What do people recommend for mid range 4 x 4

pblakeney

philthy3 wrote:

What total rubbish. The only dangerous part of a car is the idiot behind the wheel. Makes no difference what make or model it is if the driver is a danger. It is an urban myth that 4x4 drivers are the worst on the road just the same as it was supposed to be white van man not so long ago and that Volvo drivers have more accidents with motorcyclists. Wasn't the old dear that killed one of the honeymoon couple out cycling in Scotland driving a Nissan Micra or something?

It matters not whether a 4x4 owner needs it to go off road regularly. Some will buy them for the added impact resistance, road presence, seat height making it easier to get in and out for those with dodgy hips/knees etc, increased load space (D+W+H) and the fact it's robust enough to not get wrecked by chucking whatever rubbish in it, increased road clearance for on and off road, because they're cars that don't mind being caked in shoot all year round and for that odd occasion when the weather is crap enough to necessitate 4 wheel drive. Nobody needs Di2, but I wouldn't think ill of them for having it.

Touchy!
Which 4x4 do you have?

debeli

Citroen 2CV Sahara, anyone?

Surely the best example ever of thinking outside whatever it is most people think inside.

Also, one of the final examples of engineering and production with the aim of meeting a demand specific to an overseas colony. A true product of the 'imperial' age (not strictly so in France's case, but imperial in all but name) and a funktastic sand-scrabbler with four seats - although sadly no real boot space and it was quite noisy and heavy on fuel.

And probably had poor NCAP figures for impact resistance and the wipers were only one-speed and there was no stereo (other than the engines) and....

But despite its drawbacks, it was surely the best 4X4 by far.

meanredspider

philthy3 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Because they are heavy, they are thirsty and more of a danger to other road users.

What total rubbish. The only dangerous part of a car is the idiot behind the wheel. Makes no difference what make or model it is if the driver is a danger. It is an urban myth that 4x4 drivers are the worst on the road just the same as it was supposed to be white van man not so long ago and that Volvo drivers have more accidents with motorcyclists. Wasn't the old dear that killed one of the honeymoon couple out cycling in Scotland driving a Nissan Micra or something?

It matters not whether a 4x4 owner needs it to go off road regularly. Some will buy them for the added impact resistance, road presence, seat height making it easier to get in and out for those with dodgy hips/knees etc, increased load space (D+W+H) and the fact it's robust enough to not get wrecked by chucking whatever rubbish in it, increased road clearance for on and off road, because they're cars that don't mind being caked in shoot all year round and for that odd occasion when the weather is crap enough to necessitate 4 wheel drive. Nobody needs Di2, but I wouldn't think ill of them for having it.

Well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you've missed my point.

If you have to stop hard on a motorway and you happen to be driving a Fiat 500, when you look in your rear view mirror, what do you hope to see bearing down on you:

1. An 800kg Smart
2. A 1100kg supermini
3. A 3 tonne 4x4

It's a simple matter of physics. The 4x4 will typically take longer to stop, hit you with more force and the weight will be higher up where your Fiat is less capable of absorbing it safely.

Add to this information that you need to power a big 3 tonne block - thus, typically, pumping out more carbon monoxide and PM10s.

Finally, a well-documented reason for buying 4x4s is because people feel safer. Psychology tells us that if you feel safer you'll take more risks - after all, you're cocooned high up in a 3 tonne robust steel box.

And, you know what - even if not all of those are true (in any specific instance), other road users believe they are true.

StillGoing

meanredspider wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Because they are heavy, they are thirsty and more of a danger to other road users.

What total rubbish. The only dangerous part of a car is the idiot behind the wheel. Makes no difference what make or model it is if the driver is a danger. It is an urban myth that 4x4 drivers are the worst on the road just the same as it was supposed to be white van man not so long ago and that Volvo drivers have more accidents with motorcyclists. Wasn't the old dear that killed one of the honeymoon couple out cycling in Scotland driving a Nissan Micra or something?

It matters not whether a 4x4 owner needs it to go off road regularly. Some will buy them for the added impact resistance, road presence, seat height making it easier to get in and out for those with dodgy hips/knees etc, increased load space (D+W+H) and the fact it's robust enough to not get wrecked by chucking whatever rubbish in it, increased road clearance for on and off road, because they're cars that don't mind being caked in shoot all year round and for that odd occasion when the weather is crap enough to necessitate 4 wheel drive. Nobody needs Di2, but I wouldn't think ill of them for having it.

Well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you've missed my point.

If you have to stop hard on a motorway and you happen to be driving a Fiat 500, when you look in your rear view mirror, what do you hope to see bearing down on you:

1. An 800kg Smart
2. A 1100kg supermini
3. A 3 tonne 4x4

It's a simple matter of physics. The 4x4 will typically take longer to stop, hit you with more force and the weight will be higher up where your Fiat is less capable of absorbing it safely.

Add to this information that you need to power a big 3 tonne block - thus, typically, pumping out more carbon monoxide and PM10s.

Finally, a well-documented reason for buying 4x4s is because people feel safer. Psychology tells us that if you feel safer you'll take more risks - after all, you're cocooned high up in a 3 tonne robust steel box.

And, you know what - even if not all of those are true (in any specific instance), other road users believe they are true.

You are again assuming that the driver of the 4x4 is an idiot and the other car drivers aren't. You are making biased opinions based on what evidence exactly? The chances of anything ploughing into the back of you on the hard shoulder would suggest it is going to be something that travels at lower speeds to be in the left hand lane at the time, such as a goods vehicle, coach, nervous driver or a car with limited performance.

I don't know about anyone else's 4x4 but mine stops pretty damn quick if it needs to and braking distances these days are more affected by driver reaction times than the vehicles braking ability. Modern day vehicles can stop easily inside the highway code recommended stopping distances. But, to address your argument; who is to say that a 4x4 driver is less alert to be able to apply the brakes than a Fiat 500 driver? Even if they have the same level of alertness, the 4x4 will have all round disc brakes the size of the 500's wheels, which will probably have rear drum brakes.

Who gives a fek about emissions? I didn't buy a car to appease any tree huggers. I can afford the fuel consumption of a big car and as they are not banned, I will freely do so. But, your statement does tend to indicate why you are so biased against 4x4s maybe?

And your final claim that driving a car that is capable of withstanding an impact better than a flimsy piece of tin somehow makes you more psychologically imbalanced is laughable. I cannot believe that you think anyone that gets behind the wheel of a 4x4 becomes a raving risk taker.

There are many reasons why people choose to drive a 4x4 and if one of them is because of the added benefits of safety in an impact, what is the problem? Why would you not choose to use the best protection you can to ensure the safety of yourself and your passengers especially if they are children? And don't forget that some 4x4s are not actually 4x4s. The Sports Utility Vehicle class now has 2 wheel drive versions alongside the 4 wheel drive versions.

Right, I'm off to go an tailgate some Fiat 500s on the motorway.

meanredspider

^ well, there in print (to answer the question posed earlier), is why people don't tend to like the drivers of 4x4s

Ignoring your lack of understanding of vehicle dynamics, I find it difficult to believe, as a cyclist, you don't care about poisoning cyclists.

It's nothing to do with the abilities of 4x4 drivers - my brother gets given new Discovery models by JLR to see if he can break them because he has used so many of them from the very first one. He sells agricultural equipment and tows articulated trailers with them. He truly needs a 4x4. But he'll be the first to tell you that they don't stop as quick nor turn as quick as his car - he was never great at physics at school but understands the basics.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. I'll debate with Manc33 but I know when I'm banging my head against a very thick wall.

pblakeney

philthy3 wrote:

There are many reasons why people choose to drive a 4x4 and if one of them is because of the added benefits of safety in an impact, what is the problem? Why would you not choose to use the best protection you can to ensure the safety of yourself and your passengers especially if they are children?

The problem with this argument is that as everyone buys into it then everyone drives a 4x4 (or similar) and the safety is negated. All you are left with is inferior handling. The basic principle is mass and momentum and is indisputable.
It is the gun analogy.
Everyone has a gun (4x4) so everyone else needs a gun (4x4).
Better make your next purchase a Scania.

t4tomo

andyrr wrote:

We've a Citroen Crosslander (pretty much the exact same as Mitsubishi Outlander and a Peugeot something).
Seems ok : pretty good boot space with the standard rear seat up, has skinny extra set of seats to take another 2 passengers which reduces boot space to minimal. Not that many of these around - more of the Outlander versions which I've seen the Police use so that is maybe a recommendation of sorts.
1st to 2nd gear is developing a mild crunch which seems to be a weakness on them, grr but other than that it is drives fine for a not massive 4x4 thing.
Std is 2WD, knob to put into 4WD and also lock the diffs. Since we got it (18 months ago) the winters haven't seen the roads around us too snowy/icy but a few times on my wife's drive to work she has engaged 4WD for the minor roads and she has been happy with it - she loves it, I nickname it 'The truck' but it isn't really that HGV like, just in comparison to my 12 yr old Golf.

Getting back to the OPs original request.

My missus has an outlander and yes it's a decent vehicle, and switchable from 2 to 4WD. Very good on the snow and pretty practical without being as huge as a Disco or similar. The rear 2 seats are OK for shortish journeys and kids but not for adults on a long trip.p, it has a cracking sound system too with a whopping speaker in the boot and a decent screen for DVDs in the roof.

It isn't a comfy as my Volvo V70 though which is also 4WD and has almost as much boot space and just as poor economy and a wider turning circle.

pblakeney

t4tomo wrote:

Getting back to the OPs original request.

The OP gave up during page 1.

pinno

4 pages and counting...

I bought a Mercedes w123 series, 1982 Y reg. I used to travel regularly between Cheltenham and Gloucester. In Cheltenham, people would be much more courteous and then cross the M5...

I don't understand the need for a 4x4 in urban areas. Unless you have a valid need for one, I think that sales should be restricted. They are heavy fuel guzzling space taking tanks usually used for ferrying Tarquin and Penelope 500 yds to school. Those Range Rovers are horrible in yer face look at me vehicles.
A 4x4 crashed into the back of our van - simple driver mistake but that act is, it didn't stop quick enough. I looked up the figures. Our van weighs 2180 kg's. the 4x4 - 3200 kg's and the van stopped quicker, funny that.

Got in a taxi recently and had a conversation. The driver said he owned a big Merc M Class. He said it was for towing a horse box. It had a 2.7 litre diesel engine. I cannot understand why a standard C or E class 2.7 litre would pull any less than an M class given they are a good ton lighter.

For the OP (if he hasn't legged it). Subaru Legacy or Forrester. Plenty of oomph.

StillGoing

meanredspider wrote:

^ well, there in print (to answer the question posed earlier), is why people don't tend to like the drivers of 4x4s

Ignoring your lack of understanding of vehicle dynamics, I find it difficult to believe, as a cyclist, you don't care about poisoning cyclists.

It's nothing to do with the abilities of 4x4 drivers - my brother gets given new Discovery models by JLR to see if he can break them because he has used so many of them from the very first one. He sells agricultural equipment and tows articulated trailers with them. He truly needs a 4x4. But he'll be the first to tell you that they don't stop as quick nor turn as quick as his car - he was never great at physics at school but understands the basics.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. I'll debate with Manc33 but I know when I'm banging my head against a very thick wall.

You haven't presented any rationale for hating SUV drivers other than perhaps that you are indeed a tree hugger, but one that finds it acceptable to drive a big diesel Merc estate themselves. Until you are running the country, (which I seriously doubt will ever happen) drivers are free to buy and run whatever size and specification of vehicle they see fit for their individual needs. The hatred for them boils down to nothing more than pure jealousy. The have and have nots thing. And you still don't grasp that driver reaction times are vitally important in being able to stop a vehicle within a safe distance and avoid a collision. How do you know that a SUV driver is not more alert to what is going on than your Fiat 500 driver? You don't. Yes, it is right that a 3 tonne mass hitting you at 20mph is going to hurt, but then so is a 1.5 tonne mass. Anticipating that the collision you are going to have is going to involve a SUV is sheer lunacy. You may as well go around fearing the moon is going to drop on your head. If there were any indication that SUVs are involved in far more collisions than all other category of vehicle, the government would have moved to ban them. Fact is, you are far more likely to survive a collision if you are in a large vehicle, which is one valid reason for someone to drive one ferrying Tarquin and Penelope to school. For many owners they are far more practical for their needs than just off road excursions. Sports UTILITY Vehicle.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3400214/

meanredspider

If you read my original response properly rather than go defensive you'll realise that I was respinding to the question as to why the PUBLIC AT LARGE don't like 4x4s not why I don't like them. Yes, I drive a big diesel estate but:
1. It runs a highly efficient twin turbo 2.2 litre engine giving over 40mpg
2. It's a car - it has much better handling and braking characteristics than a 4x4
3. It's a car - it has a much more aerodynamic body shape
4. It's a car - it weight about 1 tonne or more less than the equivalent 4x4
5. It actually has more useful internal volume than most 4x4s
6. Fitted with winter tyres, it is perfectly happy in snow (and on mud) which it's likely to encounter.

BTW - the article you linked to refers to cars. The scale doesn't even get up to 3 tonnes.

But, heh, as I said, I know when I'm wasting my time.

meanredspider

I will add that I don't know why you're hung up on the reactions of the driver - I've never mentioned that. It's simple Newtonian physics - you have
1. a heavy vehicle
2. High centre of gravity
3. Lots of un sprung mass
4. Often on compromised tyres (for off-road capability)
5. With lots of suspension travel

It simply isn't going to stop or turn as well as the equivalent car. In fact, if you were to develop a track car, none of the characteristics above would be desirable.

But, the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude (which you perfectly demonstrate) because you'll flatten the car you hit (because you can't steer or stop as well as him) is why people tend not to to like 4x4s.

All you've done in your responses is confirm everyone's prejudices. Nice job.

StillGoing

meanredspider wrote:

If you read my original response properly rather than go defensive you'll realise that I was respinding to the question as to why the PUBLIC AT LARGE don't like 4x4s not why I don't like them. Yes, I drive a big diesel estate but:
1. It runs a highly efficient twin turbo 2.2 litre engine giving over 40mpg
2. It's a car - it has much better handling and braking characteristics than a 4x4
3. It's a car - it has a much more aerodynamic body shape
4. It's a car - it weight about 1 tonne or more less than the equivalent 4x4
5. It actually has more useful internal volume than most 4x4s
6. Fitted with winter tyres, it is perfectly happy in snow (and on mud) which it's likely to encounter.

BTW - the article you linked to refers to cars. The scale doesn't even get up to 3 tonnes.

But, heh, as I said, I know when I'm wasting my time.

meanredspider wrote:

I will add that I don't know why you're hung up on the reactions of the driver - I've never mentioned that. It's simple Newtonian physics - you have
1. a heavy vehicle
2. High centre of gravity
3. Lots of un sprung mass
4. Often on compromised tyres (for off-road capability)
5. With lots of suspension travel

It simply isn't going to stop or turn as well as the equivalent car. In fact, if you were to develop a track car, none of the characteristics above would be desirable.

But, the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude (which you perfectly demonstrate) because you'll flatten the car you hit (because you can't steer or stop as well as him) is why people tend not to to like 4x4s.

All you've done in your responses is confirm everyone's prejudices. Nice job.

Not at all. You keep alluding to a SUV is far more likely to have a collision than a normal car and it simply isn't true. Collisions are invariably driver error. If a vehicle goes into the back of someone, a factor will be driver error and their reaction times. Everyone should be driving anticipating that everyone else on the road is an idiot and likely to do something unexpectedly. Doesn't matter what type of vehicle you are in. SUVs these days come with road biased tyres as an option and the suspension is more often than not air sprung, or as with my car, has sports suspension. They aren't tall enough for weight transference to be a significant factor. 2010/11 tests by Car and Driver revealed a VW Touareg SUV has a braking distance of 177ft from 70mph. A Mercedes E350 saloon has a braking distance of 183ft from the same speed. A Ford Fiesta STi 191ft. Big cars may weigh more, but they also have a bigger foot print and bigger brakes backed up by automatic distance sensors on modern cars.

If a small car drives into mine or pulls out in front of me and comes off significantly worse, is it my fault they chose not to drive a bigger car? You seem to be suggesting it is.

SUVs are within that link. My car being a large SUV weights a mere 2.5 ton and the Range Rovers etc are similar.

My car a 3.0 V6 twin turbo returns a healthy brim to brim mpg of 36 so not far behind your aerodynamic car. Other owners achieve even higher figures with a lighter foot than mine and less use of the flappy paddle gear shift. It also hauls along from 0-62 in 7.0 seconds despite being shaped like a brick thanks to 600nm of torque. It corners without rolling over even in fast turns and has never posed a problem in cross winds. The cargo area is cavernous with or without the rear seats down. Mine only occasionally ventures off road, but it's practicalities meet my family's needs and far outweigh anything else in the market at this time. But, the tree huggers and throw back hippies can choose to hate me because I could afford a £50k car and didn't spend it on a Prius, the production of which's batteries cause more damage to the environment than a diesel car.

pinno

Penelope and Tarquin need to walk or cycle to school but because all the other paranoid parents drive, they think it is not safe so the next set of parents justify buying a big , 'safe' car...

meanredspider

Again you're missing the whole point because you are so wrapped up in YOU. It's you, you, you - all about you.

So YOU have a £50k SUV that YOU can get 36mpg out of and YOURS is fitted with the bells and whistles that try to mitigate the problems of it being big, heavy and inherently wobbly. How many of the 4x4s on the road are up to the same standard? Very few.

But it's OK because YOU have got the car you have. But when your kids start to drive they will find that insurance companies aren't keen on 17 year old kids driving 50k, 3 litre V6 twin turbo 4x4s with 600Nm of torque and (frankly) a leasurely 0-60 time. They'll prefer they drive the Fiat 500. And yes, maybe they won't be such expert drivers. But, heh, if they do make a mistake they might be killed but the occupants of the 4x4 won't have a scratch on them.

But everything you've written has illustrated much better than I ever could why people dislike 4x4 drivers. And, probably, for the first time in my life, I'm beginning to think that they have a point.

norvernrob

Maybe we should take all vans, lorries and HGV's off the road just in case they drive into the back of a car.

In fact, while we're at it we better take Fiat 500s and all other superminis off the road too in case they drive into the back of a motorbike.

Then we can take motorbikes off the road too in case they hit a bicycle.

Then we can take bicycles off the road in case they hit a pedestrian.

Then we can all walk, nobody gets killed and everyone is happy.

meanredspider

NorvernRob wrote:

Maybe we should take all vans, lorries and HGV's off the road just in case they drive into the back of a car.

In fact, while we're at it we better take Fiat 500s and all other superminis off the road too in case they drive into the back of a motorbike.

Then we can take motorbikes off the road too in case they hit a bicycle.

Then we can take bicycles off the road in case they hit a pedestrian.

Then we can all walk, nobody gets killed and everyone is happy.

Very good. Except people perceive that HGVs, lorries & vans are doing a job and people aren't driving them for the same reasons that some/many 4x4 drivers are driving them. I don't know a company that runs an HGV when it could run a van. Again, I'm giving the reasons I've heard that people don't like 4x4s. Until this thread, I was pretty ambivalent but I'm beginning to wonder...

Monkeypump

Great, lots more petty arguments from petty people being petty.

If the OP, or anyone else, WANTS (even if they don't need) a 4x4/SUV and is asking for help, how about trying to be helpful?

Could we have a 'divert to pointless argument' button on here to get rid of this nonsense, so only the useful content remains?

Monkeypump

NorvernRob wrote:

Maybe we should take all vans, lorries and HGV's off the road just in case they drive into the back of a car.

In fact, while we're at it we better take Fiat 500s and all other superminis off the road too in case they drive into the back of a motorbike.

Then we can take motorbikes off the road too in case they hit a bicycle.

Then we can take bicycles off the road in case they hit a pedestrian.

Then we can all walk, nobody gets killed and everyone is happy.

But what if we swallow a fly? Or tread on a snail? Better stay home and argue on the internet... the nobody gets hurt

meanredspider

Monkeypump wrote:

Great, lots more petty arguments from petty people being petty.

If the OP, or anyone else, WANTS (even if they don't need) a 4x4/SUV and is asking for help, how about trying to be helpful?

Could we have a 'divert to pointless argument' button on here to get rid of this nonsense, so only the useful content remains?

Or the OP could ask for advice on a mid-range 4x4 on a 4x4 forum if he really wants a sensible and informed answer....

bernithebiker

We used to have a Honda CRV 2.2 diesel. Nice enough car, but eventually it dawned on me that I wasn't enjoying driving it that much as it's 4x4 abilities compromised it's driving abilities.

Handling, braking, acceleration are all worse than the equivalent Accord (same engine), and there is no more space inside.

As we very rarely took it off road, I decided to sell it.

We now have a VW Caddy (for load lugging stuff) (Very nice new 1.6 diesel, but not really fun to drive)

an Audi A1 185hp 7 speed DSG, fantastic little car, very easy to drive fast, comfy, easy to live with. Not much boot space. Great value for money.

7 year old Porsche Cayman with 35000 miles, for those special Sunday drives. Good fun - I do the shopping in it!

Don't miss the CRV one bit.

StillGoing

meanredspider wrote:

Again you're missing the whole point because you are so wrapped up in YOU. It's you, you, you - all about you.

So YOU have a £50k SUV that YOU can get 36mpg out of and YOURS is fitted with the bells and whistles that try to mitigate the problems of it being big, heavy and inherently wobbly. How many of the 4x4s on the road are up to the same standard? Very few.

But it's OK because YOU have got the car you have. But when your kids start to drive they will find that insurance companies aren't keen on 17 year old kids driving 50k, 3 litre V6 twin turbo 4x4s with 600Nm of torque and (frankly) a leasurely 0-60 time. They'll prefer they drive the Fiat 500. And yes, maybe they won't be such expert drivers. But, heh, if they do make a mistake they might be killed but the occupants of the 4x4 won't have a scratch on them.

But everything you've written has illustrated much better than I ever could why people dislike 4x4 drivers. And, probably, for the first time in my life, I'm beginning to think that they have a point.

You really are one misguided individual. Jeez give us an ignore button so I don't have to read anymore of your lunacy. :roll:

meanredspider

philthy3 wrote:

You really are one misguided individual. Jeez give us an ignore button so I don't have to read anymore of your lunacy. :roll:

Play the ball, not the man. All I'm doing is sharing what I've read that people think about 4x4s during the last 10 years or so in answer to the earlier question. You still haven't grasped that simple fact.

I don't care that you've paid £10,000 more for a slower thirstier vehicle than the equivalent estate car.

pinno

Monkeypump wrote:

Great, lots more petty arguments from petty people being petty.

If the OP, or anyone else, WANTS (even if they don't need) a 4x4/SUV and is asking for help, how about trying to be helpful?

Could we have a 'divert to pointless argument' button on here to get rid of this nonsense, so only the useful content remains?

What!? I suppose I would spend less on pop corn but on the other hand...

pblakeney

Monkeypump wrote:

Could we have a 'divert to pointless argument' button on here to get rid of this nonsense, so only the useful content remains?

That would get rid of 90% of this forum.
And free up thousands of man hours.
People may actually have time to cycle instead.

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Again you're missing the whole point because you are so wrapped up in YOU. It's you, you, you - all about you.

So YOU have a £50k SUV that YOU can get 36mpg out of and YOURS is fitted with the bells and whistles that try to mitigate the problems of it being big, heavy and inherently wobbly. How many of the 4x4s on the road are up to the same standard? Very few.

But it's OK because YOU have got the car you have. But when your kids start to drive they will find that insurance companies aren't keen on 17 year old kids driving 50k, 3 litre V6 twin turbo 4x4s with 600Nm of torque and (frankly) a leasurely 0-60 time. They'll prefer they drive the Fiat 500. And yes, maybe they won't be such expert drivers. But, heh, if they do make a mistake they might be killed but the occupants of the 4x4 won't have a scratch on them.

But everything you've written has illustrated much better than I ever could why people dislike 4x4 drivers. And, probably, for the first time in my life, I'm beginning to think that they have a point.

You really are one misguided individual. Jeez give us an ignore button so I don't have to read anymore of your lunacy. :roll:

Nope, I don't think he's especially misguided.
From an engineering point of view, large high 4x4 vehicles are poorly suited to high performance safe driving especially when sharing the roads with more conventional cars. MRS has made pretty valid arguments. You can possibly debate how the various characteristics of large 4x4s reflect on their drivers but the physics aren't contentious. A large 4x4 is only safer for the occupants at the expense of the safety of other road users. Larger vehicles are safer for their occupants because in a collision with other vehicles, the acceleration forces on each vehicle are dependent among other things on the relative masses of the vehicles involved. If your vehicle is relatively more massive you experience a lower rate of acceleration and are therefore likely to suffer less. Conversely the relatively less massive vehicle experiences higher accelerations and will suffer more. So having a more massive vehicle can be expected to protect you but will inflict additional injury on others. Therefore safety via mass is a selfish solution. There is really no other way of looking at it. In my opinion the upper limit on "car" mass should be quite restrictive to prevent this "arms race" as someone else phrased it.
4x4s have practical uses but a very small proportion of them are bought with those in mind. They are predominantly bought as status symbols or with the idea they are safer. There are plenty people carriers and other vehicles that give you the high seating position which is admittedly an issue for some.

StillGoing

Ai_1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Again you're missing the whole point because you are so wrapped up in YOU. It's you, you, you - all about you.

So YOU have a £50k SUV that YOU can get 36mpg out of and YOURS is fitted with the bells and whistles that try to mitigate the problems of it being big, heavy and inherently wobbly. How many of the 4x4s on the road are up to the same standard? Very few.

But it's OK because YOU have got the car you have. But when your kids start to drive they will find that insurance companies aren't keen on 17 year old kids driving 50k, 3 litre V6 twin turbo 4x4s with 600Nm of torque and (frankly) a leasurely 0-60 time. They'll prefer they drive the Fiat 500. And yes, maybe they won't be such expert drivers. But, heh, if they do make a mistake they might be killed but the occupants of the 4x4 won't have a scratch on them.

But everything you've written has illustrated much better than I ever could why people dislike 4x4 drivers. And, probably, for the first time in my life, I'm beginning to think that they have a point.

You really are one misguided individual. Jeez give us an ignore button so I don't have to read anymore of your lunacy. :roll:

Nope, I don't think he's especially misguided.
From an engineering point of view, large high 4x4 vehicles are poorly suited to high performance safe driving especially when sharing the roads with more conventional cars. MRS has made pretty valid arguments. You can possibly debate how the various characteristics of large 4x4s reflect on their drivers but the physics aren't contentious. A large 4x4 is only safer for the occupants at the expense of the safety of other road users. Larger vehicles are safer for their occupants because in a collision with other vehicles, the acceleration forces on each vehicle are dependent among other things on the relative masses of the vehicles involved. If your vehicle is relatively more massive you experience a lower rate of acceleration and are therefore likely to suffer less. Conversely the relatively less massive vehicle experiences higher accelerations and will suffer more. So having a more massive vehicle can be expected to protect you but will inflict additional injury on others. Therefore safety via mass is a selfish solution. There is really no other way of looking at it. In my opinion the upper limit on "car" mass should be quite restrictive to prevent this "arms race" as someone else phrased it.
4x4s have practical uses but a very small proportion of them are bought with those in mind. They are predominantly bought as status symbols or with the idea they are safer. There are plenty people carriers and other vehicles that give you the high seating position which is admittedly an issue for some.

So again, you are also claiming that it is the fault of a SUV driver for choosing to use a vehicle which offers their passengers and themselves the best chances of survival in a collision. I can't believe that I am actually reading this. Maybe twist it the other way and let's ban from the roads anyone who doesn't take reasonable precautions to safeguard themselves and any passengers. Let's ban bicycles for a start because they won't come out well in a collision with even a Vauxhall Adam and they are a proven danger to pedestrians.

Modern day SUVs are more than capable of high speed performance and handling. Mine will happily do 140mph (restricted for emissions). Gone are the days when they would roll over at the slightest hint of a bend. And nobody has commented on the fact that in braking tests a SUV performed better than a Mercedes saloon and a Ford Fiesta both of which are lighter than it. A motorcycle in comparison would be even worse.

People carriers do not offer the versatility of an SUV. Yes, they are good passenger load vehicles if you want to stick your children right at the back ready for them to take the full impact in any rear end collision and their cornering balance is not on a par with a modern SUV.

The more I read of this, the more I am convinced that the bias against SUVs is pure jealousy. Jealousy because they can't afford to buy or run one? Jealousy because they aren't as well protected as those in one? Whatever it is, get over it. They're becoming ever more popular and more fuel and emissions efficient just like the hyper cars that we also see more of on the roads of the UK. Now could I afford a hyper car? No I couldn't, but I don't begrudge anyone from owning one despite the fact they will probably never take it on a race track to explore its true potential. Same with motorcycles. Does the Panagale rider really need 205bhp on the road? No. But if they can afford it who has the right to deny them? Nobody. But some of you would judge them as selfish for having such powerful vehicles that expose you to danger just by existing and in their opinion not having any practical reason to own one. I bet it's the same people who whine about amateur-pro riders entering sportives.

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Again you're missing the whole point because you are so wrapped up in YOU. It's you, you, you - all about you.

So YOU have a £50k SUV that YOU can get 36mpg out of and YOURS is fitted with the bells and whistles that try to mitigate the problems of it being big, heavy and inherently wobbly. How many of the 4x4s on the road are up to the same standard? Very few.

But it's OK because YOU have got the car you have. But when your kids start to drive they will find that insurance companies aren't keen on 17 year old kids driving 50k, 3 litre V6 twin turbo 4x4s with 600Nm of torque and (frankly) a leasurely 0-60 time. They'll prefer they drive the Fiat 500. And yes, maybe they won't be such expert drivers. But, heh, if they do make a mistake they might be killed but the occupants of the 4x4 won't have a scratch on them.

But everything you've written has illustrated much better than I ever could why people dislike 4x4 drivers. And, probably, for the first time in my life, I'm beginning to think that they have a point.

You really are one misguided individual. Jeez give us an ignore button so I don't have to read anymore of your lunacy. :roll:

Nope, I don't think he's especially misguided.
From an engineering point of view, large high 4x4 vehicles are poorly suited to high performance safe driving especially when sharing the roads with more conventional cars. MRS has made pretty valid arguments. You can possibly debate how the various characteristics of large 4x4s reflect on their drivers but the physics aren't contentious. A large 4x4 is only safer for the occupants at the expense of the safety of other road users. Larger vehicles are safer for their occupants because in a collision with other vehicles, the acceleration forces on each vehicle are dependent among other things on the relative masses of the vehicles involved. If your vehicle is relatively more massive you experience a lower rate of acceleration and are therefore likely to suffer less. Conversely the relatively less massive vehicle experiences higher accelerations and will suffer more. So having a more massive vehicle can be expected to protect you but will inflict additional injury on others. Therefore safety via mass is a selfish solution. There is really no other way of looking at it. In my opinion the upper limit on "car" mass should be quite restrictive to prevent this "arms race" as someone else phrased it.
4x4s have practical uses but a very small proportion of them are bought with those in mind. They are predominantly bought as status symbols or with the idea they are safer. There are plenty people carriers and other vehicles that give you the high seating position which is admittedly an issue for some.

So again, you are also claiming that it is the fault of a SUV driver for choosing to use a vehicle which offers their passengers and themselves the best chances of survival in a collision. I can't believe that I am actually reading this. Maybe twist it the other way and let's ban from the roads anyone who doesn't take reasonable precautions to safeguard themselves and any passengers....

I've claimed nothing on the basis of "fault". I've posed the reality of what use of a large vehicle for "safety" actually means. It means reducing other's safety to benefit oneself. This is not debatable. It's a physical reality. If you disagree, give me a logical argument. I don't understand why you're assigning me motives for my views? I've given the rationale behind my assertions. They're not based on any emotional, political or groupthink motivations. My background is engineering and physics and 4x4s as road vehicles strike me as the wrong solution to any safety probelm. I've explained why. Please quit it with the personal attacks and address the points made. Otherwise this isn't a discussion or argument, it's a row. And that serves no purpose.

Pross

I thought I understood the argument being made about vehicle mass being a safety issue for those outside the vehicle up until I read the suggestion that if you need a higher driving position you could get a people carrier instead. A large people carrier isn't exactly that much lighter than a large 4x4 (and probably handles even worse). Besides, the OP was asking about mid sized 4x4s which are probably lighter than a people carrier.

ai_1

Pross wrote:

I thought I understood the argument being made about vehicle mass being a safety issue for those outside the vehicle up until I read the suggestion that if you need a higher driving position you could get a people carrier instead. A large people carrier isn't exactly that much lighter than a large 4x4 (and probably handles even worse). Besides, the OP was asking about mid sized 4x4s which are probably lighter than a people carrier.

I'll admit I assumed there was a big weight difference given the 4x4 presumably has a much more substantial chassis, 4x4 transmission, large wheels, bigger engine etc....
However, in case you were right and I wqas making no sense I just had a very quick check.

Landrover Discovery = 2550kg approx

Citroen C4 Picasso Grande = 1500kg approx (BTW this is the largest C4 Picasso with the biggest engine)

60% extra weight seems like a big difference to me. I haven't checked other models of each variety. I'm sure there are other combinations that will yield bigger or smaller weight differences but in general a 4x4 will be significantly heavier than a typical people carrier type vehicle for the same capacity.

[Edit]
P.S. I've driven a C4 Picasso, I didn't particularly love it but the handling was competent enough. Although a "people carrier" will have a higher centre of mass than a traditional hatchback or saloon due to the higher sitting position the chassis and transmission are not raised to provide loads of ground clearance so it'll be much closer to a traditional car than a big 4x4 in terms of roll.