Technical aspects of automobiles

Best SUVs – Consumer Reports

The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles
outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the
November issue of Consumer Reports.  The GL- and R-Class posted "Very
Good" overall scores in tests against the Volvo XC90, Audi Q7, and
new 2007 Cadillac Escalade. Though the Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac
finished lower in the scoring, those three vehicles still posted
"Very Good" scores.

To read the full text, please go to:
http://www.contactomagazine.com/bestluxurycars1106.htm

.
posted by admin in Без рубрики and have Comments (12)

12 Responses to “Best SUVs – Consumer Reports”

  1. admin says:

    On 14 Nov 2006 21:21:24 -0800, "Joe" <pepe1…@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    >The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles
    >outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the
    >November issue of Consumer Reports.  The GL- and R-Class posted "Very
    >Good" overall scores in tests against the Volvo XC90, Audi Q7, and
    >new 2007 Cadillac Escalade. Though the Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac
    >finished lower in the scoring, those three vehicles still posted
    >"Very Good" scores.

    >To read the full text, please go to:
    >http://www.contactomagazine.com/bestluxurycars1106.htm

    Best Suicide Utility Vehicles.

    These things have such a high center of gravity, you can flip the
    things over in a fast turn.  Have seen it done.  Why anyone would pay
    Big Money for a death trap is beyond my comprehension.

  2. admin says:

    Joe wrote:

    > The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles
    > outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the
    > November issue of Consumer Reports.  The GL- and R-Class posted "Very
    > Good" overall scores in tests against the Volvo XC90, Audi Q7, and
    > new 2007 Cadillac Escalade. Though the Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac
    > finished lower in the scoring, those three vehicles still posted
    > "Very Good" scores.

    > To read the full text, please go to:
    > http://www.contactomagazine.com/bestluxurycars1106.htm

    According to CR those vehicles come in dead last due to constant breakdowns.
    How do they compare to Lexus, Infiniti, Accura?

  3. admin says:

    "Joe" <pepe1…@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

    news:1163568084.696263.3860@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com…

    > The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles
    > outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the
    > November issue of Consumer Reports.

    Just another evidence that CR is a stupid useless magazine for evaulating
    cars.

    People are dumping their gas-guzzling SUV’s right and left and buying
    economy cars, due to the gas prices, yet CR is still bothering to review
    SUVs.  Yeah, right, real intelligent there.

    Ted

  4. admin says:

    Joe wrote:
    > The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles
    > outpointed competitors

    ROTFL!

    That’s funny. No way any of the ones mentioned (let alone the Mercedes
    minivans-disguised-as-SUVs) could actually be better SUVs than Jeeps.
    Yet another example of the vast gulf that separates CR from the real world.

  5. admin says:

    Steve wrote:
    > Joe wrote:

    >> The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles
    >> outpointed competitors

    > ROTFL!

    > That’s funny. No way any of the ones mentioned (let alone the Mercedes
    > minivans-disguised-as-SUVs) could actually be better SUVs than Jeeps.
    > Yet another example of the vast gulf that separates CR from the real world.

    that would be the real world where 99% of SUV’s consider a parking lot
    as "off road"?

    Ray
    (who bought a wagon with AWD instead of an SUV because I needed a car,
    not a truck pretending to be a car or a car pretending to be a truck.)

  6. admin says:

    "me at" <my.addr…@is.invalid> wrote in message

    news:455b1c73$0$34489$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net…

    > What’s the point of calling it an SUV if you cannot tow with it,
    > or take it off road?

    I don’t know. Probably a marketing advantage. Calling something a mini-van
    or a station wagon makes it undesirable to a large portion of US consumers.
    Whether it makes sense of not, names do matter to many consumers. Do you
    think Toyota would sell as many RAV4s or Highlanders if they called them
    Camry Wagons (which is what they are)? If Ford renamed the Freestyle "Five
    Hundred Station Wagon," how well would it sell? Or worse yet, suppose they
    revived the Country Squire name and slapped on some vinyl wood trim on a
    Freestyle?

    > Ever try towing with independent rear suspension?

    Yes, I towed often with my 2003 Expedition with IRS. It towed just as well
    as my 1997 with a solid rear axle.

    > Not good for off road either.

    Why would you say that? Only idiots who want to "lift" a truck are bothered
    by IRS. Doing a suspension lift on an IRS vehicle is very difficult in
    comparison to lifting a truck with solid axles. Unless you are doing some
    really weird rock crawling, or tying to drive across a swamp, highly lifted
    vehicles are ridiculous. For any sort of mundane off roading, IRS is better
    than stick axles.

    > Did I forget to mention how small they are.

    Compared to?

    > People who buy these would be better off with a station wagon.

    Probably true for most people. And several of these really are station
    wagons.


    Regards,

    Ed White
    http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/ – my automotive opinions
    http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html – my oil filter comparison

  7. admin says:

    "Joe" <pepe1…@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

    news:1163568084.696263.3860@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com…

    > The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles
    > outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the
    > November issue of Consumer Reports.  The GL- and R-Class posted "Very
    > Good" overall scores in tests against the Volvo XC90, Audi Q7, and
    > new 2007 Cadillac Escalade. Though the Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac
    > finished lower in the scoring, those three vehicles still posted
    > "Very Good" scores.

    I would rather have an enema than own a Mercedes.  Maybe this snobbery
    appeals
    to Americans, but Mercedes, IMNSHO, is a troublesome overengineered piece of
    shjit.

    It has even been classified by CR as one of the poorest buys with respect to
    reliability.

    SUVs are something etched into the minds of soccer moms and almost-ran
    junior corporate
     executives.

    I wouldnt buy a Furd XC90, or an Audi Q7, and for damn sure wouldnt buy
    a Cataract Escapade.

    Gas drops a few dimes a gallon and Americans start frenzy feeding again.

  8. admin says:

    C. E. White wrote:

    >>Not good for off road either.

    > Why would you say that?

    Because its true….

    >Only idiots who want to "lift" a truck are bothered
    > by IRS.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Lift is irrelevant. Solid axles have a lower roll
    center, meaning they have better rollover resistance without massive
    sway-bars (this is troe ON highway, not just offroad!) Solid axles also
    articulate better when offroad with sway-bars disconnected, allowing
    each wheel to have a better contact patch (the "high" wheel actually
    helps plant the "low" wheel to the ground).

    As far as IRs and towing, the differences are less dramatic than with
    offroading and rollover resistance. But all those added bushings and CV
    joints will *never* hold up to towing as well as a solid axle.

  9. admin says:

    Steve <n…@spam.thanks> wrote in article
    <5pSdna5Wbc9fz8bYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn…@texas.net>…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > C. E. White wrote:

    > >>Not good for off road either.

    > > Why would you say that?

    > Because its true….

    > >Only idiots who want to "lift" a truck are bothered
    > > by IRS.

    > Wrong, wrong, wrong. Lift is irrelevant. Solid axles have a lower roll
    > center, meaning they have better rollover resistance without massive
    > sway-bars

    The lower the roll center, the MORE leverage the Center of Gravity has on
    it.

    Straight axles actually have a HIGHER RC than most IFS and IRS
    setups…..producing the "better rollover resistance" to which you refer.

    Many of today’s RWD, IFS cars actually have RC located below ground while
    the rear IRS RCs are considerably lower than the solid axle’s RC.

    A 14-inch CoG acting on a 10-inch RC (solid axle) is going to roll the car
    less than the same CoG acting on a RC that is two-inches below ground
    (IFS)……A four-inch moment arm (solid axle) versus a 16-inch moment arm
    (IFS) applying the CoG mass……but, the SUV CoG is much higher than the
    passenger car’s CoG.

    The whole problem is that most solid-axle vehicles have such a high CoG
    that they actually have a longer moment arm than the Independent
    suspensions, ergo, apply the CoG mass with more force.

    CoG of a 1978-1985 mid-sized GM car that we build for oval track use is at
    approximately 14-inches above ground by the time I am done putzing with it.
    The RC ends up at approximately two-inches above the ground.

    CoG for a SUV is often at least a foot higher…..approximately at camshaft
    height.

    So now we’re talking a 14-inch CoG applied to a two-inch RC giving us a
    12-inch moment arm in a passenger car……

    ….versus a 26-inch CoG applying a heavier mass to a 10-inch RC in the SUV
    – giving us a 16-inch moment arm.

    Which vehicle will have the greater tendency to roll over????

  10. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    * wrote:
    > Steve <n…@spam.thanks> wrote in article
    > <5pSdna5Wbc9fz8bYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn…@texas.net>…

    >>C. E. White wrote:

    >>>>Not good for off road either.

    >>>Why would you say that?

    >>Because its true….

    >>>Only idiots who want to "lift" a truck are bothered
    >>>by IRS.

    >>Wrong, wrong, wrong. Lift is irrelevant. Solid axles have a lower roll
    >>center, meaning they have better rollover resistance without massive
    >>sway-bars

    > The lower the roll center, the MORE leverage the Center of Gravity has on
    > it.

    > Straight axles actually have a HIGHER RC than most IFS and IRS
    > setups…..producing the "better rollover resistance" to which you refer.

    Yep, I said it bassackwards, but the effect is the same. Solid axles
    result in a lesser rolling moment for a given lateral G force.

    > The whole problem is that most solid-axle vehicles have such a high CoG
    > that they actually have a longer moment arm than the Independent
    > suspensions, ergo, apply the CoG mass with more force.

    Well, if you talk "fleet wide" where all vehicles are lumped together, I
    agree, because then you’re throwing the Dodge Durango in the mix with a
    Miata and Corvette.

    But I don’t agree if you compare solid-axle SUVs to IRS SUVs (EG, Dodge
    Durango to Ford Expedition). The COG is about the same for each. And if
    you take the few remaining solid-axle cars being made (Mustang, for
    example) and compare it to a similar hight IRS car, the COGs there are
    about the same.

    > So now we’re talking a 14-inch CoG applied to a two-inch RC giving us a
    > 12-inch moment arm in a passenger car……

    > ….versus a 26-inch CoG applying a heavier mass to a 10-inch RC in the SUV
    > – giving us a 16-inch moment arm.

    > Which vehicle will have the greater tendency to roll over????

    Zis is ze time on Shprockets where ve say "duh."  :-)

    But that is ALL THE MORE reason that all SUVs should be solid axle.

  11. admin says:

    "Steve" <n…@spam.thanks> wrote in message

    news:5pSdna5Wbc9fz8bYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@texas.net…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > C. E. White wrote:

    >>>Not good for off road either.

    >> Why would you say that?

    > Because its true….

    >>Only idiots who want to "lift" a truck are bothered by IRS.

    > Wrong, wrong, wrong. Lift is irrelevant. Solid axles have a lower roll
    > center, meaning they have better rollover resistance without massive
    > sway-bars (this is troe ON highway, not just offroad!) Solid axles also
    > articulate better when offroad with sway-bars disconnected, allowing each
    > wheel to have a better contact patch (the "high" wheel actually helps
    > plant the "low" wheel to the ground).

    > As far as IRs and towing, the differences are less dramatic than with
    > offroading and rollover resistance. But all those added bushings and CV
    > joints will *never* hold up to towing as well as a solid axle.

    I found little wrong with my Range Rover in any circumstances. It even
    lifted and lowered itself at my command. It had independent suspension all
    round. I also find little wrong with my Land Cruiser 100 although if I am
    forced to compare then in most circumstances the RR had the edge, especially
    in road handling and front end articulation [the LC has torsion bars while
    the RR has air springs]

    Huw

  12. admin says:

    Where were the new 07 Rovers in the comparison?  I really like the mew
    LR3 and sport – they have the best combination performance and luxury
    out there.  Plus I like what they are doing with the new terrain system
    too.


    CaptainBennett
    ————————————————————————
    CaptainBennett’s Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?userid=386699
    View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=644059

    http://www.automotiveforums.com

Place your comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.