Why don't...

[ryan1835]

theres no where steep or off roady in my area though, thats my point

[thebullfrog]

I lived in California for a while. One day driving down the freeway I was behind a Silverado that you could stand up underneath. Every bolt holding that 4 foot tall suspension together was polished and shiny. The undercarriage was painted red and had what looked like 3 coats of wax on it. It pissed me the Hell off seeing this guy with what I know full well was high end off-roading gear bolted onto a truck that would never ever see dirt, let alone a trail. Right then I saw a mid 90's Subaru Impreza drive by totally, and I mean TOTALLY, covered in mud. The irony just made my whole day.

[thebullfrog]

it does annoy when i see people going round towns and inner cities in 4x4s whats the point?

out in the country etc or if you have stuff to tow then fair doos

Well to be fair, if you have a 4x4 for doing "country stuff", then that's likely what you'll be driving when you go to town. That's certainly how it is in my case anyway

I do take your point though. I live in what is technically described as a rural area, but it isn't really rural to my definition. I live on an estate, near a fair sized town, that happens to be surrounded by countryside and is a 15 minute drive from the motorway. I moved here because it's far enough away from a big town to be relatively peaceful, but I can still get to an airport (a choice of 2 in fact) in an hour for work. There is absolutely no need for the number of 4WDs in our street. I reckon that 20 of the 40 houses have SUVs / Pickups / 4WD vehicles parked outside, and you can tell they never take them anywhere other than the school run and the shops!

At least mine is normally covered in mud

If you live in an area where you may need a truck, and venture into town, the city whatever, that's reasonable. But when I visit downtown Chicago and almost ever vehicle is a 4x4 and the nearest rural area that you could conceivably find an unpaved road if you look really hard, is over two hours away, it makes me cry a bit thinking of all the awesome small cars from the European market I'll never see because of the bigger is better mentality of most Americans.

[thebullfrog]

Sums it up perfectly

[Grant Lamontagne]

Probably a bad time for me to happen on this thread as I just put new, bigger tires on my Jeep today...

Def

[DaveK]

Hehe

[thebullfrog]

but do you use the Jeep for more than getting groceries. Besides smaller trucks I have no issue with. S-10s, Rangers, Dakotas, Wranglers and the like aren't so bad. I could see myself buying one in fact. My problem is with the people who have Excursions and lifted F-350s and whatnot for no reason. Or even worse the plethora of "fake" trucks that are built on minivan platforms, and people sit there complaining about gas mileage, taking up tons of space, acting like they own the road because they have a "truck" and other general asshatery.

[BlueDot]

I've heard several people say they like the big trucks because it gives a better view of the road ahead, and they feel 'safer' in a big vehicle.
First, these are the same people who drive in the fast lane- slowly (or just the speed limit).  If you want to see ahead, please use the information to stay out of my way!
Second, While it's true that the big vehicle will run over the smaller in a crash, you are more likely to have an accident in a truck with 30% longer stopping distance.  And slower to respond to evasive tactics due to more mass.
Having said all that, I have a 1997 truck, paid off 6 years ago, and am happy to haul my stuff or others when needed.  In fact yesterday I met my GF's oldest at Home Depot to pick up some plywood for a dog house.  It's what some call a beater, but it's all I have, and with 233,000 miles on her I have no complaints.

<switch Rant off>

[Gareth]

Big doesn't always mean safer anyway.  I'm sure you guys have similar crash tests over there but here the standard is the Euro NCAP testing.  So a Ford Ranger is only a two star car (out of five) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx

While a Smart Fortwo (one of the smallest cars on the road) has a four star rating.  http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx

[BlueDot]

Agreed. 
Big scares me when the driver is chatting on the phone or trying to feed the kids McDonaldMeat at 60 miles per hour.
Sorry to say that my little sister subscribes to this philosophy.  I tell her that God watches out for fools and little children.  And she's not a little child!

[Poncho65]

I personally have never owned anything but trucks (my wife has owned several types of vehicles) I of course don't live in a city or close to much I am 10-15 minutes drive from pretty much any type of store (which I like as it's quite that way) In the winter if you don't have a truck with 4 wheel drive or an AWD vehicle from where I was raised and it snows then you don't get out  I do agree that unless you have a reason that raising or lowering your vehicles is daft at best I guess where I come from an extended cab truck is looked like as a family vehicle as well But due to not enough inside room in the back seat for my little girl and all that stuff it takes for kids we went for an AWD Equinox which I do like but I will always own a truck

[Grant Lamontagne]

but do you use the Jeep for more than getting groceries. Besides smaller trucks I have no issue with. S-10s, Rangers, Dakotas, Wranglers and the like aren't so bad. I could see myself buying one in fact. My problem is with the people who have Excursions and lifted F-350s and whatnot for no reason. Or even worse the plethora of "fake" trucks that are built on minivan platforms, and people sit there complaining about gas mileage, taking up tons of space, acting like they own the road because they have a "truck" and other general asshatery.

The Jeep is actually a little small for the work I do.  My boss has a Lincoln Mark LT, his father (my other boss!) has a Dodge Ram with a Hemi, and that's pretty much the size everyone is driving.  I wanted something heavy duty, but not as big, so I got a Jeep. 

I was raised in trucks- my family had a '74 GMC Jimmy, bought around the time I was born, and sold when I was 15.  Then they had a longbox F-150 with the king cab, and I have always loved trucks.  The Jeep is my first real truck, although I had a Tracker before as well.  I don't consider that a truck though, despite it having a few things in common with trucks, like increased ride height.  In Canada, with Canadian roads and Canadian weather, I think everyone needs a truck- or at least a 4 wheel drive.  Subaru makes some nice AWD vehicles, but on the whole I'm not impressed by AWD vehicles.

I feel safe in my Jeep- a rigid truck frame and stamped steel body will stand up to most other vehicles on the road quite well, and the agility of it coupled with the excellent field of view means that I have a better chance of avoiding something, which is better than trying to survive the impact.  In winter here, when the snow plows pile snow several feet high, especially on corners, sitting a foot or so higher can make a HUGE difference as well.  That alone is worth spending the extra on a truck, even if I never carried or hauled anything or played in the mud.

And yes, I do occasionally play in the mud, but I'm not a serious off road guy.  I simply don't have the time or the money to invest in that, so I just do some trail running here and there.

Def

[thebullfrog]

So in other words, you have a reason to own the thing. Around here, most people don't.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Yup- I'm fat and middle aged.... I could probably do my job in a Smart Car!   

Def

[jzmtl]

I'd love a smart car

















with a hayabusa engine in it. 


But on topic, I used to go offroad, but due to new housing popping up like dandelions there is no longer any place to go. Although my jeep comes in handy in winter, if the situation allows I'd gladly trade it for a mini cooper S/mazdaspeed miata/mustang GT.

[yud]

wow fun read

Bullfrog- here is a reason for a big truck they are fun

We just got a truck (chevy avalanche) because it was decided they we want to camp so we needed a something to tow.  It has replaced our ford van because it is fun to drive, also the MPG dose not matter my mom works an Oil company (NOT BP) and the van is old enough that it is not a big diffrence.

[Shane769]

I have to say, I fully agree with Bullfrog. Kinda strange that you think they like to be higher, and I guess this is the same thing, but safer usually comes up more. Whippy and Gareth said it though, they get such terrible ratings and rollovers are way to common.
Also, I wiped the sweat off my brow when he said that Rangers were okay in his books, cause I drive one. But in my mind, 100% justifiable. I camp, haul wood to my cabin, work construction summer jobs, ski, climb (which usually means we are going on some random road that needs 4x4). In my part of the woods, we are in the woods, in BC. So trucks are extremely common, lots of forestry workers, some oil guys. Few odd a-holes that got the $5000 lifts in their trucks that will never see rain, never mind mud...

[thebullfrog]

I have heard the safer argument, but really, people always tell me it's because they like to be "high up", and can't justify it beyond that. In some places it makes sense to me to have a truck as the family vehicle. If you have a big family and live in, say, Canada or Alaska where you get like 200 feet of snow, a large truck or SUV is a smart thing to buy. Around here however that doesn't happen. Even in our worst snows, I've never had a problem driving in any car. FWD, RWD, whatever, even if we get a couple feet, it's not that hard to handle if you know how to drive, especially since everything gets plowed around here. If you need room a wagon will do just fine, get one with AWD and you can handle anything that will ever happen around here, while technically being safer and saving a ton of money. Not to mention a good AWD wagon I guarantee will do better in snow than all the half-assed FWD truck wannabe SUV's that people insist on driving, that are really just minivans with the sliding doors removed.

[ducttapetech]

I have a huge truck and jeep to pull out all of the small cars out of ditches or the small cars that stuck on the road in the snow.(I am not joking) And yes I use my 79 ford F350 with a 400ci big block engine to drive back and forth to work, haul 1500 lb bales of hay to different farms(3 at a time), move farm machinery to different fields and to go to the store for a few groceries. And yes I do b#@%$ about the price of fuel when there is tons of oil in our own country that we are not allowed to drill. Do not get me wrong, i am for alternative fuels and new more fuel efficient trucks, cars and etc.,but till they come up with a new fuel that works good or improve the new fuels that are out there now, drill some d@*n oil in this country.  As far as my jeep goes, it is more efficient than my truck and I have one because I just plain wanted one. It is great for snow, mud, trail running, pull smart cars out of the ditches and etc which is what I use it for. But if I want a jeep, i am getting a jeep.

OK rant over, sorry about that.

[jzmtl]

I have heard the safer argument, but really, people always tell me it's because they like to be "high up", and can't justify it beyond that.

Higher up is safer, simply because you have better visibility (obvisouly the driver need to pay attention to surrounding to begin with). Once I was driving on the highway, and I could see the traffic in front quickly slowing down, so I slowed down accordingly. The guy in front of me has his view blocked by a minivan (which I could barely see pass), so when the minivan smashed brake he didn't have enough time to respond and plowed into it.

Another one is nothing something I can prove but just a gut feeling. You know those dump trucks on road, with bumper way off the ground and nothing below like a 18 wheeler. The bumper is right where my head is when in a passenger car, with just the three pillar to protect me if that thing smack into me. With my jeep that bumper is where my feet is and have the much more solid ladder frame to take the hit, maybe it's safer, maybe not, but I feel better about it.

[Gareth]

I have heard the safer argument, but really, people always tell me it's because they like to be "high up", and can't justify it beyond that.

Higher up is safer, simply because you have better visibility (obvisouly the driver need to pay attention to surrounding to begin with). Once I was driving on the highway, and I could see the traffic in front quickly slowing down, so I slowed down accordingly. The guy in front of me has his view blocked by a minivan (which I could barely see pass), so when the minivan smashed brake he didn't have enough time to respond and plowed into it.

Another one is nothing something I can prove but just a gut feeling. You know those dump trucks on road, with bumper way off the ground and nothing below like a 18 wheeler. The bumper is right where my head is when in a passenger car, with just the three pillar to protect me if that thing smack into me. With my jeep that bumper is where my feet is and have the much more solid ladder frame to take the hit, maybe it's safer, maybe not, but I feel better about it.

I'm sorry but that's why you should leave plenty of breaking distance between you and the car in front, something BTW that most drivers in the UK seem to suck at.  If everyone drove trucks just so as they could see better, then everyone is back to driving at the same height as all the other vehicles on the road.

I have a huge truck and jeep to pull out all of the small cars out of ditches or the small cars that stuck on the road in the snow.(I am not joking) And yes I use my 79 ford F350 with a 400ci big block engine to drive back and forth to work, haul 1500 lb bales of hay to different farms(3 at a time), move farm machinery to different fields and to go to the store for a few groceries. And yes I do b#@%$ about the price of fuel when there is tons of oil in our own country that we are not allowed to drill. Do not get me wrong, i am for alternative fuels and new more fuel efficient trucks, cars and etc.,but till they come up with a new fuel that works good or improve the new fuels that are out there now, drill some d@*n oil in this country.  As far as my jeep goes, it is more efficient than my truck and I have one because I just plain wanted one. It is great for snow, mud, trail running, pull smart cars out of the ditches and etc which is what I use it for. But if I want a jeep, i am getting a jeep.

OK rant over, sorry about that.

I'd say you have every reason to own a truck then, both for work and for the heavy weather you have.  I'm not saying that trucks and big 4x4's are in any way bad, it's just that not everybody who has one needs one.  I know I don't as I spend much of my time in the city, but looking out my window I can see three big 4x4's that have never (to the best of my knowledge) ever been muddy in their lives.

Lets put it this way, there are some people who need a Supertool 300, there are some that need a Wave, and there are some that can get buy with a Squirt.  It's just about picking the right tool for the circumstances.

[DaveK]

Lets put it this way, there are some people who need a Supertool 300, there are some that need a Wave, and there are some that can get buy with a Squirt.  It's just about picking the right tool for the circumstances.

Possibly not the best analogy to use on this forum, as the motto is "get all three". But I agree with everything you say above

[ryan1835]

everyone heres broke from just tools, i doubt they d manage cars aswell dave 

[NutSAK]

I'm going to have to agree with the Bullfrog on this one (although possibly not as fanatically)

I own three trucks that are used for their specific purposes; one is a fullsize.  However, at least 80% of my driving is in a Ford Focus.  I consider it the safest vehicle I own--not just because of safety test results--but because it is MUCH more nimble than the trucks.  It's much more fun to drive too, for the same reason.

I don't usually drive a truck unless I need a truck.  I wish more folks around here would follow this line of thought.  If there weren't so many damn unnecessary trucks on the road, nobody would need to drive a truck to see over them.

[NutSAK]

Higher up is safer, simply because you have better visibility

Is it really that simple?  What about the higher center of gravity and poor handling associated with "higher up"?  IMO, those characteristics would make "higher up" less safe.

[EM745]

Second, While it's true that the big vehicle will run over the smaller in a crash, you are more likely to have an accident in a truck with 30% longer stopping distance.  And slower to respond to evasive tactics due to more mass.

To an extent, maybe. But excess mass alone can't be blamed for a vehicle's sluggish kinematics. You can rest assured that a Bimmer M5 will handle and brake a whole lot better than a Honda Fit, despite weighing ~700 kg more.

An SUV's mass does play a role in its sluggish handling characteristics largely because its center of gravity lies quite a bit higher than a car's.

Big doesn't always mean safer anyway.  I'm sure you guys have similar crash tests over there but here the standard is the Euro NCAP testing.  So a Ford Ranger is only a two star car (out of five) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx

While a Smart Fortwo (one of the smallest cars on the road) has a four star rating.  http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx

One has to remain mindful of the basic laws of collision physics when perusing these "star" ratings. These tests are done with cars hitting a wall at a set speed (V)--essentially demonstrating how the car would behave if it 1) hit a wall at V kph, or 2) hit another car EXACTLY like it head-on, both moving at V/2 kph.

Every moving object/vehicle has KINETIC ENERGY (which is (mass in kg)*(speed in m/s ^2))/2)... That means for any given speed, the relationship between a car's kinetic energy and its mass is 1:1... Basically, more mass = more energy. So, if a 2,000 kg SUV going 50 kph hits a small 1,000 kg "mini" car head-on (which is also going 50 kph), the SUV will be bringing twice the kinetic energy as the small car into the collision, and that does not bode well for the car, no matter what its "star" rating.

We can look at such a crash in equivalent "into a wall" speeds to really drive home this point. A collision's total energy is the sum of both cars' KE. Using the above KE formula, and assuming a perfectly head-on (no angles) inelastic collision between the two cars (to keep things simple), the SUV will be hitting the car with an equivalent "into a wall" speed of ~61 kph. The car, OTOH, will be hitting the SUV with an equivalent "into a wall" speed of ~86 kph--a 41% difference, which is significant.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do think a lot of truck owners really have no need for their big hulking trucks (for reasons already stated). And I'm not at all eschewing these star ratings, as they really are a good yardstick to help determine a car's crash worthiness, just so long as you're mindful that these ratings become less relevant when making comparisons with cars that have significantly different mass.

My 2¾¢. 

[jzmtl]

I'm sorry but that's why you should leave plenty of breaking distance between you and the car in front, something BTW that most drivers in the UK seem to suck at.  If everyone drove trucks just so as they could see better, then everyone is back to driving at the same height as all the other vehicles on the road.

You should, but try drive like that in rush hour on a major metropolitan freeway. 

Higher up is safer, simply because you have better visibility

Is it really that simple?  What about the higher center of gravity and poor handling associated with "higher up"?  IMO, those characteristics would make "higher up" less safe.

It's a trade off, but I'm willing to accept that, plus I don't get door dings in parking lot.

Of course the ideal solution is like what you did having several vehicles for different purposes, I'd love a small and quick car to drive around town. But outside u.s. it's just not possible unless one's stinking rich, everything from registration, insurance, parking is at a premium.

[Gareth]

Second, While it's true that the big vehicle will run over the smaller in a crash, you are more likely to have an accident in a truck with 30% longer stopping distance.  And slower to respond to evasive tactics due to more mass.

To an extent, maybe. But excess mass alone can't be blamed for a vehicle's sluggish kinematics. You can rest assured that a Bimmer M5 will handle and brake a whole lot better than a Honda Fit, despite weighing ~700 kg more.

An SUV's mass does play a role in its sluggish handling characteristics largely because its center of gravity lies quite a bit higher than a car's.

Big doesn't always mean safer anyway.  I'm sure you guys have similar crash tests over there but here the standard is the Euro NCAP testing.  So a Ford Ranger is only a two star car (out of five) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx

While a Smart Fortwo (one of the smallest cars on the road) has a four star rating.  http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx

One has to remain mindful of the basic laws of collision physics when perusing these "star" ratings. These tests are done with cars hitting a wall at a set speed (V)--essentially demonstrating how the car would behave if it 1) hit a wall at V kph, or 2) hit another car EXACTLY like it head-on, both moving at V/2 kph.

Every moving object/vehicle has KINETIC ENERGY (which is (mass in kg)*(speed in m/s ^2))/2)... That means for any given speed, the relationship between a car's kinetic energy and its mass is 1:1... Basically, more mass = more energy. So, if a 2,000 kg SUV going 50 kph hits a small 1,000 kg "mini" car head-on (which is also going 50 kph), the SUV will be bringing twice the kinetic energy as the small car into the collision, and that does not bode well for the car, no matter what its "star" rating.

We can look at such a crash in equivalent "into a wall" speeds to really drive home this point. A collision's total energy is the sum of both cars' KE. Using the above KE formula, and assuming a perfectly head-on (no angles) inelastic collision between the two cars (to keep things simple), the SUV will be hitting the car with an equivalent "into a wall" speed of ~61 kph. The car, OTOH, will be hitting the SUV with an equivalent "into a wall" speed of ~86 kph--a 41% difference, which is significant.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do think a lot of truck owners really have no need for their big hulking trucks (for reasons already stated). And I'm not at all eschewing these star ratings, as they really are a good yardstick to help determine a car's crash worthiness, just so long as you're mindful that these ratings become less relevant when making comparisons with cars that have significantly different mass.

My 2¾¢. 

I can't argue with that, but it does assume a direct head on collision.  In the accident witnessed by jzmtl (running into the back of a hard breaking minivan) I'd still rather be in the more structurally stable Smart car.

You could also argue that if everyone drove a 1,000g car rather than a 2,000kg truck then there would be an awful lot less energy being brought into your equation.  Surely an argument for more people to be driving smaller cars rather than bigger ones?

[thebullfrog]

Not to mention that rollover safety standards are way lax for trucks compared to cars, so in a rollover a car will do better, which is even scarier when you consider trucks are for more likely to roll in the first place.

[NutSAK]

It's a trade off, but I'm willing to accept that, plus I don't get door dings in parking lot.

Of course the ideal solution is like what you did having several vehicles for different purposes, I'd love a small and quick car to drive around town. But outside u.s. it's just not possible unless one's stinking rich, everything from registration, insurance, parking is at a premium.

You make a good point there--one that I don't think about much.

If I were to keep only one of my vehicles it would be the mildly-lifted XJ, so I guess I can sort of see things from your point of view.