4x4 - The Debate

[Haversack]

In the UK, a certain amount of anti-SUV sentiment has been based more on class conflict rather than on the current environmental and safety issues. I recall that the _Sloane Ranger Handbook_, published in 1983, had the joke about the difference between a Range Rover and a hedgehog. The implication was that such comfortable, (let alone expensive), utility vehicles were primarily for the rich.

Of course, this brings up the subject of when did utility vehicles become _Sport_ utility vehicles? I recall the Willys, International, and Studebaker pickups and wagons which the ranching and mining side of the family drove. There was nothing "Sport" about them. They were durable vehicles meant for laborous work. Even the early Scouts, Wagoneers, and K5 Blazers were bare-bones with only an AM radio as an option. I suppose such vehicles gradually acquired both the cachet of wealth as more people took up skiing and other former 'sports of the rich' through the 1960s into the 1970s & 80s; and the image of being a hard, rugged outdoorsman just as fewer people had any actual outdoor work experience. It sort of tracks with the whole urban cowboy era. Of course the manufacturers responded to this growing market by making the things easier and more comfortable to drive, (particulalry at freeway speeds). They were also a macho alternative to the minivan. I think the trend topped out a couple of years back when the Navistar CXT made its debut. Bigger is better, after all... Of course some killjoy town councils have also started enforcing the tonnage restrictions on their residential streets...

Haversack.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

Sorry, I typed that badly and should have taken more care. You're right to point it out. What I should have said was that I've been in this and other environmental debates where if you ask the other person how they use their own car, or run their household for example, there are people who drive 250 yards to go to a shop for a paper, or won't even consider an energy saving light bulb, but have a go at somebody else for their lack of environmental credentials. And I've got a foot in both camps which is why I concede I haven't got a leg to stand on by driving a 4x4 outwith the times when I need it.

250 yards? WHO HAS TIME TO WALK 250 YARDS?!!

 

[DiabolicalAngel]

Caledonia, you drive your 4x4 with pride ! Don't worry about anyone else or think bad about it. Your vehicle is road worthy and if need be passes an MOT, so it is well within the emission limits, so what's the worry??

If you are ever in Central London, see a blue Rangey with a guy wearing a fedora blasting out Tommy Dorsey, big cigar in one hand, no seat belt on, chatting away on the mobile, no hands on the wheel, wearing his kinky riding boots, you've seen them before one foot up on the dash, then that will be me ! As Salv has put me into that catergory as the extra danger to Londoners......Oh and btw Salv before you slate me, with being irresponsible with what I just described there.... I won't even be at the wheel, my driver will !lol

 

[Pilgrim]

"Of course, this brings up the subject of when did utility vehicles become _Sport_ utility vehicles? I recall the Willys, International, and Studebaker pickups and wagons which the ranching and mining side of the family drove. There was nothing "Sport" about them. They were durable vehicles meant for laborous work. Even the early Scouts, Wagoneers, and K5 Blazers were bare-bones with only an AM radio as an option. I suppose such vehicles gradually acquired both the cachet of wealth as more people took up skiing and other former 'sports of the rich' through the 1960s into the 1970s & 80s; and the image of being a hard, rugged outdoorsman just as fewer people had any actual outdoor work experience."

Good point! I certainly remember when the only 4x4 vehicles were things like the Dodge Power Wagon, Chevy and Ford pickups, the Jeep CJ series, and the mountainous International Travelalls.

I think that as station wagons dropped out of popularity and people came to desire all wheel drive, the manufacturers were smart enough to look at the full size Blazer and Bronco, consider the new full-time AWD hubs that removed the need to turn front hubs in and out, and realized there was an emerging market niche for family vehicles with AWD capability. Boy, WAS there!! (Note that a similar market opportunity has emerged in mini-vans.)

Most SUVs are serving the same functions as the station wagons we remember from the 50's and 60's. Personally, I don't want to drive a wagon unless it's an Audi S4 or S6 Wagon (real pavement rippers), and my wife won't even look at them. We have a whole generation of boomers who have rejected station wagons and gone straight to SUVs. That's reality. And SUVs have become quieter, smoother riding, nicer overall, better equipped, and have improved gas mileage.

I suspect that gas prices will continue to turn people to smaller AWD vehicles, and Subaru will do well. Ford has a good idea with their new Escape and 500, even if I'm not sold on their styling, because they combine decent room with AWD. But protesting isn't going to move people any faster - they'll move as their pocketbooks and personal interests dictate.

 

[Caledonia]

250 yards? WHO HAS TIME TO WALK 250 YARDS?!!

lol lol .

And Pilgrim. Good point. I think the early 1900s 4x4s were just another way of moving a car rather than for a particular off road purpose, so I suppose we can discount them (unless somebody knows differently). My gut agrees with you about the 80s roughly, but I think I'd have to look into the whole landrover/rangerover line, because I'm pretty sure they were in hefty use recreationally by the better off before that.

 

[Salv]

As Salv has put me into that catergory as the extra danger to Londoners......

I think you'll find it was Dr Walker that put you into that category. I merely pointed out his findings.

Any luck with those drive-by shooting stats?

 

[Lincsong]

Societal costs?lol lol lol There's no societal costs to owning a SUV. People want boats, trailers and what not. Increased emissions and global warming?lol lol More nonsense. Close off Yellowstone and Yosemite to only a few people?lol lol Environmentalists have all the complaints but no feasible answers. We live in a diverse society. People are in bands, play sports, enjoy life. We aren't a bunch of little pansies sitting around in the darkened kitchen counting every last penny to place in the coffee can. People buy SUV's for their lifestyle. My F-150 isn't a 4X4 but I made sure to get one with the biggest engine available and a towing package. People need to mind their own business and quit worrying about what the other guy drives. Worry more about those fools with the cell phone doing 55 in a 70.:rage:

 

[Serial Hero]

Societal costs?lol lol lol There's no societal costs to owning a SUV. People want boats, trailers and what not. Increased emissions and global warming?lol lol More nonsense. Close off Yellowstone and Yosemite to only a few people?lol lol Environmentalists have all the complaints but no feasible answers. We live in a diverse society. People are in bands, play sports, enjoy life. We aren't a bunch of little pansies sitting around in the darkened kitchen counting every last penny to place in the coffee can. People buy SUV's for their lifestyle. My F-150 isn't a 4X4 but I made sure to get one with the biggest engine available and a towing package. People need to mind their own business and quit worrying about what the other guy drives. Worry more about those fools with the cell phone doing 55 in a 70.:rage:

No societal costs to owning an SUV?
Global warming nonsense?

I was going to respond to this, but it has left me speechless.

 

[Section10]

Up north here in the snow belt 4x4s are common. They are not necessary for getting around, but they are handier. I've owned several tho' I don't have any right now. Lots of snow plowers here and 4X4s are mostly used. I had a '48 Chevy 5 ton doodlebug with chains on 20" tires w/rear wheel drive and it plowed just as good as any 4x4. It could grade dirt roads, too and go almost anywhere. A local old timer used to have a snow plow mounted on his '40 Cadillac LaSalle and it must have done the job because he used it for many years.

 

[jamespowers]

People need to mind their own business and quit worrying about what the other guy drives. Worry more about those fools with the cell phone doing 55 in a 70.:rage:

Exactly. Jelousy and envy probably have more to do with it than many will admit.

Regards,

J

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Fair enough, but Hummers just look and seem silly -- right down to the name.

.

 

[pablocham]

Personally the issue for me is one of intellectual honesty. Study after study has found that compared to other passenger vehicles SUVs are more dangerous to those in them as well as those around them. At this point the burden is on those saying they are safer to produce some evidence for that proposition. You say there are no social costs? Rebut the evidence that says there are. If you don't believe the statistics and the science that has shown they are unsafe, then tell us why those statistics and that science are bad. It is intellectually dishonest to simply dismiss statistics without giving a good reason. "I disagree" is not a good reason, but a statement of faith. Dismissing any website that shows the dangers of SUVs as "propaganda" is the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "I don't hear you!" Just because something is propaganda doesn't make it false. Often propaganda is true. "Loose lips sink ships," for instance, was a propaganda slogan that also happened to be true. Saying SUVs are dangerous or starting a web site to spread that idea may be propaganda, but it is also seems to be true.

One nice aspect of living in a free society is that when people do dangerous or risky things, those who have been put at risk don't have to shut up and "mind their own business."

 

[Lincsong]

You say there are no social costs? Rebut the evidence that says there are. If you don't believe the statistics and the science that has shown they are unsafe, then tell us why those statistics and that science are bad. It is intellectually dishonest to simply dismiss statistics without giving a good reason.

There is no social costs to owning an SUV. Period! If someone owns an SUV are we to believe that now some kid in St. Louis is going to bed hungry at night?lol lol These studies are based on only limited data. They have only been recording the weather for less than 150 years, so we are supposed to beleive that just because someone says that SUV's are causing global warming it's true? Talk about a statement of faith. Greenland is covered with snow, but it's called Greenland because at one time it was green with fields and pastures. What caused the weather to change? Huge viking ships?

Are SUV's more dangerous than other types of vehicles? Not really, it's how they are driven. With a higher center of gravity if someone takes a corner too sharply yes they can tip. :eusa_doh: But, then with a smaller car; Honda Civic, if it's driven at 90 mph, takes a sharp turn, runs into a light pole it will probably slice in half. You can choose to believe these reports, I choose not to believe such silliness. What killed off the dinosaurs? Giant 4 wheelers? Were the dino's burning coal to get warm? The weather is constantly changing.

We don't live in a vaccuum tube. We never have and never will. What caused Yosemite to be carved? It was moving glaciers! What caused the Grand Canyon to be formed? More erosion. How many SUV's were around when Columbus landed in 1492? In the 1880's 6 feet of snow fell in San Francisco? Maybe that was caused by Daimler Benz and their first car.
These reports aren't even propaganda but wastes of money and trees to print them.

 

[G. Fink-Nottle]

There is no social costs to owning an SUV.

I can't see the SUV as a chick magnet.

 

[scotrace]

Emissions

I think that the guns against emissions might profitably be trained on the riding mower used to mow a tiny yard, the unregulated smelly 18-wheel vehicles, and the jets.
Vehicle emissions have been effectively cleaned up (in modern motorcars). There are now other, worse pulluters who may need our attention.

I knew this would be a hot button when I read the first post... you folks have largely quibbled nicely. Especially when I can see your faces turning purple behind the smiles.

 

[Serial Hero]

Greenland is covered with snow, but it's called Greenland because at one time it was green with fields and pastures. What caused the weather to change? Huge viking ships?

The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Norse sagas, it is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and slaves, set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Gr??nland ("Greenland") in order to attract more people to settle there. Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") on early maps. Whether Green is an erroneous transcription of Grunt ("Ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

This thread's almost off the chart, I going to my happy place now.

For a more pleasant discourse visit the "Suffering For Your Style" thread.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

These studies are based on only limited data. They have only been recording the weather for less than 150 years, so we are supposed to beleive that just because someone says that SUV's are causing global warming it's true?

And one last thing and then I'm really gone:

Ice sheets contain a record of hundreds of thousands of years of past climate, trapped in the ancient snow. Scientists recover this climate history by drilling cores in the ice, some of them over 3,500 meters (11,000 feet) deep. Each layer of snow is different in chemistry and texture, summer snow differing from winter snow. Summer brings 24 hours of sunlight to the polar regions, and the top layer of the snow changes in texture—not melting exactly, but changing enough to be different from the snow it covers.

 

[Serial Hero]

http://img.slate.com/id/2104755/

 

[raiderrescuer]

4x4

I own a Jeep Liberty (aka Jeep Cherokee in Europe)...my SUV has killed 0, but lets talk about all the small sized Hondas & Toyotas out there trying to do the "Fast and Furious" street racing.

Heck, just yesterday in Portland some lady was allegedly Drinking and Speeding in her BMW and crashed...luckly they were able to get her out but both car and phone pole are totalled. Does that make BMW's evil ???

I have yet to cause an accident (knock on wood) but have been rear-ended three different times in the last 10 years by econo-cars while I was driving a 4x4...the drivers just weren't paying attention.

During the bad weather down here when it snows I end up taking my Boss home because her car wouldn't make it.

My gas economy is 20 mpg, I get better than my neighbor's Mazda RX6 that gets 18 mpg.

I also enjoy the Outdoors and couldn't get to some of the wonderful attractions in a regular car even though it's a gravel road.