n e wayz yah iono im still wondering if i should or not....
the deals are really good on a GC right now but your right about the value later on since there making a new design of the GC in 2005. as well as there not really selling to well nowadays.

i love my benz but i guess i will have to really think this one out...

 

SUV have inferior technology and inferior saferty for significantly money than they are worth.

The history of the SUV stems from the LA riots, so of course they are popular with movie people.

There are a lot of facts that make the SUV an unwise purchase:


1. Profit margin

J.D. Power and Associates estimate that SUVs now account for 15 percent of automotive sales, but yield a whopping 60 percent of industry profits.

Any 4x4 truck + station wagon body = $10-20,000 profit for the manufacturer. Even "suv.com" admits that each Ford Expedition sold delivers an estimated $10,000 profit per unit.

Are people really this dumb? Evidently so, because Ford just introduced the Lincoln Navigator at $43,300. This is basically an Expedition with a huge honkin' grille. Profit margin on this
model is near $20,000.



2. Inferior Safety

Most people think that the hefty weight and sheer mass of SUVs benefits their safety. This is a total myth:

#1. High weight and a high center of gravity means that the SUV is much less adept at accident avoidance maneuvers, which of course is the best means of preventing injury.

#2. The NHSTA (the highway crash statistics agency) registers higher instance and severity of injury among SUVs than comparable size cars. Insurance companies are starting to catch on and are raising rates on SUV owners.

#3. SUVs are statistically far more likely to roll over than cars are, though the problem is over-inflated by the media and consumer magazines.

#4. The stopping distances of these porkers are lengthened by their excessive weight and primitive brakes. The poor tanks can't stop fast enough to avoid falling off cliffs! I don't know if that is good or bad!

SUVs are also subject only to U.S. standards of trucks, not cars. This means they have inferior crash-test requirements and do not require safety features like airbags, side impact beams, and impact absorbing bumpers. My only point in all this is that if SUVs are not up to car standards, SUVs shouldn't be replacing cars as daily drivers and mall runners.



3. Inferior Technology

Question: Why are SUVs inferior on-road and off-road?

Answer: Primitive 4WD vs. Modern AWD

4. Better Alternatives

As big as most SUVs are, there is not much room inside comparatively. Every SUV that I've ridden in (Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, Explorer, Tahoe, Jimmy) has an uncomfortable, short rear seat backrest and minimal legroom. When combined with the bucking bronco ride, my comfort level goes from uncomfortable to unbearable VERY fast.

There are much better choices than an SUV that will give you more value and comfort for your dollar. If you live in a place with a lot of inclement weather and need a four-wheel-drive vehicle, consider the following:


Audi Quattro Series
Volvo V70 AWD
VW Passat Syncro Wagon
Subaru Legacy and Impreza AWD cars and wagons.
Chrysler Town and Country AWD Minivan

And if you want to go camping or off-roading, pick up an old, rusty, beat-up International Scout or Jeep CJ for $1000 or so.



5. It's a trend that will end...

...and you can help it! DON'T BUY ONE!!! My god!! I hope people start getting minds of their own! Here's a good idea:

Let's buy a vehicle based solely on the fact it's "cool", "in", and "all the rage". Never mind the primitive construction, the safety concerns, the extravagant cost, and the pretentious
attitude involved in the purchase!

Worried about image? Buy one, and you'll see just that!!

 

By the way I own an MB. Why would I be jealous of an SUV?

Nathan

 

Perhaps in your case, you hate SUV's because they remind you that people have free will and can buy what makes them happy instead of what you think people should buy?

Sounds like that anti-capitalist mantra I hear from those WTO protesters. I could care less how much money the company who makes the vehicle I CHOOSE to buy makes as long as I am comfortable spending the money and am HAPPY with my purchase. Perhaps you could dress up as a Ford CEO for Halloween. SPOOKY!

Care to prove YOUR FACT with a list REAL list of standard and option equipment of each?

While your at it, how about PROVING that SUV's are disproportionally more prone to roll over or have longer braking distances than the trucks they are based upon. Do you hate trucks too? Would you snub your nose at me if I cruised by you in my F-150 truck with its 5.8L v8, alone and without carrying a load?

Just because they may not have the same government standards (if one were to believe you), that doesn't mean the SUV I choose to drive doesn't have these features. How many airbags does the new Expedition have?

Oh please! Our old Expeditions were HUGE inside. Perfect for long trips. I am dreading riding in our much smaller C240 to Orlando in a few weeks, but that the breaks.

Our last Expedition had full size rear bucket seats and TONS of legroom. Your examples are the baby SUV's, which aren't much roomier than a full-sized car.

According to you perhaps. I felt that we got lots of comfort and practicality from our Expeditions that we CHOSE to buy with OUR money.

That's what I said about golf and Harley Davidson's, but I see people that CHOOSE those things that I dislike greatly are still doing/buying them. I suppose if I got into a converstation about those louder than necessary Harley's I'd have the same preachy attitude as you.

 

Does it matter ? last I remember, its ok to make money in this country and around the world. Who cares what the profit margin is, its a simple matter of supply and demand. You're telling me you won't buy a car or product because it has a percentage profit margin (whatever that number may be) ? Or you're not willing to buy something that has a 5 figure profit margin ? I'm willing to bet differently on either one. You win the lotto, you're all over items that have huge profit margins. . . .

Over what ? It's all relative here. These strokes are just way too broad. I'd rather be in my ML, or my brothers Range Rover over a Geo Metro any day of the week. Not disputing the safety of Mercedes sedans, but its all relative here. You can't categorically say SUV's are 'less safe' than sedans. . .


There are bad SUV's, just like their are bad cars. There are some SUV's that drive very similar to cars even terms of performance. Are you saying that whatever Merc your driving is better performing than any SUV out there ? Pretty bold statement if you ask me.

How do you compare 'comparable size cars' to an SUV ? Do you take an ML and find a comparable size car to that ? What is a comparable size car to an ML ? I don't know of any ? It *is* entirely possible that this is true, but there are also many cases where the size of an SUV works in your favor (in car to SUV collisions).

More than likely true. But not applicable to all SUV's. It doesn't look like the Cayenne is going to be flipped. . . This is overhype by the media mainly targeting narrow wheelbase cars.

Actually the weight isn't a factor since they aren't any heavier than some of these very heavy sedans out there. At that point its a function of traction of tires (which many SUV's have wider tires facilitating better traction) and brakes. Brakes are usually NOT a factor, traction is. Rarely do brakes enter into the brake fade department where sedans have the same issue. The higher CG of the car actual may play a larger factor here than anything else you mentioned.

Strokes are way too broad. Just because they don't meet car crash standards doesn't mean they don't exceed them. I believe my ML has all the above that you mention, and I'll take it over the majority of other cars. . . The thing holding up car/truck standards in terms of safety, duties, and regulations is actually the american car companies. It's there to protect the american pickup truck industry (which is rapidly being shredded by the Toyota american made trucks).



Your arguing AWD vs 4WD? You may certainly be correct there, but if your using your original question of SUV's being inferior to cars on and off road, you're way off. on-road performance - probably but not always. Off-road, ohh boy, nowhere close. It's not just the drive mechanisms that differentiates off-road performance. It's differentials, coil springs, clearance, etc. If you're arguing that a car will outperform most SUV's in offroad performance, you will lose. The ground clearance is the first dead giveaway. Now, not all SUV's really have good off-road capabilities, but even the poor ones gain on clearance alone.

Conceded. 2nd row is usually stunted. There is generally the same amount of lengthy room, but you do gain significant vertical space. It's significant when you're coming out of home depot(or your favorite home electronics store). .. .

If you can live with a station wagon, hey go for it. I was just waiting for the mini-vans to come up though. The mini-vans suffer from the same or worse as all of the items you bullet pointed above (performance, safety, off-road capabilities) except for space, as compared to an SUV.

You seem to forget that, that is a compelling reason that people purchase cars. Besides the ultra-luxe, even in the everyday car scenario like the VW Beetle, the Mini, the PT Cruiser, or god forbid, a MERCEDES. . ..

 

...or a 66-77 Bronco. For sale:

 

Anthem and Jim Banville,

Now that you have reacted to my message, go back and read it.

I am sure you really don't mean to tell me that you don't care about value for money, performance or the environment.

I woudl also like to believe that you are not so ignorant as to assume that selling is all about suply and demand, in the our society.

Isn't everything relative? It is safer to jump out of a plane with a parachute than without one, doesn't mean jumping out of a plane is safe.

I could copy and paste everything you have written and provide a counter argument. The only problem is that I have better things to do with my time. I am happy to provide additional information on this topic, although it appears unlikely you will read it.

Nathan

 

The environmental criticism towards SUVs are not exclusive to the additonal of gas that they use.

SUVs are not classed as cars, which is what they are used for, but are classed as trucks, therefore they are not expected to meet fuel efficiency standards and gas-guzzler taxes to them.

SUVs have much higher emissions than regular passenger cars most SUVs and pickups, and all vans, are permitted to emit 29% to 47% more carbon monoxide (CO) and 75% to 175% more nitrogen oxides (NOx) than passenger cars.

Basically, SUVs contribute to poorer health for everyone, US dependency on foreign oil, and at the same time the increased threat of global warming.

Nathan

 

This country is crying out for the political system to be less manipulated by big industry. The history of the SUV is wrought with curruption.

Automakers recently lobbied furiously -- and successfully -- to weaken a proposed new standard for advanced air bags, even though most of the cars on the road are close to meeting the new standard. The reason: The manufacturers knew the new standard would force major redesigns of their cash cows, the SUVs, most of which never had to meet federal air bag standards.


Fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, have been frozen by Congress for five years. Each year, the industry uses its political muscle to persuade Congress to continue the status quo.

Because they don’t have to meet the same fuel economy standards as cars, SUVs emit far more pollution than cars, contributing more per vehicle to global warming and to the unhealthy smog that envelops many of our major cities in the summer.

SUVs pose known rollover risks, but the government has done nothing about it. The government now is proposing guidelines for "consumer information notices" instead of a minimum stability standard.

Even some auto manufacturers -- who for years have defended SUVs in the wake of criticism -- are beginning to admit that the boxy vehicles pose environmental and safety problems. Ford Motor Co. chairman William C. Ford recently acknowledged in a New York Times interview that SUVs contribute to global warming and endanger other motorists. The company has announced plans to sell a small, gasoline-electric hybrid SUV that will get about 40 miles per gallon (some SUVs get as few as 10 mpg). Ford said that "the court of public opinion sometimes decides before you're ready for them to decide, and I want to make sure we're ready and ahead of the curve."

Claybrook said that, "It is encouraging and a very important acknowledgment from an industry leaders. But the whole industry needs to redesign its SUVs to be safe and energy-efficient. The government has to step in and set some hard-and-fast standards."

That seems unlikely given the auto industry’s clout in stopping the DOT from setting both fuel economy and rollover standards. Manufacturers wield their power with the help of high-powered lobbyists and an extensive grassroots network of auto dealers who are loyal and steady political supporters of lawmakers in Congress.

Nathan

 

SUV's suck and they are mostly driven by middle aged women with Serious Rage Issues..get over it. Now back to sedans...

 

Decided to continue the debate rather than take your earlier claimed "better things to do" excuse, huh . . . good.

The country is based on political parties representing their interests. Some of those interests aren't always in the best of all parties. It's been like this for hundreds of years and it isn't going to change just because one entity is an environmentalist. . .

Most SUV's have to meet "light truck" standards which are very very close to cars. A few very large SUV's are categorized as 'trucks' and don't meet those light truck standards, but then again, they aren't exactly deficient in safety measures either (most are fitted with the same light truck safety standards in case they neeed to comply in the future). Just because one isn't bound, does't mean one doesn't comply. . .

I think there are quite a few sides to this, but Fuel Economy DOES NOT EQUATE to clean air. This is contrary to many beliefs. A lot of your data is pulled from the National Academy of Sciences report of Fuel Economy and the Environment. Even they report that there is no direct link as much as people want to believe so.

Ironically in that same study, they found that reducing current emissions further would actually be detrimental.

Do you really want to know why ? It's because you are barking up the wrong tree. It's really because a large percentage of the emissions problems you have are from older cars. Here are more study findings:

But you know why the other side doesn't want to impose more restrictions ? It's a chicken/egg problem. Yes, one side is financial, but the study reveals much more than that. If emission standards are raised, cars are likely to get more expensive. If they get more expensive, its likely to inihibit older more pollutive cars getting taken out of service and consumers might tend to continue to operate older cars. So there are a lot of factors at work here, not just the cost to product/manufacture a car.

Now in terms of global warming, many attribute it to greenhouse gasses, notably CO/CO2. Not universally accepted, but enough for now. Now, what part do cars and light trucks have in this equation ? Here, from the US EPA

So again, global warming is a hot buzzword many use, but we haven't been able to attribute it to fuel consumption and/or current production emission standards. Even if those stringent CAFE standards were passed, the impact is hardly significant.

I notice you aren't targeting high performance sports cars which have the same issues in terms of fuel performance and standards(presumably because its politically a less popular topic).

Yes, certain SUV's do. Ironic that this is brought up since many of the safety concerns of SUV's are NOT that its less safe for their own passengers but more for the safety of passengers in other vehicles NOT in the SUV. Now one can say its irresponsible for one not to care about the safety and concerns of others, but you can also be selfish and self preservationist in choosing to preserve ones own health regardless of others in other vehicals. SUV's safety issues are now a larger issue with the non-suv passengers than the actual SUV ones.

 

Yes, a new, reportedly larger Grand Cherokee is on the way for 2005. However, nearly ANY new car or truck purchase right now isn't gonna hold its value with ALL THE 0% and rebate stuff going on right now. Its true...Even the once untouchable resale values of Camrys and Accords have begun to drop off considerably.

As far as not selling too well, consider this:

Honda's Pilot has sold 27,000 copies this year. The MDX about 35,000. Jeep Grand Cherokee sales are over 165,000 for the same period, making #3 in SUV sales. Only the Explorer and Trailblazer top it in SUV sales. Both are much newer designs than the current Jeep GC(which debuted in late 98 as an all new '99 model), but the Trailblazer is only about 10,000 ahead of the Jeep. The Explorer is the juggernaut...its sales are double that of the Jeep and the Trailblazer.

If you consider that a poor seller, the few handfulls of C240 sales must make it a vehicle in need of lifesupport. The reason there are sooo many sales incentives is simple, the car companies are all trying to compete for more sales in a very competitive market, and still keep there employees employed.

Get the facts before you listen to this bunch.

 

The Rovers are good trucks, but given the price diff, I'll take the GC...the Toyo Land Cruiser is ponderous pig of a vehicle...its big and durable, but also much more expensive. As for the 4 runner, pulease. I haven't driven the 03 version, but the last gen one was no match for the GC on road-- or off. My brother inlaw has one....it rides like a old ford f150, and is smaller inside than a CRV. My knees where hitting the dashboard with the seat all the way back.

Quote:

Outland: I have a C class 'coupe'. I don't think you want to challenge me in a race. It is a clk though (which is still a c-class coupe) and you have zero chance in your GC. Then again, my ML will smoke the GC as well. . . Like I said earlier, the GC is nothing special performance wise. It wasn't geared for that market and doesn't perform in that sector.

You better have a CLK430, or an CLK55 AMG. The CLK320 is slower... I'd still smoke you out of the hole if youre in the 430-- AWD and gobs of torque off idle. I've beat SVT mustangs across the intersection...sure, they catch me, but you can't beat the AWD for flawless launches.

What ML do you have? The ML320 takes nearly 10 seconds to hit sixty...toyota Echos can take it. Doesn't matter, I'd still kill you off road

 

I'll race your GC with my CLK and bet alot of money on it. No matter how fast u think your GC is it does not do 0-60 in 6 seconds.

 

CLK430, right? Yeah, you'd beat me to 60 by nearly a second, but 0-40, you'd be more than a little worried

 

0-40 i would not even be worried, i would have u the whole time and keep pulling away from you. And yes its a CLK430.

 

The 4runner IMO is better on and offroad over the GC. It is geared more for on road use but is still respectable offroad. The LandCruiser is bulky, but believe it or not, its quite good off roading even with its luxe features. If you're not comparing on price, trust me you won't turn away the 03 Range Rover. My brother has one and believe me, its a great car. Hasn't been tested off road, but standing still, it kills a GC (and a lot of other cars). At 2-3 times the price, it should. Nonetheless, a truly amazing SUV.


How much money you want to put on a track run ? I'll take my CLK and my ML (both stock) and smoke you any day of the week. You can spec 1/4 mile or 0-60. Trust me you have no chance. :-). And yes, both of my cars are 55's, so you can envision how far back that GC is going to be. . . .

and no, I'm not worried about 0-40 either. ..

 

CLK430's a nice ride. No shame loosing that race

I never put the GC out there as the 'ultimate' race car...but an SUV that runs 15flat at well over 90 in the 1/4 mile is nothing to sneeze at.

 

4 runner? No way. Even the very crude Nissan Xterra rides nicer than the 4 runner, and it too has better offroad capabilities than the 4 runner. The GC is bigger inside, handles better on an off road, and could drag the 4 runner around while climbing hills.

Yeah, Ive been in the Land Cruiser, my wife's friend's husband has one...its a pig. A nicely appointed pig, but a pig nonetheless. Sitting still its in danger of rolling over.

Did I say anything bad about the Range Rover? Nope, its a very nice vehicle...for what, 75K? Great interior. From what Ive heard thou, its a little underpowered.

Quote:

And yes, both of my cars are 55's, so you can envision how far back that GC is going to be. . . .

Yeah, you'd lose...lose me that is I'd still kill ya off road thou You can even bring the CLK for the offroad racing if you like..hehehe.

What kinda times does the ML55 turn?

 

We'll agree to disagree on the 4runner. Its not my favorite, but if you gave me the choice between the 4runner and GC, i'd lean toward the 4runner. Yes, the RangeRover has an amazing interior - and yes, it is /still/ underpowered even with the new engine.

I haven't tracked the ML55 since about 2 years ago or so. If I remember its 0-60 was estimated to be at 6.1/6.2 or something. I think the best I could do was about 6.4. I don't remember the 1/4 mile times but it was pretty respectible. I remember it gets up to about 100 quite quickly, and continues to accelerate up to 120 or so. From 120-140+ it climbs quite slowly, probably a combination of air resistance/aerodynamics more than anything else - then I ran out of track (only 2 laps). I haven't tracked my CLK55 yet.

 

Not quite. Maybe YOURS is reliable, but that doesnt mean that all or even most of them are.

 

your GC would be losing from any speed in a race with my CLK430 (on road that is) u would never be infront or next to me.
I think the GC running 15 flat is BS. But at least my 430 runs 14's.

 

Lets try not to be so rude, eh?

I'd bet the Jeep would take you out of the hole. Your car is fast, but nailing the launch is what takes you off the line. By about 40 you'd catch up.

BTW...

Ive seen reviews that place it at 15.0 @ 92mph...its no slouch. The tall gearing of the 5 speed auto drops the GC off the power band beyond 70mph, at least in mine, but still, the blast out of the hole is phenomenal.

Only review I could find showed the CLK430 showed it running 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, with the 1/4 running14.8@96mph...no slouch there, either.

 

Fair enough, but the same can be said of your MB's. Hey guys, all I'm saying is, before you condemn it, drive the thing...its a pretty nice ride. I own one, most of you have never even driven one. Mileage stinks, but then again my C230K is no Toyota Prius in terms of mileage either. If youre gonna tell me that youre basing your opinion on a bad review, or what someone else told you...I've gotta ask why you bought a C230K then, it sure didn't bring down the house in terms of reviews.

My family has had several Jeeps, all of them have been very reliable. My father is on his second Grand Cherokee...the first(94) one was sold at 225,000miles(still running great), his second one is an 02 with the H.O. V8, no problems. Before that we owned 2 Jeep Cherokees, and a Jeep Wagoneer. None of them ever left us hanging when I was growing up. I also own an older (89) Cherokee that I use for going to the lumber yard, or for hauling junk I don't want in the GC, and its got nearly 190,000 miles on it...there;s some rust forming in spots, and one of the power windows is a little dodgy at times, and it could use a new front left U joint, but its still going strong. Motor, transmission, transfer case etc have never been touched. My aunt, one of my uncles, my wife's uncle, 2 of my cousins, and my sister have owned Jeeps...all have been good vehicles. My sister sold hers to buy a Mustang. Every winter when the first snow hits, she regrets it. So AndrewK, I've got no worries when it comes to the GC...I expect our 00 will be serving us for many years to come.

 

I was not being rude at all.

I still know for sure i would have u those whole time even off the line.

And that review for the CLK430 is definitly not a good one. Even MBUSA.com had the CLK430 0-60 time in 6.1 sec and they are usually what people get, it can also do better than a 14.8 in the 1/4.

But who cares, there 2 different cars completly and neither are slow compared to some cars on the road.