[McLaren Rulez]

Well since this thread isn't going to ever go back to the title, let me add my two cents to this disccussion. The real question of the debate seems to be: Should you buy an SUV when there's a similarly specced sedan at that price point? Assuming you don't need the SUV that is.

The short answer is no. SUVs are more inefficient than a similar sedan simply because they are heavier and less aerodynamic. Why do you, as a buyer, want to spend extra on fuel? If the sedan has a more powerful engine, then the efficiency goes down but you get a lot more power for a small loss in FE. The first part of the thread couldn't really conclude which was safer and statistics rarely tell the full story so that's out too. And generally, sedans are better equipped for the price (Skoda Superb vs Toyota Fortuner?). As an individual buyer (with absolutely no societal factors influencing you), the sedan actually makes much more sense.

Which then logically means that an SUV buyer sees something more than this. Maybe its the looks, maybe its that feeling of superiority or maybe its than invincible feel. This is the want for an SUV. Most of the time it is based on rather intangible factors like the 'looks' or the 'feel'. Its not a necessity at this point but a want nonetheless. And that want is no different from wanting to upgrade to a ten lakh sedan from a five lakh hatch. A want, whatever the reasons supporting it, is a want. This, again, justifies the decision to buy the SUV.

The point that devdath makes which I agree with completely, is that if you're still not really sure which is the one for you, go for the sedan. You save the earth by doing your little bit, keep our roads that bit safer for pedestrians and so on. If the intangible want for an SUV and the benefits of a sedan have left them on equal footing in your mind, then look beyond your own needs and let your buy help make a difference to society. Its a noble thought and the argument over the last two pages put that in a bad light. So I hope we can leave this issue, more or less agreed upon, at this point.

And lastly, can a mod please change the title to SUVs safer/more environmentally friendly than sedans? It brings most of the discussion under the title, if not all of it.

[raj_5004]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

Of course, Sumo and Safari are not guzzlers when they are running, but do also consider the cost of making those trips to the workshop.

buddy, you have a corolla, a SEDAN. i can bet that my scorpio or a safari will cost less to run & maintain than your corolla.

i have an innova & i know the premium toyota charges for its service, its much more than mahindra & tata. i have also been told that service charges & prices of spares for corolla are more than that for the innova. that makes the corolla much much more expensive to maintain & run than a mahindra or tata.

[srijit]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

The short answer is no. SUVs are more inefficient than a similar sedan simply because they are heavier and less aerodynamic. Why do you, as a buyer, want to spend extra on fuel? If the sedan has a more powerful engine, then the efficiency goes down but you get a lot more power for a small loss in FE.

Wrong. Please read the info below. "Affordable" SUV's are returning 10kmpl. That is the same as what most sedans deliver. So why not travel long distances in comfort?

Originally Posted by freewheelburnin

My Santro consumed Rs2500 Worth fuel on a trip to kerala when my safari consumed 1600 worth of fuel.Now tell me which is the guzzler?If your economics theories could explain this i would be pleased to hear!

[raj_5004]

@ srijit: what Mclaren meant is that- when we compare two similarly priced vehicles, like a scorpio/safari with a civic/corolla.

[vasudeva]

I think the thread was `are suvs safer than sedans'. Going on that thread title only (and not on other things) here is another interesting article

[bantejas]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

statistics rarely tell the full story so that's out too.

I beg to differ here. Statistics can only give you a concrete info as a matter of fact.

I have few questions: Why do we need to ever buy a SUV in that case? Do we really require it? Is it that a family of more than 5 should be entitled to buy the same (family of 5 can fit into a Hatch too in fact!)? The answer is no. Most of the people here have been on long drives and I too have done quite a bit in premier padmini to santro to Safari (which I presently own) regularly and in many other sedans too. It really takes a toll on you when you are on bad/bumpy roads. Not only for the driver but for the other passenger too. If you can afford one to get a little luxurious then you can go for it.

From Bangalore to Cochin we have traveled a lot of times and the most comfortable drive that I had was in the Safari. Not that all the sedans doesn't give you the same feeling, but most of them don't. SUVs are not a style statement according to me (it may be for the others) and not all of them are fuel guzzlers either. How many fuel guzzlers do we see on the road (in India)? The so called affordable SUVs are usually tuned to the Indian mentality of getting a good mileage and hence people go for it. So taking into account of the environment is mostly out. Would any one buy a Safari with 7-8 kmpl? I seriously doubt it.

The size of the SUV is what I can think of is a cause of concern especially within the city limits. For that matter, most of them are the MUVs which ply within the city limits and it some times is a pain to watch a single person driving the whole big SUV/MUV during the office hrs (I just wanted to clarify, I use the bike to commute within the city limits always).

I have spoken to a lot of people who own a hatch which gives them somewhere around 12-14 kmpl of petrol. They usually blast people (rather people like me but not me because of me riding always) for buying the big diesel cars which too gives around the similar figure (with the fuel difference taken into account).

It is a subjective matter of who wants what? May be we can ask people to buy hatches rather than going for the sedans and it will keep on going. Maybe we should ask people to stop taking the cars (hatches too for that matter more than 80% of the cars driven in Bangalore are single driver driven cars) within the city limits. But why doesn't anyone want to do the same: for the want of luxury.

Which is a safer ride: SUV I would say. I haven't heard of many SUV driver deaths at least in India. I might be wrong, but I've heard mostly the hatch/sedan related deaths. Again I don't have much idea about how each cars works but I know that not always bigger is better .

PS: This is an unbiased view. The long drive of the safari which again is unbiased. Waiting for the banter.

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

I think the thread was `are suvs safer than sedans'. Going on that thread title only (and not on other things) here is another interesting article

Hi vasudeva, that's a great bit of statistics hunting and research you did over the last few posts. So in conclusion (and in a lighter vein, of course ), for our own safety, it's wiser to buy a Tata Xenon, Bolero Camper or Scorpio Getaway! (or, maybe a Tata 407? ), since that is what the last article above says in summary!

Controlling for mass and crash severity, SUVs, vans, and pickups all appear to increase risks to drivers of other vehicles, but only pickups appear to reduce risks to their own drivers

[suman]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

Of course, Sumo and Safari are not guzzlers when they are running, but do also consider the cost of making those trips to the workshop.

I guess even you know that the above is a baseless & sweeping statement?

Originally Posted by raj_5004

@ srijit: what Mclaren meant is that- when we compare two similarly priced vehicles, like a scorpio/safari with a civic/corolla.

Raj, if I'm not mistaken, the Safari/Scorpios will not be too far off - how much does a Civic or a Corolla give?

[bantejas]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

(or, maybe a Tata 407? )

You can go for a safari in which case .

[vasudeva]

That is not my article anyway. In all fairness, you should also add to that statement quoted:

Controlling for mass...... vehicle design elements other than mass affect crash outcomes.

What is not stated here is the all important factor: who drives the hardware. hat is not my article anyway.

On that Safari/Sumo statement, I have already expressed my regret to 2 people. A general regret is now expressed at my statement.

[McLaren Rulez]

Originally Posted by srijit

Wrong. Please read the info below. "Affordable" SUV's are returning 10kmpl. That is the same as what most sedans deliver. So why not travel long distances in comfort?

But isn't a Corolla more powerful? Also, taking into account weight, the sedan should be faster which is a reasonable gain when compared to the lower (if at all) FE. Of course, the diesel vs petrol changes things a bit so any analysis will be slightly off. But overall, in a general case, the weight and aerodynamics make an SUV either slower or less efficient than a similar sedan (which again is a pain to define).

Originally Posted by bantejas

I beg to differ here. Statistics can only give you a concrete info as a matter of fact.

.

Not really. How many of those accident statistics take into account active safety? How many take into account the fact that some SUV drivers may be reckless because of their feeling of safety? Do they take into account the fact that there are more sedans than SUVs? Are there many older unsafe SUVs as compared to the newer safer ones? I could go on and there are so many factors that every statistical analysis will be left with uncertainty. It could go either way if you get what I'm trying to say.

[raj_5004]

Originally Posted by suman

Raj, if I'm not mistaken, the Safari/Scorpios will not be too far off - how much does a Civic or a Corolla give?

agreed. i am not denying that in any way.

i just tried to clear srijit's misunderstanding of mclaren's post.

but what mclaren meant was, if a civic or corolla offers the same FE as the scorpio/safari, that means they offer a bigger engine & hence more performance too. in other words, for the same performance, a civic/corolla would be more efficient than a scorpio/safari.

but somehow, i feel this debate is going berserk now.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

Not really. How many of those accident statistics take into account active safety? How many take into account the fact that some SUV drivers may be reckless because of their feeling of safety? Do they take into account the fact that there are more sedans than SUVs? Are there many older unsafe SUVs as compared to the newer safer ones? I could go on and there are so many factors that every statistical analysis will be left with uncertainty. It could go either way if you get what I'm trying to say.

I have posted some studies which analyse ceteris paribus. There are different studies giving different results (SUV less safer), but they include death of others (not SUV drivers as such). So in that sense, SUVs could be unsafe only because of (a) mass (b) profile of SUV buyers and their feeling of safety which may encourage them to be more risky.

Even excluding this, there are metaanalysis (which is a pool or a poll) of different studies which indicate ceteris paribus that SUVs are safer than cars overall, but have greater rollover risk.

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by bantejas

You can go for a safari in which case .

Naah, it must be a pickup! Just joking...

Originally Posted by vasudeva

That is not my article anyway.

A general regret is now expressed at my statement.

Please don't express any regret! Thanks go to you, for digging this thread out of the quagmire it had bogged down in. And once again, I was simply joking...

[McLaren Rulez]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

Even excluding this, there are metaanalysis (which is a pool or a poll) of different studies which indicate ceteris paribus that SUVs are safer than cars overall, but have greater rollover risk.

I don't follow your post fully because I know little about stats but the last bit seems to suggest that SUVs fare better in one aspect and worse in another. So ultimately you are also saying that it is inconclusive, right? Or am I missing something?