Once upon a time a company called Nissan is wondering about what to do to replace the 2nd generation Primera
Honda CRV mk1 - 1995 - predates the Qashqai by some time. Arguably, Vauxhall Frontera 1989 (also sold as the fantastically title Isuzu "Mystery Utility Wizard") was there before that and Jeep Cherokee dates from mid 80s.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image, and that is often not considered a worthy reason to use more fuel.
You do appear to have this chip on your shoulder about SUV's. I have a chip on my shoulder about people who buy vans to carry bikes about, or buy motorhomes.
We moved to a BMW X1 because we wanted space, easy access, useable boot space. We looked at Skoda's/VW/Audi and actually at the time the BMW came out as cheap to lease because of better residuals.
The big bonus was that it does better mpg than the Fiesta 1.0 'eco' engined car it replaced, and buy some margin too.
I used to have a Focus 1.6 too, that was crap too, not useable space, sluggish, crap mpg.
Going forward ideal for me would be an electric small car ie 2 seats for short journeys and then a big SUV with combustion engine for other duties.
Arguably, Vauxhall Frontera 1989 (also sold as the fantastically title Isuzu “Mystery Utility Wizard”) was there before that and Jeep Cherokee dates from mid 80s.
All arguably traditional ladder-chassis 4x4's not cars pretending to be one.
Ironically it's the sort of car we need now, but just don't exists! Small, SWB, powerful, towing cars.
You do appear to have this chip on your shoulder about SUV’s
Hmm, not as much as I used to. I'm just trying to rationally point out why some people are anti-SUV. We do of course as a society have far bigger problems than a higher roofline on our cars. Working out how to get people to want to avoid driving in the first place is a much more pressing issue as has been raised.
That said, choosing a car over an SUV is a pretty easy thing to do and it makes a difference.
The big bonus was that it does better mpg than the Fiesta 1.0 ‘eco’ engined car it replaced, and buy some margin too.
Right, but like I said, that higher roof line is still costing you MPG. If you lowered the suspension and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it'd be more efficient.
Small, SWB, powerful, towing cars.
You don't need a lot of power to tow, weight is the main factor. That's why Range Rovers (arguably the first modern SUV) can tow a lot, because they weigh so much.
and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it’d be more efficient.
And less space inside and a lower driving position.
It’s the electrolyte that they are working on. There are lots of significant improvements to be made there.
Mainly to cost, lifespan and charge speed though, as far as I can tell. The electrolyte is very thin and doesn't contribute much to energy density. It's contribution to that aspect is mainly by being reduced in thickness. Pack size is dominated by packaging. My guess is packs will be unique to vehicle as that will allow high cost refurbishments for manufactures (cynical hat on).
All arguably traditional ladder-chassis 4×4’s not cars pretending to be one.
Somewhat sure the Cherokee was unibody..?
Some good info here.
How does a solid-state battery work?
When the cell is charging, the lithium particles move from the cathode, through the structure of the atoms that form the separator, and then move in between the separator itself and the anode’s electrical contact, thus forming a solid layer of pure lithium. In this way, the anode will only be formed of lithium particles and will have a smaller volume than a lithium-ion technology anode, which contains the graphite structure.
So the anode is denser in terms of lithium, so more ions per volume and the suggestion is double the volumetric energy density.
Just to give a bit of perspective on the difference between an estate and an SUV fuel economy, I’ve had a BMW 5 series estate and an X5 with the same 3 litre diesel engine in them. The estate car long term over the same type of driving was about 3-4 mpg more economical, that’s it, just under 10% difference.
1. That’s a really inefficient engine.
2. The X5 needs it to get around, the 5 could likely do just as well with the 190bho 2.0d
3. I’ll bet 3-4mpg is still 10-12%?
4. How much was short journeys? The estate is usually much more efficient on a run.
My 3.0l petrol will get 40+mpg on a run, but only 25-27 on the school run.
You really think a Sportage or a Kuga is a status symbol to people ? I’m not convinced…
Speak for yourself Weeksy but I bought my Sportage purely as a status symbol. A Porsche and a Rolex (or a T6 and a Santa Cruz) is fine for some, but me, I wanted that next-level status boost. I'm the king of the bloody neighbourhood now, rollin' in my pimped-out*, burnt-orange, 2-point-0. Nothing says you've made it quite like a secondhand Korean motor.
*Sun roof and a tow bar, I'll have you know.
Pfft, next week I take delivery of my 12 year old, low mileage original and best SUV Quashqui with white - yes white - leather seats in Tekna trim level giving me a panoramic sunroof, Bose sound system, reversing camera and heated seats.
in my pimped-out*
*Sun roof and a tow bar, I’ll have you know.
Of course as your car is so tall the only people who will be able to see you have a sunroof are those in Range Rovers/Cayennes, who still metaphorically look down on you; and T6s, who will insist that a van is betterer anyway.
Us plebs in hatchbacks will be unaware of just how baller your new whip is.
Right, but like I said, that higher roof line is still costing you MPG. If you lowered the suspension and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it’d be more efficient.
There is a lot more to it than size. Apparently a BMW X1 has a drag coefficient of 0.34, and a Fiesta 0.32. Most average cars appear to be around 0.26
The new BMW IX which is a huge brick has a drag coefficients of 0.25 beating most cars on the market. A lot of estate cars appear to be in the 0.26-0.28 range
Tyres/Wheels have a much bigger impact on mpg than size.
Right, but like I said, that higher roof line is still costing you MPG. If you lowered the suspension and built a new body with a more raked windscreen, a lower roof and a more aero back end, it’d be more efficient.
You’ve just described my dads Honda civic estate. It is a bit more efficient on fuel economy than my Volvo however that comes with a significant cost;
The lower and harder suspension coupled with lower profile tyres gives it an abysmal ride - it clatters over pit holes something rotten and has destroyed two tyres this year alone. After a short 3 hour drive you are exceptionally glad to get out the bloody thing. It has hee haw space in the back seat for 6ft adult (I cannot comfortably sit in the back at all) and the boot space, whilst leading in its class is terrible compared to my Volvo.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">
Compare and contrast to our Volvo - we had to drive back from the alps for a family emergency last summer. My wife and I drove 1,000 miles in shifts in the space of 25hours with full camping kit. We got out surprisingly fresh and able to deal with what awaited us at home. The same journey just would not have been possible in the Honda. </span>
When we bought out car the criteria were;
load carrying potential,
safety for the occupants,
efficiency
comfort.
If you score high on fuel efficiency but make the user experience frankly awful, then you’re not going to make a good car people will buy.
There is a lot more to it than size. Apparently a BMW X1 has a drag coefficient of 0.34, and a Fiesta 0.32. Most average cars appear to be around 0.26
The new BMW IX which is a huge brick has a drag coefficients of 0.25 beating most cars on the market. A lot of estate cars appear to be in the 0.26-0.28 range
from an non automotive engineering standpoint the coefficient of drag should be multiplied by the frontal area of the vehicle, and by 0.5 x air (or fluid) density x velocity squared.
Thus a van with 0.2 coefficient might have the same drag as a little sports car with 0.4.
of course in the automotive world, "drag coefficient" may be universally accepted short hand for what I've just described nope, seems it isnt.
So the anode is denser in terms of lithium, so more ions per volume and the suggestion is double the volumetric energy density.
So, just to be clear, that's not at all the electrolyte (or polymer separator as it usually is) as you first said then? It's actually deriving its gain by massively reducing the size of the anode. Maybe the solid separator makes that possible. But the increase per se is not 'because solid'. Also (like all the other revolutionary battery technologies that are announced weekly that are about to overturn the battery world) this is still lab based and not commercialised... i.e. not to say it will never happen - but more than a pinch of salt is needed.
There is a lot more to it than size. Apparently a BMW X1 has a drag coefficient of 0.34, and a Fiesta 0.32. Most average cars appear to be around 0.26
The drag coefficient is the drag per unit frontal area. You have to multiply that by the frontal area to get the actual drag force.
To add to the above on drag coefficients:
A few approximate values of bike related drag values
Bicycle - Streamlined Velomobile 0.12
Sphere 0.5
Bike - Drafting behind an other cyclist 0.5
Bike - Racing 0.88
Bicycle 0.9
Person standing 1.0 – 1.3
Bike - Upright Commuter 1.1
The lower and harder suspension coupled with lower profile tyres gives it an abysmal ride – it clatters over pit holes something rotten and has destroyed two tyres this year alone. After a short 3 hour drive you are exceptionally glad to get out the bloody thing. It has hee haw space in the back seat for 6ft adult (I cannot comfortably sit in the back at all) and the boot space, whilst leading in its class is terrible compared to my Volvo.
Ergh. You're comparing a shit estate with a nice SUV. I can assure you not all estates are shit and not all SUVs are nice.
But the increase per se is not ‘because solid’.
Eh? It's because the electrolyte is solid rather than liquid, it allows a different design so the cells have higher energy density.
As for production, they are in pilot manufacturing stage now, that means a factory is being set up to make them in large numbers. It'll happen.
SUV popularity came off the back of the MPV boom which Renault capitalised on so well with the Scenic. People liked the extra height, driving position and space but didn't like the looks so much. Most SUVs are just an evolution of the MPVs which were an evolution of family cars.
I have a Sportage at the moment, in the past had a CRV, old school Vitara, couple of Tourans and Scenics. They're all much of a muchness apart from the Vitara which was a proper small SUV with diff lock and a low ratio gearbox so not like the modern ones.
I went for the AWD Sportage as I 've 1200 ft above sea level on a hill, AWD helps in the winter, and at least once a month I take it off road as I build mountain bike trails with Forestry England. Our second car is a 1 litre Fiat 500, not withstanding being a 2 car family, any minimal detrimental impact of the AWD drive SUV is more than offset by having a tiny fuel efficient 2nd car.
I wonder if Molgrips has a second car and how environmentally friendly his fleet is when aggregated.
Meanwhile people with lifestyle vans and campers they drive as everyday vehicles need to have a long hard think about the impact they are having which is far worse than the faux SUVs.
I wonder if Molgrips has a second car and how environmentally friendly his fleet is when aggregated.
Why? Are we having a willy waving competition? I thought were were discussing cars.
All I'm saying is that an SUV body style adds a significant amount of air resistance, and is often a decision taken for no practical purpose, simply image.
I could be driving around in a Hummer H2, that would not invalidate that assertion.
ayjaydoubleyou
Full MemberTo add to the above on drag coefficients:
A few approximate values of bike related drag values
Bicycle – Streamlined Velomobile 0.12
Sphere 0.5
Bike – Drafting behind an other cyclist 0.5
Bike – Racing 0.88
Bicycle 0.9
Person standing 1.0 – 1.3
Bike – Upright Commuter 1.1
So, if I drive whilst standing out of the sunroof of my car, to avoid being blinded by led headlamps, the drag coefficient will go from .33, to roughly .38.
Might be time for an SUV.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image
How do you know that? Maybe that's just your perception. Or perhaps you have data to back that up?
Even if were true, why does it grate ? Why do you care? I assume a RS6 achieving 20mpg grates far more than a SUV yielding 40mpg like most do. Do you get irritated by RS6s too?
Just changed our absolutely perfect fiat 500 that has done 11 years of faultless driving for little money for a car costing double the amount and much bigger. I would have kept it another 11 years tbh.
The main underlying reason i am sick of worrying about her being in a collision with much bigger cars. Now that 90% of the population has to drive a car that is basically a hatchback thats been jacked up to serve absolutely no purpose it means her car is even more vulnerable.
Its just a power struggle to protect your own but in the same move stick 2 fingers up at everyone elses safety.
Why? Are we having a willy waving competition? I thought were were discussing cars.
All I’m saying is that an SUV body style adds a significant amount of air resistance, and is often a decision taken for no practical purpose, simply image.
We are, you seem to attempting to mind read other people's motivation for buying an SUV, and by the responses on here from actual SUV owners getting it wrong.
The main underlying reason i am sick of worrying about her being in a collision with much bigger cars. Now that 90% of the population has to drive a car that is basically a hatchback thats been jacked up to serve absolutely no purpose it means her car is even more vulnerable.
its not significantly more vulnerable - the weight has maybe risen by 10% - it's very unlikely that in a collision that 10% would make a significant difference to the outcome
Not read every page...I'd just like car manufacturers to stop making cars/suvs etc wider than road lanes.
They don't, car parking spaces however.....
We are, you seem to attempting to mind read other people’s motivation for buying an SUV, and by the responses on here from actual SUV owners getting it wrong.
Statistics fail but whatever.
Eh? It’s because the electrolyte is solid rather than liquid, it allows a different design so the cells have higher energy density.
So like I said, not what you said. But whatever.
As for production, they are in pilot manufacturing stage now, that means a factory is being set up to make them in large numbers. It’ll happen
Who is in pilot manufacturing?
My employers would love to be able to source a lithium cell with double the energy density of the existing product. Even at small volume.
lol @ ****erpanzerists 🙂
Who is in pilot manufacturing?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/06/solid-power-begins-pilot-production-of-solid-state-ev-battery.html
Sounds like your employer should have put some money up.
I use my SUV for it's sporting utility.
The main underlying reason i am sick of worrying about her being in a collision with much bigger cars. Now that 90% of the population has to drive a car that is basically a hatchback thats been jacked up to serve absolutely no purpose it means her car is even more vulnerable.
TBH I’d be more worried about HGV infractions rather than car ones ,ooh and trees 🙂
You’re sat in a safety cage with restraints,crumple zones,arresters (so that bonnet doesn’t getchucked in your face and multiple airbags and then there’s the newer funky active stuff that the Teslas do, modern cars aren’t invulnerable but your not that vulnerable in the same sense of the risks you take when cycling on the road.
I use my SUV for it’s sporting utility.
joking aside, it's the utility bit that seems to have been lost. Actually it hasn't been lost, it's been designed out.
Take the Skoda Yeti, universally praised as a design triumph.
small footprint
room for five adults with headroom
excellent ramp angles
fully removable rear seats
practical load space with vertical, flat rear door, basically van shaped
generally economical and reliable
haldex 4x4 system
closest thing to that now is probably the dacia duster. hardly an aspirational vehicle, but a good choice for the practical buyer.
car parking spaces however…..
It's OK. They just use 2
Molgrips
Well there’s my earlier example of Ioniq 5 vs 6, but there’s also tons of information out there. I gathered figures last time we did this I can’t be bothered to do it again.
Except the first google I find says they are not the same
next-gen semiconductors in the inverter, reworked motors with hairpin windings, and a re-optimized control strategy when switching between single-motor and dual-motor operation in the AWD model), the Ioniq 6 is a lot more efficient than the Ioniq 5.
The thing that grates slightly about the SUV trend is that for MOST people it’s just about image,
Swap out SUV for Mercedes ???
Or .. and I'm just extending this "people who tow caravans"...
I'm sure you considered many options and came to a decision but don't seem to think MOST people who buy SUV's do... (and as mentioned whats the status symbol quality of a korean SUV vs a Mercedes ???
All I’m saying is that an SUV body style adds a significant amount of air resistance, and is often a decision taken for no practical purpose, simply image.
Define "significant". Between 5 and 10% when comparing like for like is not significant IMO
Define "often". 10%? 50%? 75%? Share your data please.
Image influences the purchase of most cars but is rarely the only motivation. It's a mix. And it's in no way mutually exclusive with practicality.
I find their image ghastly yet I find SUVs far more practical. Should I not buy one in case someone who doesn't have to buy one thinks I bought it for image purposes ?
The anti SUV sentiment is absurd, irrational and seems to be the preserve of those judging others by their own standards of insecurity.
They don’t, car parking spaces however…..
That's nothing to do with SUV's tho'. It's a particular problem with vans tho' which is why they should be taxed off the road for non business use, along with their other bad traits.
Your 5-10% increase is not repreresentative, nickfrog. The real increase in fuel comsumption is from negligible to 28%
The Audi Q5 35 TDI uses 1,4 l/100 km more than the equiçvalent A4. 6.4l/100km rather than 5.0l/100km. That's very significant IMO
https://www.caradisiac.com/un-suv-consomme-t-il-plus-qu-une-berline-182747.htm
More expensive, more expensive to insure, heaver and thirstier for the same cabin space, more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, worse handling, due to higher centre of gravity, faster wear of bigger tyres... . Fashion over function.
Its just a power struggle to protect your own but in the same move stick 2 fingers up at everyone elses safety.
Tragedy Of The Commons innit...
joking aside, it’s the utility bit that seems to have been lost. Actually it hasn’t been lost, it’s been designed out.
It's a fair point with some so-called SUV's. I suspect people are buying them for a feeling of safety - and if they can afford the premium and it's worth it to them then fair enough.
However, there are still "real" SUV's on the market.
My Honda CRV currently has two kayaks on the roof. I've a thule towbar-mounted rack so my MTB's go on the back. With the back seats down I can get camping, kayaking and MTB equipment in the car. If we're a long time out on the kayaks then the bikes come off the rack and go IN the car - because you can't beat the feeling of "my bike is probably not going to get nicked now" whilst you're away from it.
I've also got an old volvo V60 estate. Very practical and I could get a roof bar for the kayaks, a towbar for the bikes and do much the same thing - but I live remotely and need the much superior ground clearance that an SUV gives me down dirt tracks (including mine - the volvo's getting scraped to buggery).
One of the early responses by @relapsed_mandalorian was:
You’re missing the ability to be drawn in by marketing bullshit
Maybe in some cases. But safety is not illusory - a quick google reports some studies have shown you're 50% more likely to survive a crash without suffering serious injury in an SUV than an ordinary car (which I didn't know, has suprised me, and makes my next purchase much more likely to be another SUV (or pickup - I live on a smallholding). For many that's got to be well worth the premium.
For me - the sporting utility is absolutely a thing that SUVs do better than estate cars. So it's not marketing or alpha-maleness or any of the other shit. For me - they're just better.
Maybe in some cases. But safety is not illusory – a quick google reports some studies have shown you’re 50% more likely to survive a crash without suffering serious injury in an SUV than an ordinary car (which I didn’t know, has suprised me,
Probably because in the event of an impact between an SUV and a proper car, the SUV goes over the top of all the safety systems and kills the poor, unfashionable flesh bags at a much higher rate.
So SUVs become "safer" in comparison to cars.
the figures speak volumes:
"The subjective impression for everyday road users that the bulk of UK new car sales consists more than ever of taller than average Crossovers is borne out by latest industry supplied sales numbers."
The anti SUV sentiment is absurd, irrational and seems to be the preserve of those judging others by their own standards of insecurity.
Not absurd, it's based on experience, both as a cyclist and driver, top annoyances for me--headlights, too bright and too high; driving, a 'I'm coming through' attitude, get outa my way cos I am bigger than yow; size, can't see over em in car parks, junctions etc making exits more dangerous; centre-line, SUV drivers seem to think they need to drive down the middle of the road; weight, more damage to roads, impact greater in accidents; risk, I am sure SUVs instill a (false) sense of security to those driving them. OK, and they're bloomin ugly too!
Yes, many of these traits can be applied to vans (and their drivers) but SUV numbers just keep on rising and rising...
