Ā You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just saying that ones which last longest are least bad for the environment.
Most cars that get scrapped could easily be repaired. The only reason LRs are being looked after is because they are classic or niche vehicles. So it's a bogus statistic in environmental terms. Especially as (I would guess) most people who are spending their weekends working on their series I almost certainly have a normal family car AS WELL.
What's the point? Well, they annoy people like Molgrips, so that has to be a good thing in itself.
*Browses LR website to buy a nice Disco (as it happens, I might be going to anyway!) *
Well, they annoy people like Molgrips
If only that was all you had to do in life eh?
Most life cycle analyses put the use phase at 70-80% of a vehicle's total lifetime impact.
.
From greenpeace site:
Vehicle manufacturers report an average of 0.6 tonnes per vehicle of CO2 generated from manufacturing,ā says Simon Barnes, environmental affairs manager at UK auto industry body the SMMT. āBut we need to at least treble this figure to take into account component and material manufacture.āSome manufacturers produce even more misleading figures
"In its environmental report, Volkswagen only reports emissions from power generated on site. It omits bought-in electricity because of different standards for calculating greenhouse gas emissions."
"But in the VWās 2005 sustainability report, it gives only its in-house CO2 figure. Divide this by the number of vehicles produced and it appears that each car coming off the line is responsible for just 0.26 tonnes."
The manufacturing figures do not take into account emissions from their suppliers. It is a fact manufacturers no longer manufacture the vast majority of the parts they use, as they are bought in. Manufacturers are now effectively run as design / assembly operations.
Also they do not take into account the transportation emissions to transport all of these components.
Another thing, what about the emissions of the labour used in assembly. Car assembly plants are based away from residential areas. All of their staff have to travel to the site, I presume the vast majority of this is done by car and not bicycle.
That also doesn't take into account the huge energy cost of gathering and processing the raw materials used in make the car components.
The true figures are a lot higher than the motor industry declare.
It is a fact over 70% of Land Rovers ever made (since 1948) are still on the road. You will not be able to find another manufacturer with this exemplary record for the longevity of their vehicles as their simply isn't one.
.
And I was wrong about there being 60% of LRs still running, it's actually 70% above, 75% according to wikicars
Assuming all bought new and the figure of 200,000miles above is correct the new Q7 would have to cover just over 400,000 miles before the total environmental damage done by buying and running a new 'more efficient' car was less than that caused by keeping the other car going for the same distance...
the only bit I understood of that was 'assuming bought new' which it wasn't. It had done a few miles by the time I'd finished with it though...
And why the hell would you want to go anywhere in a Defender...they're bloody awful
And why the hell would you want to go anywhere in a Defender...
Because they can go anywhere in a Defender...................
No to the first question and taught how to drive in the snow to the second question...
the only bit I understood of that was 'assuming bought new'
OK, environmental cost of building an old car is a sunk cost, the damage has already been done and cannot be undone. There is an environmental cost to building a new car over.
However, the new car does less damage in use, in terms of fuel consumption.
In this particular example the break-even point was just over 400,000 miles, ie the point at which the total damage done by making and running the new car is less than that done by continuing to use the old one.
So if you intend to use the car for more that that the new one is less bad.
.
Another thing, what about the emissions of the labour used in assembly. Car assembly plants are based away from residential areas. All of their staff have to travel to the site, I presume the vast majority of this is done by car and not bicycle.
Talk about clutching at straws. If these people all went to work somewhere else, why on earth would you assume that would be closer to where they live?
By admitting this I know that i`m going to be talked about in the same breath as Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter!! but here goes ,I drive a Disco ,great for taking 5 of us biking without a push, the wife drives a Shogun and I use a Navara for work!!! I am so so sorry!!!
By admitting this I know that i`m going to be talked about in the same breath as Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter!! but here goes ,I drive a Disco ,great for taking 5 of us biking without a push, the wife drives a Shogun and I use a Navara for work!!! I am so so sorry!!!
You're forgiven.
I was quite obviously having a laugh with this thread, I have nothing against 4X4's. I have used them many times over the years because I have needed them. And I have NEVER EVER got stuck, and nothing, I mean nothing gives me more pleasure than chugging past a Chelsea Tractor on a snowy hill in my RWD Vito (winter tyre shod) and as hard as I'm laughing I want to shout WHY?????????
Nuff said.
T want a Chelsea tank ...
The point of them is to satisfy the ostentatious, "LOOK AT ME, I'M SPECIAL" types.
Mostly driven by women, taking kids to school. Preferred colour is black. Got to impress their peers/rivals - pathetic behaviour!
Too big, over engineered for normal road use, heavy, dangerous to pedestrians, other road users and their own occupants, unstable in a sudden swerve - C of G too high, wasteful on fuel.
Most users don't know how to drive them, even on the road.
Cockmobiles!
It's really funny how you get all these people ranting about someone buying a 4x4, (which could easily be a Fiat Panda), and driving it around a city like London, while ignoring the utter stupidity, and total impracticality, of driving something like this:
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8042/7978973956_c3df886f7c.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuelmagana/7978973956/ ]Arancio...[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/manuelmagana/ ]Manuel MagaƱa[/url], on Flickr
I'll take it one step further, I had a Lexus RX300 for a few years, let the flaming begin.
If I was going to drive a 4x4 around That London, then I'd have something like this:
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Then I wouldn't worry about taxi drivers, delivery vans, or minicab drivers.
Russell96 - MemberI'll take it one step further, I had a Lexus RX300 for a few years, let the flaming begin.
I once had a Mini One (1st gen facelift) which was both hairdressery and considering it's size and the people/stuff you could/couldn't fit in it, it was horrendous on fuel, particularly round town. Does that count too?
We bought our Freelander so we could go places like this:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
It cost less than 50% of our combined annual income.
We also do a lot of Kms in it. But at 7.8 L/100km, it's also one of the most fuel efficient cars on the market here in Oz (or it was when we bought it two years ago). YMMV
"The point of them is to satisfy the ostentatious, "LOOK AT ME, I'M SPECIAL" types.
Mostly driven by women, taking kids to school. Preferred colour is black. Got to impress their peers/rivals - pathetic behaviour!"
Or maybe they feel safe in them and safe for their children - the most common answer? Which is slightly selfish but quite understandable. BTW I don't own a 4x4 and in our part of Surrey there is no need.
Blimey 100 posts! They're just cars š
They're just cars
"Just" a car wouldn't get you to half the places we go
Pmsl zokes I'm surprised the freelander did more surprised it made it back....
As before mostly fashion and a statement you can.
It's not the car that gets me it's the reasons like it's so much safer (other very safe cars available that don't do as much damage to the opposition.
We live in the country (home counties with an a road to the motorway)
Etc. Just admit you thought it was cool and made you look good.
Pmsl zokes I'm surprised the freelander did more surprised it made it back....
You weren't the only one - quite a few people at some of the camp sites did a double take when we trotted up in it, bit it's a lot more capable than it looks. The only thing on our last trip over the Vic Alps I bent (I think) was the plug for the trailer electrics, which I always though was in a silly place anyway. Now it's not!
I had it in some interesting places in Tas a year or so ago, and that was on standard 19" rims and low profile road tyres.
It also rescues 'proper' 4wds...
[img] 
[/img]
As above - I bought it because it takes me to stunning places I otherwise wouldn't be able to get to. The fact it looks nice, drives surprisingly well and is very comfy are all by-the-by. If it upsets someone on STW, then so much the better š
Most users don't know how to drive them, even on the road.Cockmobiles!
90% of drivers believe they have above average driving ability.
Although on STW that must be nearer 99%.
Basically if not all these type of vehicles that come onto the market are ex company.
There use is near pointless and there obeast size is basically useless
Which puts it down to statement look at me only.
I want Zokes life
"Just" a car wouldn't get you to half the places we go
A bike might though š
But just to clear things up, a Chelsea Tractor is specifically a big 4x4 that never goes off-road or does what it's been designed to do. So yours doens't count.
while ignoring the utter stupidity, and total impracticality, of driving something like this:
I don't think we do, do we? I find those cars look even more utterly ridiculous when sat in Asda carpark. But there are several big 4x4s in my street, and I only see one supercar a year if I'm (un)lucky, so it's less of an issue.
I'm beginning to get the feeling that some STW posters dont like large 4wd "SUV" type vehicles, can anyone confirm this?, i need to know....
A bike might though
You'd have to pedal a long bloody way!
But just to clear things up, a Chelsea Tractor is specifically a big 4x4 that never goes off-road or does what it's been designed to do. So yours doens't count.
All the 4wd shops in Adelaide we visited when we were getting quotes for the second battery, UHF, racks etc said it was the first FL2 they'd seen that was going to be used seriously off road. A couple also warned it might be 'interesting' š
Put it this way, I've never seen another one that's got a trace of mud on it in Adelaide, and there are quite a few about - usually outside public schools at about 8.30 am as I cycle past on my way to work.
To all the haters - have you honestly never bought something you didn't 'need'? Maybe something you just 'wanted'?
OK, environmental cost of building an old car is a sunk cost, the damage has already been done and cannot be undone. There is an environmental cost to building a new car over.
However, the new car does less damage in use, in terms of fuel consumption.
In this particular example the break-even point was just over 400,000 miles, ie the point at which the total damage done by making and running the new car is less than that done by continuing to use the old one.
Let's look at an example.
Treble the SMMT figure of 0.6 tonnes (as per your earlier post) and we have 1.8 tonnes CO2 for raw materials and manufacture of a new car.
A new Range Rover emits more than 200g/km CO2 or 322g/ mile. It would take less than 5,600 miles to emit 1.8 tonnes CO2, which is about 6 months driving on average.
Suppose the owner of said Range Rover trades it in for a new BMW 5 series emitting 120g/ km CO2. Over 15,000 miles, the BMW would emit 1.92 tonnes CO2 LESS than the Range Rover, which is [u]more[/u] than the manufacture of the new car.
[b]In other words, switching to a much more fuel efficient car repays the environmental cost of manufacture in less than 2 years worth of driving.[/b]
Of course, it would be even better to buy something fuel efficient second hand.
To all the haters - have you honestly never bought something you didn't 'need'?
Not that took 3 tonnes of resources and spewed loads of pollution every time I used it, no.
Ransos - good work, but I'm not sure about trebling the SMMT figure. It seems as if it would be a lot more than treble given how many components are brought in.
On the other hand, the carbon cost of fuel is more simply the tailpipe emissions. I reckon refinement and distribution would contribute much more.. but then again you'd have to share some of that cost with all the other stuff that is made from crude.
Suppose the owner of said Range Rover trades it in for a new BMW 5 series emitting 120g/ km CO2.
This is another good point - switching from 4x4 doesn't have to result in a crappy eco-box. 5 series is a damn nice car.
a lot of interesting points on here.
owners say they feel safe in them, i can understand this as ive been in a couple of disco/x5 etc, they really are a nice place to sit.
non owners say the size of them is ridiculous and that they waste resources, probably a lot of truth in that too.
i reckon there is a fair bit of jealousy involved, im not jealous really because im not a materialistic person generally, although i freely admit if i won the lottery i would, at least, consider buying this type of car.
i geniunely cant see the point round town for any practical reason though, id rather have a small car in town.
i am interested in the figures for co2 though, how much further will my old mondeo have to go before i can trade it in with a 'clean' conscience? its a 2003 2.0 tdci 115 with currently 152000 miles on it.
i reckon there is a fair bit of jealousy involved,
Not here. If I won the lottery my flash car would be a diesel S-class or Jag or something. Or maybe a Prius that I'd pay to have seriously tricked out š
I might consider a 4x4 for towing a caravan, because they tend to get the same fuel economy as normal cars, but I might just go for a van instead, or an A6 estate with the 3.0 TDI v6.
Supercar owners are performing a public service by driving around in their cars.
Also they are made in such tiny numbers that their impact is negligible.
I don't really have anything against proper off roaders - I mean they are built to do a job - whether they are used for that job or not isn't the cars fault.
But cars like the X6, I mean what are you saying to the world if you buy one of these?
I want to look a bit sporty, but I like to sit high because I'm not a very confident driver so I'm driving round in something that's like a full scale child's toy.
And the Range Rover Evoque the fact they even offer a FWD only version shows exactly the market they are after
i reckon there is a fair bit of jealousy involved
Some people find it very difficult to comprehend that many of us hold no aspiration to own a very large, very thirsty, very expensive car. I can think of plenty of better things to blow a lottery win on, starting with some really cool bikes.
And the Range Rover Evoque
This isn't the only car like this - they are called soft-roaders or faux by fours.
But its designers and the likes of Nissan are actually doing a good job I think - they seem to be saying that given people want to drive these things, let's try and make them as economical as possible. This is to be applauded, I think. At least with a polite ripple of applause rather than an ovation.
marcus7 - Member
I'm beginning to get the feeling that some STW posters dont like large 4wd "SUV" type vehicles, can anyone confirm this?, i need to know....
. Not really just honest truth.
I work mainly around Chelsea/Richmond/Chiswick etc and these things are always creating
traffic flow problems and always people in them cannot even drive the dam things.
I have been asked a few times if i can reverse them.
MrSmith - MemberOften it's a symbol of skewed fiscal priorities and debt.
Three pages late, but...
[pedantry mode] "Fiscal" pertains to taxation, it is not a synonym for "financial" [/pedantry mode]
The irony of this schoolboy error is that the owners of "proper" Chelsea tractors (ie those who actually live in Chelsea) have superb fiscal management and priorities, at least from their point of view: paying as little tax as possible...
And the Range Rover Evoque
[list]This isn't the only car like this - they are called soft-roaders or faux by fours.[/list]
Which is identical in almost every way to my Freelander - which as demonstrated above, goes pretty much anywhere.
Granted the 2wd version is pointless, but they also make a 2wd Freelander.
I miss TJ at times like this. I'll bet that secretly Molgrips misses being called light green by TJ (dark green) too š
Ok I may have said they are only cars, but the Range Rover Evoque is so revolting it makes me want to vomit every time I see one. The very definition of a chelsea tractor...?
[img] 
[/img]
The very definition of a chelsea tractor...?
Not really - see above. It does work very well off road if you stick some decent wheels and tyres on it.
Not really - see above. It does work very well off road if you stick some decent wheels and tyres on it.
Don't most vehicles when shod with suitable rubber?
Which is identical in almost every way to my Freelander
I was referring to the 2wd version, I should have made that clearer.
Fair play to them - the 2wd version is listed as 129g/km but the 4wd one is only 149g/km. Which, if it is indeed a 'proper' 4x4 is pretty good. Ironically, if you were in need of a proper 4x4 and had to keep the costs down, it could be a good utility option despite appearing to be an affectation š
Fair play to them - the 2wd version is listed as 129g/km but the 4wd one is only 149g/km. Which, if it is indeed a 'proper' 4x4 is pretty good. Ironically, if you were in need of a proper 4x4 and had to keep the costs down, it could be a good utility option despite appearing to be an affectation
Just look at it though... hideously chintzy.
Yeah I know, I think they look worse in real life than in the photos. However it's like that partly to improve aerodynamics.
However it's like that partly to improve aerodynamics.
The nasty chrome bits and the lights that wouldn't look out of place in a Swarovski catalogue improve aerodynamics?
I'm beginning to get the feeling that some STW posters dont like large 4wd "SUV" type vehicles, can anyone confirm this?
It's too early to tell just yet.
Don't most vehicles when shod with suitable rubber?
Nope
Personally I never thought I'd buy a 4 x 4.
But I had never ridden in one until I was a passenger in a mates Tuareg. Vision, comfort and ride are superb.
I run a Range Rover which is simply the best car I've ever owned. It's not cheap to run, depreciation is awful but I wouldn't swap it.
Three pages late, but...[pedantry mode] "Fiscal" pertains to taxation, it is not a synonym for "financial" [/pedantry mode]
The irony of this schoolboy error is that the owners of "proper" Chelsea tractors (ie those who actually live in Chelsea) have superb fiscal management and priorities, at least from their point of view: paying as little tax as possible...
And I would suggest that "skewed fiscal priorities" alluded to current tax avoidance schemes popular with the chelsea dwellers, but not with the great unwashed who will never be in the higher tax bracket who see it as an example of the wealth gap in the 'Big Society'.
Each to his/her own with car choices for me. Personally, I am not a car-person and favour practicality over prestige. When the urge to buy a nice a car appears I simple say 1 car = 3 years school fees. One is "spending" on a rapidly depreciating asset' the other is "investing" in someone' s long term future. The urge soon goes away then!!!
You guys! š