MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
As per various car threads recently, I'm looking to buy one and there are a lot of SUV's (Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tuscan, Toyota Rav4, Nissan Quasquai, etc.) around.
My instinct is to avoid them as to me an estate or a roomy hatchback is better in every way. More space, better fuel economy, easier to get into as it's lower.
But I'm also aware I must be missing something as they're so popular.
So, what am I missing?
You're clearly not an alpha male if you have to ask that question.
People like being higher up.
And some prefer the look of them.
So, what am I missing?
You're missing the ability to be drawn in by marketing bullshit.
Stay strong king. Resist at all costs.
Had one, went back to an estate. The estate is better in almost every way, apart from seeing over hedges or other cars.
No - they make no sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities
my last car was an estate, current car is an SUV, next one, which is on order, will be an EV hatch. The SUV is easier to get in and out of (for a mid 50's me 🙂 )and visibility is better than the estate was. It has good cabin space, and good headroom compared to previous estate (Q5 vs A6 Avant), but less useful boot space by far.. Bikes go on towbar or in the back so similar. Economy similar - same engine.
I dont think just because a car is lower makes it easier to get into, for me I find it easier to get into an suv type car than a saloon/estate - YMMV.
Other reasons - The higher driving position is pretty comfortable, and gives a better view of the road ahead compared to normal car.
Aside from that - you're mostly right that an estate/hatch (all other things being equal) should be just as practical, have better fuel economy.
There's no rights or wrongs with this, just buy what you prefer .
A lot of people seem to like SUVs, it could be for the style, or there could be a 'valid' reason - it doesnt matter, its their money.
There is a dearth of 4x4 cars that aren't SUVs. For some folk, that makes them difficult to avoid.
I have a Hyundai Santa Fe because when I got it I had reason to drive light offroad on a very regular basis, it was justified for the increased ground clearance. I no longer have that requirement but I cannot make the sums justify replacing it. It is comfortable, does 48mpg on a long run and is super reliable. An estate would work better for me in every respect but I can't justify spending money to end up with a car of similar age, mileage and spec.
When my bad back plays up, it is the only car I can drive, no chance of me being able to get in and out of my wifes A Class merc. Not suggesting this is reason enough to own an SUV. It is the reason why my elderly dad drives a Kuga though,.
We've had quite a few as company cars (Kia Sportage) mainly as that's all they had on the list. They are really nice to drive and there is something nice about being higher up. I probably wouldn't buy one with my own money, just as they cost a fair bit more than other sized cars.
The Sportage is Kia's best selling model in the UK....
NB I'm fairly car model indifferent, we get a new company car every few months (wife works for Kia) and quite I don't even know what variant it is or the exact model (eg there are loads of Ce'ed variants). Drive it for the allotted period, then get a new one and repeat.
I much prefer the small SUV form factor to an estate. I prefer a shorter car and they also are easier with my bike which I can fit standing up and hook it up with the dropper.
The taller tyre sidewalls and longer travel help too particularly on potholes.
The (very limited) off road ability and better clearance massively help getting to places and park before getting the bike out.
Not buying one because of the marketing is as stupid as buying one because of the marketing IMO.
They are just cars of a slightly different shape.
They're nice to drive for people who don't care about DRIVING
Our "new' car is a Volvo SUV type. Similar MPG to the older estate it replaced, the high profile tyres and extra suspension make it far and away more comfortable to drive on the terrible roads than the previous estate and it has an enormous boot too.
It also allows me to look down on all the proles in their wee hatchbacks too 😉
who don’t care about DRIVING
All I really care about now is adaptive cruise control. Start car, switch that on and turn it off when I arrive at the destination a few hours later.
Just amazing invention - driving is just so much more relaxed.
Like driving a jelly but without the stability. Much prefer my estate.
Yea adaptive cruise control is great.
My instinct is to avoid them as to me an estate or a roomy hatchback is better in every way. More space, better fuel economy, easier to get into as it’s lower.
Easy to get in to...
This "instinct" of yours, it's wrong often isn't it?
Just current fashion.
There will be a 'new thing' along soon.
It wasn't long ago people carriers where the thing to have - barely anyone buys them now.
I got one simply because it was the only practical alternative for me to use instead of a proper 4x4 for the dirt roads in Australia. Saves heaps of fuel compared to any of the past 4x4s and still has a safe towball limit for bikes on the back and fits the kids and all our camping gear.
And it’s a great drive too.
They’re nice to drive for people who don’t care about DRIVING
One of the main reasons we live in a car-centric society is that too many people care about, or have been persuaded by years of marketing that they care about, DRIVING.
Hateful things. Sooner VED or congestion charges are changed to properly deincentivise ownership of them the better. There is nothing a SUV does better than a good estate or hatch. The ease of entry is more down to the seating position design than how high a particular vehicle is (though admittedly lower cars are more likely to have a reclined position).
Easy access for infirm/inflexible/old folk. Wannabe van/tonka/baja truck drivers.
Sooner VED or congestion charges are changed to properly deincentivise ownership of them the better.
Doesn't it already penalise less efficient cars - isn't it based on emissions currently?
They're not actually that bad compared to normal cars eg we often swap between a Ce'ed and Sportage and the fuel efficiency difference is only a few mpg, certainly not enough to bother us.
sharkattack
They’re nice to drive for people who don’t care about DRIVING
A lot to be said for that I think.
.. and this
franksinatra
When my bad back plays up, it is the only car I can drive,
My instinct is to avoid them as to me an estate or a roomy hatchback is better in every way.
More space, better fuel economy, easier to get into as it’s lower.
Different shaped space, fuel economy more HOW you drive it and tyres and probably better than a small hatchback with a bike rack on the roof ? but ultimately go with your instinct.
There is nothing a SUV does better than a good estate or hatch. The ease of entry is more down to the seating position design than how high a particular vehicle is (though admittedly lower cars are more likely to have a reclined position).
That is not true though.
They are better when high ground clearance is required.
Height of seat is directly relevant to someone with limited mobility or a condition impacting movement such as sciatica.
For some people higher ride height / improved visibility is way better than a lower car.
I'm not suggesting these are a reason for everyone to buy one but don't go making sweeping statements that are not accurate.
I've said it before but if everyone* had smaller cars it would solve a whole host of problems, yet with SUVs and mahoosive EVs we seem to be going in completely the wrong direction.
* we have a Mazda 3 & Volvo V40 so not big cars but could still manage with smaller, so just as guilty as others ☹️
But I’m also aware I must be missing something as they’re so popular
A lot of 'SUVs' are SUVs in appearance only - styling cues from SUV's wrapped around what is basically a hatch/estate or an MPV.
Take the Peugeot 5008 for instance
MK1 - a 7 seat Zafira Clone
MK2
A 7 seat Discovery Clone
Essentially the same economical FWD family car underneath
4X4s have become more an more car like in their styling, cars have become more and more 4X4 like in their styling and what we have is a lot of cars that look very similar - some are 4x4 , some have 4x4 as an option (and in either case they're actually actually 2WD in most instances), and some don't come in 4x4 at all.
Theres not really any penalty to the lookalikes - they're economical, comfortable (probably more so that conventional hatchbacks and saloons) the only really downside of the styling is it can restrict the size / shape of the boot opening compared to a similar MPV
If you want a conventional hatch back - there are plenty available, most of them look a bit like and SUV and are probably better for it functionally speaking
If you want a large estate most of them look a bit like and SUV and are probably better for it too
if you an MPV - most look like a SUV and for the most part just as useful
If you want an SUV - you can buy one, most people won't think its really and SUV. All it is - is a car that looks like other cars but will less boot space because theres some gubbins that never gets used under there.
They're bloody annoying at T-Juntions or roundabouts with multiple approach lanes where they completely block your view of oncoming traffic. Seems like an arms race...
- Hmm I can't see past that Kuga, Sportage in my Focus I'll get one.
- Hmm I can't see past that Land Rover/ Range Rover in my Kuga, I'll get one.
- Hmm I can't see past that Humvee in my Land Rover I'll get one
- Hmm I can't see past that lorry in my Humvee, better go full Eubank and get one.
Also I'd expect for pedestrian/cyclist safety they are not as good, being higher up there would be less chance of going over the bonnet as opposed to under it.
It wasn’t long ago people carriers where the thing to have – barely anyone buys them now.
Were they, though? Really? They were an appliance, a neccessity for many, there was nothing aspirational about them. nobody really wanted one.
SUVs are there because, to many, they ARE aspirational. The high driving position, the sense of comfort, maybe, possibly, the sense of it being just a little wasteful, but not caring....They're placed above a hatch/small estate in a manufacturers lineup and you get the sense that more is invested in their development because they're placed where they are.
These days, what do all celebrities, politicians, etc get moved around in? Range Rover? Jag F-Pace? BMW X5, G-Wagon, etc.
I’ve said it before but if everyone* had smaller cars it would solve a whole host of problems, yet with SUVs and mahoosive EVs we seem to be going in completely the wrong direction.
Totally agree. Even little cars (like Polos, Fiestas etc) aren't little anymore. Meanwhile, 'big' cars, like the Volvo XCwhatevers and Audi Qblahblah are enormous
Estate. Drives better, and the space is huge, and probably more usable too.
I've never thought I need a better view of the road - it's never a problem.
Never a problem getting out either! If I'm stuggling with getting in/out my car there's bigger things to worry about/work on.
Each to their own.
We've got a Qashqai alonside the van. Mrs a11y's choice not mine, but to be fair it's not a bad car - an equivalent-sized non-SUV would be better though. By better I mean: lighter, more efficient, quicker, better ride (less suspended mass), etc. Main reason for her was ease of access for elderly parents and I can't argue it's not better at that.
The point about elevated driving position is fine until everyone has an SUV - when everyone's in a higher-up SUV, nobody will be higher than anyone else...
We had a Kia Sportage on hire for a few weeks whilst our Ioniq was being fixed. I'm not sure about the visibility aspect. You can see around you, but you can't see the corners and edges of the car as well. My wife found it a lot harder to manoeuvre and park.
SUVs might be based on regular cars but they are higher, and that simple fact makes them less aerodynamic than the car version. So however economical an SUV is the same tech in a lower car will be more efficient. You are ALWAYS wasting fuel by getting an SUV.
fuel economy more HOW you drive it and tyres and probably better than a small hatchback with a bike rack on the roof
Daft comparison.
They are not my car of choice.
They are the car of choice for others.
HTH.
SUVs are there because, to many, they ARE aspirational.
And this makes my heart sad, that as a society we have deemed the thing that you drive around in to be such a marker of success/class/social position. It's so f___ing pathetic.
They were an appliance, a neccessity for many, there was nothing aspirational about them. nobody really wanted one.
This is how I view cars (with obvious room for hypocrisy, granted), we'd be in a better place generally if it was the general consensus.
My last car was a Tucson. Bought ex demo and owned for 10 years.
a lot of body roll.
a lot of trips to the garage to get fixed.
a reasonable amount of fuel. not as bad as a navara, but not as good as a normal car.
AWD was a wonder in the winter.
driving height was nice
driving position was crap after a couple of hours.
tyres are expensive.
had plenty of grunt to overtake safely.
Moved on to our second car, a supposedly temp car to tide us over for a bit, a toyota corolla. Felt like a sports car in comparison.
Now have a 10 year old Peugeot partner.
drives OK
fuel consumption is OK.
drive height is good
it's van a like, so comfy driving position for hours.
seems reasonably cheap to run, not too many trips to the garage.
plenty of grunt to overtake safely.
only thing I miss is the AWD.
Totally agree. Even little cars (like Polos, Fiestas etc) aren’t little anymore. Meanwhile, ‘big’ cars, like the Volvo XCwhatevers and Audi Qblahblah are enormous
Safety regs have a lot to do with that. No one would now accept the level of protection you got in a 1980s Fiesta.
Easy to get in to…
This “instinct” of yours, it’s wrong often isn’t it?
I had a rental Mokka a few years back (the first gen) - SUV but not a massive thing. Even as a leggy 6'1" I had to scoot myself off the seat and drop down to the floor. Uncomfortable getting out, and getting in the sliding/twisting across the seat meant rearranging your trousers and family jewels.
whereas being fairly young and flexible I have no bother getting in or out of a low car.
Partly what you are used to I guess.
Doesn’t it already penalise less efficient cars – isn’t it based on emissions currently?
They’re not actually that bad compared to normal cars eg we often swap between a Ce’ed and Sportage and the fuel efficiency difference is only a few mpg, certainly not enough to bother us.
Since 2017 (cars registered since then), only for the first year. and who actually pays for a new car, that fee will get hidden in the payment plan. Flat rate (+"luxury tax") beyond that point.
They’re placed above a hatch/small estate in a manufacturers lineup and you get the sense that more is invested in their development because they’re placed where they are.
SUV's - in the real sense, rather than look alikes- are poor value for buyers - manufacturers take a much higher margin on them - buyers pay more for the idea of all the extra gizmos than they are actually worth.
Problem is these days that the term SUV covers so many different sized cars, in most of the segments to the point where most arguments are redundant.
FWIW, having owned most of the typical vehicle shapes the main pro's to an SUV are the raised driving position, the feeling of more space (even if there isn't) due to higher roof and more glass, stability in poor weather and general comfort. They are usually easier to get in and out of too, especially with young children.
IMO plenty of the cons above are clearly from people with limited experience of driving modern SUV's.
All that being said, I'm about to change my car and I want an estate, although my favourite car owned was the Discovery Sport.... My wife would prefer another SUV for the reasons I listed. Ultimately you need to put your prejudices aside and go for a few test drives. You'll either like them or you won't!
Main reason for her was ease of access for elderly parents and I can’t argue it’s not better at that.
Citroen with the hydropneumatic suspension was a goodsend when my grandparents were still of this world, so yes totally agree on that one.
Oh and also this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/28/carbon-emissions-global-suv-sport-utility-vehicles-oil-climate
Now it may just be a case that there are more SUV's around nowadays, and 10 years ago the headline could have read "Carbon emissions from global SUV car fleet outweighs that of most countries""
You are ALWAYS wasting fuel by getting an SUV.
That's true of any car other than the absolute smallest eg Picanto size thing...
Which you could squeeze a family in if you actually had to....
Just people choose not to.
Uncomfortable getting out, and getting in the sliding/twisting across the seat meant rearranging your trousers and family jewels.
Vauxhall make some awful seats 🙂 They ruin some pretty good cars with terrible seats.
The point about elevated driving position is fine until everyone has an SUV – when everyone’s in a higher-up SUV, nobody will be higher than anyone else…
Unless hedges and walls get higher that's not totally the case.
Most of my driving (certainly by time) is on narrow country roads and the H2 Master is much "nicer" than the old BMW if you aren't in any rush (which I'm not)
only thing I miss is the AWD.
Yet most SUV's are not 4wd/AWD.
And in my experience, all-season tyres are better on roads in crappy weather than a 4wd/awd/4x4 = and that included Defenders and similar.
My Kuga was ace... but a bit wallowy... apart from the wallowy handling, it was a nice place to be.
The Transit is even more wallowy... but it's a van.
I am not a 'driver' or indeed care about handling and performance though.
It's just the same as fat bikes, mullet, LLS, gravel bikes, flat barred gravel bikes, gravel bike shoes, 27.5 vs 29 etc.
Marketing
Now it may just be a case that there are more SUV’s around nowadays, and 10 years ago the headline could have read “Carbon emissions from global SUV car fleet outweighs that of most countries””
Quite possibly, IIRC the Ford F-150 is Ford's top selling model in the US. The Kia Sportage is Kia's top selling model in the UK. People love SUVs and given our economies are geared around people buying houses and cars, I can't really see much changing in the next few decades (other than the SUVs being electric).
Oh and also this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/28/carbon-emissions-global-suv-sport-utility-vehicles-oil-climate
/a>Now it may just be a case that there are more SUV’s around nowadays,
A lot of manufacturers have cut more conventional models and replaced them with a car that they call an SUV. So the Quashquai thing replaces both the Almera and the Primera so they dont sell those mid and large family cars anymore but they sell a car to the same customers and call it an SUV. The Fiesta is going and the car people would buy instead is the Ecosport thats essentially the same car - but it would be called an SUV. So to a great extent 'SUV' is a name applied to the lot of the car market by the marketeers but the cars haven't fundamentally changed in anything but appearance.
You could apply the same logic to vans - the largest proportion of emissions from vans will come from White Vans because there are more White vans than any other colour. I can feel smug that I'm not contributing to that problem because my van is dark grey and us Dark Grey van drivers only contribute to a small percentage of overall van emissions.
They're very mixed IME. Our Yeti was amazingly utilitarian, yet comfortable and frugal. Once you learned that the boot had to packed vertically then it was supremely practical. Our Kodiaq was far less practical, but more luxurious. A jacked up superb that would have been better as a superb. 3rd row of seats were a joke. Boot space was smaller than my dad's superb and less practical than the yeti. That said, it was beautiful to drive. We replaced it with a t5 caravelle as we need space for 7, two of which are elderly and increasingly infirm. The velle is in essence a Yet that's been stretched in every dimension.
Bro-in-law has had a string of SUVs. All as far as I can see are awful things - Qashkai, Juke, X-trail. The Juke was the worst of the lot - a reverse tardis that was neither practical, frugal or indeed in any way nice.
in my experience, all-season tyres are better on roads in crappy weather than a 4wd/awd/4×4
Thankfully they're not mutually exclusive 😉
The term SUV is mostly marketing shizz, the head wants a utility vehicle but the heart wants a sports car. Hey this has both! Now I don't need to feel bad about getting the high upright vehicle I prefer - and boy do folk prefer them!
Nothing against them personally though I prefer estates because Mrs foo can't get a bike on the roof of anything taller and you can go high performance a bit more incognito than a SUV!
What's weird is, how small some of them are. An Evoque is actually only 13cm taller than a Fiesta.
One of the main reasons we live in a car-centric society is that too many people care about, or have been persuaded by years of marketing that they care about, DRIVING.
This +1
The modern world is wierd. You're going to spend enough money to buy a house in parts of the north, then it's going to cost you £2.5k+ a year to run it. Then spend hours sat in it commuting to a job to pay for it.
Add up what you spend on cars over a working life, then add it together with the compound interest, and work out how much earlier you could retire.
Like driving a jelly but without the stability.
I have an SUV that would take issue with that!
At least I think it's an SUV - they are not all the same.
There is nothing a SUV does better than a good estate or hatch
I'd like to see one that could pull my 2.5 ton boat!
stevextc
Unless hedges and walls get higher that’s not totally the case.
Most of my driving (certainly by time) is on narrow country roads and the H2 Master is much “nicer” than the old BMW if you aren’t in any rush (which I’m not)
I think being higher gives a slightly better view of the road itself. Extreme example (just to illustrate the point) would be switching between bumper cam and above the car view on a computer game.
Small penis syndrome 😉
Few seem to think about how resource hungry these things are; there's more of everything in them, metal, plastic, marketing fluff and a sense of self importance...
So, digs aside, additional scarce resources are consumed in building them. They're proportionally heavier, which is really bad news if one hits you when you're on foot, a bike or in a smaller vehicle. Despite some recent moderate improvements, pedestrian safety remains compromised, compared with a lower car bonnet. SUVs do use more fuel, there's no getting away from it; for a given amount of internal volume, they're heavier, use lumpier, more flexible tyres generally and are less aero shaped. Ye cannae change the laws of physics..
They're a lot less stable in emergency, accident avoiding situations; a wee tap and they're over, when a normal car might have stayed the right way up. As they're seen as more aspirational cars, parts pricing has crept up too, says my friendly mechanic. No thanks; I'll stick to the big estate, currently a Superb.
thisisnotaspoon
The modern world is wierd. You’re going to spend enough money to buy a house in parts of the north, then it’s going to cost you £2.5k+ a year to run it. Then spend hours sat in it commuting to a job to pay for it.
Not that I disagree but
Someone is ... like people buy NEW bikes, phones etc.
I recently bought one (ford kuga) after not having a car for 7 or 8 years. Bought it because my arthritis was causing me issues having to stand up on public transport during rush hour, and being reasonably tall when my knee is inflamed getting into a normal 4 door hatchback was a nightmare.
It is only a 1.5l 2 wheel drive, I expect that many performance oriented golfs and skodas that are so popular on here have worst economy.
I think being higher gives a slightly better view of the road itself. Extreme example (just to illustrate the point) would be switching between bumper cam and above the car view on a computer game.
Don't disagree with that either but its even more noticeable going along narrow country roads from my experience.
Also as someone said there is the "See over the car in front" arms race.. but I can see another van on a single track country road from my van better than I can see a low car etc.
Back when I did company car'ing, I had a Mokka for a day and had to drive a Quashqai from the Midlands to Castleford - regular drive was a Golf, and the SUVs felt simply horrible by comparion.
Now I no longer company car, we've got an Adtra estate for long journeys and big loads, and just use Mrs Pondo's Colt for nipping about.
All I really care about now is adaptive cruise control. Start car, switch that on and turn it off when I arrive at the destination a few hours later.
Just amazing invention – driving is just so much more relaxed.
Seconded. Astra doesn't even have cruise - the Golf's ACC was absolutely the best of many good things about it.
Not that I disagree but
Someone is … like people buy NEW bikes, phones etc.
A fair point, but a different scale. My last new bike was £35/month for 2 years and cost pretty much nothing on top of that. A Qashqai costs 10x than on PCP, another ~£200 a month to run, and after however many years you don't own it. Just look what £500 (plus the tax not paid) a month does to your pension!
Whereas a bike bought in your 20's might add 6 months to your retirement date, but you'll have more fun on it in your 20's than 70's.
I have an SUV that would take issue with that!
The amount of times coming from Ireland at 2am in the morning that I've been stuck behind a wallowing SUV through the North Wales country roads makes me glad I'm in my estate.
We've got a long saloon and a SUV. It's actually slightly shorter and lighter than my Saloon. Some aren't bigger than a medium car. The plus points, is they are easier to get in and out of - made a big difference to me when I broke my spine and the few years recovery - much easier getting in and out of MrsF's car than my saloon. Fuel efficiency slightly better in SUV (smaller engine). It also copes better with the pot holed roads than my saloon, with the suspension being that bit beefier and slightly softer.
Down side, doesn't do twisty A roads anything like as well as my saloon, nor is it as good a motorway cruiser.
More practical than my car - been a god send emptying MIL's house after she passed away.
Some SUV's are massive though, really no need for them.
We also have a city car that get's used for shop runs, or a city commute when I'm not on the bike - absolutely ideal for the job.
Had two Honda CRVs, before that a Mazda 6 estate and an Audi A6 estate. Next car will be an estate. They are easier to get in and out (unless you are the dog into the cage), view is better. drive is agricultural, the Haldex 4x4 works, adaptive cruise control is great. The extra height allowed two bikes in the back without taking the wheels off. Newer versions are lower and that's not now possible. Appliance rather than aspiration. But I've been pleased with my two over the past 17 years (they do seem to last!)
The (very limited) off road ability and better clearance massively help getting to places and park before getting the bike out.
They are better when high ground clearance is required.
When is this required? VW Caddy owner here, Golf Estate before that. 20+ years of driving into fields for camping and events, down dirt tracks and car parks for mtb or digging. Ground clearance has never been an issue.
What’s weird is, how small some of them are. An Evoque is actually only 13cm taller than a Fiesta.
No a 2022 Evoque is 20cm taller than a 2022 Fiesta, it's also substantially more massive. The total volume occupied by an Evoque is 12.5m^3. A Fiesta is 8.1m^3 . A RR Evoque is 1800kg, a Fiesta is 1200kg. CD for the Evoque is 0.32, the Fiesta, 0.3, but the frontal area of the Evoque is more than DOUBLE the Fiesta, so the Fiesta's overall drag count is 40% that of the Evoque at higher speeds.
50% more material, 50% more volume, 50% more CCs needed to heft it around. 20-30% greater fuel consumption. The evoque will be a nicer place to spend time, but you're paying for that as is everyone else no matter if or what they drive. YOUR consumption affects everyone and that goes beyond cars, but is very notable IN cars.
The amount of times coming from Ireland at 2am in the morning that I’ve been stuck behind a wallowing SUV through the North Wales country roads makes me glad I’m in my estate.
I'm sure you're right but, as I said, not all SUVs are the same.
Don’t disagree with that either but its even more noticeable going along narrow country roads from my experience.
Also as someone said there is the “See over the car in front” arms race.. but I can see another van on a single track country road from my van better than I can see a low car etc.
100% agree with that.
I have a BMW ix3 ( its a SAV not SUV don't you know) and a van. The view is so much better up there and you get to see so much more. Its just ...better.
IMO , it certainly outweighs the "what happens if you hit a pedestrian / bike / small vehicle" argument , as you are more likely to see them in the first place, and being a "bigger" vehicle, they should be able to see you easier themselves.
Probably jinx myself now, but i have managed not to hit any pedestrians / cycles in the last 30 odd years because...
a) I don't drive like a w****r
b) I tend to look all around as I drive and try to anticipate what others are going to do.
We had a Renault Kadjar after we had a Ford Focus estate.
The Focus was better in every single way.
Most SUV-type cars, as others have said, are just the default medium-large family car now, thing is they are a bit rubbish at it.
They have less usable space than an estate and fuel economy is worse.
Your choice now seems to be small car/hatchback, SUV-lite, Massive **** Panzer (Range Rover), Van or Pick Up.
Could be worse though...
Though at least you can fit stuff in them...
https://www.theonion.com/conscientious-suv-shopper-just-wants-something-that-wil-1844930331
Think this explains it.
Interesting thread.
An anecdote.. I was running down a stretch of road not far from me to join a bridleway. As I was running I saw a RR (not up to to speed on the models but it was the biggest one) it had parked blocking the entrance to the Bridleway and as I ran towards the car I saw an elderly couple, both sitting in the rear door-wells pulling on their walking boots, both rear doors wide open and one door dangerously into the road. It occurred to me they had bought a car that was so large that the boot was almost useless to them and given its height versus theirs. (I didnt get my tape measure out but got a sense of their height as I passed, both looked 70 years plus)
I have an estate, practical for sitting on, sheltering under and getting stuff in and out of, including mucky spaniels.
Its just …better.
For you. But to be "better" for you, it costs everyone else. Vehicles should be taxed on mass, not emissions. that way you cover the embedded energy as well as the continual cost for moving it around. It also then covers EVs, some of which are equally inefficient.
That’s true of any car other than the absolute smallest eg Picanto size thing…
I think the issue is that people won't buy a Picanto, they'll Picanyonero, a Picanto with 6" more bodywork, flared wheel arches and 205/50-18 wheels rather than 185/75-15. A baiscly pointless decision that means over the car's life it'll consistently be getting 5-10mpg less than it could have done.
50mpg is still a gallon more than not driving 50 miles at all, but it's still pointlessly more fuel than doing it at 60mpg.
100% agree with that.
IMO , it certainly outweighs the “what happens if you hit a pedestrian / bike / small vehicle” argument , as you are more likely to see them in the first place, and being a “bigger” vehicle, they should be able to see you easier themselves.
Probably jinx myself now, but i have managed not to hit any pedestrians / cycles in the last 30 odd years because…a) I don’t drive like a w****r
b) I tend to look all around as I drive and try to anticipate what others are going to do.
Lets put big spikes on the front of all cars, those pesky pedestrians will take notice then!
The amount of times coming from Ireland at 2am in the morning that I’ve been stuck behind a wallowing SUV through the North Wales country roads makes me glad I’m in my estate.
Any SUV is more than capable of travelling at a reasonable speed for any road. If you are 'stuck' behind a car, it is down to the driver of the other car – they would doubtless be doing similar if they were in an estate, a hot hatch or whatever. Perhaps you need to learn a little more patience?
Very old CRV here. Pretty much only car I've ever owned and we were practically gifted it so it will continue to make financial sense for many years to come I think.
I enjoy driving it, particularly on twisty roads, but have nothing to compare to.
As a low back pain sufferer I dread having to get into my father-in-law's Mercedes something-or-other estate, which also feels ridiculously impractical and rattly over Perthshire's finest roads.
As for the height and AWD, it has already proven itself this year when we parked in Glencoe for a short walk on the drive home. Watched another (sportier) CRV rip off some trim on a pothole we had just gingerly rolled through, and other 'conventional' cars wheels pinning on the 1" of snow that was lying. Granted we've got mixed condition tyres.
So a massive win for comfort and practicality. That said, we've agreed to try and replace with something smaller when the time comes, I do have a conscience about the piss-poor mileage 🙄
Parked between a Q7 and a Dodge RAM Merkin pickup thing at the supermarket and boy, did our VW Up Gti look small.
I think it would fit inside the Q7 and most likely in the bed of the pickup.
What twists my melon is how small the luggage space is in some externally massive SUV's. Estates look like they have heaps more booty for junk in the trunk.
that way you cover the embedded energy as well as the continual cost for moving it around
that'll be covered by the additional fuel duty you have paid