Safest SUV

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
Topic Author
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4847
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Safest SUV

Post by Wannaretireearly »

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.
rama13
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 2:09 am

Post by rama13 »

You didn't mention your price range, but I would consider the Acura MDX.
biasion
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:23 pm

Post by biasion »

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
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.
User avatar
SpringMan
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Michigan

Post by SpringMan »

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
livesoft
Posts: 85973
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by livesoft »

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.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
User avatar
Blue
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:18 pm

Post by Blue »

Mercedes M or GL class.
User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 6906
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by bottlecap »

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
DH287
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:59 pm
Location: Shoemakersville, PA

Informed for Life

Post by DH287 »

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
fishndoc
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:50 am

Post by fishndoc »

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
User avatar
Blue
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Informed for Life

Post by Blue »

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
Agree it is a great site.

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.
User avatar
NateH
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Safest SUV

Post by NateH »

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...).
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.

Disclosure: I do have a ten year old 4WD Highlander, and it has accumulated a number of dings and dents along the way.
jwtietz
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:00 pm

Post by jwtietz »

I am on my third Tahoe, and have not had a problem with any one of them. Just got the newest in Feburary 2011. It is very nice, cost is around 50k. Has 3rd row with all the extras.
strafe
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:49 am

Post by strafe »

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.
Ziggy75
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:24 am

Post by Ziggy75 »

If you wanna-retire-early, buy a used minivan.
User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 6906
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by bottlecap »

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.
Or, just drive safely and don't tailgate.

JT
User avatar
Munir
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Post by Munir »

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.
Hey Doc, as a physician you wouldn't make a decision based on the outcome of one case only, would you? :) .
Dagwood
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: MD

Re: Safest SUV

Post by Dagwood »

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.
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.

(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.
Valuethinker
Posts: 48958
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Safest SUV

Post by Valuethinker »

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.
Just on 'soft metal'.

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.
fishndoc
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:50 am

Post by fishndoc »

Munir wrote:
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.
Hey Doc, as a physician you wouldn't make a decision based on the outcome of one case only, would you? :) .
Depends on the magnitude of the outcome. What do you think was the conclusion of the guy who took the first dose of Viagra? :wink:
" Successful investing involves doing just a few things right, and avoiding serious mistakes." - J. Bogle
RobG
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Montana

Post by RobG »

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
RobG
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Montana

Post by RobG »

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? :wink:
Cool! Now I can sell my SUV :lol:
Topic Author
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4847
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Post by Wannaretireearly »

rama13 wrote:You didn't mention your price range, but I would consider the Acura MDX.
yeah, Acura MDX is on the short list..
btenny
Posts: 5694
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:47 pm

Post by btenny »

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
User avatar
interplanetjanet
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:52 pm
Location: the wilds of central California

Post by interplanetjanet »

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.
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.

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
Topic Author
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4847
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Informed for Life

Post by Wannaretireearly »

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
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
marylandcrab
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:51 am

Post by marylandcrab »

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.
Topic Author
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4847
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Safest SUV

Post by Wannaretireearly »

NateH wrote:
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...).
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.

Disclosure: I do have a ten year old 4WD Highlander, and it has accumulated a number of dings and dents along the way.
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.

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).
Topic Author
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4847
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Post by Wannaretireearly »

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.
Thanks Strafe. Is there a site where this data (stopping distance) is available to compare for most major models?
Topic Author
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4847
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Post by Wannaretireearly »

Ziggy75 wrote:If you wanna-retire-early, buy a used minivan.
lol - dont think it would make much difference for me b/w a 20k or 40k vehicle...
Topic Author
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4847
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Post by Wannaretireearly »

RobG 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
good points..thanks
Leesbro63
Posts: 10581
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Post by Leesbro63 »

There are many reasons the Honda CR-V is the best selling SUV. Check it out.
epilnk
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: Safest SUV

Post by epilnk »

NateH wrote:
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...).
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.
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.

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.
SDBoggled
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: Informed for Life

Post by SDBoggled »

Wannaretireearly wrote:
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdf
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
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.
Manbaerpig
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:32 am
Location: San Jose

Post by Manbaerpig »

"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
strafe
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:49 am

Post by strafe »

Wannaretireearly wrote:
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.
Thanks Strafe. Is there a site where this data (stopping distance) is available to compare for most major models?
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.
User avatar
Munir
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Post by Munir »

fishndoc wrote:
Munir wrote:
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.
Hey Doc, as a physician you wouldn't make a decision based on the outcome of one case only, would you? :) .
Depends on the magnitude of the outcome. What do you think was the conclusion of the guy who took the first dose of Viagra? :wink:
A Viagra epiphany. Cannot argue with that :oops: .
manuvns
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:30 pm

Post by manuvns »

Hyundai Santa Fe is pretty safe for it's price .
scouter
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:24 pm

Post by scouter »

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.
Valuethinker
Posts: 48958
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Post by Valuethinker »

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.
If it rolls, then the extra weight is going to cause you more problems-- the weight works against you.

That site referenced above gives one rollover ratings, and I think that would be a significant factor in the decision making.
User avatar
johnoutk
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:16 am

Post by johnoutk »

I have a Highlander (2008) and love it. Very steady on snow and ice. Good mileage. You could buy one and still have $15k left over too!
User avatar
novastepp
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:13 pm
Location: Indiana

Post by novastepp »

Military-issue Hummer.
Valuethinker
Posts: 48958
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Post by Valuethinker »

novastepp wrote:Military-issue Hummer.
;-).

If you have a very big bank account for the gas bill;-).

Are they available used from the military? Is the 'hillbilly armour' included?
ataloss
Posts: 887
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:24 pm

Post by ataloss »

I think a Toyota Sienna with awd would be safest
User avatar
Go Blue 99
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by Go Blue 99 »

Wannaretireearly wrote:
rama13 wrote:You didn't mention your price range, but I would consider the Acura MDX.
yeah, Acura MDX is on the short list..
Keep in mind Acura is doing a total redesign for MDX and RDX next year. So you could be driving a model that looks outdated (if that matters to you).
User avatar
Go Blue 99
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by Go Blue 99 »

marylandcrab wrote: 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.
:shock: You really don't know the model name of a car you own?
Harold
Posts: 3154
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:50 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Harold »

Go Blue 99 wrote: :shock: You really don't know the model name of a car you own?
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.)

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.
fishndoc
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:50 am

Post by fishndoc »

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
So, basically we are talking about a skate board with an air bag?
:D

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
RobG
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Montana

Post by RobG »

fishndoc wrote:
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
So, basically we are talking about a skate board with an air bag?
:D

Does bring up a problem with noiseless electrics that's seldom mentioned: danger to unwary pedestrians who step into its path.
I think noise from the tires is the dominant noise source in most cars these days.
FrancisABoyd
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:01 pm

Post by FrancisABoyd »

I took a Toyota FJ Cruiser out for a test drive this weekend and fell in love. Looks like it's time for a trade-in.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9972
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: Informed for Life

Post by tadamsmar »

SDBoggled wrote:
Wannaretireearly wrote:
Their ranking of 2011 vehicles can be found here: http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FC ... SKRANK.pdf
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
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.
Yes, you are right about that. The results tend to be biased toward "medium risk" when individual data items are missing.
Post Reply