Oversized cars...

[stooz]

Personally I despise these cars. They are completly pointless unless you go offroad (are they any good at that?)

Ive done a few (ok several. Ok a lot) offroad days. Most recently in a Range rover evoque. Certainly not the most offroadish of the range.

The downhill speed decent, 4 wheel independent breaking, snow/ice/mud options (and many more) are very capable of some serious offroad skills.
Any meagre family car would be left long behind.

[Lootman]

Personally I despise these cars. They are completly pointless unless you go offroad (are they any good at that?)

It's fairly sad to despise an inanimate object. So I'd guess what he really means that he despises the kind of person who would buy such a vehicle.

Me? I despise the kind of person who would despise someone merely for choosing a different kind of vehicle from the kind of vehicle that he personally prefers. I guess it's that wild, crazy belief in the freedom thing.

As Rodney King said after being beaten by four policemen: "Can't we all just get along?"

[scotview]

Interesting thread. We live in Scotland, I go fishing and we go hill walking where a 4X4 is useful for tricky off road situations. Also, our house is on a hill and the council have stopped gritting and snow clearing our street. We have recently purchased a Dacia Duster and for £16k you get the following :

Sat nav, air con, good ground clearance, narrow mud and snow tyres as standard, full size spare wheel stored in the boot, flat loading boot with no lip (great for my golf clubs), switchable, 2 wheel drive, intel 4X4 drive or lockable differentials for permanent 4X4, 1500 cc diesel coupled to a six speed, very low ratio, high torque gear box, 45 mpg and road tax £30, 5 Year mechanical warranty that also covers the 4X4 drive !

Great value for a real 4X4 that is narrow enough to park in a normal parking bay, it's a lot easier to park than our 2016 Mondeo.

Not a badge person.

[TopOnePercent]

Someone else I know who has a Wayne Rover deliberately parks on the middle of the space divider line, taking up 2 spaces. To their credit, they do park their car in the space(s) that are rarely used (i.e. miles away from Tescos door for example)

I've lost count of the times I've gone to our local supermarket to find all the bays full, and some numpty parked as described across two bays. I just park the wifes hatchback across the back of them. It doesn't impede the cars opposite or either side of the Range Rooney, but it does mean their selfish behaviour gains the reward of waiting for me to finish shopping before they can leave. The priceless face of indignity & rage are a sight to behold.

The sheer incomprehension when I politely explain that as they were happy to make me wait unnecessarily for a space because they were using two, I was happy to swap that about and have them wait for me instead. Neither of us had door dents, so everyone's a winner really. Stress is a killer, so it's really important in life to make sure that those causing the stress are the ones suffering most from it.

[Clitheroekid]

Personally I despise these cars. They are completly pointless unless you go offroad (are they any good at that?)

It's fairly sad to despise an inanimate object. So I'd guess what he really means that he despises the kind of person who would buy such a vehicle.

Me? I despise the kind of person who would despise someone merely for choosing a different kind of vehicle from the kind of vehicle that he personally prefers. I guess it's that wild, crazy belief in the freedom thing.

It's not so much that they're simply `different'; the dislike is, at least in my case, based on the fact that they are so absurdly huge.

There is clearly no need for something like an Audi Q7 or a BMW X5 to be so gross - they could perform most of the same functions if they were much smaller - and the only logical explanation for their grossness is to feed their owner's ego. It's the UK equivalent of that hideous monster the Ford F50 in the USA, which thank God hasn't made it over here, presumably because fuel is a sensible price here.

So if someone makes the decision to buy a car that's far larger than it needs to be and thereby causes other drivers inconvenience in having to make room for them it's bound to cause some resentment. It's basically an indication of a selfish attitude, and bearing in mind that these vehicles also tend to be heavy on fuel and / or spewing diesel fumes at everyone I think a degree of criticism is entirely justified.

But I also recognise that such critics are rarely whiter than white. Although I heartily dislike large SUV's, at least when they're bought by people who only ever drive in urban areas, I drive a two seater car with an engine that's far larger than it needs to be, and which uses more fuel than is necessary to get me from A to B. I fully accept that such behaviour is to some extent selfish and not environmentally friendly, and that I could be justifiably criticised for buying such a car. But it doesn't and won't stop me doing it, as the pleasure of driving the car outweighs any such criticism or issues of conscience.

No doubt SUV drivers feel the same way, but any of us who decide to act in a conspicuously selfish way can hardly complain about being criticised for doing so.

[DrFfybes]

I drive a two seater car with an engine that's far larger than it needs to be, and which uses more fuel than is necessary to get me from A to B.

I think you'll find it uses *exactly* as much fuel as is necessary to do to get you from A to B. In that car anyway

MrsF's 3.2L 340 BHPZ4M uses less fuel on a run that the 1.6L 70 BHP Toyota. VED is a lot higher though.

The thing about fuel is that as some point it will run out. Only then will people stop driving cars. The irony is that by then the only people who can afford it will be the ultra-wealthy who'll probably be pouring it into something doing 10 mpg.

[Lootman]

The thing about fuel is that as some point it will run out. Only then will people stop driving cars. The irony is that by then the only people who can afford it will be the ultra-wealthy who'll probably be pouring it into something doing 10 mpg.

The funny thing is that the "peak oil" concept is something like 45-50 years old at this point, and yet the shocking truth is that the known energy resources are now greater than when that claim was originally made, despite the massive consumption since then.

So it is entirely possible to believe that we are using carbon-based assets at a greater rate than we are discovering them, and yet still credibly believe that we can all continue to drive private vehicles for a century or more. For the simple reason that we cannot know what we cannot know, i.e. the reserves that we have not yet discovered.

So I will continue to drive my big-arse V8 knowing that its extra fuel consumption is massively out-weighed by the energy savings over buying a new vehicle.

[TopOnePercent]

Objectively, thanks to shale oil etc, we have probably 250 years worth of oil now. The peak oil myth has finally been put to bed for the next few generations at least. And for as long as Mr Musks one man mission to save the world from global warming (I assume he believes it exists), our requirements for oil could one day go into reverse.

[Lootman]

Objectively, thanks to shale oil etc, we have probably 250 years worth of oil now. The peak oil myth has finally been put to bed for the next few generations at least. And for as long as Mr Musks one man mission to save the world from global warming (I assume he believes it exists), our requirements for oil could one day go into reverse.

Yes, or to put it another way, the amount of discovered but as yet unretrieved oil underground currently exceeds what was thought to exist 40 years ago. If that continues the idea of "peak oil" will become ever more discredited as known resources increase and technology improves.

I for one am not buying the paranoia. And I drive a very large thirsty fuel-inefficient vehicle.

[ahenry]

1) They don't roll. there was a much publicised case of a car that did. But I have taken a volvo xc90 around milbrook proving ground at high speeds, through faked rain, tight bends the lot. They skid a little, the traction control handles it well, and they corner far better than anyone should be trying to.

I have driven many other SUV's and they are all pretty much the same. traction is lower, they don't have sports tyres. But body roll is not an issue.

A 1995 Mk1 Discovery rolls.

Find a straight with a roundabout at the end. Brake too late, so you put the left wheels onto the grass, and put the steering on full lock. When you slow down and regain grip, the car will lurch to the right and roll over.

One did this as I came along in the opposite direction. If I had arrived a second later and it could have been pretty nasty as I would have hit it head on. If my bonnet had gone underneath the Discovery's bonnet, it could have and pushed its engine towards my windscreen. I was lucky and it only clipped my nearside rear wing.

This shows where it ended up
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65521224/discovery.jpg
This shows the skidmarks from the Discovery on the entry to the corner.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65521224/Skidmarks.jpg

https://goo.gl/maps/AN84nFHNocG2 is the view I had when the car first came into view. The Google Streetview camera is on the top of a car. You can't see over the middle of the roundabout as there are trees in the way.

[BT63]

A 1995 Mk1 Discovery rolls.

Indeed.
It has been well-known in the SUV-mad USA for many years that SUVs are far more prone to rollover.

The XC90 mentioned earlier is of the most likely vehicles to be involved in an accident, according to insurer statistics.
Also high up the list are SUVs and MPVs such a the Touran, CR-V, FR-v, Hyundai Santa Fe, Rav-4.

So it's either the vehicles that are more dangerous, or the drivers attracted to them.

[redsturgeon]

The XC90 mentioned earlier is of the most likely vehicles to be involved in an accident, according to insurer statistics.
Also high up the list are SUVs and MPVs such a the Touran, CR-V, FR-v, Hyundai Santa Fe, Rav-4.

Do you have a link for this?

John

[PinkDalek]

The XC90 mentioned earlier is of the most likely vehicles to be involved in an accident, according to insurer statistics.
Also high up the list are SUVs and MPVs such a the Touran, CR-V, FR-v, Hyundai Santa Fe, Rav-4.

Do you have a link for this?

John

In the absence of a reply, there's a table here that mentions the XC90 (I haven't checked the others):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollover# ... -over_risk

[redsturgeon]

In the absence of a reply, there's a table here that mentions the XC90 (I haven't checked the others):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollover# ... -over_risk

Thanks PD

John

[lefthanded]

In all this discussion, I am surprised that no-one has mentioned that SUV type vehicles are virtually mandatory for anyone wishing to tow a trailer. Whether horsebox, caravan, boat or burger-bar - if you have to tow it, and wish to tow it SAFELY, you really do need a 4 x 4.

[DrFfybes]

A recent calculation showed there is only around 230,000 miles worth of fuel remaining per automobile in existence. Oil depletion is very real.

http://peakoil.com/forums/we-are-on-our ... 70882.html

About 40 years' worth then at UK average mileage. Slightly more left than they were predicting in the 1970s, 40 years ago

Seriously, "peak oil" isn't exactly known for unbiased reporting. This is one person doing a rough calculation based on current known reserves (a coincidental round number of 1 trillion barrels) the number of vehicles remaining constant and all doing 20 mg.

New discoveries, shale oil, possibly even biodiesel and that estimate could be 50% out. The mpg figure quoted of 20mpg is a USA one, it is probably double that currently outside the USA, and will be 50-60 within a few years given the rate of technological advancement.

So only about a million miles per vehicle left.

Paul

[panamagold]

Alaric wrote:
One of the biggest family cars used to be the range of Volvo estates.

Have had 4. One of the best cars ever made.

Snorvey wrote:
If one is waiting to come out of a junction I'll deliberately make it appear that I'm going to let them out and then drive past slowly (letting any potential gaps around me close up in the process). I'll not pretend that I don't have a wee smile to myself as I dawdle past. As for letting them back in again when their overtaking ambition outweighs their talent...? Aye right.

Wow. It must have taken all sorts of intention and forward thinking to come up with that one. Careful where your toys land when you chuck them out of your drivers window. Oh, and make sure it's open before you do so.

Stooz wrote:
holiday trip to france...live there.
road trip to france to fill the boot with cheap wine...live there.
road trip to france to go skiing (fit skiis in, drive around in thick snow for a week)...live there.
a few trips to ikea... oops no. One trip too far.

ClitheroeKid wrote:
It's the UK equivalent of that hideous monster the Ford F50 in the USA, which thank God hasn't made it over here, presumably because fuel is a sensible price here.

I'm assuming you mean the Ford F150. It's been my vehicle of choice for the past 14 years. Its an enjoyable and easy vehicle to drive, has the most comfortable seats of any car I've ever owned and I'm a committed protagonist of living below my means.

Happy New Year to you all and remember 'let's be careful out there'.