Volvo leaving UK (unless you want an SUV)

Volvo recently published its global sales figures for the first half of 2023, revealing that its most popular car – an SUV – outsold its entire saloon and estate range by a margin of nearly 70%.

Nothing unusual there, Kia's best selling model is their Sportage SUV, has been their #1 model for years.

intheborders
Free Member
I also saw a statistic that pedestrians are 8 times more likely to be killed if you are hit by and suv vs a normal car.

And you didn’t question the statement – FFS do some critical thinking.

So a vehicle the same width & weight as another but slightly taller yet it’s 8 times more likely to kill a pedestrian – yeah, that works…

The report seems credible, read it yourself link in the road.cc article

https://road.cc/content/news/suvs-8-times-more-dangerous-kids-walking-or-cycling-295527?amp

As for the higher rate, could be several reasons.

1. Extra size making it harder to judge position. 2. Extra width making passing more difficult
3. Extra weight - more energy transferred to victim
4. Extra weight - worse stopping distance
5. Greater isolation from outside, reducing awareness
6. Sense of entitlement of suv drivers causing dehumanisation of cyclists/ peds
7. Extra height of front area meaning children’s heads are going to be hit here rather than their legs being hit and their heads hitting the softer bonnet designed to absorb energy.
8. Often more gadgets to distract drivers
9. Height causing blind spots lower down where it makes it more difficult to see small children.
10. Safety aspect (for driver) tends to attract more incompetent drivers who may have had multiple previous accidents in the past and decided they need an SUV in case they have more.

Just a few ideas, I’m sure there are more

Just a few ideas, I’m sure there are more

So how do you explain the fact that pedestrian deaths have dropped nearly 50% between 2004 and 2021despite the massive rise in SUVs and the overall size and weight of cars in general?

So a vehicle the same width & weight as another but slightly taller yet it’s 8 times more likely to kill a pedestrian – yeah, that works…

Higher grill, often squarer, more likely to hit a pedestrian in the chest or a child in the head. Lower saloon or hatchback, the pedestrian is hit in the legs and thrown over the bonnet.

So how do you explain the fact that pedestrian deaths have dropped nearly 50% between 2004 and 2021despite the massive rise in SUVs and the overall size and weight of cars in general?

dunno, maybe it’s kids get ferried everywhere in SUVs rather than walking nowadays? Either way if there is a drop it’s still independent of the greater deaths from SUVs in that report.

I do like that people are trying to justify its better to hit a child in a saloon car than an SUV.

I would prefer it if people just didnt hit children at all and learned to drive properly rather than make pathetic excuses

FunkyDunc
Free Member
I do like that people are trying to justify its better to hit a child in a saloon car than an SUV.

I would prefer it if people just didnt hit children at all and learned to drive properly rather than make pathetic excuses

Accidents happen, sometimes it’s not the drivers fault. If a kid runs out in front of you, you have a better chance of taking evasive action or stopping in a lighter more nimble car with a lower center of gravity vs a big heavy wallowy SUV. If you do then hit them it will be worse in an SUV for the reasons mentioned.

1. Extra size making it harder to judge position. 2. Extra width making passing more difficult
3. Extra weight – more energy transferred to victim
4. Extra weight – worse stopping distance
5. Greater isolation from outside, reducing awareness
6. Sense of entitlement of suv drivers causing dehumanisation of cyclists/ peds
7. Extra height of front area meaning children’s heads are going to be hit here rather than their legs being hit and their heads hitting the softer bonnet designed to absorb energy.
8. Often more gadgets to distract drivers
9. Height causing blind spots lower down where it makes it more difficult to see small children.
10. Safety aspect (for driver) tends to attract more incompetent drivers who may have had multiple previous accidents in the past and decided they need an SUV in case they have more.

My OH has a very popular SUV (Kia Sportage) and I've a very popular saloon (BMW 3 series) - the only fundamental difference is that the SUV is slightly taller.

Looking through your list - it's not wider, longer, heavier, quieter or has more gadgets - and I'm pretty sure BMW ownership gives folk a greater sense of "entitlement" than a Kia.

I don't disagree that they may cause more worse outcomes for pedestrians, but that's what regulations are for and up for authorities to ensure they're not - but the accident rates seem to show that vehicles & roads are far safer than they use to be, so maybe that's incorrect too.

Did I also miss your demand to remove vans & trucks from the roads?

Was driving into work beside a C40 today - pretty sure it makes baby Jesus cry

The 8x data is from the us where some SUVs and trucks are truly massive. Most SUVs here are the same size as most cars albeit a little taller, and have gone through the same pedestrian safety tests.

For reference the puma is all of 1 inch taller than the fiesta it replaced. Most of this stuff is styling

Every car I met on the single track roads up north that behaved in an entitled way- was an SUV.  The vast majority of unpleasant incidents I get road riding around edinburgh are from SUVs.  its only anecdote but I am convinced.  On average SUV drivers are more entitled and less considerate of other road users

dunno, maybe it’s kids get ferried everywhere in SUVs rather than walking nowadays? Either way if there is a drop it’s still independent of the greater deaths from SUVs in that report.

...... right.... So no explanation then. 🙄

Lower saloon or hatchback, the pedestrian is hit in the legs and thrown over the bonnet.

Only at higher speeds - and the vast majority of pedestrian accidents occur in built up areas where the speed is not that high.

So instead of flying over the car [only to impact the road] they hit the bonnet instead.  The problem with this is that when that happens the bonnet deforms (which tarmac doesn't BTW) and the head hits the top of the engine - which also doesn't deform.

To reduce this European cars have been mandated to increase the space between the bonnet and the top of the engine which has lead to higher bonnets.  Higher bonnets means a higher windscreen, which then means that the passengers need to sit higher to see through the windscreen which then leads to the overall height of the car being increased.

So although many people think that it's just a fashion statement much of the design of an SUV is actually lead by pedestrian safety.  This is why electric cars can have lower bonnets - they don't have as much in the 'engine bay' that they need to leave clearance over.

Only at higher speeds

Not true, but carry on.

[ if you’re referring to this, it’s a junk survey that only looked at a handful of city speed collisions… both simulations and large scale data show otherwise ]

it’ll be on high boost all the time to make the thing move at a semi-reasonable pace.

Not really, it takes around 40 kW to roll along at the speed limit (~100kph). An engine rated to more than 3 times that can probably produce that with some ones finger wedged in the impellor.

How many folk on here actually drive more than 200 miles on any given day in a week, bet it’s a small minority.

Miniscule minority. Probably less than 0.1% of car owners.

Wanted to replace our ageing CRV with a petrol estate after several SUVs. Really liked the smaller V60. When the crunch came,, however, I just could not buy the car. It did everything "well", was the sane choice; age, price, size, dog usefulness, seats, drive... (except the heater controls on the screen, but miles better than VAG). It was just lacking one thing... car charisma. So did I buy the XC60 instead? No. I bought an older Porsche Macan S Diesel for the same price as the newer estate car. Heart over-ruled head, but it is a slower depreciating car than the Volvo. The diesel is a better drive than the petrol, and I don't really drive anywhere anyway!

[ if you’re referring to this, it’s a junk survey that only looked at a handful of city speed collisions… both simulations and large scale data show otherwise ]

And its American where they don't play by European safety rules.

My OH has a very popular SUV (Kia Sportage) and I’ve a very popular saloon (BMW 3 series) – the only fundamental difference is that the SUV is slightly taller.

We had a Kia Sportage for 4 weeks whilst our car was being fixed. It was much higher up, the biggest issue was the 'muscular' wings which obscured things you were trying to manoeuvre around. The roof was as tall as my head, o'r thereabouts, where I could lean my arms on the roof of the normal car that it temporarily replaced.

Had the loan of an xc40 T5 Recharge yesterday & I can fully appreciate why they are popular, apart from the body roll around corners & roundabouts it felt like a really nice car to drive, and with a surprising amount of power on tap (still can't believe a 1.5l 3 cylinder engine can produce 177bhp, let alone the extra 80bhp from the electric motor) apart from the fact it made me drive like a ****, if I had the money and didn't care about baby robins I'd seriously consider getting one. But without the 20 or so miles it can manage in pue electric it was returning less than 40mpg whilst my 9yo V40 returned over 60mpg on exact same journey (75mile mix of A road & motorway), hybrid SUVs really do have to be the top of the unacceptable pile.

Did you drive them the same way? Does your own car make you drive like a ****, as well?

Did you drive them the same way? Does your own car make you drive like a ****, as well?

Different journeys mate different journeys, for the matched journey I drove my usual calm self 🤔 I do however always drive exactly like a dick as will you.

whilst my 9yo V40 returned over 60mpg

Yeah, that doesn't help much. I've driven C30's that get 65mpg (DrivE) and sub 25mpg (Polestar Performance). Both driven in essentially the same manner, though the Polestar made a lot more noise...

As Ive said many times before I Have an SUV as the estate I want doesn't exist and hasn't for 6-7 years.

But a few things

- mine is based on a bog standard common hatchback - a Ford Focus (it's fundamentally a jacked up Focus)

- weight ?  At 1.5 tonnes, it is 66% heavier than my 1976 Ford Escort Mk2.  But its basically the same (give or take a couple of dumps before travel) weight as my last petrol estate.

- fuel efficiency? It's about 50% better than my last estate. And about 15-20% better than my last diesel, yet without all the black shiiite being expelled out the exhaust.

There is a world of difference between something like a RAV4 or Kuga or Vauhall Mokka, and a 3 tonne Bentley or Range Rover Vogue.

Now... pick up trucks. Except for farmers and some builders, They REALLY ARE unnecessary just American-fashion gas guzzlers.

This got me thinking about the reduction in new vehicle options in other brands.

I'm sure that in about 2012ish, in the UK it was possible to order the following Fords:

• Ka
• Fiesta 3 door
• Fiesta 5 door
• B-Max
• Focus 3 door hatch
• Focus 5 door hatch
• Focus saloon
• Focus estate
• Focus convertible
• C-Max
• Kuga SUV
• Mondeo hatch
• Mondeo saloon
• Mondeo estate
• S-Max
• Galaxy
• (Plus vans and pickups)

Now there is

• Puma SUV
• Kuga SUV
• (Plus vans and pickups)

ford website says:

fiesta

focus active

puma

kuga

mustang mach-e

mustang old school ice flavour

s-max

galaxy

vans? pickups? tourneo & explorer

Now… pick up trucks. Except for farmers and some builders, They REALLY ARE unnecessary just American-fashion gas guzzlers.

I think you are forgetting 'Day Vans' as well.... 😉

fuel efficiency? It’s about 50% better than my last estate.

That's not the point. Yes, a modern car would be more efficient for a whole host of reasons, and cars vary in efficiency due to the technology involved.

The problem is that, for the exact same set of technological advancements, it could be made MORE efficient still if the roof were lower i.e. it wasn't SUV shaped. If your car were estate shaped, it could be 60% more efficient than your last estate rather than 50. See my point? Manufacturers are deliberately making their cars less efficient for the sake of vanity. And they are doing it because that's what people are buying.

It’s about 50% better than my last estate.

Compare apples with apples though.

Same engine, drivetrain and technology the only difference is bodywork. Figures from Honest John real world mpg reports of a 2020 model vehicle:

Leon Estate 1.5tsi - averages 44mpg
Ateca 1.5tsi - average 40.6mpg

So basically 10% less effiecient - and 120litres less boot space and 2cm less room in the rear seats.

The way to compare apples with apples isn’t to compare two cars with the same powertrain, but to compare the major factors which determine the drag of a vehicle at any given speed, namely

- Mass

- Frontal area

- Coefficient of drag

The mass and frontal area are clearly higher for a bigger car (SUV), the coefficient or drag will be largely dependent on the vehicle.

Then you can also question if the powertrain in any given car could be smaller or more efficient to give further improvements.

We need to start treating our resources as scarce and be more efficient in our use of them

The mass and frontal area are clearly higher for a bigger car (SUV), the coefficient or drag will be largely dependent on the vehicle.

Well yes but that is also determined by shape - rounded corners etc - and aero details like reducing gaps, underbody panels, deflectors and so on.

However the comparison between the two cars with the same powertrain demonstrates quite nicely the true penalty of the SUV shape.

We need to start treating our resources as scarce and be more efficient in our use of them

Quite right. There should be a tax on these things. Interestingly, there is - it's rolled into the increased fuel you pay for - but as we've seen people look at the economy of their current older car, for which they already buy fuel, and decide they can afford the fuel for the newer SUV because it's the same as or better than their old car, and they're happy. Except they aren't being as efficient as they could be. This is the major problem of using money to try and prevent behaviours - the people who can afford to pay will continue to do the thing.

How come mass isn't considered a problem for bikes (weight doesn't matter is often trotted out by people justifying spending money on a heavy bike),but it is for cars.

Less facetiousaly it would also be interesting to look at the 'whole car' drag of SUV's versus estates.  Frontal Coef of drag is important, but dragging the tail of the alternative estate car comes with a drag penalty - I've never seen numbers for this , but they must exist.

F. eks. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24328-w

Less facetiousaly it would also be interesting to look at the ‘whole car’ drag of SUV’s versus estates. Frontal Coef of drag is important, but dragging the tail of the alternative estate car comes with a drag penalty – I’ve never seen numbers for this , but they must exist.

That's rolled into the drag coefficient. The figure that you usually see is CoD or coefficient of drag, that is defined differently for different things, but for cars it's the total drag per unit frontal area. So that includes the effects of a longer tail, big wing mirrors etc etc. It's a way of assessing the drag of a car independent of frontal area, to evaluate how slippery the actual surfaces are, but that's not very helpful to anyone except aero engineers because ultimately total drag is important.

I've just added that reference... so a saloon is quoted as a different Cd to an estate?

I'd have thought so yes.

Dunno how accurate these car stat sites are but it lists saloon vs estate on this one:

https://motorwiki.net/vw/volkswagen-passat-b8-overview/