SUVs are usele-

KEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roads? We don't need roads where we're going.

THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS

clearance remains largely unchanged in most "Crossovers"

fuck off corkeh

>trail rated
HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS

Conventional SUVs are useless mommymobiles with absolutely no real offroad capability. The majority of them are designed for women to be status symbol mall crawlers

Prove me wrong.

>pro-tip: you can't

...

>Implying a Lexus LS isn't objectively the best choice of vehicle for that road

>driving an suv instead of a truck
>being a woman

pick two

...

Who?

>inb4 muh evil capitalism
I live in the former USSR, and the roads are in some places worse than the side of the road.

You've never actually wheeled a Wrangler, have you?

Live in NOLA. Most of the roads are far worse than that; you need ground clearance just to park in some places...

That's not a misallocation of funds though, that's just an unavailability. Americans have the money to improve their public space, but they're too selfish for it.

No one can. The break too fast

>Live in NOLA
Why would you do this?

So you're telling me that because you're incapable of performing basic mechanical repairs, you'd forgo a superior off-road platform? You must not actually enjoy going off-road.

The Dana 35 rear end is not designed for larger than stock tires. The c-clip issue is well known, and only normies get boned by it. Lifted and modded sport trim jeeps are for poor fags. Dana 44 or bust.

Lol jeep a shit

You keep basing your arguments off of user errors. Almost as though that's all you've got.

>rolls over

>user error
Try harder.

>hits bump

>drive into a fucking tree truck
>goes through floor
What else would have happened?

>car is destroyed after rolling down a steep hill
That would happen to any vehicle. They're not indestructible.

I'm not even a jeep guy in the slightest, but this shit is just stupid.

>leave driveway

Specifically it's selfish politicians who would rather bloat the defense budget, continue subsidizing corn, and give yet another tax break to the rich instead of spend money on things that might actually benifit the average American.

>Northeastern roads
I'm in Florida and I'd be hard pressed to find a road in that terrible of condition that is not an old brick street. Worst in my area is I-4 through Orlando but its under construction for the next 5-6 years.

Enlighten us on what's a proper off road vehicle. I promise I won't laugh at your choice.

Youre missing or ignoring to point that jeeps roll easily and arent safe, they arent safe above 55mph, they should be strong enough to drive over rocks and sticks, the diffs should hold up to a slightly larger tire.
A corolla can roll on 35s without breaking.

Jeeps arent some grand great machine. They are terrible off road and unsafe and uncomfortable and have zero cargo room.
They are pointless vehicles.

You think you're smart but you're not.
We constantly and consistently get enough money directly for our roads.
Those funds are pillaged to support programs that were too undesireable to pass a vote for a tax increase for.
It's easier to ask for a tax increase for roads.
Same reason SS was pillaged.

>bloat the defense budget
The best part is that only a tiny amount is going to servicemen (pay, food, lodging, etc). Most of it goes to defense contractors in the form of money-pit projects like the F-35. Doubling military pay would cost less and probably do 10x for the national economy than what the F-35 has and will do.

The real clever thing is that they've made these boondoggles impossible to kill by manufacturing a piece of the project in just about every congressman's district, so if one proposes cuts, their opponents will just rip them apart for "destroying local jobs".

I've seen such waste in the military, and it's all systemic. The most egregious one that comes to mind is a squadron paying 2.5M to get a 12x120ft data wall installed, doing the exact same job that 6 or 7 $1k projectors would do.

Why is it selfish to not want to give away my money to shitty people. You realize government workers are just extensions of the shitty people at the DMV. I don't want those people to have more money or power. You just sound like a poorfag who resents people with more than you

Fair enough, though I should have specified four wheel vehicle.

>Youre missing or ignoring to point that jeeps roll easily and aren't safe
Wrong. l2 drive.

>they arent safe above 55mph
Wrong,

>they should be strong enough to drive over rocks and sticks
They are, learn to off road. You're probably the kinda dude who gets a truck and thinks he can go anywhere and gets mad when his ball joints and u joints wear out.

>the diffs should hold up to a slightly larger tire.
They do, thh general consensus is that you can go up ~4 inches without problems on stock, built to a price, cheap difs. Which is plenty.

>A corolla can roll on 35s without breaking.
LOL.

I've been driving modified YJ's For 10 years. And if I can drive a solid axle lifted bounce box on big tires harder than you shitskin normies can drive your poobaru outbacks, then you can't drive.

I refuse to believe that you are this ignorant about the economy and social services.

You proved nothing other than you're an ignorant poor redneck.
Good job

They roll easy when you don't respect them for what they are. They aren't your mom's Camry and don't drive like one. I won't argue the comfort level or cargo room, but who in their right mind buys a jeep for its ride comfort or cargo carrying ability?
>A corolla can roll on 35s without breaking.
Now your either trolling or pic related

youtube.com/watch?v=zaYFLb8WMGM

a jeep at 30mph is highly prone to rolling over

they're shit

Seriously... stop being ignorant

>5/7 tire pops at 40mph
jesus christ this thing is a death trap

The government has essentially no accountability for the budget.
The general public doesn't care, and the politicians just pack on the debt.

1956 is the last time we didn't have a deficit.

You can't argue "Muh economy!" or "Muh minorities!" anymore. We're literally at the brink. The longer you wait the worse it gets. You couldn't handle a small cut in social services 20 years ago, so now you're going to have to face a massive cut.

>why.jpg

The same could be said for you.
youtu.be/xoHbn8-ROiQ
Are Hiluxs dangerous?
Please, this test is asking for ANY top heavy vehicle to roll.

>Are Hiluxs dangerous?
>Please, this test is asking for ANY top heavy vehicle to roll.
If you watched the video, the Volvo and VW didn't have any of that shit

Jeeps are useless.
Prove me wrong.
Other vehicles do everything better.

What you're citing is a test of electric aids on a fucking Cherokee.

Every car drives differently, and needs to be driven differently.
Putting every car in cookie cutter speed and steering input tests is retarded, because that's not how cars are driven in real life.
Just so you know, when people talk about jeeps, especially when they're talking about off roading, they almost always are talking about the Wranglers, CJ's, and Willy's.
Which would all perform worse than the video you showed anyway.

>Has extensive experience in area we're talking about
>You don't like the content so he a dumb red nek hyuk!
You do know where we are right?

>Are Hiluxs dangerous?
clearly not because the VW's tires didn't come off the ground at all and maintained full traction through the entire test. The Jeep nearly rolled 3 times and popped 5 tires at 40mph

Other vehicles do it better, maybe, your opinion. And opinions are like assholes right?

Fuck that is so true, too bad nearly everyone drives like an asshole.

Objectively

Yeah, instead of spending money on a Jeep, move in half a dozen sand niggers so you can be culturally enriched

>What you're citing is a test of electric aids on a fucking Cherokee.
that clearly don't work.

>Putting every car in cookie cutter speed and steering input tests is retarded, because that's not how cars are driven in real life.
Yes it pretty much is. This test isolates variables and restricts the car to finite speeds and to a finite track. Thats how experiments are done.

The test is simple. 40mph, with 2 turns in it. It tests how stable the car is at moderate speeds. thats a pretty clear indicative and simple test

I agree. Everything, besides going off-road.

You argue that the popularity of the Jeep is merely a meme and has nothing to do with being the most capable off-road vehicle, stock from the factory? If you can objectively prove that there's currently a street legal alternative to the Rubicon Wrangler that routinely bests it in every off-road scenario, I'll dump the oil from my sump and fill it with dog piss.

You know what the other vehicles did? They automatically decelerated. Its that simple. The vehicles just slowed the fuck down. The engineers did the simplest thing possible, and forced a slow down.

Florida's not that bad. We had one road get that bad from truckers and they redid it in a year.

After visiting California I'm very happy with my local roads.

I could put 40's on a stock jeep and it would last thousands and thousands of miles.
Yes you can put 35's on a stock corolla and I'm sure it'll last thousand and thousands.
The difference you're misunderstanding is the Jeep community says to only go up a few sizes on stock rear ends because of longevity.
Not because it'll fall apart immediately. Larger wheels are tires give the road more advantage on your internals, while also increasing rotating mass. When you lock your difs you make it ten times worse, so even slipping wheels can put significant stress on your gears.

It's like boosting your stock car to just before it'll pop. Sure you can do it, and sure it'll last a little while, but it won't be reliable anymore, so people say don't do it.

high profile tires =/= SUV

>They automatically decelerated.
No they didn't. The throttle is constant throughout the test. They have a methods section for exactly how the test performs. IF you'd stop shitposting maybe you'd learn instead of spewing nonsense. the other car's worked safely and as intended where the jeep is highly unstable, prone to rolling and far more dangerous

>the engineers
the only thing the engineers attempted to do was fix the stability management which caused it to start popping tires left and right.

Lol that dodge ram looks like some sort of scrape and vape machine compared to the rest

Let's break down the original post you replied to:

>bloat the defense budget
Huge problem right there. Tons of money being dumped into contractor's pockets, paying people 40 years of pension (and medical benefits) for 20 years of service, massive waste within the actual service. So much money to be saved there, but nobody wants to touch it because "muh troops" (I say this as an active duty airman).

>continue subsidizing corn
Over $20 billion is annually sent to farms in the form of subsidies, but these aren't the honest american farmers you're thinking of. Most of it goes to massive corporations, who grow corn in states like Iowa. Iowa is also important because of the presidential caucus, and cutting corn subsidies would probably lose your party the win next election cycle.

>give yet another tax break to the rich
Trickle-down economics don't exist, and cutting taxes for the rich only benefits the rich.
I shouldn't really need to explain this, as it's been thoroughly shown how tax breaks for the rich don't do anything for Americans.

I don't care about electric aids.
You're not testing how safe the car configuration is, you're testing how safe the nanny configuration is in a specific environment.

If you think because some cars need to be driven differently than others that means some cars are more dangerous than others you're an idiot. Cars that give a false sense of security are actually far more dangerous than cars that can maneuver worse.
If you want to prove your safety argument you have to cite actual crash, injury, and fatality numbers. Because any rigid test can be rigged to favor certain cars over others.

The moose test any SUV would get rekt by any sports coupe. Does that make sports coupes safer than SUVs?
What about if we change the moose test to include snow and stick walls up instead of cones?. All of the sudden the SUV's dominate and make sports cars look like death traps.

You also ignored the fact that the Cherokee has nothing to do with the Jeeps we're talking about in this thread.

Our Florida roads are better than the national average. I've taken it for granted so many times, and don't realize how good we have it until I'm driving up North and notice a rapid decrease in road quality once I get into Virginia and beyond. New Jersey arguably has some of the worst roads I've seen in the US.

You didn't respond to anything I said.

The one dude was like
>I don't want to increase taxes to go to useless programs
You said
>ur dum n dont undrstand economy
I said
>ur dum and don't understand the budget
Then you said
>go corn go wooooo

t. Igor Sudayev

Is this nigga serious?
There are MANY street legal stock vehicles better offroad than a heep.
You cant seriously be this delusional...

>I don't care about electric aids.
>I don't care about my car rolling at moderate speeds and my car's tires popping from a reactive turn.

>You're not testing how safe the car configuration is
Yea dude its a test that clearly highlights the significant difference between mid sized SUV's. the VW and Volvo didn't experience anywhere near the body roll and instability that the jeep did. Are you fucking dumb? you're shilling for a car that goes up on two wheels because it can't figure itself out.

>in a specific environment
yes because its an experiment, we want to hold all other variables as constant as possible, leaving the car to be the only variable. Didn't you take 6th grade science class?

>the VW and volvo give a false sense of security, they're more dangerous
lol you're fucking retarded, the VW and volvo didn't roll, go up on two wheels, or pop tires. the Jeep OBJECTIVELY handled worse. It had less tires on the ground which means less traction and less maneuverability. the other cars had better stability which means better maneuverability.

>any sports coupe
good thing we aren't talking about coupes.

Stock, Jeeps aren't great. And they're not built to be. They're built to be cheap.

If you had ever driven a Jeep you would understand. The driving experience is out of this world, this coming from a sports car enthusiast who hates mommy suvs.

I have driven many jeeps.
They are shit and poorly built and dont feel stable in any condition on road or off road

What's the price difference between a Defender and a Wrangler? Look it up I'll wait. I bet an H1 is a better offroad than the defender. Is that a fair comparison?

They have really bad suspension and GM doesn't give a fuck to give it something that would actually keep its stability. Its highly prone to rolling more than other cars of similar class.

>GM
try Chrysler

chrysler, either way both are shit

Bay Area has awful roads too. I don't get it. Nothing ever even freezes here, so what's the fucking deal? Maybe we could reroute some of those tech billions to resurfacing 880 and 101.

Moving those goal posts i see
Heres a vehicle that doesnt lose axles

>go off roading
>break down

Don't take it from me though, let's ask the foremost experts on offroad vehicle reliability
turtleexpedition.com/vehicles/turtle-i-2/

>A year later we filled the tank in Hermosillo, Mexico, and the high compression six, originally designed for the Rover car, nearly choked to death! We kept it running by mixing 130-octane aviation fuel with Pemex Nova, but it was never really happy. Two years later, the Rover six was swapped for a Chevy 250 six, and the Land Rover again got better. Every time we replaced a Land Rover part with an American part, the truck got more reliable.

Defender 90s and 110s look great but if was going to go on a long off road trip it would be at the bottom of the list, you would be better off with a $2k F250 4x4 from the 90s

>I don't care about my car rolling at moderate speeds and my car's tires popping from a reactive turn.
I don't care that my car can't self correct at "moderate speeds". Because I'm the driver, not the car.

>Yea dude its a test that clearly highlights the significant difference between mid sized SUV's. the VW and Volvo didn't experience anywhere near the body roll and instability that the jeep did. Are you fucking dumb? you're shilling for a car that goes up on two wheels because it can't figure itself out.
You're testing the aids, not the car. get it through your skull

>yes because its an experiment, we want to hold all other variables as constant as possible, leaving the car to be the only variable. Didn't you take 6th grade science class?
That doesn't equate to safety. Don't you get it? A car can fail these tests miserably over and over yet be safer in the real world. Cite actual statistics and not a test to prove safety.

>lol you're fucking retarded, the VW and volvo didn't roll, go up on two wheels, or pop tires. the Jeep OBJECTIVELY handled worse. It had less tires on the ground which means less traction and less maneuverability. the other cars had better stability which means better maneuverability.
It doesn't have less maneuverability, it has differently programed aids, you can see that because the jeep engineers tweaked them to pass this specific test. You're putting blinders on and getting tunnel vision about one test, when real life statistics don't back up your extrapolated single test idea of safety.

>good thing we aren't talking about coupes.
All I did was show that with a few minor tweaks, you can easily flip the test results 180. This test is not a test of vehicle safety, this is a test of electronic aids in a rigid condition.
If you really wanted to be the science dude you think you are, you would have this test completed at dozens of different speeds and dozens of different turn in and corner sizes.

less.

>implying Cuckovers have better suspension or ground clearance
nice meme

>I don't care that my car can't self correct at "moderate speeds". Because I'm the driver, not the car.
The car is dangerous in that no amount of your "superior driving" will stop it from rolling at 40mpg, popping tires or fix that awful suspension that bounces like a fucking whore on friday night.

>You're testing the aids, not the car. get it through your skull
No we're testing the car, the car's tires, the car's suspension, the car's performance. Your attempt to split hairs is like saying "we're testing the TIRES not the car" its the fucking car dude, all these different parts of the car MAKE UP THE CAR. You test the car when you're throwing it into tests and situations like this.

>That doesn't equate to safety
A car rolling, popping tires and going on two wheels isn't unsafe? Or are you trying to say that the VW and volvo are "as safe" as the jeep despite the jeep losing significant stability?

>It doesn't have less maneuverability
It went on two wheels. Less wheels on the ground means less maneuverability. This is fucking objective stop being fucking retarded.

>the jeep engineers tweaked it
and it didn't fix the issue and the car's tires started popping due to the poor stability and stresses.

>one test
with 10 fucking trials dude, this isn't one outlier, the car popped 5 tires and went on two wheels every fucking trial.

>real life statistics
what statistics? Jeeps aren't safe at all.

>little tweaks you can flip the results
changing the test subject is not " a little tweak" if you change the methods you can't compare the results at all.

I didn't bring the Defender into the conversation, you did. And any idiot can break an axle if they try hard enough. Even in the God blessed Hilux and 4runner. Vehicles are built to a price point so lets compare apples to apples shall we?

>Calls Jeeps GM
>Thinks I'll take his post with any weight

JK's feel just like any mom mobile, Chrysler did make your suspension changes and they changed the wrangler from a bare bones light off roader to a minor luxury light off roader for groceries.
It's almost like, when you design a car to perform well in one area, it will perform worse in another.

Wrong, tripcunt. Real SUVs are body on frame and usually have a live rear axle. What you're discibing is a (((crossover))), which is mechanically identical to a car. I'm so fucking sick of having to explain simple shit like this as if I'm explaining it to children.

I don't think you can go wheeling in a bus.

youtube.com/watch?v=xoHbn8-ROiQ

>Hilux still unstable and a fucking roll monster
>no other competitor is as bad, every other competitor for the most part keeps all 4 wheels on the road

>NO THATS JUST THE AIDES
>THE HILUX IS FINE DRIVE GUD FIGT
>THE HILUX HAS GREAT MANEUVERABILITY
>ITS NOT UNSAFE TO ROLL

Was there ever a good explanation as to why this was the case?

>No we're testing the car, the car's tires, the car's suspension, the car's performance. Your attempt to split hairs is like saying "we're testing the TIRES not the car" its the fucking car dude, all these different parts of the car MAKE UP THE CAR. You test the car when you're throwing it into tests and situations like this.
Tires do may a huge difference, tires are parts that almost never get changed to OE, which is why in any test worth anything the tires are made a constant.

>with 10 fucking trials dude, this isn't one outlier, the car popped 5 tires and went on two wheels every fucking trial.
I'm not talking about the amount of repeats, I'm talking about changing variables. That's like testing header lengths at one specific RPM and finding the peak scavenging point and claiming that's the best length for headers. You can repeat the test over and over and get the same results, but as soon as you tweak the basics of the test you'll end up changing the outcomes dramatically.
You need to test more speeds, more turn ins, and more corner sizes to try to prove that theoretically the jeep is less safe

>what statistics? Jeeps aren't safe at all.
Show me your statistics showing that Cherokees crash more, and hurt or kill more.
Fun fact, there are none proving that in the real world they're not more dangerous.
There's a reason we actually check things in practice rather than just in theory.

>changing the test subject is not " a little tweak" if you change the methods you can't compare the results at all.
That's the entire point you idiot, the methods are arbitrary, different cars will fail or succeed under different conditions. This moose test isn't the gold standard of testing. Small changes to the test can radically change results. This just reinforces my point about needing to do more testing with tweaks to the test to try to make any reasonable point about maneuverability.

I think it was because of poor suspension and it being top heavy.

Except I4

>Poor suspension
That's not a blanket statement you can make.
While there are improvements that could be made to any suspension with minor trade offs, there are always trade offs. To get a suspension to perform a certain way, you're going to be trading away other behaviors that are good in certain circumstances.

Why do you kids think that this mystical moose test is the end all of tests?

>all these niggers itt who have neither owned or have any experience with jeeps(wranglers)

wew

I have. They suck.

>Tires do may a huge difference
These were all stock all seasons tires. Keeping all other variables constant is key to an accurate and precise experiment.

these are all features of the car and they all work in conjunction with one another. The weight of the car has a lot to do with the jeep rolling. The jeep bouncing has a lot to do with its poor suspension, the car lacking stability attests to the car's poor driving aids. The tires popping attests to the massive stresses that the car is undergoing because the suspension is poor, the stability management is poor and the car is top heavy.

Its not ONE single thing thats causing all these problems. This is a multitude of problems with the car resulting in a very unsafe car as a result.

> I'm talking about changing variables.
You don't change the variables. There is only one variable which is the car, changing the other constants means you can't compare the results at all as they were done with two different tests effectively.

>changing outcomes
we aren't LOOKING to change the results, we have an accurate test that gets accurate and precise results, we want consistency not changeability. thats not how experiments work.

>Show me your statistics showing that Cherokees crash more, and hurt or kill more.
Right here in the video, the volvo and VW didn't go up on two wheels where the jeep did 10/10 times. Statistically speaking the Jeep is significantly less safe than the VW or volvo in comparison.

>the methods are arbitrary
no its not, the method is constant. You can't change the experiment and test car and somehow think you can compare results. The only thing that changes in the test between trials is speed. They do multiple trials at different speeds and correlate the effects of speed with the performance of the car.

>the moose test isn't a gold standard
so? Its a simple, accurate and precise test that is repeatable with minimal error.

You're shilling for a shit car