Just watch between 2:40-2:58 😀
But the point of the thread is about inefficient cars (as was explained at length up there), of which large SUVs are a great example. You weren’t meant to get hung up on specific classifications of body shape, but apparently lots of people did.
The elephant in the room is that your Passat is also a great example. That’s why people are grinding your gears. You seem oblivious to this.
But he's not. He's explained his reasoning for keeping a car going rather than artificially shortening it's life and buying new. Yes a newer car may be more efficient but what is the embedded energy cost compared to keeping his going?
And people still not getting that regardless of efficiency a lighter, more aerodynamic vehicle of the same capacity would be more efficient still.
And we're back to the beginning for another exciting trip round the circle...
if you're actually interested in the question, this is a pretty good read -> https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a31979778/why-suvs-popular/
But he’s not. He’s explained his reasoning for keeping a car going rather than artificially shortening it’s life and buying new. Yes a newer car may be more efficient but what is the embedded energy cost compared to keeping his going?
And people still not getting that regardless of efficiency a lighter, more aerodynamic vehicle of the same capacity would be more efficient still.
It’s still a big car. When he bought it it was a big car, when the original owner bought it it was a big car. It will never be the most efficient or the kindest to the environment, just as any SUV won’t be. It’s not even practical, it’s a saloon! Honestly, it’s not hard. Those in glass houses and all that.
The elephant in the room is that your Passat is also a great example. That’s why people are grinding your gears. You seem oblivious to this.
No, I'm well aware of it. I've said dozens of times in this thread and on others that my footprint is not that small, and I've owned up to it.
I wouldn't bother getting back into this but there is an important point that you yourself are missing. Let me be as clear as I can.
You cannot use my mistakes to excuse yours.
Just because I make mistakes does not invalidate my argument
I'm not going to go into the reasons why I bought that car, because that would perpetuate the personal nature of this which is a distraction from the real issue.
Even by the repetitive nature of many a thread on here, I'm surprised this is still going on.
Molgrips' point is undeniably correct and it doesn't matter who is saying it, or what car they've got. I drive a five year old Fiesta (infrequently). If I understand the logic being displayed correctly (logic which is utterly flawed), certain posters on the thread will have no problem accepting Molgrips' point from me.
At the same time, I am acutely aware that I can reduce my carbon footprint in other areas of my life. It is completely unclear to me why this fact would exclude me from contributing to a discussion about the context of discussing the inefficiency, or lack thereof, of SUVs. On this basis, why is Molgrips' statement of fact so difficult to accept?
We are all responsible for the choices we make, and I hope that in the future the environmental impacts of these choices will be higher in peoples agendas. Not just in what car you choose, but all sorts of things.
Continue buying relatively inefficient cars if you like and justify it however you see fit, but I think it is absolutely right that individuals decisions are questioned, whether they think its unfair or unacceptable because Molgrips has a passat or not. Otherwise nothing will ever change.
We all lead individual lives and will all impact the environment in different ways but we all have a responsibility to do what we reasonably can to minimise our impact on the environment. No one size solution will suit all. For some a car is a key necessity in their lives and can't live without it, for others it isn't. So all we can do is reduce the impact of those things that are a necessity in our lives.
The problem I have with this thread is the assertion that SUV's (generically) are all inefficient. This is complete and utter crap. Some SUVs are very efficient and some aren't..just like some small cars are efficient and some aren't. my wife's X3 is a very efficient car...it just is. By any measure not just efficient for an SUV. Its big and heavy (though not much bigger or heavier than something like a Passat estate), but it also delivers real life MPG figures as good or better than many much smaller and lighter cars. I'm no SUV lover, but the other halves X3 has changed my opinion of the impact of SUV's on the environment. Big engined varieties aside, they are just as efficient as other cars. The X3 has a coefficient of drag of 0.29 which puts it right up there amongst the most aerodynamic mass produced cars you can buy and more aerodynamic than alot of other smaller conventional cars. the MPG its producing is right up there as high as you can reasonably expect from a car in the real world rather than those measured in idealised laboratory conditions for the benefit of marking brochures, and it produces very low CO2's to boot. So as much as I'm not a fan of the SUV format and wouldn't have been my choice of car for the mrs, its just a simple fact that blanket statements like this:-
And people still not getting that regardless of efficiency a lighter, more aerodynamic vehicle of the same capacity would be more efficient still.
are wrong and clumsy. like saying all red cars are inefficient.
And also I take issue with the notion that running an old banger longer is better for the life cycle environmental impact. Of course there is an optimal point, but it isn't anywhere liker 15 years - probably more like 5 to 10 years. At least 80% of the environmental impact of an ICE car comes from the fuel it burns during its life. So it will quickly 'pay off' the deficit from the manufacture of the car in a small number of years. After that you're just pumping crap into the atmosphere and a newer more efficient car would be a beneficial swap.
BMW X3 =1790-2065kg. Same engine in 1200kg vehicle would be anywhere around 20% more efficient depending on how strongly the laws of physics are acting that day. End of.
wobbliscott, i guess the appropriate comparison for a BMW X3 is with whatever traditional shaped car it is presumably based on. i'll not get into that as i lack knowledge on that subject.
i agree with you that blanket statements that are wrong and clumsy, like saying all red cars are inefficient, are unhelpful.
with this in mind, can you share with us some information to support your statement on the diminishing environmental benefits of running an older car for 5, 10 or 15 years please?
Why are SUV’s so popular amidst a climate emergency?
Because people want them and they can have them, thats it. People will have various reasons for wanting them, fashion, practicability, comfort, safety, whatever, at they end of the day if they want it and can afford it, they buy it.
People normally need to be forced to change, eg cost of fuel, tax etc.
are wrong and clumsy. like saying all red cars are inefficient.
Well not really. Colour does not have an impact on aerodynamics, but cross-sectional area does. So making the roof of your large SUV higher will always make it less efficient than it would be if it were lower. People poured scorn on the Evoque, but it looks like that to reduce the cross-sectional area.
The 'compact SUVs' talked about here are not really SUVs, they're just a slightly chunky car, and as such aren't really the target of opprobrium.
BMW X3 =1790-2065kg. Same engine in 1200kg vehicle would be anywhere around 20% more efficient depending on how strongly the laws of physics are acting that day. End of.
end of? Seriously? Unfortunately Physics is a tad more complex than that. Just what is it you think I am arguing? I'm not saying a large SUV is more efficient than a similar engined smaller lighter car...just that it is comparable and still very efficient cars. And where did you pluck 20% difference in efficiency from? We're really looking at the difference between something like 45mpg and 50mpg between an SUV and non-SUV equivalent, or there or there about, so both extremely efficient cars in my book. Also where did you pluck the figure of 1200kg from? If you're comparing an X3 to something similar non SUV then you're looking at a car that is a damn sight heavier than 1200kg - a Golf comes in heavier than that. In fact looking at a Passat estate (assuming something like a Passat estate is a sensible alternative non-suv) then you're probably looking far closer to the X3 weight.
And on the aerodynamics, frontal area is also important along with coefficient of drag...and it will probably surprise you to learn that the frontal area of an X3 is less than 10% greater than a Passat with the same CofD so aerodynamics not much worse. An SUV might be taller, but they also have much higher ground clearance so more fresh air under the car, which doesn't count as frontal area so actually not that much bigger on the frontal area. So bearing all that in mind it is not really surprising that a modern large SUV can achieve similar efficiency to a non-SUV family car which has similar aerodynamics and similar weight. But in both cases for such big and heavy cars they are returning spectacular efficiency. The wonders of modern engineering.
So the conclusion is that the original question has to be re-framed from "Why are SUV's so popular amidst a climate emergency?" to "Why are mostly extremely efficient SUVs that are ever so slightly less efficient than smaller non SUV family cars so popular amidst a climate emergency?". Not quite as a provocative thread title now is it??
Well not really. Colour does not have an impact on aerodynamics, but cross-sectional area does. So making the roof of your large SUV higher will always make it less efficient than it would be if it were lower.
Already done the cross sectional area thing - not much difference in reality... But in as much as labelling all SUV's as inefficient as if it's a binary thing like colour then that is wrong. Of course a Lambo Urus is never going to be considered efficient, but neither is a Golf R. A rather more conservative 2ltr tdi X3 certainly is efficient...very. Of course we can all make better choices in all areas of our lives couldn't we? And none of us have made optimal choices in our lives. I'm not saying something like an X3 is THE MOST EFFICIENT CAR IN THE WORLD. Just highlighting that it is an extremely, and surprisingly efficient.
If you're looking to blame the climate emergency on SUV's then you're wasting your time. They're only marginally less efficient than equivalent non-suv alternatives but still very efficient so got to look elsewhere if you want to save the planet.
its just a simple fact that blanket statements like this:-
And people still not getting that regardless of efficiency a lighter, more aerodynamic vehicle of the same capacity would be more efficient still.
are wrong and clumsy
Okay, go on then, tell me how exactly any of that is wrong. Please, I'm dying to know. Because from where I'm standing you're talking pish.
As energy recovery from braking becomes ubiquitous, weight will become largely irrelevant to vehicle economy anyway
Lightest in range Golf Mk6 1217kg / Mk7 1293kg. If manufacturers concentrated their efforts on making cars as small/ light and efficient as possible then 1200kg would be entirely reasonable target for a sensibly sized car. Just adding brake recovery won't compensate for the extra energy requirements every time an excess mass changes velocity, goes round a corner, up a hill, accelerates away from a traffic light or speed hump - the only place mass makes little difference is in steady state motorway driving on the flat. Admittedly putting the same engine in a light car is pointless, in reality you don't need as high an output to achieve the same real world performance so the engine/ drivetrain/ suspension components can all be lighter and the lighter overall mass can also increase service life - the car will drive better, handle better and the world will be a marginally better place for it. Replicated across the vast majority of car owners this sort of philosophy would have a significant impact. Most manufacturers won't now supply a spare wheel because adding an extra 20kg impacts the efficiency figures..so think what stripping 500kg out of a vehicle could do. Colin Chapman had it right all along.
Wobbliscott- endoverend's comment is end of. I don't think you understand physics. Yes, an SUV can be efficient. But a normal car on the same platform with the same engine will ALWAYS be better for the environment.
Take your X3-
- An X3 is based on the platform of a 3 series. A 320 diesel 3 series estate does 58.9mpg. An X3 20d does 50mpg. Because it's taller and heavier so takes more fuel to move it. 50mpg is OK but it's not as good as the equivalent 3 series. It's worse for the environment. And that's not marginal- that's getting on for 20% less efficient.
- A 3 series estate weighs 1520kg. An X3 weighs 1790kg- that's over a quarter of a tonne more! That's a big difference, again almost 20%, and that's all made of metal and plastic added at the point the car is built. That's the stage in a car's life where most of the emissions associated with its existence come from- and and extra quarter of a tonne of metal is a LOT of extra emissions. A quick Google suggests an extra half a tonne of CO2 to make that much steel.
So, that blanket statement is correct. SUVs are worse for the environment.
Just to add to your entertainment and send the thread down in spiral claims of hypocrisy purely for amusement value. I know from the seat of my pants from another life what it feels like to take the BMW 4.8L V8 out of an X5 and put it into a niche British sports car that weighs just under 1200kg, to have the wind in the hair (or crash helmet) at 175mph on the Mulsanne straight at LeMans and to be sat as passenger besides an ex-F1 driver as he shows me how to dab the brakes at the end of the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard to four wheel drift past the apex of Courbe de Signes at what I estimate was 150mph (not sure as was pinned to the door card wondering whether the door latch would spring open).
123 Bonus STW points available if you can name the car.
It wasn't a Passat.
I bet the people without SUVs are feeling pretty silly now the zombie apocalypse is a step closer.
Still better as an estate 😉
Chris Harris, spot on as usual. This guy knows his onions.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/opinion/chris-harris-suvs
