It’s the other way round isn’t it?
Discos (2100KG) and FFRR (2500KG) are heavy, luxury vehicles which are for the most part not used off road – short of churning up the grass verge when they park up for the school fete. Yet they carry low range gearboxes and locking diffs.
The Juke is a light (~1200KG), most often FWD vehicle that sit a bit higher up.
Point is there is an actual engineering reason for things like Discos to exist - they have capabilities that other vehicles don't. A Nissan Juke doesn't, its just a compromised design for the sake of fashion.
I agree Rangerover Sports with 21" alloys low profile tyres are horrible crass things, but at least it helps you spot the local drug dealers.
I like the high driving position because I can see the road better” actually means “I’m too bloody lazy to pay attention and leave a decent gap to the car in front so I can see the road properly”
Nonsense.
You can have both.
I think I'm going to start up a thread demeaning people who have old cars or inefficient cars, or multiple cars... And those people that didn't make their careers locally just so they could do better but had to travel further.
demeaning people
Is that what's happening here?
Surely having an old car is virtuous - the manufacturing burden of a new car is likely to be more detrimental than the (presumed) lower economy of running an old one.
Is that what’s happening here?
A bit, yeah.
It would appear that I am the Devil incarnate for having 3 kids and an SUV.
Cutting down trees and feeding them into your woodburner is OK though?
Old cars aren't necessarily a bad thing. The CO2 to build a car is huge, so running an old one may well be more environmentally friendly than buying a new one.
Here's some figures from the Guardian (that also highlight how tragic the environmental effect of an SUV is compared to a normal car, even if the figures are a bit spurious) -
6 tonnes CO2e: Citroen C1, basic spec
17 tonnes CO2e: Ford Mondeo, medium spec
35 tonnes CO2e: Land Rover Discovery, top of the range
I'm going to use the Mondeo as an example. Doing the sums myself, based on their CO2 g/km figures, a ten year old Mondeo produced the following over 150,000 miles-
39 tonnes CO2: Ford Mondeo 2010, 2.0l 138bhp diesel, 156g/km
A shiny new 2020 model would produce this-
29 tonnes CO2: Ford Mondeo 2020, 2.0l 148bhp diesel, 116g/km
So, to replace that Ford Mondeo at 150,000 miles old with a new, more efficient one would use around 88,000 miles worth of CO2. You're better off keeping the old one going.
These (countless) environmental threads continues to show, even on STW, people love a good reason to be grumpy buggers.
I don't like SUVs, but mostly not for environmental reasons. If you're a careless driver, an SUV will only exaggerate your awful and selfish driving. I meet far too many SUVs who are perfectly happy squeezing past me on my bike, usually into oncoming traffic, and even with the little one on the back.
They're also popular with manufacturers trying to meet emissions standards - the incoming Euro standards will basically require most cars to be hybrids, and it's much easier to make a hybrid SUV than a small hybrid hatchback.
Also - size comparisons between SUVs and supposedly smaller hatchbacks just shows how bloated our cars have become.
Same feeling I have: that I can try as hard as I can but it’ll still make next to f-all difference. But I now also feel that I’ve got to at least try – if everyone else did the same then perhaps we’d make a bigger difference collectively.
This is pretty much how I see it as well.
Laudable as those feelings are, and I'd suggest most feel the same way.
There are a lot of people who do not feel the same and thats their prerogative. Nothing you say on an internet forum makes the slightest bit of difference to them, mainly because they aren't on here and they'd not care what you said.
We live in a world of new political order, you really do not have a voice or a voice you think you have makes little impact to the wider audience.
Better get used to it, because people voted for it.
And what they decide to drive really isn't anyones business but their own.
One thing you don't hear much is people saying they have an SUV because they like it.. There's always loads of: space, safety, visibility, etc. etc arguments but few people every just say I have an SUV because I like it.. It's a bit like Jim Jefferies on Americans and guns:
1.30 in
I wonder how many people in this thread, if they were given the opportunity to go and live in a commune, completely off grid, with the means to see out their days with a negative carbon footprint, would jump at the chance.
Bit of virtue signalling here, our day-to-day car is a 16-year-old Toyota and I also have a 1974 VW camper. My house is up for sale and we're planning to do a self-build eco-house in Scotland...
richmtb
Point is there is an actual engineering reason for things like Discos to exist – they have capabilities that other vehicles don’t. A Nissan Juke doesn’t, its just a compromised design for the sake of fashion.
I agree Rangerover Sports with 21″ alloys low profile tyres are horrible crass things, but at least it helps you spot the local drug dealers.
Well that really makes if those capabilities are actually used, I think people buy Range Rovers in general for status/comfort/luxury rather than wading depth and diff locks.
Where as the Juke is merely a cheap hatchback that's jacked up a bit.
I don't really see why the RR is fine but the Juke is compromised. People want to sit up higher, the Juke does that, for them it's not a compromise.
Just remembered the vehicles in the first Judge Dread movie… they got the future of ‘cars’ spot on.
For my last car I was looking at the Skoda Karoq 51.4–52.3 mpg and Skoda Octavia Estate 52.3–56.5 mpg. I chose the SUV. Why (other than the better mpg), The seating position is better for my back, the ground clearance is better for the farm track I have to drive along. The higher roof line is much better for loading canoes and kayaks from my shoulders.
Image had naff all to do with it, people worried about image tend not to buy Skodas.
Do I care about the environment, yes. Have I made adjustments, yes, could I do more, yes.
Hmm… having looked into the Judge Dredd cars again… now I really want a Land Rover 101 Forward Control… we humans are flawed, aren’t we.
In the negative column no-one has mentioned that they, quite literally, kill kids. Worse visibility (that high bonnet and driving position puts a big blind area right in front of the bumper) and worse on impact (hits higher on the body and causes chest or head injuries rather than scooping onto the bonnet - much more likely to kill pedestrians)
"[in the US] Pedestrian deaths have surged by 49 percent across the country since 2009, which is about the time when SUV sales started to increase dramatically. As NPR reports, between 2009 and 2016 the number of pedestrians killed by SUVs in single-vehicle collisions soared by 81 percent. The report by the Detroit Free Press also found that SUV and pickups were the main culprit in the increasing pedestrian fatality rate, far outstripping other possible causes like distracted driving, increased walking, or lower gas prices."
Why do people buy SUVs?
"the auto industry’s own studies agreed with this general portrait of SUV buyers. Bradsher described that portrait, comprised of marketing reports from the major automakers, as follows:
Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities."
or as Giles Coren put it - "you want one because your rich friends have got one and if you don't have one you're scared they'll think you're not rich"
people worried about image tend not to buy Skodas.
That hasn’t been a thing since early 90s.
Well that really makes if those capabilities are actually used, I think people buy Range Rovers in general for status/comfort/luxury rather than wading depth and diff locks.
You'll get no argument from me that Range Rovers are hideous wasteful things that are a perfect example of the kind of crass consumption driven society we live in today.
But from an engineering perspective they have that drivetrain and shape for a reason, they are designed to do things like tow a horsebox across a muddy field. The have additional utility compared to a normal car. You can certainly argue about intended use versus actual use but their designed capabilities do serve a purpose.
You can't really make the same argument about Jukes, Quasqais, Karoqs, Sportages, GLCs, Q3s, Q5s, Tiquans ad infinitum. They offer no additional utility over the normal height vehicles they are based on, just more weight and often compromised handling and safety.
edit:wrong tab!
people love a good reason to be grumpy buggers
I've never needed a good reason. A poor one will do quite nicely. At a push, no reason at all.
The have additional utility compared to a normal car.
I put it to you that a Range Rover Evoque is designed 100% for fashion reasons and not at all for additional utility. Any 4wd utility is put there for willy waving and is entirely negated by the supply of 25 profile summer treads.
What makes you think a 2 wheel drive SUV is any worse for the environment that an estate car of similar footprint?
Is it not a case of;
If they don't make it, we won't buy it.
Want to make a difference to global warming, stop the F1, Moto gp, WRC, Touring Cars, Americas cup, Concerts, Summits, flying abroard etc, or just anything where people have to travel to them, consume power, create things to be used, tested, obliterated or just binned.
The energy market is facing a huge issue of recycling fibreglass turbine blades from the electric windmills, they have a 15-20yr lifecycle which is approaching and we're seeing a fibreglass graveyard appear with no major recycling firm doing anything about it because it isn't cost effective, why would a green energy market not look in to the green element of it's products, or generate a recycling platform it knew was coming to bite it on the ass?!?!
We're led by double standards of -
"We made it for you, and you used it, you naughty person you!"
All the best
munrobiker
Memberto replace that Ford Mondeo at 150,000 miles old with a new, more efficient one would use around 88,000 miles worth of CO2. You’re better off keeping the old one going.
I agree that keeping a old car going is often much better than upgrading just to get more "efficiency" but your sums are only relevant if the old car is scrapped. If it's sold and someone else gets more use out of it then it's basically being recycled (multiple times).
What makes you think a 2 wheel drive SUV is any worse for the environment that an estate car of similar footprint?
Weight.
Aerodynamics.
You could read the thread.
molgrips
They can be a fair bit worse yes. 30-40% more CO2 emissions.
How does the same engine in a SUV produce 30-40% more emmisions at 30 mph???
How does the same engine in a SUV produce 30-40% more emmisions at 30 mph???
Weight.
Aerodynamics.
You could read the thread
Is it not a case of;
If they don’t make it, we won’t buy it.
Want to make a difference to global warming, stop the F1, Moto gp, WRC, Touring Cars,
Are not the modern, low emission engines not a direct result of a small number of cars taking place in these events?
what about the media energy usage, drivers getting there, fans getting there, vehicles getting there, training, testing and development, prototypes, body panels, shipping raw materials, tyres used and on and on.
So much more to it than just the engine.
We could do so much more to combat it than just pointing the finger at the masses
The worst contributor to pollution are shipping – something like 20% of global pollution involving the shipping of stuff from one side of the world to the another. If you want to get serious about reducing it, stop buying cheap plastic crap from half-way around the world. It would be great if you could buy responsibly made stuff from neighbouring countries, but hell know, lets abandon the notion and import junk from elsewhere.
OOhh but what if instead of buying junk specifically designed to fail and not be repairable we bought/made goods that are repairable? Oh... yep we can't actually make even a thermos flask any more...
richmtb
But from an engineering perspective they have that drivetrain and shape for a reason, they are designed to do things like tow a horsebox across a muddy field. The have additional utility compared to a normal car. You can certainly argue about intended use versus actual use but their designed capabilities do serve a purpose..
Of course the underlying drive train serves a purpose, but the topic is about buying more car than you need isn't it?
If you really needed that capability, surely you would have a Jimny, Land Cruiser etc rather than a luxury car costing upwards of £80,000 ? It makes no sense at all to tow a horse box with a range rover, you'd weep every time a rock got kicked up and scratched the paint.
richmtb
You can’t really make the same argument about Jukes, Quasqais, Karoqs, Sportages, GLCs, Q3s, Q5s, Tiquans ad infinitum. They offer no additional utility over the normal height vehicles they are based on, just more weight and often compromised handling and safety.
? Surely better comfort and visibility is something they offer than a hatchback cannot? Besides they all have raised ride height and most are available with haldex-type AWD.
For example this is the SUV equivalent of an octavia. I have an octavia and would be fairly sure it would be scraping it's bumper here like a snow plough, and most likely get stuck with a single wheel spinning... (yes it's on winters!)
I'm sorry I'm not trying to have a barney about it, but it's not the first time I've heard similar things said I just can't understand at all why Range Rover = fine, Qashqai = bad
Weight.
Aerodynamics.
You could read the thread.
I have read the thread. Unless I have missed something, I don't see any facts. Just people making sweeping statements.
From a quick google:
Ford Mondeo weight - 1,696 to 1,826 kg
VW Passat weight - 1,350 to 1,770 kg
Nissan Qashqai weight - 1,300 to 1,580 kg
Ford Kuga weight - 1,493 to 1,773 kg
Skoda Karoq weight - 1,344 to 1,658 kg
Digger90
Member
And… how many flights will you be taking this year?
Personally I declared 2020 a ‘No flight year’ on Jan 1. It’s ridiculous that somehow civilisation has evolved to the point where people believe that taking 4 cheap flights to Spain (or wherever) each year is ok.
Yes, we all need to stop driving so much – and switch to more fuel-efficient, zero carbon based forms of transport. But until we’ve each personally changed our own habits, then who are we to criticise others?
It’s not Government, it’s not companies, it’s not cruises, it’s not airlines, it’s not car manufacturers and it’s not Extinction Rebellion. It’s us.
It is the government though... They have the ability to change and steer behaviour, control stuff such as the motor industry. Left to our own devices we'll always opt for the easiest which is the car.
Life revolves around work and travelling to work. Until ICE vehicles are priced off the road and a suitable alternative network exists the situation we have at the moment is the de facto.
The individual is told they must do x and y and the onus is on them to fix everything, yet all these industries that could effect change offer their products to the market without much barriers. And that is why the governments need to lead.
FWIW the other half has just brought a duster for a farm track... 🙁 Doesn't seem any worse than the out going astra in terms of fuel and VED. Just hope she doesn't run anyone over.
I’m sorry I’m not trying to have a barney about it, but it’s not the first time I’ve heard similar things said I just can’t understand at all why Range Rover = fine, Qashqai = bad
I prefer sensible discussion to barney.
Anyway I'm not trying to stick up for Range Rover and horrible things like the RR Sport or the Evoque (it was a Disco I used as an example). How about 4 x 4 (if you have a need) versus jacked up "Urban Crossover".
Maybe I just really hate the Juke!
Why are children so popular amidst a climate emergency?
Since I have no children am I allowed to drive an SUV, even though its just one sad and lonely bloke in it?
And… how many flights will you be taking this year?
I’ve flown twice in the last 8 years that was last year. 😁
Why are children so popular amidst a climate emergency?
Getting rid my kids isn’t an option. Changing my car is.
I have read the thread. Unless I have missed something, I don’t see any facts. Just people making sweeping statements.
Facts? you can prove anything with facts!
Ford Mondeo weight – 1,696 to 1,826 kg
Yep a Mondeo is quite a big saloon car
Ford Kuga weight – 1,493 to 1,773 kg
A Ford Kuga is based on Focus
I wonder how much they weigh?
Ford Focus: 1,235 kg - 1,518 kg
richmtb
Maybe I just really hate the Juke!
That's fair enough to be honest, rumple fugly little turd of a car.
Maybe I just really hate the Juke!
I don't think this is an unpopular opinion.
Same category as the X6 and the Evoke, pointless jacking up of vehicle, no added utility over a hatchback.
A Ford Kuga is based on Focus
I wonder how much they weigh?
Ford Focus: 1,235 kg – 1,518 kg
Yes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo...
Some fun reading from Which, for those (selectively) comparing SUV to other classes…
Yes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo…
Interesting, I wasn't sure about that so a bit more googling shows...
Kuga boot 456 litres, with the seats flat it is 1653
Mondeo boot is 500 litres and with the seats flat it is 1605
Those stats seem to be up to the luggage cover, the Kuga is taller so could in theory take more luggage if you stack it up to the roof line as it is taller?
For that internal size, external sizes in mm as follows:
Kuga - 4,524 L x 1,838 W x 1,744 H
Mondeo - 4,867L x 1,852 W x 1,482 H
Isn’t it the case that our consumption of meat and the effects of that industry is more of an issue than our transport emissions?.
No.
Yes, but a Kuga has a similar internal volume to a Mondeo
Who needs all this internal volume all the time? If people actually think carefully about what they use a car for, they'd probably realise that they don't. And if they do, they probably need to think more carefully about their lifestyle choices.
My car's a Skoda Fabia. I can get a bike in it (three). I don't really see the need to wreck the planet just because I can't be arsed to take the back wheel off. It also seats five, a thing that I do about three times a year. When I do that, bikes and/or a roofbox go on the roof.
If, for whatever reason, I needed to move five of us with bikes in one vehicle, or cart so much stuff on holiday it wouldn't fit in the car and the roofbox, I'd rent a bigger car for those few days, not drag a huge SUV (or estate) around day in day out, burning more fuel. This is a thing that the owners of bigger cars could also do, allowing them to drive a more environmentally friendly car the rest of the time.
In the future, people are going to have to make compromises to help the environment and taking the back wheel off your bike to fit it in a smaller car and using a roofbox to put all your excess crap in when you have a weekend away rather that driving a bigger car the other 363 days of the year are probably going to be two of them.
Who needs all this internal volume all the time? If people actually think carefully about what they use a car for, they’d probably realise that they don’t. And if they do, they probably need to think more carefully about their lifestyle choices.
Ah! VW T5 it is.
Who needs all this internal volume all the time?
I do.
It also seats five, a thing that I do about three times a year.
My car seats seven, a thing that I do about ten times a week.
Different people in having different requirements shocker.
