2nd Apr 2007, 14:24
Please do some research before posting such falsehoods. Using your logic, there is no way highway deaths would have go DOWN when cars got smaller and used "less metal" in their construction, yet they did. And those same statistics would not have gone UP when SUVs became popular.
You clearly have no understanding of physics, safety features, modern vehicles, or the ways SUV manufacturers skirt legal obligations by making sure their vehicles are NOT lumped in with cars.
SUVs are death traps no matter what brand.
4th Apr 2007, 07:06
And you have no understanding of Physics what-so-ever. I suppose you belong to that group that thinks an egg can destroy a bowling ball? The safety features are what has made vehicles safer. The rate has gone down because vehicles today have features that avoid the accident all together. If vehicles were made as tough as they were 20 or 30 years ago (assume gas is not a factor) and had all of the modern-day safety features (air-bags, stability control, positive traction, etc) they would really be safe. If you're going to tell me that people survive head-on collisions in cars because they're made of plastic and people die in SUV's because they have too much metal in them, you are stuck in a little twilight zone. Here's what I would love to see. I would love to see an Impala with no safety features what-so-ever except seat belts and a Camry with no features, but seat belts and let them both hit a wall going 35 mph. I would like to see which dummy gets mutilated the worst. Toyota's maybe safer today because their features keep them from having wrecks to begin with, which is fine, that's the best feature you can have. But they certainly aren't safer today because they're built so tough like a tank. That's baloney. I'm not talking about safety features and whether cars should have them or not, I'm talking about structural rigidity, which any vehicle should have. I wish all cars were built tougher today. If SUV's are so dangerous, it's not because they have 2000 extra pounds of metal in them. Is that that hard for you to understand?
6th Jun 2007, 09:43
If the dealer network in any given country with a huge mfr. like GM it should not present any problems. If it was a new India SUV tentatively being sold with a limited network in a country like the USA I would have some concerns.
6th Jun 2007, 09:59
Those long heavy frame rails that are talked about here do nothing more than lay the groundwork for the sheetmetal unibody like structure that is put on top of it.
SUVs are more dangerous.
6th Jun 2007, 13:52
I would rather tow my 20 ft boat with my new heavy duty Silverado than even begin to compromise others, myself, my truck and my boat on the highway in heavy highway traffic on weekends with a Tundra. Not happening.
6th Jun 2007, 23:00
These trucks are not imported by Chevy in to Southeast Asia. They are imported privately and sold privately.
7th Jul 2007, 09:26
I am in the market for a pickup truck, and I have to say that initially I was turned off by domestics. However reading these reviews has turned me back to them. I was also looking at a ford f-150. How do the two trucks compare?
13th Jul 2007, 09:48
Actually those long, heavy frame rails that are holding the sheet metal on top, keep the sheet metal from buckling on impact. Uni-body cars ONLY have sheet metal that is "supposed" to save you in a wreck. Trucks and truck-based SUV's have nice long beams that are like battering rams when they hit another vehicle. That's why SUV's are so dangerous, they kill the person in the Tercel or Corolla in front of them.
I hate to hear that Chevy has gone to aluminum in their 5.3L V8. Maybe as chemist get better at what they do, they'll make aluminum stronger, but the idea kills me as far as any kind of a work engine. Aluminum: Great for racing engines. Cast Iron: Great for work engines.
As for Ford, there's a reason that their F-150 is the most sold truck for 30 years now. They keep making the frames stronger and stronger. Now days as other vehicles keep getting more plastic put into them, Ford keeps adding more metal to their trucks. I would suggest going with them, but whatever floats your boat.
28th Apr 2019, 03:46
300,000 miles on my 05 Tundra before it was rear ended at 70mph. Never broke down, hauled with it daily. Bought an 08 after the 05 was totaled and that has 240,000 miles.
4th May 2019, 11:48
And there are Silverado and Ford fleet owners that can absolutely say the same. Especially when ordered with heavier duty packages regarding cooling, electrical and suspension components. Used daily at my company doing pickup and delivery of industrial tool rentals, hoist and hydraulics. The beds typically carry some very substantial weight as well as being subjected to severe refinery, power plant environments etc. That is a big difference. Not comparing to all clean interstate mostly empty paved interstate driving. For recreation vs real work. Or just going to a home center picking up a potted plant or bush.
From the era of the review, it’s really hard to beat the HD2500 gas pickup. And we have had Ford F Series that were good. Worse was the Ram with maintenance and the worst ride. Not that ride was critical, but it was the last brand truck our drivers chose to drive.
Just adhere to maintenance, and high odometer reads are par for the course. Many companies are holding onto their vehicles longer to save costs to replace.
2nd Apr 2007, 09:17
What makes an SUV dangerous is a poor driver. If you lose control of it and flip it, yes that's bad for you and the people in your path. An SUV is built with much more metal than just about any car and a lot of that metal is in between you and whatever is in front of you. If you are going to tell me that a unibody frame, which is a bunch of sheet metal welded together is stronger than frame rails, which are long and extremely heavy metal beams, you need to wake up and quit dreaming. The only thing that makes a car safer is the fact that it is harder to lose control of because of its lower center of gravity. The metal in the car doesn't make it strong. In fact, they make them weak in order to absorb some of the energy. Toyota is probably one of the worst for making light fluffy unibody structures. My brother had an old Camry that flexed and twisted so much over bumps, it almost didn't need shock absorbers. If you'll look at a weight comparison between common compact cars (Corolla, Rabbit, Civic, Accent, Cobalt, Sentra, Jetta, Focus, Caliber, etc) you'll notice that the Toyota Corolla is lighter than any of the equivalent cars by anywhere from 200 to 500 pounds, yet it's the same size in dimensions, if not bigger. Corolla's are death traps, I don't care how reliable they are, they're dangerous. Most anything Toyota makes in the car segments HAS to have a million air-bags shoved into it in order for anyone to survive a wreck in one. The metal simply isn't there. Trucks and body on frame SUV's (whether practical or not) have more metal in them. They out-weight most cars by a ton or more in structural weight. My brother worked for a subsidiary company for Toyota. He made the new Camry B pillars for about five months. He said that a skeleton of a Camry was sitting on the floor in the factory. He said that the thickest piece of metal in the unibody was about 2 millimeters thick. The B pillar is the metal beam between front and back doors that is supposed to keep the vehicle from caving in on you in a side impact collision. He said that they were made of thin sheet metal layered on each other. Does that sound strong to you? That's why the Camry has side curtain air-bags, not to mention a bunch of other air-bags. It's easy to assume the car is strong when all you see is sheet-metal covering everything, but if you ever saw one as it's being built, you might just be a little worried to drive one. The drivers of SUV's is what makes SUV's dangerous. If people knew how to drive them, they wouldn't be responsible for as many deaths. Also, a big heavy SUV hitting a puny car may also be responsible for the deaths. Take a Physics class.