Forum menu
There's about 10% MPG between them and the Yeti is still new.
That's interesting. Real world? How old was the Fabia?
If a hatchback and an SUV had the exact same environmental impact I'd be fine with them. I might even buy one.
Side impact on the out of control pug vs front impact on the pick up.
Limited impact protection on the side of any car compared to the front wing.
Went to the garage today. Sat in a 320 Tourer, felt a bit small compared to current 520 Tourer company car ( no surprise). Sat in X3, felt OK and ideal apart from need for a portable step to put bikes on roof. Sat in Passat Alltrack, also felt OK, spacious, but...once specced out to same as standard X3, costs a little more.
Skoda garage tomorrow.
If a hatchback and an SUV had the exact same environmental impact I'd be fine with them. I might even buy one.
New hatchback driven daily around town v second hand SUV rarely used. Etc.
Vehicle type is only one part of a bigger picture.
Of course, but those aren't the two choices are they? If you can buy a used SUV and only drive it occasionally then you can also buy a used hatchback and drive that occasionally. And save fuel.
That's my point. I'm not trying to eco Willy wave, there's no way I'd win for a start. What I am trying to say is that for most people, they could just as easily do everything they do in their SUV in an estate equivalent in luxury and safety, and save fuel.
If you can buy a used SUV and only drive it occasionally then you can also buy a used hatchback and drive that occasionally. And save fuel.
If you do that, you should really not but the hatchback and spend the money on a cargo bike and save even more fuel.
For tafkastr, I'd dig out the story about the F250 vs Mini crash where the story was reversed and the pickup driver was killed and the mini occupants ran over to check on the F250 occupants.
An anecdote is not a study.
If you do that, you should really not but the hatchback and spend the money on a cargo bike and save even more fuel.
Of course. Unless your occasional journey is also a long one with no public alternative.
Of course. Unless your occasional journey is also a long one with no public alternative.
And some of us 4x4 owners already do that.
When I walk to the shops, I'm not using the 4x4.
When I ride to town, I'm not using the 4x4.
When I'm using the family friendly hatchback, I'm not using the 4x4.
When I need the 4x4, it's there, ready and waiting. 😀
When I need [s]the 4x4[/s] to ponce around, looking like a bufty, it's there, ready and waiting.
I don't understand yunki. 😕
nor do I mate.... nor do I
I couldn't give a monkeys any more.. I used to worry about such stuff but these days I am forced to drive a clapped out renault as the kids school is too far away, and it's looking increasingly likely that mrs yunki may also need a car for her new job as a community nurse
if you're not a farmer though, what do you [i]need[/i] a 4x4 for?
Horse box?
An estate would pretty much do, and be 30%-50% better on fuel.
Comparing two cars built on the same platform - Focus Estate and the Kuga
The are about the same length
Kuga is about 20cm wider
Kuga is 150 kgs heavier (1600kg vs 1450 kg).
Kuga has a 406/1603 litre boot
Estate has a 476/1516 litre boot
If you pick a comparable engine (in this case the 163 bhp diesels) , Ford claim you will get 49mpg from the Kuga and 57 out of the Estate.
There are more environmentally friendly options available on the Estate which will give you a maximum of 83mpg, but some worse ones which only make 44mpg.
So, it's not so much of a slam dunk for the estate that you might think and the higher position in the Kuga might just swing you in favour of it.
That's interesting. Real world? How old was the Fabia?
If a hatchback and an SUV had the exact same environmental impact I'd be fine with them. I might even buy one.
Real world yeah. Fabia was 2.5 yrs old when I returned it.
Emissions are similar but Yeti 1.2 Tsi is a 5bhp more. But has stop/start .
PePPeR - Member
Aphex we see the irony in asking Molgrips that question, as was mentioned it's all in the history (cough Passat)
Yeah, that was me looking at potentially having to read 6 pages of his waffle and thinking "naah".
Also, that's not irony. x
For me, it's less to do with pointing fingers at which cars are more or less damaging to the environment and more to do with a mixture of disbelief and amusement at the ridiculous sight of Monster Trucks and armoured cars being used almost exclusively to ferry little kids to school and to nip to Sainsbury's, often taking up too much parking space while they're at it.
My viewpoint- There are ALOT of bad and nervous drivers on the roads. They don't see their ability or mindset as the problem, so they buy a car that 'moves them higher upto perceived safety'. The mad thing is such vehicles arent the best handling (I.e safe) and aren't any safer anyway. It's perception. They think they will be safer. Much like people think German cars are the most reliable. Crackers.
The safestcars have the best steering feel, easy to place on the road and feel part of you. The worst have indistinct suspension, hard to place and overnight devolved electric steering
Vickypea puts it well.
Afik the problem with SUVs and economy is the aerodynamics. Higher body means larger frontal area which affects drag. They don't publish drag coefficients though.
Skipping to the end of this to add my 'experience'. Back in 2002, when our twins came along, we already had a Volvo V70 for me, wife, daughter #1 and two dogs.
I thought we'd be OK with the V70 but I soon realised that it wasn't actually wide enough and we couldn't fit 3 x car seats across the back which caused a big problem. The XC90 had just come out and, as I really didn't want an 'old style' MPV, I got one and kept it for 12 years. Frankly it was perfect for dragging everyone plus dogs, kids friends, boats etc all over the place. Now the girls are mid-teens I still need a load of space and a good towing vehicle, so I just changed to another, biggish, SUV.
I like them but can't really see the point in the small ones from what some people have to say about them on here.
Higher body means larger frontal area
[just thinking out loud]
Does it? The frontal area would still be same if it was on the ground or 6' up, there's just a bigger gap under the car.
Random thought of the day.
as i was cycling to work today a qashqui passed me
it struck me how much it sounds like cashcow when you say it ....
This clearly demonstrates the superiority of modern full-sized trucks in collisions.
it struck me how much it sounds like cashcow when you say it ....
Just imagine a Northern Irish person saying it and then you're there.
I call them Kumquats myself (which I think I got from an episode of TG).
I like them but can't really see the point in the small ones from what some people have to say about them on here.
When you don't need a 7 seater and when you want a more compact car (parking etc) but still want some of the other benefits. Some small suv's (eg Juke) are like a reverse Tardis and quite small inside, some like old shape Rav4 are brilliant load carriers (our 2000 model could carry more stuff than lwb shogun)
@trail rat indeed others post the name of the car as Qashcow
@ap I think a video of a saloon or hatchback would look the same
I think the reason that SUV's are getting stick are mainly because they are bought by people who have been suckered by clever marketing into buying something that they just don't need.
No one's got an issue with a farmer, park ranger or someone who lives out in the sticks from driving or owning a 4x4. It's those that buy them for no apparent reason - other than they think it makes them a) safer, b) look good, or c) give them more status, that people have the issues with. That and the fact that SUV's are often due to their size, or the way they're frequently driven, an inconvenience to the rest of us on the road.
Still going?
A bit late to be asking, but is the title true? Do the sales figures back the statement up? My groping around the SMMT website got me no-where. And should we be comparing all SUVs with estates anyway? A Juke or a Q3 for example should be compared with hatchbacks. Similarly X6/X4/Merc GLE thing.
Vickypea puts it well.
Afik the problem with SUVs and economy is the aerodynamics. Higher body means larger frontal area which affects drag. They don't publish drag coefficients though
True-ish but why single out SUVs given they vary? And you could then make a case for everyone owning super minis. It would just be category v category and the estate drivers would justify their purchases.
The mad thing is such vehicles arent the best handling (I.e safe) and aren't any safer anyway. It's perception. They think they will be safer. Much like people think German cars are the most reliable. Crackers.
Doesn't the NCAP of a vehicle come into it?
My anecdote about my mother surviving an 80mph head-on in a RAV was very much outlined by the copper at the scene who said that car saved your life. A lesser car would've been different.
Best handling doesn't equal safer. Especially when it's not your fault.
[devils advocate]
is that a bit like the copper whos qualified to tell you a helmet saved your life in a bike crash ?
[/devils advocate]
think the reason that SUV's are getting stick are mainly because they are bought by people who have been suckered by clever marketing into buying something that they just don't need.
The car industry is marketing.
That's what makes it tick. You could say the same about any desirable car. I.e it's been successfully marketed to the correct buyer. That is the aim.
It's what stops me from buying a hot hatch and why I owned one when I was 18.
is that a bit like the copper whos qualified to tell you a helmet saved your life in a bike crash ?
The other guy in a Fiesta died instantly. My mother's car flipped and was smashed to bits but she walked away.
It's completely anecdotal but it's difficult to ignore.
wonder how the outcome would have been between 2 fiestas - neither me, you or the copper are qualified to say what it would have been - but its an interesting conundrum no less.
its an arms race to the bottom .
The other guy in a Fiesta died instantly. My mother's car flipped and was smashed to bits but she walked away.It's completely anecdotal but it's difficult to ignore.
You could also just as easily argue that a 4x4 is less safe because of the higher centre of gravity, meaning it's less stable and far more likely to flip over in a collision.
[url=
and then there's this:[/url]
A bit late to be asking, but is the title true? Do the sales figures back the statement up?
Hard to know at the sales charts don't break out variants e.g. Golf Hatch vs Golf Estate: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/90327/best-selling-cars-2015-record-year-for-uk-car-sales
However they are very popular e.g. Kia's best selling car is their SUV, the Sportage. Nissan's best selling car is their SUV, the Qashqai.
The other guy in a Fiesta died instantly. My mother's car flipped and was smashed to bits but she walked away.
It's completely anecdotal but it's difficult to ignore.
You've conveniently ignored the rather unpalatable other side to that anecdote. The guy in the Fiesta might not have died if your mum had been driving a different car.
No one's got an issue with a farmer, park ranger or someone who lives out in the sticks from driving or owning a 4x4. It's those that buy them for no apparent reason - other than they think it makes them a) safer, b) look good, or c) give them more status, that people have the issues with. That and the fact that SUV's are often due to their size, or the way they're frequently driven, an inconvenience to the rest of us on the road.
This
IIRC there is research showing that people who aren't particularly confident drivers like them because they feel safer in them. Not confident driver in a huge heavy vehicle is not a recipe for good, considerate driving and parking. Round here the roads are small, tight, with steep bends and lots of parked cars either side of the road - driving a massive car just isn't sensible. I see loads of them in the Lakes on narrow walled lanes being driven miles out from the edge of the road.
Well if we're trading baseless conjecture, if they'd both been driving fiestas then both of them might have died.
And on the subject of baseless stats could you post up the average difference in dimensions between an suv and an estate car so we can see how massive they really are.
[pointlesspoint] But if they'd both been on bicycles there'd have been no serious injuries and they'd have saved a bucket load on fuel. [pointlesspoint]
EDIT:
an inconvenience to the rest of us on the road.
Who is "us"? And why do you think that you have a greater right than other road users. 4x4 probably pay more road tax anyway. 😛
It was an anecdote that supported your position and was 'difficult to ignore' a minute ago. But baseless conjecture is more accurate yes.
And no I'm not looking up stats, but big vehicles tend to be bigger than smaller vehicles, and very big vehicles are a lot bigger.
[pointlesspoint] But if they'd both been on bicycles there'd have been no serious injuries and they'd have saved a bucket load on fuel. [pointlesspoint]
Whereas your post was chock full of wit, insight and humour captainsasquatch (and definitely not yet another straw man) 😆
[img] 
[/img]
But compare 2 similar models from Ford, the inoffensive focus Estate and the behemoth kuga. The kuga is 4524mm long, the estate longer at 4556. The kuga is 1838mm wide, the focus 1823. But you seem to have no problem with the amount of space the focus occupies on your local roads. The mondeo Estate is even bigger.
Fwiw I drive neither,and it wasn't my anecdote about fiestas crashing.
But compare 2 similar models from Ford, the inoffensive focus Estate and the behemoth kuga. The kuga is 4524mm long, the estate longer at 4556. The kuga is 1838mm wide, the focus 1823. But you seem to have no problem with the amount of space the focus occupies on your local roads. The mondeo Estate is even bigger.
Well if you're up for comparing, like for like then the Focus handles better, is quicker (with the same engine), produces less Co2, weights 200kg less - yet has around 120 litres more luggage capacity than the equivalent Kuga.
When following a Focus Estate on the motorway it also doesn't restrict the forward view of the driver behind, unlike the Kuga or many other higher SUV's.
We have a primary school just down the bottom of the road from us. After a child was knocked down they put in speed humps a couple of years back. This slowed most of the traffic down, however we've noticed that 4x4/SUV drivers seem to be the main type of vehicles not slowing down for the speed humps and still traveling at inappropriate speeds past the school (that and white van courier drivers). Wonder if this is also a reason that many buy 4x4's with soft suspension and higher ride height?
^^ If you're at a safe distance, you should be able to see round both sides, and through the rear/front windscreens. Possibly underneath if the road assists. Height of a small SUV compared to an estate should not really affect your view, bar certain circumstances.
If you can't see past a Kuga sized vehicle, you're probably too close.
SUV drivers are pussycats compared to the 8.30am stressed mum with 1 kid in the 7 seater people carrier/ford SMAX/ Kia Sedona 🙄
And on the subject of baseless stats could you post up the average difference in dimensions between an suv and an estate car so we can see how massive they really are.
Well my current 'massive' car is a whopping 19mm wider and 30mm longer than my V70 (yet it does about 30% more mpg more than the Volvo did) - so basically the same and shorter than a Mondeo.
My anecdote about my mother surviving an 80mph head-on in a RAV was very much outlined by the copper at the scene who said that car saved your life.
Does it have anything at all to do with it being a SUV though?
iirc, Freelanders were a death trap because of their shape. The engine lifted in a collision, and the linkage clutch pedal got shoved into the drivers crotch?