 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / November 2006Best 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 >The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles >outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >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. > The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles > outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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? > 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 What's the point of calling it an SUV if you cannot tow with it, or take it off road? Ever try towing with independent rear suspension? Not good for off road either. Did I forget to mention how small they are. People who buy these would be better off with a station wagon.  SignatureVic > 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. SignatureRegards, Ed White http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/ - my automotive opinions http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html - my oil filter comparison >>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. Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article <5pSdna5Wbc9fz8bYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@texas.net>... > >>Not good for off road either. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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???? > Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article > <5pSdna5Wbc9fz8bYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@texas.net>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 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...... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. >>>Not good for off road either. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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 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. SignatureCaptainBennett http://www.automotiveforums.com > 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. >> The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles >> outpointed competitors [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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.) > The new Mercedes-Benz GL- and R-Class luxury sport utility vehicles > outpointed competitors from Volvo, Audi, and Cadillac in tests for the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.