You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The Mini Countryman SUV is coming, my main objection is calling it Mini! The photo angle doesn't help - makes it look the size of a truck.
There are possibly only 1 or 2 EV vehicles on the market that have gone down in size rather than up there’s a certain amount of irony there too from manufactures, government policy and people who buy them
I'm not sure what the irony is?
It's blatantly obvious when you look at cars on the road that frugalness (made up word) is not a factor when people buy them. The car pool is far newer than it needs to be and has a large number of premium, larger numbers.
Many people in this thread seem to be under the misunderstanding that the only way to choose a car is based on lowest mpg, yet I bet virtually none of them are driving small cars. Some even tow caravans!
Not sure I agree with your 20% efficiency disparity – my SUV is broadly equivalent to the preceding Estate I had, it’s certainly not 20% adrift.
Just checked a set of vehicles with exactly the same powertrain and driveline.
The SUV version is 8.4 l/100km, the jacked up estate is 7.6 l/100km and the normal estate is 6.6 l/100km.
Get the FWD instead of AWD and you knock 0.7/0.9/1.1 off that.
It'll also be impacted by wheel size as well as weight and aerodynamics.
Molgrips
Yes, but those factors are independent. Yes, you can have an SUV that’s as efficient as some car, but if you apply the same fuel saving tech as the SUV has to the car you’ve selected, it would be more efficient. Like for like, an SUV is guaranteed to be worse on fuel regardless.
But how much worse ??
Exactly the same except height .. everything on a journey at near 40-50mph I don't think there is going to be much difference and there are so many other factors such as tyres/roof bars and how its driven
Excluding the specific sporty things I think its realistic to assume a fairly significant proportion of people will drive differently - my own perspective driving the van is its more pleasant to just accelerate slowly and drive more sedately.
I guess an example is when I hit a 50mph limit (say A470) I often find I'm only doing 55mph anyway vs I'd probably have been at 70mph and this is without making a specific effort.
Like for like, an SUV is guaranteed to be worse on fuel regardless.
Probably far better than a large Merc towing a Caravan though....
Exactly the same except height .. everything on a journey at near 40-50mph I don’t think there is going to be much difference and there are so many other factors such as tyres/roof bars and how its driven
There's no point in trying to have a rational discussion. It's an SUV therefore the owner is the devil incarnate. The fact he's burning far less fuel than the Merc towing the Caravan next to him is completely irrelevant.
I think manufacturers figures are also claimed on the base car are they not? So by the time you pack it with electric seat, sunroof, leather, big wheels LED Matrix headlights, etc you can easily increase the weight by a couple of hundred kilos and affect the drag.
Not for a decade or so, there is a minimum weight tied to a range of spec levels, some things are included, i'm not up on the detail as that's a different department altogether.
I do however know that a major manufacturer got a huge fine a few years ago because they FA&FO and tested cars that had a made up spec that their systems wouldn't allow you to build/buy.
Some were approaching 200 kilos lighter than the actual minimum spec on the system.
Mechanical winders in all four doors, no AC, no sound system/stereo at all. All cloth seats. No spare tyre, and so on.
They were already notorious for including very little in the base spec cars and EVERYTHING being an option, even if the system wouldn't let you build a car without it. And they're still doing it today, but in a different way.
How many people know or care what their car weighs?
Cars are cheap and fuel is cheap. Just drive up the motor way and you see 10,000s of large, new cars all driving above 50 mph, which tells you that no one* is making car purchase choices based on minimising purchase or running costs.
* maybe less than 1%
Things to remember are that SUV's in UK/Europe are different to SUV's in the US. A lot of people confuse them with 4x4's such as Landrovers, Land Cruisers etc
What we'd likely describe as an small/medium SUV here is a high H-Point Hatchback. Basically you repackage a family hatchback to sit a bit higher on its wheels (but not that much compared to a proper 4x4), raise the seating position a bit to get a higher driving position (but again, not that much compared to a proper 4x4), crucially ditch the 4x4 system and use a stock fwd drivetrain (as 4x4 systems are heavy, complex and expensive and basically pointless for motorway, urban and city driving where most cars are used). The looks a bit more chunky so looks like it can protect the occupants and looks more tough (hey guys, there this new thing called mountain biking/snowboarding/kayaking/hiking other outdoors activities and its social trend...). Its not that much heavier or super high on its suspension so drives more like a "normal" car, a slightly bigger car is easier to get through new more stringent crash testing requirements...etc
So to explain SUV"s (in the European sense) :
Once upon a time a company called Nissan is wondering about what to do to replace the 2nd generation Primera (which is rather good but not a Mondeo/Vectra, 3 Series or Passat) and poor selling Almera, consider all the above ,say, "lads, I have an idea..." and lo...
Qashkai is born in the early 00's . Rapidly becomes a bestseller because of all the above. Rest of industry, after mumbling "but, but, but the Mantra Rancho..." takes note and marketing, sales and product development teams start talking. Nissan makes a lot of money with what is basically a high riding mk2 Primera in drag.
BMW build the X5 as they had recently bought LandRover, realises the products are great but not great however there's a lot of knowledge and potential (there were a lot of LandRover technicians in the staff canteen in Munich when I was working there in 1997...).
Later, the bottom will fall out of the traditional European family saloon/estate car market (with the notable exceptions of the BMW 3 series and STW fave, the Octavia).
Family hatchbacks become small and tough and a bit more practical. Bigger more sporty estates get tougher. Only BMW drivers and taxi drivers by saloon cars until the mk3 Prius turns up. Customers are getting older and realise they don't actually like sitting low down in vehicles. Crash test regs get far, far more stringent as customers realise that it's nice to survive a crash unharmed. Plug in hybrids appear which demand a load of battery package space requiring a bigger vehicle and an SUV form is ideal. Dog owners stop buying estate cars. Everyone realises that while MPV's were a good idea but frankly, if you really want to drive a Van/Minibus, simply just go the whole hog and get a VW T4/5/6 etc. EV become a thing and its far easier to package these new LiIon batteries into a a single block on a skateboard type chassis so normal cars have to get taller. And the rest, as they say, is history...
Honestly, what's so hard to understand - some people like them, some people don't. Do people seriously lack the perspective to be able to see why others may prefer an SUV over other kinds of vehicles?
Vehicle choice, just like bike and component choice, is about deciding which compromises best fit with your own wants and needs.
Some people are far too concerned with what other people choose to spend their money on.
Classic singletrackworld - SUV bad, van good...
footflaps
There’s no point in trying to have a rational discussion. It’s an SUV therefore the owner is the devil incarnate. The fact he’s burning far less fuel than the Merc towing the Caravan next to him is completely irrelevant.
Well, obviously...
I guess what I see FAR more often is the Estate with 1-2 bikes on the roof.
Buy an SUV over a Focus and you’re the devil incarnate…
Good work sir, deserved more recognition
Classic singletrackworld – SUV bad, van good…
...Camper - OMFG!!! 😍😍😍
For me just really widens the debate as to how much impact all of your choices - aggregated are making, rather than one choice which is boils down to - 'I don't like your choice.'
Some choices are subject to - 'on balance.'
As for Green - it's got to come from top down, full on government intervention otherwise consumers just take the hit for operating within a frame-work supplied by the private sector.
Take this 2030 ban on ICE - well it could happen if the government *made it happen*. Just expecting the market to deliver yields rubbish results. The government has to spend the money on making the infrastructure work - or it's not going to happen.
Leaving it to the consumers and a multitude of random charging points - it will fall apart. I have sympathy with consumers they constantly have to make up for economic short comings with poor government macro choices.
But how much worse ??
Well there's my earlier example of Ioniq 5 vs 6, but there's also tons of information out there. I gathered figures last time we did this I can't be bothered to do it again.
Probably far better than a large Merc towing a Caravan though….
They put the same engine that my large Merc estate has in large Merc SUVs, and guess what that does to the fuel economy?
There’s no point in trying to have a rational discussion. It’s an SUV therefore the owner is the devil incarnate.
Not really - I mean there are all sorts of negatives associated with driving anything anywhere, after all. The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it's just about image, and that is often not considered a worthy reason to use more fuel.
As for Green – it’s got to come from top down, full on government intervention
It absolutely does, which is why we need a complete societal revolution so we can vote for governments that will sort it out.
Only BMW drivers and taxi drivers by saloon cars until the mk3 Prius turns up
Re Priuses, there's a cool looking new Prius coming out in the US that is very much a normal car shape, but they won't sell it here because we like SUV shapes instead. So much for the eco car I guess.
It absolutely does, which is why we need a complete societal revolution so we can vote for governments that will sort it out.
I'm totally with you on that.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image
You really think a Sportage or a Kuga is a status symbol to people ? I'm not convinced... We bought our Kuga for the space/area, the clearance for ruts and the viewing area/driving position. Status didn't play a factor in the slightest.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image, and that is often not considered a worthy reason to use more fuel.
Funny thing is, worthy reasons only seem to apply to SUV drivers and no one else on the planet...
They are also really nice to drive, we often have a Sportage for a few months and I have to say, lovely place to be and I imagine most SUVs are the same.
Just to give a bit of perspective on the difference between an estate and an SUV fuel economy, I've had a BMW 5 series estate and an X5 with the same 3 litre diesel engine in them. The estate car long term over the same type of driving was about 3-4 mpg more economical, that's it, just under 10% difference. But crucially the X5 can carry the 6 of us in my family, there are no estates available any more with extra seats, and lots of SUVs have an extra row of seats in the back.
Cars are cheap and fuel is cheap. Just drive up the motor way and you see 10,000s of large, new cars all driving above 50 mph, which tells you that no one* is making car purchase choices based on minimising purchase or running costs.
I'd slightly disagree - few people buying an expensive new car cares about minimising running costs. If you've got, say, £30k to spend on a car, the fact it might cost an extra £200 a year in fuel (worst case) than an estate is
a) easily swallowable - its a tiny part of the overall cost
b) probably offset by the improved resale values of an suv anyway
so people just choose what they like most
Once upon a time a company called Nissan is wondering about what to do to replace the 2nd generation Primera
Honda CRV mk1 - 1995 - predates the Qashqai by some time. Arguably, Vauxhall Frontera 1989 (also sold as the fantastically title Isuzu "Mystery Utility Wizard") was there before that and Jeep Cherokee dates from mid 80s.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image, and that is often not considered a worthy reason to use more fuel.
You do appear to have this chip on your shoulder about SUV's. I have a chip on my shoulder about people who buy vans to carry bikes about, or buy motorhomes.
We moved to a BMW X1 because we wanted space, easy access, useable boot space. We looked at Skoda's/VW/Audi and actually at the time the BMW came out as cheap to lease because of better residuals.
The big bonus was that it does better mpg than the Fiesta 1.0 'eco' engined car it replaced, and buy some margin too.
I used to have a Focus 1.6 too, that was crap too, not useable space, sluggish, crap mpg.
Going forward ideal for me would be an electric small car ie 2 seats for short journeys and then a big SUV with combustion engine for other duties.
Arguably, Vauxhall Frontera 1989 (also sold as the fantastically title Isuzu “Mystery Utility Wizard”) was there before that and Jeep Cherokee dates from mid 80s.
All arguably traditional ladder-chassis 4x4's not cars pretending to be one.
Ironically it's the sort of car we need now, but just don't exists! Small, SWB, powerful, towing cars.
You do appear to have this chip on your shoulder about SUV’s
Hmm, not as much as I used to. I'm just trying to rationally point out why some people are anti-SUV. We do of course as a society have far bigger problems than a higher roofline on our cars. Working out how to get people to want to avoid driving in the first place is a much more pressing issue as has been raised.
That said, choosing a car over an SUV is a pretty easy thing to do and it makes a difference.
The big bonus was that it does better mpg than the Fiesta 1.0 ‘eco’ engined car it replaced, and buy some margin too.
Right, but like I said, that higher roof line is still costing you MPG. If you lowered the suspension and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it'd be more efficient.
Small, SWB, powerful, towing cars.
You don't need a lot of power to tow, weight is the main factor. That's why Range Rovers (arguably the first modern SUV) can tow a lot, because they weigh so much.
and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it’d be more efficient.
And less space inside and a lower driving position.
It’s the electrolyte that they are working on. There are lots of significant improvements to be made there.
Mainly to cost, lifespan and charge speed though, as far as I can tell. The electrolyte is very thin and doesn't contribute much to energy density. It's contribution to that aspect is mainly by being reduced in thickness. Pack size is dominated by packaging. My guess is packs will be unique to vehicle as that will allow high cost refurbishments for manufactures (cynical hat on).
All arguably traditional ladder-chassis 4×4’s not cars pretending to be one.
Somewhat sure the Cherokee was unibody..?
Some good info here.
How does a solid-state battery work?
When the cell is charging, the lithium particles move from the cathode, through the structure of the atoms that form the separator, and then move in between the separator itself and the anode’s electrical contact, thus forming a solid layer of pure lithium. In this way, the anode will only be formed of lithium particles and will have a smaller volume than a lithium-ion technology anode, which contains the graphite structure.
So the anode is denser in terms of lithium, so more ions per volume and the suggestion is double the volumetric energy density.
Just to give a bit of perspective on the difference between an estate and an SUV fuel economy, I’ve had a BMW 5 series estate and an X5 with the same 3 litre diesel engine in them. The estate car long term over the same type of driving was about 3-4 mpg more economical, that’s it, just under 10% difference.
1. That’s a really inefficient engine.
2. The X5 needs it to get around, the 5 could likely do just as well with the 190bho 2.0d
3. I’ll bet 3-4mpg is still 10-12%?
4. How much was short journeys? The estate is usually much more efficient on a run.
My 3.0l petrol will get 40+mpg on a run, but only 25-27 on the school run.
You really think a Sportage or a Kuga is a status symbol to people ? I’m not convinced…
Speak for yourself Weeksy but I bought my Sportage purely as a status symbol. A Porsche and a Rolex (or a T6 and a Santa Cruz) is fine for some, but me, I wanted that next-level status boost. I'm the king of the bloody neighbourhood now, rollin' in my pimped-out*, burnt-orange, 2-point-0. Nothing says you've made it quite like a secondhand Korean motor.
*Sun roof and a tow bar, I'll have you know.
Pfft, next week I take delivery of my 12 year old, low mileage original and best SUV Quashqui with white - yes white - leather seats in Tekna trim level giving me a panoramic sunroof, Bose sound system, reversing camera and heated seats.
in my pimped-out*
*Sun roof and a tow bar, I’ll have you know.
Of course as your car is so tall the only people who will be able to see you have a sunroof are those in Range Rovers/Cayennes, who still metaphorically look down on you; and T6s, who will insist that a van is betterer anyway.
Us plebs in hatchbacks will be unaware of just how baller your new whip is.
Right, but like I said, that higher roof line is still costing you MPG. If you lowered the suspension and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it’d be more efficient.
There is a lot more to it than size. Apparently a BMW X1 has a drag coefficient of 0.34, and a Fiesta 0.32. Most average cars appear to be around 0.26
The new BMW IX which is a huge brick has a drag coefficients of 0.25 beating most cars on the market. A lot of estate cars appear to be in the 0.26-0.28 range
Tyres/Wheels have a much bigger impact on mpg than size.
Right, but like I said, that higher roof line is still costing you MPG. If you lowered the suspension and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it’d be more efficient.
You’ve just described my dads Honda civic estate. It is a bit more efficient on fuel economy than my Volvo however that comes with a significant cost;
The lower and harder suspension coupled with lower profile tyres gives it an abysmal ride - it clatters over pit holes something rotten and has destroyed two tyres this year alone. After a short 3 hour drive you are exceptionally glad to get out the bloody thing. It has hee haw space in the back seat for 6ft adult (I cannot comfortably sit in the back at all) and the boot space, whilst leading in its class is terrible compared to my Volvo.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">
Compare and contrast to our Volvo - we had to drive back from the alps for a family emergency last summer. My wife and I drove 1,000 miles in shifts in the space of 25hours with full camping kit. We got out surprisingly fresh and able to deal with what awaited us at home. The same journey just would not have been possible in the Honda. </span>
When we bought out car the criteria were;
load carrying potential,
safety for the occupants,
efficiency
comfort.
If you score high on fuel efficiency but make the user experience frankly awful, then you’re not going to make a good car people will buy.
There is a lot more to it than size. Apparently a BMW X1 has a drag coefficient of 0.34, and a Fiesta 0.32. Most average cars appear to be around 0.26
The new BMW IX which is a huge brick has a drag coefficients of 0.25 beating most cars on the market. A lot of estate cars appear to be in the 0.26-0.28 range
from an non automotive engineering standpoint the coefficient of drag should be multiplied by the frontal area of the vehicle, and by 0.5 x air (or fluid) density x velocity squared.
Thus a van with 0.2 coefficient might have the same drag as a little sports car with 0.4.
of course in the automotive world, "drag coefficient" may be universally accepted short hand for what I've just described nope, seems it isnt.
So the anode is denser in terms of lithium, so more ions per volume and the suggestion is double the volumetric energy density.
So, just to be clear, that's not at all the electrolyte (or polymer separator as it usually is) as you first said then? It's actually deriving its gain by massively reducing the size of the anode. Maybe the solid separator makes that possible. But the increase per se is not 'because solid'. Also (like all the other revolutionary battery technologies that are announced weekly that are about to overturn the battery world) this is still lab based and not commercialised... i.e. not to say it will never happen - but more than a pinch of salt is needed.
There is a lot more to it than size. Apparently a BMW X1 has a drag coefficient of 0.34, and a Fiesta 0.32. Most average cars appear to be around 0.26
The drag coefficient is the drag per unit frontal area. You have to multiply that by the frontal area to get the actual drag force.
To add to the above on drag coefficients:
A few approximate values of bike related drag values
Bicycle - Streamlined Velomobile 0.12
Sphere 0.5
Bike - Drafting behind an other cyclist 0.5
Bike - Racing 0.88
Bicycle 0.9
Person standing 1.0 – 1.3
Bike - Upright Commuter 1.1
The lower and harder suspension coupled with lower profile tyres gives it an abysmal ride – it clatters over pit holes something rotten and has destroyed two tyres this year alone. After a short 3 hour drive you are exceptionally glad to get out the bloody thing. It has hee haw space in the back seat for 6ft adult (I cannot comfortably sit in the back at all) and the boot space, whilst leading in its class is terrible compared to my Volvo.
Ergh. You're comparing a shit estate with a nice SUV. I can assure you not all estates are shit and not all SUVs are nice.
But the increase per se is not ‘because solid’.
Eh? It's because the electrolyte is solid rather than liquid, it allows a different design so the cells have higher energy density.
As for production, they are in pilot manufacturing stage now, that means a factory is being set up to make them in large numbers. It'll happen.
SUV popularity came off the back of the MPV boom which Renault capitalised on so well with the Scenic. People liked the extra height, driving position and space but didn't like the looks so much. Most SUVs are just an evolution of the MPVs which were an evolution of family cars.
I have a Sportage at the moment, in the past had a CRV, old school Vitara, couple of Tourans and Scenics. They're all much of a muchness apart from the Vitara which was a proper small SUV with diff lock and a low ratio gearbox so not like the modern ones.
I went for the AWD Sportage as I 've 1200 ft above sea level on a hill, AWD helps in the winter, and at least once a month I take it off road as I build mountain bike trails with Forestry England. Our second car is a 1 litre Fiat 500, not withstanding being a 2 car family, any minimal detrimental impact of the AWD drive SUV is more than offset by having a tiny fuel efficient 2nd car.
I wonder if Molgrips has a second car and how environmentally friendly his fleet is when aggregated.
Meanwhile people with lifestyle vans and campers they drive as everyday vehicles need to have a long hard think about the impact they are having which is far worse than the faux SUVs.
I wonder if Molgrips has a second car and how environmentally friendly his fleet is when aggregated.
Why? Are we having a willy waving competition? I thought were were discussing cars.
All I'm saying is that an SUV body style adds a significant amount of air resistance, and is often a decision taken for no practical purpose, simply image.
I could be driving around in a Hummer H2, that would not invalidate that assertion.
ayjaydoubleyou
Full MemberTo add to the above on drag coefficients:
A few approximate values of bike related drag values
Bicycle – Streamlined Velomobile 0.12
Sphere 0.5
Bike – Drafting behind an other cyclist 0.5
Bike – Racing 0.88
Bicycle 0.9
Person standing 1.0 – 1.3
Bike – Upright Commuter 1.1
So, if I drive whilst standing out of the sunroof of my car, to avoid being blinded by led headlamps, the drag coefficient will go from .33, to roughly .38.
Might be time for an SUV.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image
How do you know that? Maybe that's just your perception. Or perhaps you have data to back that up?
Even if were true, why does it grate ? Why do you care? I assume a RS6 achieving 20mpg grates far more than a SUV yielding 40mpg like most do. Do you get irritated by RS6s too?
Just changed our absolutely perfect fiat 500 that has done 11 years of faultless driving for little money for a car costing double the amount and much bigger. I would have kept it another 11 years tbh.
The main underlying reason i am sick of worrying about her being in a collision with much bigger cars. Now that 90% of the population has to drive a car that is basically a hatchback thats been jacked up to serve absolutely no purpose it means her car is even more vulnerable.
Its just a power struggle to protect your own but in the same move stick 2 fingers up at everyone elses safety.
Why? Are we having a willy waving competition? I thought were were discussing cars.
All I’m saying is that an SUV body style adds a significant amount of air resistance, and is often a decision taken for no practical purpose, simply image.
We are, you seem to attempting to mind read other people's motivation for buying an SUV, and by the responses on here from actual SUV owners getting it wrong.
The main underlying reason i am sick of worrying about her being in a collision with much bigger cars. Now that 90% of the population has to drive a car that is basically a hatchback thats been jacked up to serve absolutely no purpose it means her car is even more vulnerable.
its not significantly more vulnerable - the weight has maybe risen by 10% - it's very unlikely that in a collision that 10% would make a significant difference to the outcome
Not read every page...I'd just like car manufacturers to stop making cars/suvs etc wider than road lanes.
They don't, car parking spaces however.....
We are, you seem to attempting to mind read other people’s motivation for buying an SUV, and by the responses on here from actual SUV owners getting it wrong.
Statistics fail but whatever.
Eh? It’s because the electrolyte is solid rather than liquid, it allows a different design so the cells have higher energy density.
So like I said, not what you said. But whatever.
As for production, they are in pilot manufacturing stage now, that means a factory is being set up to make them in large numbers. It’ll happen
Who is in pilot manufacturing?
My employers would love to be able to source a lithium cell with double the energy density of the existing product. Even at small volume.
lol @ ****erpanzerists 🙂
Who is in pilot manufacturing?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/06/solid-power-begins-pilot-production-of-solid-state-ev-battery.html
Sounds like your employer should have put some money up.
I use my SUV for it's sporting utility.
The main underlying reason i am sick of worrying about her being in a collision with much bigger cars. Now that 90% of the population has to drive a car that is basically a hatchback thats been jacked up to serve absolutely no purpose it means her car is even more vulnerable.
TBH I’d be more worried about HGV infractions rather than car ones ,ooh and trees 🙂
You’re sat in a safety cage with restraints,crumple zones,arresters (so that bonnet doesn’t getchucked in your face and multiple airbags and then there’s the newer funky active stuff that the Teslas do, modern cars aren’t invulnerable but your not that vulnerable in the same sense of the risks you take when cycling on the road.
I use my SUV for it’s sporting utility.
joking aside, it's the utility bit that seems to have been lost. Actually it hasn't been lost, it's been designed out.
Take the Skoda Yeti, universally praised as a design triumph.
small footprint
room for five adults with headroom
excellent ramp angles
fully removable rear seats
practical load space with vertical, flat rear door, basically van shaped
generally economical and reliable
haldex 4x4 system
closest thing to that now is probably the dacia duster. hardly an aspirational vehicle, but a good choice for the practical buyer.
car parking spaces however…..
It's OK. They just use 2
Molgrips
Well there’s my earlier example of Ioniq 5 vs 6, but there’s also tons of information out there. I gathered figures last time we did this I can’t be bothered to do it again.
Except the first google I find says they are not the same
next-gen semiconductors in the inverter, reworked motors with hairpin windings, and a re-optimized control strategy when switching between single-motor and dual-motor operation in the AWD model), the Ioniq 6 is a lot more efficient than the Ioniq 5.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image,
Swap out SUV for Mercedes ???
Or .. and I'm just extending this "people who tow caravans"...
I'm sure you considered many options and came to a decision but don't seem to think MOST people who buy SUV's do... (and as mentioned whats the status symbol quality of a korean SUV vs a Mercedes ???
All I’m saying is that an SUV body style adds a significant amount of air resistance, and is often a decision taken for no practical purpose, simply image.
Define "significant". Between 5 and 10% when comparing like for like is not significant IMO
Define "often". 10%? 50%? 75%? Share your data please.
Image influences the purchase of most cars but is rarely the only motivation. It's a mix. And it's in no way mutually exclusive with practicality.
I find their image ghastly yet I find SUVs far more practical. Should I not buy one in case someone who doesn't have to buy one thinks I bought it for image purposes ?
The anti SUV sentiment is absurd, irrational and seems to be the preserve of those judging others by their own standards of insecurity.
They don’t, car parking spaces however…..
That's nothing to do with SUV's tho'. It's a particular problem with vans tho' which is why they should be taxed off the road for non business use, along with their other bad traits.
Your 5-10% increase is not repreresentative, nickfrog. The real increase in fuel comsumption is from negligible to 28%
The Audi Q5 35 TDI uses 1,4 l/100 km more than the equiçvalent A4. 6.4l/100km rather than 5.0l/100km. That's very significant IMO
https://www.caradisiac.com/un-suv-consomme-t-il-plus-qu-une-berline-182747.htm
More expensive, more expensive to insure, heaver and thirstier for the same cabin space, more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, worse handling, due to higher centre of gravity, faster wear of bigger tyres... . Fashion over function.
Its just a power struggle to protect your own but in the same move stick 2 fingers up at everyone elses safety.
Tragedy Of The Commons innit...
joking aside, it’s the utility bit that seems to have been lost. Actually it hasn’t been lost, it’s been designed out.
It's a fair point with some so-called SUV's. I suspect people are buying them for a feeling of safety - and if they can afford the premium and it's worth it to them then fair enough.
However, there are still "real" SUV's on the market.
My Honda CRV currently has two kayaks on the roof. I've a thule towbar-mounted rack so my MTB's go on the back. With the back seats down I can get camping, kayaking and MTB equipment in the car. If we're a long time out on the kayaks then the bikes come off the rack and go IN the car - because you can't beat the feeling of "my bike is probably not going to get nicked now" whilst you're away from it.
I've also got an old volvo V60 estate. Very practical and I could get a roof bar for the kayaks, a towbar for the bikes and do much the same thing - but I live remotely and need the much superior ground clearance that an SUV gives me down dirt tracks (including mine - the volvo's getting scraped to buggery).
One of the early responses by @relapsed_mandalorian was:
You’re missing the ability to be drawn in by marketing bullshit
Maybe in some cases. But safety is not illusory - a quick google reports some studies have shown you're 50% more likely to survive a crash without suffering serious injury in an SUV than an ordinary car (which I didn't know, has suprised me, and makes my next purchase much more likely to be another SUV (or pickup - I live on a smallholding). For many that's got to be well worth the premium.
For me - the sporting utility is absolutely a thing that SUVs do better than estate cars. So it's not marketing or alpha-maleness or any of the other shit. For me - they're just better.
Maybe in some cases. But safety is not illusory – a quick google reports some studies have shown you’re 50% more likely to survive a crash without suffering serious injury in an SUV than an ordinary car (which I didn’t know, has suprised me,
Probably because in the event of an impact between an SUV and a proper car, the SUV goes over the top of all the safety systems and kills the poor, unfashionable flesh bags at a much higher rate.
So SUVs become "safer" in comparison to cars.
the figures speak volumes:
"The subjective impression for everyday road users that the bulk of UK new car sales consists more than ever of taller than average Crossovers is borne out by latest industry supplied sales numbers."
The anti SUV sentiment is absurd, irrational and seems to be the preserve of those judging others by their own standards of insecurity.
Not absurd, it's based on experience, both as a cyclist and driver, top annoyances for me--headlights, too bright and too high; driving, a 'I'm coming through' attitude, get outa my way cos I am bigger than yow; size, can't see over em in car parks, junctions etc making exits more dangerous; centre-line, SUV drivers seem to think they need to drive down the middle of the road; weight, more damage to roads, impact greater in accidents; risk, I am sure SUVs instill a (false) sense of security to those driving them. OK, and they're bloomin ugly too!
Yes, many of these traits can be applied to vans (and their drivers) but SUV numbers just keep on rising and rising...
a quick google reports some studies have shown you’re 50% more likely to survive a crash without suffering serious injury in an SUV than an ordinary car
Last time I looked it up there was no correlation between the size of a car and the number of people killed in one.
The subjective impression for everyday road users that the bulk of UK new car sales consists more than ever of taller than average Crossovers is borne out by latest industry supplied sales numbers.
So our fleet is becoming less efficient than it could be? Nice, good work everyone.
Naughty nasty planet killing SUV having a mid life rebuild at 13years/215k miles.
Nothing failed or broken but bushes etc getting a bit tired.
Not sure an Aygo would be in this good condition at this mileage?
[url= https://i.ibb.co/pPQPhqV/F459-B6-FA-16-C7-4-B6-D-BDC2-1858-E5-CFAFE5.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/pPQPhqV/F459-B6-FA-16-C7-4-B6-D-BDC2-1858-E5-CFAFE5.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I assume a RS6 achieving 20mpg
At 60mph on the motorway maybe 😉
My RS5 averaged 10/11mpg over a tank when driven properly and that's a good few kilos and 200bhp less
Re this above 'the Audi Q5 35 TDI uses 1,4 l/100 km more than the equiçvalent A4. 6.4l/100km rather than 5.0l/100km. That’s very significant IMO'
I'd agree with that... so I compared drag coefficients of a few cars. The A4 is very slippery, particularly compared to other saloons-- so compare the Q5 to a BMW 3 series, and things get a lot tighter.. so should the BMW 3 and 5 be dumped as well? All this applies as well '-More expensive, more expensive to insure, heaver and thirstier for the same cabin space, more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, worse handling, due to higher centre of gravity, faster wear of bigger tyres…'
Also , don#t ever add a roof rack.
I can see the raging about enormous Range Rover, Q7, X7s etc.. but Qashqai and CeeDs / really .
And the other reason they're popular with designers is that it makes placing a battery underneath easier apparently. ALthough that doesn't seem to apply to a model 3 which is very low, and thus , as instinct suggests, hard for older people to get in and out of, except the OP.
so I compared drag coefficients of a few cars. The A4 is very slippery, particularly compared to other saloons– so compare the Q5 to a BMW 3 series, and things get a lot tighter.. so should the BMW 3 and 5 be dumped as well?
You need to multiply the drag coefficient by the frontal area to compare the actual air resistance.
So if the Q5 and the 3-Series had the same drag coefficient, the Q5 would still have more air resistance.
I can cruise along on my ~2.9m high Ducato using 7.5l/100km....assuming I sit at 80kmh.at 90kmh in using 8.5-9l/100km
This week i had dealings twice with SUV's.
The first was buying one,a Ford Kuga,and the second being knocked off my road bike by a driver in a BMW X5.
I didn't really want an SUV but with them being popular there were more on the market,especially the Kuga.An estate car would have been my choice but around here they were all high mileage company car stuff.
The SUV was bought to tow a caravan so the 2.0 diesel was ideal but more importantly the weight of the car.It will really only be used for towing.
The 80 year old driver in the X5 would have hit me even if he had been in a Fiat 500.Probably at a bit lower speed though.
It's like an arms race out there on the roads.
If you're driving around in a regular saloon then you're sitting lower than the majority of the traffic which is less than ideal. Same with lights, if you have non led lights then they can be near useless when driving towards someone with led lights, they're just overpowered.
But like many has said, SUV type cars are more fashionable but like most fashion (Balenciaga shoes being a good example) it can be less practical, more expensive and ugly.
Sad that you now have limited choice of big affordable saloons, same with estates. Even sadder that Ford has stopped making the Focus and Fiesta, Ford Puma? No thanks.
SUV is Americanise, I think? short hand for Sports Utility Vehicle AKA a Chelsea tractor, probably front wheel drive, and piloted by a Karen.
A pretend off road car that doesn't have 4x4 basicaly.
I have an ideological dislike for them for most of the eco reasons that many have alluded to BUT certain aspects of SUVs make sense...
Upright driving position - good for child/elderly relatives loading and (for me at least) more comfy than a legs in front position on long trips.
The fact they're likely to be softer riding than an estate - there are smaller craters on the moon than in Hampshire's roads
You seem to be able to get them with half decent tow bar nose weight limits for bike racks and trailers.
MPVs do the functional thing better for those who don't live in territory that semi justifies a 4wd but the large non van ones are close to extinct.
New non premium large estates are starting to disappear due to market forces. The Accord went a few years back, Ford has dropped the Mondeo, SMax and Galaxy also go in April I believe. As a big Ford fan there's no large family CAR or MPV in the range. No more i40/Optima or Insignia and others have mentioned other manufacturers dropping larger estates. An ever larger choice of SUV's is being pushed into that gap.
Proper big estates new... 5 series, E-class, Superb, A6 (sort of), Passat (sort of) ... I know I've missed some but it's getting tougher if you're in the new market (I'm not).
All the better for unlawfully parking on high kerbs...
Modern propblems require modern solutions.
Not sure an Aygo would be in this good condition at this mileage?
I will let you know when it gets there. My older Aygo is now 12 years old (had from new) and has done 100,000 miles and in very good condition and still going strong.
In that 100,000 miles I have spent a total of £400 on repairs outside of tyres and brakes. Another thing with small cheap cars is that the parts are also cheap.
I think we are outside cases anyway as most peoples cars never see them do anything like 100,000 miles before they change them do they.
I think we are outside cases anyway as most peoples cars never see them do anything like 100,000 miles before they change them do they
I’m not sure on that. Our street is full of older cars. Lots of what some would see as end of life vehicles, but perfectly fine.
The only people I know who regularly have a new car lease it.
It’s not even about wealth, a very well off chap I know rattles about in an old Celica. He bought it off the forecourt of a garage when his last car failed the mot, for a couple of grand.
Our cars are 2004 121000miles and 1986 174000miles.
Work Van is nearly 90000 and will overtake the Astra fairly soon I should think.
Out of interest I checked the 2004 Astra against ULEZ and it complies.
I’ve noticed the last few years car ages seem to be increasing on the roads.
Not sure an Aygo would be in this good condition at this mileage?
But that's because it's a cheaper car, surely, not because it's an SUV. I don't think an X5 is inherently better for longevity than a 5 series, just because it's taller.
Also, I fully agree with/understand molgrips' point. Just because an old saloon was less efficient than the brand new SUV that's replaced it, that doesn't mean that SUVs are more efficient. The SUV is probably less efficient than the 'equivalent' modern saloon with the same engine.
As for towing, you don't need an SUV to be able to tow when the aforementioned RS6 has 630hp, 850nm and weighs more than a Kia Sportage, so even has the "you need weight to tow" point covered. So send the Kia back and look down the back of the sofa for the extra £75k... (Slightly more sensible alternatives are available).
However...I hired a car a few years ago (pre covid price madness) and paid the extra £30 to upgrade to a 'premium suv' for Friday to Monday. Got a 67 plate X5 40d in M-sport trim. I hired it again for 1000 mile round trip to just below Torridon because it was so good for that first trip. It was so comfortable, quick, spacious, quiet etc that it would probably be the first thing I'd buy if I stumbled across the winning euromillions ticket*. The 1000 mile drive flew by, the only problem was boredom after 7 hours of being in the same seat. Although the panoramic sunroof was good for enjoying the more dramatic scenery! I'm not freakishly tall (6ft with gangly arms and legs) but even for me the seating position was great, better than any 'normal' car. The floor in the rear was strangely high though, and it was massive so was a struggle with some parking spaces. I can absolutely see why people have them.
*I'd just have to use some of the euromillions cash to do some carbon offsetting to ease the pangs of guilt!
As for towing, you don’t need an SUV to be able to tow when the aforementioned RS6 has 630hp, 850nm and weighs more than a Kia Sportage, so even has the “you need weight to tow” point covered.
Well, it depends on what your towing.
My car has less than half the power of an RS6 but it can tow 3.5t whilst the RS6 is limited to 2.1t (which is not enough for me... Not that I would buy an RS6 even if I had the money!)
So you kinda do need weight (and other stuff) for [some] towing