That article gets a few things wrong. The Firestone debacle was due to
people running the tires underinflated for a better ride, as directed by
Ford, and due to shoddy tire construction on the part of Firestone.
Secondly, he refers to shoddy brakes. My Explorer has four wheel discs
and, with 163k on the clock, can stop on a dime and hand you the change.
Thirdly, he omits the reason that government uses them: they can carry
more stuff. Many SUVs, like the 80s Bronco and the 90s Tahoe, were
direct conversions of the short bed trucks of the respective lines. They
could carry as much as the trucks could. Lately, though, many of the
SUVs are picking up car-like qualities: four wheel disc brakes,
independent rear suspension, and lower ground clearance. Eventually, I
think the goal is to have a vehicle that handles like a car, yet looks
like an SUV.
He also totally omits the original, and still valid, purpose of these
vehicles: multiple-passenger and interior-cargo-space-providing off-road
vehicles. When you've got four hunters packing precision-scoped rifles
and there's 200 yards of mud in between point A and B, there's nothing
better than a heavy SUV with positraction differentials and 4x4-low.
The point of the article should have not been that SUVs should be
removed from production, rather, it should have been that people need to
be less image-conscious and learn how to flippin' drive. I personally
think my SUV is very safe...it would take an impact from another SUV
very well in the side (I banged my hand up on the steel bar fixing the
power lock in a door of the car the other day...so I know it's there)
and I don't drive like an idiot. Slow in the rain, even slower on the
ice, and easy on the turns, brakes, and acceleration.
Learn to drive and pick the car you need. That being said, I NEED to get
my Olds running, because I have a need for massive torque and horsepower
that is entirely unhealthy.
-John.
