Talk:SUV/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  CAFE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Road Crash Safety 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SUV Benefits for Small Busines owners 

message: 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)
thread_title:  When was the term SUV coined? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stability control 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changing Keith Bradsher's book 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Your last point is a fair one, but does not negate valid criticism of SUVs--Fergie 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  biased article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major Edit 2/14/2006 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added ((confusing)) template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quality of article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: 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 <B>LIBERTY</b> BELL 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remove added clutter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sport or Sports? 

message: Firstly, this article seems to claim that vehicles such as the Land Rover Defender are SUVs - 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  SUV, 4WD? Range Rover? Safety? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fuel Economy table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SUV market share/sales figures? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is bogus info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The critisism section should be moved to its own page 

message: Spliting SUV into SUV and SUV_Criticism for objectivity. Will add link within SUV page.
Mymazdatribute 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No oposition or discussion noted 

message: Mymazdatribute 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed uncited ambiguous info 

message: 68.224.14.81 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted vandalism 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Popularity diminished? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History/Origins section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MoT class VII 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup to remove slanted talk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image of crossover automobile 

message: The following contribution is moved from the article because it is an essay representing original research without providing any recognized sources. Although it should be deleted per Wikipedia:No original research guidelines, it could be further discussed on this talk page. There does not seem to be any support for the origin of the model names by the automakers. For example, when GM brought out a short-wheelbase version of their truck line in 1969, its name Blazer did not need to originate from fire, but from the idiom blaze a trail, which means to do something that no-one has done before... See: Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms, Cambridge University Press, 2003, retrieved on August 12, 2008. "Both models [Blazer and Longhorn] represented marketing firsts... "(See: Chevrolet Pickup Color History, by Tom Brownell, Mike Mueller,  MotorBooks/MBI, page 85). In the case of the Dodge, Tony Hanson reports that Chrysler started Ramcharger production in 1974 to counter the Chevy Blazer. At one point, he states, they considered the name Rhino See: ORC staff, "A Brief and Incomplete History of the Dodge Ramcharger" November 1, 2005, retrieved on August 12, 2008. The advertising people must have killed that idea because the name could be from Rhinoplasty, or the large-sized Rhinoceros that can charge at speeds up to 35 miles an hour. I guess they were wise to switch the name from "Rhino" to a "Ram-charger"! It is also far more likely that automakers and journalists noticed that an increasing number of these utility vehicles were purchased not just for work and professional use by organizations, but by individual consumers for recreational use, thus the "sport" moniker. Therefore, claiming that the naming of these originally crude off-road models had a connection with sports car nameplates in an entirely different vehicle market segment is pure speculation. Furthermore, the Origins section of this article has a referenced discussion on the first use of the "sport utility vehicle" term. — CZmarlin (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The big three automakers had 2-door SUVs (sport utility coupes) selling in big numbers after several years of being on the market.  These vehicles used names that were similar to the names of their flagship sports cars of the time, in which the term was reminiscent of how sports car names were being applied to modified utility vehicles; Dodge Ramcharger took its name from the Dodge Charger and the SUV's name was also the namesake for Dodge's Ram truck; The Ford Bronco was another name for horses like the Ford Mustang was; and the full size Chevrolet Blazer had its name taken from the Pontiac Firebird (an exception to the marque conventions) since "blaze" was another term referring to fire.  All three of these companies also produced compact versions of these sport utility coupes with similar names such as Ford Bronco II and the Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, however Dodge's Raider was an exception to that naming convention since that name was different from the similar Ramcharger.  And finally, the term "sport utility vehicle" was coined as a result of this marketing albeit the concept itself was fairly old by the time, eventually, all three of these sport utility coupes which contributed to the term coinage would be discontinued by the time the SUV has spiked in popularity by urban buyers.
One more item that I forgot to mention: the use of the Ramcharger name does not originate from the Dodge Charger automobile because Dodge was using this moniker for its drag racing team and the powerful Hemi engine starting in 1961 See: Extreme Muscle Cars By William G Holder, Bill Holder, Dick Brannan, Phil Kunz, Arnie Beswick, Hayden Proffitt,  Krause Publications, pages 38-55. — CZmarlin (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I am 99% certain that the first ever SUV was the GAZ-61 made in the USSR in 1938, if no one objects then I will add this info in the text during the next couple of weeks Fourtimesfour (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that'll put the кот among the голубей who believe the Jeep was first.  Can you find reference(s) for the claim? Until then I'll stick with my 99% certainty that the first-ever SUV was the 1 hp Equus caballus. — Writegeist (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was built in 1938, so it is the first since it was built before any other SUV. Something that is built before any other is the first.Fourtimesfour (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarification, I was finding it hard to understand how something that is built before any other could be the first. I think I've got it now: the car made in the USSR in 1938 is the first SUV; cars like the Chevrolet and Dodge Suburbans, for example, which were made before 1938, are the pre-firsts, or anteantecedants; and my tip, Equus Caballus, is the anteanteantecedant, am I right? — Writegeist (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be a SUV the vehicles must be four wheel drive, be completely enclosed in a metal casing, have cross country capabilities and there must be significant height between the wheels and the frame of the car. Do the cars that you name that were built before the GAZ-61 fulfill all these requirements? And if they do then they are the first SUV which ever was built first and fulfills all those requirements is the first SUV. Fourtimesfour (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First ever SUV was the Gaz-61 

message: From entry/article section "Popularity", 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Full-sized SUVs often offered... ...while minivans generally had poor road handling." This makes no sense, yet it seems to be a popular misconception. What do people mean when they make the assertion that SUV's "handle" better than minivans? For the purpose of simplification/generalization, SUV's are based on utility trucks and minivans are based on cars. Since when did utility trucks handle better than cars? By way of illustration here is a road-handling comparison of a popular minivan vs a popular SUV. "600-ft slalom: 2008 Honda Odyssey = 60.2 mph vs. 2008 Toyota Sequoia = 56.3 mph."http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=125009/pageId=136383 
Do people mean that SUV's don't "bottom out" on rocky trails or really bad pot-holes? Do they mean that minivans can't plow through really deep snow as a high ground clearance 4X4 can? These things aren't "handling". Fortunately Wikipedia has an entry defining "handling", (unsuitably entitled "car handling" because the definition is independent of the type of road vehicle.) --truthdowser (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you define SUVs as based on light trucks you may be right. The rest of the world does not define SUVs that way, and there are many examples that handle better than many cars, eg BMW X5, and even better the Ford Territory. Wiki is not an american publication, it is worldwide. Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, but in that context you'd have to look at EU minivans, like the VW Touran and Renault Megane, which corner way better than pretty much all SUV out there, excluding the high-end BMW and Audi vehicles. Anyway, the article is looking at the origin of their success, and in the EU, minivans are only a recent discovery. Having driven US model SUVs and minivans, I think they both have awful handling from a EU driver's perspective, as do many US cars like the Foar Taurus. But wikipedia isn't about opinions of the authors, it's about defensive historical facts. If someone can show that SUVs were marketed as having better handling, then the statement goes in, if not, it should be pulled. What I do think was used to sell SUVs was not their handling but safety, and also "Adventure". You may do nothing more than pick up the kids and go to the mall, but you know that if you wanted to go to mongolia for a month your vehicle could do it. In the parts of the US where heavy snow is a regular event, having AWD is also very useful, so SUVs were targeted not just as people that live in the back country, but city-folk who visited it in winter, skiiers and snowboards in particular. They were an aspirational vehicle. Whereas there is very little aspirational about a Dodge Grand Caravan, even if you have the Sport edition with the spoiler (I know, I owned one)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you driven a BMW X5 or a Ford Territory? The latter is consistently marketed with the phrase car-like handling. Not minivan-like handling. eg http://www.caradvice.com.au/24006/2009-ford-territory-mkii-at-mims/ That's the boss talking. Greglocock (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  first, that's US car handling, not EU cars...I've driven lots of US ford cars and only the ford focus has car-like handling as far as I'm concerned; the ford contour was half way there, but softened in way to make it corner worse. Anyway, the article says SUVs "were" sold on handling over minivans -that's the fact that is in dispute. The fact that today they sell on handling is because some models do corner well, and because many people have realised the earlier versions (Ford Explorer, for example), didn't. Do we have any data that says the earlier SUVs were sold on handling, rather than perceived saftey and "adventure"? SteveLoughran (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I say again, have you driven a BMW X5 or a Ford Territory (neither are American)? Simple question. Anyway entirely moot IMO since the current version of this article doesn't even bring this issue up - albeit the lede is entirely US centric. Greglocock (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you say is true about the BMW X5 and Ford Territory, then they are merely exceptions. True, U.S. centric focus should be avoided, however I believe the term SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle) is of North American (if not Detroit) origin, and even in the US there were SUV's before they were called SUV's, (the term only came into popular use in the 1980's)... I don't believe the Jeep Grand Cherokee when AMC (American Motors Corp) created it was known as a SUV. But we are going off topic. ..the question remains: Have "buyers (been) drawn to (SUV's because) minivans generally had poor road handling." If it is a perception, it is factually wrong. If the perception drove sales it's the first time I've heard of it, and I'm a 51 year old "gear head" (admittedly US citizen) but spent many years in the UK and some time on the continent.  Truthdowser (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't say SUVs handle better than minivans, all it says is that minivans were perceived as having poor handling. Easy question to answer with a  tag isn't it? That would end this discussion, which somehow I get the impression is not your aim. Greglocock (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just where did the popular misperception that SUV's somehow "handle" better than Minivans come from?! 

message: I can understand the "utility" part of the term, but why "sport"? Markb (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "Sport" utility? 

message: 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.
Classification of a vehicle as a SUV is generally not based on seats. An SUV can have as low as a 5 member seating...A vehicle with 20 seats can be called a MUV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvblogger (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty or more seats? 

message: In some parts of the US, can one get a tax deduction for an SUV?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax deduction 

message: Only very heavely modified SUV's are used in motorsport and expeditions, as standard SUV's are not capable of that kind of trips.
In those settings like safaris etc older Toyota Landcruisers and Land Rover Defenders etc are typically used, cars which are not SUV's but off-road utility vehicles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in recreation and motorsport???? 

message: In Europe, as can clearly be seen from the Dutch and French SUV wikipedia pages a clear distinction is made between SUV and 4x4 or off-roader.
Where 4x4 or off-roader is primarly designed for off-road use. (examples are the older Toyota Landcruiser and Nissan Patrol (before they turned SUV), 
the Land Rover Defender or Lada Niva) and SUV's are four wheel drive vehicles with limited terrain capability, mostly for road use. (VW Touareg or Tiguan, Toyota RAV4 or CRV,
... basically all recent 4x4 vehicles with the exception of the Defender, Niva or Iveco Massif). 
SUV in Europe at least is a term coined for selling the new style 4x4 "luxury" vehicles, as a break from the
older not so luxurious utility 4x4 vehicles. So why is the distinction not made in this article?
Addition: The German SUV article makes the same difference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.252.47 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SUV as a descriptive category has simply never been adopted in Britain and Ireland, and elsewhere in Europe the American term has only been adopted for marketing reasons. The huge American truck based SUVs are extremely rare in Europe, and most large vehicles of this type really are off-roaders. Non-4x4 vehicles with SUV styling are much smaller than their American counterparts. European manufacturers who build SUV type vehicles are largely focussed on the US export market. --Ef80 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Please do not modify quoted definition as per the reference (see here). Genuine "classic" SUVs include the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) that were designed for off-road and all-weather use. The classic SUVs were designed to be 4WD. Consumers liked what was previously called a station wagon design, but some wanted only 2WD. Newer examples, such as the Volkswagen Group PL71 platform are attempts to further segment the growing market for a more "utility" oriented vehicle, and thus capturing additional sales for the automakers through effective positioning and advertising. CZmarlin (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

text: The early Chevy Suburbans were was never classified as an SUV because the term itself was not even known. The fact is that the SUV term did not exist until the until the late 1980s. As per the reputable source (not a sales brochure) that is quoted in the History section of this article: "according to Robert Casey, the transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term." Therefore, I do not think it is possible to now modify the modern use of the SUV term because some historical models (such as the Suburban) originally came with two-wheel-drive! On the other hand, you seem to be proposing an even more confusing description - "soft roaders" - that I have not seen used in any vehicle classification system. Moreover, there is no official automotive industry definition for an SUV. Furthermore, regulatory bodies and lisencing agencies also do not have a uniform definitions for these vehicles. Some jurisdictions register them as trucks, others as passenger cars, while some have a "multi-purpose" classification. Therefore, the article should explain the history of the term, and that it is indeed used (even abused) by marketers to promote their vehicles. In fact, the SUV term has been tainted in many consumer's minds by vehicles that were big and gas-guzzlers, and that is why the term "crossover" is far more prevalent today - even to the new car-based nameplates that were previously truck-based SUVs. CZmarlin (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the distinction not made between 4x4 off-roader and SUV? 

message: So now we have a slang term for things that aren't SUVs but look like them. At what point does this entire article just turn into a ragbag of random car related factoids? Oh I'm sorry it already has. Greglocock (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft Roaders 

message: Hi all,
I have added 5 pictures that might be helpful. Please look at them and be satisfied. I however removed the little subtags but I did not remove the main tags. I hope you like them all.
Regards
Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  added 5 pictures 

message: hie guys i have been wondering , hopefully someone out here knows exactly how this works. please when does a car consume more fuel , in overdrive or when u in standard driving , lets say at 2.5 rpm in overdrive against the same rpm in standard driving over certain kilometers (joseph muwi ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.55.166 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  overdrive against standard drive  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sport utility vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310182737/http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Summer05-SUVs/history.html to http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Summer05-SUVs/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090710132951/http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/jobs-m27.shtml to http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/jobs-m27.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090507213457/http://www.financialpost.com:80/related/links/story.html?id=562830 to http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=562830
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106180226/http://blog.autopeople.com.au/2008/11/tariff-reduction-will-soften-price-rises/ to http://blog.autopeople.com.au/2008/11/tariff-reduction-will-soften-price-rises/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100727114247/http://www.carsdirect.com:80/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs to http://www.carsdirect.com/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706111235/https://motoring.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/racv/internet/auxiliary/news+_+events/media+releases/rising+costs+hit+motorists_+hip+pockets to https://motoring.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/racv/internet/auxiliary/news+_+events/media+releases/rising+costs+hit+motorists_+hip+pockets
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090725141322/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25818777-5012748,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25818777-5012748,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114115049/http://autot.oikotie.fi/koeajo/kia-sportage-on-muhkea-katumaasturi/19413 to http://autot.oikotie.fi/koeajo/kia-sportage-on-muhkea-katumaasturi/19413
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: SUVs are vans because take the Ford Explorer (1995-2001) and the Ford Econoline (1992-1994) they share the same taillights and the taillights on the Econoline vans are also used on the Ford Excursion. Mini Vans/Cargo Vans and SUVs are extremely I didn't go as they are family vehicles they have matches at their rear end, and they share the same carrying space as well as the "V" in the term SUV also stands for Van. for this reason sports utility vehicles are also called sports utility vans. please do not change the added in terms of the sports utility van statement because SUVs are vans has the Ford Explorer Ford Excursion and Ford Econoline share the same body parts and components.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.129.76 (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, SUVs are not vans and the V in SUV stands for vehicle, not van. Please provide a reference from a reliable source that states they are vans or it stays out. Bahooka (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUVs are Vans 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sport utility vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080928062810/http://content.usatoday.com:80/community/tags/topic.aspx?req=tag&tag=Escape%20SUV to http://content.usatoday.com/community/tags/topic.aspx?req=tag&tag=Escape%20SUV
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What exactly does "4x4" actually mean ?  If it mean "four-wheel-drive",  well would that be
4WD ( which is used in some places ),   how does that get to be "4x4" ?   Eregli bob (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It originated in military use as a way of categorizing off road capable trucks. For example a 6 wheel truck might be available in 2, 4 and 6 wheel drive versions for different environments, and these would be categorized as 2x6, 4x6 and 6x6 respectively. The concept is more widely used outside North America. --Ef80 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly does "4x4" actually mean ? 

message: I think the interminable lists of generic exaamples could usefully be removed. It should be handled by a cat. Greglocock (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Greglocock, great observation! Yes, the lists are too long and serve no purpose within the text. Moreover, the associated "example" images for these categories also need to be eliminated. New vehicle designs are constantly being introduced and there is no point in keep changing them in this article. Their inclusions does not add meaning for the reader over the years. Pictures of significant historic SUVs are worth keeping to provide context for the subject, but contemporary models are not needed. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of examples 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sport utility vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=562830
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bajainsider.com/driving-baja/baja_suvs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727114247/http://www.carsdirect.com/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs to http://www.carsdirect.com/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C25818777-5012748%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: for what it's worth…the GAZ-61, GAZ-M20, & Pobeda M-72 (aka GAZ M-72) were all 4WD passenger cars, not TBSWs (truck-based station wagons) like the Chevy Suburban, IH Travelall, Dodge/Fargo Town Wagon & Power Wagon, Powell Station Wagon and Ford Marmon-Herrington Ranger...thus certainly not SUVs...  BTW, the 3 links below are not from me...they just appear when I post and I can't get rid of them...grrrrr   2601:18E:C501:E4F3:7ACA:39FF:FEB2:EFCB (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "3 links below" that 2601:18E:C501:E4F3:7ACA:39FF:FEB2:EFCB refers to are probably the reference list automatically added because someone included <ref> tags in an early section. They're visible in this version, but should have disappeared now because I moved them in to the appropriate section with this edit. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  4WD passenger cars are not SUVs 

message: The article mentions Lada Niva as the first unibody construction. First generation Range Rover appeared 1970, way earlier. It was hatchback two - door car. It also possessed true all terrain capabilities like Niva. As a whole being mostly from US point of view, the article largely ignores Range Rover even though it was in the same class as Jeep Wagoneer for example.Korina (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Range Rover had, and so far as I know, still has, a chassis. So it isn't unibody. Caertainly its general off road performance rivalled that of anything else, although comparisons are a little tricky, and tires are crucial.Greglocock (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unibody construction