2021 Suburban and Tahoe released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree. YOU shouldn’t be driving a Suburban, but I’m not sure you should even be driving at all. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about operating one of these begin than anything else on the road. This is a horrible case of, “I know what’s best for me, and I know what’s best for you too.” Vehicle selection is just another thing where I think people should mind their own business.

That is a factually incorrect statement.

Light trucks and SUVs are more likely to proportionally more likely than cars to be in fatal single-vehicle crashes, especially rollovers.

And pedestrians hit by a light truck or SUV are 2-3 times more likely to be killed than pedestrians hit by cars.

“Pedestrians have a higher risk of death or serious injury when they are struck by an SUV compared to a car,” says Jessica Cicchino, one of the authors of the IIHS report. “SUVs are higher off the ground than cars, they're stiffer, and they have blunter geometry in the front compared with the more sloping front ends of cars. These features of SUVs can lead to more injuries of all types when a pedestrian is struck by an SUV, especially injuries to the chest and head.”

https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-SUV-rise-pedestrian-deaths.html

I would be happy to mind my own business if you only drove on your own private roads. But you drive on the same roads as everyone else, and so your vehicle selection affects me and everybody else using the roads with you.

If the only thing keeping you from rolling your vehicle or mowing down pedestrians is the type of vehicle you drive, please do us all a favor and turn in your license.

This.

If the only thing keeping you from rolling over is a vehicle, then your driving is the problem. You're dangerous behind the wheel of literally anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Suburban is just a Tahoe that's stretched 20.5" longer.

It's not wider at all. None. Zero. Same vehicle, same width. Just longer. It can be anywhere from the same weight as the Tahoe, to about 300 lbs more, depending on options.

To put this in another perspective.... the 1972 Chevy Impala Sedan, a very, very popular car in it's time, and typical of the size of most sedans of the 60's and 70's, was 217.5" long.

A 2020 Tahoe is more than a FOOT shorter than a typical sedan of the 1970's.

And people managed to drive and park those cars without any trouble at all. My mother was one of them. One of many, many millions.

Perspective. Y'all need it.

Those cars were ridiculously long. And then it was 1973.

There's also the issue that a 1972 Chevrolet Impala sedan weighed 3,864 pounds, while a 2020 Chevrolet Suburban weighs 5,586 to 5,808 lbs.

And my Subaru Crosstrek weighs 3,400 lbs, despite being much smaller. What's your point?

The point is that a Suburban weighs almost 3 tons. People are driving 3-ton vehicles around with their regular drivers licenses.

And then there's the issue that the hood is taller than a 7-year-old. And the issue that the driver can't see children who are in front of the vehicle.

So, a 3-ton vehicle where drivers have a giant blind spot in front. What could go wrong?

https://www.wthr.com/article/13-investigates-millions-vehicles-have-unexpected-dangerous-front-blind-zone

Your sedan, wagon or minivan has a blind spot that could hide a toddler, which is even more dangerous, since 1) you clearly weren't even aware of it because of your own arrogance, and 2) because toddlers are more likely than 7 year olds to run in front of a car.

Drivers of SUVs or pick ups are more aware of these blind spots, unlike people like the PP who only drive deadly small cars

Did you look at the link? In an Escalade, a typical driver sitting typically can't see anything on the road in front that's closer than 10'2". In an Odyssey, it's 5'8". In a Camry, it's 3'3".

3'3" is plenty enough room to hide a child on a small bike. And you'd run right over her, because you're the type that thinks "I'm safer, I drive a SMALL car", therefore you couldn't possibly have a blind spot.

Yes, motor vehicles are dangerous. And big motor vehicles (like Suburbans) are more dangerous than small motor vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, motor vehicles are dangerous. And big motor vehicles (like Suburbans) are more dangerous than small motor vehicles.

Um, no. They pass all the same vehicle standards as every other passenger vehicle. Now drivers are another story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, motor vehicles are dangerous. And big motor vehicles (like Suburbans) are more dangerous than small motor vehicles.

Um, no. sThey pass all the same vehicle standards as every other passenger vehicle. Now drivers are another story.

There are about 40,000 dead people per year in the space between "passes standards" and "isn't dangerous."

[Anonymous]

“Maybe the other moms will include me if I get this white Tahoe and some new Lulus.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Generally it's been my experience that people who criticize others for driving "big" vehicles (as they refer to them) tend almost always to be sub-par drivers themselves.

They project their own lack of skill onto everyone else, more so if they see someone driving a car that they could never drive themselves. It's just simple projection of self doubt.

Honestly, if you're so unskilled that driving something several inches smaller than an average 1970's car is a task that you think should require a CDL, then you shouldn't be driving anything. At all. You shouldn't even be licensed, because you're a hazard.

Driving really is not that difficult. A little sad that you pride yourself on that, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay then. What vehicle would you suggest for my family of seven that makes frequent road trips (don't forget cargo space) and occasionally tows a trailer?

You have five kids? And you frequently tow a trailer? A trailer for what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay then. What vehicle would you suggest for my family of seven that makes frequent road trips (don't forget cargo space) and occasionally tows a trailer?

You have five kids? And you frequently tow a trailer? A trailer for what?

Yes - Boat, horses and a camper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two kids and have literally never needed a bigger car than my sedan. What a waste. I wish our cars were more like what you see in Europe.

Speak for your self. We DIY our house a lot and we need an SUV for tools and supplies. If you aren't ever DIYing, going camping, or much else but driving to your luxury hotel or airplane it makes sense but some of us actually use ours.

Oh god we do all of that stuff too, comfortably, with a station wagon.

Home Depot delivers in case you weren't aware though we've used it once in the last 5 years.

Also we actually go backpacking as opposed to being lazy and going car camping (or in your case tank camping) so since everyone has to carry their own gear they only bring what they need which comfortably fits in our car.

You think you are macho & superior because you drive a gas guzzling SUV and of course that's what the car commercials tell you you are but in reality you are just insecure and too lazy to carry your own $hit.

But hey freedom and burning continents and all that justify it no doubt.

DP

Their Tahoe likely gets the exact same mileage on the highway as your Outback. I've owned both.

And when you consider that the Tahoe has a larger 5.3L V8 compared to the Outback's smaller 2.5L-3.6L H4 or H6, and weighs about 1,500lbs more, the Tahoe is actually a MUCH more efficient vehicle for its size.

If the Subaru were as efficient as the Tahoe is, it would get 45+ mpg, instead of the 20-22 it gets.

Umm no the Tahoe gets 22MPG on the highway and the Outback 33MPG so no not even close. And what do you need a V8 for - are you hauling a horse trailer along with your 5 lazy kids?

In any case I don't have a Subaru which doesn't get great mileage either - my wagon gets about 40MPG on the highway and comfortably fits my family and all the stuff we need when we go on vacation.

I actually pity people who lack the perspective and will to break free of marketing and their insecurities about their place and status. Unfortunately these same tools are causing us to kill our planet with their rampant and excessive consumerism. But they look cool sitting in traffic in their V8!

I call total bullshit.

What station wagon do you own that gets 40 MPG highway? A VW Jetta TDI *might* do that kind of mileage, but they're small.

And I've never seen an Outback that got 33 MPG, either, so that's another one where you're completely full of crap. The highest mine EVER got was 24 or so, and that was very, very rare. Most of time it was around 22. I have a Subaru Crosstrek right now, and even it barely breaks 30-32 MPG when driven at ~65.


But I wanna know what station wagon you have that gets 40 MPG. Because I think you're a damn liar.

Here you go bozo:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/passat/2005?engineconfig_id=103&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

On a drive across eastern Canada 5 summers ago we got 44MPG with the AC on in what was then an 11 yo car.

And FWIW I've hauled home both a fridge and a stove with the rear hatch closed.

It doesn't look like much but I'm not insecure and could care less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay then. What vehicle would you suggest for my family of seven that makes frequent road trips (don't forget cargo space) and occasionally tows a trailer?

You have five kids? And you frequently tow a trailer? A trailer for what?

Yes - Boat, horses and a camper.

What percentage of families have 5!!! children, and horses, and a boat, and a trailer? 1 in 5000? We have 3 kids and know a lot of families and we do not know one family with 5 kids, or horses, or a boat.
And we live in the exurbs.

[Anonymous]

It's not really about boats and campers or personally having 4 to 6 kids for most buyers. It's when you have 2 kids but they play sports and/or you help with carpooling. My Tahoe LTZ is full of tweens several times a week -- most aren't mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two kids and have literally never needed a bigger car than my sedan. What a waste. I wish our cars were more like what you see in Europe.

Speak for your self. We DIY our house a lot and we need an SUV for tools and supplies. If you aren't ever DIYing, going camping, or much else but driving to your luxury hotel or airplane it makes sense but some of us actually use ours.

Oh god we do all of that stuff too, comfortably, with a station wagon.

Home Depot delivers in case you weren't aware though we've used it once in the last 5 years.

Also we actually go backpacking as opposed to being lazy and going car camping (or in your case tank camping) so since everyone has to carry their own gear they only bring what they need which comfortably fits in our car.

You think you are macho & superior because you drive a gas guzzling SUV and of course that's what the car commercials tell you you are but in reality you are just insecure and too lazy to carry your own $hit.

But hey freedom and burning continents and all that justify it no doubt.

DP

Their Tahoe likely gets the exact same mileage on the highway as your Outback. I've owned both.

And when you consider that the Tahoe has a larger 5.3L V8 compared to the Outback's smaller 2.5L-3.6L H4 or H6, and weighs about 1,500lbs more, the Tahoe is actually a MUCH more efficient vehicle for its size.

If the Subaru were as efficient as the Tahoe is, it would get 45+ mpg, instead of the 20-22 it gets.

Not to mention that I’d need to put TWO Subaru’s on the road to get my wife and five kids to our destination.

And if you weren't insecure and raising coddled kids who can't carry a beach bag a block you'd comfortably fit everyone into a mini-van.

But that wouldn't be macho or prove your bona fides as a provider.

I’m a grandmother who drives a large SUV because many times, DH and I have all 4 grandkids who need car seats. Everyone needs to mind their own business. Too bad if you can’t afford to be comfortable. I’d rather have my old Lexus sedan, but no can do with grand babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, motor vehicles are dangerous. And big motor vehicles (like Suburbans) are more dangerous than small motor vehicles.

Um, no. sThey pass all the same vehicle standards as every other passenger vehicle. Now drivers are another story.

There are about 40,000 dead people per year in the space between "passes standards" and "isn't dangerous."

So you're naturally in favor of banning ALL cars then, right?

Or are you willing to accept a certain number of deaths a year if it allows you to keep your Prius?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, motor vehicles are dangerous. And big motor vehicles (like Suburbans) are more dangerous than small motor vehicles.

Um, no. sThey pass all the same vehicle standards as every other passenger vehicle. Now drivers are another story.

There are about 40,000 dead people per year in the space between "passes standards" and "isn't dangerous."

So you're naturally in favor of banning ALL cars then, right?

Or are you willing to accept a certain number of deaths a year if it allows you to keep your Prius?

I am not willing to accept any number of deaths a year, and I don't own a Prius. How many traffic deaths a year are you willing to accept?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, motor vehicles are dangerous. And big motor vehicles (like Suburbans) are more dangerous than small motor vehicles.

Um, no. sThey pass all the same vehicle standards as every other passenger vehicle. Now drivers are another story.

There are about 40,000 dead people per year in the space between "passes standards" and "isn't dangerous."

So you're naturally in favor of banning ALL cars then, right?

Or are you willing to accept a certain number of deaths a year if it allows you to keep your Prius?

I am not willing to accept any number of deaths a year, and I don't own a Prius. How many traffic deaths a year are you willing to accept?

Break it down by car so we can vote.