[shankar.balan]

1. it s not always a foregone conclusion that only an SUV can go anywhere.in the 1960's in Assam, my Uncle and another good friend of his, used to go everywhere in their old Fiat 1100's. They have even traversed river-beds and some other seriously bad places in those old cars. In South India again in the late '60's and early '70's most people up in the hills used to have the Standard Herald and Gazelle cars - these could quite literally go all over the place - indeed if we go back to a bit of history, we will see that the favoured cars for the earlier gen Indian rallyists were the Herald and the Fiat.

2.In ref which cars are safer - frankly certain versions of all the new vehicles are very safe - considering the gadgetry and safety features they come loaded with.

3. SUV's vs Cars - Safety -SUV's simply give one a psychological feeling of safety which is why we note that in Europe and the US, they are mostly driven by "soccer moms" who are primarily interested in the safety of their children and "feel" safer in an SUV when compared with a car.

[mjothi]

A recent (very sad) incident of my friend. His parents along with his sister, in-law were traveling on highways. They hit a truck and all his family members died. Driver escaped with leg injuries. His in-law in comma.

They were on a Scorpio.

So, its not just the vehicle. Its the driving + fate that decides which is safe.

[bullinb]

Neither. It's the person behind the wheels. How doe it matter if you are in an SUV or a hatch if you hit a stationary truck at 100kmph?

[n.devdath]

I think what also needs to be considered is the fact that people can cover greater distances using a car than an SUV as cars are dynamically better and offer more control.
Wot say?

[jkdas]

Well, depends on the budget too. Wont you feel safer in a Hummer or well a Q7 than in a Merc or so?

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

1. it s not always a foregone conclusion that only an SUV can go anywhere.in the 1960's in Assam, my Uncle and another good friend of his, used to go everywhere in their old Fiat 1100's. They have even traversed river-beds and some other seriously bad places in those old cars. In South India again in the late '60's and early '70's most people up in the hills used to have the Standard Herald and Gazelle cars - these could quite literally go all over the place - indeed if we go back to a bit of history, we will see that the favoured cars for the earlier gen Indian rallyists were the Herald and the Fiat.

2.In ref which cars are safer - frankly certain versions of all the new vehicles are very safe - considering the gadgetry and safety features they come loaded with.

3. SUV's vs Cars - Safety -SUV's simply give one a psychological feeling of safety which is why we note that in Europe and the US, they are mostly driven by "soccer moms" who are primarily interested in the safety of their children and "feel" safer in an SUV when compared with a car.

Absolutely, and thats how the perception is growing here in India also.

Frankly - an SUV without 4x4 is just an overgrown car - which is dynamically more unstable at higher speeds.

[GTO]

No car is death-proof. That said, is a larger car safer than a smaller car? All things being equal, I'd say yes. As an example, consider a head on collision between a 2500 kg Ford Endeavour and a 1200 kg Honda Civic, if both are equipped with the same number of airbags, modern crumple zones and all passengers are wearing seatbelts. The latter's occupants are at a much higher risk. Of course, the SUVs weakness is in its handling and road stability where it has a higher chance of tipping over, and way poorer grip, braking and steering ability. Thus, the ability of a Corolla to *avoid* a collision in the first place - as compared to say, a Pajero - is much superior. But in a head to head crash between the modern SUV and sedan, safety equipment & ratings being equal, its typically the sedan's passengers who have a higher fatality rate.

[MileCruncher]

Originally Posted by n.devdath

I think what also needs to be considered is the fact that people can cover greater distances using a car than an SUV as cars are dynamically better and offer more control.
Wot say?

Don't exactly agree with you here as given the state of most Indian Highways, one would be able to cover greater distance in a SUV due to its ability to soak up the potholes like anything. Try driving a Sedan vs SUV in Madhya Pradesh and you'll know.

Cheers

[n.devdath]

Originally Posted by MileCruncher

Don't exactly agree with you here as given the state of most Indian Highways, one would be able to cover greater distance in a SUV due to its ability to soak up the potholes like anything. Try driving a Sedan vs SUV in Madhya Pradesh and you'll know.

Cheers

Well, to be frank, I am from MP.. and yes, there are few roads in the country where SUVs/MUVs are not a luxury but a need due to their bad condition, but we cannot generalise MP to represent the rest of India. Most of our NHs and SHs have considerably improved and on such places, dont you think, a car is faster, safer(dynamically) and more fun to drive than an SUV.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by GTO

No car is death-proof. That said, is a larger car safer than a smaller car? All things being equal, I'd say yes. As an example, consider a head on collision between a 2500 kg Ford Endeavour and a 1200 kg Honda Civic, if both are equipped with the same number of airbags, modern crumple zones and all passengers are wearing seatbelts. The latter's occupants are at a much higher risk. Of course, the SUVs weakness is in its handling and road stability where it has a higher chance of tipping over, and way poorer grip, braking and steering ability. Thus, the ability of a Corolla to *avoid* a collision in the first place - as compared to say, a Pajero - is much superior. But in a head to head crash between the modern SUV and sedan, safety equipment & ratings being equal, its typically the sedan's passengers who have a higher fatality rate.

Actually no. Recently a crash test at 40mph was done between a Land rover(old) and Renault Minivan.(40% offset collision)
the Ladder on frame chasis Land rover did not crumple well, and the dummy had more injuries.
On the other hand the Minivan was totalled, but in a way that everything except the passenger compartment absorbed the shock.
So its quite possible that the seat belt of the Endeavor may crack the drivers ribs, but the civic occupants will be saved by better crumple zones.
Of course, civic will be a write off unlike the endeavor which may come back after an expensive repair.

[ACM]

1) Larger the Car Safer the Car (other Safety devices like Airbags being the same)
2) Most SUV's are larger than Cars hence safer.
3) Cars are more stable than SUV's at higher speeds and also are faster in overtaking in Indian 2 lane highways as they back ahead of the vehicle and out of the line of the on comming traffic faster. But then Most Modern SUV's also have bigger engines than enable them to closely match the Sedan / Hatch Speeds.
4) Scorpio is one know SUV that is not truly safe at large speeds inspite of large size due to poor braking and high speed stability combined. But most other SUV's would be safer than most other cars, with the other saftey devices like Airbags, ABS, EBD, Traction Control etc. remaining the same.
4)

[agbenny]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I guess it would be useful to clarify whether we are talking about city or the highways. If in the city, any car is safe (compared to riding a bike) due to the low speeds at which collisions could take place and generally the volume of traffic. OK, the car could get dented/ scratched whatever,
but with just seat belts on, any car would be safe.

On the highways, it is an entirely different matter. Now, the issues (toppling, instability etc) with SUVs come into play. Speeds are higher,
people take more risks and thus collisions can be fatal. Here, what would matter more than whether it is an SUV or car is the safety mechanisms available like ABS, impact beams, seat belts, airbags, crumple zones etc etc.

I do not think this City-Highway separation makes sense. Will it be serious if the accident happens to an SUV within city at lower speeds? You can still manage with dents and scratches, right? In fact smaller vehicles give respect to SUVs, and less chances to get such hits-dents etc.

On a highway, it has equal chance. At a very high speed with or without safely add-ons, you can not say an SUV is much safer than a Sedan. As someone says here., its all depends.

[musicmanaman]

Originally Posted by GTO

No car is death-proof. That said, is a larger car safer than a smaller car? All things being equal, I'd say yes. As an example, consider a head on collision between a 2500 kg Ford Endeavour and a 1200 kg Honda Civic, if both are equipped with the same number of airbags, modern crumple zones and all passengers are wearing seatbelts. The latter's occupants are at a much higher risk. Of course, the SUVs weakness is in its handling and road stability where it has a higher chance of tipping over, and way poorer grip, braking and steering ability. Thus, the ability of a Corolla to *avoid* a collision in the first place - as compared to say, a Pajero - is much superior. But in a head to head crash between the modern SUV and sedan, safety equipment & ratings being equal, its typically the sedan's passengers who have a higher fatality rate.

I agree, moreover in the above mentioned secnario, I think the Endy will be over the Civic, due to Endy's high clearnece and Civics sliding nose.

I anyday feel safer in a huge car compared to a small one or a low one.

[McLaren Rulez]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Actually no. Recently a crash test at 40mph was done between a Land rover(old) and Renault Minivan.(40% offset collision)
the Ladder on frame chasis Land rover did not crumple well, and the dummy had more injuries.
On the other hand the Minivan was totalled, but in a way that everything except the passenger compartment absorbed the shock.
So its quite possible that the seat belt of the Endeavor may crack the drivers ribs, but the civic occupants will be saved by better crumple zones.
Of course, civic will be a write off unlike the endeavor which may come back after an expensive repair.

Wasn't that a top gear or fifth gear thing? The Rover was much older in design and its airbags failed to deploy that time too. Not a fair comparo IMO.

SUVs are better in terms of active safety because these days, companies do give crumple zones, airbags etc. But an SUV is heavier so it helps it. Active safety is another question though and a sedan wins here. Overall, I'd go for the SUV

[GTO]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

Wasn't that a top gear or fifth gear thing? The Rover was much older in design and its airbags failed to deploy that time too. Not a fair comparo IMO.

Lets have that test again with a modern SUV which enjoys a 4 - 5 star NCAP rating.