So the ages old with much less safety standards fair worse. That really doesn't say much for size. Two cars with similar safety standards is what you want.DrunkFace wrote:
A higher car, yes. A larger one, no.Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
no debate really, a larger car would defeat a smaller one in an accident in most cases? just throwing it out there..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecdOBCFjI
It'd be pretty hard to actually kick the foglight in, they probably used a metal bar to break it or something. People use a similar tactic to break open the reverse light and its housing on a Crown Vic Police Interceptor, and from there you can put your hand in, open the trunk with the emergency release handle, and then help yourself to all the police goodies like body armor, street sweepers, and M4s.PrivateVendetta wrote:
Now tell me that doesn't look like someone kicked my fog light in?
If you can see better you can react quicker, especially in dense traffic. Why do you think otherwise?Camm wrote:
HahahahaJay wrote:
Better field of view in an suv makes you a better defensive driver.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i dont know how you guys can argue about cars on this forum
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
We argue about everything else, why not?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
because if you say something like better field of view = better driver you get laughed atJay wrote:
We argue about everything else, why not?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
exceptions being the G wagon from Merc, the Porsche Cayenne and the old Lexus/Toyota Land Cruisers.FatherTed wrote:
suvs for the most part look like fucking shit anyway
SUVs give you a better field of view but SUV drivers are usually oblivious to the rest of the world/road when they are driving their tanks.
i think most suvs look pretty good
I always liked the look of the Expedition and Explorer, particularly the last few model years.
I likes me a 4Runner. If I don't end up with a truck for my next vehicle, it will probably be that. Also Range rovers look nice too. The Cayennes are getting better looking though. Hated the look of the first ones.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
exceptions being the G wagon from Merc, the Porsche Cayenne and the old Lexus/Toyota Land Cruisers.FatherTed wrote:
suvs for the most part look like fucking shit anyway
Last edited by -Whiteroom- (2012-10-09 10:20:04)
range rovers don't seem to have a lot of clearance . . .
Some of the best off roaders that you can use on the road daily though
land rover defender or bust
i don't doubt that. we went to great basin, a national park not to far from here, and half the roads were high clearance accessible only. that's when i started noticing the ride height on different 4x4's . . .PrivateVendetta wrote:
Some of the best off roaders that you can use on the road daily though
I really liked the first gen hummer. There I said it.
I've always liked the Jeep Grand Cherokee
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The most recent model Expedition looks really cool to me for some reason, but the new Explorer looks like shit with it's stupid crossover design. I don't know why DC Metropolitan chose that over the Taurus if they were gonna stick with Fords unless they were cheaperHurricane2k9 wrote:
I always liked the look of the Expedition and Explorer, particularly the last few model years.
Jay wrote:
I've always liked the Jeep Grand Cherokee
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2012-10-09 10:49:42)
Except it isn't. The sheer size of the blind spots negates any gains from sitting (marginally) higher.Jay wrote:
Better field of view in an suv makes you a better defensive driver.
I like pie.
This is why I laughed.TSI wrote:
Except it isn't. The sheer size of the blind spots negates any gains from sitting (marginally) higher.Jay wrote:
Better field of view in an suv makes you a better defensive driver.
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
@Mac I agree. If I could get one that runs on cooking oil I'd buy it.
@j5 yeah, what I dont' get about picking the Explorer interceptor is that it surely can't handle corners as well as a CVPI or Taurus PI. Not that MPD does a lot of chases...
@wpa that and the Ram SRT-10 are so unnecessary
@j5 yeah, what I dont' get about picking the Explorer interceptor is that it surely can't handle corners as well as a CVPI or Taurus PI. Not that MPD does a lot of chases...
@wpa that and the Ram SRT-10 are so unnecessary
agree range rover is the top of the line13urnzz wrote:
i don't doubt that. we went to great basin, a national park not to far from here, and half the roads were high clearance accessible only. that's when i started noticing the ride height on different 4x4's . . .PrivateVendetta wrote:
Some of the best off roaders that you can use on the road daily though
I'm interested in a toyota 4runner type(for offroad) but i want the inside more lux
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
wpa that and the Ram SRT-10 are so unnecessary
Which SUV's have you driven? My MDX has excellent visibility, excellent turn ratio for it's size, multi-view back cameras, blindspot electronics and collision alerts, and I can see more cars up ahead than any regular car.Camm wrote:
This is why I laughed.TSI wrote:
Except it isn't. The sheer size of the blind spots negates any gains from sitting (marginally) higher.Jay wrote:
Better field of view in an suv makes you a better defensive driver.