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
Last time I looked it up there was no correlation between the size of a car and the number of people killed in one.
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.
So our fleet is becoming less efficient than it could be? Nice, good work everyone.
Naughty nasty planet killing SUV having a mid life rebuild at 13years/215k miles.
Nothing failed or broken but bushes etc getting a bit tired.
Not sure an Aygo would be in this good condition at this mileage?
[url= https://i.ibb.co/pPQPhqV/F459-B6-FA-16-C7-4-B6-D-BDC2-1858-E5-CFAFE5.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/pPQPhqV/F459-B6-FA-16-C7-4-B6-D-BDC2-1858-E5-CFAFE5.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I assume a RS6 achieving 20mpg
At 60mph on the motorway maybe 😉
My RS5 averaged 10/11mpg over a tank when driven properly and that's a good few kilos and 200bhp less
Re this above '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'
I'd agree with that... so I compared drag coefficients of a few cars. The A4 is very slippery, particularly compared to other saloons-- so compare the Q5 to a BMW 3 series, and things get a lot tighter.. so should the BMW 3 and 5 be dumped as well? All this applies as well '-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…'
Also , don#t ever add a roof rack.
I can see the raging about enormous Range Rover, Q7, X7s etc.. but Qashqai and CeeDs / really .
And the other reason they're popular with designers is that it makes placing a battery underneath easier apparently. ALthough that doesn't seem to apply to a model 3 which is very low, and thus , as instinct suggests, hard for older people to get in and out of, except the OP.
so I compared drag coefficients of a few cars. The A4 is very slippery, particularly compared to other saloons– so compare the Q5 to a BMW 3 series, and things get a lot tighter.. so should the BMW 3 and 5 be dumped as well?
You need to multiply the drag coefficient by the frontal area to compare the actual air resistance.
So if the Q5 and the 3-Series had the same drag coefficient, the Q5 would still have more air resistance.
I can cruise along on my ~2.9m high Ducato using 7.5l/100km....assuming I sit at 80kmh.at 90kmh in using 8.5-9l/100km
This week i had dealings twice with SUV's.
The first was buying one,a Ford Kuga,and the second being knocked off my road bike by a driver in a BMW X5.
I didn't really want an SUV but with them being popular there were more on the market,especially the Kuga.An estate car would have been my choice but around here they were all high mileage company car stuff.
The SUV was bought to tow a caravan so the 2.0 diesel was ideal but more importantly the weight of the car.It will really only be used for towing.
The 80 year old driver in the X5 would have hit me even if he had been in a Fiat 500.Probably at a bit lower speed though.
It's like an arms race out there on the roads.
If you're driving around in a regular saloon then you're sitting lower than the majority of the traffic which is less than ideal. Same with lights, if you have non led lights then they can be near useless when driving towards someone with led lights, they're just overpowered.
But like many has said, SUV type cars are more fashionable but like most fashion (Balenciaga shoes being a good example) it can be less practical, more expensive and ugly.
Sad that you now have limited choice of big affordable saloons, same with estates. Even sadder that Ford has stopped making the Focus and Fiesta, Ford Puma? No thanks.
SUV is Americanise, I think? short hand for Sports Utility Vehicle AKA a Chelsea tractor, probably front wheel drive, and piloted by a Karen.
A pretend off road car that doesn't have 4x4 basicaly.
I have an ideological dislike for them for most of the eco reasons that many have alluded to BUT certain aspects of SUVs make sense...
Upright driving position - good for child/elderly relatives loading and (for me at least) more comfy than a legs in front position on long trips.
The fact they're likely to be softer riding than an estate - there are smaller craters on the moon than in Hampshire's roads
You seem to be able to get them with half decent tow bar nose weight limits for bike racks and trailers.
MPVs do the functional thing better for those who don't live in territory that semi justifies a 4wd but the large non van ones are close to extinct.
New non premium large estates are starting to disappear due to market forces. The Accord went a few years back, Ford has dropped the Mondeo, SMax and Galaxy also go in April I believe. As a big Ford fan there's no large family CAR or MPV in the range. No more i40/Optima or Insignia and others have mentioned other manufacturers dropping larger estates. An ever larger choice of SUV's is being pushed into that gap.
Proper big estates new... 5 series, E-class, Superb, A6 (sort of), Passat (sort of) ... I know I've missed some but it's getting tougher if you're in the new market (I'm not).
All the better for unlawfully parking on high kerbs...
Modern propblems require modern solutions.
Not sure an Aygo would be in this good condition at this mileage?
I will let you know when it gets there. My older Aygo is now 12 years old (had from new) and has done 100,000 miles and in very good condition and still going strong.
In that 100,000 miles I have spent a total of £400 on repairs outside of tyres and brakes. Another thing with small cheap cars is that the parts are also cheap.
I think we are outside cases anyway as most peoples cars never see them do anything like 100,000 miles before they change them do they.
I think we are outside cases anyway as most peoples cars never see them do anything like 100,000 miles before they change them do they
I’m not sure on that. Our street is full of older cars. Lots of what some would see as end of life vehicles, but perfectly fine.
The only people I know who regularly have a new car lease it.
It’s not even about wealth, a very well off chap I know rattles about in an old Celica. He bought it off the forecourt of a garage when his last car failed the mot, for a couple of grand.
Our cars are 2004 121000miles and 1986 174000miles.
Work Van is nearly 90000 and will overtake the Astra fairly soon I should think.
Out of interest I checked the 2004 Astra against ULEZ and it complies.
I’ve noticed the last few years car ages seem to be increasing on the roads.
Not sure an Aygo would be in this good condition at this mileage?
But that's because it's a cheaper car, surely, not because it's an SUV. I don't think an X5 is inherently better for longevity than a 5 series, just because it's taller.
Also, I fully agree with/understand molgrips' point. Just because an old saloon was less efficient than the brand new SUV that's replaced it, that doesn't mean that SUVs are more efficient. The SUV is probably less efficient than the 'equivalent' modern saloon with the same engine.
As for towing, you don't need an SUV to be able to tow when the aforementioned RS6 has 630hp, 850nm and weighs more than a Kia Sportage, so even has the "you need weight to tow" point covered. So send the Kia back and look down the back of the sofa for the extra £75k... (Slightly more sensible alternatives are available).
However...I hired a car a few years ago (pre covid price madness) and paid the extra £30 to upgrade to a 'premium suv' for Friday to Monday. Got a 67 plate X5 40d in M-sport trim. I hired it again for 1000 mile round trip to just below Torridon because it was so good for that first trip. It was so comfortable, quick, spacious, quiet etc that it would probably be the first thing I'd buy if I stumbled across the winning euromillions ticket*. The 1000 mile drive flew by, the only problem was boredom after 7 hours of being in the same seat. Although the panoramic sunroof was good for enjoying the more dramatic scenery! I'm not freakishly tall (6ft with gangly arms and legs) but even for me the seating position was great, better than any 'normal' car. The floor in the rear was strangely high though, and it was massive so was a struggle with some parking spaces. I can absolutely see why people have them.
*I'd just have to use some of the euromillions cash to do some carbon offsetting to ease the pangs of guilt!
As for towing, you don’t need an SUV to be able to tow when the aforementioned RS6 has 630hp, 850nm and weighs more than a Kia Sportage, so even has the “you need weight to tow” point covered.
Well, it depends on what your towing.
My car has less than half the power of an RS6 but it can tow 3.5t whilst the RS6 is limited to 2.1t (which is not enough for me... Not that I would buy an RS6 even if I had the money!)
So you kinda do need weight (and other stuff) for [some] towing
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
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
I did say like for like. 😉
A Q3 35 TFSI has a bigger boot, bigger interior space, more rear leg room and head room but smaller footprint than a A4 35 TFSI Avant. Same power, same mpg. 5 to 10% is a realistic delta, but it's a bit less usually, IME. Gearing often different though which skews things depending on mileage pattern.
That doesn't mean it's better for everyone, it just means it's a normal car of a slightly different shape to an estate. I am a big fan of estates but the SUV form factor works better for me and many people. I prefer a shorter car for family duties and a taller car for carrying bikes. The CoG detriment doesn't bother me on the road and I have other cars for track days. Couldn't give a toss about image or the neighbours. My neighbours don't give a shit about my cars.
But like many has said, SUV type cars are more fashionable but like most fashion (Balenciaga shoes being a good example) it can be less practical, more expensive and ugly.
SUVs have been around for decades, they're not fashionable they are popular. "Ugly" is utterly subjective but I appreciate looks and design are important for you.
Possibly slightly ugly but I always wanted one of these as my first car. My parents forbid me due to the amount of baby robins and planets I would kill with it. The original SUV?
[url= https://i.ibb.co/S0bdrLj/BBBB7-FDA-8353-4-DE0-9488-E2-CE48514504.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/S0bdrLj/BBBB7-FDA-8353-4-DE0-9488-E2-CE48514504.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
As for towing, you don’t need an SUV to be able to tow when the aforementioned RS6 has 630hp, 850nm and weighs more than a Kia Sportage, so even has the “you need weight to tow” point covered.
It does depend on what you are towing yes. Horses, boats, then you need a large SUV because of the weight. However it's perfectly possible to tow a caravan with a normal car, despite what you might think by what's on the motorway these days. Caravan manufacturers usually make a lighter weight range specifically for this reason.
As for comfort - we had a Kia Sportage for about a month - it was ok, ride was fairly stiff, it was quiet and quick enough. But the seats were fairly basic especially in the back. My wife hated it for various non-SUV related reasons but also the fact that the wings were big and reduced the corner visibility a lot, that made it harder to park. It was less efficient than the Merc, which is a much better car in every way including having a larger boot. More expensive of course. Mind you she also hates parking the Merc.
Thing is though the list price on that Kia was £45k (although lower models are a lot cheaper), you can get a lot of normal car for that. I'd have much preferred a fully loaded Passat.
The original SUV?
That's simply a UV, in my view. I first heard the SUV term describing pickups with very powerful engines as created in the USA in the 80s, to make them sports-car fast (the S) part whilst still being pickups (the UV part).
A Q3 35 TFSI has a bigger boot, bigger interior space, more rear leg room and head room but smaller footprint than a A4 35 TFSI Avant. Same power, same mpg. 5 to 10% is a realistic delta, but it’s a bit less usually, IME.
Well, apart from the fact that in the A4, the 35 TFSI is a 2.0l and in the Q3 it's a 1.5l and is slower, yup, same engine, same power... The A3 and the Q3 have the same engine. Footprint doesn't matter - VOLUME matters. Volume is material, it's air resistance, it's surface drag.
Real world MPG for the A3 and Q3 Stronic (same engine, same gearbox, etc) is 49.1, vs 38.1. These are owners figures in mixed driving. That's 30%, not 5-10%. This is to be expected as the Q3 is 250kg heavier. 250kg is my entire family and their luggage for a family holiday on EVERY journey.
This is to be expected as the Q3 is 250kg heavier. 250kg is my entire family and their luggage for a family holiday on EVERY journey.
That too but mostly because it's taller. An SUV is taller by definition, that's what makes it an SUV. So it definitely has more frontal area, and that makes it less efficient by definition than it could be. Yes, some SUVs are as good as some cars, but if the cars had all the efficiency measures of the SUV they would guaranteed be more efficient.
Well, apart from the fact that in the A4, the 35 TFSI is a 2.0l and in the Q3 it’s a 1.5l and is slower, yup, same engine, same power… The A3 and the Q3 have the same engine. Footprint doesn’t matter – VOLUME matters. Volume is material, it’s air resistance, it’s surface drag.
Real world MPG for the A3 and Q3 Stronic (same engine, same gearbox, etc) is 49.1, vs 38.1. These are owners figures in mixed driving. That’s 30%, not 5-10%. This is to be expected as the Q3 is 250kg heavier. 250kg is my entire family and their luggage for a family holiday on EVERY journey.
For info, an A3 is 380L/1200L VS Q3 530L/1525L. Not remotely comparable.
The A4 Avant is far closer even though it still is smaller. You're right the engine capacity is different despite the output being the same which may indeed save the Q3 10%. So within what I personally find reasonable as a delta.
We can't start comparing cars of vastly different interior volume. You also need to stick to normalised mpg data for benchmarking purposes.
As I said, different people like different shape cars for their needs. The mpg penalty is real but not significant, 5 to 10%. I accept this may be too high for some people though.
If mpg is the target we all need to drive 108s or whatever tiny car minimises fuel usage. Even if we have to buy 2 to go on holiday.
If mpg is the target we all need to drive 108s
That's called reductio and absurdum, but yes it would help. The thing is, in practical terms there isn't much you can do with an SUV that you cannot do with a normal car. Yes, there are some things but I don't think they apply to that many people. Someone up there cited a rough driveway (surely this should be fixed?) but none of the many SUVs parked on my street have that problem.
Everyone has excuses for not doing the most efficient thing. Including me. We all insist that our choices are justifiable especially on internet forums. Just try and make sure that your choices really are unavoidable.
For info, an A3 is 380L/1200L VS Q3 530L/1525L. Not remotely comparable.
Who stacks a boot to the roof on a regular basis? My boot roof is lower than an SUV but it's much longer than most and probably wider, I'd argue that's more useful.
Thing is though the list price on that Kia was £45k
That probably wasn't a Sportage then, current list price for the top of the range is around £41k unless you were driving the plug in Hybrid but I doubt it as they are rare as rocking horse poop. Sounds like you may have had a sorrento which is a much bigger vehicle (or you are mistaken on the list price.
For balance I had a Merc for 6 months and hated every minute of it, horribly unintuitive car, styling was awful and the driving experience pretty meh. My Sportage on the other hand is everything the Merc wasn't.
It was a Sportage, I may be mistaken on the list price. It was an automatic and had the mild hybrid system.
Mercs may vary, I've only ever driven one which is pretty good , but I'd struggle to describe the Sportage as anything other than meh personally 🙂
Many times the suv drivers say they have a better view, why then am I always close passed when on my bike, as bad bullied into letting the suv drivers either out of side roads and worse still from a slip road when trying to join the motorway, they barge out and don't care that I can't move over because other drivers are filling the 2 outer lanes. I'm not a fan.
Bunnyhop
Full MemberMany times the suv drivers say they have a better view, why then am I always close passed when on my bike, as bad bullied into letting the suv drivers either out of side roads and worse still from a slip road when trying to join the motorway, they barge out and don’t care that I can’t move over because other drivers are filling the 2 outer lanes. I’m not a fan
I'm not sure that it makes much difference what car. I suppose now more people drive them, it's more likely to be an SUV flattening you than an estate.
There does seem to be a growing assumption that the car in lane one will move over to allow someone to join.
and that makes it less efficient by definition than it could be
Just getting my utterly-pointless-pedantry mode triggered here...
Aerodynamic drag force is proportional to CdA. The A refers to an area characteristic of the shape for which Cd has been determined. It doesn't need to be frontal area. The pedantry is that Cd is determined by the shape of the vehicle and A is just a scaling factor for that particular dimensionless coefficient of drag. If the shapes are different, the Cd is different. If you use plan area vs frontal area in calculating/measuring your Cd, the Cd will be a different Cd but CdA will be the same. Without knowing both Cd and A you cannot determine whether one vehicle is more efficient than another. So (pedantry), knowing A is bigger does not "by definition" mean the drag is worse when different shapes are involved.
This is utterly-pointless-pedantry because the shapes involved are, according to Wikipedia characterised as follows:
The average modern automobile achieves a drag coefficient of between 0.25 and 0.3. Sport utility vehicles (SUVs), with their typically boxy shapes, typically achieve a Cd=0.35–0.45. The drag coefficient of a vehicle is affected by the shape of body of the vehicle.
As a Honda CRv owner, the 1.6 diesel gets better mpg in many circumstances than cars I've had before but I also tend to drive it less like an adolescent idiot than cars I've had before. I bought it (secondhand in 2018) to get two bikes in the back *easily*. It has been a workhorse and has done necessary long distance work heavily laden and full. It has the nominal fallback of all wheel drive for when I need it in the Scottish winter, although I doubt it actually does much compared to proper 4wd with locking/limited slip diffs.
If the shapes are different, the Cd is different.
I think I read on wiki that for cars A is taken to be the frontal area.
So (pedantry), knowing A is bigger does not “by definition” mean the drag is worse when different shapes are involved.
What I meant was an SUV by definition has a larger frontal area than a car. Of course, in theory, an SUV could have a much lower Cd than a car, and that would counteract the larger frontal area, but that's not likely with two modern cars; and I did specify earlier that an SUV will always be less efficienty all other things being equal.
Try it another way. If you took a car, then stuck a box on the roof, one on the bonnet, and another to make the back end squarer - it's not going to improve the fuel efficiency is it?
Someone up there cited a rough driveway (surely this should be fixed?) but none of the many SUVs parked on my street have that problem.
I live up a km or so down a dirt track, that gets rutted out occasionally, especially at this time of year during the thaw. It's also steep, around 1 in 3 down towards the far end.
I've been driving up and down it for the last 3 years in a lowered Volvo estate... And an assortment of saloons, hatches and estates for the last decade and a half. Sometimes towing a caravan or a trailer.
It also snows, a lot.
Only neighbours who can't get their cars out on a regular basis have as follows:-
Ford Sierra Cosworth
Renault Megane RS
Nissan ZX300
Chevrolet Camaro
Obviously not daily drivers.
My current estate is pretty low, and I have driven onto caravan sites plenty of times down farm driveways. A track has to be pretty knackered before you need SUV ground clearance.
Actually, that's a good point.
I had Taycan down here last February for most of the week...
There does seem to be a growing assumption that the car in lane one will move over to allow someone to join.
+1 I’ve noticed this. Odd.
There does seem to be a growing assumption that the car in lane one will move over to allow someone to join.
Round here, people will do anything to let you out. Including slowing down to let you on. Even if you have assessed the situation and decided you need to give way as you're supposed to. So you slow down to get behind them and they slow down, and you have to slow down further, and they slow down even more so they are basically stopped in 50mph traffic. Bloody idiots. They are as idiotic as the people who merge at 30mph and then speed up to 50 AFTER they've joined the carraigeway. FFS.
I think we are outside cases anyway as most peoples cars never see them do anything like 100,000 miles before they change them do they
Probably not but my Mondeo has recently seen 100k in my ownership as did the Civic before it.
Got a spot needing looked at but no reason to assume it couldn't do another 100k after a refresh.
My current estate is pretty low, and I have driven onto caravan sites plenty of times down farm driveways. A track has to be pretty knackered before you need SUV ground clearance.
You should try some of the driveways where I live. One of my mates in this article has been fighting with Council for years.
They don't own an SUV though and now I don't own a 4x4 if I visit he has to pick me up halfway to his house.
bails
Just because an old saloon was less efficient than the brand new SUV that’s replaced it, that doesn’t mean that SUVs are more efficient. The SUV is probably less efficient than the ‘equivalent’ modern saloon with the same engine.
But that works in reverse as well... to use the example Molgrips gave with the Ioniq 5-6 there is a whole load of increased efficiency other than weight/height/cross sectional area.
The questions really are: do people drive and use SUV's in the same way as Estates in a way that makes for a significant difference in efficiency.
I'm sure plenty of people drive SUV's and their average speed over the car lifetime is <40mph and they rarely go into the higher speeds where air resistance starts to have a significant effect. I am always surprised when I look at average speed on the van... especially as I don't really do short journeys under 10 miles or so ...
I think more people buying estates tend to use them to bomb up and down motorways compared to people that buy SUV's.
Almost like they thought "what's the best car for what I do" ??? Plenty of people have probably not been on a motorway or dual carriageway in their current car... (I doubt my mum has unless you count small parts of the A65).. and for many many more it is a few times a year maybe...
Another simple observation over the last few days and I see far more estates with roof mounted bike racks than SUV's... this is another change in "how they are used" as if you can get 2 bikes in upright with the front wheel off most/many SUV owners seem to do that rather than fit roof bars (or tow bar carriers).
Who stacks a boot to the roof on a regular basis?
Define “regular”. About 2-3 times a month?
https://imgur.com/gallery/dXgyYvO
Note the amount of room on the back seat for guitar cabs or passengers
Skoda Kodiaq btw. My previous car was a Skoda Karoq, which took the drum kit but no room for anything else in the back. If I had any other luggage then no room in the front either
you can get 2 bikes in upright with the front wheel off most/many SUV owners seem to do that rather than fit roof bars (or tow bar carriers).
Doesn't work for a family of four and all the bikes inside said SUV in any way that doesn't resemble a decidedly unsafe game of Tetris...
Doesn’t work for a family of four and all the bikes inside said SUV in any way that doesn’t resemble a decidedly unsafe game of Tetris…
depends how big your SUV is. Plenty of american metal will do that happily, and of things on sale over here, I recon a highlander, x7 and landcruiser would all take bikes in behind the middle row lengthwise with both wheels off.
The questions really are: do people drive and use SUV’s in the same way as Estates in a way that makes for a significant difference in efficiency.
Unless you're talking massive body on frame utility vehicles like Toyota 4Runner etc, the vast majority of users of Euro Style SUVs are using them as jacked up estates, same journeys, same speeds, same/similar interior loading.
Most manufacturers know this.
This bits where they don't match duty cycle are the corner cases. A small percentage of users (single digit) doing things that the marketing tells you they should be used for all the time.
You should try some of the driveways where I live. One of my mates in this article has been fighting with Council for years.
To be fair, that's a corner case of a corner case of a corner case. Hardly what you call a common problem.
depends how big your SUV is. And how big your estate is as well. There isn't that much usable space in the back of an A4 if you want to start putting bikes or big opens, and certainly no sofas. Ditto smaller Volvo estates either.
How many go in the back of this legendary Mercedes ?
