Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Must be your driving style. My currrent Expedition is rated 13/17. I easily beat
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).

I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.

Ed

"Dave C." wrote:

> >
> > They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> > Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> > and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> > Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> > estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
> >
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave

 
Dave C. wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
>>actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and
>>small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world
>
> stats
>
>>prove it.
>>
>>This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it!
>
>
> Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
>
People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.

 
In article <[email protected]>,
Matthew S. Whiting <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>etc.)

Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.

--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:00:57 GMT, "Dave C."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
>the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
>I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
>the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
:)

 
In article <[email protected]>,
Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>I know of no enviro-wackos that like it.

Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.

--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much
money
>>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>
>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>last few years.
>There must be more incentive than you see.
>
>
And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> >
>> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
>> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
>> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
>maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
>ad agency.

Need I remind you of:

1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.

>Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
>try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
>driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
>feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
>wheel drive cars do.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Sean Prinz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
>here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
>greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
>what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
>lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
>In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
>compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
>the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
>will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
>doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions?

Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.

But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.


> CAFE did nothing
>for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
>by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
>with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
>
>Sean.
>
>
>"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>> each
>> > year
>> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>> > one
>> > thing are balanced by the other.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>
 
Irrelevant. Like saying, "since an imac is faster than a 486, Apple makes
faster computers."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
>
>
No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.

There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.


--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
no
>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
produced.
>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
Australia.
>Unfortunately it won't fly.

OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.

>
>So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of
existance
>(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
>raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg,
they
>should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient
large
>cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers
would
>still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity
have
>to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those
that
>aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
>manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying
huge
>fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models
here--but
>they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
>added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
>
>What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
>change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is
to
>mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it
comes
>on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this
should
>make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
>horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures,
with
>no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
>rise _significantly_.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.
 
In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>

No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>> detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>> on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>> real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>> died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>> passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
>read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
>Very small 4-door cars 11.56
>Small 4-door cars 7.85
>Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
>Large 4-door cars 3.30
>Compact pickup trucks 6.82
>Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
>Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73

Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!

>Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
>Minivans 2.76
>
>The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
>drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
>large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
>Look who's on top.

Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> >
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>just bearly sells at all.
Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.

Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>>
>>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>>their agenda is correct.
>>
>>
>> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>
>> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>> or even of considerable less weight.
>>
>> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>
>> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
>Matt
>
Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf wrote:
>>
>> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
>> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
>> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>> You are generally correct.... but...
>> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
>> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
>> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
>> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
>> was in 1995 or 96.
>
>I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
_comparing_ it to
>them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
gross
>polluter.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
do
>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
>--Aardwolf
>
>
Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,
>
> I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an
SUV.
>What's the world coming to?

I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.

>
>(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly
smaller
>wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although
it
>still wouldn't look quite that good...)
>
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top