Dave C. wrote:

>>Most SUVs are and will be car based in design. Virtually every
>>manufacturer now has at least two car or mini van based SUVs and the
>>trend will unfortunately continue until we are forced into calling a
>>unibody soda can with a sewing machine engine in it a "truck".
>
>
> Y'know, that's something I was thinking, too. Many SUVs are suffering from
> their own popularity. Would ANY SUV be appropriate for severe off-road use
> if it was manufactured recently? I don't know. What I have noticed though,
> is some of the larger SUVs are substituting soft-ride car suspensions for
> the previous hardened truck suspensions. OK, so it's more appropriate for
> the way the vehicle is actually used by most owners. But what about the few
> who actually want to take the thing off-road? -Dave (would go off-road if
> he owned an SUV)
>
>

I'm not sure about that, I recall about 1990 or so (when I still lived
with my parents, and thus off-roading was an option for me) there was a
trend towards softer springs, even with aftermarket lift kits. The
theory was that this allowed for more traction in rock-crawling type
situations, and also a better ride on (relatively) high speed but still
rough trails. Is this still current thinking?

Now I do agree that a stiff chassis and strong axles and suspension are
a must, and I'm not sure how the "new" SUVs measure up...

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

Dave C. wrote:

>>Most SUVs are and will be car based in design. Virtually every
>>manufacturer now has at least two car or mini van based SUVs and the
>>trend will unfortunately continue until we are forced into calling a
>>unibody soda can with a sewing machine engine in it a "truck".
>
>
> Y'know, that's something I was thinking, too. Many SUVs are suffering from
> their own popularity. Would ANY SUV be appropriate for severe off-road use
> if it was manufactured recently? I don't know. What I have noticed though,
> is some of the larger SUVs are substituting soft-ride car suspensions for
> the previous hardened truck suspensions. OK, so it's more appropriate for
> the way the vehicle is actually used by most owners. But what about the few
> who actually want to take the thing off-road? -Dave (would go off-road if
> he owned an SUV)
>
>

I'm not sure about that, I recall about 1990 or so (when I still lived
with my parents, and thus off-roading was an option for me) there was a
trend towards softer springs, even with aftermarket lift kits. The
theory was that this allowed for more traction in rock-crawling type
situations, and also a better ride on (relatively) high speed but still
rough trails. Is this still current thinking?

Now I do agree that a stiff chassis and strong axles and suspension are
a must, and I'm not sure how the "new" SUVs measure up...

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

Dave C. wrote:

>>Most SUVs are and will be car based in design. Virtually every
>>manufacturer now has at least two car or mini van based SUVs and the
>>trend will unfortunately continue until we are forced into calling a
>>unibody soda can with a sewing machine engine in it a "truck".
>
>
> Y'know, that's something I was thinking, too. Many SUVs are suffering from
> their own popularity. Would ANY SUV be appropriate for severe off-road use
> if it was manufactured recently? I don't know. What I have noticed though,
> is some of the larger SUVs are substituting soft-ride car suspensions for
> the previous hardened truck suspensions. OK, so it's more appropriate for
> the way the vehicle is actually used by most owners. But what about the few
> who actually want to take the thing off-road? -Dave (would go off-road if
> he owned an SUV)
>
>

I'm not sure about that, I recall about 1990 or so (when I still lived
with my parents, and thus off-roading was an option for me) there was a
trend towards softer springs, even with aftermarket lift kits. The
theory was that this allowed for more traction in rock-crawling type
situations, and also a better ride on (relatively) high speed but still
rough trails. Is this still current thinking?

Now I do agree that a stiff chassis and strong axles and suspension are
a must, and I'm not sure how the "new" SUVs measure up...

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
the various classes of cars.

Ed

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf

 

This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
the various classes of cars.

Ed

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf

 

This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
the various classes of cars.

Ed

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf

 

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.

The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
vehicles.

Ed

 

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.

The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
vehicles.

Ed

 

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.

The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
vehicles.

Ed

 

I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop. For all of what has been said
here, it isn't difficult to drive a large vehicle.. but it may be impossible
to drive it quickly. Most bad drivers I have met are perfectly capable of
handling their vehicle at the sensible / legal speed, but seem to think they
are driving on a race track..


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:lbh4pv45ro2fl9tnglu4sg4c16knr819p0@4ax.com...
: Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
: number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
: you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
: inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
: center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
: they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
: vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?