| Author |
Message |
    
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6422
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 2:42 pm: |     |
BIG AND BAD
How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety
by Malcolm Gladwell
quote:
In the summer of 1996, the Ford Motor Company began building the Expedition, its new, full-sized S.U.V., at the Michigan Truck Plant, in the Detroit suburb of Wayne. The Expedition was essentially the F-150 pickup truck with an extra set of doors and two more rows of --and the fact that it was a truck was critical. Cars have to meet stringent fuel-efficiency regulations. Trucks don't. The handling and suspension and braking of cars have to be built to the demanding standards of drivers and passengers. Trucks only have to handle like, well, trucks. Cars are built with what is called unit-body construction. To be light enough to meet fuel standards and safe enough to meet safety standards, they have expensive and elaborately engineered steel skeletons, with built-in crumple zones to absorb the impact of a crash. Making a truck is a lot more rudimentary. You build a rectangular steel frame. The engine gets bolted to the front. The seats get bolted to the middle. The body gets lowered over the top. The result is heavy and rigid and not particularly safe. But it's an awfully inexpensive way to build an automobile. Ford had planned to sell the Expedition for thirty-six thousand dollars, and its best estimate was that it could build one for twenty-four thousand--which, in the automotive industry, is a terrifically high profit margin. Sales, the company predicted, weren't going to be huge. After all, how many Americans could reasonably be expected to pay a twelve-thousand-dollar premium for what was essentially a dressed-up truck? But Ford executives decided that the Expedition would be a highly profitable niche product. They were half right. The "highly profitable" part turned out to be true. Yet, almost from the moment Ford's big new S.U.V.s rolled off the assembly line in Wayne, there was nothing "niche" about the Expedition.
continue reading |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2203
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
This appeared in The New Yorker a few weeks ago. We discussed here in one (or more) of the threads. It's a pretty good article.
My car was in the shop a couple of weeks ago, for four days. I rented a car. They didn't have any compact cars, so they gave me a big car at the small-car rate. It was a Dodge Intrepid. It's a big, heavy car, with a very floaty ride and a pretty powerful engine and of course an automatic transmission. The car did, in fact, encourage me to drive hard and almost irrresponsibly on the highway, since I couldn't feel the road as well as I'm used to and because it accelerated so readily. I can easily see how an SUV which is even more floaty (though also more lumbering) and with a high-end engine could encourage even more such behavior.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Ruck1977
Citizen
Username: Ruck1977
Post Number: 52
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
the SUV is encouraging irresponsible behavior? Hmmm....
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2209
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
What do you think of the article, Ruck1977? I think it's pretty good, and I think someone who owns an SUV and feels justified in doing so could agree with many of the points therein.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Ruck1977
Citizen
Username: Ruck1977
Post Number: 53
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 6:48 pm: | |
Well, I am not an SUV owner (yet), but I was definitely intrigued by this statement:
"According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills."
I personally believe myself to be a superior driver and one who would not take a vehicle for granted, especially one that weighs 3 tons. I would agree that vehicles of this nature might make a driver take safety for granted (as per the article), but the onus clearly lies on the driver to drive responsibly. The "SUV" is not in control, the driver is.
The statement I quoted above really makes me think that the article has a clear agenda, which immediately turned me off from the article. Remember, SUV's have been around a lot longer than the SUV craze, and they do have a purpose. Not all SUV owners are of the sorts this article talks about, but some actually use the car's functionality. I could buy a minivan and a pickup, or I could buy an XUV/SUV.... |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 174
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 7:37 pm: | |
Tom Reingold;
I just got a circular from Saab. They're coming outwith a 9-7; a luxury SUV to be made in the US. They say it'll be available in 2005. Are you going to get one? I might, if I'm still around. |
Gene Z
Citizen
Username: Genez
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
The following (if it works) is an article from today's USA Today about how auto makers are using speed to sell cars. It goes along with the theory that a certain type of car promotes a certain type of behavior.
There was also a recent article, I forget where, about how the percentage of speeding tickets for speeds exceeding the limit by >15 MPH has risen dramatically in the past several years.
Draw your own conclusions.
IMHO: SUV = Stupid, Ugly Vehicle.
Z
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-02-24-speed-cover_x.htm |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2215
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 10:08 pm: | |
Ruck, you're right "tend to be bought by people who are insecure ..." is a broad brush, and given that everyone and his brother is buying an SUV, that brush eventually paints everyone at once.
Still, the points about how vehicles affect people's behavior are valid. If you've driven a low powered car or a bicycle in heavy traffic, you'll know what I mean.
You might be a superior driver, but consider that most people consider themselves to be above average. That can't be. For what it's worth, I consider myself to be MUCH above average, so I'm not criticizing you. The useful point is that how you feel about your own driving doesn't say much about what vehicle is best.
I don't favor any silly laws that make SUV's hard to buy. I favor personal choice. My dismay is that people are making weird choices in the aggregate. Lots of people have good reasons for having an SUV, but there's an awful lot of them out there.
Lizziecat, no, I don't think I'll buy an SUV by any brand. And I'm in a deep love-hate relationship with Saab now. I love the cars for the driving and hauling experience, but I am furious at myself for enduring ridiculous repair bills for 13 years (and three cars). The cars need far too much repair, and the parts are very expensive.
Now that GM has taken over Saab, Saab cars are less distinctive. The Saab 9-2 is a rebadged and repriced Subaru. Who needs that?
And I've become jaded about cars. I think we've been duped into thinking that expensive cars make life better. I think the next car I buy will be a cheapo Dodge or something else unglamorous.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
I'm with you Tom. I love cars, especially classics from the 50s and 60s. But I don't particularly enjoy vehicle ownership and driving any more. I'm happy to live in a place where I can drive less than 100 miles in a typical week.
And I don't think any job will pay me enough to go back to an auto commute. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 440
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 10:54 pm: | |
Cheap cars are best. You can park them anywhere and not give it a second thought.
If you no longer need one to impress your girlfriend (or convince your mother-in-law that you can actually get credit), who needs the worry and expense?
You can always rent a nice car for a few days if you feel like driving for pleasure - a feeling that passes quite quickly in New Jersey, I've found.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2216
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
Yeah, I have always been a minimalist of one sort or another. In college, I wrote a paper about how the world would be better if people rode bicycles more. I thought all four wheel motor vehicles were tremendously excessive. And they are, actually, except that I have succumbed to them. And here I am saying that a 3000 lb vehicle is all you need, that 4000 lbs is too much, but really, what's the difference? My old vehicle weighed less than 30 lbs.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 437
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
I drive a '92 Honda Civic. I don't feel safe in it up here on 78 and similar. When buying a new car, I'm likely to go for 6 cylinder, probably a VW Passat Wagon. Much as they're a nice car, I feel a bit sad to be moving away from Honda. Small is beautiful, but it just doesn't feel safe up here in speedo SUV land.
Husband drives a '55 Chevy! Feel very safe in that, but I personally prefer a small, light car. Like Tom, used bicycles exclusively through college and grad school. Kinda miss it.. |
clkelley
Citizen
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 148
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 6:32 am: | |
Check the safety statistics. Civics are about the safest thing you can drive.
I have a '04 civic and it is the best car I've ever had - comfortable, lots of leg-room (husband and I are both tall), nice big trunk. We have the EX, and it is worth the extra money in my opinion.
Re safety, we had an '02 Civic and it was totalled with the whole family in it - not even the slightest injury to anybody in the car. (it was pretty brand-new when it was totalled - so you can imagine that the car was squashed.) Weight of the vehicle has little to do with safety.
I don't know how the older Civics stack up safety-wise, but the new ones are actually safer than Volvos according to the research we did before purchasing the '02. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2218
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:04 am: | |
Cynicalgirl, I never owned a Honda, but I'm very impressed with them. My wife has a Civic hatchback, and it's the best small car I've ever driven, speaking about the handling, steering, visibility, etc.
clkelley, you might be wrong. Last time I read about crashworthiness reports, they rate things in their own class. If a Civic rates high, it's high among others in its class, such as the Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, etc. It would not fare as well as a Volvo, for example.
And mass does have a lot to do with crashworthiness, but crumple zones are essential, too. The cars built before the 80's were heavy, but they were so rigid that they would bounce instead of crumpling, transferring the impact from the body of the car to the bodies of the occupants. So you'd see a 50's or 60's car look pretty good after an accident, but that is often not a good thing.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 948
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Genez - that article describes me to a degree. Each car I've purchased over the last ten years has gotten progressively more powerful (from 145 hp to 320 hp).
However as I've said before how anyone can look at an SUV and want to drive it as if it were a sports car is beyond me. A Porsche is built for speed. It has been designed and engineered for that reason. An SUV was not designed or engineered for speed. Its just a vehicle that can go fast, that doesn't mean it should go fast.
As for car safety, Honda's are great cars. My stepson was in an accident (a '94 Accord) where another driver made a left turn, crossing right in front of him (the driver of that car was on the phone at the time). Both cars were totalled and both kids walked away.
I agree with TomR, you can't really compare a Volvo with a Civic (which is a great car in its own right). I've had both. I recently gave back a 2000 Volvo S80 and that car was built like a tank. There was a noticeable difference when closing the door on that car, you could hear how solidly it was made. The same can be said for my wife's Audi. Very solid. Recently I wrapped on the fender of my car, then on my wife's car then on our SUV (Nissan) and the SUV sounded very chintzy in comparison. Somehow I feel safer in either my car or my wife's.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page