Safest SUV
-
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Safest SUV
What is the safest SUV on the market & why? The SUV you would want to be in a major accident?
I'm looking for an SUV in the next year or two, safety is our primary factor now with two kids & plenty of road trips ahead of us. Initially considered a highlander, but am rethinking this...we've had a number of toyotas and they have been fine. BUT they do tend to dent very easily which doesn't give me great confidence in how they would shape up in a major accident (I don't have any data to prove one way or another...). I think my budget would be around $50k. Now, I don't have to use all of that budget
I should add, looking for a mid size SUV with a third row.
I'm looking for an SUV in the next year or two, safety is our primary factor now with two kids & plenty of road trips ahead of us. Initially considered a highlander, but am rethinking this...we've had a number of toyotas and they have been fine. BUT they do tend to dent very easily which doesn't give me great confidence in how they would shape up in a major accident (I don't have any data to prove one way or another...). I think my budget would be around $50k. Now, I don't have to use all of that budget
I should add, looking for a mid size SUV with a third row.
All SUV's have increased rollover risk because they are taller, even the car based ones.
With "SUV", whether it is unibody like the "car" ones, or frame on chassis like the old school ones (think Ford Explorer), you don't get what you pay for.
Especially with a "car based" unibody SUV, you pay extra for a taller, heavier, less well performing, slower, thirstier vehicle that does not handle nor drive as well and is more likely to roll over. Compare something like Volkswagen Touran and the Golf etc. It makes no logical or rational sense. It blows my mind that people would actually see "macho" or "tough" in it. I see only one thing in the concept of SUV, and that word is not flattering, so I won't post it.
Sadly there are few, if any real "station wagons", because the public would rather have the SUV appearing version due to tough image, although the SUV is basically more expensive and inferior in every measurable category.
I would not recommend anything SUV. And having owned all wheel drive vehicles, I would recommend snow tires over AWD any day because the former actually help safety, traction, stopping and handling.
Best of luck
With "SUV", whether it is unibody like the "car" ones, or frame on chassis like the old school ones (think Ford Explorer), you don't get what you pay for.
Especially with a "car based" unibody SUV, you pay extra for a taller, heavier, less well performing, slower, thirstier vehicle that does not handle nor drive as well and is more likely to roll over. Compare something like Volkswagen Touran and the Golf etc. It makes no logical or rational sense. It blows my mind that people would actually see "macho" or "tough" in it. I see only one thing in the concept of SUV, and that word is not flattering, so I won't post it.
Sadly there are few, if any real "station wagons", because the public would rather have the SUV appearing version due to tough image, although the SUV is basically more expensive and inferior in every measurable category.
I would not recommend anything SUV. And having owned all wheel drive vehicles, I would recommend snow tires over AWD any day because the former actually help safety, traction, stopping and handling.
Best of luck
1. Do not confuse strategy with outcome |
2. Those who fail to plan plan to fail |
3. Do not assume the unlikely is impossible, and |
4. Be ready to deal with the consequences if you do.
The laws of physics apply to SUVs, all other things being equal more mass counts. A Chevy Suburban is likely safer than a small SUV. Contrary to the previous post, snow tires on a two wheel drive are no substitute for a 4X4 SUV on unimproved roads, deep snow, mud or soft sand. Push and pull works better than push or pull. Ground clearance comes in play as well. How many conventional station wagons, even when they were popular, did you ever see with a snow plow? It is true that 4X4s do not stop any better.
Best Wishes, SpringMan
You may be asking for too much. Modern vehicles are designed to crumple in an accident in order to absorb then dissipate the energy of impact. If a gasoline tanker truck rolls over on you, experience shows that a safe SUV does not help.
If you are looking for safety in an accident, then traditionally Volvo and MercedesBenz are brands to think about. They both make decent SUVs.
If you are looking for safety in an accident, then traditionally Volvo and MercedesBenz are brands to think about. They both make decent SUVs.
The government performs crash tests, which I'm sure are more meaningful that whether a fender dents easily - it's not meant for protection anyway. If you want lots of protection buy a big SUV with excellent crash test results.
And if you are hit but an oil tanker, cruise missle or 747, it won't provide enough protection.
Good luck,
JT
And if you are hit but an oil tanker, cruise missle or 747, it won't provide enough protection.
Good luck,
JT
Informed for Life
http://www.informedforlife.org/viewartcl.php?index=3 publishes safety rankings for new and pre-owned vehicles. At a minimum, the site contains a lot of good info.
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdf
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdf
While I'm not a big GM fan, the Chevy Suburban is a pretty decent vehicle. Gas milage is only slightly worse than the smaller Tahoe. (I get 22 on interstate)
A few years back, my wife and I were trying to decide which SUV to buy, and safety was a top consideration. One evening the local tv news broke in, showing a live high speed car chase on the interstate involving a Chevy Suburban: the SUV suddenly swerved left, crashing thru the concrete barrier in the median, basically bounced off an on-coming vehicle, and kept on going down the road. We immediately made our buying decision.
A few years back, my wife and I were trying to decide which SUV to buy, and safety was a top consideration. One evening the local tv news broke in, showing a live high speed car chase on the interstate involving a Chevy Suburban: the SUV suddenly swerved left, crashing thru the concrete barrier in the median, basically bounced off an on-coming vehicle, and kept on going down the road. We immediately made our buying decision.
" Successful investing involves doing just a few things right, and avoiding serious mistakes." - J. Bogle
Re: Informed for Life
Agree it is a great site.DH287 wrote:http://www.informedforlife.org/viewartcl.php?index=3 publishes safety rankings for new and pre-owned vehicles. At a minimum, the site contains a lot of good info.
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdf
Many "SCORE's" input category averages when a test has not been performed, making interpretation somewhat challenging at times.
I've also been impressed with the real life by model fatality data and am looking for an update.
Re: Safest SUV
I'm not sure why you think door dings and performance in a major accident are related at all. It's like saying burned out head lamps are an indicator of how a vehicle performs in a major accident.Wannaretireearly wrote: BUT they do tend to dent very easily which doesn't give me great confidence in how they would shape up in a major accident (I don't have any data to prove one way or another...).
Disclosure: I do have a ten year old 4WD Highlander, and it has accumulated a number of dings and dents along the way.
Crash-worthiness is not the only consideration. What about avoiding the accident in the first place? I personally would look at sport wagons such as the Mercedes E-class wagon. You get all the practicality of an SUV or more, but don't give up the sportiness, safety, and comfort of a car.
If you're set on an SUV, I would steer away from big flabby SUVs from GM and Toyota, and look at SUVs that also have decent handling characteristics, such as the Acura MDX, Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes ML/GL, or Porsche Cayenne (2 rows?).
One crude indicator of handling is braking distance.
For example, the Chevy Tahoe is representative of the poor handling group of SUVs. Its 70-0 mph distance is 201 feet.
vs.
Acura MDX 170ft
BMW X5 165ft
Mercedes ML350 171ft
Porsche Cayenne 170ft
Volvo XC90 177ft
About two car-lengths separate the Tahoe from the rest.
If you're set on an SUV, I would steer away from big flabby SUVs from GM and Toyota, and look at SUVs that also have decent handling characteristics, such as the Acura MDX, Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes ML/GL, or Porsche Cayenne (2 rows?).
One crude indicator of handling is braking distance.
For example, the Chevy Tahoe is representative of the poor handling group of SUVs. Its 70-0 mph distance is 201 feet.
vs.
Acura MDX 170ft
BMW X5 165ft
Mercedes ML350 171ft
Porsche Cayenne 170ft
Volvo XC90 177ft
About two car-lengths separate the Tahoe from the rest.
Or, just drive safely and don't tailgate.strafe wrote:If you're set on an SUV, I would steer away from big flabby SUVs from GM and Toyota, and look at SUVs that also have decent handling characteristics, such as the Acura MDX, Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes ML/GL, or Porsche Cayenne (2 rows?).
One crude indicator of handling is braking distance.
For example, the Chevy Tahoe is representative of the poor handling group of SUVs. Its 70-0 mph distance is 201 feet.
vs.
Acura MDX 170ft
BMW X5 165ft
Mercedes ML350 171ft
Porsche Cayenne 170ft
Volvo XC90 177ft
About two car-lengths separate the Tahoe from the rest.
JT
Hey Doc, as a physician you wouldn't make a decision based on the outcome of one case only, would you? .fishndoc wrote:While I'm not a big GM fan, the Chevy Suburban is a pretty decent vehicle. Gas milage is only slightly worse than the smaller Tahoe. (I get 22 on interstate)
A few years back, my wife and I were trying to decide which SUV to buy, and safety was a top consideration. One evening the local tv news broke in, showing a live high speed car chase on the interstate involving a Chevy Suburban: the SUV suddenly swerved left, crashing thru the concrete barrier in the median, basically bounced off an on-coming vehicle, and kept on going down the road. We immediately made our buying decision.
Re: Safest SUV
Minivans are your best option for third row seating that is actually comfortable and that a normal, non-gymnast can access. If you are looking to save money too, find a Chrysler van that is a few years old. The Hondas and Toyotas are very nice, no question, but IMO they are over-priced used and new -- they have become a fashion accessory of sorts for new parents. (Sarcasm on) Going to have a kid? Society seems to say if you are an upper middle class / successful couple you need to do three things: Go to the baby store and buy every over-priced gizmo and gadget for the kid you can buy; buy three different types of expensive strollers, and then go plunk down $35k or $40k on a minivan.Wannaretireearly wrote:What is the safest SUV on the market & why? The SUV you would want to be in a major accident?
I'm looking for an SUV in the next year or two, safety is our primary factor now with two kids & plenty of road trips ahead of us. Initially considered a highlander, but am rethinking this...we've had a number of toyotas and they have been fine. BUT they do tend to dent very easily which doesn't give me great confidence in how they would shape up in a major accident (I don't have any data to prove one way or another...). I think my budget would be around $50k. Now, I don't have to use all of that budget
I should add, looking for a mid size SUV with a third row.
(Sarcasm off)
If you want an SUV, that's fine too -- Japanese cars historically have had "cosmetics" that are not as robust as their American or German counterparts. This is, in part cultural (think Zero versus Hellcat), and in part driven by the need to reduce weight so as to save fuel and have reasonable driving characteristics with a normal-sized motor. That being said, the "ding resistance" of a fender has nothing to do with crash safety. A good resources here is the IIHS website.
So in short the Highlander is an excellent choice, but there are others out there too. I'd check out the new Explorer and Grand Cherokee, the Hyundai Santa Fe, and I'd also want to check out some of the GM offerings. If you look at the German SUVs, like Mercedes or BMW, you can get a very good deal on these used because (1) most buyers of them new want a new one every three or four years so leasing is common and there is great supply; and (2) everyone is scared to death of the repair costs, which they needn't be so long as they have a clue about cars and can find a good and knowledgeable shop that specializes in that kind of car. Generally but not always it is not cost-effective to service an out-of-warranty German car at the dealership. (So you know here our family has two German cars and one Japanese car, so this is based on experience not what I've "heard.")
Good luck and HTH.
-
- Posts: 48958
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Safest SUV
Just on 'soft metal'.Wannaretireearly wrote:What is the safest SUV on the market & why? The SUV you would want to be in a major accident?
I'm looking for an SUV in the next year or two, safety is our primary factor now with two kids & plenty of road trips ahead of us. Initially considered a highlander, but am rethinking this...we've had a number of toyotas and they have been fine. BUT they do tend to dent very easily which doesn't give me great confidence in how they would shape up in a major accident (I don't have any data to prove one way or another...). I think my budget would be around $50k. Now, I don't have to use all of that budget
I should add, looking for a mid size SUV with a third row.
Remember success in a crash collision is your survival.
When the metal bends, it is absorbing kinetic energy. The '3 box' form of the car is a recognition of that-- the front and rear boxes crumble, and the the humans in the middle box live.
So bendy metal may not be such a bad thing.
The original SUVs were '2 box' -- based on pickups. Lacked that kind of protection and so not very safe.
I think that may have been fixed?
See Keith Bradsher's 'High and Mighty' for more discussion of issues.
Your tradeoff then is size of car (which makes it safer) against issues like:
- reflexes -- a heavier car has longer stopping distances-- full stop- -that is laws of physics. And it's harder to handle so your ability to manoeuvre out of a situation is reduced-- again laws of physics.
- rollover - a higher centre of gravity increases risk of same (ESC may help in this)-- laws of physics. I think the early SUVs were bad, and I think the manufacturers have made a lot of strides in terms of improving these.
The crashworthiness tests may provide some assurance.
If you are really worried about safety though, it's not as simple as 'bigger = better' because of the tradeoffs above.
The solution probably is to purchase a more 'car like' SUV which combines better handling with some of the SUV features that you seek.
Depends on the magnitude of the outcome. What do you think was the conclusion of the guy who took the first dose of Viagra?Munir wrote:Hey Doc, as a physician you wouldn't make a decision based on the outcome of one case only, would you? .fishndoc wrote:While I'm not a big GM fan, the Chevy Suburban is a pretty decent vehicle. Gas milage is only slightly worse than the smaller Tahoe. (I get 22 on interstate)
A few years back, my wife and I were trying to decide which SUV to buy, and safety was a top consideration. One evening the local tv news broke in, showing a live high speed car chase on the interstate involving a Chevy Suburban: the SUV suddenly swerved left, crashing thru the concrete barrier in the median, basically bounced off an on-coming vehicle, and kept on going down the road. We immediately made our buying decision.
" Successful investing involves doing just a few things right, and avoiding serious mistakes." - J. Bogle
Whatever you buy, tell biasion you bought a hummer cause it made you feel macho.
I have a Ford Explorer because I need the clearance at times and have to tow things, like biason-types out of the ditch. It "feels" safe because you are in a big car, but the reality is that if you get in an accident (or even have a flat tire) an SUV (or truck) is likely to roll. If you don't need the clearance get something low to the ground.
I have a Ford Explorer because I need the clearance at times and have to tow things, like biason-types out of the ditch. It "feels" safe because you are in a big car, but the reality is that if you get in an accident (or even have a flat tire) an SUV (or truck) is likely to roll. If you don't need the clearance get something low to the ground.
biasion wrote: Especially with a "car based" unibody SUV, you pay extra for a taller, heavier, less well performing, slower, thirstier vehicle that does not handle nor drive as well and is more likely to roll over. Compare something like Volkswagen Touran and the Golf etc. It makes no logical or rational sense. It blows my mind that people would actually see "macho" or "tough" in it. I see only one thing in the concept of SUV, and that word is not flattering, so I won't post it.
Sadly there are few, if any real "station wagons", because the public would rather have the SUV appearing version due to tough image, although the SUV is basically more expensive and inferior in every measurable category.
I would not recommend anything SUV. And having owned all wheel drive vehicles, I would recommend snow tires over AWD any day because the former actually help safety, traction, stopping and handling.
Best of luck
-
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Go with the big Chevy Tahoe or Suburban if you want the best safety. Many of these have been hit with loads of kids and everyone was OK while others were killed.
Back 15 years ago (March 11 1996 ) Danny Inge (of the Boston Celtics) was a Mesa Arizona resident and his wife was taking 4-5 kids to a movie. She was stopped at an intersection along with two other smaller cars also loaded with kids. A fully loaded gravel truck tried to run a yellow light and hit all the stopped cars doing about 45 MPH. The driver of the small car was killed. Other kids in the small cars were badly injured. Ainge's wife was driving a Suburban. She walked away and most of the kids were OK as well. I could not find pictures of the accident but was floored by the end results.
For 4-6 weeks after the accident Chevy Suburbans were back ordered in Phoenix as a result of this accident..
Bill
Back 15 years ago (March 11 1996 ) Danny Inge (of the Boston Celtics) was a Mesa Arizona resident and his wife was taking 4-5 kids to a movie. She was stopped at an intersection along with two other smaller cars also loaded with kids. A fully loaded gravel truck tried to run a yellow light and hit all the stopped cars doing about 45 MPH. The driver of the small car was killed. Other kids in the small cars were badly injured. Ainge's wife was driving a Suburban. She walked away and most of the kids were OK as well. I could not find pictures of the accident but was floored by the end results.
For 4-6 weeks after the accident Chevy Suburbans were back ordered in Phoenix as a result of this accident..
Bill
- interplanetjanet
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:52 pm
- Location: the wilds of central California
The term I usually use for attributes like this is "active safety". Passive safety includes things like crumple zones, while active safety lets an alert driver better avoid accidents - braking, handling, a low center of gravity, good tires for the prevailing conditions and the like. AWD can contribute to active safety but I would place it lower on the list than many other things.strafe wrote:Crash-worthiness is not the only consideration. What about avoiding the accident in the first place? I personally would look at sport wagons such as the Mercedes E-class wagon. You get all the practicality of an SUV or more, but don't give up the sportiness, safety, and comfort of a car.
...
One crude indicator of handling is braking distance.
I remember something I heard once - the nut that is the most likely to hurt you is the one behind the wheel. Both yours and theirs. Focus and defensive driving will do more to lower accident risks than any attribute of the vehicle you are in. Consider a performance driving course for both you and your spouse, it's my opinion that learning to drive near the limit can help enormously when you actually are in a potential accident situation. Investing in yourself pays dividends for your whole driving life.
If you need an SUV, ask yourself why - some are designed for different purposes than others.
-Janet
-
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Re: Informed for Life
Thanks. Nice to see three US models at the top of the list: Enclave, Traverse, Acadia (all same wheelbase I believe...). If i'm right that maintaining these GM clones is relatively "cheap" (e.g. compared to an MDX) than they are looking good to meDH287 wrote:http://www.informedforlife.org/viewartcl.php?index=3 publishes safety rankings for new and pre-owned vehicles. At a minimum, the site contains a lot of good info.
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdf
-
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:51 am
My son is now driving my mdx. It's got 200k miles on it, i've never put any major money into it - just typical brakes, tires & batteries. My mechanic swears it will hit 250k no problem.
I drive a lexus suv, I'm not really into model names, so I don't know what it is without walking to the garage. It's bigger than the mdx.
One feature I like about it is the cruise control actually slows you down if a car in front of you slows down and you can choose 1, 2 or 3 car lengths to stay. We were driving down 95 through Richmond once and a car cut us off and came swerving into us - our car automatically slowed us down and automatically tightened every seatbelt being used.
Not to mention they come pick up my car and give me a loaner when it needs servicing - and the car tells me when I need it.
I may be the person people have fits about driving alone - but I haul kids, animals, carpools, sports equipment, groceries - and I own a business and need to carry medical supplies from time to time and it's what we use to pick up big stuff.
I drive a lexus suv, I'm not really into model names, so I don't know what it is without walking to the garage. It's bigger than the mdx.
One feature I like about it is the cruise control actually slows you down if a car in front of you slows down and you can choose 1, 2 or 3 car lengths to stay. We were driving down 95 through Richmond once and a car cut us off and came swerving into us - our car automatically slowed us down and automatically tightened every seatbelt being used.
Not to mention they come pick up my car and give me a loaner when it needs servicing - and the car tells me when I need it.
I may be the person people have fits about driving alone - but I haul kids, animals, carpools, sports equipment, groceries - and I own a business and need to carry medical supplies from time to time and it's what we use to pick up big stuff.
-
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Re: Safest SUV
I have a toyota and a jetta. Now take aside the maintenance issues with the jetta, it just feels more 'solid'. I have been hit twice (or thrice?) at the back and the fender has performed great. I was "at fault" in one accident, causing front end damage & again the build quality of the frame just seemed great.NateH wrote:I'm not sure why you think door dings and performance in a major accident are related at all. It's like saying burned out head lamps are an indicator of how a vehicle performs in a major accident.Wannaretireearly wrote: BUT they do tend to dent very easily which doesn't give me great confidence in how they would shape up in a major accident (I don't have any data to prove one way or another...).
Disclosure: I do have a ten year old 4WD Highlander, and it has accumulated a number of dings and dents along the way.
Touch wood I have not had an accident in the solara. Its a big car so should be fine. I'm just wary cos here in the SF bay area, I must see a bad accident, on average, every day! People just not paying attention while driving.
So, as other folks have said, its a combo of active (proctive) safety, passive safety (when you are going to have an accident, fault or no fault) & driver competence (which goes for any vehicle).
-
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
Thanks Strafe. Is there a site where this data (stopping distance) is available to compare for most major models?strafe wrote:Crash-worthiness is not the only consideration. What about avoiding the accident in the first place? I personally would look at sport wagons such as the Mercedes E-class wagon. You get all the practicality of an SUV or more, but don't give up the sportiness, safety, and comfort of a car.
If you're set on an SUV, I would steer away from big flabby SUVs from GM and Toyota, and look at SUVs that also have decent handling characteristics, such as the Acura MDX, Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes ML/GL, or Porsche Cayenne (2 rows?).
One crude indicator of handling is braking distance.
For example, the Chevy Tahoe is representative of the poor handling group of SUVs. Its 70-0 mph distance is 201 feet.
vs.
Acura MDX 170ft
BMW X5 165ft
Mercedes ML350 171ft
Porsche Cayenne 170ft
Volvo XC90 177ft
About two car-lengths separate the Tahoe from the rest.
-
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
-
- Posts: 4847
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm
good points..thanksRobG wrote:Whatever you buy, tell biasion you bought a hummer cause it made you feel macho.
I have a Ford Explorer because I need the clearance at times and have to tow things, like biason-types out of the ditch. It "feels" safe because you are in a big car, but the reality is that if you get in an accident (or even have a flat tire) an SUV (or truck) is likely to roll. If you don't need the clearance get something low to the ground.
biasion wrote: Especially with a "car based" unibody SUV, you pay extra for a taller, heavier, less well performing, slower, thirstier vehicle that does not handle nor drive as well and is more likely to roll over. Compare something like Volkswagen Touran and the Golf etc. It makes no logical or rational sense. It blows my mind that people would actually see "macho" or "tough" in it. I see only one thing in the concept of SUV, and that word is not flattering, so I won't post it.
Sadly there are few, if any real "station wagons", because the public would rather have the SUV appearing version due to tough image, although the SUV is basically more expensive and inferior in every measurable category.
I would not recommend anything SUV. And having owned all wheel drive vehicles, I would recommend snow tires over AWD any day because the former actually help safety, traction, stopping and handling.
Best of luck
Re: Safest SUV
I agree - crumple zones are a major safety feature. 25 years ago my low budget econobox, a Mazda 323, hit a sudden patch of black ice on the highway. So did everyone else on that highway. The car that slammed into my driver's side door at full highway speed was larger than mine. My car was totaled; the frame was so deformed that none of the 4 doors could be opened (I climbed out through the shattered window). But the driver's protective cage remained intact and I left the scene with nothing more than scratches and a rather impressive bruise in the shape of a lap belt. I was very shaken by the experience and immediately went out and replaced the car with - another Mazda 323. Doors that were designed to 'ding' properly saved my life.NateH wrote:I'm not sure why you think door dings and performance in a major accident are related at all. It's like saying burned out head lamps are an indicator of how a vehicle performs in a major accident.Wannaretireearly wrote: BUT they do tend to dent very easily which doesn't give me great confidence in how they would shape up in a major accident (I don't have any data to prove one way or another...).
Cars have so many more safely features today. And I have a larger budget, and children. But last time I researched and bought a car SUVs didn't score all that well on safety. I've read that the more recent addition of stability control improves that significantly. But there's quite a bit more to consider than just the size of the car.
Re: Informed for Life
Wannaretireearly wrote:
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdf
Unless I am misunderstanding something I think this ranking is misleading because lack of "individual data" in the right hand columns seems to lead to a generalized "medium risk" rating for models.Thanks. Nice to see three US models at the top of the list: Enclave, Traverse, Acadia (all same wheelbase I believe...). If i'm right that maintaining these GM clones is relatively "cheap" (e.g. compared to an MDX) than they are looking good to me
-
- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:32 am
- Location: San Jose
"safe" and "SUV" are a bit of an oxymoron. Occupant head injury and things like that are a serious issue and not in the favor of the SUV. I think a lot of people confuse the greater kinetic energy of a SUV vs a passenger car as somehow implying that the occupants of the SUV will likewise be safer/suffer less grave injuries. Sure in the general sense absence of other variables this tends to be true, but sadly many SUV's are not/have not been designed with similar occupant safety devices in place. It isn't about which car was forced to alter it's path less, it's about which driver/occupant(s) suffered less severe injuries.
I believe the statistics suggest something otherwise, especially single vehicle collision data.
You will find some SUV's that have 5-star collision ratings, though. Such as an MDX and a few others.
also: please do your own research and draw your own conclusions:
http://www.safercar.gov/
also google for NHTSA actual accident/injury statistics that have occured in the real world
I believe the statistics suggest something otherwise, especially single vehicle collision data.
You will find some SUV's that have 5-star collision ratings, though. Such as an MDX and a few others.
also: please do your own research and draw your own conclusions:
http://www.safercar.gov/
also google for NHTSA actual accident/injury statistics that have occured in the real world
The above were from various road tests and comparison tests in Car & Driver. Road tests in all the mainstream car magazines report acceleration, braking distance, slalom, and roadholding/skidpad in a standardized way.Wannaretireearly wrote:Thanks Strafe. Is there a site where this data (stopping distance) is available to compare for most major models?strafe wrote: For example, the Chevy Tahoe is representative of the poor handling group of SUVs. Its 70-0 mph distance is 201 feet.
vs.
Acura MDX 170ft
BMW X5 165ft
Mercedes ML350 171ft
Porsche Cayenne 170ft
Volvo XC90 177ft
About two car-lengths separate the Tahoe from the rest.
A Viagra epiphany. Cannot argue with that .fishndoc wrote:Depends on the magnitude of the outcome. What do you think was the conclusion of the guy who took the first dose of Viagra?Munir wrote:Hey Doc, as a physician you wouldn't make a decision based on the outcome of one case only, would you? .fishndoc wrote:While I'm not a big GM fan, the Chevy Suburban is a pretty decent vehicle. Gas milage is only slightly worse than the smaller Tahoe. (I get 22 on interstate)
A few years back, my wife and I were trying to decide which SUV to buy, and safety was a top consideration. One evening the local tv news broke in, showing a live high speed car chase on the interstate involving a Chevy Suburban: the SUV suddenly swerved left, crashing thru the concrete barrier in the median, basically bounced off an on-coming vehicle, and kept on going down the road. We immediately made our buying decision.
Suburbans are pretty top-heavy and easy to roll. I was driving a friend's Suburban when a car came at me the wrong way on the freeway. It was foggy and I though I was only doing 50, I didn't see them until they were 5-6 car lengths from hitting me. I jerked the wheel to the right, barely missing them, and the Suburban lurched and felt like it was starting to roll. I corrected just enough to the left to keep it from rolling, which caused it to lurch and lean right to the tipping point the other way. Back and forth I corrected, rolling a little less with each correction and braking very gradually as braking made the leaning even worse, and I was right at the edge of losing traction and having the back end slide out.
It took forever to get that big old boat under control and onto the shoulder, and though I'm not a professional driver, I've been driving all kinds of vehicles for 40 years, including lots of off-roading in Jeeps, so I'm accustomed to driving vehicles at extreme angles.
Three drivers who witnessed it stopped to see if I was o.k. and to marvel at the fact that I didn't lose it.
I knew then that I didn't want to own a Suburban. It may offer a lot of protection in a crash, but if possible, I'd rather avoid the crash in the first place.
It took forever to get that big old boat under control and onto the shoulder, and though I'm not a professional driver, I've been driving all kinds of vehicles for 40 years, including lots of off-roading in Jeeps, so I'm accustomed to driving vehicles at extreme angles.
Three drivers who witnessed it stopped to see if I was o.k. and to marvel at the fact that I didn't lose it.
I knew then that I didn't want to own a Suburban. It may offer a lot of protection in a crash, but if possible, I'd rather avoid the crash in the first place.
-
- Posts: 48958
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
If it rolls, then the extra weight is going to cause you more problems-- the weight works against you.scouter wrote:
I knew then that I didn't want to own a Suburban. It may offer a lot of protection in a crash, but if possible, I'd rather avoid the crash in the first place.
That site referenced above gives one rollover ratings, and I think that would be a significant factor in the decision making.
-
- Posts: 48958
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
- Go Blue 99
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:42 pm
- Go Blue 99
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:42 pm
I'm not sure of mine -- I think it's LX. Do you know the model name of your toaster? (I know it's not really the same, just that to me a car's more like an appliance than something it's important for me to remember every detail of.)Go Blue 99 wrote: You really don't know the model name of a car you own?
Anyway, that's not why I opened this thread. Though I understand the safety question, I'm always a little bothered by it. The question seems solely oriented to the occupants without consideration of anyone else.
Is there a car out there that's safe for the driver and passengers, as well as anyone who might be hit by it? Or anyone else who might breathe the pollution? etc.
I'm not here to start an argument, just to offer an alternative thought to think about if you're so inclined.
So, basically we are talking about a skate board with an air bag?Is there a car out there that's safe for the driver and passengers, as well as anyone who might be hit by it? Or anyone else who might breathe the pollution
Does bring up a problem with noiseless electrics that's seldom mentioned: danger to unwary pedestrians who step into its path.
" Successful investing involves doing just a few things right, and avoiding serious mistakes." - J. Bogle
I think noise from the tires is the dominant noise source in most cars these days.fishndoc wrote:So, basically we are talking about a skate board with an air bag?Is there a car out there that's safe for the driver and passengers, as well as anyone who might be hit by it? Or anyone else who might breathe the pollution
Does bring up a problem with noiseless electrics that's seldom mentioned: danger to unwary pedestrians who step into its path.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:01 pm
Re: Informed for Life
Yes, you are right about that. The results tend to be biased toward "medium risk" when individual data items are missing.SDBoggled wrote:Wannaretireearly wrote:
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdfUnless I am misunderstanding something I think this ranking is misleading because lack of "individual data" in the right hand columns seems to lead to a generalized "medium risk" rating for models.Thanks. Nice to see three US models at the top of the list: Enclave, Traverse, Acadia (all same wheelbase I believe...). If i'm right that maintaining these GM clones is relatively "cheap" (e.g. compared to an MDX) than they are looking good to me