You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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
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
I did say like for like. 😉
A Q3 35 TFSI has a bigger boot, bigger interior space, more rear leg room and head room but smaller footprint than a A4 35 TFSI Avant. Same power, same mpg. 5 to 10% is a realistic delta, but it's a bit less usually, IME. Gearing often different though which skews things depending on mileage pattern.
That doesn't mean it's better for everyone, it just means it's a normal car of a slightly different shape to an estate. I am a big fan of estates but the SUV form factor works better for me and many people. I prefer a shorter car for family duties and a taller car for carrying bikes. The CoG detriment doesn't bother me on the road and I have other cars for track days. Couldn't give a toss about image or the neighbours. My neighbours don't give a shit about my cars.
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.
SUVs have been around for decades, they're not fashionable they are popular. "Ugly" is utterly subjective but I appreciate looks and design are important for you.
Possibly slightly ugly but I always wanted one of these as my first car. My parents forbid me due to the amount of baby robins and planets I would kill with it. The original SUV?
[url= https://i.ibb.co/S0bdrLj/BBBB7-FDA-8353-4-DE0-9488-E2-CE48514504.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/S0bdrLj/BBBB7-FDA-8353-4-DE0-9488-E2-CE48514504.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
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.
It does depend on what you are towing yes. Horses, boats, then you need a large SUV because of the weight. However it's perfectly possible to tow a caravan with a normal car, despite what you might think by what's on the motorway these days. Caravan manufacturers usually make a lighter weight range specifically for this reason.
As for comfort - we had a Kia Sportage for about a month - it was ok, ride was fairly stiff, it was quiet and quick enough. But the seats were fairly basic especially in the back. My wife hated it for various non-SUV related reasons but also the fact that the wings were big and reduced the corner visibility a lot, that made it harder to park. It was less efficient than the Merc, which is a much better car in every way including having a larger boot. More expensive of course. Mind you she also hates parking the Merc.
Thing is though the list price on that Kia was £45k (although lower models are a lot cheaper), you can get a lot of normal car for that. I'd have much preferred a fully loaded Passat.
The original SUV?
That's simply a UV, in my view. I first heard the SUV term describing pickups with very powerful engines as created in the USA in the 80s, to make them sports-car fast (the S) part whilst still being pickups (the UV part).
A Q3 35 TFSI has a bigger boot, bigger interior space, more rear leg room and head room but smaller footprint than a A4 35 TFSI Avant. Same power, same mpg. 5 to 10% is a realistic delta, but it’s a bit less usually, IME.
Well, apart from the fact that in the A4, the 35 TFSI is a 2.0l and in the Q3 it's a 1.5l and is slower, yup, same engine, same power... The A3 and the Q3 have the same engine. Footprint doesn't matter - VOLUME matters. Volume is material, it's air resistance, it's surface drag.
Real world MPG for the A3 and Q3 Stronic (same engine, same gearbox, etc) is 49.1, vs 38.1. These are owners figures in mixed driving. That's 30%, not 5-10%. This is to be expected as the Q3 is 250kg heavier. 250kg is my entire family and their luggage for a family holiday on EVERY journey.
This is to be expected as the Q3 is 250kg heavier. 250kg is my entire family and their luggage for a family holiday on EVERY journey.
That too but mostly because it's taller. An SUV is taller by definition, that's what makes it an SUV. So it definitely has more frontal area, and that makes it less efficient by definition than it could be. Yes, some SUVs are as good as some cars, but if the cars had all the efficiency measures of the SUV they would guaranteed be more efficient.
Well, apart from the fact that in the A4, the 35 TFSI is a 2.0l and in the Q3 it’s a 1.5l and is slower, yup, same engine, same power… The A3 and the Q3 have the same engine. Footprint doesn’t matter – VOLUME matters. Volume is material, it’s air resistance, it’s surface drag.
Real world MPG for the A3 and Q3 Stronic (same engine, same gearbox, etc) is 49.1, vs 38.1. These are owners figures in mixed driving. That’s 30%, not 5-10%. This is to be expected as the Q3 is 250kg heavier. 250kg is my entire family and their luggage for a family holiday on EVERY journey.
For info, an A3 is 380L/1200L VS Q3 530L/1525L. Not remotely comparable.
The A4 Avant is far closer even though it still is smaller. You're right the engine capacity is different despite the output being the same which may indeed save the Q3 10%. So within what I personally find reasonable as a delta.
We can't start comparing cars of vastly different interior volume. You also need to stick to normalised mpg data for benchmarking purposes.
As I said, different people like different shape cars for their needs. The mpg penalty is real but not significant, 5 to 10%. I accept this may be too high for some people though.
If mpg is the target we all need to drive 108s or whatever tiny car minimises fuel usage. Even if we have to buy 2 to go on holiday.
If mpg is the target we all need to drive 108s
That's called reductio and absurdum, but yes it would help. The thing is, in practical terms there isn't much you can do with an SUV that you cannot do with a normal car. Yes, there are some things but I don't think they apply to that many people. Someone up there cited a rough driveway (surely this should be fixed?) but none of the many SUVs parked on my street have that problem.
Everyone has excuses for not doing the most efficient thing. Including me. We all insist that our choices are justifiable especially on internet forums. Just try and make sure that your choices really are unavoidable.
For info, an A3 is 380L/1200L VS Q3 530L/1525L. Not remotely comparable.
Who stacks a boot to the roof on a regular basis? My boot roof is lower than an SUV but it's much longer than most and probably wider, I'd argue that's more useful.
Thing is though the list price on that Kia was £45k
That probably wasn't a Sportage then, current list price for the top of the range is around £41k unless you were driving the plug in Hybrid but I doubt it as they are rare as rocking horse poop. Sounds like you may have had a sorrento which is a much bigger vehicle (or you are mistaken on the list price.
For balance I had a Merc for 6 months and hated every minute of it, horribly unintuitive car, styling was awful and the driving experience pretty meh. My Sportage on the other hand is everything the Merc wasn't.
It was a Sportage, I may be mistaken on the list price. It was an automatic and had the mild hybrid system.
Mercs may vary, I've only ever driven one which is pretty good , but I'd struggle to describe the Sportage as anything other than meh personally 🙂
Many times the suv drivers say they have a better view, why then am I always close passed when on my bike, as bad bullied into letting the suv drivers either out of side roads and worse still from a slip road when trying to join the motorway, they barge out and don't care that I can't move over because other drivers are filling the 2 outer lanes. I'm not a fan.
Bunnyhop
Full MemberMany times the suv drivers say they have a better view, why then am I always close passed when on my bike, as bad bullied into letting the suv drivers either out of side roads and worse still from a slip road when trying to join the motorway, they barge out and don’t care that I can’t move over because other drivers are filling the 2 outer lanes. I’m not a fan
I'm not sure that it makes much difference what car. I suppose now more people drive them, it's more likely to be an SUV flattening you than an estate.
There does seem to be a growing assumption that the car in lane one will move over to allow someone to join.
and that makes it less efficient by definition than it could be
Just getting my utterly-pointless-pedantry mode triggered here...
Aerodynamic drag force is proportional to CdA. The A refers to an area characteristic of the shape for which Cd has been determined. It doesn't need to be frontal area. The pedantry is that Cd is determined by the shape of the vehicle and A is just a scaling factor for that particular dimensionless coefficient of drag. If the shapes are different, the Cd is different. If you use plan area vs frontal area in calculating/measuring your Cd, the Cd will be a different Cd but CdA will be the same. Without knowing both Cd and A you cannot determine whether one vehicle is more efficient than another. So (pedantry), knowing A is bigger does not "by definition" mean the drag is worse when different shapes are involved.
This is utterly-pointless-pedantry because the shapes involved are, according to Wikipedia characterised as follows:
The average modern automobile achieves a drag coefficient of between 0.25 and 0.3. Sport utility vehicles (SUVs), with their typically boxy shapes, typically achieve a Cd=0.35–0.45. The drag coefficient of a vehicle is affected by the shape of body of the vehicle.
As a Honda CRv owner, the 1.6 diesel gets better mpg in many circumstances than cars I've had before but I also tend to drive it less like an adolescent idiot than cars I've had before. I bought it (secondhand in 2018) to get two bikes in the back *easily*. It has been a workhorse and has done necessary long distance work heavily laden and full. It has the nominal fallback of all wheel drive for when I need it in the Scottish winter, although I doubt it actually does much compared to proper 4wd with locking/limited slip diffs.
If the shapes are different, the Cd is different.
I think I read on wiki that for cars A is taken to be the frontal area.
So (pedantry), knowing A is bigger does not “by definition” mean the drag is worse when different shapes are involved.
What I meant was an SUV by definition has a larger frontal area than a car. Of course, in theory, an SUV could have a much lower Cd than a car, and that would counteract the larger frontal area, but that's not likely with two modern cars; and I did specify earlier that an SUV will always be less efficienty all other things being equal.
Try it another way. If you took a car, then stuck a box on the roof, one on the bonnet, and another to make the back end squarer - it's not going to improve the fuel efficiency is it?
Someone up there cited a rough driveway (surely this should be fixed?) but none of the many SUVs parked on my street have that problem.
I live up a km or so down a dirt track, that gets rutted out occasionally, especially at this time of year during the thaw. It's also steep, around 1 in 3 down towards the far end.
I've been driving up and down it for the last 3 years in a lowered Volvo estate... And an assortment of saloons, hatches and estates for the last decade and a half. Sometimes towing a caravan or a trailer.
It also snows, a lot.
Only neighbours who can't get their cars out on a regular basis have as follows:-
Ford Sierra Cosworth
Renault Megane RS
Nissan ZX300
Chevrolet Camaro
Obviously not daily drivers.
My current estate is pretty low, and I have driven onto caravan sites plenty of times down farm driveways. A track has to be pretty knackered before you need SUV ground clearance.
Actually, that's a good point.
I had Taycan down here last February for most of the week...
There does seem to be a growing assumption that the car in lane one will move over to allow someone to join.
+1 I’ve noticed this. Odd.
There does seem to be a growing assumption that the car in lane one will move over to allow someone to join.
Round here, people will do anything to let you out. Including slowing down to let you on. Even if you have assessed the situation and decided you need to give way as you're supposed to. So you slow down to get behind them and they slow down, and you have to slow down further, and they slow down even more so they are basically stopped in 50mph traffic. Bloody idiots. They are as idiotic as the people who merge at 30mph and then speed up to 50 AFTER they've joined the carraigeway. FFS.
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
Probably not but my Mondeo has recently seen 100k in my ownership as did the Civic before it.
Got a spot needing looked at but no reason to assume it couldn't do another 100k after a refresh.
My current estate is pretty low, and I have driven onto caravan sites plenty of times down farm driveways. A track has to be pretty knackered before you need SUV ground clearance.
You should try some of the driveways where I live. One of my mates in this article has been fighting with Council for years.
They don't own an SUV though and now I don't own a 4x4 if I visit he has to pick me up halfway to his house.
bails
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.
But that works in reverse as well... to use the example Molgrips gave with the Ioniq 5-6 there is a whole load of increased efficiency other than weight/height/cross sectional area.
The questions really are: do people drive and use SUV's in the same way as Estates in a way that makes for a significant difference in efficiency.
I'm sure plenty of people drive SUV's and their average speed over the car lifetime is <40mph and they rarely go into the higher speeds where air resistance starts to have a significant effect. I am always surprised when I look at average speed on the van... especially as I don't really do short journeys under 10 miles or so ...
I think more people buying estates tend to use them to bomb up and down motorways compared to people that buy SUV's.
Almost like they thought "what's the best car for what I do" ??? Plenty of people have probably not been on a motorway or dual carriageway in their current car... (I doubt my mum has unless you count small parts of the A65).. and for many many more it is a few times a year maybe...
Another simple observation over the last few days and I see far more estates with roof mounted bike racks than SUV's... this is another change in "how they are used" as if you can get 2 bikes in upright with the front wheel off most/many SUV owners seem to do that rather than fit roof bars (or tow bar carriers).
Who stacks a boot to the roof on a regular basis?
Define “regular”. About 2-3 times a month?
https://imgur.com/gallery/dXgyYvO
Note the amount of room on the back seat for guitar cabs or passengers
Skoda Kodiaq btw. My previous car was a Skoda Karoq, which took the drum kit but no room for anything else in the back. If I had any other luggage then no room in the front either
you can get 2 bikes in upright with the front wheel off most/many SUV owners seem to do that rather than fit roof bars (or tow bar carriers).
Doesn't work for a family of four and all the bikes inside said SUV in any way that doesn't resemble a decidedly unsafe game of Tetris...
Doesn’t work for a family of four and all the bikes inside said SUV in any way that doesn’t resemble a decidedly unsafe game of Tetris…
depends how big your SUV is. Plenty of american metal will do that happily, and of things on sale over here, I recon a highlander, x7 and landcruiser would all take bikes in behind the middle row lengthwise with both wheels off.
The questions really are: do people drive and use SUV’s in the same way as Estates in a way that makes for a significant difference in efficiency.
Unless you're talking massive body on frame utility vehicles like Toyota 4Runner etc, the vast majority of users of Euro Style SUVs are using them as jacked up estates, same journeys, same speeds, same/similar interior loading.
Most manufacturers know this.
This bits where they don't match duty cycle are the corner cases. A small percentage of users (single digit) doing things that the marketing tells you they should be used for all the time.
You should try some of the driveways where I live. One of my mates in this article has been fighting with Council for years.
To be fair, that's a corner case of a corner case of a corner case. Hardly what you call a common problem.
depends how big your SUV is. And how big your estate is as well. There isn't that much usable space in the back of an A4 if you want to start putting bikes or big opens, and certainly no sofas. Ditto smaller Volvo estates either.
How many go in the back of this legendary Mercedes ?
This whole thing makes me so angry. Show me an SUV that can transport a family of five and their luggage, do 60 mpg on a long journey and still have enough power to have no trouble on hilly fast roads or overtaking! My 7 year old Zafira Tourer 2.0TDi can but they were discontinued because of UK new car buyers switching to SUVs that use more fuel/go slower, handle worse, cost more and have less interior space for a given footprint. No problems getting down a rough track to a cottage we regularly visit either. FFS.
My 7 year old Zafira Tourer 2.0TDi can but they were discontinued because
of UK new car buyers switching to SUVsthey were crap and prone to exploding in a ball of flames
Show me an SUV that can transport a family of five and their luggage, do 60 mpg on a long journey and still have enough power to have no trouble on hilly fast roads or overtaking!
What about the bigger BMW (X5), Audi (Q7), etc. or am I wrong in thinking they're an SUV?
Show me an SUV that can transport a family of five and their luggage, do 60 mpg on a long journey and still have enough power to have no trouble on hilly fast roads or overtaking!
Not a single Zafira does 60mpg in controlled tests, let alone real world.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/vauxhall/zafira-2012
Then again, some of my in-laws have an XC90 D5 for exactly those specifications and I was amazed at Christmas when they said they didn't get 30mpg from it around the doors of local trips, and under 40mpg on long runs - and she is not a fast driver...
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volvo/xc90-2015
"My 7 year old Zafira Tourer 2.0TDi can but they were discontinued because of UK new car buyers switching to SUVs they were crap and prone to exploding in a ball of flames"
That was the Zafira B. The Zafira C (aka Zafira Tourer) isn't known for spontaneous combustion.
On a serious note, it's sad that fashion-led new car buyers are collectively having such a negative impact on attempts to reduce emissions. SUVs are inherently heavier, less economical and have worse rideor handling or both than a lower equally good car without 4x4 styling (or worse styling and drivetrain). That's just the physics of them. And that's not just tailpipe emissions, it's tyres and brake pads too.
"Not a single Zafira does 60mpg in controlled tests, let alone real world.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/vauxhall/zafira-201 2"
Mine did on our fully-loaded trip from Brighton to the Netherlands and back last year - although that was according to the trip computer not me working it out so it's probably a bit optimistic. Normally it's somewhere between low 40s on more town stuff to low 50s when longer journeys are mixed in.
Lots of constant moderate speed mileage with the cruise control on was what got it so high - plus once it was in the high 50s I was on a bit of a mission to see if I could hit 60.0mpg! My previous three much smaller petrol hot-ish hatches never got near that and weren't that much faster in the real world.
On a serious note, it’s sad that fashion-led new car buyers are collectively having such a negative impact on attempts to reduce emissions.
There are many things in modern lifestyle having a serious impact on attempts to reduce emissions. IMO the length of commute is having a bigger impact than SUV's, I think anyone living more than 10km from their place of work should have an extra couple of percent income tax. More people should live in apartments, houses are wasteful or resources. People having more than 2 kids should be taxed more. People with pets should be taxed.
Of course as none of those new taxes would affect me, a cynical person might say I am just "othering" the problem and taking no responsibility for my own environmental impact, and they could be right, but if they are also blaming me for owning a SUV then they would be a hypocrite.
What about the bigger BMW (X5), Audi (Q7), etc. or am I wrong in thinking they’re an SUV?
Sorry, didn't see the bit about 60mpg!!
Mine did on our fully-loaded trip from Brighton to the Netherlands and back last year – although that was according to the trip computer not me working it out so it’s probably a bit optimistic. Normally it’s somewhere between low 40s on more town stuff to low 50s when longer journeys are mixed in.
Lots of constant moderate speed mileage with the cruise control on was what got it so high – plus once it was in the high 50s I was on a bit of a mission to see if I could hit 60.0mpg! My previous three much smaller petrol hot-ish hatches never got near that and weren’t that much faster in the real world.
And yet it's a struggle to get our 1.6 diesel golf to get >50mpg on a run with only me on board. Our 1L fiesta flatly refuses to average more than 45mpg on a run.
My Mum's 1.6l 2014 Golf Bluemotion easily delivers 69mpg on a run at normal motorway speeds. If she drives slower at 60-65mph, it'll return mid-high 70s. We drove from Bristol to Cumbria and it did 77.6mpg. Two people, dog and luggage.
Then ours is (and always has been from 2013 when we got it) funked then!
if they are also blaming me for owning a SUV then they would be a hypocrite.
This isn't meant to be personal. People need to be aware of the impact of the choices they make, and be honest when justifying them. I mean, really honest.
We all need to do what we can. If that means forgoing a cool trendy SUV in favour of a car, when it would work for you, fine. Be honest when justifying your SUV choice, if you really do need it or if you could get by without?*
I love 6 cylinder engines, I was idly considering changing the Merc for a v6 version, but this thread has reminded me that there's a principle at stake.
* this question comes out a lot when you wade into EV threads on FB posts. There's always some American loudly proclaiming that they're terrible and everyone hates them, they say things like 'I often drive 500 miles in one go, I couldn't possibly do that in an EV' Well no, you couldn't, but so what? Would your life really suffer if you had to stop a bit more often on long trips?
Then ours is (and always has been from 2013 when we got it) funked then!
Sounds like something is up - my 2.0 Passat got high 50s on motorway trips (at 70mph), often over 60 and my best was 65 when I was driving to Preston, a repeatable result. Something about that route was somehow more economical.
I haven't read all of the last few pages, but how is @molgrips justifying his AMG shooting brake estae (the infamous one) being a better car for his lifestyle than a 1.7 diesel Kia Sportage (an SUV i believe).
Then ours is (and always has been from 2013 when we got it) funked then!
Yeah, I'd be pretty disappointed at that. My Vito van averaged 43mpg from wern Ddu quarry in Denbighshire back to Cheshire without trying. Regularly see low to mid 40's out of it.
my best was 65 when I was driving to Preston, a repeatable result. Something about that route was somehow more economical.
A reluctance to go to Preston = 40mph perhaps? 😉
I don't know why people are saying SUVs are cool or trendy. I have one (a Mercedes GLC, and before that a Volvo XC60). I have it because my wife prefers the driving position and the kids prefer it for getting in and out and for the elevated position too. I don't think either car is cool or trendy and I'd rather have a nice saloon or estate. There are a great many 'cooler' and more 'trendy' cars around than SUVs but, as a family, the preferred car type was the above (after having Audi A6 estates before) and will continue to be so.
Yep. The safety thing trumps all other considerations IMO.
The fact that a car wouldn't fit my needs is beside the point. Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car the validity of this thread ended for me.
The fact that a car wouldn’t fit my needs is beside the point. Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car the validity of this thread ended for me.
Trying to unpick this, they haven't broken down the cars any further than SUV and non SUV?
So we cant say that Kuga is 50% safer than a Focus or a T-Roc is 50% safer than a Golf.
Just that SUVs (a category spanning from range rover down to Kuga) overall are safer than non SUVs (a category spanning from seven series down to up!, micra, etc).
No comparison between vehicles of similar price, weight, load carrying capability...
Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car
that stat is nonsense
a) its 10 years old and based on data from 1995 (when the average vehicle would have been from 1988) to 2010 (when the average vehicle was from 2004). Cars and SUVs have become a lot more similar since then
b) its based on US data, where "trucks" and "SUVs" are way bigger than cars, not soft-roaders
c) only considered severe crashes
d) only considered head-on crashes
e) only considered a crash that involved both an SUV and a car
f) takes no account of the propensity for an SUV to get into an accident (its more likely, and seriously more likely to roll over)
so, if your choice is this
[img] 
[/img]
or this
[img] 
[/img]
then yeah the suv is safer. if its the same platform with an extra 2" of suspension lift, its the same
I did read a statistic once that claims that there has never been a fatality for a driver or passenger in an XC90 and it has been around for over 20 years.
I haven’t read all of the last few pages, but how is @molgrips justifying his AMG shooting brake estae (the infamous one) being a better car for his lifestyle than a 1.7 diesel Kia Sportage (an SUV i believe).
It's a 2 litre diesel. It's an AMG "Sport" which means a different front bumper and fancier wheels. It usually also means stiffer suspension but in my case the purchaser de-specced that. It's not the actual AMG C63 with the V8!
that stat is nonsense
Seems like the kind of paid-for "research" that gets circulated among like minded media outlets in the US. Like I said, someone compiled a list of deaths by the car they were in, there was no correlation between size and number of deaths per mile. At the time I was trying to show that American cars were worse, but it didn't show that either.
A diesel! You monster!
Back in the days when SUVs had ladder frame separate chassis they were considerably less safe than a modern monocoque car with crumple zones and side impact protection. Now they are mostly of similar construction to a car I'd expect there to be less of a difference, but of course they make everyone else on the road less safe (as in the poster above worrying about his family in a Fiat 500) because they are heavier and therefore will bring more energy into a crash for a given speed. Their higher centre of gravity also makes them more likely to be in a crash because they are less manoeuvrable, harder to stop, and more likely to roll, although modern electronic aids mitigate this somewhat, As we've seen on this very thread, this will lead to an arms race where everyone wants to be driving something bigger than everyone else so that they feel safe. It's all just rather sad.
I do wonder if the extra width makes you more likely to clip another car or roadside obstacle, in the UK where road space can be tight?
A diesel! You monster!
I know, if I ever buy another diesel it will have SCR; this one doesn't. For now I'll have to be content with hardly ever driving it.
I did read a statistic once that claims that there has never been a fatality for a driver or passenger in an XC90 and it has been around for over 20 years.
Not any more: no need to clink the unless you don't believe me.
Edit; in fact I won't link it but copy "Volvo XC90 crash Scania (Ucraina) 18.03.2021" into youtube search if you really want to see.
Not forgetting that the Uber car that killed the pedestrian cyclist was an XC 90
For the people who are poo-pooing the SUV safety stats - precautionary principle. Frankly, you hedge your bets. It's likely SUVs are safer, so SUVs.
If you want to make an argument against that - then bring the numbers. Preferably DfT numbers.
If you can't, keep spewing the anti-SUV crap. I get the environmental credentials 100%. But if I had a kid, I know what I'd be buying on the off chance that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical is confirmed correct. And if I was a yummy mummy I'd be telling you to gamble with your own kids...
Btw @5lab - SUVs might turn over more often than cars, but landing on your roof happens in about 3% of cases, apparently - so that still leaves safety looking a hell of a lot better for SUVs.
But if I had a kid, I know what I’d be buying on the off chance that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical is confirmed correct.
The arms race in action. Where do you stop? A fully armoured vehicle weighing 20 tons? Oh no, once everyone had one you'd need one weighing 40 tons. Like I said, just sad. But easily solved by putting a maximum weight limit on private cars.
Yep. The safety thing trumps all other considerations IMO.
The fact that a car wouldn’t fit my needs is beside the point. Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car the validity of this thread ended for me.
The myopic selfishness of this one post is exactly what's wrong with the world.
But if I had a kid, I know what I’d be buying on the off chance that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical is confirmed correct. And if I was a yummy mummy I’d be telling you to gamble with your own kids…
This is why we're screwed because of this kind of ultra-selfish attitude. You are the problem.
Now they are mostly of similar construction to a car I’d expect there to be less of a difference, but of course they make everyone else on the road less safe (as in the poster above worrying about his family in a Fiat 500) because they are heavier and therefore will bring more energy into a crash for a given speed.
My OH has a 2.0d AWD 5-seat SUV and I've a 2.0d AWD 5-seat saloon - my saloon weighs more.
Stop talking rubbish.
If you want to make an argument against that – then bring the numbers. Preferably DfT numbers.
Why don't you do that?
EDIT: here are some stats for the USA but grouped by size, if you want to lift the numbers out of the PDF you could shuffle them about in Excel.
https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/55/2
Lets flip that around shall we @chevychase ?
You'd chose to put kids in an SUV because it's safer than a normal car when the two are in an accident together. So now, all the cars around your child's school are SUVs. SUVs when in a collision with each other are no more safe than normal cars when in a collision with each other. Also, SUVs are far more likely to kill a pedestrian/cyclist at the same impact speed as a normal car. Are your kids safer?
No - you've taken one stat, made an idiotic decision based on that one stat and think you've made a good one.
This is exactly the same as the people I know who've bought a Discovery for the 2 times per year they carry more than 5 people and for their single camping trip every second year.
@onewheelgood:
The arms race in action. Where do you stop? A fully armoured vehicle weighing 20 tons? Oh no, once everyone had one you’d need one weighing 40 tons. Like I said, just sad. But easily solved by putting a maximum weight limit on private cars.
"Who cares", would be the answer of pretty much every single parent.
Governments should legislate in everyone's best interest. But they don't, won't and never will. As long as rich people exist, they'll want to buy a hummer. If rich people can buy a hummer, then many middle class people will want to buy an SUV.
If it's safer, who can blame them. Poor people are on the crap end of everything. That's not gonna change.
so that still leaves safety looking a hell of a lot better for SUVs.
its marginally better in an SUV, comparing like-with-like (a focus vs a kuga, for example). if you're so paranoid about safety that a very marginal improvement in a like for like car is enough to change your mind, you've probably got other issues anyway
This is why we’re screwed because of this kind of ultra-selfish attitude. You are the problem.
Do you give most of your money away because there are poor people, and that's not fair - and you consider yourself ultra-selfish if you don't do that?
I would fully support legislation to level that safety field. But I'm not an idiot - it isn't going to happen.
In the absence of the right thing being done for everyone, if you can afford it and the premium is worth it to you then if you can buy that extra safety for your family - then it doesn't make you "ultra selfish" to do so.
Your lifetime chance of dying in a transportation accident in the UK is 1 in 240. If you can make that 1 in 400 by buying an SUV, and you can afford it, then maybe it's something sensible to think about.
I also ride on the pavement btw. As a friend once said - there a lot of dead 'correct' people. Maybe that's because I'm ultra-selfish though.
Stop talking rubbish.
Of course you can cherry pick examples like that. Well done, aren't you clever?
But the point is that people who used to buy a Focus are now buying a Kuga. The Focus weighed 1,280 to 1,543kg depending on spec, and the Kuga 1,564 to 1,844 kg. Can you see which one is heavier?
“Who cares”, would be the answer of pretty much every single parent.
Governments should legislate in everyone’s best interest. But they don’t, won’t and never will. As long as rich people exist, they’ll want to buy a hummer. If rich people can buy a hummer, then many middle class people will want to buy an SUV.
If it’s safer, who can blame them. Poor people are on the crap end of everything. That’s not gonna change.
No, it wouldn't. I'm a parent - I'd NEVER buy an SUV because "it's safer" - I'm not that selfish or dumb.
CARS - NOT SUVS, should be taxed on weight on an exponential curve. Weight is the only fair measure of what's needed vs what's wanted. Need a 4x4, but want leather, double glazing and 70kg of paint? People with no kids can have smaller luxury equipped cars for the taxation as larger, more family orientated vehicles or utilitarian 4x4, but if you WANT it all, expect to pay for it, every year, for as long as you own it. Same as my kids 🙂
I also ride on the pavement btw. As a friend once said – there a lot of dead ‘correct’ people. Maybe that’s because I’m ultra-selfish though.
It's an awful lot easier for a SUV to accidentally mount the kerb than for a normal car. Just sayin...
I don't necessarily disagree with your argument btw @daffy. I can see the "theoretical" arms race argument too.
For me, the only answer is proper infrastructure - segregated cycle lanes etc. etc.
Edit:
It’s an awful lot easier for a SUV to accidentally mount the kerb than for a normal car. Just sayin…
Yep. Sooner we have computer-driven cars, with no steering wheels, the better.
I want a circular bubble car with a bar and fold-down bed - so I can put my bikes on the back, kayaks on the roof, get pissed with my o/h and fall asleep, waking up in Scotland the next day ready for some biking and kayaking action. (or better - France).
How many readers of this thread have actually been in a car accident where a car occupant suffered an injury?
Picking a car for its safety may have made sense back when seatbelts were optional, some cars would roll and catch fire at the slightest provocation and "crumple zone" meant your ribs cracking on the steering column.
But everything is pretty darn good these days.
Gaining a slight increase in a metric that was already high, and unlikely to have any effect on you anyway; when at the expense of all the other things mentioned in the last 8 pages seems counterproductive to me.
Unless you’re talking massive body on frame utility vehicles like Toyota 4Runner etc, the vast majority of users of Euro Style SUVs are using them as jacked up estates, same journeys, same speeds, same/similar interior loading.
So to be fair I drive a van but as it happens my trip computer just went over 1000 miles... I don't use gadgets usually so the last reset was when the battery went probably early Jan?? I'm pretty certain I've done Surrey Hills to BPW (300 miles), Surrey Hills to Twisted Oaks (244 miles return) both "motorway" and Rogate (A3) 60 miles.. and Swanley (Canada heights) via M25 100 miles so 644 + 60 call it 700 (journeys I'd class as "mainly motorwayish miles"**) out of 1000 and my AVERAGE speed (on the trip computer is 27.9 mph) and other than for the MOT I've not driven any journeys <10 miles
TBH I'm surprised I'd expected mid 40's... but my point here is if cross sectional area really matters that much if your AVERAGE (whatever the trip computer means by that) is <30mph?
** I think of a Journey to BPW as M40 but its probably 2/3 and a significant part of that I'm at enforced 50mph and the rest I'm probably 60mph anyway ... **
I doubt my sons mother has been on a motorway since last August... and my mum probably 5-10 years so who knows what their AVERAGE mph is?
This bits where they don’t match duty cycle are the corner cases. A small percentage of users (single digit) doing things that the marketing tells you they should be used for all the time.
Not the people I know, if we are talking motorway miles >60mph ...
Remember the big diesel "con"? All those people rarely getting above 30-40mph and never getting hot enough for a regen?
Some of my mates do high miles for work and they have saloon/estates .. typical fleet cars (Insignia/3 series etc)
another couple have "mini SUV things" only used weekends as far as I know and maybe summer hols and one of those wants a van (His average speed is probably way lower than mine).
Another has a 7 seater MPV (Chrysler?) but he has 5 kids... another has an old Sharan
Obviously people do go on summer hols or make trips and you'll see some on motorways etc. but that doesn't mean that's how the car is used on a daily basis/mostly.
ayjaydoubleyou
Full MemberHow many readers of this thread have actually been in a car accident where a car occupant suffered an injury?
Twice.
Once in as a passenger in an 89 Cavalier (when they were new), as a passenger, I cut my knees on the dash, relatively heavy shunt on the motorway.
I had a courtesy 98 Fiesta whilst a van was in for repair. Rear ended by a big Audi. The car in front was a big Volvo. I hit my head on the B pillar. Amazingly the car still drove, was somewhat shorter though.
Written off with less than 500 miles from memory.
My neck took a few years to heal.
Not the people I know, if we are talking motorway miles >60mph …
but that doesn’t mean that’s how the car is used on a daily basis/mostly.
I'm afraid anecdote still doesn't trump data.
Your lifetime chance of dying in a transportation accident in the UK is 1 in 240. If you can make that 1 in 400 by buying an SUV, and you can afford it, then maybe it’s something sensible to think about.
is it fcsk. in the UK there are around 1500 road deaths per year, and pretty much zero deaths for any other mode of transport. Lets say 1600 per year to be fair. The average lifespan is what - 70 years? so if we all lived for the same 70 year period, there would be 112,000 of us dying by transport. Over the same period, 68,000,000 of us would die some other way, meaning there's a 1-in-650 chance. car deaths are even less likely - 680 car occupant deaths per year, which is about 0.1% (or 1-in-1000) chance of dying that way.
Points: Older people find an suv easier to get into and drive. My grandpa and great uncle were both in their early 80's before giving up driving, both owned mini metros.
It's easier for families to enjoy long journeys. Blimey as children and a family of 5, we drove to France in a ford sierra.
How on earth did we all manage?
It’s easier for families to enjoy long journeys. Blimey as children and a family of 5, we drove to France in a ford sierra.
LOL, my neighbours when i was a kid used to tour/camp their way round europe every summer in a mini, then later a panda and a fiesta.
On the plus side, the dog was only a spaniel. Nothing bigger.
How on earth did we all manage?
We didn't have a choice, just because they put up with old cars when that was all they had, doesn't mean they were the most suitable given better choices. They probably didn't have central heating or double glazing for most of their lives, does that mean that those modern conveniences should now not be available?