[GTO]

Originally Posted by n.devdath

Not double standards

Let me explain to you where exactly I see double standards.

1. You drive a 7 kpl car and then call 10 kpl SUVs as guzzlers. Further, these "affordable SUVs" that we speak about meet todays emission norms which your own car doesn't. You recommend 6 kpl cars to others, don't think they affect the environment in any way, but an SUV that gives out 13 kpl on the highway is a guzzler.

Apply some common sense, Indians value fuel efficiency over everything else. If the affordable SUVs that you speak about were perceived as guzzlers / heavy on fuel, they would not sell in the first place. Throw in a bit more common sense and you'll see why a Safari is more fuel efficient than the "green to you" Civic. Diesel technology has come a longer way in the past decade than petrols. And diesels are inherently more FE to start with!

2. The motorcycle you ride is amongst the most inefficient (by Indian bike standards), and about half as much as a CD100. When you talk about *need* based purchase, why do YOU need a Bullet when a simpler, lighter, more fuel efficient bike will serve your needs just fine.

3. A Tata Safari that gives out 13 kpl on the highway is a guzzler to you. Yet, you ignore 4 kpl S500s just because they are *rare*. Further, a 5 kpl Hyundai i10 automatic (Thanks Amitoj) is not on your anti-green list at all, nor is a Honda Civic or a Palio 1.6 which give out only 8 - 9 kpl in the city (read = less than our affordable suvs).

4. For the record, and do refer to the sales analysis thread, back of the envelope calculations show that there are 2000 cars sold each month, including 700 BMWs / Mercs / Audis, which churn out 8 / 9 kpl OR LESS. Compare that to the 3500 "affordable SUVS" that you blindly bash, and which offer very respectable FE numbers by themselves. Suddenly, lesser efficient sedans & hatches are not that extinct after all.

5. In all these pages of discussion, you only target SUVs. When asked why MUVs are exempt from your "green standards", you give illogical reasons. FACT : The Xylo & Innova enjoy a 40% private ownership base. FACT : Even commercial UVs are running less than 5 occupants 70% of the time. FACT : MUVS outsell SUVs by 10:1. DO THE MATH. But of course, we continue to get intimidated by SUVs.

6. Since you and Sawyer have brought up the SUV scene in the States, let me highlight some more facts. FACT : The gas guzzler term was coined for 3 - 4 kpl Expeditions, Hummers, F350s, Suburbans etc. The guzzler term was NOT adopted for 2.0 liter diesel SUVs which are respectably fuel efficient. Heck, the Americans even consider a Civic fuel efficient, a car that clearly consumes more gas than a Safari! FACT : America considers a 10 kpl city run and a 13 kpl highway run as "fuel efficient vehicle". And don't forget, a Scorpio and Safari that give 13 kpl on Indian highways will give out atleast 15 - 16 kpl on a straight American freeway. FACT : There is a dearth of fuel efficient UVs in the States (look up all those forums where you picked up the guzzler tag from) and Mahindra is targetting exactly this market with their upcoming American market entry.

Just as SUVs are justified for bad road use, large families etc.

Glad to see that 5 pages of discussion have somewhat opened your eyes to reality. From initially arguing that SUVs aren't needed as 800s tackle the worst of Indian roads just fine, you now agree that SUVs are justified for bad roads.

Right, that was because you had tried to prove SUVs as the best and probably the only comfortable mode of transport in the city and that sedans cannot make it.

Illusions? I never posted that SUVs are the best, or downgraded sedans in any unnecessary way. As an owner of 3 sedans and 0 SUVs, it says a lot of what I think of sedans.

A decent level of comfort, space, economy and other features is offered by today's sedans.

And even better by hatchbacks! Especially the modern ones. Thus, your point of recommending a sedan to every SUV owner can be diminished by those same guys recommending a hatch to you.

Buy a car based on need and environmental considerations not to mention your budget

As they say, the improvements start at home. Probably a good time to get rid of that Bullet & decade old Cielo if we care so much about the environment.

else I m sure you d say that the Civic Hybrid is green so I feel everyone should buy it.

Another wrong presumption. Please search through previous discussions to see exactly what I think of the Civic hybrid. It is nothing but a marketing farce. There are better ways to go green than a Civic hybrid. Starting with the Prius which can run exclusively in electric mode.

Yeah right, and it has also implemented greater taxes for bigger vehicles so that the roads still have some space.

Absolutely. I don't see why larger vehicles should not be taxed higher than the smaller ones. On a related note, its ironical that a S320CDI owner ought to be paying less for a liter of fuel than the guy on a petrol scooter. But in the end, its a free market out there and we can buy what we want / need within legal boundaries. Of course, and I reiterate, the govt. has taken some positive steps in adopting stringent emission norms.

SUVs are a greater menace when compared to cars on the same platform.

And an MUV isn't? MUVs are an even bigger menace considering that they are greater in number by 10X, and the fact that commercial cabs are known to be the most rash. Why bash SUVs, when MUVs pose a bigger thread?

The point is, we were a family of 6 people who had the need for it due to frequent trips to the airport and my grandmother who had to stretch her legs in the rear seat.

6 of you travel in the Cielo! For someone who harps blindly about safety and all things green, carrying 6 people in a Cielo is AGAINST THE LAW. I feel bad for the 6 person in your Cielo who is being transported in a vehicle not designed to carry him / her at all, as well as for the others on the back seat whose safety is jeopardised by the additional passenger.

And for the record, thats a bad choice to start with. The Cielo is known to have extremely poor interior packaging. Even an Indigo is more comfortable.

Or maybe, you just need to buy an SUV yourself!

I m not switching sides but you are.

First you decide to focus on the affordable SUVs in our market which are the ones replacing sedans. And then, suddenly, in a turn of events, you want to bring in petrol SUVs which are absolutely irrelevant to our marketplace! If that ain't switching, I dont know what is. Again, please don't argue for the heck of it.

I gave you a bigger example and if you still cant understand it, God help you. If you dont want to understand it, God help all of us reading your posts.

Feel free to ignore my posts. They have been ranked as very helpful to the other 52000 members on this forum.

And who are you to defend SUVs?

A neutral observer who doesn't take kindly to blindly bashing fuel-efficient SUVs. We take it upon ourselves to bust unfounded myths.

Moreover, you "use your cars till they fall apart right?" So I m really not sure how many of your cars are within the norms still.

It's as easy as looking at my BHP Garage to get a clearer picture.

Originally Posted by Sawyer

To an earlier post, it is not just Japan, in most of Western Europe, including the UK, large SUVs are on the decline.

It's important to understand that 4 - 5 kpl SUVs are definitely on the decline. Do read pt. 6 of my post, which clearly explains which SUVs the guzzler tag was adopted for. A 10 kpl SUV is NOT a guzzler by any perspective. Not in the least by Americans - the biggest SUV market - which consider a lesser efficient Corolla as green.

One of the reasons for that decline is the appreciation all around of the pressures on the environment

Even the makers of these large SUVs will correct you in saying that, its the fuel prices that have led to a sales decline. Follow that up with the global recession. Running a 4 kpl SUV is simply too expensive now.

Originally Posted by freewheelburnin

Devdath,
In that case all sedans which offer mileage less than 10 in city should be banned from Indian Roads
1)SX4
2)Honda City
3)Lancer
4)Cedia
5)Verna Petrol
6)Ford fiesta 1.6
7)Fiat Adventure
8)Fiat Petra
9)Toyota Corolla
10)Honda Civic
11)Baleno

Nope, you forget that 9 kpl sedans are considered fuel efficient, but 10 kpl SUVs are guzzlers. Go figure!

[Sawyer]

@NIP - seriously though, that is car that ticks all the right boxes, I thought. It is a mystery to me why it failed, so obviously there are some boxes it didn't . A combination of factors, I guess. Even the diesel did not take off. Pity.

[Sawyer]

And that's a thought for a new thread, if it has not already been discussed. Cars that should have succeeded in India but didn't. The Fusion is one. The Peugeot 309 is another. Not sure whether its worth making a new thread on, this subject.

[NIP]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

And that's a thought for a new thread, if it has not already been discussed. Cars that should have succeeded in India but didn't. The Fusion is one. The Peugeot 309 is another. Not sure whether its worth making a new thread on, this subject.

There's a thread on that:

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...its-prime.html

[vasudeva]

Since the title of the thread is safety of SUVs and sedans and one person commented that no studies have been published on this, let me guide me to IIHS Status Report of 2007. IIHS, US is considered even more stringent than official NHTSA and their safety picks and reco. influence insurance premiums.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf

This table is extracted from this issue

[suman]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

This table is extracted from this issue

Very very interesting numbers there Vasudeva. Thanks for sharing. Will be (hopefully) an eye-opener for a few of our brethren here

[vasudeva]

Remember these are driver death rates, not pedestrians. If I get something about that, will post it here. However, as a basic rule, the higher the speed and the higher the weight of a vehicle, the more likelihood of serious/fatal injury to a pedestrian. Further, these are US numbers. IIHS website is very useful and informative. It would do good to visit that site.

My personal view is that there are safety features which may protect the driver, but more important for overall safety of driver and pedestrians are safe drivers.

Some time back (perhaps 2007) I had started a thread on speed and overspeeding. Look at that for getting some idea.

[diabloo]

Originally Posted by suman

Very very interesting numbers there Vasudeva. Thanks for sharing. Will be (hopefully) an eye-opener for a few of our brethren here

Statistics hide as much as they reveal. Its like saying a one-tenth population of Qatar (Total population: 13 Lakh) would in road accidents every year, if they were in India (Total road accidents death: 1.3Lakh)

[vasudeva]

IIHS had also published a 2006 Status report `bigger is safer' here:
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4110.pdf

Here is one diagram:

This does not exactly mean what it shows. IIHS says:

Minicars aren’t the best choices in terms of safety because small, light vehicles afford less protection than ones that are larger and heavier. There’s less structure to absorb crash energy, so deaths and injuries are more likely to occur in both single- and multiple-vehicle crashes.

This doesn’t mean the very heaviest vehicles are the only safe choices because those weighing more than about 4,500 pounds (around 2,000 kg) afford only small injury risk reductions. Meanwhile they increase the injury risks for people in the other vehicles with which they collide, especially when the other vehicle is a small, light minicar. While the risk of death generally is higher in minicars than in bigger vehicles, size and weight don’t tell the whole story. Some minicar models are safer than others
because some have more crashworthy designs. The Institute’s ratings highlight these differences.

So, no generalisations. My opinion: bigger car/SUV may perhaps have a higher likelihood of saving you, but not the pedestrian or the victim.

[greenhorn]

Source SUVs double pedestrians' risk of death - 12 December 2003 - New Scientist

some more interesting data
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/Are_SUVs_Safer.pdf

[GTO]

Can always count on the statistical genius! Thank you for getting the discussion back on track, Vasudeva. I'm certain everyone appreciates it.

[vasudeva]

See this article of 2007:

For people who do not have the time, here are some graphs. Disclaimer: graphs are usually meaningless without an analysis, and for that read the article only.

[bantejas]

Originally Posted by GTO

Can always count on the statistical genius! Thank you for getting the discussion back on track, Vasudeva. I'm certain everyone appreciates it.

Finally the war is over and let peace prevail . However, I agree with you on most of the points GTO and would have been an ally if at all I had seen the thread earlier.

@Vasudeva: Thanks for sharing the stats with us. It was really helpful.

[vasudeva]

This article (for Canada) shows what most know:
1. Bigger=safer for the driver
2. Bigger in an accident=unsafe for the person being hit.

Note that there is the odds ratio, and relative risk. There are two good tables table 3 and table 5 here. The higher the odds ratio, the higher the probability of hospitalisation/death. Ref here means comparison. For example, in driver's sex: female is ref, and males have 23% higher chance (odds ratio of 1.23).

I do not want to exhaust the bandwidth here with long docs. Sorry for that.





is a good table which shows

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by GTO

From what angle are vehicles like the Sumo, Scorpio, Safari etc. guzzlers? Anyone will agree that their FE is pretty respectable. Heck, the Indian market is the best judge of that. If they were guzzlers - by mass opinion - they would NOT sell in the first place!

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.