What do people recommend for mid range 4 x 4

Pross

Ford Galaxy is 2500kg roughly, Range Rover 3000kg so it is heavier (I'd say they are more comparable in terms of size, a C4 Picasso Grande would probably be more comparable to a Freelander). That said I would expect the Range Rover to have vastly better braking.

norvernrob

Pross wrote:

Ford Galaxy is 2500kg roughly, Range Rover 3000kg so it is heavier (I'd say they are more comparable in terms of size, a C4 Picasso Grande would probably be more comparable to a Freelander). That said I would expect the Range Rover to have vastly better braking.

That's assuming the people driving hit the brakes at the same time - an 80 year old in a small car is probably more likely to kill someone than a 30 year old in a bigger car. And an aggressive driver in a medium sized saloon who tailgates people all the time is probably more likely to kill someone than both put together.

There are so many variables that simply saying 'big cars are more dangerous' doesn't really mean anything factually.

pblakeney

NorvernRob wrote:

Pross wrote:

Ford Galaxy is 2500kg roughly, Range Rover 3000kg so it is heavier (I'd say they are more comparable in terms of size, a C4 Picasso Grande would probably be more comparable to a Freelander). That said I would expect the Range Rover to have vastly better braking.

That's assuming the people driving hit the brakes at the same time - an 80 year old in a small car is probably more likely to kill someone than a 30 year old in a bigger car. And an aggressive driver in a medium sized saloon who tailgates people all the time is probably more likely to kill someone than both put together.

There are so many variables that simply saying 'big cars are more dangerous' doesn't really mean anything factually.

No.
But can you imagine the result from an aggressive driver in a 4x4?
Maybe we should be nicer to them and keep them happy.

frisbee

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Pross wrote:

Ford Galaxy is 2500kg roughly, Range Rover 3000kg so it is heavier (I'd say they are more comparable in terms of size, a C4 Picasso Grande would probably be more comparable to a Freelander). That said I would expect the Range Rover to have vastly better braking.

That's assuming the people driving hit the brakes at the same time - an 80 year old in a small car is probably more likely to kill someone than a 30 year old in a bigger car. And an aggressive driver in a medium sized saloon who tailgates people all the time is probably more likely to kill someone than both put together.

There are so many variables that simply saying 'big cars are more dangerous' doesn't really mean anything factually.

No.
But can you imagine the result from an aggressive driver in a 4x4?
Maybe we should be nicer to them and keep them happy.

Didn't Top Gear prove that mid range 4x4s are driven by serial killers, doggers and caravan owners?

pinno

Nowt wrong with dogging.

Pross

And serial killers are a step up from caravanners!

RideOnTime

frisbee wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Pross wrote:

Ford Galaxy is 2500kg roughly, Range Rover 3000kg so it is heavier (I'd say they are more comparable in terms of size, a C4 Picasso Grande would probably be more comparable to a Freelander). That said I would expect the Range Rover to have vastly better braking.

That's assuming the people driving hit the brakes at the same time - an 80 year old in a small car is probably more likely to kill someone than a 30 year old in a bigger car. And an aggressive driver in a medium sized saloon who tailgates people all the time is probably more likely to kill someone than both put together.

There are so many variables that simply saying 'big cars are more dangerous' doesn't really mean anything factually.

No.
But can you imagine the result from an aggressive driver in a 4x4?
Maybe we should be nicer to them and keep them happy.

Didn't Top Gear prove that mid range 4x4s are driven by serial killers, doggers and caravan owners?

Is this an inclusive group?

I guess they just like to tow summat...

nowt wrong in that

StillGoing

frisbee wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Pross wrote:

Ford Galaxy is 2500kg roughly, Range Rover 3000kg so it is heavier (I'd say they are more comparable in terms of size, a C4 Picasso Grande would probably be more comparable to a Freelander). That said I would expect the Range Rover to have vastly better braking.

That's assuming the people driving hit the brakes at the same time - an 80 year old in a small car is probably more likely to kill someone than a 30 year old in a bigger car. And an aggressive driver in a medium sized saloon who tailgates people all the time is probably more likely to kill someone than both put together.

There are so many variables that simply saying 'big cars are more dangerous' doesn't really mean anything factually.

No.
But can you imagine the result from an aggressive driver in a 4x4?
Maybe we should be nicer to them and keep them happy.

Didn't Top Gear prove that mid range 4x4s are driven by serial killers, doggers and caravan owners?

Top Gear have never proved anything other than Jeremy Clarkson is a complete front bottom, Richard Hammond is a lap dog to his wit and James May is whimp for not smacking both of them in the kisser.

southdownswolf

So... what we really need to find are a group of people dogging in a caravan, who are then killed by a serial killer by driving into them with a 4x4? Preferably the serial killer will have Top Gear showing on his tv in the 4x4 also.

Anyone know Quentin Tarantino?

pinno

QT is away working on an epic film about getting lost in the Highlands, it's called 'Where the f*cking f*ck are we?'.

DesB3rd

On the OPs question...

Every one of the Pacific Rim manufacturers is all over this segment and (unlike the dismal stuff they were pumping out in recent years) the products probably aren't half bad. Maybe they don't have the final 5% of the refinement, performance, etc of the Honda or Nissan but that might weight small against a hefty saving.


As to the whole 4x4 business. If we were stone-cold rational consumers 95% or more would be buying Fiestas, Golfs and Mondeo Estates (as to our needs, brands may vary) with the smallest engines that could get them up steep hills and hold 80-odd mph with ease and comfortably - and they'd be run until they became maintenance liabilities (all a bit Chairman Mao really.) But the heart wants what it wants - floppy affairs with detachable roofs, two seaters, 7ft high brutes that are slower, thirstier and dynamically worse than the 4.5ft equivalent, big wheels and rubber band tires and anything backed by a particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign...

StillGoing

DesB3rd wrote:

As to the whole 4x4 business. If we were stone-cold rational consumers 95% or more would be buying Fiestas, Golfs and Mondeo Estates (as to our needs, brands may vary) with the smallest engines that could get them up steep hills and hold 80-odd mph with ease and comfortably - and they'd be run until they became maintenance liabilities (all a bit Chairman Mao really.) But the heart wants what it wants - floppy affairs with detachable roofs, two seaters, 7ft high brutes that are slower, thirstier and dynamically worse than the 4.5ft equivalent, big wheels and rubber band tires and anything backed by a particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign...

The translation of which means; can't afford one and jealous as fek.

Pross

philthy3 wrote:

DesB3rd wrote:

As to the whole 4x4 business. If we were stone-cold rational consumers 95% or more would be buying Fiestas, Golfs and Mondeo Estates (as to our needs, brands may vary) with the smallest engines that could get them up steep hills and hold 80-odd mph with ease and comfortably - and they'd be run until they became maintenance liabilities (all a bit Chairman Mao really.) But the heart wants what it wants - floppy affairs with detachable roofs, two seaters, 7ft high brutes that are slower, thirstier and dynamically worse than the 4.5ft equivalent, big wheels and rubber band tires and anything backed by a particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign...

The translation of which means; can't afford one and jealous as fek.

Really? What I took from that is that it's human nature to pick something you like above what is the bare minimum you need. Makes sense to me. I suspect the vast majority on here own at least one bike than is better than they require for their cycling.

pinno

Pross wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

DesB3rd wrote:

As to...

The translation of which means; can't afford one and jealous as fek.

Really? What I took from that is that it's human nature to pick something you like above what is the bare minimum you need. Makes sense to me. I suspect the vast majority on here own at least one bike than is better than they require for their cycling.

Nah, don't be silly.

pblakeney

Pross wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

DesB3rd wrote:

As to the whole 4x4 business. If we were stone-cold rational consumers 95% or more would be buying Fiestas, Golfs and Mondeo Estates (as to our needs, brands may vary) with the smallest engines that could get them up steep hills and hold 80-odd mph with ease and comfortably - and they'd be run until they became maintenance liabilities (all a bit Chairman Mao really.) But the heart wants what it wants - floppy affairs with detachable roofs, two seaters, 7ft high brutes that are slower, thirstier and dynamically worse than the 4.5ft equivalent, big wheels and rubber band tires and anything backed by a particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign...

The translation of which means; can't afford one and jealous as fek.

Really? What I took from that is that it's human nature to pick something you like above what is the bare minimum you need. Makes sense to me. I suspect the vast majority on here own at least one bike than is better than they require for their cycling.

Really? What I took from Philthy's post is that he doesn't understand that not everyone wants an over-priced, over-sized vehicle, even if they can comfortably afford it. You know what they say about men and the size of their cars? Case in point.

pinno

What do they say Blakey?

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

DesB3rd wrote:

As to the whole 4x4 business. If we were stone-cold rational consumers 95% or more would be buying Fiestas, Golfs and Mondeo Estates (as to our needs, brands may vary) with the smallest engines that could get them up steep hills and hold 80-odd mph with ease and comfortably - and they'd be run until they became maintenance liabilities (all a bit Chairman Mao really.) But the heart wants what it wants - floppy affairs with detachable roofs, two seaters, 7ft high brutes that are slower, thirstier and dynamically worse than the 4.5ft equivalent, big wheels and rubber band tires and anything backed by a particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign...

The translation of which means; can't afford one and jealous as fek.

No, that's not the translation. However I think you're admirably demonstrating why the "particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign" piece of the quote above is actually true, and effective. People like yourself seem to revel in the idea that everyone else is either impressed or jealous of you and are in fact induced to purchase products marketed on that basis. I would suggest that it's really not those criticising 4x4 owners that are deluded. It's those who are in denial of their own true motivations for owning one. Some 4x4 owners may have done so with completely reasonable motivations. However, many have undoubtedly done so because they think it'll impress others and/or make them jealous. I strongly suspect you belong to the later group.

Matthewfalle

Skoda Yeti - used them for work. Absolutely brilliant - load them up with kit and off you go - lovely to drive, look cool in a "I don't give a flying what you think, my car is cool", economical, 100% reliable, attract ridiculously attractive chicks because they are so cool. Come with great stereos as standard.

Defenders are the worst thing in the world to drive - we have one as the ADC vehicle and its shockingly appalling. We prefer to walk.

Reference the whole ownership debate - unless you have a boat, horse box, are a farmer, are an ambulance or in the Forces or mountain rescue then essentially you don't need one. Decent tyres, advanced driving course - good enough for anything GB can throw at you.

Did I mention that Yetis were cool?

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

What do they say Blakey?

Over compensation Pina, over compensation.

StillGoing

Ai_1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

DesB3rd wrote:

As to the whole 4x4 business. If we were stone-cold rational consumers 95% or more would be buying Fiestas, Golfs and Mondeo Estates (as to our needs, brands may vary) with the smallest engines that could get them up steep hills and hold 80-odd mph with ease and comfortably - and they'd be run until they became maintenance liabilities (all a bit Chairman Mao really.) But the heart wants what it wants - floppy affairs with detachable roofs, two seaters, 7ft high brutes that are slower, thirstier and dynamically worse than the 4.5ft equivalent, big wheels and rubber band tires and anything backed by a particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign...

The translation of which means; can't afford one and jealous as fek.

No, that's not the translation. However I think you're admirably demonstrating why the "particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign" piece of the quote above is actually true, and effective. People like yourself seem to revel in the idea that everyone else is either impressed or jealous of you and are in fact induced to purchase products marketed on that basis. I would suggest that it's really not those criticising 4x4 owners that are deluded. It's those who are in denial of their own true motivations for owning one. Some 4x4 owners may have done so with completely reasonable motivations. However, many have undoubtedly done so because they think it'll impress others and/or make them jealous. I strongly suspect you belong to the later group.

No I say it because the arguments against are so pathetic. I'm selfish for choosing to drive something which will come off better in a traffic collision than a small car. My car won't be as good at braking as a small car, which is factually incorrect incidentally. I'm being selfish in contributing to the carbon footprint? Well when there are planes running virtually empty to avoid missing their slot, heavy industries churning out waste products some countries would be proud of and countries like China, Russia etc ignoring carbon footprint targets i'm the all important rogue? The anti SUV brigade make judgements based on their own lifestyle and bugger anyone else. A SUV is a practical vehicle for my family and me but I'm a chauvinistic male with a small penis because I drive one. It's easy to see how some cyclists get on other sections of the publics tits.

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

DesB3rd wrote:

As to the whole 4x4 business. If we were stone-cold rational consumers 95% or more would be buying Fiestas, Golfs and Mondeo Estates (as to our needs, brands may vary) with the smallest engines that could get them up steep hills and hold 80-odd mph with ease and comfortably - and they'd be run until they became maintenance liabilities (all a bit Chairman Mao really.) But the heart wants what it wants - floppy affairs with detachable roofs, two seaters, 7ft high brutes that are slower, thirstier and dynamically worse than the 4.5ft equivalent, big wheels and rubber band tires and anything backed by a particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign...

The translation of which means; can't afford one and jealous as fek.

No, that's not the translation. However I think you're admirably demonstrating why the "particularly condescending and self-satisfied marketing campaign" piece of the quote above is actually true, and effective. People like yourself seem to revel in the idea that everyone else is either impressed or jealous of you and are in fact induced to purchase products marketed on that basis. I would suggest that it's really not those criticising 4x4 owners that are deluded. It's those who are in denial of their own true motivations for owning one. Some 4x4 owners may have done so with completely reasonable motivations. However, many have undoubtedly done so because they think it'll impress others and/or make them jealous. I strongly suspect you belong to the later group.

No I say it because the arguments against are so pathetic.No, they are factual, relevant and have already been made so I won't re-iterate. I'm selfish for choosing to drive something which will come off better in a traffic collision than a small car. Correct. You are choosing a vehicle that protects you at the expense of others. Pretty much the definition of selfish don't you think? My car won't be as good at braking as a small car, which is factually incorrect incidentally. I'm being selfish in contributing to the carbon footprint? Well when there are planes running virtually empty to avoid missing their slot, heavy industries churning out waste products some countries would be proud of and countries like China, Russia etc ignoring carbon footprint targets i'm the all important rogue? The anti SUV brigade make judgements based on their own lifestyle and bugger anyone else. A SUV is a practical vehicle for my family and me but I'm a chauvinistic male with a small penis because I drive one. It's easy to see how some cyclists get on other sections of the publics tits.This has absolutely nothing to do with cycling except that it's in a cycling forum. I'm pretty confident the attitudes expressed here are fairly representative of the general population.

StillGoing

Ai_1 wrote:

No I say it because the arguments against are so pathetic.No, they are factual, relevant and have already been made so I won't re-iterate. I'm selfish for choosing to drive something which will come off better in a traffic collision than a small car. Correct. You are choosing a vehicle that protects you at the expense of others. Pretty much the definition of selfish don't you think? My car won't be as good at braking as a small car, which is factually incorrect incidentally. I'm being selfish in contributing to the carbon footprint? Well when there are planes running virtually empty to avoid missing their slot, heavy industries churning out waste products some countries would be proud of and countries like China, Russia etc ignoring carbon footprint targets i'm the all important rogue? The anti SUV brigade make judgements based on their own lifestyle and bugger anyone else. A SUV is a practical vehicle for my family and me but I'm a chauvinistic male with a small penis because I drive one. It's easy to see how some cyclists get on other sections of the publics tits.This has absolutely nothing to do with cycling except that it's in a cycling forum. I'm pretty confident the attitudes expressed here are fairly representative of the general population.

[/quote]

The arguments certainly aren't factual. A SUV has a bigger footprint than a small car and bigger brakes. They have proven better stopping power over a small car and will stop in a shorter distance, but I suppose then in the minds of the deluded, it is the SUV drivers fault that a small car can't stop as quick and rear ends the SUV. To claim that you are more likely to be rear ended by a SUV is sheer fallacy. To claim that a driver of a SUV is more aggressive than a small car driver is again sheer fallacy.

I'm selfish for choosing to use the best protection for my family and myself? I have read some crap on here, but this really is close to the ultimate. Do you wear a cycling helmet? Let's suppose you do. What if you bump into someone who isn't wearing one and they sustain a head injury. Does that make you selfish for opting to protect yourself better? Do you use public transport? What a selfish prat. What if your bus careers out of control and wipes out my SUV?

Fact is there is a holier than though attitude among some sections of the cycling community who look upon anyone who doesn't conform to their views as the devil incarnate. The public at large do not view SUV drivers as you describe otherwise there wouldn't be the market there is for them and the number of them you see on the roads. They are a popular and practical vehicle choice for those that can afford to a) buy one and b) run one. Many won't venture off road, but that isn't the only purpose of their design. Sports Utility Vehicle; get it? Lastly, I suppose Alex Dowsett is selfish too for driving his SUV Mercedes M Class?

pblakeney

philthy3 wrote:

A SUV is a practical vehicle for my family and me but I'm a chauvinistic male with a small penis because I drive one.

It is nice to see such a highly developed level of self awareness.

StillGoing

PBlakeney wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A SUV is a practical vehicle for my family and me but I'm a chauvinistic male with a small penis because I drive one.

It is nice to see such a highly developed level of self awareness.

Yes and you're a tool with a huge jealous streak.

orraloon

Ooh ladies, please continue, this is becoming fun.

debeli

What about a Citroen Visa Mille Pistes?

Or a BX 1.9i 4x4 Break?

Or one of those funky Peugeot 505 estates on massive, raised 4x4 running gear?

Of a Golf Country (a funky skunkworks Golf II bodge that I thought was home-made when I first saw one)?

Why do all 4x4 soft-roaders look the same and sound the same and park in the same space at the supermarket these days? It's getting a bit like the cf road bike market. Lots of firms chasing the same pound by building the same bike with the same ancilliaries.

I'm just saying....

Velonutter

philthy3 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A SUV is a practical vehicle for my family and me but I'm a chauvinistic male with a small penis because I drive one.

It is nice to see such a highly developed level of self awareness.

Yes and you're a tool with a huge jealous streak.

Watch the insults or the banning stick comes out.!

Velonutter

I import vehicles from all around the world, mainly the USA and have driven loads of 4x4's, boring as hell. I once sold my Harley F150 Pickup and bought a Chevy Tahoe 4x4, nearly cried every night I hated it that much.

I once owned a Suzuki Vitara, probably the worst vehicle I could ever have purchased, part ex'd it for a TransAm.

I realised I couldn't buy the best of both worlds, so I drive a nice Merc estate for practical purposes and a 911 Carrera 4 (4x4) for fun, and oh boy the 911 really does offer 4x4 fun, drove it in the snow and ice and it grips the road like nothing else I have ever owned.

That's my compromise on practicality and fun.

A few of my mates own Range Rovers and rave about them, never driven one so can't say.

As for my view on owning a 4x4, if you don't need to drive off road or tow heavy stuff then why go for a 4x4 unless you like them, plenty of other really lovely looking cars about.

pblakeney

philthy3 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A SUV is a practical vehicle for my family and me but I'm a chauvinistic male with a small penis because I drive one.

It is nice to see such a highly developed level of self awareness.

Yes and you're a tool with a huge jealous streak.

Close.
You just got the words in the wrong order.

pinno

Your a streak with a huge tool and you're jealous. ?!

Scratches head...