Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 October 21
| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 20 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 22 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 21
editCar mechanics: 'real' SUV vs 'lifestyle' SUV
editWhat's the difference between an SUV designed for offroading and an SUV designed for having a comfortable big car.C est moi anton (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing simply definitive. It's all a question of degree. An SUV will be more robust, more capable off-road, less easily damaged, more easily cleaned, cheaper to repair, cheaper to buy. A good example is the Range Rover. The original 'classic' Range Rover from 1970-1993 was an extremely capable off-road vehicle. It also had rubber mats inside and (in early years) washable seats. In 1989 the transfer box was changed simply to make it quieter on-road for the US market and easier to drive for unskilled drivers. In the early '90s, it gained a more comfortable suspension which became rather infamous for its unreliability. In the mid '90s, followed by its gearbox. The modern Rangie can't even cross a kerb without bending a wheel rim, it's only useful for taking rappers to a club.
- Most SUVs, old or new, are also quite poor at being cars. Real saloon cars are lower, so they simply go round corners more easily. Anything with the height of an SUV, especially if combined with the ride height (for ground clearance) that SUVs used to have will have problems cornering fast and will roll uncomfortably. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- For the interest of non-UK readers, in Britain 'luxury' SUVs used seemingly inappropriately by urbanites are jokingly referred to as "Chelsea tractors" (which term redirects to Sport utility vehicle) from their stereotypical popularity with well-off people in the upmarket London district of Chelsea despite their size making them difficult to manoeuvre and park in typical UK city streets. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.118 (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- For an American automobile, the classic off-road SUV is a Jeep Wrangler, which are designed to be ridden hard and put away wet. They still have the DNA of the original Willys Jeep from World War II. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Cadillac Escalade, which is just a large display of ostentatious wealth and conspicuous consumption, the upholstery and paint job certainly aren't designed for the kind of abuse a Wrangler is. --Jayron32 15:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Even the first YJ Jeep Wrangler was softened a lot to make it easier to drive. The last 'original' Jeep line was the CJ series before that, up to the mid-'80s. Oddly, even in the mid 1980s, they kept leaf springs at a time when even Land Rover had abandoned them. Were they ever SUVs though? Or were they just too short? International Harvester's Scouts might be a more comparable example from that era. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you're thinking of the truck-body SUVs, I think the prototype in the U.S. is the Chevrolet C/K-body type Chevrolet Blazer/GMC Jimmy. --Jayron32 14:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Even the first YJ Jeep Wrangler was softened a lot to make it easier to drive. The last 'original' Jeep line was the CJ series before that, up to the mid-'80s. Oddly, even in the mid 1980s, they kept leaf springs at a time when even Land Rover had abandoned them. Were they ever SUVs though? Or were they just too short? International Harvester's Scouts might be a more comparable example from that era. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- For an American automobile, the classic off-road SUV is a Jeep Wrangler, which are designed to be ridden hard and put away wet. They still have the DNA of the original Willys Jeep from World War II. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Cadillac Escalade, which is just a large display of ostentatious wealth and conspicuous consumption, the upholstery and paint job certainly aren't designed for the kind of abuse a Wrangler is. --Jayron32 15:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Being upscale and being functional off-road aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Leather seats and a good sound system, for example, won't prevent travelling off-road. You do generally want a different suspension and gearing for off-road, and 4-wheel drive (or all-wheel drive) is a must, but these can be addressed by having these all be adjustable for the situation. With enough money, it's doable, even waterproofing with a snorkel for crossing streams. Of course, the paint job will get all messed up by driving through extreme environments, but maybe having it washed, detailed and waxed will still make it acceptable for a night on the town afterwards.
- However, when trying to keep the cost down, it is necessary to make choices between ruggedness and comfort. The Jeep Wrangler, mentioned above, for example, isn't much of a luxury vehicle. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ironically the main difference is already in the initial question. "Lifestyle" SUVs are much more optimized for normal streets and roads and thus often a bad choice for real offroad duty. The most popular civil SUVs are in the luxury segment (Audi Q7 or Audi Q8) while "old school" Sport utility vehicles like Humvee are Utility vehicles with military origin. --Kharon (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)