Talk:Sport utility vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] CAFE

The wikilink for CAFE may be bad for search function, cause of cafe. anobo 07:58 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Fixed: linked to (presently stubby) Corporate Average Fuel Economy instead.
I think we need to find a better photo, though. The vehicle pictured (a Subaru Forester) is barely even an SUV; it's a wholly car-based vehicle without even significantly higher ground clearance, created by Subaru when they found that their vehicles, even though just as off-road capable as most SUVs, didn't have an upright enough stance to appeal to many people in that market. Thus the Forester is only a quasi-SUV. We really need to show some more typical car. —Morven 09:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 4WD != SUV

It has always irked me when SUVs are referred to as Four-wheel-drives; I'm glad this article points out that not all SUVs have four-wheel drive. Isn't it also true that not all four-wheel drive motor vehicles are SUVs? I'm not sure, or I'd amend the paragraph; perhaps someone who knows can make mention of this if it is true. Quill 03:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is true that not all four-wheel drive motor vehicles are SUVs. I have the 2001 Passat wagon with 4motion. It's a true (3 differentials) four-wheel drive that is excellent at handling the combination of hard acceleration, sharp turning, and slick black ice. It's low enough to bottom out with about 4 inches of snow. Porshe and Lamborghini also make four-wheel drive vehicles, generally powering the front only if the rear starts to slip. AlbertCahalan 21:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
There are indeed all-wheel drive cars: all Subarus, most Audis are AWD. Toyota also used to sell 4WD versions of the Camry and Corolla. -- In fact, it's very hard to tell wheter the Toyota Matrix is a 4WD car, a small SUV or a mini-minivan. (somebody who didn't sign)
Question: is a Land Rover or other real off-road 4x4 (Lada Niva, etc...) an SUV? I question the use of the word 'Sport' from 'Sport Utility Vehicle' in these cases.
Also this article is entirely American based - and this should be mentioned in the first sentence.
Spiggot 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Land Rovers are considered to be SUVs, as are Jeeps. The actual off-road ability of an SUV isn't usually considered when determining what is an SUV. --SodiumBenzoate 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road Crash Safety

In fact, SUV drivers are far more likely to perish in an accident with a smaller car than is the driver of the other vehicle. One reason for this is that SUVs are more than 16 times more likely to "roll over" in an accident, and this has become more publicized in recent years. Is there any definite proof of the above statements that can be cited? Also, there are many cases (dispute this statement too please ^.^) where a car and an SUV collided, and the higher clearance of the SUV, heavier weight and front bull-bars at times have caused much more damage to the OTHER car than if it were a car-on-car crash. I also think that there is an attitude of bias (both ways) in the language and content. elynnia

No, that's completely wrong. I removed that section. And there are waaay too many cases to count (the vast majority) where the SUVs' heavier weight, higher ground clearance, and stiffer construction severely harmed the car-passengers. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The latest data I've seen (though I can't remember where) said that while the bigger weight of SUVs does increase safety, this effect is neutralized by the rollover tendency, thus making them no safer than a midsized sedan. In fact, a midsized sedan may be the safest class of vehicle given they have more weight than a compact while being more nimble than an SUV when it comes to accident avoidance.71.194.153.46 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SUV Benefits for Small Busines owners

Am I the only one who thinks this section sounds incredibly biased? Aside from the fact it sounds less like an encycolpedia and more like an justification/apology, claims like

Compared to a Mini Van a SUV is more fuel economic thus better for their wallet and the environment
Compared to Mini Vans these SUV's can be parked more easily in (European) innercity area's.
SUV's are considered safer than Mini Vans.

need to be backed up. Then there's the ending

Popular and economic SUV's for Small Business Owners are the Jeep Cherokee, Land Rover, Nissan Pathfinder and Kia Sorento.
You can't see on the outside of SUV's if the owner is using it to make a living or bought it for other reasons, so don't judge SUV's and their owners.

Even if one were to keep the section intact, at the very least shouldn't it be presented at the very end, after the criticisms; this section should work as (if anything) a rebuttal and not as an opener. Why is it even in under the SUV design characteristics heading anyways?

I'll hold off making any edits for the time being to get other people's opinions on the matter.(Rubenfh 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

The whole paragraph needs to go - I removed it. One more point, SUVs and minivans have comparable mileage. Compare the Honda Pilot and Odyssey for example. Rhobite 03:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure about "Trivia" section

not sure it tells us anything we care about ... what do others think? —Morven 23:16, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

No complaints, so it's gone. Here is what was there:
== Trivia ==
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that, when polled, 29 percent of Americans say
that Jesus would drive an SUV, while 33 percent say that he would not.

—Morven 01:43, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Since he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, he'd probably drive a Yugo or a Citroen 2CV.

—Gerfriedc Aug 10th 2005

or what about a poetntially unsafe vehicle for the occupants like the logan ;-)

Basing this on our local carpenters/joiners, I think he'd probably drive either a double-cab pickup or a van.

[edit] Soft-roaders

Ashley Pomeroy added:

In the UK, SUVs are often referred to in derogatory terms as Soft-Roaders.

Not quite true, I believe; the term applies only to the 'never actually taken off road' segment of the market. Things like the Porsche Cayenne, BMW suvs, Toyota RAV4, etc. The US term 'SUV' encompasses all those, but also all Land Rover models, Toyota LandCruiser, and other models whose true off road capability is undisputed (whether or not most buyers actually need it). At least, that's the way that the British car magazines I read use the term. 23:48, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-SUV activist suffers martyrdom

SUV-crazy U.S. judge sentences medical student for crimes against Hummers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/s...reut/index.html

Is there a Greenpace commando that could free him?


I hope not - what gives him the right to dictate to others what car they buy? I somehow think this isn't an "SUV-crazy" judge but one who regards criminal damage with the distaste it deserves (as I would hope any judge would).

Buy what you want. But I have the right to smash your SUV's windows, if you do not respect my rights.

[edit] merger

who calls for merging Four wheel drive with Sport utility vehicle as the SUV article states that all SUVs are, without exeption four-wheel-drives. So aren't this just two articles about the same thing? I think geographical separation is the only difference and the two articles should be merged, for a wider prespective. mexaguil 219.88.206.183 12:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not I. For one, the "four wheel drive" article is linked to by many non-SUV-related artlcles. For another, not all SUVs have four wheel drive, and I fail to see where that statement is made in either article. --SFoskett 13:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
More importantly, many 4 wheel drive vehicles are not SUVs. It is normal for Scots and Scandinavians to drive compact and subcompact models that are 4WD. Something to do with better performance on snow coupled with expensive fuel.--Fergie 12:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When was the term SUV coined?

Is SUV a retronym since the term lasted for a couple decades although the type of vehicle itself has been around for several decades? --SuperDude 01:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know, but I'd love to know the origin of the term.

[edit] Point of view

The line "The popular stereotype of a large SUV sporting "Support Our Troops" and "W" (George W. Bush) bumper stickers is a favorite object of contempt for anti-war, pro-environment liberals" seems somewhat biased and seems to me to be conforming to the right-wing, condescending view of liberals. Please venture your opinions on this matter, and if I am convinced, I will be happy to remove the POV tag. Andrew Graham 05/07/05 09.12 GMT

Also it is specific to the USA and meaningless to the rest of us--Fergie 12:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that that sentence was just over the top. I've removed it 'cause I can't imagine anyone seriously supporting its inclusion. --SFoskett July 5, 2005 14:38 (UTC)

[edit] Stability control

Consumer's Union talks about SUV stability control: http://www.consumersunion.org/products/saseny500.htm

Trying to find some other cites that talk explicitly about stability control etc. in SUVs specifically. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also this NHTSA preliminary report on stability control shows reduction of single-vehicle incidents by 35 percent in passenger cars and by 67 percent in SUVs: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790.html —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Keith Bradsher's book

High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the Suv to High and Mighty: SUVs--The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way

because the latter book is more often publicized and more in-depth. Last Avenue 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The proper citation for the claim of doubled pedestrian risk is Accident Analysis and Prevention Volume 36 page 295 I will add it shortly if someone else does't. --208.41.98.142 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Add it, and the author/editor, too. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Is there any reason why there is a criticism section, when there is blatent criticism throughout the article? I understand that it is a touch subject, but why is EVERY section littered with silly nicknames and snide remarks? This is NOT helping people understand what an SUV is. I plan on revising the entire article to INCLUDE the criticism but ONLY in the proper place. As it is written now, it needs to be cleaned up DESPERATELY. PabloMartinez 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


The marketing practices is absolutly horrible!!! Talking about specific people's opinions has nothing to do with the subject and if even nessesary should be placed on a comments section. The same argument can be made for cars as they race around curvy roads and full throttle. This section needs to be more informative/balanced or removed.

Agreed. Comparisons of pedestrians being hit by SUVs and pedestrians being hit by smaller cars yield obvious conclusions and are purely cited to provide fuel to the chest-beating "I hate big cars" brigade. Why not compare the relative risks of being hit by SUVs and vans? Or SUVs and mini-buses? Or SUVs and regular buses? SimonUK 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biased article

This article is extremely biased against SUV's. Attempts to reflect more neutral or even positive sides of SUV's have been deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.188.213 (talk • contribs) .

Can you point out any specific examples of deleted content you feel should be added back? -SCEhardT 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree the article is biased against SUVs. I've never quite understood the particular hostility that SUVs come under; in the UK at least, you have to pay through the nose for poor fuel economy. Considering the patterns of fuel duty seem to bear little relation to pollution reduction objectives and far more to government revenue generation, it could be argued that SUV owners are actually performing a social service by contributing so much to the communal pot. Personally, and this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't own nor intend to own an SUV, I think it's just a form of modern class-envy. Just as SUVs have a status symbol aspect to them, so they are attacked as all status symbols are. Still, that's neither here nor there, more important is the fact that this article equivocates on so many points. Most of the article is spent complaining about the risks to other road users but any car is a risk to another road user. Everyone's ideal would be to have no other cars present. People buy cars to be safer for themselves, not for others. It could be argued that SUVs are more of a problem than the average car but on this point the article flip-flops around. At one point it says that SUVs are falsely perceived as safe by the drivers of them (the statistics on accidents need far tighter referencing) and then at another point it says a collision with an SUV is more dangerous for the other smaller car. So it is possible for an SUV to be correctly regarded as safe. If everyone's got an SUV, you're at a disadvantage to not have one.

Other signs of bias include comments like "There are a number of places where an SUV can be of benefit to its occupants. Areas such as the Australian Outback, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia" Implicit in this is that SUVs are not of benefit elsewhere. A more NPOV comment might be the "all-terrain aspects of SUVs make them particularly suited for areas such as..."

Criticism is pervasive in this article, as mentioned by Pablomartinez. Even the most tenuous comments are given space, e.g. "Many critics see these features as simply unnecessary for normal commuting. Other points of criticism: the gadgets may become troublesome (adding to repair bills), they add to the overall weight of the vehicle, the luxury features are simply toys for the rich and provide additional opportunities for the owner to flaunt himself/herself, and – in some instances – serve as distractions to drivers and causing an accident risk." Point out to me a modern car designed for citizen use that doesn't contain features that are in excess of what is required for commuting or convey some aspect of status. All cars contain luxuries, even in their basic styling.

Basically this article needs paring down dramatically. Relegate criticisms to the criticism section and then offer rebuttals on the basis that most of the complaints are simply against private car ownership in general. Panlane --129.11.76.229 09:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It is true that many SUVs only give 25 or so miles per gallon, but then so do many very large engine saloon cars. Another criticism of SUVs is that they "add to congestion" because they are bigger than other cars, and therefore should be "banned". Presumably then all busses, lorries and vans should be banned as well, because they're the same size, or larger than an SUV. It is also true that the footprint (amount of space on the road) taken up by a typical SUV is no more, and in some cases less, than an estate car. The problem that most people have with SUVs is not safety, it's not congestion and it's not environmental concerns. It is in fact the same problem that everyone had with Jaguars in the 1970s, XR3i's in the 1980s, and BMWs in the 1990s - JEALOUSY THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD ONE. Thats the facts, deal with it. SimonUK 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your last point is a fair one, but does not negate valid criticism of SUVs--Fergie 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Lots of cars get less than 25 mpg, at least according to the EPA estimates, including cars with moderately sized engines like a V6 or a turbocharged I4. --SodiumBenzoate 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article is so biased, throughout, that it is funny. Most of it is on the lines of "My mum told me that SUVs are dangerous" Greglocock 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

129.11.76.229 and Greglocock: might I suggest that you stop moaning about the article and start editing it instead? Any reasonable edit will eventually take root even if a few partisans are intent on removing it. Fergie 10:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the paragraph out about the luxury models. I didn't see the point. You can get power seats, nav systems, etc. on any vehicle. Also the stuff in this paragraph about "...toys for the rich" and "opportunities for the owner to flaunt himself/herself" is kind of offensive. This delete also made this article a little less lopsided. It still has more criticisms than anything else but it's getting better. BDSIII 09:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Edit 2/14/2006

This article was ridiculous and needed a complete overhaul. I rearranged and removed the petty comments. In no way is this article done, but I believe the content has been made more clear and less garbled. Feel free to edit and wikify. I will vigilantly remove any bias. --PabloMartinez 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)]] 14:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I kept most of the information changed, but re-instated the layout of the article, albeit moving things around. Having two sections, 'about SUVs', and 'Criticisms', and no intro paragraph is too narrow and deep of a layout. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am making an attempt to separate the criticism and the actual information from the article. Let's try and keep them separate. --[[User:PabloMartinez|PabloMartinez 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)]] 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested removal of "Hybrid" discussion advertisement

Discussing Hybrid Gas-Electric vehicles does not really belong in this article. Especially references to specific vehicles, which sounds like advertisement. It is perhaps only relevent in terms of Fuel economy. Perhaps one when noting the poor gas millage of SUV's compared to other passenger vehicles, the "hybrid" gas milage could be mentioned. "While the average fuel economy of SUV's is less than 20 mpg, some gas-electric hybrids can get 30 mpg".

The pages for Truck, Van, Minivan, Car, and Bus should be referenced. There is little to no reference to hybrid gas-electric in these pages. It really is not part of the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GodWasAnAlien (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Added ((confusing)) template

The article still needs some organization. Especially from the "Criticism" heading, and below. I think there is a lot of good information there, but its too disorganized to be of much use. Help is appreciated! --PabloMartinez 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of article

At present, this is a poor collection of trivia, "common knowledge", guesswork and hearsay rather than a proper encyclopaedia article. Just an observation from someone randomly reading articles (my editing interests are elsewhere). zoney ♣ talk 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. Most of this article belongs in the category of "green politics". Such a link from this page would be appropriate but diluting useful information about vehicles with this thinly-disguised political diatribe is very annoying. This sort of undisciplined off-topic moralizing is becoming commonplace on Wikipedia and could ruin it for everyone. --Kven 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "For example the Hummer H2 is derived from the HMMWV, originally developed for the US Armed Forces." The H2 is derived from the GMC Yukon platform, not the HMMWV, and has nothing to do with the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.159.47 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

Just some notes about Erroneous information this article gives - Firstly, in the "SUVs in remote areas" section - You rarely see an SUV Used outside of the city - More commonly used outside the citys are either 4WD Utes(Such as a Toyota Hilux), or proper FWDs - Such as the Holden Jackaroo, the older Model Land Cruisers, Nissan Patrols(Mostly 2002/3 models backwards), and the Mitsubishi Pajero. The Average SUV would propably not Survive the Beating a Vehicle takes in the Australian Outback, unless one Treated it rather Gingerly.

Secondly, the claim "In Australia, the automotive industry and press have recently adopted the term SUV in place of four wheel drive in the description of vehicles and market segments." This Is unfortunately not true - In the Australian Market, Press, and To consumers, an SUV and a 4WD are still two Very distinct Vehicles - For example, A Toyota Rav-4 or a Honda CR-V Would be classed as an "SUV", But a Toyota Land Cruiser or a Holden Jackaroo are Still Called "Four Wheel Drives"

Lastly, just a personal observation - Down here, SUV's definitely have a Place - but that Place is in the City and the suburbs, or maybe doing very light offroad driving. They are not seen as a serious offroad Vehicle.

Also, I might note that this article is written from a very America-centric perspective, but Really, that's nothing to worry about - 90% of Wikipedia Is written the exact same way, as a vast majority of Wiki editors are American. Still, Just thought I'd say.

Yes, but your contribution is extremely Autralia-centric which is even more irrelevant to the rest of us--Fergie 10:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the fact that attempting to correct information that smacks of assumption to a more correct form strikes you as Irrelevant.

As I'm unsure how to correct the article in a manner appropriate for wikipedia, while still presenting the correct information, Can I get a hand on this from someone with more on the topic than a snide comment? Churba 14:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Churba. I am also from Australia and I can tell you that everything stated in the article is correct. The FCAI adopted the use of the word SUV several years ago, to categorize ALL vehicles ranging from Honda CR-Vs to Toyota LandCruisers. There are four categories: Compact, Medium, Large, and Luxury. To put it another way: ANY vehicle with increased ground clearance and a wagon-type body (i.e. no boot), is an SUV. Whether or not it has any 4WD-capability is irrelevant. This is the main reason why the term SUV was introduced in Australia - because there are now quite a few vehicles without 4WD - such as the Ford Territory (RWD version), and Hyundai Tucson (2.0L/City/FWD), which are otherwise identical to their 4WD equivalents. Toyota will also be releasing a FWD/2WD Toyota Kluger next year. I hope this clears up any confusion. Davez621 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers mate - I didn't know. I thought that there were still two separate categories, but that was my mistake. Churba 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV check

The criticism section of this article is way out of control, reads like a leftie blog. Imagine if Global Warming contained this large a criticism section the left leaners would throw a hissy fit--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes. Either make a separate article to demonize SUV or put such material in articles about the points being made. For example, the article on Automobile safety is the right place for rollover, bumper height, etc. The large section on fuel economy should move to Fuel economy in automobiles and be made even larger so it can discuss other classes of vehicle, and why fuel is evil. The SUV article should say something like, the larger a vehicle the more fuel it generally burns, though some SUV burn more fuel than some other vehicles of similar size. I assume this is true. (The present article hints at such a doctrine, which should either be made explicit or deleted.) Then a link to the fuel economy article. Jim.henderson 12:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove added clutter

The new sections: "Top 20 most expensive SUVs", "Current models" only adds trivia and clutter and should be removed. Why not have "20 cheapest SUVs", "20 Tallest SUVs" or "Past models"? GodWasAnAlien 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. As no one's replied to defend the list in one month, I'm deleting it, and the gallery of needless photos. Wiki isn't a catalog. ThuranX 14:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sport or Sports?

People mostly say that SUV in full means Sports Utility Vehicle, not Sport Utility Vehicle. Which is correct? DifiCa 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever heard "Sport Utility Vehicle" and I believe that is the term used in marketing, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.111.37 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SUV, 4WD? Range Rover? Safety?

Firstly, this article seems to claim that vehicles such as the Land Rover Defender are SUV's - which they aren't, I will edit this if others agree it needs editing. Also, there is no reference at all to the Range Rover, which is absurd, when it is commonly known as the first SUV. Lastly, the 'Popularity' section includes this : 'a crash test conducted by the British television programme "Top Gear" demonstrated that a 4x4 (in this case a Land Rover Discovery) fared much worse than a multi-purpose vehicle (a Renault Espace), when the two vehicles were crashed into each other', this was, in fact on 'Fifth Gear', but is completely irrelevant as the Discovery used was a mid 1990's model, when the Espace was brand new. Again, I will happily edit these, but only if others agree that they should be changed.--Mr. Bridger 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. ALL Land Rovers are SUVs - they are a company that only produce SUVs. Why don't you consider the Defender an SUV? Let me put it another way - if the Defender is not an SUV, then what is it? A sedan? No. A station wagon? No. A pickup truck? No. What then? You call it a '4x4' but this is just another word to describe the same type of vehicle. i.e. 4x4s and SUVs can't co-exist. ALL 4x4s are SUVs.Davez621 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not all 4x4 vehicles are SUVs. For example pickup trucks are also produced with 4-wheel drive. Also, i don't think anyone would call a Subaru Impreza or the station wagon version of it (i think it was the Legacy, not sure though) an SUV. And, the Defender is definetly an SUV, it is a vehicle that is designed to work off-road and has all the common design subjects that an SUV should contain to be classified as one. So, in case it isn't an SUV, what is it then? --DifiCa 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As DifiCa explained, not all 4X4s are SUVs. In terms of the Defender, it is a Utility Vehicle, just like a tractor or van even. SUV stands for 'Sports Utility Vehicle', which suggests something that is not purely for utilitarian use. The Defender is, last time I looked at least, the vehicle most used by armies across the globe. It is a development of the Land Rover Series I, II and III, the Series I being purely designed as a replacement for the tractor in a war stricken Britain. Of course, the Defender has changed, but not hugely - coil sprung rather than leaf and different engines. Anybody who has been inside a Defender will know it has no luxuries. Nowadays, city folk have started to adopt the 110 and Defender as fashion statements, but not on the same scale as any other 4WD vehicle. The Defender is particularly hard to classify as there is no, or hardly any, other vehicle similar to it - the Jeep Wrangler having become a complete urban tool. The closest thing I can think of to compare to the Defender is the Pinzgauer, which is also used in armies all over the world. The Defender and Pinzgauer are, to conclude, Utility Off roaders. --Mr. Bridger 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"[The Range Rover] is commonly known as the first SUV." Whatever it may be commonly known as, this would be odd if true. The Range Rover was introduced in 1970, which is a bit late to claim to be a contender for first SUV. Even the Wiki article on the Range Rover notes: "Although it had many features not found on most other SUVs at the time, it is debatable whether or not the Range Rover was the first luxury SUV, as many people claim. Other luxury SUVs, such as the Jeep Wagoneer (1963) were produced before the Range Rover." And, one might add, if it is thought a stretch to consider the standard Wagoneer a luxury SUV, it is no stretch to consider Jeep's 1966 upscale Wagoneer, the "Super Wagoneer" or "Super Custom," one. In fact, Jeep calls the Super Wagoneer the first luxury SUV in the "Jeep Heritage" section of its website. 67.169.210.196 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-neutrality

I agree that this article states many negative things about SUVs, but I have yet to see criticism of the passenger car or any other vehicle for not being safe, due to small size, etc. This article states that the construction of an SUV can "hurt other drivers", and this is, at best, vague. I understand that "hurt other drivers" refers to the fact that an SUV is higher than other vehicles, but would a lower SUV (as are being produced now) still be more dangerous than any car on the road? Zchris87v 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, i think they would still be a bit more dangerous at least to drivers of smaller vehicles because the extra weight would still pose a danger. In case the extra weight was removed, then it would just be a car, not an SUV. Though some danger would be removed and i guess a large sedan or station wagon drivers would be about as well off in a collision with an SUV than the driver on the SUV. --DifiCa 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel Economy table

In the article it states the following weights of vehicles:

SUVs 4442 lb 1924 kg Minivans 4075 lb 1939 kg

And then later says that SUVs weigh less than minivans. obviously the data presented is confusing, both because of the mismatch of numbers and the fact that neither set of measurements equate close to the ~2.2lb/kg standard accepted by most armchair weight-beancounters... alas it's too late tonight for me to go looking but I flagged the section in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TO11MTM (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] SUV market share/sales figures?

I think someone should add a table (or at least a mention) of the market share SUVs currently hold in various countries, and perhaps historical figures (going back 10/15 years) for comparison. I expect the USA would be highest. Here in Australia SUVs currently have approx. a 17% share of the total market. This compares with just 7.6% in 1996, 10 years ago. This is a 223% increase in *share*, but sales figures actually reveal a far more dramatic increase (44k/year in 1995 versus 170k/year in 2005!) - which is a 383%, nearly 4 fold increase in sales.

I also wanted to point out that the link provided in the William Cottrell article doesn't work.Davez621 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is bogus info

When a SUV strikes a car in frontal impact, there are four driver fatalities in the car for every one driver fatality in the SUV. When SUVs strike passenger cars on the side, there are 22 passenger car driver fatalities for every SUV driver fatality. This is mainly due to differential in the mass of the vehicles and that those hit by SUV’s suffer injuries of the torso (which contains vital organs) while passengers in SUVs receive leg injuries. [5]

The link provided did not in any way relate to the statistics, thus I am removing this. There was no support for this info. 68.224.14.81 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The critisism section should be moved to its own page

The goal of wikipedia is non biased information, there is no critisizm section under any other vehicle pages, this is not helping anyone understand SUV's rather it hi lights activisim from a perticuler political perspective thus is biased info. It should be under a page of its own, not a general SUV page. I am not changing it but wish for further discussion. 68.224.14.81 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No oposition or discussion noted

Spliting SUV into SUV and SUV_Criticism for objectivity. Will add link within SUV page. Mymazdatribute 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that now there is no NPOV info on safety and fuel economy in the main article. I was here specifically looking for info on safety stats for SUVs. The criticism of SUVs article contains some safety info, in particular concerns about body design and rollover, but I think this needs to be in the main article and presented in an NPOV way. For example, "The fatality rate for SUV passengers is X, compared to Y for the average car", and also discussion of specific issues such as rollover. Similarly for fuel economy, it should be presented as "The average SUVs get X mpg, compared to Y mpg for the average passenger cars, although some SUVs such as the Acme Overlander Hybrid get Z mpg". It should be easy to present this in a factual way. Fionah 11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed uncited ambiguous info

Mymazdatribute 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted vandalism

68.224.14.81 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Note repeat vandalism by User:Perfectblue97, will ask for page protection if vandalism continues. See below 29th dec 2006: "Case in point, the writer of the above paragraph is obviously less intelligent than a common roach." 68.224.14.81 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make clear, the reversion was itself vandalism by 68.224.14.81, as is this message. My edit was legitimate, as you can see from the above link it was a simple re-wording of the generic design of an SUV.

perfectblue 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty or more seats?

I think that perhaps it is a case of vandalism too state, in the opening paragraph, that SUV's have twenty or more seats (or room for twenty passengers and drive. Unless it is a SUV-to-Limousine conversion, I think it is a physical impossibility to fit that many seating positions in a standard (non-stretched by a coach maker) wheelbase SUV.


[edit] Popularity diminished?

"In the mid 2000s, however, their popularity has waned, due to higher fuel prices, rollover accident fatalities and higher relative pollution."

I do not doubt it is true, but does anyone have a source for this and especially some numbers? --Lamme Goedzak 15:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] History/Origins section

The first paragraph in this section is incorrect. If you click on the various links to the 'first' SUVs listed, the chonology seems a little wonky. But beyond that, the Suburban was first produced in the 30's, which predates all the other makes listed. The first chevrolet suburban was basically their station wagon body on a truck frame, which fits the given description of 'the towing capacity of a truck with the passenger capacity of a car.' Unless someone can come up with a valid argument as to how the suburban wasn't the first instance of a vehicle fitting the current definition of an SUV (and I don't forget about it before doing anything about it) I'll edit this paragraph later on to make it accurate. --Faits 08:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussions about the "first" SUV are pretty much pointless. There is no such thing as an SUV. "SUV" refers to a seemingly ever-evolving marketing description, so what SUV meant yesterday, what it means today, and what it will mean tomorrow may have little in common other than referring to some sort of passenger vehcle with some sort of connection to the outdoors -- at least through advertising. Currently, all it really takes to be considered (and advertised as) an SUV is that a passenger vehicle looks vaguely truckish or like other, older vehicles considered SUVs.

However, if one uses an older definition of SUV as referring to a civilian passenger vehicle with some off-road abilities (ie, 4x4 ability) that can be used both to carry passengers and cargo and for outdoor sports such as hunting, fishing, camping, etc, then it makes sense to think of SUVs as heavy-duy 4x4 station wagons. Until the relatively recent explosion in SUV popularity and proliferation of SUV vehicles of widely differing abilities, this definition was probably the most commonly used. However, using this definition, the Chevrolet/GMC Suburban cannot be the first SUV. While the first civilan version of the Suburban (a converted panel truck) was introduced in 1935, it was not available with 4-wheel drive until 1957 (see the Suburban entry on Wiki for the details on this). On the other hand, the Willys-Overland/Jeep All Steel Station Wagon (aka "All Steel Wagon," "Willys Wagon," "Jeep Wagon," etc), while not introduced until 1946, was available with 4-wheel drive in 1949 -- eight years before the Suburban.

Finally, given that SUV is really a marketing rather than automotive term, it needs to be thought about in terms of advertising. Here, too, Jeep is an early adopter. While Willys/Jeep agressively marketed the utility and economy of the 4x4 All-Steel Wagon, it was not until the Willys/Kaiser (later just Kaiser) Jeep Wagoneer, introduced in 1963, that a vehicle was widely advertised for both its utility and "sport-ability", although here, too, the usual primary stress was on utility and safety, and only secondarily on sport or fun (primarily camping, hunting, some towing, etc), although that was a regular theme. From the beginning, the new Wagoneer was described as "a station wagon -- rugged, durable, designed for work and play" (text from Kaiser Jeep magazine ad "Evolution - Revolution: All New 'Jeep' Wagoneer" appearing in National Geographic), and the first Wagoneer sales brochure has two Wagoneers on the cover, one being driven and the other for camping. In 1968, the Wagoneer was advertised with a photo showing one with a canoe on the roof and towing pop-up tent camper driving across a field under the heading "'Jeep' Privacy. Crowded campsite? Who needs 'em? You've got 'Jeep' 4-wheel drive." (text from "'Jeep' Privacy" ad in May 1968 "Sports Afield" magazine) More directly on the use of SUV, when Jeep (now AMC Jeep) began advertising the Wagoneer's sporty sibling Cherokee in 1973 (for the 1974 model), it described the Cherokee as "youthful and sporty" and as having a "greater ground clearance and a higher load capacity than any other sports utility vehicle in its weight class." (text from 1973 AMC Jeep ad: "New Cherokee: It's a Jeep and-a-half" appearing in various magazines, including Playboy) I suspect that this is not the first use of the expression "sports utility vehicle," but it's the first I've seen. (scanned images of all referenced Jeep ads can be uploaded, if desired) 67.169.210.196 06:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguably the first SUV is the Range Rover which is the oldest vehicle which fits most of the common things that make a car an SUV, that said the term SUV only appeared in the UK recently to describe american oriented vehicles like the X5 and the Porsche monstrosity. I agree that the idea of a first SUV is pointless though.(Morcus (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] MoT class VII

I removed this statement: "Not so, see MoT class VII."

MoT class VII is a classification based solely on vehicle weight. The U.S. "light truck" category is based on function and purpose and could refer to a very small vehicle (such as, perhaps, this one: http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11498559/Daihatsu_Truck_650cc.jpg) Balfa 13:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup to remove slanted talk

I took the liberty to clean up several sections. Since there is a complete article on "Criticism of SUVs" I tried to remove as much criticism as possible and make the article more informative rather than commentative. The article previously had been littered with comments of the format "SUVs suck at this, HOWEVER, now they suck less." I'd appreciate any help or comments to help keep this article from getting messy. --PabloMartinez 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of crossover automobile

This article is about Sport Utility Vehicles. Pictures of a crossover (automobile) do not belong in this article. I have replaced the image of a Nissan Murano, which is described on its own article that it is a crossover model, with a picture of a REAL SUV that is considered the start of the modern 4-door compact SUV market. It was then replaced again, this time claiming that the the "Nissan Murano is a popular car, not the jeep cherokee" ... never mind that the contributor calls it a "car" and not an SUV and uses "popularity" as a measure. I don't know what sources they are using, but the XJ represents one of the most popular and recognized SUVs in the world. Furthermore, replacing this image of a crossover Murano does not provide this article a global view. CZmarlin (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)