Everyone on DCUM hates Suburbans because they're bad for the environment. Everybody on DCUM lives in a 3500+ square foot home. Baffling in your selective concern for the environment.

I wouldn’t want to have to navigate some of the parking garages and tight parking spaces in this area with a vehicle that big. When I see one in a parking lot I avoid parking next to it because they so badly obscure line of sight for cars backing out next to them.

To me they don’t have any stigmas attached to them, but when I see one in a parking lot near me (pretty urban), I wonder if the owner moved here recently. Unless there’s an Uber sign in the window.

I see those and I think "get a minivan". People with Suburbans/Tahoes/Denalis/whatever are in denial.

See my post on my Yukon XL that has conked out at 80,000 miles and 3 years. It happens to be black. When I see other GM drivers I think, “You fell for this pretty crap, too.” Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are ridiculously huge and terrible for the environment.

Except they're actually not.

For their size, they're more than twice as efficient as a small car. A Surburban with cylinder deactivation gets about 24 mpg on the highway. I rented one this spring for a long road trip with 4 passengers and literally a half-ton of scuba and video equipment and luggage, and I was absolutely staggered at how good the mileage was on the highway.

Around town in city traffic, it only got about 14 mpg. But on the highway, it was 24 mpg all day long from here to Florida and back. Considering it would've taken smaller cars to move the same amount of people and stuff, it was actually FAR more efficient.

Yeah, that's like saying that for its size, a brand-new 8,000 square foot house is more energy-efficient than a small old house. It's true, as far as it goes. But it's also true that the small old house uses far less energy.

If you need that hauling capability, for either people or for stuff, then it's a better, more efficient, and yes- greener, choice. Just as in your example a single large home is going to be more efficient than two smaller ones.

Three Honda Fits or Toyota Priuses making the same trip that a Suburban can do in one is less efficient. There really isn't a way to spin it where this isn't true.

The real question is whether you'll be using the Suburban at maximum efficiency. Or will a single Honda Fit do, but they just "want" the Suburban.

If the vehicle is being in effect misused, that doesn't mean it's not efficient. It just means it's being USED inefficiently.

Oh good grief. People are not buying black Tahoes/Suburbans/Yukons because they need to haul 8 people and a horse trailer off road. And the Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon manufacturers aren't designing them or marketing them for that, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are ridiculously huge and terrible for the environment.

Except they're actually not.

For their size, they're more than twice as efficient as a small car. A Surburban with cylinder deactivation gets about 24 mpg on the highway. I rented one this spring for a long road trip with 4 passengers and literally a half-ton of scuba and video equipment and luggage, and I was absolutely staggered at how good the mileage was on the highway.

Around town in city traffic, it only got about 14 mpg. But on the highway, it was 24 mpg all day long from here to Florida and back. Considering it would've taken smaller cars to move the same amount of people and stuff, it was actually FAR more efficient.

Yeah, that's like saying that for its size, a brand-new 8,000 square foot house is more energy-efficient than a small old house. It's true, as far as it goes. But it's also true that the small old house uses far less energy.

If you need that hauling capability, for either people or for stuff, then it's a better, more efficient, and yes- greener, choice. Just as in your example a single large home is going to be more efficient than two smaller ones.

Three Honda Fits or Toyota Priuses making the same trip that a Suburban can do in one is less efficient. There really isn't a way to spin it where this isn't true.

The real question is whether you'll be using the Suburban at maximum efficiency. Or will a single Honda Fit do, but they just "want" the Suburban.

If the vehicle is being in effect misused, that doesn't mean it's not efficient. It just means it's being USED inefficiently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are ridiculously huge and terrible for the environment.

Except they're actually not.

For their size, they're more than twice as efficient as a small car. A Surburban with cylinder deactivation gets about 24 mpg on the highway. I rented one this spring for a long road trip with 4 passengers and literally a half-ton of scuba and video equipment and luggage, and I was absolutely staggered at how good the mileage was on the highway.

Around town in city traffic, it only got about 14 mpg. But on the highway, it was 24 mpg all day long from here to Florida and back. Considering it would've taken smaller cars to move the same amount of people and stuff, it was actually FAR more efficient.

Yeah, that's like saying that for its size, a brand-new 8,000 square foot house is more energy-efficient than a small old house. It's true, as far as it goes. But it's also true that the small old house uses far less energy.

Anonymous wrote:They are ridiculously huge and terrible for the environment.

Except they're actually not.

For their size, they're more than twice as efficient as a small car. A Surburban with cylinder deactivation gets about 24 mpg on the highway. I rented one this spring for a long road trip with 4 passengers and literally a half-ton of scuba and video equipment and luggage, and I was absolutely staggered at how good the mileage was on the highway.

Around town in city traffic, it only got about 14 mpg. But on the highway, it was 24 mpg all day long from here to Florida and back. Considering it would've taken smaller cars to move the same amount of people and stuff, it was actually FAR more efficient.

My very nice, across the street neighbor just bought a black Denali long wheelbase. In my area, it screams, "I am a mom with at least three kids who is into thinking I have made it in professional suburbia and this car is a symbol".

Anonymous wrote:I get nervous about SUVs towing two horse trailers on the highway because they might be right at the towing capacity and the driver may still approach a merge lane or whatever like he’s driving a car.

I know in Europe they have much lighter trailers but ours are not like that.

I’m sure a lot of people though know the vehicle and their trailer well and it’s all fine.

PP here who posted about horses and tow capacity. Whenever I see a larger horse trailer or boat on a SUV, I generally get far away because the hardcore horse/boat people who are experienced at towing and driving while towing tend to be in large trucks. The SUV towing a two-horse trailer is probably being driven by someone who isn't experienced at towing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there's a stigma, because they're enormous vehicles with terrible gas mileage, and deadly to boot. What kind of person would want that?

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

+1. My assumption is that the person is probably at least a little self centered and cares a lot about what other people think of them. We have three kids and a big dog and they fit fine in our sedan. We also have a minivan but it’s definitely our second choice car. The worst is when you see teens driving those enormous suvs. They just don’t have the skills and those cars are so much more deadly in a crash. I know someone whose children were killed when a teen in a large truck rear ended them and it just smashed their car like a can.

Most teens in these also never were properly taught how to handle a large vehicle. The problem is most kids you see driving huge SUVs in the suburbs were usually taught by parents who don't know how to maneuver and drive those things, either. And if they took lessons, those are usually done in some little corolla or something.

Anonymous wrote:I get nervous about SUVs towing two horse trailers on the highway because they might be right at the towing capacity and the driver may still approach a merge lane or whatever like he’s driving a car.

I know in Europe they have much lighter trailers but ours are not like that.

I’m sure a lot of people though know the vehicle and their trailer well and it’s all fine.

You have to be careful. In theory a 2 horse trailer could be within the tow capacity of a SUV but honestly, it is probably way wiser and safer to put it behind one of the larger trucks on the market which can tow WAY more than even the biggest SUV. A 3 horse trailer or a gooseneck trailer definitely needs to be on a large truck. And you need to consider tack equipment, tack rooms, etc. which add a ton of weight. The other issue is people moving horses often need to be on rural roads and go up hills. Also the bigger pickup trucks have longer wheelbases and are more stable when you go over bumps, etc.

Also, whatver you drive, you really need to have a tow package installed if you're carrying a trailer.

I get nervous about SUVs towing two horse trailers on the highway because they might be right at the towing capacity and the driver may still approach a merge lane or whatever like he’s driving a car.

I know in Europe they have much lighter trailers but ours are not like that.

I’m sure a lot of people though know the vehicle and their trailer well and it’s all fine.

I don’t care but just don’t block traffic or take up more than one parking space.

The stigma is the people who come up to the rear passenger door and pull on it, assuming you are their uber or towncar.