> 1) they don't have to meet any kind of fuel economy or safety standard
Dunno about that. *Most* of the SUV's get as good mileage as my TQ does.
Also, all the trucks (went shopping for a Tahoe/Yukon two months ago) I was
looking at said "Meet or exceeed 1997 side impact crash standards" in the sales
> 2) they are also exempt from having to make any significant
> technology advances unlike cars. leaf springs were around
> since the horse drawn carriage, before the invention of the
> internal combustion engine and before the invention of the
> damper. live axle rear ends in cars died with v*lv*.
> barn door aerodynamics. need more?
OK, but SUV's don't use the live axel in the front any more. They've got some
variation of an independant suspension. The live axel is in the rear. This is
due to durability. ALL SUV's share the same frame & drivetrain as the pickup
version, which is designed to haul stuff. A live axel with leaf springs is
simply stronger (& cheaper) than an independant suspension, which is why
they're still on the rear. A Super-Duty truck has a solid axel front & rear.
And the engines in most of the SUV's have evolved also, new fuel injection
systems (VORTEK for example) have given the SUV's more power, while gaining
better efficiency & cleanliness while running. They've gotten more posh too
(which is irritating) adding crap like push-buttons to activate the four wheel
drive & electronically collapsable rear view mirrors.
> 3) the outrageous prices charged for such antiquated technology
> that's had 50 years or more to amortize itself...
OK, I'll buy that, SUV's ain't cheap. $20K is a load of cash for a truck. But
lets compare some things. My 1987 5000CD Turbo Quattro, leather interior,
fully loaded, had a window sticker of $28,000. A chevy S10 Blazer of that same
era had a window sticker about ten grand less. The papers around DC are
advertising '87 TQ's for about $2,995, whereas '87 S-Blazers are well over $5K.
> it appears to me that people don't know or care about these things
> and that's what i find lamentable. of course the magazines
> would never dream about comparing one of these to a modern car.
You're probably right. People don't care. They like the way they look, they
like the way they drive, they see some benefit of an SUV over a van or wagon,
there ya go. Your average Honda, Toyota, Taurus or Lumina driver probably
doesn't see the technological advances in their car either.
> > I rarely see an
> > SUV being driven like a sports car;
> you should have seen all the first time owners here when the snow hit. first
> they think they are invincible and go around tailgating people. by the
> first afternoon, most of them had spun out into the ditch. (i'm being
> sarcastic, but there were far fewer of them on my commute home and
> i did see many in the ditch)
Same in DC. I saw a good many Subaru's behaving in the same manner, and would
bet there were a fair amount of Quattro's in the New England states (not many
Q's around here) misbehaving too.
Oh great, I see another "VR6", or"Stealth" 30 post series starting...
87 5000CS TQ-Metropolitan Washington, D.C.
84 5000S - Boulder, Colorado
90 80 - Bethesda, Maryland