching television is a wasteful use of time. Should I therefore call for the regulation of who gets to own a big-a$$ plasma screen TV? I think UcfSE should probably weigh less than 260lbs. Am I going to stop him from the eating anything other than fresh leafy vegetables? No, I’m not and I’m not going to confiscate his TV either.

And what about all those people living in really huge houses they don’t need? Is driving a hybrid 130 miles a day because you choose to live in a 3,200 sf house better than driving an SUV 2 blocks to work from your 700 sf apartment? Who uses more fuel?

The answer isn’t that simple. I think a lot of the SUV-hating is driven by th media and because it’s chic at the moment.

2002 Nissan Xterra, in bright yellow with simulated bullet holes, rapid fire and large caliber, in case you were wondering. I put the bullet holes on because I felt like a target for the vehicle I drive.



"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[UcfSE]

casseopeia, LOL, that was pretty good. I'd say that if I wasn't 6'-3" with a 52" chest and 18" arms, I would agree with you 100%.

We can't all fit comforatbly in a civic or an explorer. Some Americans are bigger (as well as taller) than the average Japanese (no offense intended) and consequently need a larger machine. I do drive my motorcycle as often as I can and save a lot of fuel versus my other option.

There are some new options available on certain vehicles in which some engine cylinders are not used when cruising to save fuel. Has anyone tried those, are they worth looking into?

 

[casseopeia]

UcfSE, I'm glad your aren't mad. I don't really mean to pick on you. I count myself as someone who needs to drop a few.

I've been thinking about getting a bike ever since I drove a Honda Goldwing. I loved it. Those crotch rockets I've been on in the past scare me, but the Goldwing may have changed my mind. I just need to move to a place where I can have secure parking.

I'm keeping the SUV, though.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[GregLocock]

"JAE, to me 'Valid use' would be used for the purpose they are designed."

Most modern SUVs are designed to be used the way that people use them, so that argument doesn't hold water. While it is possible to take a BMW X5 off-road, and yes, I have done that, I don't think that it was designed primarily for off roading.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Ussuri]

Greg

I must say I dont understand the statement "designed to be used the way people use them". I have often seen people using tools in the way they want to use them, when its not been designed. For example, someone using a spanner as a hammer. But I notice you handle is Automotive so bow your greater knowledge on the subject.

I will add that I think i'm biased against them because I live next to a posh private school and when I try to get my car out in the morning Its nearly impossible. Lots of Range Rovers, BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7's etc dropping the kids at school, parking inappropriately, stopping in the middle of the road etc etc.

 

[JAE]

So Ussuri, do we have a little class envy here?

I feel it to sometimes when I see "rich" people living in ways that don't coincide with my own life choices. "Poor" people as well. But that shouldn't mean I have some right to impose my views on them. In fact, I have to remind myself that the freedom they enjoy, to do stupid things, is the same freedom I enjoy.

 

[scotty7]

It's the "designed to be used the way people use them" bit that gets me in a roundabout way. In the UK at least, normal cars have certain design standards to meet - such as crashworthiness, and pedestrian impact (the pedestrian should be hit below the knee to throw them up, rather than knock them down and under the vehicle). SUVs are certified to different rules, based around vans. Hence, the pedestrian impact bit for example is not enforced, and any SUV that hits a pedestrian is going to add to the injuries by running over the hapless victim. If the SUV is going to be driven predominantly in an urban environment, then surely it should be designed to the same rules that other road user's vehicles have to copy with?

 

[ivymike]

maybe they should just ban pedestrians, and do away with sidewalks in favor of additional lanes, or drive-thru windows for shops?

 

[Ashereng]

The contractor that came to replace my roof shingles is driving a 'honkin' big Ford 3500 - he has a lot of stuff to lug around. The house is in the city. His company is also in the city.

So, you are saying that his truck needs to meet the same rules as other road user's verhicles? Like a Smart car that can fit in his truck's bed? Yes, a Smart car can probably hit a pedestrian below the knees and throw them up. A Ford 3500, even if it does hit a pedestrian below the knees, that pedestrian is going to have to be thrown up pretty high to avoid the rest of the truck.

Then again, maybe we should just ban all pedestrians. Or, we can ban all trucks and SUVs in urban environments. Wonder how they're going to deliver my 60" plasma screen to my home?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[casseopeia]

If an SUV hits a pedestrian, it's not usually the SUV's fault. It's the driver, the pedetrian, or a compbination of the two that are usually at fault.

We also have a fair number of pedestrians that are hit by commuter trains in urban environments. Should commuter trains be designed by the same standards as a 'normal' car?

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[ScottyUK]

Part of the problem isn't so much the vehicle, as the driver's attitude. Most heavy truck drivers are conscious of the size of their vehicles and drive in a reasonably responsible manner. The driver of the average SUV / 4x4 in the UK drives like a regular car user with lousy lane discipline and a near-total unawareness of, or disregard for, other road users. Perhaps a change to the driver licensing for these vehicles would help?

----------------------------------

Sometimes I only open my mouth to swap feet...

 

[jmw]

Unfortunately many SUV drivers are pursuaded that adding "roo-guards" are a good idea. Designed to prevent the vehcile being damaged by collisions with any obtsacles froms "roos" to small trees and bushes, they have a rather bad effect on pedestrians.

("Roo" = kangaroo)

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com