This whole thing makes me so angry. Show me an SUV that can transport a family of five and their luggage, do 60 mpg on a long journey and still have enough power to have no trouble on hilly fast roads or overtaking! My 7 year old Zafira Tourer 2.0TDi can but they were discontinued because of UK new car buyers switching to SUVs that use more fuel/go slower, handle worse, cost more and have less interior space for a given footprint. No problems getting down a rough track to a cottage we regularly visit either. FFS.
My 7 year old Zafira Tourer 2.0TDi can but they were discontinued because
of UK new car buyers switching to SUVsthey were crap and prone to exploding in a ball of flames
Show me an SUV that can transport a family of five and their luggage, do 60 mpg on a long journey and still have enough power to have no trouble on hilly fast roads or overtaking!
What about the bigger BMW (X5), Audi (Q7), etc. or am I wrong in thinking they're an SUV?
Show me an SUV that can transport a family of five and their luggage, do 60 mpg on a long journey and still have enough power to have no trouble on hilly fast roads or overtaking!
Not a single Zafira does 60mpg in controlled tests, let alone real world.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/vauxhall/zafira-2012
Then again, some of my in-laws have an XC90 D5 for exactly those specifications and I was amazed at Christmas when they said they didn't get 30mpg from it around the doors of local trips, and under 40mpg on long runs - and she is not a fast driver...
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volvo/xc90-2015
"My 7 year old Zafira Tourer 2.0TDi can but they were discontinued because of UK new car buyers switching to SUVs they were crap and prone to exploding in a ball of flames"
That was the Zafira B. The Zafira C (aka Zafira Tourer) isn't known for spontaneous combustion.
On a serious note, it's sad that fashion-led new car buyers are collectively having such a negative impact on attempts to reduce emissions. SUVs are inherently heavier, less economical and have worse rideor handling or both than a lower equally good car without 4x4 styling (or worse styling and drivetrain). That's just the physics of them. And that's not just tailpipe emissions, it's tyres and brake pads too.
"Not a single Zafira does 60mpg in controlled tests, let alone real world.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/vauxhall/zafira-201 2"
Mine did on our fully-loaded trip from Brighton to the Netherlands and back last year - although that was according to the trip computer not me working it out so it's probably a bit optimistic. Normally it's somewhere between low 40s on more town stuff to low 50s when longer journeys are mixed in.
Lots of constant moderate speed mileage with the cruise control on was what got it so high - plus once it was in the high 50s I was on a bit of a mission to see if I could hit 60.0mpg! My previous three much smaller petrol hot-ish hatches never got near that and weren't that much faster in the real world.
On a serious note, it’s sad that fashion-led new car buyers are collectively having such a negative impact on attempts to reduce emissions.
There are many things in modern lifestyle having a serious impact on attempts to reduce emissions. IMO the length of commute is having a bigger impact than SUV's, I think anyone living more than 10km from their place of work should have an extra couple of percent income tax. More people should live in apartments, houses are wasteful or resources. People having more than 2 kids should be taxed more. People with pets should be taxed.
Of course as none of those new taxes would affect me, a cynical person might say I am just "othering" the problem and taking no responsibility for my own environmental impact, and they could be right, but if they are also blaming me for owning a SUV then they would be a hypocrite.
What about the bigger BMW (X5), Audi (Q7), etc. or am I wrong in thinking they’re an SUV?
Sorry, didn't see the bit about 60mpg!!
Mine did on our fully-loaded trip from Brighton to the Netherlands and back last year – although that was according to the trip computer not me working it out so it’s probably a bit optimistic. Normally it’s somewhere between low 40s on more town stuff to low 50s when longer journeys are mixed in.
Lots of constant moderate speed mileage with the cruise control on was what got it so high – plus once it was in the high 50s I was on a bit of a mission to see if I could hit 60.0mpg! My previous three much smaller petrol hot-ish hatches never got near that and weren’t that much faster in the real world.
And yet it's a struggle to get our 1.6 diesel golf to get >50mpg on a run with only me on board. Our 1L fiesta flatly refuses to average more than 45mpg on a run.
My Mum's 1.6l 2014 Golf Bluemotion easily delivers 69mpg on a run at normal motorway speeds. If she drives slower at 60-65mph, it'll return mid-high 70s. We drove from Bristol to Cumbria and it did 77.6mpg. Two people, dog and luggage.
Then ours is (and always has been from 2013 when we got it) funked then!
if they are also blaming me for owning a SUV then they would be a hypocrite.
This isn't meant to be personal. People need to be aware of the impact of the choices they make, and be honest when justifying them. I mean, really honest.
We all need to do what we can. If that means forgoing a cool trendy SUV in favour of a car, when it would work for you, fine. Be honest when justifying your SUV choice, if you really do need it or if you could get by without?*
I love 6 cylinder engines, I was idly considering changing the Merc for a v6 version, but this thread has reminded me that there's a principle at stake.
* this question comes out a lot when you wade into EV threads on FB posts. There's always some American loudly proclaiming that they're terrible and everyone hates them, they say things like 'I often drive 500 miles in one go, I couldn't possibly do that in an EV' Well no, you couldn't, but so what? Would your life really suffer if you had to stop a bit more often on long trips?
Then ours is (and always has been from 2013 when we got it) funked then!
Sounds like something is up - my 2.0 Passat got high 50s on motorway trips (at 70mph), often over 60 and my best was 65 when I was driving to Preston, a repeatable result. Something about that route was somehow more economical.
I haven't read all of the last few pages, but how is @molgrips justifying his AMG shooting brake estae (the infamous one) being a better car for his lifestyle than a 1.7 diesel Kia Sportage (an SUV i believe).
Then ours is (and always has been from 2013 when we got it) funked then!
Yeah, I'd be pretty disappointed at that. My Vito van averaged 43mpg from wern Ddu quarry in Denbighshire back to Cheshire without trying. Regularly see low to mid 40's out of it.
my best was 65 when I was driving to Preston, a repeatable result. Something about that route was somehow more economical.
A reluctance to go to Preston = 40mph perhaps? 😉
I don't know why people are saying SUVs are cool or trendy. I have one (a Mercedes GLC, and before that a Volvo XC60). I have it because my wife prefers the driving position and the kids prefer it for getting in and out and for the elevated position too. I don't think either car is cool or trendy and I'd rather have a nice saloon or estate. There are a great many 'cooler' and more 'trendy' cars around than SUVs but, as a family, the preferred car type was the above (after having Audi A6 estates before) and will continue to be so.
Yep. The safety thing trumps all other considerations IMO.
The fact that a car wouldn't fit my needs is beside the point. Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car the validity of this thread ended for me.
The fact that a car wouldn’t fit my needs is beside the point. Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car the validity of this thread ended for me.
Trying to unpick this, they haven't broken down the cars any further than SUV and non SUV?
So we cant say that Kuga is 50% safer than a Focus or a T-Roc is 50% safer than a Golf.
Just that SUVs (a category spanning from range rover down to Kuga) overall are safer than non SUVs (a category spanning from seven series down to up!, micra, etc).
No comparison between vehicles of similar price, weight, load carrying capability...
Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car
that stat is nonsense
a) its 10 years old and based on data from 1995 (when the average vehicle would have been from 1988) to 2010 (when the average vehicle was from 2004). Cars and SUVs have become a lot more similar since then
b) its based on US data, where "trucks" and "SUVs" are way bigger than cars, not soft-roaders
c) only considered severe crashes
d) only considered head-on crashes
e) only considered a crash that involved both an SUV and a car
f) takes no account of the propensity for an SUV to get into an accident (its more likely, and seriously more likely to roll over)
so, if your choice is this
[img] 
[/img]
or this
[img] 
[/img]
then yeah the suv is safer. if its the same platform with an extra 2" of suspension lift, its the same
I did read a statistic once that claims that there has never been a fatality for a driver or passenger in an XC90 and it has been around for over 20 years.
I haven’t read all of the last few pages, but how is @molgrips justifying his AMG shooting brake estae (the infamous one) being a better car for his lifestyle than a 1.7 diesel Kia Sportage (an SUV i believe).
It's a 2 litre diesel. It's an AMG "Sport" which means a different front bumper and fancier wheels. It usually also means stiffer suspension but in my case the purchaser de-specced that. It's not the actual AMG C63 with the V8!
that stat is nonsense
Seems like the kind of paid-for "research" that gets circulated among like minded media outlets in the US. Like I said, someone compiled a list of deaths by the car they were in, there was no correlation between size and number of deaths per mile. At the time I was trying to show that American cars were worse, but it didn't show that either.
A diesel! You monster!
Back in the days when SUVs had ladder frame separate chassis they were considerably less safe than a modern monocoque car with crumple zones and side impact protection. Now they are mostly of similar construction to a car I'd expect there to be less of a difference, but of course they make everyone else on the road less safe (as in the poster above worrying about his family in a Fiat 500) because they are heavier and therefore will bring more energy into a crash for a given speed. Their higher centre of gravity also makes them more likely to be in a crash because they are less manoeuvrable, harder to stop, and more likely to roll, although modern electronic aids mitigate this somewhat, As we've seen on this very thread, this will lead to an arms race where everyone wants to be driving something bigger than everyone else so that they feel safe. It's all just rather sad.
I do wonder if the extra width makes you more likely to clip another car or roadside obstacle, in the UK where road space can be tight?
A diesel! You monster!
I know, if I ever buy another diesel it will have SCR; this one doesn't. For now I'll have to be content with hardly ever driving it.
I did read a statistic once that claims that there has never been a fatality for a driver or passenger in an XC90 and it has been around for over 20 years.
Not any more: no need to clink the unless you don't believe me.
Edit; in fact I won't link it but copy "Volvo XC90 crash Scania (Ucraina) 18.03.2021" into youtube search if you really want to see.
Not forgetting that the Uber car that killed the pedestrian cyclist was an XC 90
For the people who are poo-pooing the SUV safety stats - precautionary principle. Frankly, you hedge your bets. It's likely SUVs are safer, so SUVs.
If you want to make an argument against that - then bring the numbers. Preferably DfT numbers.
If you can't, keep spewing the anti-SUV crap. I get the environmental credentials 100%. But if I had a kid, I know what I'd be buying on the off chance that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical is confirmed correct. And if I was a yummy mummy I'd be telling you to gamble with your own kids...
Btw @5lab - SUVs might turn over more often than cars, but landing on your roof happens in about 3% of cases, apparently - so that still leaves safety looking a hell of a lot better for SUVs.
But if I had a kid, I know what I’d be buying on the off chance that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical is confirmed correct.
The arms race in action. Where do you stop? A fully armoured vehicle weighing 20 tons? Oh no, once everyone had one you'd need one weighing 40 tons. Like I said, just sad. But easily solved by putting a maximum weight limit on private cars.
Yep. The safety thing trumps all other considerations IMO.
The fact that a car wouldn’t fit my needs is beside the point. Once I found out you were 50% less likely to suffer serious injuries in a collision in an SUV as opposed to a normal car the validity of this thread ended for me.
The myopic selfishness of this one post is exactly what's wrong with the world.
But if I had a kid, I know what I’d be buying on the off chance that what seems perfectly reasonable and logical is confirmed correct. And if I was a yummy mummy I’d be telling you to gamble with your own kids…
This is why we're screwed because of this kind of ultra-selfish attitude. You are the problem.
Now they are mostly of similar construction to a car I’d expect there to be less of a difference, but of course they make everyone else on the road less safe (as in the poster above worrying about his family in a Fiat 500) because they are heavier and therefore will bring more energy into a crash for a given speed.
My OH has a 2.0d AWD 5-seat SUV and I've a 2.0d AWD 5-seat saloon - my saloon weighs more.
Stop talking rubbish.
If you want to make an argument against that – then bring the numbers. Preferably DfT numbers.
Why don't you do that?
EDIT: here are some stats for the USA but grouped by size, if you want to lift the numbers out of the PDF you could shuffle them about in Excel.
https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/55/2
Lets flip that around shall we @chevychase ?
You'd chose to put kids in an SUV because it's safer than a normal car when the two are in an accident together. So now, all the cars around your child's school are SUVs. SUVs when in a collision with each other are no more safe than normal cars when in a collision with each other. Also, SUVs are far more likely to kill a pedestrian/cyclist at the same impact speed as a normal car. Are your kids safer?
No - you've taken one stat, made an idiotic decision based on that one stat and think you've made a good one.
This is exactly the same as the people I know who've bought a Discovery for the 2 times per year they carry more than 5 people and for their single camping trip every second year.
@onewheelgood:
The arms race in action. Where do you stop? A fully armoured vehicle weighing 20 tons? Oh no, once everyone had one you’d need one weighing 40 tons. Like I said, just sad. But easily solved by putting a maximum weight limit on private cars.
"Who cares", would be the answer of pretty much every single parent.
Governments should legislate in everyone's best interest. But they don't, won't and never will. As long as rich people exist, they'll want to buy a hummer. If rich people can buy a hummer, then many middle class people will want to buy an SUV.
If it's safer, who can blame them. Poor people are on the crap end of everything. That's not gonna change.
so that still leaves safety looking a hell of a lot better for SUVs.
its marginally better in an SUV, comparing like-with-like (a focus vs a kuga, for example). if you're so paranoid about safety that a very marginal improvement in a like for like car is enough to change your mind, you've probably got other issues anyway
This is why we’re screwed because of this kind of ultra-selfish attitude. You are the problem.
Do you give most of your money away because there are poor people, and that's not fair - and you consider yourself ultra-selfish if you don't do that?
I would fully support legislation to level that safety field. But I'm not an idiot - it isn't going to happen.
In the absence of the right thing being done for everyone, if you can afford it and the premium is worth it to you then if you can buy that extra safety for your family - then it doesn't make you "ultra selfish" to do so.
Your lifetime chance of dying in a transportation accident in the UK is 1 in 240. If you can make that 1 in 400 by buying an SUV, and you can afford it, then maybe it's something sensible to think about.
I also ride on the pavement btw. As a friend once said - there a lot of dead 'correct' people. Maybe that's because I'm ultra-selfish though.
Stop talking rubbish.
Of course you can cherry pick examples like that. Well done, aren't you clever?
But the point is that people who used to buy a Focus are now buying a Kuga. The Focus weighed 1,280 to 1,543kg depending on spec, and the Kuga 1,564 to 1,844 kg. Can you see which one is heavier?
“Who cares”, would be the answer of pretty much every single parent.
Governments should legislate in everyone’s best interest. But they don’t, won’t and never will. As long as rich people exist, they’ll want to buy a hummer. If rich people can buy a hummer, then many middle class people will want to buy an SUV.
If it’s safer, who can blame them. Poor people are on the crap end of everything. That’s not gonna change.
No, it wouldn't. I'm a parent - I'd NEVER buy an SUV because "it's safer" - I'm not that selfish or dumb.
CARS - NOT SUVS, should be taxed on weight on an exponential curve. Weight is the only fair measure of what's needed vs what's wanted. Need a 4x4, but want leather, double glazing and 70kg of paint? People with no kids can have smaller luxury equipped cars for the taxation as larger, more family orientated vehicles or utilitarian 4x4, but if you WANT it all, expect to pay for it, every year, for as long as you own it. Same as my kids 🙂
I also ride on the pavement btw. As a friend once said – there a lot of dead ‘correct’ people. Maybe that’s because I’m ultra-selfish though.
It's an awful lot easier for a SUV to accidentally mount the kerb than for a normal car. Just sayin...
I don't necessarily disagree with your argument btw @daffy. I can see the "theoretical" arms race argument too.
For me, the only answer is proper infrastructure - segregated cycle lanes etc. etc.
Edit:
It’s an awful lot easier for a SUV to accidentally mount the kerb than for a normal car. Just sayin…
Yep. Sooner we have computer-driven cars, with no steering wheels, the better.
I want a circular bubble car with a bar and fold-down bed - so I can put my bikes on the back, kayaks on the roof, get pissed with my o/h and fall asleep, waking up in Scotland the next day ready for some biking and kayaking action. (or better - France).
How many readers of this thread have actually been in a car accident where a car occupant suffered an injury?
Picking a car for its safety may have made sense back when seatbelts were optional, some cars would roll and catch fire at the slightest provocation and "crumple zone" meant your ribs cracking on the steering column.
But everything is pretty darn good these days.
Gaining a slight increase in a metric that was already high, and unlikely to have any effect on you anyway; when at the expense of all the other things mentioned in the last 8 pages seems counterproductive to me.
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.
So to be fair I drive a van but as it happens my trip computer just went over 1000 miles... I don't use gadgets usually so the last reset was when the battery went probably early Jan?? I'm pretty certain I've done Surrey Hills to BPW (300 miles), Surrey Hills to Twisted Oaks (244 miles return) both "motorway" and Rogate (A3) 60 miles.. and Swanley (Canada heights) via M25 100 miles so 644 + 60 call it 700 (journeys I'd class as "mainly motorwayish miles"**) out of 1000 and my AVERAGE speed (on the trip computer is 27.9 mph) and other than for the MOT I've not driven any journeys <10 miles
TBH I'm surprised I'd expected mid 40's... but my point here is if cross sectional area really matters that much if your AVERAGE (whatever the trip computer means by that) is <30mph?
** I think of a Journey to BPW as M40 but its probably 2/3 and a significant part of that I'm at enforced 50mph and the rest I'm probably 60mph anyway ... **
I doubt my sons mother has been on a motorway since last August... and my mum probably 5-10 years so who knows what their AVERAGE mph is?
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.
Not the people I know, if we are talking motorway miles >60mph ...
Remember the big diesel "con"? All those people rarely getting above 30-40mph and never getting hot enough for a regen?
Some of my mates do high miles for work and they have saloon/estates .. typical fleet cars (Insignia/3 series etc)
another couple have "mini SUV things" only used weekends as far as I know and maybe summer hols and one of those wants a van (His average speed is probably way lower than mine).
Another has a 7 seater MPV (Chrysler?) but he has 5 kids... another has an old Sharan
Obviously people do go on summer hols or make trips and you'll see some on motorways etc. but that doesn't mean that's how the car is used on a daily basis/mostly.
ayjaydoubleyou
Full MemberHow many readers of this thread have actually been in a car accident where a car occupant suffered an injury?
Twice.
Once in as a passenger in an 89 Cavalier (when they were new), as a passenger, I cut my knees on the dash, relatively heavy shunt on the motorway.
I had a courtesy 98 Fiesta whilst a van was in for repair. Rear ended by a big Audi. The car in front was a big Volvo. I hit my head on the B pillar. Amazingly the car still drove, was somewhat shorter though.
Written off with less than 500 miles from memory.
My neck took a few years to heal.
