Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
The wisdom of Father Fintan Stack:
"I had my fun, and that's all that matters."
richmtb - its interesting I used to be adamant that I'd never own a pointless 4x4 and they really served no benefit. My wife was even more adamant. Then through a set of circumstances I found myself with time constraints and limited options and saying screw it I'll take the Honda CRV to tide me over. Best car I've ever had! Whilst 50 mpg might not be amazing its better than many cars I had before it (none were especially sporty and I don't drive like crazy). It was a family waggon moving four or more people in comfort, sometimes moving boats, kayaks, bikes (sometimes all three + luggage). When the time came to replace it we looked at octavias etc - and my short arse wife says the visibility isn't as good as the raised position in the SUV, my slightly aging parents in law find getting in and out their own low down car increasingly hard and we want to be able to move them around when needed. So I'm part of the problem (although "only" a little under 6000 miles a year part of the problem!) - the SUV name is stupid, and fashion may be a factor but if the product managers of the "estate" ranges are scratching their head wondering why these bricks are so much more popular they probably want to spend some time looking at how people actually use their vehicles and what makes them tick. By the way neither previous nor current SUV are actually 4x4.
Back on Page 1 someone said - just hire a 4x4 when you need one. I assume that person has never tried to hire a 4x4 in peak season (e.g. when there's snow or flooding) nor get a commitment from a hire company that a vehicle will have a tow bar.
FWIW I live 3 minutes walk from a train station, but 80% of my car journeys would be totally impractical if not impossible by public transport. The pandemic makes people hesitant to use public transport, there's no service after midnight and we've had sunday rail strikes for almost a year. Glasgow is 35 minutes away by train but this popular busy town (15K people) had no direct bus service to Glasgow - it takes nearly 2 hrs to go by bus. My parents live about 50 minutes drive away but its over 2 hrs on public transport. When no trains running I'm actually quicker to cycle it, but that's not a practical solution. Even when a service is running - to take a family of four by train and bus costs about £50. It's probably £15 in fuel + running costs on the car. Really the problems aren't the SUV owners. There's a lack of infrastructure and pricing that is unattractive for multiple people combined with poor service / restrictive times. All driven by governments who are scared to invest heavily in pushing people out their cars. Any "look its the SUV owners" nonsense is just a smokescreen so the other car owners can feel better about themselves.
do E-MTB's fall into the same massive SUV/Truck usage, jsut becasue you can, doesn't mean you should bracket 😉
do E-MTB’s fall into the same massive SUV/Truck usage, jsut becasue you can, doesn’t mean you should bracket 😉
The question should maybe be 'do they fall foul of the 'unnecessary performance' criteria by offering a rider the climbing power beyond the fittest TDF rider', would they not be better if they were a more honest capability enabler relative to a bicycle? So maybe half the power, but with more range, which may actually suit more people. Wouldn't be 'fun' enough so never catch on...
do E-MTB’s fall into the same massive SUV/Truck usage, jsut becasue you can, doesn’t mean you should bracket 😉
Without getting in to 'that topic' again, my own feeling is that yes for the most part EEBs are superfluous and marketed to the middleclasses as expensive outdoor lifestyle toys. There are reasonable use cases (IMO) for people with mobility issues or those looking to replace a car with a less polluting alternative for local utility.
But for the most part they're sold and used for propelling mostly able bodied people round trail centres...
There obviously is some hypocritical finger-wagging, but choice of vehicle is a pretty clear indication of where you lie on the spectrum of social responsibility vs convenience/pleasure/status isn't it? Chances are the same people are likely to also have at least an average number of kids/foreign holidays/eat lots of meat etc
From a climate change perspective more children are a huge part of the problem
Pretty important if the point is for the human race to survive though.
Can we get onto the environmental impact of dog ownership (trail or otherwise) yet?
Jesus christ, I despair.
****ers letting down tyres with no idea of what the need for the car is or what the consequences of it being out of action are.
Self righteous pricks. I wonder if they would get the same support for doing it to T5 vans !
No ****ing need for em in urban blah blah.
no idea of what the need for the car is or what the consequences of it being out of action are.
Turns out not much, which I guess is kind of the point eh.
Thats it, we've arrived at Brexit...5 pages in.
wonder if they would get the same support for doing it to T5 vans
Yeah that’s not been mentioned before on this thread. You know we’re at T6.1’s now?
But I imagine exactly the same. I’ve got an 11 year old T5, 85k on the clock, maintain it myself, never ever drive the kids to school in it, but had some flippin’ brilliant camping trips when the alternative could be a week abroad. But, I wouldn’t be in the least but surprised to find a flat tyre or 2. I’m not perfect, we’re all hypocritical in some way when it comes to our green credentials. I’m aware my van isn’t the most environmentally friendly, and as the kids are now to big for it I’ll be selling it next year. It certainly won’t be replaced with a SUV though.
That Volvo Stat has been disproven sooo many times. Yes, currently, if you look favourably at the production of a petrol car and pessimistically at the production of an electric car and assume full scrap at the end of 100k miles and that the electric car is ran at most on 30% renewables, and that there are no emissions associated with oil extraction, pumping, transporting and refining - then, yeah, you get to that number. But in reality renewable contributions are only ever going to go one way, the reuse of batteries (or even the whole car - 100k miles? Really?) or materials will be high given their value and as ever the system boundaries on production and use of a petrol car are waay smaller than those of the EV as people (like Volvo) struggle to deal with Tesla's rise in the US and the fact that they have but a few EV models to compete with.
I thought of sticking a 'Penalty charge notice' on car windscreens with some environmental info inside / cycle to work schemes etc. Never got round to doing it but letting down tyres is a bot hardcore for me!
Bunch of pricks. Anyone thinks they have the right to mess with someone else’s property is mistaken, and all they’re going to do is turn people against them.
You started off defending SUV ownership, then got derailed into a 180degree U-turn with some insight into the plight of the countries dealing with the effects of climate change and the disdain those people feel for people in the global North who needlessly pollute at their expense putting their economies, livelihoods and property at risk.
Good work.
Turns out not much, which I guess is kind of the point eh
And you know this how ?
Who needed to make an urgent trip but couldn’t cause some **** immobilised their only car ?
But, I wouldn’t be in the least but surprised to find a flat tyre or 2. I’m
And you’d be happy enough with that ? Someone vandalising your car ?
Cause that’s what it is.
Thats it, we’ve arrived at Brexit…5 pages in.
You’ve turned into brexit how exactly?
I’ve missed that but lol
I support them all the way. It's about time SUV drivers were called out.
The missus has an suv, its quite a nice place to sit when stuck in the urban traffic jams.
Quite tricky to lift my ebike onto the roof though as it's so high up.
About 20 years ago, I was a paid up member of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s 🙋♂️
They did plenty of this type of stuff, but I was a little young to participate, sadly.
Even if those toffs aren't gonna change their habits, maybe some of the thousands of people who read the news stories about it will make better decisions down the line - that's probably more the point...
It’s about time SUV drivers were called out.
Do you drive? If so, please share the great environmental credentials of your vehicle/s so we can emulate you.
FWIW last car up a French alp in winter is always an old panda 4x4 with skinny tyres and a 1.2l engine, and never a BMW X5.
SUVs aren't an excuse for getting down a slightly gritty road in a British winter. They're ego chariots and nothing else.
Toffs lol
Amazing
What do you lot make of this thing? Its the Paul Smith Mini Strip, stripping out as much of the plastics and unsustainable materials as possible, not even painted, kept raw, not much superfluous. I think its really cool and didn't get enough attention, cooler than the latest dinosaur performance car maybe, the whole philosophy behind it is closer to where we should be heading. Cant think of anything else out there going down the same lines. Paul Smith, he must be ok he rides bikes...
If only you knew how stupid that statement is.
You trying to tell me your face didn't take on even the slightest pinkish hue when you were typing your wee sweary rant?
Come on, don't tell porkies.
You’re pretty ignorant.
Also you’re use of an implication related to rascist attitudes is even more ignorant
But well done for making the the thread personal. I’ll ignore whatever spouts next.
And you know this how ?
Who needed to make an urgent trip but couldn’t cause some **** immobilised their only car ?
Was mentioned earlier in the thread - the most dramatic story the BBC could find was a pharmacist being slightly late for work.
Well if the BBC says so.
Bottom line is you’re putting someone’s transport out of commission with no knowledge of what it’s needed for.
Did they check the glove boxes for blue badges ?
Regardless of this is the fact that damaging someone’s large car to persuade them to get rid of it is stupid.
Do you imagine it’s actually worked for one single person who’s car was vandalised?
Also you’re use of an implication related to rascist attitudes is even more ignorant
Nope, the only way to use gammon in a racist way is to say it's a racist term.
To say gammon is a racist term shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what racism is. To be so ignorant in this day and age can only come through willful ignorance.
So go ahead and call me racist but I think we both know which of us holds the bigoted attitudes.
Wow lol
Perhaps try reading posts correctly.
The term is used to describe someone with racist attitudes and you used it to describe me.
(Implication)
And followed by calling me a bigot. You’re on fire bud keep it up
Ignorant indeed
Edit to add, ofcom have deemed the term as racist. Go figure.
Edit to add, ofcom have deemed the term as racist. Go figure.
No they didn't. They deemed it a 'mildly offensive' political insult and did not ban it on TV and Radio. Along with snowflake.
The missus has an suv, its quite a nice place to sit when stuck in the urban traffic jams.
I feel like this sums up how utterly daft cars are as a means of transportation in a single sentence.
Well if the BBC says so.
Bottom line is you’re putting someone’s transport out of commission with no knowledge of what it’s needed for.
Ahh yes, the tried and tested (it failed the test) argument that people only drive cars for wholesome and worthwhile causes.
Absolutely not because 90% of them're lazy.
To grossly misquote Blackstone, better one person be inconvenienced for 5 minutes reinflating the tyre of their oversized and selfish transport option. Than 10 kids be driven less than a mile to the school gates.
Regardless of this is the fact that damaging someone’s large car to persuade them to get rid of it is stupid.
Do you imagine it’s actually worked for one single person who’s car was vandalised?
Yes actually, I suspect it probably did.
Cars are status symbols for a lot of people, and probably for all SUV drivers. They can't convey that feeling of status on the driver if they feel like the rest of the world holds them in contempt. Give it 3 years and I bet the next car a lot of them buy isn't an SUV.
One of the farm reps that serves my outlaws used to drive a diesel VW. 50-60 real world mpg and filled up once a month.
Her company switched the fleet to hybrids and got a shit load of climate incentives and tax breaks.
She still does the same annual miles give or take, gets real world mid 30’s mpg on avg and fills up twice a month.
But its fine, its environmentally friendly cos the media said so.
And the mines that rape and pillage obscur villages to obtain those rare earths for western battery packs are fine cos no-one gives a shit about whats not in their door step. Or should I say “no reported incidents since records began”. 5 years ago.
Climate is the new religion to keep us under control and with it goes too many myths, half truths and people who think its fine to go go and damage random peoples stuff.
I dont think its right to be 5ft tall with a 6ft waist when theres so much poverty. So can i go round and smash up their fridge and cooker?
TINAS I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don’t see how an SUV is a status symbol. Think that’s the wrong argument. Surely there’s a large proportion of SUV drivers who can’t afford an electric car. I’ve had cars that are status symbols (Aston Martin, Porsche) but never see a rented SUV as a status symbol.
I drive an SUV at the moment, it will be my last. We were fortunate enough to be gifted it by the father in law when he bought his Tesla. Mrs W has finally agreed we will move to an electric car with our next purchase.
We own Fuel Stations, she was adamant we would remain on fuel until the last moment, but the recent attention brought to us by these activists has helped her realise we should have done so a long time ago.
When the time came to replace it we looked at octavias etc – and my short arse wife says the visibility isn’t as good as the raised position in the SUV
That works until we all buy even higher cars since we want to have the visibility and, ideally, have lights at the right height to blind other car drivers and cyclists even when not at high beam.
Any “look its the SUV owners” nonsense is just a smokescreen so the other car owners can feel better about themselves.
Yes of course it is. Keep telling yourself that.
Hypocrites and virtue signallers unite.
Outcry at SUV drivers while buying plastic frames for sport, manufactured using fossil fuels and fitted with metal components extracted for no other reason than somebody’s hobby and then shipped around the world in the same way. NIMBYers annoyed with the world and getting involved on a forum using devices also made in countries using fossil fuels to make them, and ship them - probably updating them every two years just because too.
They’ll put the thread behind them tomorrow though when they jump in their fuel efficient cars to drive to a trail centre or ride start, smug that the unnecessary journey their taking is in a small, fuel efficient car.
Meanwhile, SUVs make a great headline while ignoring all of the hot hatches, performance saloons and large engine diesel estates because, well, the headline is less punchy…
Aren’t sweeping generalisations great. You can just conclude anything you want to.
The SUV I drive means I don’t fly to the Alps in the winter (skiing) or summer (road and MTB - 8 bikes this year).
And I rarely commute in it. Three days WFH and two days of 2x20 mile commutes.
And it’s doing 40mpg, which isn’t as good as I’d like, but not horrendous.
Am I perfect? No
Do I have a carbon footprint? Yes, as does everyone.
Can I do better? Probably. I could give up skiing and MTB.
We just ordered our first EV. In about 30 months (delivery times 🙄) I suspect the mileage that SUV does will go down.
She still does the same annual miles give or take, gets real world mid 30’s mpg on avg and fills up twice a month.
So lets see. To make a lot of assumptions that may not be the case here but...50-60mpg, fills up once a month, so lets say 600 miles per tank, 150 miles per week, 30 miles daily. If its a plug in hybrid then surely the only way to get such poor mileage is to not set off with a full charge of the battery. Its a known fact that may company hybrid vehicles get used without the users ever having plugged them in, they get returned after lease with the cables still wrapped in plastic bags in the frunk. They still get the tax break though...
It did make me laugh that on the other thread everyone in Aberdeen wanted to fight him when he lived here. And yet the rest of us didn’t experiance that.
You’ve made me waste good beer 🍻😂
Again that is unfair on rural communities that *have* to do some miles just to get around and do life.
That would be a 'lifestyle' choice for many of them who have moved away from the facilities in towns for the quieter life. Don't expect a subsidy from the rest of us for this. Many of these 'communities' have no affordable housing nor young families in them.
FWIW last car up a French alp in winter is always an old panda 4×4 with skinny tyres and a 1.2l engine, and never a BMW X5.
Those panda 4x4 are legendary.
X5s, Audi Qs, Volvos are pure style over substance and driven by the kind of person who has as much spatial awareness as a blind chimp on Es., who abandons rather than parks, who thinks that they’re being social minded if they keep their engine running to keep themselves warm.
TINAS I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don’t see how an SUV is a status symbol. Think that’s the wrong argument. Surely there’s a large proportion of SUV drivers who can’t afford an electric car.
It's not SUV Vs Electric, it's SUV Vs the equivelent "car".
Ford Fiesta Vs Puma/EcoSport
Nissan Micra Vs Juke
Jaguar XF Vs F-Pace
Bentley Continental Vs Bentayga
TESLA MODEL S VS MODEL X
Want to drop your carbon footprint by several percent without comprimising anything at all, get a car not an SUV.
It would be nicer if more people didn't have cars, fly, eat meat or have inefficient homes. But when such a large proportion are pissing carbon dioxide up the metaphorical wall for zero objective use then that's an even worse thing.
It's only a matter of time before we're all driving things like this:
You’ve made me waste good beer 🍻😂
I'm not sure why getting jumped and beaten up when you're walking home is so funny.
Or seeing someone getting stabbed in front of you.
Or waking up to see two cars ablaze outside your window.
But hey, comedy is subjective, I guess.
Edit to add: And I completely forgot to mention coming home one day to find the police in the flat and my flatmate in tears trying to give a statement because she'd been racially abused and sexually assaulted on the bus.
Oh how we laughed about it afterwards.
Are you reading what your posting ?
That last one is a belter.
Absolute rubbish but a belter all the same.
I’m not saying that rural livers need an suv but your statement above is just nonsense.
Actually I would go further. It’s impossible to live without a carbon footprint. Anyone who chooses to continue living should face massive punitive penalties in order to encourage as many people as possible to kill themselves.
Did I win Whataboutery Top Trumps?
@BruceWee - No, but you're well on the way to winning #TOTW (and the T isn't for thread)
Guys, get more reflective, introspective even, about your own impact / carbon footprint and how you can tweak it downwards. It’ll never be zero, but stop telling other folk they’re the problem or being all defensive about your own position.
Chill. And see if you can, in any way shape or form, help the planet do the same.
And no I’m not holier than anyone. Flame me if you must.
I run a transit van but have solar thermal panels lol
I feel balanced haha
Not a VW!!!
Heathen.
👿😜
PS how do you fit solar thermal to a Ford?
magic lol
Climate is the new religion to keep us under control
WWG1WGA bro
You know nothing about me and you’re idea of me is ignorant and typical of a snidey little dick hiding behind a keyboard.
Well done. You’re an actual ****
So I see your initial plan to ignore whatever else I wrote fell by the wayside. I blame myself. Sometimes I can be simply too charming and engaging.
@BruceWee – No, but you’re well on the way to winning #TOTW (and the T isn’t for thread)
It seems that the strength of feeling generated when you touch someone else's car is matched only by talking about kicking someone's dog.
Do you ever get the feeling that society has a pretty messed up value system?
Guys, get more reflective, introspective even, about your own impact / carbon footprint and how you can tweak it downwards.
Yep, the level of defensiveness and excuses for a simple thing like car choice shows exactly why bigger changes to lifestyle will never happen without governments passing laws, rules and regulations.
I suppose they have done that with cars with electric only new cars from 2030 but that is way too far out and a lot of petrol cars will be purchased in next 9 years and live on for 10+ years past 2030.
Now apply limitations to food choice, holidays, travel etc,. and see how that goes...
SUVs use more materials to manufacture, are less aerodynamic, heavier and less efficient.
Citation needed - what do you define as an SUV, and have you done detailed analysis of the amount of materials that make up SUV’s, compared to large saloon and estate cars, ‘cos it’s all too easy to point at a Discovery parked next to a Fiesta, and say, there’s your proof.
@CountZero - MK5 golf kerb weight 1,164–1,617 kg
MK1 Tiguan kerb weight 1,546 - 1,770kg
A quick search, the heavy golfs are the more powerful models (tdi 140 is 1318kg) so on average a Tiguan based on a golf will be heavier.
The Tiguan tdi 140 is 1665kg.
Citation needed – what do you define as an SUV, and have you done detailed analysis of the amount of materials that make up SUV’s, compared to large saloon and estate cars, ‘cos it’s all too easy to point at a Discovery parked next to a Fiesta, and say, there’s your proof.
No citation, but I'm an aerospace engineer who works on multi-disciplinary optimisation and so have a good understanding of structures, aerodynamics and systems, so let's take a look
Anything with permanent 4x4 will lose around 20% in fuel economy. ALL SUVs have a larger body with a larger frontal area. As drag is the dominant factor in efficiency above 40mph, and drag force is made of components related to the surface area and the reynolds number the form drag and viscous drag are substantially higher for an SUV as speeds increase. Due to the larger body, SUVs generally have larger wheels and tyres than a conventional car. Larger wheels and tyres decrease range in Evs by around 8-10%. More bodywork, higher seats, larger wheels and tyres all increase vehicle weight which increases the need for bigger brakes and further increases weight. Increased weight needs more power to accelerate and so is less efficient.
Whichever way you look at it, from an environmental standpoint, SUVs are awful.
The Discovery is a good example of what's wrong. 2.3t weight, average MPG with the 2.0 diesel is 27MPG (real). Jaguar XF estate with the same engine is 1.8t and with the 18" wheels will return 48MPG (real) 500KG heavier (half a bloody tonne) and almost half the MPG. Definitely half in towns/short runs.
paino
Full MemberNot sure I condone this behaviour….oh who am I kidding, this is brilliant
The OP…
Quite a hateful post - No doubt the sort of person that if they were a walker, would be glad to see ‘footpaths’ sabotaged to try and stop bikers using them.
Really not the way to bring people that are considering a change into the discussion. How do you expect people to react to your zealous gloating…divisive.
[edit - dammit I spent 20 minutes dredging these citations up and have been beaten to it]
Citation needed – what do you define as an SUV, and have you done detailed analysis of the amount of materials that make up SUV’s, compared to large saloon and estate cars, ‘cos it’s all too easy to point at a Discovery parked next to a Fiesta, and say, there’s your proof.
I feel like you're setting a deliberately high barrier to justify your ignoring the painfully obvious.
But here you go.
Fiesta Vs Puma
Both are built on the Ford B2E platform so share the majority of the underpinnings, engines, gearboxes, wheel sizes, interiors, spec, pretty much everything except the styling. one is a Car the other is an SUV. albeit a 2WD one so you're onto a winner with this comparison as it's not also dragging around an underused transfer box and an extra couple of differentials.
Fiesta 1284 kg (kerb weight of the heaviest option)
Puma 1358 kg (ditto).
So there you go, it took 5.7% more resources to build an SUV than a car despite the fact that in almost every way they're identical.
Citations:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+fiesta+kerb+weight
https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+puma+kerb+weight
Fuel Efficiency (bearing in mind this SUV isn't also having to spin up a load of unused gearboxes like anything larger, this is the best case for you).
Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost mHEV 56.5 mpg
Puma 1.0 ecoboost mHEV - 52.3 mpg
(I was going to go for the 1.0 EcoBoost without the hybrid bit but they don't do a Puma with that engine, only the 1.5)
So again the "SUV" is burning through 7.6% more fuel on exactly the same platform! And that's on their idealized test rig. In the real world, you won't get those figures, and you'll do even worse the heavier the car as real people aren't as smooth as the computer simulation, and larger frontal area will have a big impact at a real world 70mph Vs the 56mph or whatever the highway mpg figure is given at.
Citation:
https://www.ford.co.uk/content/dam/guxeu/uk/documents/price-list/cars/PL-New_fiesta.pdf
Taking the "highest" mpg figure for each model.
And that's the best comparable vehicles I could think of. If you took a more realistic comparison of what people actually buy and compared a midrange Audi A3, BMW 3 series, Jag XF or Ford Focus against their actual 4x4 equivalents (Q3, X3, Discovery, Kuga) the difference is more like 20%+ like for like, or 50% if you try an up-spec the 4x4's engine to match it's weight.
SUVs are mostly a fashion thing.
People (buyers) like the looks, the high seating position, and the ‘feeling’ of safety.
The fact that a regular saloon, hatch, or estate with comparable space inside is more efficient in virtually every measurable way is completely lost on most people.
It’s all very well arguing that “it’s only a couple of mpg less” that would be ok if you were the only person on earth with a car, but you’re not, there’s millions of the bloody things.
Also I don't think it's Puma 1.0s that are having their tyres let down. More like the Merc GLsomething that the people across the road have. Pretty much the biggest car I have ever seen on the road in the UK.
I was just having a look at my car, which is an suv.
Subaru forester- weight 1556kg 1557L boot space (seats down) combined econemy of 47.9mpg.
Compare that to another Subaru, the outback: weight 1649kg 1848L boot space (seats down) combined economy 50.4mpg. Both 2.0 td.
So, the normal estate car is heavier, but has more space inside, and uses about 5% less fuel.
I’ve used these as examples because i have one, and i also know they both use the same spec of engine/gearbox/4wd/suspension etc.
Doesn’t look good for the suv, whatever way you look at it.
Reduce (size)
Reduce (use)
Reuse (keep it on the road as long as you can)
Replace- but only if you absolutely must.
That works until we all buy even higher cars since we want to have the visibility and,
Maybe, or perhaps it’s marginal gains or product managers in car companies will understand the details and start engineering better seats or windscreens for people who are only five foot wee (I’ll put money on it most car manufacturers still have men in design decision roles, and inevitably they will be to some extent “petrol heads”).
ideally, have lights at the right height to blind other car drivers and cyclists even when not at high beam.
I’ve got self levelling headlights and never been flashed by anyone who thought I had them on full beam. Mine is fairly bottom of the range so if headlight dazzle is your only objection to taller vehicles I think you’ll find it diminishing as older ones are replaced.
However, keep up hating the SUVs rather than greenwashing hybrids that never bother to plug-in; weekend van-lifers lugging half of B&Q needlessly to work everyday so they can run their diesel heater in a poorly insulated van at the weekends; more aerodynamic sportier cars that spend their days pointlessly leapfrogging traffic with hard acceleration and braking; tiny wee cars that are used for journeys that would have been quicker to walk anyway or the umpteen deliveries a day (often from the same companies) rather than consolidating into fewer shipments.
So, the normal estate car is heavier, but has more space inside, and uses about 5% less fuel.
Problem is fuel is too cheap.
Anyone that can afford to own/lease such a car and maintain it, tax it and insure it etc is perfectly able to pay 5% more on fuel. They should never have stopped the fuel duty hikes when the blockades happened in 2000. At double the price more people would be pausing for thought to ask if that journey is needed and taking economy into buying decisions - and I suspect fleet managers would be asking why their staff weren’t getting the mpg that should be possible.
@poly
I agree, but not just fuel, cars in general are too cheap.
We need to stop rushing about this planet as if we own it.
The Discovery is a good example of what’s wrong. 2.3t weight, average MPG with the 2.0 diesel is 27MPG (real). Jaguar XF estate with the same engine is 1.8t and with the 18″ wheels will return 48MPG (real) 500KG heavier (half a bloody tonne) and almost half the MPG. Definitely half in towns/short runs.
But that is the stupidity of labelling one “class” of vehicles as bad (and by implication another class as better) I have an SUV which in real world use (including have kayak roof bars on for most of the summer and occasionally towing a trailer) is averaging 50.8 mpg in the last 6000 miles (mostly not motorway miles either). So THIS suv is still better than the Jag XF. Probably not as sporty or fun but on “mpg” is better. Yes presumably the same drive chain in a more aero body with unnecessary weight trimmed would be even better - but why decide that SUVs are the enemy (and should be using public transport as the sign they put on windows says) but not your worse Jag…
So THIS suv is still better than the Jag XF.
NO. Your SUV is at 50mpg according to you and on the journeys you drive. I took an average from REALMPG on all the Discovery's and XF Estates listed with the SAME ENGINE as they're approximately the same size/market segment and made by the same company so have similar systems interior, etc.
Mine is an apples to apples comparison of why an SUV is bad vs an estate car. Yours is a totally random comparison between two entirely dissimilar vehicles based purely upon their broadly allocated class. I actually answered the question.
Mine is an apples to apples comparison of why an SUV is bad vs an estate car. Yours is a totally random comparison between two entirely dissimilar vehicles based purely upon their broadly allocated class. I actually answered the question.
But that’s the point you are intentionally missing. The OP and the actions his post linked to were targeted at vehicles purely because they were in the same broadly allocated class. Stigmatising all SUVs is stupid if some suvs are actually better than the direct comparison alternative. So if the action has its intended effect I’ll feel awkward getting another suv when this one’s time is up - but rather than buy the greenest vehicle all I’ll care about is not getting one with the stigma - a Jag XR sounds like a good option, unfortunate that it puts out a wee bit more co2 than my current car but, it must be better because nobody was letting down the tyres on estate cars and sticking signs on the window!
Modern engines have made great gains in efficiency so a 50MPG SUV is feasible, but the point is that for the same outlay - or more likely alot less- the driver could have gone for something like a Volvo V40 2.0 Diesel which real world give more like 60+MPG (discontinued but similar, you know what I mean). Its that difference multiplied by the tens of millions of the things on the road that makes such a huge difference to our collective consumption and emissions. One would like to think that anyone who has taken on board the ramifications of what's been discussed at Cop in the last few weeks, that if one's in the enviable position to purchase new cars in the future- then they will be better informed, if not pressurised, into making more considered choices. Anyone who's adamant that they need one can pay a 30% premium in a tax that could be directed at compensating the parts of the world where the impacts will start to be felt. The usual tired old excuses, the same ones we've been hearing for decades, are gong to get boring pretty quickly.
Look. SUVs are less aerodynamic and heavier - for the sake of looks and style. That's all there is to it. Getting bogged down comparing cars is pointless. If you drive one you're using more fuel than you need. End of.
There are lots of other ways to use more fuel than you need, of course. But that does not change the first fact. There's really nothing to argue about.
Stigmatising all SUVs is stupid if some suvs are actually better than the direct comparison alternative.
Name a single one.
And no, saying your personal choice is more efficient than some big sporty estate isn't a direct comparison.
A direct comparison would have been to pick the equivalent hatch/estate from the same manufacturer.
The big sporty estate is an environmentally poor choice too. We're talking about the fac that people walk into dealerships and are deliberately buying cars that are bigger and less fuel efficient than they could be.
That's a different argument to banning cars entirely, banning sporty cars, banning personal car ownership in cities or anything else. It's simply saying people could have reduce their carbon footprint by ~2% simply by making a slightly better choice at no cost to them.
a Jag XR sounds like a good option, unfortunate that it puts out a wee bit more co2 than my current car but, it must be better because nobody was letting down the tyres on estate cars and sticking signs on the window!
If people are really going to be so childish about the whole thing then god help us.
This thread is a real whaboutery fest isn't it.
I have a genuine question for those who are decrying SUV drivers: do you consume animal products?
It has been shown by multiple studies and research bodies that meat and dairy contribute far more in terms of emissions than plant-based food sources. It is known that it is perfectly possible to survive on a 100% plant-based diet (as many plant-based foods are supplemented with B12, or you can personally supplement).
If you are criticising anyone driving an SUV (in your opinion) unnecessarily, yet you consume meat and dairy (also unnecessarily), then you're a hypocrite of the highest order.
It is known that it is perfectly possible to survive on a 100% plant-based diet (as many plant-based foods are supplemented with B12, or you can personally supplement
A B12 supplement isn't necessary. As a vegetarian I get it from eggs. A vegan obviously won't, and it can't be got from ants but there's loads in fungus, so mushrooms, yeast, marmite, whatever,vegans don't need to miss out on anything.
.
[edit] it can be got from ants but that's meat. Plants.
If you are criticising anyone driving an SUV (in your opinion) unnecessarily, yet you consume meat and dairy (also unnecessarily), then you’re a hypocrite of the highest order.
That’s not really how that works I’m afraid. All someone then has to do is compare themselves with a meat eating SUV driver and we’re back as we were.
Or, as mentioned above, it’s just more whataboutery
It's not whataboutery at all - if you criticise someone over a personal choice that they have made, that is contributing more environmental harm than the valid alternative - yet you yourself are unwilling to take an equally valid alternative to something you do in order to reduce your environmental harm, then that is hypocrisy.
Do the best that you can, with what you are able, and don't be a dick about it. Is that really so hard?
Ok, so your small estate driving enemy is also a vegetarian. Does that now make their argument more valid? Otherwise you are just shouting “but what about the meat?!”
I have a genuine question for those who are decrying SUV drivers: do you consume animal products?
I have a good answer for you. My grandfather was a farmer who over 60 years ago recognised that the model of agriculture at the time was unsustainable. He switched to a more sustainable life-style and brought up his entire family from that point forward as vegetarian. I've been vegetarian my entire life, so 46 years, the last 3 practically vegan...though I have a penchant for the occasional cheese. Have been aware of the need to minimise consumption in everything for well over 20 years, and my footprint through my life and currently will be minuscule compared to what some people on here have normalised. Do I get to tell you what to do yet? no - you'll probably find another excuse, and I'd settle for just a huge tax rebate. I should probably get to drive whatever I want on those metrics, but I'd never drive an SUV 'cause they're crap.
I think we need to get away from the mindset of, 'I do X, therefore I am entitled to Y.'
We're beyond the point of calculating our carbon footprint and saying things like, 'I've looked at our carbon footprint, therefore the four flights we've taken this year are fine.'
If you want to drive an SUV drive then drive an SUV. If you want to eat meat every day then eat meat every day. If you want to live in a huge difficult to heat house then live in a huge difficult to heat house. If you want to fly round the planet every year then fly around the planet every year.
However, you can no longer expect anyone to endorse any of these choices and just because you drive an electric car don't expect to be let off the hook for eating meat every day, living in a big poorly insulated house, or your next flight to Madiera.
From now on we all have to do what we can in every aspect of our lives. I am in no way perfect but in everything I do now I'm trying to minimise my impact.
A point that I haven't seen mentioned is the impact of the reduced safety on our roads caused by SUVs (or at least the perceived reduced safety).
We know that many people drive their kids to school rather than let them walk because they are worried about their safety. People are worried about safety ratings so they buy SUVs in order to keep their families safe.
By driving around in an SUV, even if you are the safest driver in the world, you are discouraging people from walking, cycling, and from buying smaller cars.
It's not as simple as just looking at mpg figures. I would really like to see an end to this arms race to have the biggest heaviest car possible in the interests of 'safety',
The simple solution is not to have and kids. You will then have a lower carbon footprint than anyone who has. The bit I don’t understand is if as all the protesters say, quite rightly, that the planet is going to hell in a handcart from the perspective of human life why do they want to bring new life into the planet to enjoy the ride into oblivion?
You have to admit, ending the human race is a fairly drastic solution to the climate crisis.
Maybe we should go further and all just kill ourselves at the same time.
Or maybe we could see if it's possible to alter society so that we can live in a stable ecosystem first. We can keep the worldwide seppuku solution as a backup plan.