Ban SUVs

DeVlaeminck

orraloon wrote:

2 years back I had a hire car X-trail in S Africa for 3 weeks. What a crock of sh1t. 2 wheel drive version. Crap traction, crap performance. This 'looks big' body with minimal space inside. It even struggled to get up the entrance slope to one of our hotels, as in nope 1st gear ain't doing it, roll back down rev it up and take a run. Why do people, looking at you buy this sort of sh1t?

And another hire vehicle Uk this time turned out to be a Vauxhall Mokka. Is like a Corsa on 'roids but without the capabilities of the little 'un. Baffled as to why anyone would shell out proper money on something like that.

[/clarkson mode]

I probably wouldn't buy it again I must admit. More the size of the thing on the road, once out of the city it's fine. Performance wise it's far faster than I need it to be - I'm coming from a Fiat 1.4 Doblo that wouldn't hit 90 flat out though. For holidays it's fine - it's pretty big inside no modern car has as much space as they look but it takes the dogs in the back - it's the day to day driving that it wouldn't be my weapon of choice.

Not sure how steep your hotel drive must have been ?

I've actually hired a Mokka and quite liked it !!

smudgerii

Not read much of the thread, but...

Wouldn’t be without my LWB Mitsi L200 2.5 derv guzzling climate killer, much more practical than my 3ltr beemer.

veronese68

Good for you, I'm sure nobody will read that and think you're over-compensating for anything.

smudgerii

Veronese68 wrote:

Good for you, I'm sure nobody will read that and think you're over-compensating for anything.

Nah!

The M V Agusta more than makes up for that

Each vehicle is for a purpose, and used for it with purpose..


FREEDOM is ours, use it!

kingstongraham

Smudgerii wrote:

Not read much of the thread, but...

Wouldn’t be without my LWB Mitsi L200 2.5 derv guzzling climate killer, much more practical than my 3ltr beemer.

I googled it - that's a van, right? I can see how it would be more practical.

haydenm

Smudgerii wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Good for you, I'm sure nobody will read that and think you're over-compensating for anything.

Nah!

The M V Agusta more than makes up for that

Each vehicle is for a purpose, and used for it with purpose..


FREEDOM is ours, use it!

Could you not combine the 3l into the pickup and get an Amarok like a real man?*

*Definitely tongue in cheek, I'm not especially manly...

smudgerii

HaydenM wrote:

Smudgerii wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Good for you, I'm sure nobody will read that and think you're over-compensating for anything.

Nah!

The M V Agusta more than makes up for that

Each vehicle is for a purpose, and used for it with purpose..


FREEDOM is ours, use it!

Could you not combine the 3l into the pickup and get an Amarok like a real man?*

*Definitely tongue in cheek, I'm not especially manly...

Wish I could find the 'like' button...

Bang on that post

tangled_metal

Isn't the delica powered by a 3.5 litre engine out of the pajero?

step83

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't the delica powered by a 3.5 litre engine out of the pajero?

I think its one of the engine options. Go the whole hog they did an anniversary edition of the defender with a 5.0L V8.

I can't talk I have a diesel estate, the er, VW emissions scandal edition engine too :roll:

keef66

Step83 wrote:

I can't talk I have a diesel estate, the er, VW emissions scandal edition engine too :roll:

My last company car was one of those. Bought it at the end of the lease for our eldest son, and then started getting the recall notices. Declined Audi's kind offer of a free 'fix' having read too many horror stories about expensive component failures after the modification. Still running sweetly after 7 years. It only does a longish, rural commute, so the extra NOX or whatever isn't killing any asthmatic city dwellers, and it's emitting a lot less CO2 than the petrol equivalent would.

Longshot

Interestingly, I was reminded of this thread as I walked through the station car park this morning. There was a current model VW Tiguan parked next to a Honda Jazz. I was surprised to note that there was only about two inches difference in height. Given that the Tiguan has a wider footprint, I'm struggling to understand how it is twice as likely to flip over.

tangled_metal

Isn't it partly about ground clearance? Jazz is tall but lower clearance puts heavy bits like engine and gearbox lower down.

Just one possible contribution.

daniel_b

T'internet claims 5" difference, but yes I suspect TM is on the money with the higher centre of gravity.
Also the latest Jazz is higher (and probably wider and longer) than the previous generation.

I wonder where it will stop, this fattening up of cars :?

step83

Daniel B wrote:

T'internet claims 5" difference, but yes I suspect TM is on the money with the higher centre of gravity.
Also the latest Jazz is higher (and probably wider and longer) than the previous generation.

I wonder where it will stop, this fattening up of cars :?

Put an old mini beside a new "Bini" an you can see just how bad it is.

Longshot

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't it partly about ground clearance? Jazz is tall but lower clearance puts heavy bits like engine and gearbox lower down.

Just one possible contribution.

Possibly but I'm still not buying the twice as likely statistic being thrown around. Maybe with a huge American SUV, but not with the average UK SUV.

daniel_b

Step83 wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

T'internet claims 5" difference, but yes I suspect TM is on the money with the higher centre of gravity.
Also the latest Jazz is higher (and probably wider and longer) than the previous generation.

I wonder where it will stop, this fattening up of cars :?

Put an old mini beside a new "Bini" an you can see just how bad it is.

Indeed, it's verging on offensive

daniel_b

Longshot wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't it partly about ground clearance? Jazz is tall but lower clearance puts heavy bits like engine and gearbox lower down.

Just one possible contribution.

Possibly but I'm still not buying the twice as likely statistic being thrown around. Maybe with a huge American SUV, but not with the average UK SUV.

I don't know either - just found this article which articulates those stats a little bit more:

Sports utility vehicles (SUVs) are enormously popular in the United States, and are becoming more so over here. In 2005, SUVs accounted for just under 9% of all new car registrations in Britain and around 7% in Europe as a whole. We still have a long way to go before we reach the saturation levels seen in America, where SUVs dominate the vehicle market, but it is still appropriate to ask whether Britain can learn lessons from the American experience with these behemoths.

Customers who opt to buy sports utility vehicles rather than a more conventional vehicle often cite safety as their paramount concern. Driving inside one of these tall, bulky road monsters, which towers over the other cars on the road and looks, over the world, like a kind of urban assault vehicle, is enough tomake anyone feel invulnerable. But is the feeling justified?

The Dangers
Studies in the United States have shown that the belief that SUVs are safer to drive may be wildly misplaced. Although the vehicles are heavier than normal cars, and so might be expected to be more resilient in the event of acrash, statistics show that SUVs are involved in a disproportionately high number of fatal car accidents. In 2003, for example, a driver of an SUV was 11% more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than someone in a standard car. One of the key reasons is the extra height of the vehicles, which gives them a higher centre of gravity and makes them more prone to roll over in a collision or even a sharp road manoeuvre.

As well as posing a danger to their own drivers, research has shown that SUVs present a far greater threat to everyone else. Pedestrians who get knocked down by an SUV are twice as likely to die as those struck by a normal vehicle. The sheer mass of a typical SUV, in part, accounts for this,but the physical configuration of the vehicles is also important. Their blunt and broad frontal geometry makes injuries to the heads and neck regions of pedestrians far more common than is the case with car impacts which, because of a car's lower and more aerodynamic bearing, more frequently result only in leg injuries.

Other motorists don't fare any better. If you are travelling in a car which is involved in a collision with an SUV, you too are twice as likely to die as you would have been if you had been struck by another car. In this case, too, though the extra weight of the SUV contributes to its greater destructive potential, design is also a key factor. A typical SUV rides so high that its bumper will make no contact with the bumper of a car when the two are involved in a frontal collision. In a sideways impact, the SUV's bulky front end tends to strike the occupants of a car in the vulnerable upper body area, increasing the likelihood of fatality.

haydenm

I put the OH's old 4x4 mini to the test and can confirm there was no chance you could get it to flip, I couldn't even get it to slide even in the wet. Shame the ride was dreadful and it was the ugliest thing since the Fiat 500 XL

step83

Daniel B wrote:

Step83 wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

T'internet claims 5" difference, but yes I suspect TM is on the money with the higher centre of gravity.
Also the latest Jazz is higher (and probably wider and longer) than the previous generation.

I wonder where it will stop, this fattening up of cars :?

Put an old mini beside a new "Bini" an you can see just how bad it is.

Indeed, it's verging on offensive

Exactly my point, same with the Fiat 500, an every other re imagined "Classic" its just bloated

Longshot

Daniel B wrote:

Driving inside one of these tall, bulky road monsters, which towers over the other cars on the road

I think we may be talking about different types of SUVs A couple of inches is not "towering" or at least that's what my wife suggests.

kajjal

Another thing to be careful of is the older SUV's are very poor compared to the current ones. If you compared an early 2000's Vauxhall Frontera to the current VW Tiguan or similar they are completely different and it is not surprising the older ones had various mechanical and real life driving issues.

kingstongraham

I read that the average car has increased in width by something like a foot over 20 years which can't be great for towns, parking etc.

smudgerii

KingstonGraham wrote:

I read that the average car has increased in width by something like a foot over 20 years which can't be great for towns, parking etc.

And so has most of the occupants...

photonic69

Just to add to the argument against SUVs from a report in the Guardian.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/14/suvs-will-ensure-oil-demand-grows-for-decades-warns-iea

StillGoing

Moonbiker said:

Plz explain you reasoning why not consider a ban or tax them alot more especially city centres congestion zones etc?



Unwashed and pinko leftie isn't and argument for a policy on SUV use.



Maybe you don't cycle so dont apreciate the improvment it would make having less SUV for other road users and cyclists?



Gammon triggered? :roll:

Modern SUVs are EU6 and EU 5.5 so as efficient as modern petrol engines with regards to emissions.
I drive a nice V6 Tdi Touareg.
Plenty of load space for our needs.
Seats 5 comfortably including luggage.
It's easier to get my daughter in and out of her car seat.
It's easier for our ageing parents to get in and out of.
Fits in my garage with my wife's car and 6 bikes with space to spare.
It's safer in a collision when some idiot runs into it than an estate, saloon or hatchback.
It will comfortably go off-road when needed.
It will pull non SUVs to safety when they're stuck in the snow when required.
I can get my bike and my daughter's in it.
It will pull a load without issue thanks to the 600nm of torque.
I don't give a toss about the fuel economy.

The big bonus though, is it really pisses off the pinkos.

bompington

StillGoing said:

Modern SUVs are EU6 and EU 5.5 so as efficient as modern petrol engines with regards to emissions.
I drive a nice V6 Tdi Touareg.
Plenty of load space for our needs.
Seats 5 comfortably including luggage.
It's easier to get my daughter in and out of her car seat.
It's easier for our ageing parents to get in and out of.
Fits in my garage with my wife's car and 6 bikes with space to spare.
It's safer in a collision when some idiot runs into it than an estate, saloon or hatchback.
It will comfortably go off-road when needed.
It will pull non SUVs to safety when they're stuck in the snow when required.
I can get my bike and my daughter's in it.
It will pull a load without issue thanks to the 600nm of torque.
I don't give a toss about the fuel economy.

The big bonus though, is it really pisses off the pinkos.

My goodness, an actual fossilised cliche!

tangled_metal

I understand in the recent models of Ford SUVs the NCAP rating dropped to iirc 3 star. The Ford saleswoman was most critical of them. Told me she got a mondeo estate instead. Cheaper, safer and more practical. Honesty from a car saleswoman!

photonic69

StillGoing said:

I don't give a toss about the fuel economy.

The big bonus though, is it really pisses off the pinkos.

So you are really saying is you "don't give a toss" about what sort of polluted world your daughter and grandchildren and great grandchildren will inherit from your thoughtless actions?

kingstongraham

StillGoing said:

It will comfortably go off-road when needed.
It will pull non SUVs to safety when they're stuck in the snow when required.
It will pull a load without issue thanks to the 600nm of torque.

These seem to be the only ones that you couldn't get without a proper car. If you live on a farm, then I think most people would say it's fair enough to own a farm vehicle.

tangled_metal

4x4 without winter tyres isn't much better than 2wd without winter tyres in snow.

Auto car put a YouTube on where they tested summer and winter tyres on 2wd and 4wd versions of the same suv going up a ski centre slope. The only options to get far up the slope were 4wd and 2wd with winter tyres. The same cars with 2wd tyres didn't get any further than each other. Well the 4wd got a few metres further then slid back to below where the 2wd had stopped iirc.

So all your torque and 4x4 isn't the best solution to snow. It's the right tyres. Just had to point out the bleeding obvious.

PS my old astra estate got me home through the Lakeland snow one Sunday evening after a heavy fall. Skinny summer tyres and nowhere near 600nm of torque. I did drive past xtrails and land cruisers with big off road tyres and 4x4 low range etc. Took 3 times as long because I am cautious in snow and blizzard conditions but at no point did I feel it was struggling or would let me down.