You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Do you have a window? I’ve got a view of a road and my observation is I have seen NO X5M’s today… I saw a Range Rover something but that’s the only big SUV whereas I’ve seen several small SUV’s…
Guessing your window isn’t in Harrogate then?! Can’t see any small SUVs as they are hidden behind all the Land Rovers, Range Rovers, Q7s, X5Ms, Cayennes....
The roads up here are very muddy though and the hills very steep and everyone has 5 kids so these ~20mpg Chelsea tractors are essential.🤔
For many I believe it is all about fashion and status rather than a real need that couldn’t be satisfied by a more economical and appropriate vehicle. By appropriate I mean for urban school runs, super market car parks, town street parking, commuting etc.
For many I believe it is all about fashion and status rather than a real need that couldn’t be satisfied by a more economical and appropriate vehicle. By appropriate I mean for urban school runs, super market car parks, town street parking, commuting etc.
Agree. And the ‘appropriate’ vehicle for urban school runs would normally be a chaperoned ‘walking bus’ or a bakfiets. We just haven’t fully realised or implemented this yet. We’ve planned (and have been forced to plan) everything around car-for-every-journey for so long. Including planning our daily timetable, commute-distances, new towns, etc etc. It’s currently a car-captivated cluster ****, over 70 years in the making.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40600234
You can’t even keep to one set of figures… your Passat vs 35 mph? So the Real world Honest John is ignored for the purpose of your argument?
I'm sorry @stevextc I really cannot understand this sentence.
The fact remains that an SUV is less aerodynamic and heavier than a normal car by definition.
Some manufacturers can make very efficient small ones, it seems, but these are not the load carriers that you seem to think. The ones with big boots are big SUVs not the compact ones, and I think these are the ones that the OP was complaining about. A hypothetical SUV with the same fuel economy and resource usage as a car, that would be fine obviously.
You really are nit picking on small details and not understanding the overall point. How about we rephrase the question to 'why are inefficient cars so popular amidst a climate emergency?' Because the same question really applies to V8 Audi saloons and the like.
I'd happily quite my day-job to drive a school run taxi carrying 6 or so kids. Would have to fill the middle of the day I suppose...
I can’t comment on carbon capture but from what I have heard it wasn’t much more than wishful thinking. They invested loads trying to get it to work at Longannet and eventually gave up when it wasn’t producing decent results. The best economic case for Peterhead was CCGTs replacing the old units, the efficiencies alone would pay for themselves (remember with the OCGTs they would have remained as efficient as they were before so there is a resource cost there as well).
Efficiency wasn't really the issue and the reason I brought this up is because of the parallels with SUV's. The SHORT explanation of that is the ALL SUV's are bad / All hydro-carbon power is bad rhetoric. Ultimately it was SOLD as a Green solution .. without the very real costs of the trees and peat bogs whilst those concerned with the carbon capture commercials just got hacked off.
As a single venture carbon storage was probably always marginally economic but as an interim solution that could have been scaled it got wrecked and as a byproduct tress and bog removed.
Not sure I agree with your views on environmentalists. As I said that’s just greenwashing and anything I have ever heard from any green has been Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Everyone of that ilk that I know wants less (or no) packaging and where needed it should be recyclable. People you describe are the vapid hipster consumerist types who’s fashions change with the weather. If the teachers can’t get it right then that’s just stupidity or willful ignorance on their part but damning recycling as a concept is just daft because some folk can’t get it right.
Using the example above is more like reverse green washing the problem is how most people can possibly tell the difference.
There are equally the "vapid hipster" no fossil fuels crowd that see their goal as zero fossil fuels at any cost, including cutting down trees and digging up peat bogs because the big picture has been obscured by an all encompassing belief that blinds them to facts or the wider picture.
[blockquote]
Apart from that I actually agree with you on the nuances of it all. For some folk an SUV is a good fit, I find it hard to condemn perchy as a similar sized MPV wouldn’t be much better. But that’s not the people being talked about, it’s the folk in Jukes and FR-Vs, the ones in lifestyle urban SUVs that offer nothing over their conventional counterparts. Likewise buying a Tesla S for one person to do a short commute seems wasteful. More-so if they already have a perfectly good car.[/blockquote]
To be fair that's not the title of the thread but probably more importantly it's not the direction SUV's are going.
The newer generation SUV's include very efficient engines and was it not for the "ban all fossil fuel" agenda even more would be hybrids. I'm happy if most people are going from 30 mpg to 50 or 70 mpg having one car not 2.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Everyone of that ilk that I know wants less (or no) packaging and where needed it should be recyclable.
Sadly the recycle part for most people is like telling kids to eat 5 portions of fruit or veg a day. I'll avoid that tangent and just mention freighting fruit is likely not good for either their diet or the environment. This is where recycling is.... and it's not EVEN actual recycling it's "well it says it can be recycled".
I’d happily quite my day-job to drive a school run taxi carrying 6 or so kids. Would have to fill the middle of the day I suppose…
You could deliver online shopping, or be a mobile bicycle repair man. Otherwise those 6 kids' parents are still going to need to own a car.
I’m sorry @stevextc I really cannot understand this sentence.
First you go and look up Honest John's real world figures, then you quote 35 mph ... then you quote whatever figure for your Passat. Whny not just stick to one set of figurees instead of choosing whichever you feel makes your point?
The fact remains that an SUV is less aerodynamic and heavier than a normal car by definition.
So what? What actually matters that someone has a 60 mph car instead of a 25 mpg vs a 58 mpg vs a 25 mpg or even better one 58mpg instead of 2x 25 mpg?
Some manufacturers can make very efficient small ones, it seems, but these are not the load carriers that you seem to think. The ones with big boots are big SUVs not the compact ones, and I think these are the ones that the OP was complaining about. A hypothetical SUV with the same fuel economy and resource usage as a car, that would be fine obviously.
The ones I quoted were for a Accord vs CRV. I used to own an Accord and the boot is HUGE. I used to collect 8'x4' and stick it in. I haven't seen a CRV boot with seats down but why wouldn't I believe the Honda figures at least compared to another Honda?
The fuel figures are again both Honda... are they real world no.. but they are both measured the same way. My mum has a Civic and there is really no comparison of boot space to the Accord.
From what I actually see where I live and drive the majority of SUV's are now overwhelmingly the smaller and more efficient ones. If I had reason to go to the posh area of Woking doubtless i'd see some X5's and Range Rovers... when I'm in fully rural areas most weekends I see real 4x4's being used as 4x4's... and at my weekend destinations a heavy preponderance of Vans with T5's being a top fav.
I can hardly remember the last weekend I didn't get teased for not owning a van.
You really are nit picking on small details and not understanding the overall point. How about we rephrase the question to ‘why are inefficient cars so popular amidst a climate emergency?’ Because the same question really applies to V8 Audi saloons and the like.
Call it nit picking but that is a completely different question ...the original is demonising a whole style of cars regardless of the fact they are actually getting better and better at efficiency and from my quick checks barely less efficient than similar capacity non SUV's especially at 30-40mph.
I'm happy to take that move as a win in the right direction....
Efficiency wasn’t really the issue and the reason I brought this up is because of the parallels with SUV’s. The SHORT explanation of that is the ALL SUV’s are bad / All hydro-carbon power is bad rhetoric. Ultimately it was SOLD as a Green solution .. without the very real costs of the trees and peat bogs whilst those concerned with the carbon capture commercials just got hacked off.
Sorry you're just not making sense here.
You brought it up saying that wind farms were supposed to replace the OCGT's. Fact is the CCGT's were the more efficient replacement and the wind farms were just something else. Carbon capture is a red herring, if it could have worked then it would be in use now but it didn't and was a pipedream from the start. You have to realise that whatever happened at Peterhead was a commercial decision that was probably made before the turn of the century, well before the wind farms started appearing en-masse.
It honestly sounds like it's easier for you to be angry at things taken at face value than atually looking under the surface and taking the key message. I mean, what's the five a day thing about?
If I had reason to go to the posh area of Woking doubtless i’d see some X5’s and Range Rovers… when I’m in fully rural areas most weekends I see real 4×4’s being used as 4×4’s…
It's in no way absolute, but the larger 4x4s around Aviemore tend to belong to holiday makers. The locals drive Pandas, Urban Cruisers and Yetis (and vans).
It honestly sounds like it’s easier for you to be angry at things taken at face value than atually looking under the surface and taking the key message. I mean, what’s the five a day thing about?
5-a day is about what people HEAR for these key messages... when things are presented at a false face value.
The key message that kids heard was 5 servings of fruit a day or pizza and chips and a glass of fruit juice constitutes 3/5 a day, chuck in a pastry with some processed fruit on and that's 4/5.
What (most) people hear ..."All SUV's are bad" ... So despite the advances in efficiency, option of hybrids and even EV's since all SUV's are bad so might as well have a gas guzzler or 2 cars.
What (most) people hear …”All SUV’s are bad”
Yep. It's a form of lazy generalization often illustrating folks existing prejudices. Seen it on this thread already. Also saw it on multiple Brexit topics where folk would blame the result on the over-60s because "they were statistically more likely to have voted leave" and think that acceptable whereas if I was to blame the English and Welsh because they were also more likely to have voted leave I'd be accused of racism.
The newer generation SUV’s include very efficient engines
They do, so why not put that efficient engine in a more aerodynamic and lighter car? The car would be even more economical then, wouldn't it?
So what? What actually matters that someone has a 60 mph
No, what matters is that your car is as efficient as possible.
First you go and look up Honest John’s real world figures, then you quote 35 mph … then you quote whatever figure for your Passat.
35mpg is an entirely typical figure for a big SUV. As for my Passat I have no idea what you are on about but it does between mid 40s and low 60s depending on the trip.
Scotroutes
Yep. It’s a form of lazy generalization often illustrating folks existing prejudices. Seen it on this thread already. Also saw it on multiple Brexit topics where folk would blame the result on the over-60s because “they were statistically more likely to have voted leave” and think that acceptable whereas if I was to blame the English and Welsh because they were also more likely to have voted leave I’d be accused of racism.
I'm reluctant to extend that on this thread except to say the lazy generalisations are what (IMHO) led to Brexit in the 1st place.
Summary:
STW: SUVs are bad, we need to be better to the environment.
Stevextc: This is rubbish, look here's an economical SUV, therefore you are talking nonsense.
STW: Ok but that one car doesn't mean we can do what we like to the environment. People are still buying polluting cars.
Stevextc: Look at this Renault! This proves you are all wrong and it's all nonsense.
STW: But shouldn't we not be buying inefficient cars?
Stevextc: The thread title in inaccurate! And molgrips' Passat! Honest John figures!
Honestly mate I wish you would summarise your actual point instead of posting massive C&P laden rants in poor English.
35mpg is an entirely typical figure for a big SUV.
molgrips, what about the one that's about the same size as your passat? we should probably do like for like.
honestjohn numbers:
vw passat estate 2018 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 53.4mpg
vw tiguan 2016 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 50mpg
so there's a 7% difference (ish)
I note that 50mpg is quite different to 35mpg.
If we're in the business of making random comparisons now then my Outlander shares a platform and a 4wd system with a Lancer Evo X.
I can't be arsed looking it up which one is better for the environment.
It also has a lower Drag Coefficient than a Lamborghini Countach
The key message that kids heard was 5 servings of fruit a day or pizza and chips and a glass of fruit juice constitutes 3/5 a day, chuck in a pastry with some processed fruit on and that’s 4/5.
What?
Are these the same kids being taught that the key to recycling is to generate as much material as possible?
I honestly think you're making things up at this point.
Does a taller car help reduce the aerodynamic drag of a caravan? (thinking of some of the HGVs)
just to chip in on the point raised by Stevextc on the "greenwash con" of wind farms on blanket bog.
i've worked on a few across Scotland where the idea is to remove a plantation forest from an area of blanket bog that was drained to enable trees to be planted (in the 70s/80s/90s), stick a wind farm up, and restore the blanket bog that isn't under a track or a turbine base to peat by blocking up the drains that were dug in to make it possible to stick trees there in the first place. If you've ever been to a wind farm, you'll know that most of it is empty space. So 95%+ of the blanket bog gets restored as part of the habitat management plan for the site.
the draining of the blanket bog created by the planting of trees released all the carbon it stored years ago, and the trees in many of these locations grew so poorly (cos they were planted on blanket bog, duh) that they're not commercially viable, or particularly useful as a carbon sink. Therefore it is a net gain to get rid of them and restore the blanket bog. There are some situations where not putting up wind turbines could be desirable, but nobody is going to stump up the money to clear plantation and restore it to blanket bog unless some sort of development is permitted - particularly as bog restoration is a 100 year project, and a wind farm seems like a reasonable compromise for a number of reasons.
As you previously said on page 8, "Insist on FULL facts…".
Molgrips
35mpg is an entirely typical figure for a big SUV. As for my Passat I have no idea what you are on about but it does between mid 40s and low 60s depending on the trip.
In the same sentence you refer to the economical SUV's then you decide to switch to a "typical figure for a big SUV" to compare to your Passat which you stated was 60 mpg... which you now say is 40-60mpg. My point is stick to one set of numbers... be it real world or Eurotest...
You seem to have decided that a Passat is the ideal size and shape for everyone or at least it seems you justify your choice as to why you didn't buy a C1 or something.
They do, so why not put that efficient engine in a more aerodynamic and lighter car? The car would be even more economical then, wouldn’t it?
No, what matters is that your car is as efficient as possible.
(forgive the mph..I'm typing 1 handed due to injury)
Last first... the answer is no... on several counts
1) It makes no real difference to the real world if your vehicle gets 68.1 or 68.2 mpg any more than saying the most important thing for an XC race bike is weight.
2) As efficient as possible doesn't mean it will last as long. (on the XC bike equate to frame snaps 1/2 way through) ... if the 60mpg car lasts twice as long as the 70 mpg one I'd hazard a bet that the full lifecycle figures would have the longer lasting slightly less efficient one having a lower environmental cost. Your Passat is probably a wise choice in terms of lifetime over a little run about.
3) For many uses the aerodynamics are really not that important. 40 mph and below the difference is quite minor.
4) How you drive the car is also a factor...as is tyre choice etc. at least as much as the decimal points on the MPG
5) How many cars someone has is also a factor ... if the size and shape of a compact SUV fit someones requirements and they only need 1 car that's a plus.
6) Emissions are not directly related to MPG. The lower emission car might get less MPG. As I've stated several times my mothers old Fiat 500 had very good fuel economy but the emissions on the motorway must have been terrible. Anything burning a litre of oil in 300 miles has to be dire.
In all the time I owned the Accord and current BMW I've once added oil between services.. The Accord was well over 200k and the BMW is at 180k...
mrmonkfinger
Membermolgrips, what about the one that’s about the same size as your passat? we should probably do like for like.
honestjohn numbers:
vw passat estate 2018 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 53.4mpg
vw tiguan 2016 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 50mpg
Tiguan is the SUV Golf. The Toureg is probably more comparable, how does that do?
the draining of the blanket bog created by the planting of trees released all the carbon it stored years ago, and the trees in many of these locations grew so poorly (cos they were planted on blanket bog, duh) that they’re not commercially viable, or particularly useful as a carbon sink. Therefore it is a net gain to get rid of them and restore the blanket bog. There are some situations where not putting up wind turbines could be desirable, but nobody is going to stump up the money to clear plantation and restore it to blanket bog unless some sort of development is permitted – particularly as bog restoration is a 100 year project, and a wind farm seems like a reasonable compromise for a number of reasons.
As you previously said on page 8, “Insist on FULL facts…”.
I don't disbelieve that...the problem i have is this isn't what is presented.
What?
Are these the same kids being taught that the key to recycling is to generate as much material as possible?
I honestly think you’re making things up at this point.
Do you have kids?
Either way... just google 5 "a day pizza"
Mashr
Tiguan is the SUV Golf. The Toureg is probably more comparable, how does that do?
Tiguan 615 L, 1,655 L with seat area 50 mpg
Passat Estate 483 to 650 L, 1,613 to 1,780 L with seat area 53.4 mpg
Yeah, a 6 year old who has never been taught anything like that nonsense. Incidentally she was on the eco committee last year so was definitely getting it with both barrels.
Having just googled "5 a day pizza" it would seem it's the topping that counts (shock!) and it says nothing about chips or pastries.
ehrob
Thanks, that's the most interesting thing I've read on this thread.
stevextc
Member
Tiguan 615 L, 1,655 L with seat area 50 mpg
Passat Estate 483 to 650 L, 1,613 to 1,780 L with seat area 53.4 mpg
All that's telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
legometeorology
ehrob
Thanks, that’s the most interesting thing I’ve read on this thread.
Yep +1 .... As I say no problem believing it my issue is why we didn't know that already by which i mean the whole case should be presented including this.
I'd say that part of the answer is the sort of things you're getting at, another large part is just that these things are damn complicated to analyse systematically.
mashr
All that’s telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
Obviously not but many of the people looking for these as their primary criteria will buy a Passat.
A completely different way to look at this than "SUV's are taller and less aerodynamic" is SUV's are taller and allow more room in a smaller, more efficient chassis.
As I've said a few times, a big + for me on the accord was the ability to take 8'x4' sheets in the boot.
With MY criteria a Tiquan and I doubt a Toureg isn't "equivalent" but for a Mum putting an unfolded pushchair it might be "equivalent or better".
Honestly steve you are just blabbering whatabout now.
The bottom line is this: Do not buy an inefficient car.
Do you disagree with this point?
All that’s telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
Are you suggesting that the Tiguan has the same legroom and boot length as a Golf, just because they are both built on the same 'platform'?
Do you know that the Polo, Golf, Passat, Tiguan and about 6 other VW's are all on that platform?
The whole point of the platform is that it's modular and can be used to build cars of lots of shapes and sizes with fewer production steps.
Based on all the hard facts on here I feel ashamed being an suv owner 🙁
I’m going to get rid of it and buy the smallest less polluting car ever made !
Only kidding bloody suv daft I am 🙂
M"
No, what matters is that your car is as efficient as possible.
The bottom line is this: Do not buy an inefficient car.
Yet you drive a Passat Estate? Cannot compute.
All that’s telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
I had a Focus then replaced that with a Kuga that was based on the same platform. It was a much bigger car, especially for rear passengers and in the boot. The Kuga was 4x4 but happily did 45mpg.
The term SUV is used to describe such a wide range of vehicles these days that it makes this thread pretty pointless tbh.
You could deliver online shopping, or be a mobile bicycle repair man. Otherwise those 6 kids’ parents are still going to need to own a car.
I think the ‘point’ was six kids via one car journey saves up to 5 other car journeys?
Most car journeys are local.
double the amount of pollution is emitted from cars in the first five minutes of their journey, as testing has shown that it can take longer than this for pollution control systems to reach operating temperature.
https://airqualitynews.com/2018/05/10/drivers-urged-to-ditch-cars-for-short-journeys/
*
Honestly steve you are just blabbering whatabout now.
The bottom line is this: Do not buy an inefficient car.
Do you disagree with this point?
This is a gross simplification, what people need to do is make more informed choices.
Whether a Passat is considered efficient is dependent upon people's needs and how they use the car as is the effect on the environment. It may well be for you for others it could be very inefficient. Neither does efficiency in MPG relate meaningfully to emissions and pollution.
My mothers old Fiat 500 was very good in MPG and terrible at emissions. Some of the worst emissions are old 2CV's despite them being good MPG for the time.
Ignoring EV's and hybrids..
If its used 95% for long motorway trips only then that's different to 95% short trips in town. Perhaps a less efficient petrol engine is better than a more efficient diesel depending how you "Score" efficiency and convert NOX / CO2 to some "environmental score".
If you do 25,000 miles a year it's different to 3,000
If you have an "inefficient" car for a reason (like you tow a caravan or boat etc. most weekends in summer) is it better to have a second car like an EV or can you use a bike locally?
For some it may be better overall to have a compact/efficient MPV, especially a hybrid.
Even if you have an older "inefficient car" is it actually better or not to scrap it or get another 200k out of it?
The issue I have is the amount of misleading information... including the ALL SUV's are bad or deisel is bad or scrapping a car is better for the environment that are or have been put forwards.
Malvern Rider
double the amount of pollution is emitted from cars in the first five minutes of their journey, as testing has shown that it can take longer than this for pollution control systems to reach operating temperature.
Depending how you SCORE pollution it is worse for deisels ... but if the next 4 hours of your journey are on bypass and motorways then this is (depending how you score) then less.
The issue I have is the amount of misleading information… including the ALL SUV’s are bad or deisel is bad or scrapping a car is better for the environment
Agreed. This is beyond ridiculous.
Everything is degrees.
To be honest my Karoq is within about 5% of boot space of the Octavia anyway. And I much prefer how that space is distributed.
We have an EV for the GF as she does such low miles. On balance I bet we're way below the average estate owner in terms of CO2.
You can't talk about environment without looking at your overall impact.
I think in defence of some SUV owners the smaller 2 wheel drive ones can be negligible compared to the estate versions (was thinking Skoda 1.0 petrols), Also what is also apparent is that there is a shift away from estate cars toward suv's (current car citroen C5 estate, I cannot replace it with another Citroen estate) I think more what the o.p was getting at was the bigger thirstier end of the SUV market. Personally I would rather see a lot less (performance/ luxury gas guzzlers on the road). I mean who actually need more than a (newer)2 litre petrol (and I know some people do) but if you live in a town and are not towing anything a (newer) 2 litre petrol should be more than enough for anyone ( but this being stw someone will find a reason for needing one)
is molgrips turning into the new TJ?
(ps. 4WD diesel estate here that gets about the same MPG as the hallowed passat...)
2 litre petrol should be more than enough for anyone
Try telling my next door but one neighbours, Mr & Mrs plus 2 teenage kids, still think its necessary to have two massive merc & volvo SUV's* if they had just one SUV & a gas guzzling sports car it would make more sense 🤔
*no reason other than for show
Try telling my next door but one neighbours, Mr & Mrs plus 2 teenage kids, still think its necessary to have two massive merc & volvo SUV’s* if they had just one SUV & a gas guzzling sports car it would make more sense 🤔
*no reason other than for show
Precisely, car ownership for some is just a willy waving competition and the sooner people are financially crippled/punished for buying something ridiculous the better because the writing is on the wall for these type of cars and hopefully the tax will make them worthless a lot sooner than normal type cars.
the sooner people are financially crippled/punished for buying something ridiculous the better because the writing is on the wall for these type of cars and hopefully the tax will make them worthless a lot sooner than normal type cars.
And what about the folk that actually do need them - should they be punished for that too? Maybe there should be a panel of STW types sitting in judgement and deciding taxation levels.
There are many types of unnecessary vehicles around, be that big engines, ludicrous performance, inefficient aero, wide tyres etc. this isn't a SUV specific issue.
And what about the folk that actually do need them – should they be punished for that too? Maybe there should be a panel of STW types sitting in judgement and deciding taxation levels.
Well if you need one for business etc have it so you can claim back tax but too many people are buying new cars that are away above what they need. On the other hand a car enthusiast that has a 15 year old Porsche 911 that only does 1000 miles a year do I think he should get taxed more ( the car already exists and he doesn't use it much) it's the new car buyer getting something that is 'adequate' for their needs, not over and above stupid driving about yourself in a 3 litre diesel.
So what were saying is, if you have enough money, you can have whatever you want and that's fine?
Isn't that how it already works?
So what were saying is, if you have enough money, you can have whatever you want and that’s fine?
Isn’t that how it already works?
Well yes it is how it works but heavier taxing would at least stop some of these vehicles making it on the road with manufacturers reducing the volume they make of these type of vehicles. FWIW I an not holier than thou (I have a camper and a car)however I also accept people need to travel but buy a vehicle that is adequate for what you need not over and above.
I'm honestly quite sad that the conclusion of threads like this is always:
It's too complicated, what gives us the right to tell those people what to do when those other people are doing X which is just as bad, what about this other slightly bigger issue, what about China, it you're so righteous why do you still do Y, etc. etc.
And the net result is lots of poor people in countries far from here will be ****ed over, because we want to be slightly more comfortable entering our vehicles or feel like we've done enough by buying something as inefficient as the 15 year old car it replaced, and numerous other small decisions that come together to form the situation we're in.
Which just leads us back to what was said on page one - people can't be trusted to make responsible decisions - so government should step in and legislate. Every time I go out round me you're guaranteed to see sole individuals driving around in things like huge Q7's on narrow lanes where they can't pass or clogging narrow streets that were designed for small cars. The infrastructure hasn't changed much but now we have 'normal' vehicles whose footprint would have only occurred 20 years ago in minibuses and works vans.
Could be done by needing a special permit to drive outsized polluting vehicles for work needs or special personal entitlement needs...and tax them to the hilt- which will happen sooner or later anyway.
It shouldn't have to be that people who feel strongly about ethical or social issues have to justify their whole existence for their opinions to qualify as valid....but as some people can't operate without it, here's mine: 45 years Vegetarian, practically vegan but I like the occasional Cheese, work from home, have a car but put only 3 tanks in last year, ride everywhere, had 3 flights in last decade, don't buy needless consumer tat, in fact rarely buy anything - I'm practically Jesus, It goes Jesus-Kanye- then me, so you see you have to listen now and I say don't buy SUV's...
see, that doesn't work does it....
legometerology
I’m honestly quite sad that the conclusion of threads like this is always:
It's the outcome of
a) Everyone must drive the same as me because it's what everyone else needs
b) Maintaining every SUV is fundamentally "bad" after people went and bought EV ones or 60+ mpg ones...after scrapping their diesel they had been told to buy to save the planet
This totally does my head in. I have a Discovery 4. It does mid twenties, costs a fortune to tax and service and goes wrong at the least opportune moment. It's dirty, polluting and not kind to the environment in any way. But I drive it because I like it. Its the best way of carting my family, my dogs, my bikes and all our luggage wherever we want to go, in a reasonable amount of luxury, in any weather.
Plus, it only does about 3000 miles a year, so don't tell me I'm doing the planet in when countless sales reps do 30,000 miles a year in 1.6 Diesel Volkswagens and BMW 320d estates.
While I still have the freedom to choose, I'll keep driving it. When I replace it I'll have a V8 Range Rover, just to annoy the tree-huggers.
And me scrapping it overnight is going to make precisely no difference to anything at all.
You are such a badass.
I think posts like that rather sum up the mentality of many SUV owners. Sadly, it confirms what I suspected - they're arrogant, selfish, unreasonable, and will basically make consumer choices, no matter how damaging, in order to seek approval/disapproval of other people. I guess when you have societies where even large minorities of these types of people exist and then throw in a fairly ruthless industry like the automotive sector, you end up with a situation where only government can mitigate the damages inflicted on the environment and public health, but that is not happening and will not happen any time soon.
It’s dirty, polluting and not kind to the environment in any way. But I drive it because I like it.
As the esteemed Chris Harris points out in that rather good video clip from earlier in the thread, the car industry came up with a better design solution for your requirements over 30 years ago in the Renault Espace...the industries offerings to the marketplace nowadays really are a turgid blip in automotive history driven by other far less practical desires...
Plus, it only does about 3000 miles a year, so don’t tell me I’m doing the planet in when countless sales reps do 30,000 miles a year in 1.6 Diesel Volkswagens and BMW 320d estates.
As I said - regardless of how many miles you do, in your car you are still unarguably wasting fuel. And it's too precious to waste.
I waste fuel too, I'm not trying to proclaim superiority. But those are the facts and you need to come to terms with that. You are simply in the wrong.
And me scrapping it overnight is going to make precisely no difference to anything at all.
No but you having a '**** the environment I'll do what I like I don't care' attitude has a negative impact. Plus with you passing that attitude it onto your kids*, and your attitude validating their own poor behaviour, I reckon you've got quite a bit of carbon on your hands there.
* that and the issue that they will be hearing experts and scientists telling them that we need to save energy, then at some point they'll say 'Daddy do we have an efficient car?' and you'll have to say 'no, but don't listen to those ****s we're right and we can do what we like', and if we're unlucky they'll internalise that attitude, take it through life and end up like those regressive people who vote for Tory Brexiteers cos 'they've had enough of experts' and end up ****ing the entire country cos they think they know best. But you know best don't you?
Treasury is considering how to increase road tax for higher emission cars as "car buyers are, on average, making higher emitting choices"
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/351849/drivers-could-pay-ps2135-year-road-tax
why does it matter if you waste fuel? There's a finite amount of it, which will be turned into a given amount of CO2. As long as you're not burning it in something ancient which is pumping out particles that could be caught in a CAT or other filter, all you are doing is (very very marginally) speeding up the fuel->co2 conversion process, which will stop once its all run out
I felt a proper charlie this morning as i drove up a snowy hill past the guy in the Passat Estate who was stuck in a hedge.
I stopped, offered my apologies for destroying the planet, bid him a cheery fare-thee-well and carried on my way to work in my snow tyre clad 4wd world killer.
In the same way you pay for the tax on fuel in relation to emission, you should pay tax on the vehicle commensurate with the emissions from its construction.
If a mid/large car is 17 tonnes and a luxury SUV is 45 tonnes and the average fuel use is 3.6 tonnes for and 5.5 tonnes respectively for 11000 miles, then over 10 years, the additional annual tax on each vehicle should be 10% of the construction emissions x the tax on the fuel the car would use to make those emissions. After 10 years, The car tax becomes a flat rate like now.
For the car, you'd effectively be paying additional fuel tax equal to about 3700 miles of driving at whatever its MPG, say 50, so about £300 tax per year, and for the SUV more like 8000 miles of driving at 25 MPG, so £1100 a year. All for 10 years. If fuel tax goes up, so does your tax, etc.
So a mid/large car would cost £3000 in tax over 10 years, an SUV, £11000. If tax goes up beyond say 70p, then the tax scales too.
you should pay tax on the vehicle commensurate with the emissions from its construction.
You do, you pay tax on purchase price of the car which is based on the wholesale price which is based on the manufacturing cost which ultimately depends on the base materials and manufacturing going in to making it. That's why they are more expensive - and people buy them still.
There’s a finite amount of it, which will be turned into a given amount of CO2.
We might not burn it all. We could end up leaving much of it in the ground, if we get our act together.
As I said – regardless of how many miles you do, in your car you are still unarguably wasting fuel. And it’s too precious to waste.
I waste fuel too, I’m not trying to proclaim superiority. But those are the facts and you need to come to terms with that. You are simply in the wrong.
It's really not that important.
If he scraps the Disco and gets something else then that's another load of ore to be mined, smelted and bits from across the planet moved about to create a new car.
The case for scrapping a brand new SUV that's getting 60 mpg to change it for a Passat that gets 50 mpg seems even dodgier but regardless the point of 60 mpg vs 61 mpg itself is pointless.
In terms of the bigger picture what this ranting about 1-2 mpg difference and every fraction counts achieves is
When I replace it I’ll have a V8 Range Rover, just to annoy the tree-huggers.
that and the issue that they will be hearing experts and scientists telling them that we need to save energy, then at some point they’ll say ‘Daddy do we have an efficient car?’ and you’ll have to say ‘no, but don’t listen to those **** <s>we’re right and we can do what we like</s> .. instead they are the same idiots telling people with 65 mpg SUV's they should scrap them and get a 63 mpg estate.
In the same way you pay for the tax on fuel in relation to emission, you should pay tax on the vehicle commensurate with the emissions from its construction.
If a mid/large car is 17 tonnes and a luxury SUV is 45 tonnes and the average fuel use is 3.6 tonnes for and 5.5 tonnes respectively for 11000 miles, then over 10 years, the additional annual tax on each vehicle should be 10% of the construction emissions x the tax on the fuel the car would use to make those emissions. After 10 years, The car tax becomes a flat rate like now.
Although I like that direction, 10 years is WAY WAY too long IMHO and would probably lead to even more early scrap-age.
IMHO there needs to be more incentive to not scrap a car and that would possibly involve taxing the manufacturer or putting them on the hook for any car that doesn't get to say 250k...
This would be offset against tax breaks for the manufacturer for making the car more economical to replace an engine or part of that makes it more efficient and/or less polluting.
instead they are the same idiots telling people with 65 mpg SUV’s they should scrap them and get a 63 mpg estate.
Where the flying **** did I say that?
I suggest you slow down and really read my posts carefully. That's not what I'm saying AT ALL.
The case for scrapping a brand new SUV that’s getting 60 mpg to change it for a Passat that gets 50 mpg seems even dodgier
Can you link to where I supposedly made that case?
Where the flying **** did I say that?
Calm down... it say "they".
They is the people who said "get a diesel it's better for the planet" then "scrap the diesel its killing the planet"...
I suggest you slow down and really read my posts carefully. That’s not what I’m saying AT ALL.
You went on and on about the extra height of a SUV and how its less efficient....
This is how your voice joins the "theys"....
As for reading it carefully .... try reading what I wrote.....
So when John doe is sat in his new V8 Range Rover and little Jane asks ‘Daddy do we have an efficient car?’ a very likely answer would be that they can't win.. they looked at a 68mpg SUV and got told it's inefficient and if they bought the same chassis without a raised roof they'd be getting a whopping 1-2 mpg more on the urban cycle. No pleasing them.. so might as well get the V9 Range Rover...
Let's see if I can make it clearer ....
Whilst people go on about every last mpg and every drop of fuel and every extra inch of height affecting efficiency then when he's asked to justify the V8 Range Rover his answer will be along the lines of "doesn't matter what car I get those ***ers will criticise it and say I should have bought whatever they are saying this year".
You went on and on about the extra height of a SUV and how its less efficient….
Yeah it is.
My main gripe is the people who drive inefficient cars. So that's the big Range Rovers and S8s and all the rest of it. You managed to find something technically classed as a compact SUV that gets decent MPG - great, well done. But the point stands.
You also pointed out that scrapping cars for more efficient models doesn't necessarily make sense due to the manufacturing impact, but we already knew this.
So when John doe is sat in his new V8 Range Rover and little Jane asks ‘Daddy do we have an efficient car?’ a very likely answer would be that they can’t win.. they looked at a 68mpg SUV and got told it’s inefficient and if they bought the same chassis without a raised roof they’d be getting a whopping 1-2 mpg more on the urban cycle. No pleasing them.. so might as well get the V9 Range Rover…
What? As I said - my gripe is with inefficient cars.
Let’s see if I can make it clearer ….
Nope. That makes little sense.
Again. Inefficient = bad, efficient = good. Do we agree?
This whole we were told to buy diesel thing, every time.
It was and still is true that diesel cars produce a lot less CO2 than petrol cars. Hence why they were promoted so much and as a result the UK transport sector produces a lot less CO2.
What has changed is that we now realise how bad NO2 emissions are for our health.
We are constantly finding out things that we thought were fine for us and now realise aren't: asbestos, bacon etc.
Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, I have only been dipping in and out of this thread but I wanted to get that off my chest.
VW Tiguans, are about the same size inside as a Golf
Except they're nowhere near the same on the inside, the Tiguan is much larger inside and out than a golf.
Yeah it is.
My main gripe is the people who drive inefficient cars. So that’s the big Range Rovers and S8s and all the rest of it. You managed to find something technically classed as a compact SUV that gets decent MPG – great, well done. But the point stands.
Nope. That makes little sense.
The point is if you go on about how SUV's are intrinsically "inefficient" due to roof height when there are not only lots of but increasing numbers of SUV's that are quite literally within a couple of mpg of something with a similar perceived boot space that instead of buying a 60mpg SUV Joe/Jane Doe will just say "sod it .. I get criticised whatever I buy unless its a tiny citycar I can't get a pram/bike whatever in so I'll just buy a big Range Rovers or S8".
Again. Inefficient = bad, efficient = good. Do we agree?
My view is we need to move people away from completely inefficient cars into much more efficient cars. Based on this I see these ....
You managed to find something technically classed as a compact SUV that gets decent MPG
that are from my observation replacing the big/efficient SUV's in terms of new cars I see this as something to encourage.
Inefficient = bad, efficient = good. Do we agree?
Yep, my SUV is much more efficient at transporting seven people than any five seat car. 🙂
This whole we were told to buy diesel thing, every time.
It was and still is true that diesel cars produce a lot less CO2 than petrol cars. Hence why they were promoted so much and as a result the UK transport sector produces a lot less CO2.
What has changed is that we now realise how bad NO2 emissions are for our health.
We are constantly finding out things that we thought were fine for us and now realise aren’t: asbestos, bacon etc.
Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, I have only been dipping in and out of this thread but I wanted to get that off my chest.
So I had mentioned this earlier and this diesel NoX is the a question ...
How do I score Nox vs CO2 ?
It's incredibly complex and depends what / how you score....
If I'm driving in the middle of nowhere then how bad is the NoX??? Unlike CO2 the NoX is a far more localised effect... I think everyone agrees in towns and cities its bad but at what point is reducing the CO2 better?
Yep, it's complex but NoX isn't new.... perhaps some of the health issues are but certainly a large part of current city emissions problems are a result of the earlier diesel is good, petrol is bad over simplification where lots of people mistakenly bought diesel not only where the NoX was going to have the worst effect but where the diesel was not going to be efficient either .
Aerodynamic drag from the body work is only a small factor in the inefficiency of an SUV and only really becomes significantly important at speed over 40mph. The biggest factor by far is weight. A A focus hatchback is around 1220kg for a small engined model without leather, a focus estate around 1350kg for the same spec. A Kuga is closer to 1500kg and is smaller inside than the estate and larger than the hatch. For fuel economy - real world (from Fuelly) the 140bhp 1.0l Focus gets around 40mpg, the Kuga with the same engine - closer to 30. That figure is far worse for the diesel with the hatch attaining 58mpg and the Kuga 42mpg. The Kuga is also slower to 60 despite using different gear ratios to try and lessen it. 25-30% difference. Not manufacturers figures, real figures. Not a tiny city car vs a Range Rover, two cars to seat 4 adults with a decent sized boot, from the same manufacturer using the same engine and a slightly revised gearbox (Kuga).
So 150-300kg heavier for the same job. More bodywork = more weight = bigger brakes = larger wheel/tyres to stop it and more fuel to make it go. In town, where you're constantly accelerating and decelerating, those MPG figures would be far worse.
Yep, my SUV is much more efficient at transporting seven people than any five seat car.
Is your 7 seat SUV more efficient than a 7 seat MPV?
Aerodynamic drag from the body work is only a small factor in the inefficiency of an SUV and only really becomes significantly important at speed over 40mph.
I think most people do most of their miles over that speed as we tend to drive a long way on NSL roads or motorways.
Yep, it’s complex but NoX isn’t new….
No, the US has been much stricter than we have for ages. However only recently the scale of the problem was uncovered in the UK because proper monitoring was done.
A Kuga is closer to 1500kg and is smaller inside than the estate and larger than the hatch.
Interesting, you can make the same argument for Focus over Mondeo. The Focus Estate is bigger than the Mondeo.
Is your 7 seat SUV more efficient than a 7 seat MPV?
At driving up snowy hills and through building sites and along unpaved roads to remote military sites?
Very much so.
Fuel wise? It’s slightly more economical than the SMax it replaced.
Efficiency has many metrics
We might not burn it all. We could end up leaving much of it in the ground, if we get our act together.
Lol. Have you met humans? If there’s money to be made by exploiting a resource, it will be exploited.
The only way to leave it in the ground is to not have any machinery that burns it, anywhere. That’s an impossibly big ask. It’s not just cars that burn oil.
This isn't about YOU PP and you damned well know that you're in the minority of people who actually use a 4*4 for it's intended purpose most of the time.
What I'm talking about are people like my mate who has a Range Rover to go to work, because twice per year he goes camping and/or tows a horsebox or transports 6 people over distance. so for 99.9% of his journeys he's driving all four wheels of his 2.7 tonnes vehicle, damaging the roads, environment, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, I had a Focus followed by a Kuga that was based on the exact same chassis. Regardless of the estate’s boot the bit that most people think most important, the seating area, ‘felt’ much bigger in the Kuga. Most of that was probably down to the higher roof and raised seating position which gives the impression of more leg room. Regardless what the STW brains trust thinks, this is usually the reason people buy jacked up hatchbacks.
It might be a great way to ferry your kids around, but the particulate concentrations inside the SUV must be off the scale.