[Closed] why are SUV's so much more popular than estates ?

What you mean is (as per most people) you don't like the real reasons behind your purchasing choices being analysed and exposed... like most, you find it challenging to admit your need for status, which is fair enough IMO

It's a yeti, that's a Skoda. On lease.

The reason - it was cheap on lease and I do very few miles and it's a suitable vehicle for what I do.

Now would you care to forward me your receipts so I can check the credentials of your purchases (or rentals) please or did you just wake up in a forest last night?

I think there's about 20-25cm between my last estate and current SUV.

So only 20cm to join a whole all other category of dumb-ass.

Good job I didn't buy an estate and put a roof box on it? Or some bikes - I wonder if some of you estate drivers make your cars a tad more inefficient by leaving a roof rack on...

Serious bit: a few years ago a local chap was screaming towards my mum at 80mph on the wrong side of the road. Hit her head on... Now she was in a RAV4. She survived and I'm glad for that. The other driver didn't.

Sure he could've been in an SUV too that day but clearly the law abiding sensible one was driving the most suitable car that afternoon. I think she was getting around 37mpg at the time.

Err because most T4, T5 and other vans are actually used for sleeping/camping in, or to carry a whole load of work stuff.

Purchase choice shock.

I've slept in a previous CRV and carry work stuff in it. I don't know if I've made the nob category? I could've purchased a T4 ... or stayed in b&b's so I could eat properly and sleep properly.

I particularly enjoyed the comment about people with a sense of self entitlement etc. FFS...what a cock!

For the record the most popular SUV on our roads is a Nissan Qashqai 2WD with with a highly economical 1.5L Diesel engine. (Not me btw) but why the hate?

Live and let live.

I'm considering a Vitara for my next vehicle.

I'd like a tidy estate car but the roads I use are pretty rough in places, shame really as I'd really of liked a 325/330 Touring.

@ grum. Good point that, having a dog or children is way more damaging for the environment than an SUV/Veto/T5 (or similar). You should also consider that any travel abroad by plane just once a year is worse than the above. So you regular visitors to Spain with your bike, think on yo u selfish cyclists. Also shipping by sea is the dirtiest form of transport that there is, that's how almost all of your clean bike technology gets to the UK. Let's not forget that the meat production around the world is very wasteful and has a massive track record of environmental damage, just so you can have your cheap burger. Then there's those selfish veggies making sure that their need for protein is supplied by soya that's shipped in from the recently destroyed rain forests of South America. We humans are all responsible especially the middle class wingers who actually can't be a..ed to do anything but moan on forums.

Don't moan make the charges for. Sake of the environment. It'll make no difference as whatever you do will be whipped out by what happens in China, India, Australia, the USA, Russia and our own blessed country. You should do it any way.

Am off out now to collect some wood in the Landrover.

No the dirtiest form of transport their is a single occupancy car traveling 10 miles through heavy traffic to work and back daily.

In terms of tonne miles ships are actually pretty clean.

Air cargo – 1.319 kg CO2e per Ton-Mile
Truck - 0.14645 kg CO2e per Ton-Mile
Train - 0.0242 kg CO2e per Ton-Mile
Sea freight - 0.0602 kg CO2e per Ton-Mile

Those stats are pretty skewed - aircraft don't carry that much tonnage of freight - usually low density/weight but high volume stuff and I bet they're not counting passengers as cargo and that is the main reason aircraft fly as most air fright and air cargo is flown as underbelly freight on passenger aircraft. Cargo ships are usually dedicated bulk carriers and carry many thousands of times more tones of freight than an aircraft. When all is said and done aircraft only produce about 2% of total man-made CO2 emissions - far less than domestic heating and energy generation, road transport and just about any other form of mechanised fossil fuel based transportation. Airports and the transport infrastructure that gets passengers to and from the airports produce more CO2's than aircraft do.

"most air fright and air cargo is flown as underbelly freight on passenger aircraft"

depends how define most around 60% could be considered just over half

Fedex have over 400 planes, UPS over 200

All i know when we have to ship kit via antenov cargo plane its horrendously eye watteringly crippling expensive. Compared to shipping it via the sea.

( our gear is 40-60ft long and many tonnes)

Even the fattest gentleman in his vehicle driving to work - with his biggest lunch pail---- cant be returning good ton miles for his co2 emissions

This thread reminds me of Steve Peat's excellent movie 🙂

Two wrongs don't make a right!

There not two wrongs, there's lots of wrongs and nothing is making it right. We can moan on about others choices but what's important is what are we doing as individuals to change things. The staring point is perhaps to be less critical of others and look at ourselves first.

What he said

'Moaning' on the internet (ie expressing an opinion that you don't like) and 'looking at ourselves' are not mutually exclusive things, amazingly enough.

Grum I agree. Now I'll moan a bit, it bloody raining and its time go out and feed the hens.

I do look at myself- I've aleays chosen a small car, this year I've chosen a new job that is close enough for me to commute to by bike, I always walk to the local shops instead of driving a mile each way like most people. I'm not perfect but I do look at myself - as well as at others 😉

I recall a bmj article some years ago which found a correlation between driving a 4x4 and using mobile phone whilst doing so. A colleague at the time who chose to drive old defenders so he could play off road at the weekend was most defensive.

Conclusions The level of non-compliance with the law on the use of hand held mobile phones by drivers in London is high, as is non-compliance with the law on seat belts. Drivers of four wheel drive vehicles were four times more likely than drivers of other cars to be seen using hand held mobile phones and slightly more likely not to comply with the law on seat belts.

http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7558/71

The environment doesn't care if you're more or less polluting than another STW forum user. We all need to minimise where we can.

The point about SUV is that barring medical issues and off-road use, there's really no point at all. An estate would pretty much do, and be 30%-50% better on fuel. That's a lot of fuel to be wasted for vanity. And yes, there are other ways to waste fuel.

Petroleum is incredibly valuable for a whole lot of reasons, from engineering materials to drugs to industrial chemicals. There's a limited supply on this planet. Burning it is pretty wasteful. Burning more of it when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative with no real down sides is idiotic. That goes for everything, not just cars.

And pointing out where someone else is also doing wrong does not let you off the hook, so save your breath. I'm not saying this because I want to be better than anyone, or to start some kind of fight; I'm saying it because it's true. I'm probably worse than half the forum, I admit, but that still doesn't make this post wrong.

@molgrips you and the rest of us are going round in circles. There are a number of instances where on-road / soft-road the ground clearance of an SUV/proper 4x4 is useful and they are generally better for towing including being able to see out the back over the top of a normal/low trailer. If we are going to get into moralising about saving the planet there will be a whole long list of things which are more relevant than SUV vs estate-car

Anyway, back to the ranch!
SUVs or crossovers or whatever you want to call them are more than likely more popular at the moment due to advertising & marketing - when was the last time you saw an estate car being advertised on tv or elsewhere? It's all down to what the manufacturers want to sell the great unwashed - for a while they pushed MPVs, people carriers, breedwagons and to be honest the last time I remember being aware of estates being pushed was back in the Volvo 740/940 days then when Volvo used a T5 estate in the BTCC.
Personally I'm not a great fan of SUVs - yes I have a 4x4 ( or 2 🙂 ) but I have my reasons for that - but I do understand why they are popular - the one i dont get is the Nissan Juke - it must be one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen and I cant get my head around someone walking into a dealers and saying wow, I must spend a huge amount of my hard earned cash on such a fabulous vehicle.
Wouldn't be much fun if we were all the same - I just have to accept the fact that there are a lot of peasants out there with no taste 🙂

There are a number of instances where on-road / soft-road the ground clearance of an SUV/proper 4x4 is useful

YES AND I ACKNOWLEDGED THIS.

If we are going to get into moralising about saving the planet there will be a whole long list of things which are more relevant than SUV vs estate-car

I also acknowledged this. But it's one of the more vacuous, pointless and visible things. And also very specifically the subject of this thread. Hence it's discussion.

I think folk overestimate their need for a 4wd vehicle.

All you really need is a limited slip diff and slightly longer suspension for almost all conditions you'll meet on the road.

Genuine offroad* is a different story, but when I lived in Oz and had over 350 miles of dirt road to the nearest tarmac, the most favoured vehicle was a ute with the "country pack" equipped as above. It was only visiting city folk who drove the fancy 4wds.

*ie no road.

The point about SUV is that barring medical issues and off-road use, there's really no point at all. An estate would pretty much do, and be 30%-50% better on fuel.

Repeat after me. An SUV is a 25cm higher estate. 🙂

The mistake here is to deride all SUVS and champion all Estates.

Quite clearly - like the new qashqai - very economical and plenty efficient at one end just as there are fast and greedy estates at the other.

And then there's how you drive. Probably the biggest influence.

The point about SUV is that barring medical issues and off-road use, there's really no point at all. An estate would pretty much do, and be 30%-50% better on fuel. That's a lot of fuel to be wasted for vanity. And yes, there are other ways to waste fuel

Same engine as in my previous Fabia Estate as my Yeti. The Yeti is 1.2DSG, Fab 1.2 manual. There's about 10% MPG between them and the Yeti is still new.

And then there's how you drive. Probably the biggest influence.

My understanding is that manufacturers make greater profits out of SUVs so they advertise them heavily, and make them desirable. Personally I tend towards not being keen on SUVs, but then I mostly drive a LWB T5.1 lifestyle vehicle 😳
I do mostly cycle to work and to the shops though 😕

Re: safety - Yes, I know it's not an SUV, but an SUV version is available - I know which vehicle I'd rather have been in when this happened. All 4 occupants hospitalised, one seriously (coma). I went home to my Mrs and daughter straight after the event.

[img] [/img]

You are like someone eating a Quarter Pounder sneering at someone eating a Big Mac for eating unhealthily

No, cos I'm not sneering at anyone. Just pointing something out. I'm not the one going on about penis extensions, little man syndrome and the like.

There's about 10% MPG between them and the Yeti is still new.

That's interesting. Real world? How old was the Fabia?

If a hatchback and an SUV had the exact same environmental impact I'd be fine with them. I might even buy one.

Side impact on the out of control pug vs front impact on the pick up.

Limited impact protection on the side of any car compared to the front wing.

Went to the garage today. Sat in a 320 Tourer, felt a bit small compared to current 520 Tourer company car ( no surprise). Sat in X3, felt OK and ideal apart from need for a portable step to put bikes on roof. Sat in Passat Alltrack, also felt OK, spacious, but...once specced out to same as standard X3, costs a little more.

Skoda garage tomorrow.

If a hatchback and an SUV had the exact same environmental impact I'd be fine with them. I might even buy one.

New hatchback driven daily around town v second hand SUV rarely used. Etc.

Vehicle type is only one part of a bigger picture.

Of course, but those aren't the two choices are they? If you can buy a used SUV and only drive it occasionally then you can also buy a used hatchback and drive that occasionally. And save fuel.

That's my point. I'm not trying to eco Willy wave, there's no way I'd win for a start. What I am trying to say is that for most people, they could just as easily do everything they do in their SUV in an estate equivalent in luxury and safety, and save fuel.

If you can buy a used SUV and only drive it occasionally then you can also buy a used hatchback and drive that occasionally. And save fuel.

For tafkastr, I'd dig out the story about the F250 vs Mini crash where the story was reversed and the pickup driver was killed and the mini occupants ran over to check on the F250 occupants.

An anecdote is not a study.

If you do that, you should really not but the hatchback and spend the money on a cargo bike and save even more fuel.

Of course. Unless your occasional journey is also a long one with no public alternative.

Of course. Unless your occasional journey is also a long one with no public alternative.

When I need [s]the 4x4[/s] to ponce around, looking like a bufty, it's there, ready and waiting.

I don't understand yunki. 😕

nor do I mate.... nor do I

I couldn't give a monkeys any more.. I used to worry about such stuff but these days I am forced to drive a clapped out renault as the kids school is too far away, and it's looking increasingly likely that mrs yunki may also need a car for her new job as a community nurse

if you're not a farmer though, what do you [i]need[/i] a 4x4 for?

Horse box?

An estate would pretty much do, and be 30%-50% better on fuel.

Comparing two cars built on the same platform - Focus Estate and the Kuga

The are about the same length
Kuga is about 20cm wider
Kuga is 150 kgs heavier (1600kg vs 1450 kg).
Kuga has a 406/1603 litre boot
Estate has a 476/1516 litre boot

If you pick a comparable engine (in this case the 163 bhp diesels) , Ford claim you will get 49mpg from the Kuga and 57 out of the Estate.

There are more environmentally friendly options available on the Estate which will give you a maximum of 83mpg, but some worse ones which only make 44mpg.

So, it's not so much of a slam dunk for the estate that you might think and the higher position in the Kuga might just swing you in favour of it.

That's interesting. Real world? How old was the Fabia?
If a hatchback and an SUV had the exact same environmental impact I'd be fine with them. I might even buy one.

Real world yeah. Fabia was 2.5 yrs old when I returned it.

Emissions are similar but Yeti 1.2 Tsi is a 5bhp more. But has stop/start .

PePPeR - Member
Aphex we see the irony in asking Molgrips that question, as was mentioned it's all in the history (cough Passat)

Yeah, that was me looking at potentially having to read 6 pages of his waffle and thinking "naah".

Also, that's not irony. x

For me, it's less to do with pointing fingers at which cars are more or less damaging to the environment and more to do with a mixture of disbelief and amusement at the ridiculous sight of Monster Trucks and armoured cars being used almost exclusively to ferry little kids to school and to nip to Sainsbury's, often taking up too much parking space while they're at it.

My viewpoint- There are ALOT of bad and nervous drivers on the roads. They don't see their ability or mindset as the problem, so they buy a car that 'moves them higher upto perceived safety'. The mad thing is such vehicles arent the best handling (I.e safe) and aren't any safer anyway. It's perception. They think they will be safer. Much like people think German cars are the most reliable. Crackers.

The safestcars have the best steering feel, easy to place on the road and feel part of you. The worst have indistinct suspension, hard to place and overnight devolved electric steering

Vickypea puts it well.

Afik the problem with SUVs and economy is the aerodynamics. Higher body means larger frontal area which affects drag. They don't publish drag coefficients though.

Skipping to the end of this to add my 'experience'. Back in 2002, when our twins came along, we already had a Volvo V70 for me, wife, daughter #1 and two dogs.
I thought we'd be OK with the V70 but I soon realised that it wasn't actually wide enough and we couldn't fit 3 x car seats across the back which caused a big problem. The XC90 had just come out and, as I really didn't want an 'old style' MPV, I got one and kept it for 12 years. Frankly it was perfect for dragging everyone plus dogs, kids friends, boats etc all over the place. Now the girls are mid-teens I still need a load of space and a good towing vehicle, so I just changed to another, biggish, SUV.
I like them but can't really see the point in the small ones from what some people have to say about them on here.

Higher body means larger frontal area

Random thought of the day.

as i was cycling to work today a qashqui passed me

it struck me how much it sounds like cashcow when you say it ....

This clearly demonstrates the superiority of modern full-sized trucks in collisions.

it struck me how much it sounds like cashcow when you say it ....

Just imagine a Northern Irish person saying it and then you're there.

I call them Kumquats myself (which I think I got from an episode of TG).

I like them but can't really see the point in the small ones from what some people have to say about them on here.

@trail rat indeed others post the name of the car as Qashcow

@ap I think a video of a saloon or hatchback would look the same

I think the reason that SUV's are getting stick are mainly because they are bought by people who have been suckered by clever marketing into buying something that they just don't need.

No one's got an issue with a farmer, park ranger or someone who lives out in the sticks from driving or owning a 4x4. It's those that buy them for no apparent reason - other than they think it makes them a) safer, b) look good, or c) give them more status, that people have the issues with. That and the fact that SUV's are often due to their size, or the way they're frequently driven, an inconvenience to the rest of us on the road.

Still going?

A bit late to be asking, but is the title true? Do the sales figures back the statement up? My groping around the SMMT website got me no-where. And should we be comparing all SUVs with estates anyway? A Juke or a Q3 for example should be compared with hatchbacks. Similarly X6/X4/Merc GLE thing.

Vickypea puts it well.
Afik the problem with SUVs and economy is the aerodynamics. Higher body means larger frontal area which affects drag. They don't publish drag coefficients though

True-ish but why single out SUVs given they vary? And you could then make a case for everyone owning super minis. It would just be category v category and the estate drivers would justify their purchases.

The mad thing is such vehicles arent the best handling (I.e safe) and aren't any safer anyway. It's perception. They think they will be safer. Much like people think German cars are the most reliable. Crackers.

Doesn't the NCAP of a vehicle come into it?

My anecdote about my mother surviving an 80mph head-on in a RAV was very much outlined by the copper at the scene who said that car saved your life. A lesser car would've been different.

Best handling doesn't equal safer. Especially when it's not your fault.

[devils advocate]
is that a bit like the copper whos qualified to tell you a helmet saved your life in a bike crash ?

[/devils advocate]

think the reason that SUV's are getting stick are mainly because they are bought by people who have been suckered by clever marketing into buying something that they just don't need.

The car industry is marketing.

That's what makes it tick. You could say the same about any desirable car. I.e it's been successfully marketed to the correct buyer. That is the aim.

It's what stops me from buying a hot hatch and why I owned one when I was 18.

is that a bit like the copper whos qualified to tell you a helmet saved your life in a bike crash ?

The other guy in a Fiesta died instantly. My mother's car flipped and was smashed to bits but she walked away.

It's completely anecdotal but it's difficult to ignore.

wonder how the outcome would have been between 2 fiestas - neither me, you or the copper are qualified to say what it would have been - but its an interesting conundrum no less.

its an arms race to the bottom .

The other guy in a Fiesta died instantly. My mother's car flipped and was smashed to bits but she walked away.

It's completely anecdotal but it's difficult to ignore.

You could also just as easily argue that a 4x4 is less safe because of the higher centre of gravity, meaning it's less stable and far more likely to flip over in a collision.

[url=

and then there's this:[/url]

A bit late to be asking, but is the title true? Do the sales figures back the statement up?

Hard to know at the sales charts don't break out variants e.g. Golf Hatch vs Golf Estate: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/90327/best-selling-cars-2015-record-year-for-uk-car-sales

However they are very popular e.g. Kia's best selling car is their SUV, the Sportage. Nissan's best selling car is their SUV, the Qashqai.

The other guy in a Fiesta died instantly. My mother's car flipped and was smashed to bits but she walked away.
It's completely anecdotal but it's difficult to ignore.

You've conveniently ignored the rather unpalatable other side to that anecdote. The guy in the Fiesta might not have died if your mum had been driving a different car.

No one's got an issue with a farmer, park ranger or someone who lives out in the sticks from driving or owning a 4x4. It's those that buy them for no apparent reason - other than they think it makes them a) safer, b) look good, or c) give them more status, that people have the issues with. That and the fact that SUV's are often due to their size, or the way they're frequently driven, an inconvenience to the rest of us on the road.

This

IIRC there is research showing that people who aren't particularly confident drivers like them because they feel safer in them. Not confident driver in a huge heavy vehicle is not a recipe for good, considerate driving and parking. Round here the roads are small, tight, with steep bends and lots of parked cars either side of the road - driving a massive car just isn't sensible. I see loads of them in the Lakes on narrow walled lanes being driven miles out from the edge of the road.

Well if we're trading baseless conjecture, if they'd both been driving fiestas then both of them might have died.

And on the subject of baseless stats could you post up the average difference in dimensions between an suv and an estate car so we can see how massive they really are.

[pointlesspoint] But if they'd both been on bicycles there'd have been no serious injuries and they'd have saved a bucket load on fuel. [pointlesspoint]

EDIT:

an inconvenience to the rest of us on the road.

It was an anecdote that supported your position and was 'difficult to ignore' a minute ago. But baseless conjecture is more accurate yes.

And no I'm not looking up stats, but big vehicles tend to be bigger than smaller vehicles, and very big vehicles are a lot bigger.

[pointlesspoint] But if they'd both been on bicycles there'd have been no serious injuries and they'd have saved a bucket load on fuel. [pointlesspoint]

Whereas your post was chock full of wit, insight and humour captainsasquatch (and definitely not yet another straw man) 😆

[img] [/img]

But compare 2 similar models from Ford, the inoffensive focus Estate and the behemoth kuga. The kuga is 4524mm long, the estate longer at 4556. The kuga is 1838mm wide, the focus 1823. But you seem to have no problem with the amount of space the focus occupies on your local roads. The mondeo Estate is even bigger.

Fwiw I drive neither,and it wasn't my anecdote about fiestas crashing.

But compare 2 similar models from Ford, the inoffensive focus Estate and the behemoth kuga. The kuga is 4524mm long, the estate longer at 4556. The kuga is 1838mm wide, the focus 1823. But you seem to have no problem with the amount of space the focus occupies on your local roads. The mondeo Estate is even bigger.

Well if you're up for comparing, like for like then the Focus handles better, is quicker (with the same engine), produces less Co2, weights 200kg less - yet has around 120 litres more luggage capacity than the equivalent Kuga.

When following a Focus Estate on the motorway it also doesn't restrict the forward view of the driver behind, unlike the Kuga or many other higher SUV's.

We have a primary school just down the bottom of the road from us. After a child was knocked down they put in speed humps a couple of years back. This slowed most of the traffic down, however we've noticed that 4x4/SUV drivers seem to be the main type of vehicles not slowing down for the speed humps and still traveling at inappropriate speeds past the school (that and white van courier drivers). Wonder if this is also a reason that many buy 4x4's with soft suspension and higher ride height?

^^ If you're at a safe distance, you should be able to see round both sides, and through the rear/front windscreens. Possibly underneath if the road assists. Height of a small SUV compared to an estate should not really affect your view, bar certain circumstances.

If you can't see past a Kuga sized vehicle, you're probably too close.

SUV drivers are pussycats compared to the 8.30am stressed mum with 1 kid in the 7 seater people carrier/ford SMAX/ Kia Sedona 🙄

And on the subject of baseless stats could you post up the average difference in dimensions between an suv and an estate car so we can see how massive they really are.

My anecdote about my mother surviving an 80mph head-on in a RAV was very much outlined by the copper at the scene who said that car saved your life.

Does it have anything at all to do with it being a SUV though?

iirc, Freelanders were a death trap because of their shape. The engine lifted in a collision, and the linkage clutch pedal got shoved into the drivers crotch?

You've conveniently ignored the rather unpalatable other side to that anecdote. The guy in the Fiesta might not have died if your mum had been driving a different car.

Seriously?

He wouldn't have died had he been on HIS side of the road. 80mph on the wrong side of the road.

And too right I've ignored it. You tend to care about your loved ones.

If my mother had hit another car and she was doing 80mph on the wrong side of the road, and she was in the RAV, and they had a small tin box and they were killed... Yes I'd be feeling extremely bad. But that's not what happened.

Loopy assertion.

Agent 007 - the Yeti easily out handles the Fabia with sports suspension.

Just because it's an estate doesn't mean it handles well and just because it's an SUV doesn't mean it can't be engineered to handle well.

There are good and bad in both category, this why the debate is baseless - that estates are ****ing amazing and all SUVs are shit. It's idiocy of the highest orders.

All I'm interested in is that some SUVs stack up and some don't. I've had three and I've enjoyed them all.

I never made any claims about who was at fault in the accident, that's not the point. But I don't see how you can claim that driving a larger, heavier car probably saved her life (speculation), but not accept that it's possible that driving a larger, heavier car might mean the smaller, lighter car comes off worse in a head-on collision (also speculation I admit). What's loopy about that?

And too right I've ignored it. You tend to care about your loved ones.

I'm sure the other guy had loved ones too.

There are good and bad in both category, this why the debate is baseless - that estates are **** amazing and all SUVs are shit. It's idiocy of the highest orders.

Lucky no-one actually said that then eh?

I'm sure the other guy had loved ones too.

Nice....nice way to lay a totally undeserved guilt trip on someone who no doubt has very happy memories of the incident & who was completely innocent.... 🙄

At least someone lived.....& the anecdotal evidence would suggest the choice of car by the survivor had something to do with it.

Just accept it grum - SUV's are here to stay & you might as well go out & buy one yourself!

It's not about guilt tripping people, it's just about applying logic and critical thinking. Not sure if be describing an incident where somebody died as a happy memory. Must have been horrible for her too obviously but I don't see why that means we can't discuss it sensibly.

My loved ones are more important [i]to me[/i] than other people's but not more important on a societal level.