Stelth91

good point^

I'm surprised no one has mentioned GM's new BluDiesel tech. It reduces sulfur emissions like 10 fold and is incredibly eco-friendly. As to when this is going to be released is anyone's bet

mmarshall

True, the new Blue-Technology diesels from GM and M-B are more efficient and cleaner-burning than older diesels, but that is countered by the fact that low-sulfur diesel fuel is not cheap (in many regions of the country it sells for roughly the same as premium gas), and by the fact that, in big, heavy, full-size SUV's, it still is highly doubtful that it will achieve the mileage that the new CAFE rules require.....especially heavily loaded or while towing. That is why I said in my last post that you're going to see a public backlash against the new CAFE rules.....they simply remove too many of the consumer's choices for heavy-duty stuff.

SLegacy99

I beg to differ. My friends mom died when her Tahoe flipped. So your assuming that more steel keeps you safer, and forgetting that SUVs are prone to capsizing.

And if you don't believe that small cars can be safe here are some testaments to safety:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...5/-1/ROCNEWS01

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?vid...EVstglyWVpLtOq

SLegacy99

As far as diesels are concerned, here is a comparison a did a little while back.

So RX400h vs. an ML320 CDI.

Mileage: 31/27 vs. 21/27
HP: 268 hp vs. 215
Torque: 222 (gasoline) vs. 398
242 (electric motors)
0 - 60: 6.9 seconds (AWD) vs. 8 Seconds
Weight: 4,365 lbs vs. 4,817 lbs.
Cargo Room: 38.3 Cu Ft vs. 29.4 Cu Ft.

Base Price: $42,580 vs. $44,455
Tax credit: Yes vs. No
Warranty: 8 years, 100,000 miles vs. 4 years, 50000 miles

krazykanuk

They won't totally disappear. They can't, there are too many people who actually need them. When our Yukon XL kicks the bucket I bet my dad will replace it with another Yukon or Tahoe.

There are also people that just feel safer in them regardless of what the evidence says. My grandmother being one of them. She is convinced that our GX is safer on the highway than the SC no matter what I say, so I've given up.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

overriding the safety design of other smaller vehicles because of sheer mass is a lowsy outlook on safety. SUV brakes worse, corners worse, flipsover worse than any car.

mmarshall

Ask your grandmother (if she can remember back that far) if she was taught about center of gravity in her school science or physics classes. It is a very simple principle. The higher a vehicle's center of gravity, and the narrower it is in comparison to its height (like the GX......a classic example), all else equal, the more likely it is to tip up or flip, and the more it will get blown around in a crosswind. Period. End of arguement.

llamaboiz

One of the UK shows top gear/5th gear (i think) did a safety crash test with a new mazda ppl hauler type mpv vs a new landrover. When it was done it was the mpv that was discovered to keep ppl safer due to 'crumple zone' vs a unforgiving tough as a tank type build, due to the suddenly stopping part vs a progressive type of crumpling...

Sorry if i cant explain it too well, im sure others can elaborate with more technical skill.

mmarshall

From a purely physics point of view, crumple zones are indeed a safety plus in frontal or rear-end collisions because they dissapate some of the kinetic energy associated with the crash before it reaches the cabin where people are seated. But much more is involved than simply designing vehicles to fold up like an accordion. In front, the engine has to be kept out of the cabin while moving back....some vehicles have it move back and down in an impact. In the rear, if the structure folds up TOO much, the crash forces will reach the fuel tank and it can rupture. The ideal set-up is a very strong, reinforced cabin (ala Mercedes/Volvo) combined with well-designed crumple zones in front and back that both absorb crash energy and protect vital or dangerous components. As I just indicated, Mercedes and Volvo, in general, do a better job in this area than most other auto manufacturers.

Mercedes, in fact, takes the issue of safety so serious that they do something that even Volvo doesn't. If possible, and if it is reported to M-B headquarters, they send a factory team of engineers to ANY auto accident site in the world involving the death of someone driving or riding in a M-B product. The engineers, usually wearing blue or white coats to identify themselves, inspect the wreckage, the condition of the cabin and crumple zones, look at what was protected and what wasn't, take notes and measurements, and report back to M-B headquarters their findings on what caused the deaths and what improvements can be made. In some cases (I don't know all of the specific laws on this), they can be granted access to the corpses and medical reports of those who died in the accident as well.

While the Mercedes S-Class accident in 1997 involving Britain's Princess Diana, was, of course, the most noted example of this, M-B engineers try to visit as many fatal accident sites as possible. No other auto company that I know of does that. I've seen them myself a couple of times, in their blue and white coats, on the Wahington D.C. Beltway, at bad accident sites.

krazykanuk

I've tried. It has no effect. She is not always the most rational person when it comes to cars. She bought the GX with the expectation of only using it a couple times a month.

plex

iTrader: (11)

Just make them more fuel efficient and they will be fine maybe......

pagemaster

I don't buy it either. You have about an equal chance of surviving a crash in a well engineered car or a well engineer SUV. In fact, you are more likely to get into the accident with an suv because they stop slower, handle poorly and have bad visibility.

pagemaster

Please back this up. I doubt any police investigation will let a MB engineer on the scene of a crash involving death.

mmarshall

I've seen them....more than once. Unfortunately I didn't have a camera with me at the time, if that is what you are looking for. Had a chance to even talk briefly with one of them. Obviously, they can't investigate every crash, but they try to get to as many as possible. It's a policy that is not a secret, but is not particularly well-publicized.

And the engineers don't mess with any of the evidence. They simply examine, photograph, measure, and do what police allow. They are professionals, and know what criminal tampering is. As far as the medical records and reports go, that's a more sensitive issue.....and I remarked in my post that I don't know all of the local laws conderning this.

One of the reasons that M-B products, despite their well-known drop in reliability in the last 10 years, do so well in crash tests and real-world crash protection is that the company cares enough to do things like this.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

SUVs are not dead.

Are there many more options today than in the past? Sure, the CUVs primarily with better fuel economy, less towing capacity but still big cargo and people room, have nicely filled a need.

I still enjoy my Explorer V8 that can tow a tree stump out of the ground and lay rubber at a traffic light. My mother-in-law raves about the Explorer and how nice it is sitting up high.

Maybe mine will go up in value if manufacturers start building less to meet new CAFE but the demand remains.