You don't necessarily need an SUV to avoid potholes. My EV has 205/60 tyres and fairly soft springs. It can be driven across pretty rough roads without issue. It's not an SUV.
couldn’t get to work in January without 10 mile detour
How much of a problem is a 10 mile detour a couple of times a year? Really?
. I also notice that people in much bigger cars seem to expect me to get out the way/give way to them on narrow roads which is pretty much bullying driving
no doubt seeing an old Defender coming the other way would remove this…
Yes you could use the Defender to send a message that you aren't moving over for them but this seems to be the very behaviour that you don't like others doing to you.
This is a more general problem. I'm on the receiving end - it would be better to be on the giving end. This is why we have an ongoing arms race of bigger vehicles.
Yay, its back!
a few White Merc and Audi SUVs at nursery, driven by the type of hateful scumbags you imagine, but could you not argue:
Can someone explain to me why cars are so low to the floor? Im not an F1 driver,
I dont want to have to climb out of it, im not a 17yr old boy racer, i dont want to drive lying down.
Even when there are no other cars around, a higher position gives you a better perspective view of whats around you.
Ive got a higher opinion of the neigbour opposite who takes her Tiguan to a CoOp you can see from the house, to do her shopping, than i do of the guy with the V8 audi who insists of revving the tits off it whenever he goes to the office.
Dont get me wrong, if youre not driving a stock, standard issue hatchback like a focus, i hate you all equally.
Can someone explain to me why cars are so low to the floor?
It does make them handle much better which is nice on windy roads even if you aren't driving fast. Reduced roll is better for your passengers too.
In a collision with an suv, presumably being high up and having plenty of mass yourself by being in another heavy suv means better chances of survival.
Im sure i read that on the freelander (the original one, the mother of SUVs IMO), they were actually a death trap in an accident. The slightly higher mounted engine was lifted up by anything it hit, and the clutch was a direct linkage meaning that the pedal was shoved through the drivers groin in the event of a crash.
You guys crack me up.
Buying cars isn't hard. Find the one that
a) Suits your practical needs
b) You like the look of
c) You can afford
It really isn't that hard. The majority of vehicles on the road today are based around common engines in similar chassis with a wheel on each corner. Everything else is personal preference and marketing BS.
UK Transport is a contributor to but by far not the biggest impact to climate change. The difference between an SUV and other car shapes is at best negligible so you really should be looking at a wholly different view for your transport needs if you want to add
d) Has a positive impact on climate change
The original Freelander was a hateful creation. I never understood its success.
Seemed to be full of leftover 1980s BL parts. Doesn't surprise to learn its safety was of comparable standards.
Can we do privately run vans next because this thread is soooo productive and fun!
only if its VW transporters
As someone who is very tall
What's "very tall" in real numbers?
I'm 1m96 and my car (when I owned one) was a Nissan Micra.
mrmonkfinger
Free Memberdoes 2″ of extra height make that much difference in an accident?
most of them do seem to have more than that added on to the bonnet area, for what appears to be aesthetic reasons, but that would seem to negatively impact pedestrian safety?
For example, in 62 per cent of collisions with a child on foot or on a bike, a passenger car was involved, and 19 per cent of fatalities happened following such a crash; SUVs by contrast were involved in much fewer collisions – 16.9 per cent – but were the vehicle involved in fully 40 per cent of the fatal ones.
https://road.cc/content/news/suvs-8-times-more-dangerous-kids-walking-or-cycling-295527
I’m on the receiving end – it would be better to be on the giving end. This is why we have an ongoing arms race of bigger vehicles.
Cleqrly it is better to be on the giving end. What else do you suggest as those people driving SUVs are not going to be switching to Aygos any time soon are they?
How much of a problem is a 10 mile detour a couple of times a year?
You realise that is going to get worse not better don't you and yes you can avoid potholes but if you hit one in an Aygo with its tiny tyres versus a Defender which do you think would puncture? And again, the potholes are not going to get better either. Bit of a don't get mad get even approach to it for me.
https://road.cc/content/news/suvs-8-times-more-dangerous-kids-walking-or-cycling-295527/blockquote >Which starts
A recent study from the US
and has a photo of a Swedish registered car which questions the effort journalistic effort behind the headline.
Particularly when you dig behind the facts, find it was already two years old when reported and it seems the 'fact' is based on increased sales of SUVs, reduction in road accidents but increased number of pedestrian fatalities. Does this really mean SUVs are more dangerous to kids walking or cycling?
But the real meat of the story is
Analyzing a sample of 79 crashes from three urban areas in Michigan, the researchers found greater risk to pedestrians from SUVs. Because the sample size is small and limited to one geographic region, more research will be required to see whether all of the findings hold up in a larger study.
Because the sample size is small and limited to one geographic region, more research will be required to see whether all of the findings hold up in a larger study.
There's news and there's biased opinions.
They will if you massively increase that monthly payment for their Q3/X5/RRS by adding a substantial tax penalty.
You realise that is going to get worse not better don’t you and yes you can avoid potholes but if you hit one in an Aygo with its tiny tyres versus a Defender which do you think would puncture?
Judging from the low profile tyres on the new defenders parked up at the local showroom my bet would be on the Aygo.
yes you can avoid potholes but if you hit one in an Aygo with its tiny tyres versus a Defender which do you think would puncture?
I'm not saying everyone needs to get an Aygo, but I would suggest that a Defender on the super low pro tyres I often see them on would come off worse than an Aygo with sensible profiles.
You guys crack me up.
Buying cars isn’t hard. Find the one that
a) Suits your practical needs
b) You like the look of
c) You can affordIt really isn’t that hard. The majority of vehicles on the road today are based around common engines in similar chassis with a wheel on each corner. Everything else is personal preference and marketing BS.
UK Transport is a contributor to but by far not the biggest impact to climate change. The difference between an SUV and other car shapes is at best negligible so you really should be looking at a wholly different view for your transport needs if you want to add
d) Has a positive impact on climate change
Woah woah woah! Don't be coming in here with your balanced view and sensible comments spoiling everything, this thread still has life left in it yet.
dave_h
Full Memberand has a photo of a Swedish registered car which questions the effort journalistic effort behind the headline.
Because they used a royalty free photo, as per the comment underneath it. 🤷♂️
Particularly when you dig behind the facts, find it was already two years old when reported and it seems the ‘fact’ is based on increased sales of SUVs, reduction in road accidents but increased number of pedestrian fatalities. Does this really mean SUVs are more dangerous to kids walking or cycling?
The report was published in 2022, no?
Because the sample size is small and limited to one geographic region, more research will be required to see whether all of the findings hold up in a larger study.
Where is the quote from because it does not appear in the journal they linked?
It's not the magnitude of the extra fuel consumption that's annoying, it's the pointlessness of it.
As a market, we actively choose a less efficient vehicle just because it looks a bit better. I mean.. really? We are all annoyed by people driving to the shops 500m away to get milk - that's the same kind of thing. If you drive 10k miles a year then that 500m is a negligible portion of your driving carbon emissions, but we are annoyed and dismayed by how needless it is. Same for SUV ownership (in most cases).
Or like designing a house with cathedral ceilings, because you like it, when it could be using up far more fuel for heating. That probably has much more impact than driving a small SUV.
This jumped out -
UK Transport is a contributor to but by far not the biggest impact to climate change.
'by far not' - just a quick stats search on that:
Of (global) transport, and I'd expect the split for UK is similar to the rest of the west, passenger cars are ~40% of the transport sector (and 5x aviation which suprised me),
The global transportation sector is a major polluter and in 2020 produced approximately 7.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Passenger cars were the biggest source of emissions that year, accounting for 41 percent of global transportation emissions.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/
and in turn transportation is
the fastest growing source of emissions worldwide, and now accounts for 17 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions - behind only the power sector.
https://www.statista.com/topics/7476/transportation-emissions-worldwide/#topicOverview
Looks like low mpg SUVs + cars thf are a significant contributor, as are all cars collectively. To your point about making a difference, choice of car is a factor. Reducing flying from 4hrs to zero saves about 1 tonne of Co2, but the average car puts out over 2-3 tonnes a year for ~10,000 miles a year. Go from a 30mpg SUV to 55mpg estate car (or SUV) and you've made the same reduction as one less European return flight, roughly.
It does make them handle much better which is nice on windy roads even if you aren’t driving fast. Reduced roll is better for your passengers too.
I like cars, like driving and like to think I have a decent idea of what a decent chassis feels like. Pretty much every car I've owned personally has been chosen with more consideration given to how it drives than the quality of the interior or how big the boot was. I decided to get our i3s on the back of a test drive across some back roads which was tremendous fun but in all honesty can't remember the last time in almost 3 years that I used it for anything other than getting from A to B or recreated the feeling of the test drive.
The most relaxing car to drive I've had was a Discovery Sport. Comfy seats, plenty of room, quiet enough and well set up suspension. It took the stress out of long journeys and left you ready to crack on when you arrived rather than feeling knackered. Kids loved it too, they want us to get another.
These days it seems that for 99% of my driving comfort is more important than handling on windy roads. That's not to say I couldn't find a traditional shaped car that was as comfortable as the Land Rover, I'm sure there are plenty but I can only comment on vehicles I've actually driven.
UK Transport is a contributor to but by far not the biggest impact to climate change.
‘by far not’ – just a quick stats search on that:
Of (global) transport, and I’d expect the split for UK is similar to the rest of the west, passenger cars are ~40% of the transport sector (and 5x aviation which suprised me),
...and the emissions output of the 40m (mostly new) vehicles that make up UK transport compared to the 1.5b vehicles (of various age) global transport and then consider the relative difference chosing an SUV over a similar engined traditional car body shape will have on climate change?
My point is that if climate change is a deciding factor in vehicle choice then you're really looking at the wrong end of the climate change issue.
These days it seems that for 99% of my driving comfort is more important than handling on windy roads.
For me they are related, as excessive body roll is a detriment to comfort. Of course modern SUVs don't roll a lot anyway. The hire Sportage handled fine apparently (I didn't drive it) and was refined and muted over rough roads but it was firm feeling, a little bit more truck-like with a touch of short wavelength bouncing. The Merc is more comfortable and also handles superbly. Pretty low to get in and out of, but doesn't feel especially low down when driving it.
consider the relative difference chosing an SUV over a similar engined traditional car body shape will have on climate change?
Again, it's the principle.
EDIT that principle being making a slightly worse choice because 'oh well it's not that big of a deal really and I like it'. It's not specifically the car choice, it's all of it. Thousands of choices we make all the time. And I'm including myself in this.
My point is that if climate change is a deciding factor in vehicle choice then you’re really looking at the wrong end of the climate change issue.
No-one's saying that choosing a non-SUV is going to fix everything.
…and the emissions output of the 40m (mostly new) vehicles that make up UK transport compared to the 1.5b vehicles (of various age) global transport and then consider the relative difference chosing an SUV over a similar engined traditional car body shape will have on climate change?
Sure, if you were just talking about shape .. I missed that. if the overall efficiency is similar then it's a non-issue in this area. If it's about the impact transport + private cars have then heavy SUVs and high-performance cars Vs more fuel efficient vehicles is more significant.
My point is that if climate change is a deciding factor in vehicle choice then you’re really looking at the wrong end of the climate change issue.
In terms of emissions and mpg or EV equivalent it should be? We're all consumers and we create markets through demand - in that respect it isn't just about UK vehicles. Make every change you can - yes make the biggest changes first and individuals can't solve this alone, but being selective can also be an easy way out (for us or manufacturers etc).
consider the relative difference chosing an SUV over a similar engined traditional car body shape will have on climate change?
My point is that if climate change is a deciding factor in vehicle choice then you’re really looking at the wrong end of the climate change issue.
THE point is that almost no one is considering the impact - AT ALL. Climate impact is barely a thought in peoples buying hierarchy. Sustainable choices should be FORCED to the top of peoples priorities. Whether that be in cars, flights, energy, food or family.
It absolutely astounds me that a forum of cyclists will even half heartedly defend vehicles that are more likely to kill them on the road, churn up the roads they use and make the world even slightly worse for your kids.
No one's saying don't drive (well, maybe TJ) but FFS make a considerate choice. Don't buy an 2.7t Discovery because it's comfy or you need it for your annual camping trip. Don't buy a Range Rover Phev for the BIK, depsite knowing full well it's do 12MPG, only get 11 miles on it's battery and cost 4x the CO2 of a BMW 3 to make it. Don't buy a Tesla Model X 100D because for 2 days in a year you need to transport extra kids for birthdays and you like the whooosh as it accelerates it's 2.4t weight around a corner on the way to your annual ski trip. Accept a little inconvenience/compromise to make a better choice.
Even some of the best car enthusiast websites publish articles in recognition that the car industry as a whole is heading in the wrong direction. Heres an interesting one on Evo on research done by Green Ncap on mileage data from 27 Eu countries and UK, which shows that the ever increasing weight of 'everyday' vehicles is nullifying any of the advances in emission reductions with tech, including the switch to EV if the EV is over the 2 tonne mark:
As has been often said the answer is not to drive. I'm actively looking for ways to avoid driving my car, and keep it for long trips, and I must admit that's partly because I want to look after it.
Hopefully we will be able to dispense with a second car when the lease goes back.
For me they are related, as excessive body roll is a detriment to comfort. Of course modern SUVs don’t roll a lot anyway. The hire Sportage handled fine apparently (I didn’t drive it) and was refined and muted over rough roads but it was firm feeling, a little bit more truck-like with a touch of short wavelength bouncing. The Merc is more comfortable and also handles superbly. Pretty low to get in and out of, but doesn’t feel especially low down when driving it.
Must admit the Kuga we had was worse to drive in every way compared to the Focus it replaced and on which it was based. The Land Rover was another level though, not firm but didn't roll, didn't feel like a truck or a jacked up car. Guess it's easier to design that sort of thing with a blank canvas rather then the requirement to base it on a car chassis?
The i3s goes back in a few months and I'll probably get a second hand estate but would be more than happy with another LR.
Daffy
THE point is that almost no one is considering the impact – AT ALL. Climate impact is barely a thought in peoples buying hierarchy. Sustainable choices should be FORCED to the top of peoples priorities. Whether that be in cars, flights, energy, food or family.
There are 2 reasons for this though and you just demonstrated it using the word "sustainable"
1) "The government" (wider sense including local) can't make its mind up if climate change is a priority or not. The same goes for environmental organisations who want to sneak through their agenda's on the back of climate change and rather billions die of the effects of climate change than abandon their agenda.
One minute it's CO2 then its a total flip to clean air zones leading to increased CO2
Sustrans are out with begging bowls to (re)cover the countryside in tarmac .. so people in lycra can run 25C tyres at 100psi.. some "they" want us all to have EV's on our drives and some vague promise to those not fortunate enough to have drives or parking many of whom previous bought diesels when they were told to... and all expect as soon as they HAVE to use public charging stations they are going to be thoroughly reamed and we can't use nuclear and refuse to even consider looking into options like Japan and instead just spout the same FUD that got us into this mess in the first place.
If you truly want to address (or at this stage mitigate) climate change then it needs to be a clear and consistent message but its being deliberately mixed and diluted.
"sustainable" needs to take a back seat if you are actually bothered about climate change.
2) Given the above What's the point on an individual level..
It absolutely astounds me that a forum of cyclists
The cyclists who want to wear lycra and tear down country roads and use them as a racetrack and refuse to use cyclelanes on new carbon framed bikes imported from China? (As far as people not into cycling think)
Are cyclists prepared to give up their 25c tyres and use something can go over a grate or pothole etc.
It absolutely astounds me that a forum of <<insert here>>
want to keep their stuff and everyone else should fit around that because their <<insert here>> is an exception and gets a special pass ?
Guess it’s easier to design that sort of thing with a blank canvas rather then the requirement to base it on a car chassis?
Perhaps - but maybe also cost. The Disco could have had air suspension, two stage or variable dampers, double wishbone suspension, I seem to remember reading about anti-roll bars with some kind of viscous coupling in the middle, stuff like that. A stiffer body can allow you to use softer springs and retain control, and a more expensive car has more attention paid to stiffening plates and whatnot.
“The government” (wider sense including local) can’t make its mind up if climate change is a priority or not.
In fairness it has competing goals. It has to grow the economy and keep people happy at the same time as reducing emissions and environmental impact. It's not an easy task, and as we know there is a massive skill deficit in government.
Sustrans are out with begging bowls to (re)cover the countryside in tarmac .. so people in lycra can run 25C tyres at 100psi
I'm not a Sustrans fan but that's not accurate. Sustrans routes are the worst places for a fast roadie to be!
One minute it’s CO2 then its a total flip to clean air zones leading to increased CO2
You know the CO2 targets are still there? Just because they aren't in the news doesn't mean they aren't still being enforced, and getting ever lower.
The 'flip' was because it was pointed out that NOx levels were dangerously high in most urban areas, which presents an immediate risk to people's health in those areas. Diesels can still have low NOx emissions if they are properly configured and regulated - some even have lower than some petrols.
Molgrips
In fairness it has competing goals. It has to grow the economy and keep people happy at the same time as reducing emissions and environmental impact. It’s not an easy task, and as we know there is a massive skill deficit in government.
Let's leave aside the "grow the economy" as to some extent that's depending on a economic philosophy and one 180 degrees from the current government.
We are left with the "keep people happy at the same time as reducing emissions and environmental impact"
So the same people to be kept happy got told to buy diesel, then scrap them then buy a house with a drive.
To address/mitigate climate change the message has got to be both SIMPLE and TRUSTWORTHY but it isn't and instead its an environmental smorgasbord with the cheaper and easier items put within easier reach.
I’m not a Sustrans fan but that’s not accurate. Sustrans routes are the worst places for a fast roadie to be!
As maybe but that's not stopping sustrans with their new "donate for tarmac advert" nor the general (non cyclists) comments on it. I doubt I need to say what the comments are but includes "road tax", "fix the pot holes", "lycra", "not using existing" (etc. etc. you can probably guess)
Taking this wider (given greenhouse gasses are global) then we need to also address how taking gas or driving up gas prices for 3rd world countries burning wood and dung is helping.
Taking it narrower we need to stop councils offsetting their carbon for example because they don't produce concrete or steel in their borough so simply removing the production from their carbon footprint when they build concrete tower blocks and stick a small solar/wind on top and a bit of a greenwall.
The energy used to keep this thread alive is equal to the emissions of a Range Rover doing 20,000 miles of urban driving.
There are 2 reasons for this though and you just demonstrated it using the word “sustainable
Er - No. Climate Change is a causal factor in our inability to achieve sustainability. They're not distinct. The IPCC specifically addressed this at the last council that many people do not associate the impact of climate change with our ability to achieve sustainability. Similarly, thinking sustainably has an effect on our ability to address climate change.
Sustainable long term solutions may have a short term negative affect on climate change (materials extraction for renewable technologies for example), but the result is higher sustainability (better overall use of resources) at a system of system level.
Once again. However economical your SUV is, it would be more economical still if its roof and bonnet were lower i.e. it weren’t an SUV.
Do you drive the lowest and most economical car possible? Please list your cars and we will see.
Do you have the highest possible level of insulation in your house?
Do you have children?
Genuine questions for perspective.
Er – No. Climate Change is a causal factor in our inability to achieve sustainability.
So what? Who cares about long term sustainability when we have a climate emergency ?
Sustainable long term solutions may have a short term negative affect on climate change (materials extraction for renewable technologies for example), but the result is higher sustainability (better overall use of resources) at a system of system level.
So what.. ??
Climate change IS going to kill tends, hundreds of millions or billions... Either we do everything we can or we faff about with sustainability and trying to solve tomorrows problems over todays.
So what? Who cares about long term sustainability when we have a climate emergency ?
Long Term sustainability is 20-25+ years. Almost everyone alive today cares about that and everyone can do something about that.
So what.. ??
Climate change IS going to kill tends, hundreds of millions or billions… Either we do everything we can or we faff about with sustainability and trying to solve tomorrows problems over todays.
This is such a dopey statement I barely even know where to begin. EVERYTHING Takes time and planning to implement. Sustainability helps plan those changes so that they become systemic changes that endure, expand and cumulatively contribute. They help you make the right environmental, economic and societal choices at the right times. You can't reduce emissions, invest in new technology, sponsor research, buy raw materials without an economy to do so, not unless the world suddenly abandons money. Any other argument is taking the world as you want it to be, not as it is.
Either we do everything we can or we faff about with sustainability
Surely 'sustainability' is doing what we can? What do you think that word means?
Genuine questions for perspective.
If this were a competition amongst contributors to see who had the highest moral ground, then these would be important questions. But it's not. I have already admitted my shortcomings but that doesn't make what I am saying incorrect.
To address/mitigate climate change the message has got to be both SIMPLE and TRUSTWORTHY
You talk as if there is one body with all the knowledge and they drip-feed it to us to suit their own ends. This isn't really the case. UK Govt is a rabble of people with their own aims whose employment depends on having enough people endorse them. They aren't scientists or strategists outside of their own reputation.
Scientists told them that we needed to reduce CO2 so they created incentives to reduce the average CO2 emissions of the UK fleet - they didn't say buy a diesel, by the way, they said buy a low CO2 car and diesels are usually lower CO2.
Then different scientists pointed out that our NOx emissions were a problem, so they tried to encourage legislation to address that. In both cases governments were reacting to scientists, but you must remember that 'science' isn't one thing, it's a continuous stream of research and yes, the recommendations based on that do change unfortunately.
Now the govt has said we will ban sale of new ICE cars by 2030 which will solve both problems but not for a long time. And yes, it may well create others. We couldn't do this 15 years ago because the technology wasn't there.
Now - I'm not sticking up for the government here - a smart govt would have invested its own money in EV development years ago and we'd have manufacturers churning out batteries from local sources or even British built cars. But they didn't because we have a chronic skills gap in government.
Again - not endorsing what happened you give the impression there's an all-knowing cabal that's purposefully controlling everything and misleading us - but it's not really like that IMO.
Do you drive the lowest and most economical car possible? Please list your cars and we will see.
I try:
Cars:
2016 BMW I3 (one of the lightest EVs you can buy) charged predominantly from solar or from an energy tariff which reinvests in green technologies. 7400 miles a year.
2004 BMW 3 Series Petrol Touring. Does around 2000 miles a year, the rest of my mileage is by bicycle - 7000 miles per year. It does around 40mpg on a run and is immaculately maintained, with very low emissions. Always ran on super.
Do you have the highest possible level of insulation in your house?
No - I have cavity wall insulation, 400mm of loft insulation and double glazed windows, but the front walls cannot be insulated well as they're subject to driving rain, the floor is also uninsulated as It's next on my list. Our house is now almost fully solar powered for both electricity usage and hot water.
Do you have children?
I do - 2, a 12 year old and a 6 year old.
One thing you didn't ask which might also be pertinent is "what do you do?"
I work in aviation and seek to actively reduce the global Co2 emissions from commercial aircraft. My work so far will have contributed substantially to the removed billions of tonnes of Co2 from aircraft emissions. I aim to do more. I say this is pertinent as it shows just how much of an impact individuals can make and most young adults that come to me these days looking for a job are looking to make a difference on climate change. Kids are, quite possibly, a sustainable choice if we educate them properly.
None of this is willy waving, it's showing that I quite literally have put my money where my mouth is. I don't just espouse this stuff, I'm trying to make a difference with my actions, even if it costs me both physically and financially.
If this were a competition amongst contributors to see who had the highest moral ground, then these would be important questions. But it’s not. I have already admitted my shortcomings but that doesn’t make what I am saying incorrect.
It makes it very hypocritical though. So what cars do you drive?
I do drive one of the most efficient cars available (an Ioniq EV) as it happens, but that goes back soon leaving me with a car that is simply moderately efficient. And I have put quite a lot of work into my house this winter to reduce energy usage, although not a lot of money. I even stuck Kingspan on the inside of my front door.
On the other hand, we'll be going to the US this year (to visit family rather we haven't seen for 3 years than a pure holiday) and we do buy quite a lot of sundry crap we don't really need.
It makes it very hypocritical though.
No, it makes it an objective discussion about science rather than a personal competition. Which is better? Why does it matter what I drive? Does it invalidate my point?
I do drive one of the most efficient cars available (an Ioniq EV) as it happens, but that goes back soon leaving me with a car that is simply moderately efficient. And I have put quite a lot of work into my house this winter to reduce energy usage, although not a lot of money. I even stuck Kingspan on the inside of my front door.
On the other hand, we’ll be going to the US this year (to visit family rather we haven’t seen for 3 years than a pure holiday) and we do buy quite a lot of sundry crap we don’t really need.
It makes it very hypocritical though.
No, it makes it an objective discussion about science rather than a personal competition. Which is better? Why does it matter what I drive? Does it invalidate my point?
Your point is that a car should have a roof and bonnet line as low as possible to optimise fuel efficiency, although front surface area is also crucial (a large low car may well be less fuel efficient than a smaller, higher one, their respective aero drag coefficients should be compared ). Either way, surely you can accept that those criteria alone can't be the only practical considerations when choosing a car, otherwise we should all be driving a 108, which is small and low.
Now, if I need a car bigger than a 108, what is my choice? Let's simplify it down to the typical choice of an estate or a SUV on the same platform/engine/box, as previously discussed. They are both normal cars by the way. Neither are as low as they could be, it's not a binary proposition. All a compromise, this side of a 108.
My point is choosing the version that does attract a 10% mpg penalty (the SUV) which will average 45mpg rather than 50mpg shouldn't not attract criticism from others unless they have an exemplary conduct from an environmental POV, ie no children, totally optimised insulation, vegan, totally optimised fleet of cars (not just one of them).
For all we know, the guy with the 5mpg penalty might have an overall carbon footprint half of the other guy with kids, a heavy Mercedes, so-so insulation, eating meat etc. An it doesn't need to be a competition for that aspect to be pertinent.
Hypocrisy of the highest order IMHO. The catch all anti-SUV sentiment is quite irrational.
