Talk:SUV/Archive 1

Huge bias can be added, or removed, by small changes. In newspapers, for instance, bias is often very subtle, conveyed by the addition of a half-dozen words here and there, and the omission of some relevant fact that could be stated in one sentence--that sort of thing. What you did in the original article is essentially write an argument (admittedly, supported :-) ) against the use of sports utility vehicles. That's not what an encyclopedia is for.  I think the article still has that problem, actually, but I'm not sure what do about it. --LMS

I agree with Belltower. The many negative comments of the SUV are all true. LMS may find the article bias because there was nothing good about somegood that the American fell in love with, but that is just the truth in my opinion. If anyone can add some good comments about the SUV, the article may be balanced a bit. But I think that would not be a easy task. A friend of mine was involved in a rollover accident when the SUV first came out couple years ago. His wife was badly hurt and he swore he would not drive a SUV again. By the way, he was a good driver. His car was rolled over just because he was trying to dodge another car to avoid an accident.

Since most folks buy an SUV for (let's face it) image reasons (lumped with a few rationalizations), it may be hard to not seem biased against them. I added a bit about their towing ability, which is another reason people buy SUVs. We might even add a bit about more recent Minivan designs and marketing, which have tried to present a less-stodgy image for those vehicles. --Belltower

I have no problems whatsoever with including a lot of information in the article that makes it sound as if SUVs are bad vehicles to own. I do have problems with articles that actually seem to draw conclusions to this effect, though. Look, the point of the article is not advocacy. We aren't in the business of trying to convince people that SUVs are bad--even if they are, and even if an article that includes many relevant facts about them will lead many to conclude that they are. But people should be left to draw that conclusion for themselves. If you disagree, why don't you start your own "advocacy wiki"? I actually wish someone would, so that those of us who want to write encyclopedia articles can get on with it. --LMS

I have to agree with LMS. In its present form, the article reads like a piece of advocacy rather than an encyclopedia entry. There's nothing wrong with the facts in the article (though there are lots of points missing about the utilarian origins of the vehicles and so on), but it needs restructuring. Robert Merkel

I strongly disagree that most people buy SUV's for reasons of image reasons. The article hints at what I think is the primary reason for the popularity of SUV's, but doesn't do so in the right section. Let me explain. :-)

Someone might want to add a bit about them being capable of travelling in snow where other vehicles get stuck, helping transport emergency service workers, etc.


 * Except that I know personally numerous people who have gone the SUV route simply because they needed a capacious vehicle and couldn't stand the idea of driving a minivan. Heck, the aesthetics of the Toyota Previa -- still, to my eyes, the best-looking minivan -- were at least part of why I bought one.  Cafe may have killed the large powerful sedan, admittedly. --Belltower

Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards have essentially killed the traditional American large car, of which the traditional station wagon is one of the more notable examples. If you want a large station wagon of the traditional style, you can forget it, teh automakers are unwilling to offer them in the face of the CAFE penalties.

So, there's the SUV loophole. Automakers, restricted by regulation from offering what the consumer really wants, respond as best they can by offering and marketing the SUV to the public as the big safe family car alternative. It might be instructive, and I am not the right person to answer this question, to consider how the artificial car/truck distinction may regulate away the possibility of safer (lower center of gravity) SUVs -- would they then legally become cars, and subject to CAFE standards?

I don't deny, by the way, that there are image considerations at work. Many young parents, struggling with the emotional transition from carefree youth to the responsibilities of adulthood, may wish to avoid the image burden of the minivan. The SUV speaks to us of outdoor adventure, camping, offroading, not of hauling the kids to the shopping center.

As for me, I'm an automotive enthusiast. Notice that automotive enthusiasts almost universally disdain SUVs. I certainly do, for my own use at least. But I am hesitant to engage in unsupported emotional attacks on people who do have reasons for having an SUV, or who at least think that they have reasons. It's a free country, and I want people to be able to buy what they want to buy.

Indeed, if I may be permitted a bit of political commentary on this talk page, I would love to see the CAFE standards eliminated as being entirely unjustified, so that we could, ironically enough, see a resurgence of more fuel efficient and safe station wagons. That governmental regulation has some unforeseen and unintended and undesirable side-effects should come as no surprise, eh? --Jimbo Wales


 * I agree about CAFE. A person who buys a Rolls-Royce and drives it 500 miles a year pays a huge premium, whereas the guy who buys an Excursion and commutes 100 miles each way a day pays nothing.  It produces distortions of the market which don't achieve its goals.  Higher gas taxes would come closer, although such taxes have the disadvantage of not being an up-front cost and thus they don't really affect purchasing decisions.  Perhaps combining such taxes with (government-provided) discounts for efficient and low emissions vehicles would produce a the right effect. --Belltower

OK, I've taken out some of the "structural bias" out of the article. Is my rewrite a little fairer? For the record, I am also a critic of the explosion of SUV's clogging our city streets, but the article in its previous form was a propaganda piece rather than an encyclopedia article IMHO. Robert Merkel

CAFE
The wikilink for CAFE may be bad for search function, cause of cafe. anobo 07:58 29 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Fixed: linked to (presently stubby) Corporate Average Fuel Economy instead.


 * I think we need to find a better photo, though. The vehicle pictured (a Subaru Forester) is barely even an SUV; it's a wholly car-based vehicle without even significantly higher ground clearance, created by Subaru when they found that their vehicles, even though just as off-road capable as most SUVs, didn't have an upright enough stance to appeal to many people in that market.  Thus the Forester is only a quasi-SUV.  We really need to show some more typical car. &mdash;Morven 09:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

4WD != SUV
It has always irked me when SUVs are referred to as Four-wheel-drives; I'm glad this article points out that not all SUVs have four-wheel drive. Isn't it also true that not all four-wheel drive motor vehicles are SUVs? I'm not sure, or I'd amend the paragraph; perhaps someone who knows can make mention of this if it is true. Quill 03:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course it is true that not all four-wheel drive motor vehicles are SUVs. I have the 2001 Passat wagon with 4motion. It's a true (3 differentials) four-wheel drive that is excellent at handling the combination of hard acceleration, sharp turning, and slick black ice. It's low enough to bottom out with about 4 inches of snow. Porshe and Lamborghini also make four-wheel drive vehicles, generally powering the front only if the rear starts to slip. AlbertCahalan 21:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There are indeed all-wheel drive cars: all Subarus, most Audis are AWD. Toyota also used to sell 4WD versions of the Camry and Corolla. -- In fact, it's very hard to tell wheter the Toyota Matrix is a 4WD car, a small SUV or a mini-minivan. (somebody who didn't sign)


 * Question: is a Land Rover or other real off-road 4x4 (Lada Niva, etc...) an SUV? I question the use of the word 'Sport' from 'Sport Utility Vehicle' in these cases.
 * Also this article is entirely American based - and this should be mentioned in the first sentence.
 * Spiggot 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Land Rovers are considered to be SUVs, as are Jeeps. The actual off-road ability of an SUV isn't usually considered when determining what is an SUV. --SodiumBenzoate 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've hardly ever heard the term "SUV" in the UK - it sounds like an Americanism. And it doesn't make much sense longhand either. If a Landrover is an SUV, then I still don't know what they are!Major-General Clanger (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Road Crash Safety
''In fact, SUV drivers are far more likely to perish in an accident with a smaller car than is the driver of the other vehicle. One reason for this is that SUVs are more than 16 times more likely to "roll over" in an accident, and this has become more publicized in recent years.'' Is there any definite proof of the above statements that can be cited? Also, there are many cases (dispute this statement too please ^.^) where a car and an SUV collided, and the higher clearance of the SUV, heavier weight and front bull-bars at times have caused much more damage to the OTHER car than if it were a car-on-car crash. I also think that there is an attitude of bias (both ways) in the language and content. elynnia
 * No, that's completely wrong. I removed that section. And there are waaay too many cases to count (the vast majority) where the SUVs' heavier weight, higher ground clearance, and stiffer construction severely harmed the car-passengers. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The latest data I've seen (though I can't remember where) said that while the bigger weight of SUVs does increase safety, this effect is neutralized by the rollover tendency, thus making them no safer than a midsized sedan. In fact, a midsized sedan may be the safest class of vehicle given they have more weight than a compact while being more nimble than an SUV when it comes to accident avoidance.71.194.153.46 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

SUV Benefits for Small Busines owners
Am I the only one who thinks this section sounds incredibly biased? Aside from the fact it sounds less like an encycolpedia and more like an justification/apology, claims like


 * Compared to a Mini Van a SUV is more fuel economic thus better for their wallet and the environment
 * Compared to Mini Vans these SUV's can be parked more easily in (European) innercity area's.
 * SUV's are considered safer than Mini Vans.

need to be backed up. Then there's the ending


 * Popular and economic SUV's for Small Business Owners are the Jeep Cherokee, Land Rover, Nissan Pathfinder and Kia Sorento.
 * You can't see on the outside of SUV's if the owner is using it to make a living or bought it for other reasons, so don't judge SUV's and their owners.

Even if one were to keep the section intact, at the very least shouldn't it be presented at the very end, after the criticisms; this section should work as (if anything) a rebuttal and not as an opener. Why is it even in under the SUV design characteristics heading anyways?

I'll hold off making any edits for the time being to get other people's opinions on the matter.(Rubenfh 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC))


 * The whole paragraph needs to go - I removed it. One more point, SUVs and minivans have comparable mileage. Compare the Honda Pilot and Odyssey for example. Rhobite 03:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about "Trivia" section
not sure it tells us anything we care about ... what do others think? &mdash;Morven 23:16, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * No complaints, so it's gone. Here is what was there:

== Trivia == The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that, when polled, 29 percent of Americans say that Jesus would drive an SUV, while 33 percent say that he would not.

&mdash;Morven 01:43, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Since he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, he'd probably drive a Yugo or a Citroen 2CV.

&mdash;Gerfriedc Aug 10th 2005

or what about a poetntially unsafe vehicle for the occupants like the logan ;-)

Basing this on our local carpenters/joiners, I think he'd probably drive either a double-cab pickup or a van.

Soft-roaders
Ashley Pomeroy added:


 * In the UK, SUVs are often referred to in derogatory terms as Soft-Roaders.

Not quite true, I believe; the term applies only to the 'never actually taken off road' segment of the market. Things like the Porsche Cayenne, BMW suvs, Toyota RAV4, etc. The US term 'SUV' encompasses all those, but also all Land Rover models, Toyota LandCruiser, and other models whose true off road capability is undisputed (whether or not most buyers actually need it). At least, that's the way that the British car magazines I read use the term. 23:48, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

merger
who calls for merging Four wheel drive with Sport utility vehicle as the SUV article states that all SUVs are, without exeption four-wheel-drives. So aren't this just two articles about the same thing? I think geographical separation is the only difference and the two articles should be merged, for a wider prespective. mexaguil 219.88.206.183 12:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not I. For one, the "four wheel drive" article is linked to by many non-SUV-related artlcles.  For another, not all SUVs have four wheel drive, and I fail to see where that statement is made in either article.   --SFoskett 13:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * More importantly, many 4 wheel drive vehicles are not SUVs. It is normal for Scots and Scandinavians to drive compact and subcompact models that are 4WD. Something to do with better performance on snow coupled with expensive fuel.--Fergie 12:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When was the term SUV coined?
Is SUV a retronym since the term lasted for a couple decades although the type of vehicle itself has been around for several decades? --SuperDude 01:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I'd love to know the origin of the term.

Point of view
The line "The popular stereotype of a large SUV sporting "Support Our Troops" and "W" (George W. Bush) bumper stickers is a favorite object of contempt for anti-war, pro-environment liberals" seems somewhat biased and seems to me to be conforming to the right-wing, condescending view of liberals. Please venture your opinions on this matter, and if I am convinced, I will be happy to remove the POV tag. Andrew Graham 05/07/05 09.12 GMT


 * Also it is specific to the USA and meaningless to the rest of us--Fergie 12:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that that sentence was just over the top. I've removed it 'cause I can't imagine anyone seriously supporting its inclusion.  --SFoskett July 5, 2005 14:38 (UTC)

Stability control
Consumer's Union talks about SUV stability control: http://www.consumersunion.org/products/saseny500.htm

Trying to find some other cites that talk explicitly about stability control etc. in SUVs specifically. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also this NHTSA preliminary report on stability control shows reduction of single-vehicle incidents by 35 percent in passenger cars and by 67 percent in SUVs: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790.html —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Changing Keith Bradsher's book
High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the Suv to High and Mighty: SUVs--The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way

because the latter book is more often publicized and more in-depth. Last Avenue 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
The proper citation for the claim of doubled pedestrian risk is Accident Analysis and Prevention Volume 36 page 295 I will add it shortly if someone else does't. --208.41.98.142 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Add it, and the author/editor, too. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why there is a criticism section, when there is blatent criticism throughout the article? I understand that it is a touch subject, but why is EVERY section littered with silly nicknames and snide remarks? This is NOT helping people understand what an SUV is. I plan on revising the entire article to INCLUDE the criticism but ONLY in the proper place. As it is written now, it needs to be cleaned up DESPERATELY. PabloMartinez 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The marketing practices is absolutly horrible!!! Talking about specific people's opinions has nothing to do with the subject and if even nessesary should be placed on a comments section. The same argument can be made for cars as they race around curvy roads and full throttle. This section needs to be more informative/balanced or removed.

Agreed. Comparisons of pedestrians being hit by SUVs and pedestrians being hit by smaller cars yield obvious conclusions and are purely cited to provide fuel to the chest-beating "I hate big cars" brigade. Why not compare the relative risks of being hit by SUVs and vans? Or SUVs and mini-buses? Or SUVs and regular buses? SimonUK 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

biased article
This article is extremely biased against SUV's. Attempts to reflect more neutral or even positive sides of SUV's have been deleted. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.188.213 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Can you point out any specific examples of deleted content you feel should be added back? - SCEhard T 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is biased against SUVs. I've never quite understood the particular hostility that SUVs come under; in the UK at least, you have to pay through the nose for poor fuel economy. Considering the patterns of fuel duty seem to bear little relation to pollution reduction objectives and far more to government revenue generation, it could be argued that SUV owners are actually performing a social service by contributing so much to the communal pot. Personally, and this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't own nor intend to own an SUV, I think it's just a form of modern class-envy. Just as SUVs have a status symbol aspect to them, so they are attacked as all status symbols are. Still, that's neither here nor there, more important is the fact that this article equivocates on so many points. Most of the article is spent complaining about the risks to other road users but any car is a risk to another road user. Everyone's ideal would be to have no other cars present. People buy cars to be safer for themselves, not for others. It could be argued that SUVs are more of a problem than the average car but on this point the article flip-flops around. At one point it says that SUVs are falsely perceived as safe by the drivers of them (the statistics on accidents need far tighter referencing) and then at another point it says a collision with an SUV is more dangerous for the other smaller car. So it is possible for an SUV to be correctly regarded as safe. If everyone's got an SUV, you're at a disadvantage to not have one.

Other signs of bias include comments like "There are a number of places where an SUV can be of benefit to its occupants. Areas such as the Australian Outback, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia"  Implicit in this is that SUVs are not of benefit elsewhere. A more NPOV comment might be the "all-terrain aspects of SUVs make them particularly suited for areas such as..."

Criticism is pervasive in this article, as mentioned by Pablomartinez. Even the most tenuous comments are given space, e.g. "Many critics see these features as simply unnecessary for normal commuting. Other points of criticism: the gadgets may become troublesome (adding to repair bills), they add to the overall weight of the vehicle, the luxury features are simply toys for the rich and provide additional opportunities for the owner to flaunt himself/herself, and – in some instances – serve as distractions to drivers and causing an accident risk." Point out to me a modern car designed for citizen use that doesn't contain features that are in excess of what is required for commuting or convey some aspect of status. All cars contain luxuries, even in their basic styling.

Basically this article needs paring down dramatically. Relegate criticisms to the criticism section and then offer rebuttals on the basis that most of the complaints are simply against private car ownership in general. Panlane --129.11.76.229 09:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It is true that many SUVs only give 25 or so miles per gallon, but then so do many very large engine saloon cars. Another criticism of SUVs is that they "add to congestion" because they are bigger than other cars, and therefore should be "banned". Presumably then all busses, lorries and vans should be banned as well, because they're the same size, or larger than an SUV. It is also true that the footprint (amount of space on the road) taken up by a typical SUV is no more, and in some cases less, than an estate car. The problem that most people have with SUVs is not safety, it's not congestion and it's not environmental concerns. It is in fact the same problem that everyone had with Jaguars in the 1970s, XR3i's in the 1980s, and BMWs in the 1990s - JEALOUSY THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD ONE. Thats the facts, deal with it. SimonUK 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your last point is a fair one, but does not negate valid criticism of SUVs--Fergie 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of cars get less than 25 mpg, at least according to the EPA estimates, including cars with moderately sized engines like a V6 or a turbocharged I4. --SodiumBenzoate 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article is so biased, throughout, that it is funny. Most of it is on the lines of "My mum told me that SUVs are dangerous" Greglocock 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 129.11.76.229 and Greglocock: might I suggest that you stop moaning about the article and start editing it instead? Any reasonable edit will eventually take root even if a few partisans are intent on removing it. Fergie 10:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the paragraph out about the luxury models. I didn't see the point. You can get power seats, nav systems, etc. on any vehicle. Also the stuff in this paragraph about "...toys for the rich" and "opportunities for the owner to flaunt himself/herself" is kind of offensive. This delete also made this article a little less lopsided. It still has more criticisms than anything else but it's getting better. BDSIII 09:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit 2/14/2006
This article was ridiculous and needed a complete overhaul. I rearranged and removed the petty comments. In no way is this article done, but I believe the content has been made more clear and less garbled. Feel free to edit and wikify. I will vigilantly remove any bias. --PabloMartinez 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)]] 14:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I kept most of the information changed, but re-instated the layout of the article, albeit moving things around. Having two sections, 'about SUVs', and 'Criticisms', and no intro paragraph is too narrow and deep of a layout. —Last Avenue [ talk | contributions ] 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am making an attempt to separate the criticism and the actual information from the article. Let's try and keep them separate. --&#91;&#91;User:PabloMartinez&#124;PabloMartinez 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)]] 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Added ((confusing)) template
The article still needs some organization. Especially from the "Criticism" heading, and below. I think there is a lot of good information there, but its too disorganized to be of much use. Help is appreciated! --PabloMartinez 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quality of article
At present, this is a poor collection of trivia, "common knowledge", guesswork and hearsay rather than a proper encyclopaedia article. Just an observation from someone randomly reading articles (my editing interests are elsewhere). zoney &#09827; talk 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of this article belongs in the category of "green politics". Such a link from this page would be appropriate but diluting useful information about vehicles with this thinly-disguised political diatribe is very annoying. This sort of undisciplined off-topic moralizing is becoming commonplace on Wikipedia and could ruin it for everyone. --Kven 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "For example the Hummer H2 is derived from the HMMWV, originally developed for the US Armed Forces." The H2 is derived from the GMC Yukon platform, not the HMMWV, and has nothing to do with the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.159.47 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Errors
Just some notes about Erroneous information this article gives - Firstly, in the "SUVs in remote areas" section - You rarely see an SUV Used outside of the city - More commonly used outside the citys are either 4WD Utes(Such as a Toyota Hilux), or proper FWDs - Such as the Holden Jackaroo, the older Model Land Cruisers, Nissan Patrols(Mostly 2002/3 models backwards), and the Mitsubishi Pajero. The Average SUV would propably not Survive the Beating a Vehicle takes in the Australian Outback, unless one Treated it rather Gingerly.

Secondly, the claim "In Australia, the automotive industry and press have recently adopted the term SUV in place of four wheel drive in the description of vehicles and market segments." This Is unfortunately not true - In the Australian Market, Press, and To consumers, an SUV and a 4WD are still two Very distinct Vehicles - For example, A Toyota Rav-4 or a Honda CR-V Would be classed as an "SUV", But a Toyota Land Cruiser or a Holden Jackaroo are Still Called "Four Wheel Drives"

Lastly, just a personal observation - Down here, SUV's definitely have a Place - but that Place is in the City and the suburbs, or maybe doing very light offroad driving. They are not seen as a serious offroad Vehicle.

Also, I might note that this article is written from a very America-centric perspective, but Really, that's nothing to worry about - 90% of Wikipedia Is written the exact same way, as a vast majority of Wiki editors are American. Still, Just thought I'd say.


 * Yes, but your contribution is extremely Autralia-centric which is even more irrelevant to the rest of us--Fergie 10:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the fact that attempting to correct information that smacks of assumption to a more correct form strikes you as Irrelevant.

As I'm unsure how to correct the article in a manner appropriate for wikipedia, while still presenting the correct information, Can I get a hand on this from someone with more on the topic than a snide comment? Churba 14:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Churba. I am also from Australia and I can tell you that everything stated in the article is correct.  The FCAI adopted the use of the word SUV several years ago, to categorize ALL vehicles ranging from Honda CR-Vs to Toyota LandCruisers.  There are four categories: Compact, Medium, Large, and Luxury.  To put it another way: ANY vehicle with increased ground clearance and a wagon-type body (i.e. no boot), is an SUV.  Whether or not it has any 4WD-capability is irrelevant.  This is the main reason why the term SUV was introduced in Australia - because there are now quite a few vehicles without 4WD - such as the Ford Territory (RWD version), and Hyundai Tucson (2.0L/City/FWD), which are otherwise identical to their 4WD equivalents.  Toyota will also be releasing a FWD/2WD Toyota Kluger next year.  I hope this clears up any confusion.  Davez621 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers mate - I didn't know. I thought that there were still two separate categories, but that was my mistake. Churba 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

POV check
The criticism section of this article is way out of control, reads like a leftie blog. Imagine if Global Warming contained this large a criticism section the left leaners would throw a hissy fit--— ( Kepin ) RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Either make a separate article to demonize SUV or put such material in articles about the points being made. For example, the article on Automobile safety is the right place for rollover, bumper height, etc. The large section on fuel economy should move to Fuel economy in automobiles and be made even larger so it can discuss other classes of vehicle, and why fuel is evil. The SUV article should say something like, the larger a vehicle the more fuel it generally burns, though some SUV burn more fuel than some other vehicles of similar size. I assume this is true. (The present article hints at such a doctrine, which should either be made explicit or deleted.) Then a link to the fuel economy article. Jim.henderson 12:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove added clutter
The new sections: "Top 20 most expensive SUVs", "Current models" only adds trivia and clutter and should be removed. Why not have "20 cheapest SUVs", "20 Tallest SUVs" or "Past models"? GodWasAnAlien 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the same thing. As no one's replied to defend the list in one month, I'm deleting it, and the gallery of needless photos. Wiki isn't a catalog. ThuranX 14:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sport or Sports?
People mostly say that SUV in full means Sports Utility Vehicle, not Sport Utility Vehicle. Which is correct? DifiCa 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only ever heard "Sport Utility Vehicle" and I believe that is the term used in marketing, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.111.37 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SUV, 4WD? Range Rover? Safety?
Firstly, this article seems to claim that vehicles such as the Land Rover Defender are SUVs - which they aren't, I will edit this if others agree it needs editing. Also, there is no reference at all to the Range Rover, which is absurd, when it is commonly known as the first SUV. Lastly, the 'Popularity' section includes this : 'a crash test conducted by the British television programme "Top Gear" demonstrated that a 4x4 (in this case a Land Rover Discovery) fared much worse than a multi-purpose vehicle (a Renault Espace), when the two vehicles were crashed into each other', this was, in fact on 'Fifth Gear', but is completely irrelevant as the Discovery used was a mid 1990's model, when the  Espace was brand new. Again, I will happily edit these, but only if others agree that they should be changed.--Mr. Bridger 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. ALL Land Rovers are SUVs - they are a company that only produce SUVs.  Why don't you consider the Defender an SUV?  Let me put it another way - if the Defender is not an SUV, then what is it?  A sedan?  No.  A station wagon?  No.  A pickup truck?  No.  What then?  You call it a '4x4' but this is just another word to describe the same type of vehicle.  i.e. 4x4s and SUVs can't co-exist.  ALL 4x4s are SUVs.Davez621 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all 4x4 vehicles are SUVs. For example pickup trucks are also produced with 4-wheel drive. Also, i don't think anyone would call a Subaru Impreza or the station wagon version of it (i think it was the Legacy, not sure though) an SUV. And, the Defender is definetly an SUV, it is a vehicle that is designed to work off-road and has all the common design subjects that an SUV should contain to be classified as one. So, in case it isn't an SUV, what is it then? --DifiCa 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As DifiCa explained, not all 4X4s are SUVs. In terms of the Defender, it is a Utility Vehicle, just like a tractor or van even. SUV stands for 'Sports Utility Vehicle', which suggests something that is not purely for utilitarian use. The Defender is, last time I looked at least, the vehicle most used by armies across the globe. It is a development of the Land Rover Series I, II and III, the Series I being purely designed as a replacement for the tractor in a war stricken Britain. Of course, the Defender has changed, but not hugely - coil sprung rather than leaf and different engines. Anybody who has been inside a Defender will know it has no luxuries. Nowadays, city folk have started to adopt the 110 and Defender as fashion statements, but not on the same scale as any other 4WD vehicle. The Defender is particularly hard to classify as there is no, or hardly any, other vehicle similar to it - the Jeep Wrangler having become a complete urban tool. The closest thing I can think of to compare to the Defender is the Pinzgauer, which is also used in armies all over the world. The Defender and Pinzgauer are, to conclude, Utility Off roaders. --Mr. Bridger 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"[The Range Rover] is commonly known as the first SUV." Whatever it may be commonly known as, this would be odd if true. The Range Rover was introduced in 1970, which is a bit late to claim to be a contender for first SUV. Even the Wiki article on the Range Rover notes: "Although it had many features not found on most other SUVs at the time, it is debatable whether or not the Range Rover was the first luxury SUV, as many people claim. Other luxury SUVs, such as the Jeep Wagoneer (1963) were produced before the Range Rover." And, one might add, if it is thought a stretch to consider the standard Wagoneer a luxury SUV, it is no stretch to consider Jeep's 1966 upscale Wagoneer, the "Super Wagoneer" or "Super Custom," one. In fact, Jeep calls the Super Wagoneer the first luxury SUV in the "Jeep Heritage" section of its website. 67.169.210.196 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutrality
I agree that this article states many negative things about SUVs, but I have yet to see criticism of the passenger car or any other vehicle for not being safe, due to small size, etc. This article states that the construction of an SUV can "hurt other drivers", and this is, at best, vague. I understand that "hurt other drivers" refers to the fact that an SUV is higher than other vehicles, but would a lower SUV (as are being produced now) still be more dangerous than any car on the road? Zchris87v 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, i think they would still be a bit more dangerous at least to drivers of smaller vehicles because the extra weight would still pose a danger. In case the extra weight was removed, then it would just be a car, not an SUV. Though some danger would be removed and i guess a large sedan or station wagon drivers would be about as well off in a collision with an SUV than the driver on the SUV. --DifiCa 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fuel Economy table
In the article it states the following weights of vehicles:

SUVs 4442 lb 1924 kg Minivans 4075 lb 1939 kg

And then later says that SUVs weigh less than minivans. obviously the data presented is confusing, both because of the mismatch of numbers and the fact that neither set of measurements equate close to the ~2.2lb/kg standard accepted by most armchair weight-beancounters... alas it's too late tonight for me to go looking but I flagged the section in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TO11MTM (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

SUV market share/sales figures?
I think someone should add a table (or at least a mention) of the market share SUVs currently hold in various countries, and perhaps historical figures (going back 10/15 years) for comparison. I expect the USA would be highest. Here in Australia SUVs currently have approx. a 17% share of the total market. This compares with just 7.6% in 1996, 10 years ago. This is a 223% increase in *share*, but sales figures actually reveal a far more dramatic increase (44k/year in 1995 versus 170k/year in 2005!) - which is a 383%, nearly 4 fold increase in sales.

I also wanted to point out that the link provided in the William Cottrell article doesn't work.Davez621 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is bogus info
When a SUV strikes a car in frontal impact, there are four driver fatalities in the car for every one driver fatality in the SUV. When SUVs strike passenger cars on the side, there are 22 passenger car driver fatalities for every SUV driver fatality. This is mainly due to differential in the mass of the vehicles and that those hit by SUV’s suffer injuries of the torso (which contains vital organs) while passengers in SUVs receive leg injuries. [5]

The link provided did not in any way relate to the statistics, thus I am removing this. There was no support for this info. 68.224.14.81 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The critisism section should be moved to its own page
The goal of wikipedia is non biased information, there is no critisizm section under any other vehicle pages, this is not helping anyone understand SUV's rather it hi lights activisim from a perticuler political perspective thus is biased info. It should be under a page of its own, not a general SUV page. I am not changing it but wish for further discussion. 68.224.14.81 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No oposition or discussion noted
Spliting SUV into SUV and SUV_Criticism for objectivity. Will add link within SUV page. Mymazdatribute 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that now there is no NPOV info on safety and fuel economy in the main article. I was here specifically looking for info on safety stats for SUVs. The criticism of SUVs article contains some safety info, in particular concerns about body design and rollover, but I think this needs to be in the main article and presented in an NPOV way. For example, "The fatality rate for SUV passengers is X, compared to Y for the average car", and also discussion of specific issues such as rollover. Similarly for fuel economy, it should be presented as "The average SUVs get X mpg, compared to Y mpg for the average passenger cars, although some SUVs such as the Acme Overlander Hybrid get Z mpg". It should be easy to present this in a factual way. Fionah 11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited ambiguous info
Mymazdatribute 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism
68.224.14.81 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Note repeat vandalism by User:Perfectblue97, will ask for page protection if vandalism continues. See below 29th dec 2006: "Case in point, the writer of the above paragraph is obviously less intelligent than a common roach." 68.224.14.81 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make clear, the reversion was itself vandalism by 68.224.14.81, as is this message. My edit was legitimate, as you can see from the above link it was a simple re-wording of the generic design of an SUV.

perfectblue 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Popularity diminished?
"In the mid 2000s, however, their popularity has waned, due to higher fuel prices, rollover accident fatalities and higher relative pollution."

I do not doubt it is true, but does anyone have a source for this and especially some numbers? --Lamme Goedzak 15:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

History/Origins section
The first paragraph in this section is incorrect. If you click on the various links to the 'first' SUVs listed, the chonology seems a little wonky. But beyond that, the Suburban was first produced in the 30's, which predates all the other makes listed. The first chevrolet suburban was basically their station wagon body on a truck frame, which fits the given description of 'the towing capacity of a truck with the passenger capacity of a car.' Unless someone can come up with a valid argument as to how the suburban wasn't the first instance of a vehicle fitting the current definition of an SUV (and I don't forget about it before doing anything about it) I'll edit this paragraph later on to make it accurate. --Faits 08:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussions about the "first" SUV are pretty much pointless. There is no such thing as an SUV. "SUV" refers to a seemingly ever-evolving marketing description, so what SUV meant yesterday, what it means today, and what it will mean tomorrow may have little in common other than referring to some sort of passenger vehcle with some sort of connection to the outdoors -- at least through advertising. Currently, all it really takes to be considered (and advertised as) an SUV is that a passenger vehicle looks vaguely truckish or like other, older vehicles considered SUVs.

However, if one uses an older definition of SUV as referring to a civilian passenger vehicle with some off-road abilities (ie, 4x4 ability) that can be used both to carry passengers and cargo and for outdoor sports such as hunting, fishing, camping, etc, then it makes sense to think of SUVs as heavy-duy 4x4 station wagons. Until the relatively recent explosion in SUV popularity and proliferation of SUV vehicles of widely differing abilities, this definition was probably the most commonly used. However, using this definition, the Chevrolet/GMC Suburban cannot be the first SUV. While the first civilan version of the Suburban (a converted panel truck) was introduced in 1935, it was not available with 4-wheel drive until 1957 (see the Suburban entry on Wiki for the details on this). On the other hand, the Willys-Overland/Jeep All Steel Station Wagon (aka "All Steel Wagon," "Willys Wagon," "Jeep Wagon," etc), while not introduced until 1946, was available with 4-wheel drive in 1949 -- eight years before the Suburban.

Finally, given that SUV is really a marketing rather than automotive term, it needs to be thought about in terms of advertising. Here, too, Jeep is an early adopter. While Willys/Jeep agressively marketed the utility and economy of the 4x4 All-Steel Wagon, it was not until the Willys/Kaiser (later just Kaiser) Jeep Wagoneer, introduced in 1963, that a vehicle was widely advertised for both its utility and "sport-ability", although here, too, the usual primary stress was on utility and safety, and only secondarily on sport or fun (primarily camping, hunting, some towing, etc), although that was a regular theme. From the beginning, the new Wagoneer was described as "a station wagon -- rugged, durable, designed for work and play" (text from Kaiser Jeep magazine ad "Evolution - Revolution: All New 'Jeep' Wagoneer" appearing in National Geographic), and the first Wagoneer sales brochure has two Wagoneers on the cover, one being driven and the other for camping. In 1968, the Wagoneer was advertised with a photo showing one with a canoe on the roof and towing pop-up tent camper driving across a field under the heading "'Jeep' Privacy. Crowded campsite?  Who needs 'em?  You've got 'Jeep' 4-wheel drive." (text from "'Jeep' Privacy" ad in May 1968 "Sports Afield" magazine) More directly on the use of SUV, when Jeep (now AMC Jeep) began advertising the Wagoneer's sporty sibling Cherokee in 1973 (for the 1974 model), it described the Cherokee as "youthful and sporty" and as having a "greater ground clearance and a higher load capacity than any other sports utility vehicle in its weight class." (text from 1973 AMC Jeep ad: "New Cherokee: It's a Jeep and-a-half" appearing in various magazines, including Playboy) I suspect that this is not the first use of the expression "sports utility vehicle," but it's the first I've seen. (scanned images of all referenced Jeep ads can be uploaded, if desired) 67.169.210.196 06:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguably the first SUV is the Range Rover which is the oldest vehicle which fits most of the common things that make a car an SUV, that said the term SUV only appeared in the UK recently to describe american oriented vehicles like the X5 and the Porsche monstrosity. I agree that the idea of a first SUV is pointless though.(Morcus (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

MoT class VII
I removed this statement: "Not so, see MoT class VII."

MoT class VII is a classification based solely on vehicle weight. The U.S. "light truck" category is based on function and purpose and could refer to a very small vehicle (such as, perhaps, this one: http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11498559/Daihatsu_Truck_650cc.jpg) Balfa 13:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup to remove slanted talk
I took the liberty to clean up several sections. Since there is a complete article on "Criticism of SUVs" I tried to remove as much criticism as possible and make the article more informative rather than commentative. The article previously had been littered with comments of the format "SUVs suck at this, HOWEVER, now they suck less." I'd appreciate any help or comments to help keep this article from getting messy. --PabloMartinez 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of crossover automobile
This article is about Sport Utility Vehicles. Pictures of a crossover (automobile) do not belong in this article. I have replaced the image of a Nissan Murano, which is described on its own article that it is a crossover model, with a picture of a REAL SUV that is considered the start of the modern 4-door compact SUV market. It was then replaced again, this time claiming that the the "Nissan Murano is a popular car, not the jeep cherokee" ... never mind that the contributor calls it a "car" and not an SUV and uses "popularity" as a measure. I don't know what sources they are using, but the XJ represents one of the most popular and recognized SUVs in the world. Furthermore, replacing this image of a crossover Murano does not provide this article a global view. CZmarlin (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research
The following contribution is moved from the article because it is an essay representing original research without providing any recognized sources. Although it should be deleted per No original research guidelines, it could be further discussed on this talk page. There does not seem to be any support for the origin of the model names by the automakers. For example, when GM brought out a short-wheelbase version of their truck line in 1969, its name Blazer did not need to originate from fire, but from the idiom blaze a trail, which means to do something that no-one has done before... See: Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms, Cambridge University Press, 2003, retrieved on August 12, 2008. "Both models [Blazer and Longhorn] represented marketing firsts... "(See: Chevrolet Pickup Color History, by Tom Brownell, Mike Mueller, MotorBooks/MBI, page 85). In the case of the Dodge, ''Tony Hanson reports that Chrysler started Ramcharger production in 1974 to counter the Chevy Blazer. At one point, he states, they considered the name Rhino'' See: ORC staff, "A Brief and Incomplete History of the Dodge Ramcharger" November 1, 2005, retrieved on August 12, 2008. The advertising people must have killed that idea because the name could be from Rhinoplasty, or the large-sized Rhinoceros that can charge at speeds up to 35 miles an hour. I guess they were wise to switch the name from "Rhino" to a "Ram-charger"! It is also far more likely that automakers and journalists noticed that an increasing number of these utility vehicles were purchased not just for work and professional use by organizations, but by individual consumers for recreational use, thus the "sport" moniker. Therefore, claiming that the naming of these originally crude off-road models had a connection with sports car nameplates in an entirely different vehicle market segment is pure speculation. Furthermore, the Origins section of this article has a referenced discussion on the first use of the "sport utility vehicle" term. — CZmarlin (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The big three automakers had 2-door SUVs (sport utility coupes) selling in big numbers after several years of being on the market. These vehicles used names that were similar to the names of their flagship sports cars of the time, in which the term was reminiscent of how sports car names were being applied to modified utility vehicles; Dodge Ramcharger took its name from the Dodge Charger and the SUV's name was also the namesake for Dodge's Ram truck; The Ford Bronco was another name for horses like the Ford Mustang was; and the full size Chevrolet Blazer had its name taken from the Pontiac Firebird (an exception to the marque conventions) since "blaze" was another term referring to fire.  All three of these companies also produced compact versions of these sport utility coupes with similar names such as Ford Bronco II and the Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, however Dodge's Raider was an exception to that naming convention since that name was different from the similar Ramcharger.  And finally, the term "sport utility vehicle" was coined as a result of this marketing albeit the concept itself was fairly old by the time, eventually, all three of these sport utility coupes which contributed to the term coinage would be discontinued by the time the SUV has spiked in popularity by urban buyers.

One more item that I forgot to mention: the use of the Ramcharger name does not originate from the Dodge Charger automobile because Dodge was using this moniker for its drag racing team and the powerful Hemi engine starting in 1961 See: Extreme Muscle Cars By William G Holder, Bill Holder, Dick Brannan, Phil Kunz, Arnie Beswick, Hayden Proffitt, Krause Publications, pages 38-55. — CZmarlin (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First ever SUV was the Gaz-61
I am 99% certain that the first ever SUV was the GAZ-61 made in the USSR in 1938, if no one objects then I will add this info in the text during the next couple of weeks Fourtimesfour (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that'll put the кот among the голубей who believe the Jeep was first. Can you find reference(s) for the claim? Until then I'll stick with my 99% certainty that the first-ever SUV was the 1 hp Equus caballus. — Writegeist (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was built in 1938, so it is the first since it was built before any other SUV. Something that is built before any other is the first.Fourtimesfour (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, I was finding it hard to understand how something that is built before any other could be the first. I think I've got it now: the car made in the USSR in 1938 is the first SUV; cars like the Chevrolet and Dodge Suburbans, for example, which were made before 1938, are the pre-firsts, or anteantecedants; and my tip, Equus Caballus, is the anteanteantecedant, am I right? — Writegeist (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To be a SUV the vehicles must be four wheel drive, be completely enclosed in a metal casing, have cross country capabilities and there must be significant height between the wheels and the frame of the car. Do the cars that you name that were built before the GAZ-61 fulfill all these requirements? And if they do then they are the first SUV which ever was built first and fulfills all those requirements is the first SUV. Fourtimesfour (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of driven wheels is irrelevant, as also are the constituents of the, er, "casing". The Equus Caballus still has my vote. — Writegeist (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just where did the popular misperception that SUV's somehow "handle" better than Minivans come from?!
From entry/article section "Popularity", 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Full-sized SUVs often offered... ...while minivans generally had poor road handling." This makes no sense, yet it seems to be a popular misconception. What do people mean when they make the assertion that SUV's "handle" better than minivans? For the purpose of simplification/generalization, SUV's are based on utility trucks and minivans are based on cars. Since when did utility trucks handle better than cars? By way of illustration here is a road-handling comparison of a popular minivan vs a popular SUV. "600-ft slalom: 2008 Honda Odyssey = 60.2 mph vs. 2008 Toyota Sequoia = 56.3 mph." Do people mean that SUV's don't "bottom out" on rocky trails or really bad pot-holes? Do they mean that minivans can't plow through really deep snow as a high ground clearance 4X4 can? These things aren't "handling". Fortunately Wikipedia has an entry defining "handling", (unsuitably entitled "car handling" because the definition is independent of the type of road vehicle.) --truthdowser (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you define SUVs as based on light trucks you may be right. The rest of the world does not define SUVs that way, and there are many examples that handle better than many cars, eg BMW X5, and even better the Ford Territory. Wiki is not an american publication, it is worldwide. Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in that context you'd have to look at EU minivans, like the VW Touran and Renault Megane, which corner way better than pretty much all SUV out there, excluding the high-end BMW and Audi vehicles. Anyway, the article is looking at the origin of their success, and in the EU, minivans are only a recent discovery. Having driven US model SUVs and minivans, I think they both have awful handling from a EU driver's perspective, as do many US cars like the Foar Taurus. But wikipedia isn't about opinions of the authors, it's about defensive historical facts. If someone can show that SUVs were marketed as having better handling, then the statement goes in, if not, it should be pulled. What I do think was used to sell SUVs was not their handling but safety, and also "Adventure". You may do nothing more than pick up the kids and go to the mall, but you know that if you wanted to go to mongolia for a month your vehicle could do it. In the parts of the US where heavy snow is a regular event, having AWD is also very useful, so SUVs were targeted not just as people that live in the back country, but city-folk who visited it in winter, skiiers and snowboards in particular. They were an aspirational vehicle. Whereas there is very little aspirational about a Dodge Grand Caravan, even if you have the Sport edition with the spoiler (I know, I owned one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you driven a BMW X5 or a Ford Territory? The latter is consistently marketed with the phrase car-like handling. Not minivan-like handling. eg http://www.caradvice.com.au/24006/2009-ford-territory-mkii-at-mims/ That's the boss talking. Greglocock (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * first, that's US car handling, not EU cars...I've driven lots of US ford cars and only the ford focus has car-like handling as far as I'm concerned; the ford contour was half way there, but softened in way to make it corner worse. Anyway, the article says SUVs "were" sold on handling over minivans -that's the fact that is in dispute. The fact that today they sell on handling is because some models do corner well, and because many people have realised the earlier versions (Ford Explorer, for example), didn't. Do we have any data that says the earlier SUVs were sold on handling, rather than perceived saftey and "adventure"? SteveLoughran (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I say again, have you driven a BMW X5 or a Ford Territory (neither are American)? Simple question. Anyway entirely moot IMO since the current version of this article doesn't even bring this issue up - albeit the lede is entirely US centric. Greglocock (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true about the BMW X5 and Ford Territory, then they are merely exceptions. True, U.S. centric focus should be avoided, however I believe the term SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle) is of North American (if not Detroit) origin, and even in the US there were SUV's before they were called SUV's, (the term only came into popular use in the 1980's)... I don't believe the Jeep Grand Cherokee when AMC (American Motors Corp) created it was known as a SUV. But we are going off topic. ..the question remains: Have "buyers (been) drawn to (SUV's because) minivans generally had poor road handling." If it is a perception, it is factually wrong. If the perception drove sales it's the first time I've heard of it, and I'm a 51 year old "gear head" (admittedly US citizen) but spent many years in the UK and some time on the continent. Truthdowser (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say SUVs handle better than minivans, all it says is that minivans were perceived as having poor handling. Easy question to answer with a tag isn't it? That would end this discussion, which somehow I get the impression is not your aim. Greglocock (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why "Sport" utility?
I can understand the "utility" part of the term, but why "sport"? Markb (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Twenty or more seats?
I think that perhaps it is a case of vandalism too state, in the opening paragraph, that SUV's have twenty or more seats (or room for twenty passengers and drive. Unless it is a SUV-to-Limousine conversion, I think it is a physical impossibility to fit that many seating positions in a standard (non-stretched by a coach maker) wheelbase SUV.

Classification of a vehicle as a SUV is generally not based on seats. An SUV can have as low as a 5 member seating...A vehicle with 20 seats can be called a MUV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvblogger (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tax deduction
In some parts of the US, can one get a tax deduction for an SUV?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Use in recreation and motorsport????
Only very heavely modified SUV's are used in motorsport and expeditions, as standard SUV's are not capable of that kind of trips. In those settings like safaris etc older Toyota Landcruisers and Land Rover Defenders etc are typically used, cars which are not SUV's but off-road utility vehicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging article Criticism of sport utility vehicles
Immediately after posting this talk section I will be merging the article Criticism of sport utility vehicles into this article, which will result in a significant loss of content from the Criticism of sport utility vehicles article. In light of the fact that I generally consider myself to be an inclusionist, and I believe this is my most controversial edit on Wikipedia yet (although that may be more a commentary on my edit habits rather than this edit itself!), I thought I would take some time to explain myself. In general, I have a few major issues with the Criticism of sport utility vehicles article. Specifically, I believe it violates the following Wikipedia guidelines: With that in mind, I will summarize my section-by-section changes below:
 * NPOV/Undue weight- At the time of this edit, the Criticism of sport utility vehicles article is 41 kilobytes in length, while the Sport utility vehicle article is only 33 kilobytes in length. While size in bytes is obviously not a perfect comparison, I find it greatly troubling that the article on the criticism of a subject is significantly longer than the article on the subject itself.
 * Content fork- I believe the article to be a redundant content fork, and looking at the article's AFD nomination, I am not alone in that belief. I hope my merge demonstrates that there is no reason this topic cannot be simply included in the Sport utility vehicle article itself.
 * Verifiability- The Criticism of sport utility vehicles article contains a number of uncited claims; in fact, multiple sections contain not a single citation. The article has remained in this condition for a significant period of time.
 * Original Research/Synthesis- Multiple statements in the article contain citations, however the statements are based on liberal interpretations of the cited source, or synthesis of sources.

Safety
The section claims that "..overal, SUVs are safer for their driver than small cars made by the same manufacturer. However, if the analysis is realtive to the cost, smaller cars are often safer." This statement contains two sources, however after reviewing these sources I find no evidence to support this claim. Citation [6] "Driver deaths by make and model: fatality risk in one vehicle versus another" leads me to believe that this statement is based on Original research/synthesis of the statistics presented in this document.

Rollover
I clarified the finding in the referenced Forbes article citation, and paraphrased the section for brevity, however I do not believe I significantly altered the information/arguments found in this section.

Construction
The first paragraph of this section provides no insight into the criticism of SUVs. The second paragraph cites one segment of one episode of Fifth Gear, involving one specific type of SUV along with one specific type of minivan. The experiment in no way constitutes a scientific finding and futhermore the cited source (which now just redirects to the show's homepage) provides no evidence that the findings from this experiment extend to SUVs in general. If anything, the criticism should be included in the articles of those specific vehicles. Furthermore, the paragraph states that a "first generation" Land Rover Discovery (1989-1998) was used--the Land Rover Discovery is now into its fourth generation.

Risk to other road users
This section states that "in 2003 and 2004 in the US, passenger cars were involved in 1.65 and 1.58 fatal crashes per 100M miles respectively, compared to 2.14 and 2.05, nearly 30% for light trucks (SUVs pick-ups and vans)." I find a number of issues with this statement. First, it is uncited (it is immediately followed by a 'citation needed' tag). Furthermore, this article is about criticism of SUVs--not light trucks. If there is some evidence to suggest these figures are caused by SUVs, then it should be introduced here; otherwise, this information is better suited in an article about "Criticism of light trucks".

The following paragraph concerns bull bars and pedestrian safety, however it fails to introduce any evidence that vehicles with bull bars are more dangerous to pedestrians (i.e. there is a statistically significant correlation between pedestrian fatalities involving vehicles with bull bars vs vehicles without bull bars), or even that SUVs are more likely to have bull bars than sedans, minivans, pickup trucks, etc.

The last paragraph concerns the Ford Excursion and 'vaulting ability' as compared to the Ford Taurus. There is no indication that the findings in the study of this one vehicle model extend to SUVs in general. Furthermore, the text seems to indicate that the issues raised in the study have been addressed by manufacturers.

Visibility and backover deaths
This section contradicts itself, stating that testing found that "poor rearward visibility was not limited to any single vehicle class". In fact, one NHTSA report suggest that for certain age groups, backover deaths are significantly higher in sedans than SUVs, vans, etc. Still, the study indicates the difficulty in determining death rates for any specific class of vehicle.

Wider bodies in narrow lanes
This section contains not a single reference.

Psychology
This section was based on significant interpretations of one article (op ed?) by Malcolm Gladwell, instead of only facts found in the article. For example, there is a claim that states that "U.S. potential SUV buyers will give up [an] extra 30 ft (9.1 m) of braking distance because they are helpless to avoid a tractor-trailer hit on any vehicle"; I believe this is supposed to correspond to the following hypothetical as found in the source document: "The S.U.V. boom represents, then, a shift in how we conceive of safety--from active to passive. It's what happens when a larger number of drivers conclude, consciously or otherwise, that the extra thirty feet that the TrailBlazer takes to come to a stop don't really matter, that the tractor-trailer will hit them anyway, and that they are better off treating accidents as inevitable rather than avoidable." This is simply a proposition, not a fact backed with any evidence (furthermore, I believe that this Gladwell article as a whole, despite being referenced multiple times by the Wikipedia article in question, suffers from serious NPOV issues). I have retained only the few facts from this section that are backed up by any sort of reliable source.

Sense of security
This was combined with psychology in the new Sport utility vehicle article section. The death rates from 2002-2005 were removed as they served only to encourage synthesis. Verifiable figures and claims were retained.

Marketing Practices
This section claims that despite "relatively few" SUVs being used for off-road purposes, marketing for SUVs are disproportionately focused on off-road use. The section further states that this is an instance of "greenwashing". This is a severe extrapolation of the cited source and as such has been completely removed.

Tax Benefits
This section is completely unsourced. Furthermore, (at least) the first few pages of a Google search for "SUV subsidy" turn up nothing but unreliable/unverifiable pages with severe NPOV issues. As such, this section has been completely removed.

Fuel Economy
The only part of this section with an actual reference (the 'average data for vehicle types sold in the U.S.A.') table was retained. All other unreferenced data was removed.

Pollution
The only referenced information in this section contains one controversey about the Toyota Prius, and is more a question of "Is the Toyota Prius more environmentally harmful than an SUV", rather than "are SUVs generally more environmentally harmful". As such, it has been removed. It is more appropriate to appear in an article regarding "criticism of the Toyota Prius".

Weight
The only cited statement here argues that the heavier a vehicle the more beneficial in terms of driver fatality rates--this is therefore an argument in support of SUVs rather than a criticism of SUVs. All other content is unreferenced and has therefore been removed.

Size
All references (excluding the one in German, which I am unable to read) are opinion pieces that do not adhere to a neutral point of view; furthermore, they present no facts, rather only opinions of a few non-notable individuals. There is no evidence in these sources to suggest that size alone of SUVs have generated any significant controversy. Again, it seems a significant amount of original resource/synthesis has been used in this section. As such, it has been completely removed.

UK
This is simply a summary of taxes on SUVs in the UK and reflects no criticism of SUVs (if anything, just a disadvantage of owning an SUV in the UK). It has been completely removed.

Declining profits for Detroit Big Three automakers
This section suffers from a US-centric view. Furthermore, it contains no criticism on SUVs, but instead challenges on the US domestic SUV manufacturing industry. It has been completely removed.

Slang
This section (apart from citing urbandictionary.com), I believe is unencyclopedic and as a result has been completely removed.

--Aka042 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good move Greglocock (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree - not because I disagree with your rationale. I haven't gone through your points in detail, but this is such a contentious move some discussion should be done before you go ahead with it. Many people (myself included) have put some time into this, so to wipe it away with one fell swoop is a little strong. peterl (talk)
 * How do I get the previous page up so I can compare your radical restructure? peterl (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Peterl, here is a link to how the page appeared before I performed the merge: . I understand this is a big change, but it was not exactly entirely unilateral--if you look at the Criticism of sport utility vehicles talk page, a number of issues regarding the article's neutrality have been raised since 2007, but nothing has ever been done about it (a 'neutrality disputed' tag has appeared on the article since October 2008).  Furthermore, a number of users in the article's deletion nomination expressed the same sentiment.  As such I decided to be bold and perform the merge. --Aka042 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I think much has been lost from your cull. Regarding article's deletion nomination, 4 comments were 'Keep' or 'Keep and improve', 1 was for Delete, and 3 were for Merge. That means a significant group wanted the page kept, meaning that such a major change should have some consensus. (I do acknowledge that the page may well have changed somewhat since the October 2008, but some of that change must have improved the page). I haven't got enough time to go through all your points, but for example, the 'Slang' section had much debate, improvement and culling over time to a place where most editors accepted it was a worthwhile addition to the discussion. The way community talks about a topic (e.g. slang), is a good reflection about the feelings towards the topic, and the pejorative around SUVs therefore are a criticism. That section was supported by 7 references, including urban dictionary,the Center for Environmental Policy and Administration, the Economist, The Swedish Language Council, The Sydney Morning Herald and the NZ Herald, so your comment is completely wrong. (Yes, I acknowledge there is a broken link there.)
 * I'm not saying that the page is perfect - far from it. Yes some sections need more work and/or culling. But there is also a lot of well referenced and well structured information there. Your edit may have been a little too bold.
 * I'm going to revert your change, and put the topic up for discussion.
 * peterl (talk)

SUV
I've heard that SUV originally was stood for "suburban utility vehicle" and as one of the first was the Chevrolet Suburban it does make sense. A quick googling shows that the term is widely used. // Liftarn (talk)


 * I agree, SUV originated as Suburban Utility Vehicle and the "Sport" term is obviously a marketing ploy to attempt to make these vehicles sound more exciting. We should at least mention the history of the term.    Djapa Owen (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll need a cite for that, it smacks of retroactive rewriting of history. The dictionaries say Sport eg http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suv which says it was first used in 1986. The Suburban has been around since 1934 and I don't see any particular break point around 86 when it became an SUV. Of course if you could find a cite, excellent. Greglocock (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is why we are discussing it and not editing it isn't it?
 * I take it you are referring to the Chevrolet Suburban? Are you arguing that it is the quintessential SUV? If so that would support the S standing for suburban wouldn't it? I have not found any good references so far, just ones like, and . In my experience in Australia the term Sport Utility Vehicle appeared around the same time as the Toyota's Action Utility Vehicle, but that of course is OR isn't it? &#32;   Djapa Owen (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is the distinction not made between 4x4 off-roader and SUV?
In Europe, as can clearly be seen from the Dutch and French SUV wikipedia pages a clear distinction is made between SUV and 4x4 or off-roader. Where 4x4 or off-roader is primarly designed for off-road use. (examples are the older Toyota Landcruiser and Nissan Patrol (before they turned SUV), the Land Rover Defender or Lada Niva) and SUV's are four wheel drive vehicles with limited terrain capability, mostly for road use. (VW Touareg or Tiguan, Toyota RAV4 or CRV, ... basically all recent 4x4 vehicles with the exception of the Defender, Niva or Iveco Massif). SUV in Europe at least is a term coined for selling the new style 4x4 "luxury" vehicles, as a break from the older not so luxurious utility 4x4 vehicles. So why is the distinction not made in this article?

Addition: The German SUV article makes the same difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.252.47 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SUV as a descriptive category has simply never been adopted in Britain and Ireland, and elsewhere in Europe the American term has only been adopted for marketing reasons. The huge American truck based SUVs are extremely rare in Europe, and most large vehicles of this type really are off-roaders. Non-4x4 vehicles with SUV styling are much smaller than their American counterparts. European manufacturers who build SUV type vehicles are largely focussed on the US export market. --Ef80 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a separate 4WD article, Four-wheel drive, but there is no discussion of the distinction here. We should probably put something in the introduction about it, and I have edited the definition section so it does not say all SUVs are 4WD. As for European SUVs being export orientated, is that really true of the Porsche Cayenne, Mercedes-Benz M-Class and the like? To me they are the classic SUV - none of them ever go bush. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not modify quoted definition as per the reference (see here). Genuine "classic" SUVs include the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) that were designed for off-road and all-weather use. The classic SUVs were designed to be 4WD. Consumers liked what was previously called a station wagon design, but some wanted only 2WD. Newer examples, such as the Volkswagen Group PL71 platform are attempts to further segment the growing market for a more "utility" oriented vehicle, and thus capturing additional sales for the automakers through effective positioning and advertising. CZmarlin (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Classic SUVs were 4wd from the start? Like the Chevrolet Suburban which did not offer 4wd till 1955? Do you think the Ford Excursion, Dodge Nitro, Jeep Patriot and Chevrolet Captiva are not SUV's because they are all far more common in their 2WD variants and all but the Patriot are listed as SUVs in their articles. Real SUVs are soft roaders whether they have 4WD options or not, and off road vehicles are a different class of vehicle and the distinction should be discussed in this article. Our job is to explain things, not redefine the language based on someone's sales brochure (even if it is semi-legit like Autotrader). &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The early Chevy Suburbans were was never classified as an SUV because the term itself was not even known. The fact is that the SUV term did not exist until the until the late 1980s. As per the reputable source (not a sales brochure) that is quoted in the History section of this article: "according to Robert Casey, the transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term." Therefore, I do not think it is possible to now modify the modern use of the SUV term because some historical models (such as the Suburban) originally came with two-wheel-drive! On the other hand, you seem to be proposing an even more confusing description - "soft roaders" - that I have not seen used in any vehicle classification system. Moreover, there is no official automotive industry definition for an SUV. Furthermore, regulatory bodies and lisencing agencies also do not have a uniform definitions for these vehicles. Some jurisdictions register them as trucks, others as passenger cars, while some have a "multi-purpose" classification. Therefore, the article should explain the history of the term, and that it is indeed used (even abused) by marketers to promote their vehicles. In fact, the SUV term has been tainted in many consumer's minds by vehicles that were big and gas-guzzlers, and that is why the term "crossover" is far more prevalent today - even to the new car-based nameplates that were previously truck-based SUVs. CZmarlin (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have just stated my central argument in a nutshell - "there is no official automotive industry definition for an SUV" and so we should not be proscribing an absolute requirement that they must be 4WD. As for the sales brochure comment I was just being cheeky about Autotrader not being an encyclopaedic source. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Soft Roaders
So now we have a slang term for things that aren't SUVs but look like them. At what point does this entire article just turn into a ragbag of random car related factoids? Oh I'm sorry it already has. Greglocock (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

added 5 pictures
Hi all,

I have added 5 pictures that might be helpful. Please look at them and be satisfied. I however removed the little subtags but I did not remove the main tags. I hope you like them all.

Regards Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

overdrive against standard drive
hie guys i have been wondering, hopefully someone out here knows exactly how this works. please when does a car consume more fuel, in overdrive or when u in standard driving , lets say at 2.5 rpm in overdrive against the same rpm in standard driving over certain kilometers (joseph muwi ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.55.166 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 one external links on Sport utility vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310182737/http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Summer05-SUVs/history.html to http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Summer05-SUVs/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090710132951/http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/jobs-m27.shtml to http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/jobs-m27.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090507213457/http://www.financialpost.com:80/related/links/story.html?id=562830 to http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=562830
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106180226/http://blog.autopeople.com.au/2008/11/tariff-reduction-will-soften-price-rises/ to http://blog.autopeople.com.au/2008/11/tariff-reduction-will-soften-price-rises/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100727114247/http://www.carsdirect.com:80/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs to http://www.carsdirect.com/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706111235/https://motoring.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/racv/internet/auxiliary/news+_+events/media+releases/rising+costs+hit+motorists_+hip+pockets to https://motoring.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/racv/internet/auxiliary/news+_+events/media+releases/rising+costs+hit+motorists_+hip+pockets
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090725141322/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25818777-5012748,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25818777-5012748,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114115049/http://autot.oikotie.fi/koeajo/kia-sportage-on-muhkea-katumaasturi/19413 to http://autot.oikotie.fi/koeajo/kia-sportage-on-muhkea-katumaasturi/19413

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SUVs are Vans
SUVs are vans because take the Ford Explorer (1995-2001) and the Ford Econoline (1992-1994) they share the same taillights and the taillights on the Econoline vans are also used on the Ford Excursion. Mini Vans/Cargo Vans and SUVs are extremely I didn't go as they are family vehicles they have matches at their rear end, and they share the same carrying space as well as the "V" in the term SUV also stands for Van. for this reason sports utility vehicles are also called sports utility vans. please do not change the added in terms of the sports utility van statement because SUVs are vans has the Ford Explorer Ford Excursion and Ford Econoline share the same body parts and components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.129.76 (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, SUVs are not vans and the V in SUV stands for vehicle, not van. Please provide a reference from a reliable source that states they are vans or it stays out. Bahooka (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sport utility vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080928062810/http://content.usatoday.com:80/community/tags/topic.aspx?req=tag&tag=Escape%20SUV to http://content.usatoday.com/community/tags/topic.aspx?req=tag&tag=Escape%20SUV

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly does "4x4" actually mean ?
What exactly does "4x4" actually mean ? If it mean "four-wheel-drive", well would that be 4WD ( which is used in some places ),   how does that get to be "4x4" ? Eregli bob (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

4x4 means that 4 out of the 4 wheels are used. 2x4 means that 2 out of the 4 wheels are used. 4WD and 4x4 drive are synonymous.Frischee113 (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Frischee113
 * It originated in military use as a way of categorizing off road capable trucks. For example a 6 wheel truck might be available in 2, 4 and 6 wheel drive versions for different environments, and these would be categorized as 2x6, 4x6 and 6x6 respectively. The concept is more widely used outside North America. --Ef80 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an extremely muddled topic, as a couple of authoritative sources point out (if you have the fortitude and time to read through them). BRIEFLY, (A) 4WD and 4x4 are often used interchangeably, and there are many versions and meanings of either or both. 4x4 typically means something intended for off-road, and often can be switched on or off - old-school by manually locking the hubs; new-school usually using a switch in the vehicle. Either way it's not usually something you'd use on the highway or under normal on-road circumstances. (B) AWD is on all the time, by design, even on-road. (My old Audi 80 Quattro - note the name - which was a passenger coupe - was always-on, all 4 wheels driven, and thus an AWD. Note that the cite mentions the Quattro system. ;-) Here's another ref:. Which seems to disagree with the first cite in some ways. And then there's this one. which somewhat agrees with both of the above in some places....

From what I gather from all 3 sources, and to oversimplify for the sake of clarity, it's maybe appropriate to use "4WD" to refer to something that's intended specifically for part-time use off-road, with a deliberate choice to engage it — and "AWD" for vehicles that are either mostly driven on-road with automatic car-'decided' engagement, or actually full-time all-wheels-driven cars (like the Audi Quattro system). And that said - it's now more confusing than ever, what with ever-more sophisticated control systems — so I'd suggest not getting into a tizzy about the exact definition in order to have a good WP article here. :-) A Doon (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Lists of examples
I think the interminable lists of generic exaamples could usefully be removed. It should be handled by a cat. Greglocock (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greglocock, great observation! Yes, the lists are too long and serve no purpose within the text. Moreover, the associated "example" images for these categories also need to be eliminated. New vehicle designs are constantly being introduced and there is no point in keep changing them in this article. Their inclusions does not add meaning for the reader over the years. Pictures of significant historic SUVs are worth keeping to provide context for the subject, but contemporary models are not needed. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I added - sorry, folks, but: a list of exa(a)mples cited by Autotrader as vehicles which are technically "crossovers" but which many/most buyers (and manufacturers) very commonly call "SUVs". The "truck chassis/body-on-frame" vs. "unibody/car" construction distinction is now utterly lost on most buyers; and the idea that an SUV is specifically meant for occasional off-road use and/or towing and/or having high-ground clearance and 4wd is a relic of the 80s/90s. These days an "SUV" is a car with a shared reconfigurable passenger/cargo space and a liftback vs. a trunk; a "crossover" is pretty similar but more hatch-back-y in profile and maybe a bit lower H-height, esp. compared to the other end of the big-box spectrum (e.g. a Tahoe).

And, Greglocock, I did not consult my cat for handling this — she's a lousy driver (at least, since 'the incident') and is a terrible typist, although she occasionally likes to try to sit on the keyboard. A Doon (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sport utility vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=562830
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bajainsider.com/driving-baja/baja_suvs.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727114247/http://www.carsdirect.com/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs to http://www.carsdirect.com/research/new_cars/buying_guides/suvs/luxury_suvs
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C25818777-5012748%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

4WD passenger cars are not SUVs
for what it's worth…the GAZ-61, GAZ-M20, & Pobeda M-72 (aka GAZ M-72) were all 4WD passenger cars, not TBSWs (truck-based station wagons) like the Chevy Suburban, IH Travelall, Dodge/Fargo Town Wagon & Power Wagon, Powell Station Wagon and Ford Marmon-Herrington Ranger...thus certainly not SUVs... BTW, the 3 links below are not from me...they just appear when I post and I can't get rid of them...grrrrr  2601:18E:C501:E4F3:7ACA:39FF:FEB2:EFCB (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The "3 links below" that 2601:18E:C501:E4F3:7ACA:39FF:FEB2:EFCB refers to are probably the reference list automatically added because someone included tags in an early section. They're visible in this version, but should have disappeared now because I moved them in to the appropriate section with this edit. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Why the "Origin" part does not explain how the "sport" part has anything to do with sport?
93.185.27.5 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Same as many other automotive terms (eg Brougham (car body)) - the manufacturers string together any names that they think will increase sales, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. So we just record when the words started being used and don't offer reasons that aren't given by the manufacturers themselves.
 * However, if I had to guess, I would say that it represented a vehicle that the driver could go off-road because he wanted to have fun (ie sports), not just because it was necessary (utility). But that's strictly a guess.  Stepho  talk 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Unibody construction
The article mentions Lada Niva as the first unibody construction. First generation Range Rover appeared 1970, way earlier. It was hatchback two - door car. It also possessed true all terrain capabilities like Niva. As a whole being mostly from US point of view, the article largely ignores Range Rover even though it was in the same class as Jeep Wagoneer for example.Korina (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Range Rover had, and so far as I know, still has, a chassis. So it isn't unibody. Caertainly its general off road performance rivalled that of anything else, although comparisons are a little tricky, and tires are crucial.Greglocock (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)