You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Wife has back issues. Higher seats are easier for entry/exit.
🤷
I’m confused as I thought STW shunned modern, economical cars in favour of old, polluting shitboxes?
Anyway, my wife likes her Land Rover because it is very comfortable, easy to get the kids in and out of and is generally a very pleasant place to be. 7 seats is a bonus too.
My car is a 15 year old hot-ish hatch that cost buttons but isn’t that kind to the environment.
Saying that, I’ve got a full electric car on order and the Discovery Sport will probably be replaced in a couple of years by the hybrid or electric equivalent so does that make us goodies or baddies?
At the moment it’s making you look like a show-off...
At the moment it’s making you look like a show-off…
Why is it?
Not trying to at all and I bet our monthly outlay is comparable to plenty of others. The LR costs hardly anymore than the Ford it replaced, is cheaper than the estate I wanted and leasing electric through work makes buying second hand virtually pointless.
This won’t work for many but in the same way neither would not having a car work for us. I’d love to be able to ride my bike to work but that’s just not practical. Horses for courses, we all have different circumstances.
Meanwhile I see that VW aren’t even going to bother selling the new MKVIII Golf in the US due to the competition from SUV and trucks except for the R. Over there the car market seems absolutely polarised. Huge double cab trucks/SUV or Tesla. Weird.
EV seem to be taking off pretty well over here and there are lots of options. I sat in a e-208 this week. Great looking thing and +200 mile range. I can see us owning something like that. The manufacturers just need to get nearer to ICE/PHEV prices to really take off.
Huge double cab trucks/SUV or Tesla. Weird.
Huge double cab trucks = "murica"/patriotism
Teslas are at least American so at least the liberals can show some level of patriotism
It's a weird country that charges **** all for fuel and has basically no corners. The cars they want/need are hugely different from what we want/need
The big trucks thing is weird... Like, I used to be on some US motorbike forums and people genuinely would not accept that you can tow a motorbike on a trailer behind anything that doesn't have a massive engine. It's about the same as having a couple of fat people in the back of your car but "I need my dodge ram with a cummins in so I can tow". I don't just mean as an excuse to buy a big truck, I mean I remember a dude who really wanted to tow his bike but "couldn't" because he only had a jeep cherokee with the straight 6.
Less emissions from vehicles? We need a complete rethink of how our society works. Less focus on financial ‘efficiency’ for business and more on social efficiency for all.
A move to more home-based working, enabled with collaboration tools will help. A more locally-focussed employment model with less centralised and more regional organisations, would help. Taking a long view on investment payback rather than a short-term and constrained return. All would help businesses and organisations deliver more rounded value to their operations rather than this financial years ‘bottom line’. A way to reward something other than consumption... Reduce commuting, waste, etc.
Without change to our system and how we define value, the options to improve sustainability is limited.
If you look like Arnie the Barbarian
hot babes with skimpy clothes will flock to you.
We needed a bigger vehicle. Having 1 child and trying to make that 2 made it clear that our Ford Focus just was not big enough for some of our journeys. An SUV was.
Another factor was safety. As SUVs became more widely used I noticed that they made it harder to see from a normal car. SUVs are bigger and harder to see past and through.
In addition, or old car was likely to come of worse if in an accident with an SUV. This was something that concerned me as my wife drives my daughter to and from nursery as part of her commute. 8 years ago when we got the Focus it was pretty average sized compared to other vehicles, but that is no longer the case.
So really it was a case of reluctantly joining the club. I would much rather have saved the money. Or gone electric.
I walk to work half of the year, which goes some way to easing my conscience.
Interesting subject. There are three categories of people in this regard: those who don't believe in the climate "emergency" and who won't change their behaviour, those who think it might be or probably is a thing and are wondering what to do about it, and those who are fully-signed up and already implementing change in their life. I think we have representatives of all three here and let's suggest it's an equal split of population across these groups.
I'm in the middle group and where I'm struggling is to understand the relative impact of my lifestyle choices, such as the car I drive. For example, I fly at least monthly for work and holiday - does that make it pointless to do anything else as my CO2 impact is so huge? But I do pay into a carbon-offset tree-planting charity so does that fix my flight addiction? I drive a 2.5 tonne, 4.0 V6 petrol 4WD (not an SUV!) which does 18mpg, but does that matter as the wife and I walk to work and my kid walks to school, so I do half the miles of most people? I'm part-time vegetarian, but I do love to BBQ a steak or brisket at the weekend etc. If I'm honest, a diesel estate would do 99.9% of what I use my car for and at 40mpg, so if I were buying again (I'm not), that is what I would go for.
The point of this grouping is to suggest that you can probably influence the group I'm in through nudge policy, such as this thread where my social conscience is tweaked and I'll slowly shift in the right direction. However, the first group won't be voluntarily shifted and will either not change, or will be forced into change through legislation.
As to why are SUVs popular? Ca. two-thirds of the population don't care or are uncertain / unconvinced about the benefits of alternatives and there are some pretty decent lifestyle advertising and benefits that we're brainwashed into accepting as the positives of our choosing to buy the heavier car alternative. I think we are probably at peak-SUV (and possibly peak-car ownership) so I'd expect to see their popularity diminish.
Because the majority of people either don't believe in climate change, or think it's someone else's problem to sort out.
Also most people are selfish and won't change their behaviour unless forced to. Unfortunately politicians won't force them to, because they want to get elected.
This is why our planet is screwed.
Reading some of the responses reminded me of a quote from the forthcoming Thunberg book:
“When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”
It seems to me that comparing cross overs to same platform normal cars is not really fair.
E.g. the Ecosport might we be based on the Fiesta platform, but it’s kerb weight is similar to the Focus and actually has more boot space than the Focus.
If your use case needs a bigger car then the EcoSport might be a better choice than the Focus.
Because that's what their neighbour has, and when they go to the car showroom, that's what's on sale and they can afford.
What cars people drive is pretty much tinkering around the edges of the problem (I read somewhere that electric cars have to do something like 75k miles before becoming more environmentally beneficial on the climate change front) and very few even concerned citizens are unwilling to really suffer for the benefit of the environment - me included.
Because the majority of people either don’t believe in climate change, or think it’s someone else’s problem to sort out.
Also most people are selfish and won’t change their behaviour unless forced to. Unfortunately politicians won’t force them to, because they want to get elected.
This is why our planet is screwed.
Exactly.
My parents started with a Jeep Cherokee, then a x-trail and now a forester simply because they get a better view than being in a golf or focus
Living where I do (the cheap bit of the allegedly posh part of Stockholm) and using a bike exclusively for commuting, I see a lot of stupid cars on a daily basis.
In the past month I have seen a Rolls Royce SUV (fugly as sin), a Lambo SUV (small and ugly) and countless Porsche SUVs and V8 G-Wagons. It is literally _just_ the owners having too much money and wanting to make a statement. This is a city FFS and one that has superb public transport, there is barely a need for a car and certainly no good reason for those shitboxes. I'm not going to start on the Hemi-powered US import pickups that are both here, Uppsala and in the more redneck areas of the country.
On the other hand, I see a lot of Teslas, Zoes and Prius/Auris which make far more sense in a city. Mostly taxis, still badly driven, still trying to kill me, but at least they don't spew clouds of shitty black smoke when they accelerate through 'light red' lights.
The quick fix is to base VED on vehicle volume as well as efficiency. Then get rid of the tax fiddle that is the pick-up truck, these are a far worse waste of space than most so called SUVs.
Declaration of interest: T5 and 1.1 Fiat Panda owner.
Just get off the internet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-51742336/dirty-streaming-the-internet-s-big-secret
...I noticed that they made it harder to see from a normal car. SUVs are bigger and harder to see past and through.
leave more of a gap then and drive slower perhaps
Rather annoyingly there are very few small 4x4s so those that need that drive train are restricted to larger cars. We've just bought a Yeti, that being one of the smaller options.
And... how many flights will you be taking this year?
Personally I declared 2020 a ‘No flight year’ on Jan 1. It’s ridiculous that somehow civilisation has evolved to the point where people believe that taking 4 cheap flights to Spain (or wherever) each year is ok.
Yes, we all need to stop driving so much - and switch to more fuel-efficient, zero carbon based forms of transport. But until we’ve each personally changed our own habits, then who are we to criticise others?
It’s not Government, it’s not companies, it’s not cruises, it’s not airlines, it’s not car manufacturers and it’s not Extinction Rebellion. It’s us.
The vast majority of the SUV’s driven are no different to most saloon/hatchbacks
I'm calling horse shit to this sweeping statement, albeit it's a sweeping statement with many shades of grey to debate.
Take my pal's 4x4 SUV that he calls an eco-mobile because he can get 35mpg if he drives sensibly. In my Honda Civic tourer I can get 35mpg if I rag the arse of it. And then there's space. Most of our towns, cities and car parks just aren't built for cars this size. If you're blind to it, Thunberg's quote above applies.
Of course there are a couple of Graudian articles on both the emissions (2nd greatest cause of CO2e increase) and the anti-social aspect of them in towns. If you care, you care.
Isn't it the case that our consumption of meat and the effects of that industry is more of an issue than our transport emissions?.
OP - can you give us a detailed account of how you live your life/house/holidays/leisure pursuits before singling out SUV/4x4 drivers...
I run an old 4x4 used to tow a horsebox and for other horsey duties.
Last flight I went on was 5 years ago though to Paris, and in my 52 years I've been abroad 6 times.
So unless you live off-grid in a teepee in forest somewhere it's hard to see which families pollute the most. Or to say you are more eco-friendly than someone who drives an SUV.
Rather annoyingly there are very few small 4x4s so those that need that drive train are restricted to larger cars.
It's a curiously British problem this. Car manufacturers do make normal cars with 4 wheel drive - British people just aren't willing to buy them so a lot of companies have stopped selling them.
My mum spends a lot of time on farms and towing but as my parents don't want an SUV for so many reasons they have a Volvo V60 4x4. Not the Cross Country version, just a normal looking Volvo with 4 wheel drive. It's still a big car but it does 10mpg better than the XC90 and doesn't look obnoxious. So you can get a normal car with 4wd over here.
I went to Davos a few years ago. That's a rich town that gets afflicted by snowy winters. I didn't see one SUV instead while I was there. People drive Suzuki Ignis and Baleno 4x4 hatchbacks, Subarus, VW Golf and Audi 4x4s. They didn't seem to feel the need to have a car that was taller to throw their kids in, or to hoist their old bodies into. Nor did they seem to want a big car to show off with. They just bought normal cars that were up to the job. SUVs here have become such an ingrained part of British vanity that manufacturers don't sell normal cars with 4wd here because no one buys them.
Isn’t it the case that our consumption of meat and the effects of that industry is more of an issue than our transport emissions?.
Apparently. It's something I've always done something about (eating small amounts of meat from responsible small scale farms rather than lots of supermarket meat) but I've realised that isn't enough. I'm not willing to give it up entirely so I'm making other compromises in my diet to make up for it (less meat but also less animal products generally, certainly no more milk). Being greener doesn't mean living like a hermit but making sensible choices. Like not giving up driving entirely, but reducing your miles not using a hulking mass of an SUV or fuel guzzling sports car when a sensible option exists.
I suspect, though, if you held a gun to most SUV driver's heads and gave them a choice between living as a vegan for the rest of their lives or bending down slightly to out their kids in the car they'd choose the latter.
(This SUV thing is a thing that's ground my gears for the last decade and as I don't know anyone selfish enough to own one to sound off at, other than my mother in law who we berate regularly for her choice of car, this thread has touched a nerve)
the country has just elected a climate change denier as PM and you wonder why SUV is the best selling car ?
1. Because the majority of people are entitled, selfish buggers who buy a vehicle which suits the 1% of the time they need more space/power/towing capability.
2. Because the tax on fuel is insufficient to punish the selfish twunts who buy such a vehicle.
And… how many flights will you be taking this year?
I will be taking none, the same number as I have taken for 20 years.
I also drive a car that does 60mpg and keep that car for 10+ years.
I also do lots of other 'eco' stuff and do actually give a shit
However, I am well aware that I am just throwing a cup of water on a house that is on fire (to paraphrase) and sometimes wonder why I am bothering.
Next door neighbour commutes 60miles per day in his new electric golf, neighbour over the road has a rolls, a range rover and an audi s5 convertible but is retired and does eff all miles, the newest of his cars is the 10yo convertible.
Its not always about what you drive..
Isn’t it the case that our consumption of meat and the effects of that industry is more of an issue than our transport emissions?.
Why are the two mutually exclusive?
Yeah but... So what?
Everything so far is just consumerism and that isn't going away any time soon.
As for this:
We needed a bigger vehicle. Having 1 child and trying to make that 2 made it clear that our Ford Focus just was not big enough for some of our journeys. An SUV was.
Another factor was safety. As SUVs became more widely used I noticed that they made it harder to see from a normal car. SUVs are bigger and harder to see past and through.
In addition, or old car was likely to come of worse if in an accident with an SUV. This was something that concerned me as my wife drives my daughter to and from nursery as part of her commute. 8 years ago when we got the Focus it was pretty average sized compared to other vehicles, but that is no longer the case.
So really it was a case of reluctantly joining the club. I would much rather have saved the money. Or gone electric.
I walk to work half of the year, which goes some way to easing my conscience
Do some research next time. Like, actual research and not what the salesmen or internet people tell you. An SUV is not safer, it has a higher centre of gravity so is more unstable and crash protection is no better than any other modern car. It's also, as pointed out before, safer for any poor meatsack you may happen to hit.
the country has just elected a climate change denier as PM and you wonder why SUV is the best selling car ?
Absolutely !
Good point well made.
You voted for a government who drive around London in v8 Jags that rarely break 15mph. That have something like 120 RangRongers for special duties, yea the v8 ones. The diplomatic service has 300+ cars on its books that don’t pay the congestion zone charge, not Dart Charge nor are included in ULEZ.
And you moan about SUV’s.
Best crack on working for a living...
Next door neighbour commutes 60miles per day in his new electric golf, neighbour over the road has a rolls, a range rover and an audi s5 convertible but is retired and does eff all miles, the newest of his cars is the 10yo convertible.
Its not always about what you drive..
Exactly - Tax on cars should be reduced and tax on energy should be massively increased. That goes for all types. Kerosene (planes), Fuel (Cars) and Electricity (from a non-eco source). You wan't to live 60 miles from work, fine, but you're damned well gonna pay for your consumption.
However, I am well aware that I am just throwing a cup of water on a house that is on fire (to paraphrase) and sometimes wonder why I am bothering.
Same feeling I have: that I can try as hard as I can but it'll still make next to f-all difference. But I now also feel that I've got to at least try - if everyone else did the same then perhaps we'd make a bigger difference collectively. Big change needs to happen at policy level though.
There are some aspects to my lifestyle that I can definitely improve on (car, van, old/less-efficient house) but I'm balancing these off by doing what I can.
I drive a 4x4 pickup - possibly not the SUV category the OP is having a pop at but similar.
I get low 30s to the gallon. I bought it because a) I need the space and b) need the off-road ability. However, I’m well aware that I only need both of those on a small percentage of the miles I drive, but when I need them I really need them (lots of muddy fields, woods etc). I just can’t afford to run 2 vehicles so it’s definitely a compromise.
I’m really conscious of the low mpg and if something existed that offered similar space, ground clearance, off road capability and ability to hose out the load area but did 80mpg then I’d be all over it!
The diplomatic service has 300+ cars on its books that don’t pay the congestion zone charge, not Dart Charge nor are included in ULEZ.
Oh, well, that gives complete justification to the 300,000 odd people driving around in Nissan Qashqais. 🙄
I'm calling BS on the "I need an SUV 'cos I need space" argument - few have practical boot space because of the high boot sill / floor. Go down your local DIY shed and laugh at folks trying to carry their flat-pack purchase. 4x4 is another - most have low profile road tyres which are pretty useless on anything but tarmac. It's entirely a fashion / bigger-is-better bullying thing and they're trashing the roads. Many are so wide the drivers can't even stay inside the white line and assume it's just a means to judge the middle of the road they're entitled to drive down the middle of.
The worst contributor to pollution are shipping - something like 20% of global pollution involving the shipping of stuff from one side of the world to the another. If you want to get serious about reducing it, stop buying cheap plastic crap from half-way around the world. It would be great if you could buy responsibly made stuff from neighbouring countries, but hell know, lets abandon the notion and import junk from elsewhere.
Because all the while the media colludes in blaming farmers for climate change we don't need to worry about what we drive.
I wonder how many people in this thread, if they were given the opportunity to go and live in a commune, completely off grid, with the means to see out their days with a negative carbon footprint, would jump at the chance.
Didn't think so
Same feeling I have: that I can try as hard as I can but it’ll still make next to f-all difference. But I now also feel that I’ve got to at least try – if everyone else did the same then perhaps we’d make a bigger difference collectively.
This is pretty much how I see it as well.
There was a reply to a comment of mine in the coronavirus thread saying that if the worlds population was reduced by 5% that would only take the population back to 2014 level, having minimal, if any, impact on climate change.
With that in mind the UK accounts for about 0.9% of the worlds population, meaning that if we were all wiped out overnight it would sadly make no difference to climate change. I do believe that, as a country, we can attempt to lead by example and I will personally do what I can, but whether a small number of UK motorists choose to drive a Volkswagen Up! or Tiguan is ultimately irrelevant.
I wonder how many people in this thread, if they were given the opportunity to go and live in a commune, completely off grid, with the means to see out their days with a negative carbon footprint, would jump at the chance.
Doing something is better than doing nothing. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. If the SUV drivers compromised by doing fewer trips in a smaller car and eating less meat and the crusties compromised by living a comfortable but environmentally friendly life we'd be in a better position than if lots of people still drove round in behemoths and a handful lived in the woods. But everyone would be happier.
We needed a bigger vehicle. Having 1 child and trying to make that 2 made it clear that our Ford Focus just was not big enough for some of our journeys. An SUV was.
One of the most successful and popular family hatchbacks was too small for you because you have 2 kids? 😂
Doing something is better than doing nothing. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. If the SUV drivers compromised by doing fewer trips in a smaller car and eating less meat and the crusties compromised by living a comfortable but environmentally friendly life we’d be in a better position than if lots of people still drove round in behemoths and a handful lived in the woods. But everyone would be happier
Ah, so you want all the comfortable trappings of modern life (all of which have an environmental impact, even if it's just the manufacturing process) but only the ones that won't visibly stand out as you not doing your bit?
Nowt personal mate, just playing devils advocate
I certainly WANT all the trappings but I've come to realise that I can't have them all.
Quite telling how there's all the excuses: size; view (lol); back issues; circumstances; easier to get in and out (arf), etc etc... but no-one actually admits - I don't give enough of a shit about the planet, nice car is more important to me.
I wouldn't single out SUVs.
God I could rant for hours about SUVs and crossovers.
Take a product, a car, then make it worse for the sake of fashion.
And putting aside the environmental argument they are less safe and encourage shit driving. "I like the high driving position because I can see the road better" actually means "I'm too bloody lazy to pay attention and leave a decent gap to the car in front so I can see the road properly"
I don't really have a problem with proper 4x4s like Disco's, some people actually need to drive off road occassionally, but shit like this:
They are even marketed as "Urban Ready"
“I’m too bloody lazy to pay attention and leave a decent gap to the car in front so I can see the road properly”
The sooner we are all forced into autonomous vehicles, the better.
I wonder how many people in this thread, if they were given the opportunity to go and live in a commune, completely off grid, with the means to see out their days with a negative carbon footprint, would jump at the chance.
Didn’t think so
is it near a beach with decent surf? if so, i'm in.
richmtb
I don’t really have a problem with proper 4x4s like Disco’s, some people actually need to drive off road occassionally, but shit like this:
It's the other way round isn't it?
Discos (2100KG) and FFRR (2500KG) are heavy, luxury vehicles which are for the most part not used off road - short of churning up the grass verge when they park up for the school fete. Yet they carry low range gearboxes and locking diffs.
The Juke is a light (~1200KG), most often FWD vehicle that sit a bit higher up.
mine is (astonishingly) 8" up from the parent model hatchback, a mere 2" wider than that same hatchback, and about 4" longer. Not exactly that much bigger. mpg of the base car (on the same engine) is about 1mpg better.
it was a bought instead of an estate car, because it was that bit higher, which stopped some problems the wife was having with her back when loading small kids into child seats
I wonder how many people in this thread, if they were given the opportunity to go and live in a commune, completely off grid, with the means to see out their days with a negative carbon footprint, would jump at the chance.
Didn’t think so
What?
It’s the other way round isn’t it?
Discos (2100KG) and FFRR (2500KG) are heavy, luxury vehicles which are for the most part not used off road – short of churning up the grass verge when they park up for the school fete. Yet they carry low range gearboxes and locking diffs.
The Juke is a light (~1200KG), most often FWD vehicle that sit a bit higher up.
Point is there is an actual engineering reason for things like Discos to exist - they have capabilities that other vehicles don't. A Nissan Juke doesn't, its just a compromised design for the sake of fashion.
I agree Rangerover Sports with 21" alloys low profile tyres are horrible crass things, but at least it helps you spot the local drug dealers.
I like the high driving position because I can see the road better” actually means “I’m too bloody lazy to pay attention and leave a decent gap to the car in front so I can see the road properly”
Nonsense.
You can have both.
I think I'm going to start up a thread demeaning people who have old cars or inefficient cars, or multiple cars... And those people that didn't make their careers locally just so they could do better but had to travel further.
demeaning people
Is that what's happening here?
Surely having an old car is virtuous - the manufacturing burden of a new car is likely to be more detrimental than the (presumed) lower economy of running an old one.
Is that what’s happening here?
A bit, yeah.
It would appear that I am the Devil incarnate for having 3 kids and an SUV.
Cutting down trees and feeding them into your woodburner is OK though?
Old cars aren't necessarily a bad thing. The CO2 to build a car is huge, so running an old one may well be more environmentally friendly than buying a new one.
Here's some figures from the Guardian (that also highlight how tragic the environmental effect of an SUV is compared to a normal car, even if the figures are a bit spurious) -
6 tonnes CO2e: Citroen C1, basic spec
17 tonnes CO2e: Ford Mondeo, medium spec
35 tonnes CO2e: Land Rover Discovery, top of the range
I'm going to use the Mondeo as an example. Doing the sums myself, based on their CO2 g/km figures, a ten year old Mondeo produced the following over 150,000 miles-
39 tonnes CO2: Ford Mondeo 2010, 2.0l 138bhp diesel, 156g/km
A shiny new 2020 model would produce this-
29 tonnes CO2: Ford Mondeo 2020, 2.0l 148bhp diesel, 116g/km
So, to replace that Ford Mondeo at 150,000 miles old with a new, more efficient one would use around 88,000 miles worth of CO2. You're better off keeping the old one going.
These (countless) environmental threads continues to show, even on STW, people love a good reason to be grumpy buggers.
I don't like SUVs, but mostly not for environmental reasons. If you're a careless driver, an SUV will only exaggerate your awful and selfish driving. I meet far too many SUVs who are perfectly happy squeezing past me on my bike, usually into oncoming traffic, and even with the little one on the back.
They're also popular with manufacturers trying to meet emissions standards - the incoming Euro standards will basically require most cars to be hybrids, and it's much easier to make a hybrid SUV than a small hybrid hatchback.
Also - size comparisons between SUVs and supposedly smaller hatchbacks just shows how bloated our cars have become.
Same feeling I have: that I can try as hard as I can but it’ll still make next to f-all difference. But I now also feel that I’ve got to at least try – if everyone else did the same then perhaps we’d make a bigger difference collectively.
This is pretty much how I see it as well.
Laudable as those feelings are, and I'd suggest most feel the same way.
There are a lot of people who do not feel the same and thats their prerogative. Nothing you say on an internet forum makes the slightest bit of difference to them, mainly because they aren't on here and they'd not care what you said.
We live in a world of new political order, you really do not have a voice or a voice you think you have makes little impact to the wider audience.
Better get used to it, because people voted for it.
And what they decide to drive really isn't anyones business but their own.
One thing you don't hear much is people saying they have an SUV because they like it.. There's always loads of: space, safety, visibility, etc. etc arguments but few people every just say I have an SUV because I like it.. It's a bit like Jim Jefferies on Americans and guns:
1.30 in
I wonder how many people in this thread, if they were given the opportunity to go and live in a commune, completely off grid, with the means to see out their days with a negative carbon footprint, would jump at the chance.
Bit of virtue signalling here, our day-to-day car is a 16-year-old Toyota and I also have a 1974 VW camper. My house is up for sale and we're planning to do a self-build eco-house in Scotland...
richmtb
Point is there is an actual engineering reason for things like Discos to exist – they have capabilities that other vehicles don’t. A Nissan Juke doesn’t, its just a compromised design for the sake of fashion.
I agree Rangerover Sports with 21″ alloys low profile tyres are horrible crass things, but at least it helps you spot the local drug dealers.
Well that really makes if those capabilities are actually used, I think people buy Range Rovers in general for status/comfort/luxury rather than wading depth and diff locks.
Where as the Juke is merely a cheap hatchback that's jacked up a bit.
I don't really see why the RR is fine but the Juke is compromised. People want to sit up higher, the Juke does that, for them it's not a compromise.
Just remembered the vehicles in the first Judge Dread movie… they got the future of ‘cars’ spot on.
For my last car I was looking at the Skoda Karoq 51.4–52.3 mpg and Skoda Octavia Estate 52.3–56.5 mpg. I chose the SUV. Why (other than the better mpg), The seating position is better for my back, the ground clearance is better for the farm track I have to drive along. The higher roof line is much better for loading canoes and kayaks from my shoulders.
Image had naff all to do with it, people worried about image tend not to buy Skodas.
Do I care about the environment, yes. Have I made adjustments, yes, could I do more, yes.
Hmm… having looked into the Judge Dredd cars again… now I really want a Land Rover 101 Forward Control… we humans are flawed, aren’t we.
In the negative column no-one has mentioned that they, quite literally, kill kids. Worse visibility (that high bonnet and driving position puts a big blind area right in front of the bumper) and worse on impact (hits higher on the body and causes chest or head injuries rather than scooping onto the bonnet - much more likely to kill pedestrians)
"[in the US] Pedestrian deaths have surged by 49 percent across the country since 2009, which is about the time when SUV sales started to increase dramatically. As NPR reports, between 2009 and 2016 the number of pedestrians killed by SUVs in single-vehicle collisions soared by 81 percent. The report by the Detroit Free Press also found that SUV and pickups were the main culprit in the increasing pedestrian fatality rate, far outstripping other possible causes like distracted driving, increased walking, or lower gas prices."
Why do people buy SUVs?
"the auto industry’s own studies agreed with this general portrait of SUV buyers. Bradsher described that portrait, comprised of marketing reports from the major automakers, as follows:
Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities."
or as Giles Coren put it - "you want one because your rich friends have got one and if you don't have one you're scared they'll think you're not rich"
people worried about image tend not to buy Skodas.
That hasn’t been a thing since early 90s.
Well that really makes if those capabilities are actually used, I think people buy Range Rovers in general for status/comfort/luxury rather than wading depth and diff locks.
You'll get no argument from me that Range Rovers are hideous wasteful things that are a perfect example of the kind of crass consumption driven society we live in today.
But from an engineering perspective they have that drivetrain and shape for a reason, they are designed to do things like tow a horsebox across a muddy field. The have additional utility compared to a normal car. You can certainly argue about intended use versus actual use but their designed capabilities do serve a purpose.
You can't really make the same argument about Jukes, Quasqais, Karoqs, Sportages, GLCs, Q3s, Q5s, Tiquans ad infinitum. They offer no additional utility over the normal height vehicles they are based on, just more weight and often compromised handling and safety.
edit:wrong tab!
people love a good reason to be grumpy buggers
I've never needed a good reason. A poor one will do quite nicely. At a push, no reason at all.
The have additional utility compared to a normal car.
I put it to you that a Range Rover Evoque is designed 100% for fashion reasons and not at all for additional utility. Any 4wd utility is put there for willy waving and is entirely negated by the supply of 25 profile summer treads.
What makes you think a 2 wheel drive SUV is any worse for the environment that an estate car of similar footprint?
Is it not a case of;
If they don't make it, we won't buy it.
Want to make a difference to global warming, stop the F1, Moto gp, WRC, Touring Cars, Americas cup, Concerts, Summits, flying abroard etc, or just anything where people have to travel to them, consume power, create things to be used, tested, obliterated or just binned.
The energy market is facing a huge issue of recycling fibreglass turbine blades from the electric windmills, they have a 15-20yr lifecycle which is approaching and we're seeing a fibreglass graveyard appear with no major recycling firm doing anything about it because it isn't cost effective, why would a green energy market not look in to the green element of it's products, or generate a recycling platform it knew was coming to bite it on the ass?!?!
We're led by double standards of -
"We made it for you, and you used it, you naughty person you!"
All the best
munrobiker
Memberto replace that Ford Mondeo at 150,000 miles old with a new, more efficient one would use around 88,000 miles worth of CO2. You’re better off keeping the old one going.
I agree that keeping a old car going is often much better than upgrading just to get more "efficiency" but your sums are only relevant if the old car is scrapped. If it's sold and someone else gets more use out of it then it's basically being recycled (multiple times).
What makes you think a 2 wheel drive SUV is any worse for the environment that an estate car of similar footprint?
Weight.
Aerodynamics.
You could read the thread.
molgrips
They can be a fair bit worse yes. 30-40% more CO2 emissions.
How does the same engine in a SUV produce 30-40% more emmisions at 30 mph???