Safe Speed Forums

It's your money do with it what you want. But. For any given amount of money weather it is £1000 or £100,000 you can get a better car than SUV. If you want an off roader, have one, but don't try to justify it. It is as insane as me, putting nobbly tyres on the car and taking it off road in a vane attempt to convince myself I now have an off road car.

If I have a vehicle with a big engine, like most SUV's have, I need BIG performance. Do any SUV's have any degree of perfomance, when compared to a normall car of the same value? I think not.

You quoted wheel base measurements of a disco compared with was it a mondeo? So the disco is what 50% higher and has a smaller footprint. That makes for one high centre of gravity. Nevermind the wobbley tyres, off road suspension, lousy build quality.

The dog analagy is a good one. Why do people have big scary dogs? Answer: to make them look hard, when in fact they are not and make people "respect" them. Why to people have big scary high cars. Anwser to make them look hard and make people "respect" them.

To get get 30 mpg out of an SUV must be news worthy.

My SUV does 37mpg

Performance does not just mean speed.

Oops! I missed out the wimps who need their egos boosting There's one a few doors from me

I am not anti - 4 by 4, just anti 'can't see past 'em' mobile road blocks They have their place - on the fields

One blocked me in at Tesco's yesterday; it was like a beached whale, so big that the driver couldn't see out. He couldn't find a slot big enough for it, so he had to wait a long time. I backed up to an inch from it in my old wrecked Sierra to try to frighten him off!

_________________
I stole this .sig

You didn't look very far



For comparison, the Mondeo is....

Overall width without mirrors
1812

Overall width with mirrors
1958

Overall length
4804

Figures from the Ford website.

However, you didn't read what I wrote. The figures you give are for the Discovery 3, which I have yet to see on the roads. FWIW, the latest Discovery is huge and I can't understand why Land Rover produced it. That said, it's still a lot smaller than the largest executive cars, which is the market I suspect they're targeting.

The claim was that the respondent was prevented from parking by two or more of these things. Unless he was trying to park in the holding lot at Solihull, I suspect he was talking about the earlier models. The Td5 ES7 I quoted has much smaller dimensions than the Mondeo and packs seven seats into that lesser space.

That said, you are either missing or choosing to ignore the point. For every criteria the anti-4x4 brigade choose to vilify the object of their obsessive hatred, something fares worse than most, if not all, 4x4s. So if, as they claim, they want to target the worst polluters, least safe cars, etc. why are they ignoring the worst offenders and targeting only one type. I am near certain it is because of prejudice and bigotry. You only have to look to the posts in this thread from those against 4x4's to see the hatred and prejudice I'm talking about.

FWIW, I would fully support your right to campaign to have cars banned based upon the amount of road they occupied and, should you be successful, I'm sure the new Discovery would be hit. However, so would the biggest BMWs, Mercs, Jags, etc.

_________________
Will

Personally it's the height that gets me. Whether the footprint is a bit bigger or smaller than a Mondeo I can live with, but the Disco is at least 1832mm high and can be as much as 1887mm (I'm ignoring any extra from rails or aerials as they don't make a real difference). My car is 1290mm, so seeing through a 4x4 is a pain. That's an extreme example, so I looked at something I see a lot more of round here - Grand Cherokees. That's still 1773mm, so getting on for half a meter taller.

Still, big MPVs are just as bad and transits and lutons are worse. I don't think it's my place to want any of 'em banned or restricted. I just alter the way I drive if I'm behind one, so really only a minor irritation. I'd be better off if coupe fascists took over and made everything a maximum height of say 1400mm, but I don't want any group of vehicles banned or restricted for one simple reason. Once the sandalistas have got 4x4s off the road they could easily come after coupe drivers next. After all, they're designed to go fast and styled to look good, surely that makes me a potential killer. Killer Coupes makes a good headline... jeeez, I'm starting to worry myself about it.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

I don't want to be where Niemoller was.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Fair enough, I never saw any refrence to which model.


I hope you don't mean me personally since I have no desire to see anything banned. If you want to drive round in a Hummer and look like you lost your marbles last week then I don't have a problem with that.


Not the reasoning I would use but I have been thinking of getting a Citroen C8 which weighs in at around 2200 (with mirrors) by 4730 - a tad wider than the new Disco and a shade shorter. Should just squeese into the garage but I might need the sliding door to get out.

Is it acceptable to get these things banned because of how they look?

Because if it is then I'd vote for a lot of them to be banned. Especially the Warrior and the Discovery, two uglier vehicles I've yet to see, even the Fiat Multipla compares favourably to these two.

At the other end of the spectrum, you've got the Defender, now that is a beautiful vehicle, some of the Jeeps aren't too bad, and the old-skool vauxhall Frontera had a certain charm even the Suzuki Vitara has a certain cute "4x4 Panda" quality to it.

I suppose it's not really acceptable to judge on looks though.

One thing I will say is that they're not all driven by inconsiderate fools, but they do seem to exaggerate the behaviour of those who don't have much skill behind the wheel. Of course this is based solely on my personal experience.

Just thought I'd have my say!

There is an interesting article in Auto Express (I think) comparing SUV's with an equivilently priced (and spec'd) car. XC90 v's V70. X5 vs 5 Series and there's one other.

The case for the prosecution rests m'lud.

I was reading a review of a car recently. It had a 2.0 litre petrol engine developing 140 bhp. It had CO2 emissions of 194 g/km. Its combined cycle fuel consumption was 34.4 mpg.

Is this the kind of car the SUV-haters want to ban?

Obviously it is an SUV, see the KIA Sportage roadtest at:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/home/index.htm

2.0 litre Focuses and similar do worse on these tests. This hatred of SUVs really is just ignorant, prejudiced nonsense.

For the truth, see: http://www.4x4prejudice.org/

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

What case? Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us by pointing to the article in question (because I couldn't find anything on the Auto Express web-site).

However, I suspect that they didn't look at the whole story. Each car should be chosen whether it meets the purchaser's requirements and I can think of one situation where the V70 and 5 Series are unsuitable (and dangerous) - for towing a caravan of 1400 kg or more.

A quick glance at those cars suggests that the XC90 and X5 will be more capable towcars than the V70 and 5 Series respectively. This is because of the geometry. The XC90 and X5 have very short overhangs while the V70 and 5 Series have long overhangs. A car/trailer is a first class lever system with the rear axle being the pivot. An obliquely downward force on the towhitch unloads the steering axle and tends to move the car sideways. The trailer tries to return to centre and so imposes a lateral force in the opposite direction. If the turning moment is large enough, this results in snaking. The turning moment is proportional to the square of the overhang length - so large overhangs are, frankly, dangerous. This is the main reason why I've replaced my Volvo 850 (the same as the early S70) with a Shogun. Without a stabiliser, the Volvo was unstable above 50 mph with only 1050 kg (well under the manufacturer's max towing weight of 1600 kg) on the back.

Now, another factor in a car's suitability for towing is its mass (or kerbweight). The organisations that know (CC, C&CC, RAC, etc.) recommend that the MTPLM of the trailer does not exceed 85% of the kerbweight of the towcar. Although manufacturers give a towing limit, that is based on the ability to restart on a specified gradient rather than the ability to tow safely, and so the manufacturer's towing weight will rarely determine what you can tow in safety. Here are the kerbweight (KW), safe (85% match) towing weight (STW), and manufacturer's towing limits (MTW) for the base models of the four cars you mentioned:

• Volvo XC90: KW=2113 kg; STW=1796 kg; MTW=2250 kg
• Volvo V70: KW=1528 kg; STW=1298 kg; MTW=1800 kg
• BMW X5: KW=2070 kg; STW=1759kg; MTW=2700 kg
• BMW 5 Series: KW=1560 kg; STW=1326 kg; MTW=1600 kg

So, notwithstanding anything in the alleged article. If you have a 1700 kg caravan, neither the V70 nor the 5 Series are up to the job and so are unsuitable vehicles for the purpose. In fact, neither can safely tow a good many family caravans. However, both the XC90 and X5 will comfortably lug just about any caravan on the UK market.

_________________
Will

Had a quick read of Auto Express in W H Smiths at lunch.

Compared 3 pairs of cars, and from memory they said the 4x4 Volvo made more sense than its 2wd estate.

In the other 2 examples they prefered the non SUV option.

So not exactly "case proved" against SUVs, different people have different needs for a car, some chose on image, others on practicality or economy - but we should be free to choose.

the verdict at the end of the article was some thing like.. or most of the people most of the time the same money spent on a car will get you a vehicle that is no less practicle and better to drive. They did say that the XC90 was better than the V70. Not sure how old the V70 is though, it might be nearing the end of it's life.

They also said about cars being generally easier to manage, parking etc. Also that SUV's tend to encourage poor driving. At no stage have I said ban them, I just feel that people get suckered into some kind of marketing ploy where they are being sold high priced cars that are not as good.

As for towing... I'm not convinced that a shogun/disco or what ever is that much better than a heavey car. Why? The poistion of the hitch is in the wrong place. Look why an LGV pulls it's trailer from. It's forward of the rear axle, that way the trailer has less leverage on the drawing vehicle. Even a 7 tonne farm tractor gets bullied by a heavey trailer because of where it is hitched. In the US they have 5th wheel camper vans and trailers that have a 5th wheel mounted in the bed of the pickup. This works really well.

Taped Trev's progs and the first part of it dealt with SUVs and the ban 'em campaign. Showed the protesters out in force dressed up as teachers (some of the real ones drive the pesky things anyway!)

Showed them issuing mock parking tickets to them. When asked about their protest - they claimed that more people were KSI'd by these than any other vehicle.

Quentin Wilson was filmed driving his 4x4. He claimed that driver error caused accidents and not the vehicle. True - but and perhaps figures have improved since bull bars ceased to be a fashion accesssory as well.

I would agree with him that it is the person behind the wheel and not the car which causes the accidents. However, I would tend to agree with the concerns than the height of this vehicle would cause more serious injury because of the impact points on the victim if involvedin a crash. Perhaps it boils down to training/willingness to learn/ reading of manuals - these people buy the cars and find them beyond their skills and capabilities - all of which could be fixed if they booked a track session and just got to grips and really learned how to handle it. Solution could be this simple.

So what is the problem? These are large cars driven predominantly (per urban myth) by women to ferry kids to school in urban areas. All those interviewed on the programme were women who claimed it was the only car suitable to ferry their kids to and from school.


They are a nightmare if parked next to you in a car park and, like Gatsomate - if I'm in the Stag - they are like a large van. Hence - care is needed, and I do question whether the "I've got kids" argument is valid as my kids fit quite comfortably in my cars - none of which is a 4 x 4.




Hmm!! Some (or rather most) people already know - from lurks on a certain other forum that my sister - in law ( that nice tame cat" )drives a Landy for work - necessary for her job. She also drives a VW people carrier for town work and her husband drives their normal saloon car to and from his work.

I've driven her 4x4 on occasions (we are insured to drive each other's cars in this family.) I would not say it is that much bigger in passenger capacity than my car - and would say it is considerably less comfortable/

Fairly easy car to handle and certainly handles well in all condtions - but would tend to agree that this work horse belongs in a rural setting as opposed to an urban one - especially when jostling for parking spaces on a humped school run - complete with chicanes and so on.


However, banning something because you dislike the size of it or perceive its size to be a threat is no argument. If that is the case - then we would have to ban all transit vans and HGVs as their size also renders them equally dangerous.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

At least goods vehicles have a real function, not a perceived one

So what is their perceived function(s)

What are their real function(s)

I always thought they designed a 4x4 SUV for off road use, not towing caravans

Manufacturers increase sales prices based on this ability, yet i would hazard to guess less than 10% of them ever go off road

I have an on/off road m/cycle, which in the bike world is the equal to an SUV of the car world. Which i use 90% of the time off road, only 10% of the time just to get to the Byway's.

Nothing against SUV, but it seems somewhat pointless to pay out the extra for off road ability and not using it.

Want to put a nail in a piece of wood, buy a hammer, not a screwdriver

_________________
Steve

A goods vehicle, is what it says on the tin, it is designed and brought to transport goods, never seen one drop the kids at school, as yet anyway

An SUV, has a perceived function off being used off road, yet is used to take the kids to school

_________________
Steve

Sport utility. The point is they have more than one function.

On Cycling+ someone said they were not for onroad use. Really? Then why do they have indicators and all other legal requirements for road use? Must be lucky coincidence.