The difference between a van (camper I’d assume) is that it does offer something on top of what a car offers. An SUV simply doesn’t
Except when it does.
Which is sod all to do with environmentalism. The correct term for what you describe is ‘greenwashing’ and it’s unhelpful to suggest otherwise.
There are a million "environmentalists" being turned out yearly being fed on lies and BS like SUV's are bad, more recycling is good, the overwhelming majority of whom are not capable of reading and understanding a peer reviewed scientific paper anyway even if they had access.
Many of these people genuinely believe that creating more waste is good so long as it has a recycle label, that because it has a recycle label it will be recycled... that cutting down millions of trees is good for the planet as they can be replaced with a few wind farms.
They don't need to see any evidence...because ALL SUV's are bad... but T5's and wood burners are good... A wind turbine is a wind turbine and it MUST be good for the environment because it's a wind turbine.
These people identify as environmentalists who are you to tell them otherwise?
That’ll be the two open cycle gas turbines decommisioned in 2009 that were superseded by the more efficient CCGT units (incidentally those old units were shipped to South Africa where they were re-used). I thought you were in favour of upgrading gas turbines? Confused again?
So they were removed from Peterhead where they would have had close to all the CO2 from the actual generation captured and put on ships and transported to South Africa, installed and are putting out CO2 that is being captured where?
Whilst I appreciate they to some extent replaced coal generated capacity in ZA that doesn't make it better than more efficient turbines in ZA where there won't be any carbon capture.
So...
Whose just received their super shiny new reg SUV then 🤪🤗
I can't comment on carbon capture but from what I have heard it wasn't much more than wishful thinking. They invested loads trying to get it to work at Longannet and eventually gave up when it wasn't producing decent results. The best economic case for Peterhead was CCGTs replacing the old units, the efficiencies alone would pay for themselves (remember with the OCGTs they would have remained as efficient as they were before so there is a resource cost there as well).
Not sure I agree with your views on environmentalists. As I said that's just greenwashing and anything I have ever heard from any green has been Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Everyone of that ilk that I know wants less (or no) packaging and where needed it should be recyclable. People you describe are the vapid hipster consumerist types who's fashions change with the weather. If the teachers can't get it right then that's just stupidity or willful ignorance on their part but damning recycling as a concept is just daft because some folk can't get it right.
Apart from that I actually agree with you on the nuances of it all. For some folk an SUV is a good fit, I find it hard to condemn perchy as a similar sized MPV wouldn't be much better. But that's not the people being talked about, it's the folk in Jukes and FR-Vs, the ones in lifestyle urban SUVs that offer nothing over their conventional counterparts. Likewise buying a Tesla S for one person to do a short commute seems wasteful. Moreso if they already have a perfectly good car.
legometeorology
I’m not against nuclear, although I’m no expert, I certainly think the risks are blown out of proportion by many on the left. I’m not going to disagree with you on that.
The issue of fossil fuels vs. renewables is clearcut and at least a little more relevant to the OP’s question. On that, given a lot studies assume widespread carbon capture, I don’t think making some assumptions about future material production is skewing the playing field particularity much
[/blockquote]
Working backwards ... if we / they are going to speculate on "future technology" then they need to do it equally not state "compared with the current state of the art for the dirtiest fossil fuel".
I think we can agree that short/medium term the research into coal is not a priority.[blockquote]
And yes, I meant Oatly. I was praising neither them or XR though, just highlighting the breadth of what are now called environmentalists as I don’t feel it fair to put them all in the same box, which is what I read you as doing.A better example would be the Breakthrough Institute (who you may like, actually) and who I have a lot more respect for than most of my ecologically-minded friends.
I'll check Breakthrough later, I'm answering this without.... but jumping back
and at least a little more relevant to the OP’s question
The differences are miniscule*, especially at the speeds the favourite pet hate "school run" people are spending most of their time at. A much bigger difference than 1-2 mpg would be for people to not drive to school or use different tyres or remove traffic calming measures
OR ... use the batteries for the school run. [Given the inherent design constraints of hybrids]
*Taking the only reason I hear about from the real people I know why someone bought a compact SUV at all... which all I ever hear is space for 2 prams, childseats and assorted crap. It may be a slight bias given most of these are parents but that seems to be the largest market share. It seems (when I'm out) you don't see many 18yr olds opting for a compact SUV over a hatchback.
Hence demonising SUV's really doesn't seem very productive, if anything it's counter productive when you take a load of people who swapped a hot hatch or similar for a "fuel efficient family car" they can drive to the recycling centre.
just highlighting the breadth of what are now called environmentalists as I don’t feel it fair to put them all in the same box, which is what I read you as doing
A huge proportion of the population made what they were told was an environmentally good choice. It seems no sooner have they made that choice than they are told they need to scrap that car/fridge etc.
Lots of people who class themselves as environmentalists bought diesels because they were told they were better for the planet.... carte blanche without any use cases so many bought completely the wrong car for the planet for the use they have
Then they were told to scrap them as they are killing the planet....but "not to worry they will be recycled", again without use cases. I have yet to see how a petrol powered car is "better" when driving almost exclusively on motorways and bypasses. [Quite how you balance the NOX vs CO2 produced on a motorway has never been explained to me, what is constantly explained is using them inside a heavily built up area]
Do you have a window? I’ve got a view of a road and my observation is I have seen NO X5M’s today… I saw a Range Rover something but that’s the only big SUV whereas I’ve seen several small SUV’s…
Guessing your window isn’t in Harrogate then?! Can’t see any small SUVs as they are hidden behind all the Land Rovers, Range Rovers, Q7s, X5Ms, Cayennes....
The roads up here are very muddy though and the hills very steep and everyone has 5 kids so these ~20mpg Chelsea tractors are essential.🤔
For many I believe it is all about fashion and status rather than a real need that couldn’t be satisfied by a more economical and appropriate vehicle. By appropriate I mean for urban school runs, super market car parks, town street parking, commuting etc.
For many I believe it is all about fashion and status rather than a real need that couldn’t be satisfied by a more economical and appropriate vehicle. By appropriate I mean for urban school runs, super market car parks, town street parking, commuting etc.
Agree. And the ‘appropriate’ vehicle for urban school runs would normally be a chaperoned ‘walking bus’ or a bakfiets. We just haven’t fully realised or implemented this yet. We’ve planned (and have been forced to plan) everything around car-for-every-journey for so long. Including planning our daily timetable, commute-distances, new towns, etc etc. It’s currently a car-captivated cluster ****, over 70 years in the making.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40600234
You can’t even keep to one set of figures… your Passat vs 35 mph? So the Real world Honest John is ignored for the purpose of your argument?
I'm sorry @stevextc I really cannot understand this sentence.
The fact remains that an SUV is less aerodynamic and heavier than a normal car by definition.
Some manufacturers can make very efficient small ones, it seems, but these are not the load carriers that you seem to think. The ones with big boots are big SUVs not the compact ones, and I think these are the ones that the OP was complaining about. A hypothetical SUV with the same fuel economy and resource usage as a car, that would be fine obviously.
You really are nit picking on small details and not understanding the overall point. How about we rephrase the question to 'why are inefficient cars so popular amidst a climate emergency?' Because the same question really applies to V8 Audi saloons and the like.
I'd happily quite my day-job to drive a school run taxi carrying 6 or so kids. Would have to fill the middle of the day I suppose...
I can’t comment on carbon capture but from what I have heard it wasn’t much more than wishful thinking. They invested loads trying to get it to work at Longannet and eventually gave up when it wasn’t producing decent results. The best economic case for Peterhead was CCGTs replacing the old units, the efficiencies alone would pay for themselves (remember with the OCGTs they would have remained as efficient as they were before so there is a resource cost there as well).
Efficiency wasn't really the issue and the reason I brought this up is because of the parallels with SUV's. The SHORT explanation of that is the ALL SUV's are bad / All hydro-carbon power is bad rhetoric. Ultimately it was SOLD as a Green solution .. without the very real costs of the trees and peat bogs whilst those concerned with the carbon capture commercials just got hacked off.
As a single venture carbon storage was probably always marginally economic but as an interim solution that could have been scaled it got wrecked and as a byproduct tress and bog removed.
Not sure I agree with your views on environmentalists. As I said that’s just greenwashing and anything I have ever heard from any green has been Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Everyone of that ilk that I know wants less (or no) packaging and where needed it should be recyclable. People you describe are the vapid hipster consumerist types who’s fashions change with the weather. If the teachers can’t get it right then that’s just stupidity or willful ignorance on their part but damning recycling as a concept is just daft because some folk can’t get it right.
Using the example above is more like reverse green washing the problem is how most people can possibly tell the difference.
There are equally the "vapid hipster" no fossil fuels crowd that see their goal as zero fossil fuels at any cost, including cutting down trees and digging up peat bogs because the big picture has been obscured by an all encompassing belief that blinds them to facts or the wider picture.
[blockquote]
Apart from that I actually agree with you on the nuances of it all. For some folk an SUV is a good fit, I find it hard to condemn perchy as a similar sized MPV wouldn’t be much better. But that’s not the people being talked about, it’s the folk in Jukes and FR-Vs, the ones in lifestyle urban SUVs that offer nothing over their conventional counterparts. Likewise buying a Tesla S for one person to do a short commute seems wasteful. More-so if they already have a perfectly good car.[/blockquote]
To be fair that's not the title of the thread but probably more importantly it's not the direction SUV's are going.
The newer generation SUV's include very efficient engines and was it not for the "ban all fossil fuel" agenda even more would be hybrids. I'm happy if most people are going from 30 mpg to 50 or 70 mpg having one car not 2.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Everyone of that ilk that I know wants less (or no) packaging and where needed it should be recyclable.
Sadly the recycle part for most people is like telling kids to eat 5 portions of fruit or veg a day. I'll avoid that tangent and just mention freighting fruit is likely not good for either their diet or the environment. This is where recycling is.... and it's not EVEN actual recycling it's "well it says it can be recycled".
I’d happily quite my day-job to drive a school run taxi carrying 6 or so kids. Would have to fill the middle of the day I suppose…
You could deliver online shopping, or be a mobile bicycle repair man. Otherwise those 6 kids' parents are still going to need to own a car.
I’m sorry @stevextc I really cannot understand this sentence.
First you go and look up Honest John's real world figures, then you quote 35 mph ... then you quote whatever figure for your Passat. Whny not just stick to one set of figurees instead of choosing whichever you feel makes your point?
The fact remains that an SUV is less aerodynamic and heavier than a normal car by definition.
So what? What actually matters that someone has a 60 mph car instead of a 25 mpg vs a 58 mpg vs a 25 mpg or even better one 58mpg instead of 2x 25 mpg?
Some manufacturers can make very efficient small ones, it seems, but these are not the load carriers that you seem to think. The ones with big boots are big SUVs not the compact ones, and I think these are the ones that the OP was complaining about. A hypothetical SUV with the same fuel economy and resource usage as a car, that would be fine obviously.
The ones I quoted were for a Accord vs CRV. I used to own an Accord and the boot is HUGE. I used to collect 8'x4' and stick it in. I haven't seen a CRV boot with seats down but why wouldn't I believe the Honda figures at least compared to another Honda?
The fuel figures are again both Honda... are they real world no.. but they are both measured the same way. My mum has a Civic and there is really no comparison of boot space to the Accord.
From what I actually see where I live and drive the majority of SUV's are now overwhelmingly the smaller and more efficient ones. If I had reason to go to the posh area of Woking doubtless i'd see some X5's and Range Rovers... when I'm in fully rural areas most weekends I see real 4x4's being used as 4x4's... and at my weekend destinations a heavy preponderance of Vans with T5's being a top fav.
I can hardly remember the last weekend I didn't get teased for not owning a van.
You really are nit picking on small details and not understanding the overall point. How about we rephrase the question to ‘why are inefficient cars so popular amidst a climate emergency?’ Because the same question really applies to V8 Audi saloons and the like.
Call it nit picking but that is a completely different question ...the original is demonising a whole style of cars regardless of the fact they are actually getting better and better at efficiency and from my quick checks barely less efficient than similar capacity non SUV's especially at 30-40mph.
I'm happy to take that move as a win in the right direction....
Efficiency wasn’t really the issue and the reason I brought this up is because of the parallels with SUV’s. The SHORT explanation of that is the ALL SUV’s are bad / All hydro-carbon power is bad rhetoric. Ultimately it was SOLD as a Green solution .. without the very real costs of the trees and peat bogs whilst those concerned with the carbon capture commercials just got hacked off.
Sorry you're just not making sense here.
You brought it up saying that wind farms were supposed to replace the OCGT's. Fact is the CCGT's were the more efficient replacement and the wind farms were just something else. Carbon capture is a red herring, if it could have worked then it would be in use now but it didn't and was a pipedream from the start. You have to realise that whatever happened at Peterhead was a commercial decision that was probably made before the turn of the century, well before the wind farms started appearing en-masse.
It honestly sounds like it's easier for you to be angry at things taken at face value than atually looking under the surface and taking the key message. I mean, what's the five a day thing about?
If I had reason to go to the posh area of Woking doubtless i’d see some X5’s and Range Rovers… when I’m in fully rural areas most weekends I see real 4×4’s being used as 4×4’s…
It's in no way absolute, but the larger 4x4s around Aviemore tend to belong to holiday makers. The locals drive Pandas, Urban Cruisers and Yetis (and vans).
It honestly sounds like it’s easier for you to be angry at things taken at face value than atually looking under the surface and taking the key message. I mean, what’s the five a day thing about?
5-a day is about what people HEAR for these key messages... when things are presented at a false face value.
The key message that kids heard was 5 servings of fruit a day or pizza and chips and a glass of fruit juice constitutes 3/5 a day, chuck in a pastry with some processed fruit on and that's 4/5.
What (most) people hear ..."All SUV's are bad" ... So despite the advances in efficiency, option of hybrids and even EV's since all SUV's are bad so might as well have a gas guzzler or 2 cars.
What (most) people hear …”All SUV’s are bad”
Yep. It's a form of lazy generalization often illustrating folks existing prejudices. Seen it on this thread already. Also saw it on multiple Brexit topics where folk would blame the result on the over-60s because "they were statistically more likely to have voted leave" and think that acceptable whereas if I was to blame the English and Welsh because they were also more likely to have voted leave I'd be accused of racism.
The newer generation SUV’s include very efficient engines
They do, so why not put that efficient engine in a more aerodynamic and lighter car? The car would be even more economical then, wouldn't it?
So what? What actually matters that someone has a 60 mph
No, what matters is that your car is as efficient as possible.
First you go and look up Honest John’s real world figures, then you quote 35 mph … then you quote whatever figure for your Passat.
35mpg is an entirely typical figure for a big SUV. As for my Passat I have no idea what you are on about but it does between mid 40s and low 60s depending on the trip.
Scotroutes
Yep. It’s a form of lazy generalization often illustrating folks existing prejudices. Seen it on this thread already. Also saw it on multiple Brexit topics where folk would blame the result on the over-60s because “they were statistically more likely to have voted leave” and think that acceptable whereas if I was to blame the English and Welsh because they were also more likely to have voted leave I’d be accused of racism.
I'm reluctant to extend that on this thread except to say the lazy generalisations are what (IMHO) led to Brexit in the 1st place.
Summary:
STW: SUVs are bad, we need to be better to the environment.
Stevextc: This is rubbish, look here's an economical SUV, therefore you are talking nonsense.
STW: Ok but that one car doesn't mean we can do what we like to the environment. People are still buying polluting cars.
Stevextc: Look at this Renault! This proves you are all wrong and it's all nonsense.
STW: But shouldn't we not be buying inefficient cars?
Stevextc: The thread title in inaccurate! And molgrips' Passat! Honest John figures!
Honestly mate I wish you would summarise your actual point instead of posting massive C&P laden rants in poor English.
35mpg is an entirely typical figure for a big SUV.
molgrips, what about the one that's about the same size as your passat? we should probably do like for like.
honestjohn numbers:
vw passat estate 2018 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 53.4mpg
vw tiguan 2016 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 50mpg
so there's a 7% difference (ish)
I note that 50mpg is quite different to 35mpg.
If we're in the business of making random comparisons now then my Outlander shares a platform and a 4wd system with a Lancer Evo X.
I can't be arsed looking it up which one is better for the environment.
It also has a lower Drag Coefficient than a Lamborghini Countach
The key message that kids heard was 5 servings of fruit a day or pizza and chips and a glass of fruit juice constitutes 3/5 a day, chuck in a pastry with some processed fruit on and that’s 4/5.
What?
Are these the same kids being taught that the key to recycling is to generate as much material as possible?
I honestly think you're making things up at this point.
Does a taller car help reduce the aerodynamic drag of a caravan? (thinking of some of the HGVs)
just to chip in on the point raised by Stevextc on the "greenwash con" of wind farms on blanket bog.
i've worked on a few across Scotland where the idea is to remove a plantation forest from an area of blanket bog that was drained to enable trees to be planted (in the 70s/80s/90s), stick a wind farm up, and restore the blanket bog that isn't under a track or a turbine base to peat by blocking up the drains that were dug in to make it possible to stick trees there in the first place. If you've ever been to a wind farm, you'll know that most of it is empty space. So 95%+ of the blanket bog gets restored as part of the habitat management plan for the site.
the draining of the blanket bog created by the planting of trees released all the carbon it stored years ago, and the trees in many of these locations grew so poorly (cos they were planted on blanket bog, duh) that they're not commercially viable, or particularly useful as a carbon sink. Therefore it is a net gain to get rid of them and restore the blanket bog. There are some situations where not putting up wind turbines could be desirable, but nobody is going to stump up the money to clear plantation and restore it to blanket bog unless some sort of development is permitted - particularly as bog restoration is a 100 year project, and a wind farm seems like a reasonable compromise for a number of reasons.
As you previously said on page 8, "Insist on FULL facts…".
Molgrips
35mpg is an entirely typical figure for a big SUV. As for my Passat I have no idea what you are on about but it does between mid 40s and low 60s depending on the trip.
In the same sentence you refer to the economical SUV's then you decide to switch to a "typical figure for a big SUV" to compare to your Passat which you stated was 60 mpg... which you now say is 40-60mpg. My point is stick to one set of numbers... be it real world or Eurotest...
You seem to have decided that a Passat is the ideal size and shape for everyone or at least it seems you justify your choice as to why you didn't buy a C1 or something.
They do, so why not put that efficient engine in a more aerodynamic and lighter car? The car would be even more economical then, wouldn’t it?
No, what matters is that your car is as efficient as possible.
(forgive the mph..I'm typing 1 handed due to injury)
Last first... the answer is no... on several counts
1) It makes no real difference to the real world if your vehicle gets 68.1 or 68.2 mpg any more than saying the most important thing for an XC race bike is weight.
2) As efficient as possible doesn't mean it will last as long. (on the XC bike equate to frame snaps 1/2 way through) ... if the 60mpg car lasts twice as long as the 70 mpg one I'd hazard a bet that the full lifecycle figures would have the longer lasting slightly less efficient one having a lower environmental cost. Your Passat is probably a wise choice in terms of lifetime over a little run about.
3) For many uses the aerodynamics are really not that important. 40 mph and below the difference is quite minor.
4) How you drive the car is also a factor...as is tyre choice etc. at least as much as the decimal points on the MPG
5) How many cars someone has is also a factor ... if the size and shape of a compact SUV fit someones requirements and they only need 1 car that's a plus.
6) Emissions are not directly related to MPG. The lower emission car might get less MPG. As I've stated several times my mothers old Fiat 500 had very good fuel economy but the emissions on the motorway must have been terrible. Anything burning a litre of oil in 300 miles has to be dire.
In all the time I owned the Accord and current BMW I've once added oil between services.. The Accord was well over 200k and the BMW is at 180k...
mrmonkfinger
Membermolgrips, what about the one that’s about the same size as your passat? we should probably do like for like.
honestjohn numbers:
vw passat estate 2018 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 53.4mpg
vw tiguan 2016 2.0 diesel manual 150hp, 50mpg
Tiguan is the SUV Golf. The Toureg is probably more comparable, how does that do?
the draining of the blanket bog created by the planting of trees released all the carbon it stored years ago, and the trees in many of these locations grew so poorly (cos they were planted on blanket bog, duh) that they’re not commercially viable, or particularly useful as a carbon sink. Therefore it is a net gain to get rid of them and restore the blanket bog. There are some situations where not putting up wind turbines could be desirable, but nobody is going to stump up the money to clear plantation and restore it to blanket bog unless some sort of development is permitted – particularly as bog restoration is a 100 year project, and a wind farm seems like a reasonable compromise for a number of reasons.
As you previously said on page 8, “Insist on FULL facts…”.
I don't disbelieve that...the problem i have is this isn't what is presented.
What?
Are these the same kids being taught that the key to recycling is to generate as much material as possible?
I honestly think you’re making things up at this point.
Do you have kids?
Either way... just google 5 "a day pizza"
Mashr
Tiguan is the SUV Golf. The Toureg is probably more comparable, how does that do?
Tiguan 615 L, 1,655 L with seat area 50 mpg
Passat Estate 483 to 650 L, 1,613 to 1,780 L with seat area 53.4 mpg
Yeah, a 6 year old who has never been taught anything like that nonsense. Incidentally she was on the eco committee last year so was definitely getting it with both barrels.
Having just googled "5 a day pizza" it would seem it's the topping that counts (shock!) and it says nothing about chips or pastries.
ehrob
Thanks, that's the most interesting thing I've read on this thread.
stevextc
Member
Tiguan 615 L, 1,655 L with seat area 50 mpg
Passat Estate 483 to 650 L, 1,613 to 1,780 L with seat area 53.4 mpg
All that's telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
legometeorology
ehrob
Thanks, that’s the most interesting thing I’ve read on this thread.
Yep +1 .... As I say no problem believing it my issue is why we didn't know that already by which i mean the whole case should be presented including this.
I'd say that part of the answer is the sort of things you're getting at, another large part is just that these things are damn complicated to analyse systematically.
mashr
All that’s telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
Obviously not but many of the people looking for these as their primary criteria will buy a Passat.
A completely different way to look at this than "SUV's are taller and less aerodynamic" is SUV's are taller and allow more room in a smaller, more efficient chassis.
As I've said a few times, a big + for me on the accord was the ability to take 8'x4' sheets in the boot.
With MY criteria a Tiquan and I doubt a Toureg isn't "equivalent" but for a Mum putting an unfolded pushchair it might be "equivalent or better".
Honestly steve you are just blabbering whatabout now.
The bottom line is this: Do not buy an inefficient car.
Do you disagree with this point?
All that’s telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
Are you suggesting that the Tiguan has the same legroom and boot length as a Golf, just because they are both built on the same 'platform'?
Do you know that the Polo, Golf, Passat, Tiguan and about 6 other VW's are all on that platform?
The whole point of the platform is that it's modular and can be used to build cars of lots of shapes and sizes with fewer production steps.
Based on all the hard facts on here I feel ashamed being an suv owner 🙁
I’m going to get rid of it and buy the smallest less polluting car ever made !
Only kidding bloody suv daft I am 🙂
M"
No, what matters is that your car is as efficient as possible.
The bottom line is this: Do not buy an inefficient car.
Yet you drive a Passat Estate? Cannot compute.
All that’s telling me is that the interior is taller. Are you saying that the legroom, boot length, etc is also the same?
I had a Focus then replaced that with a Kuga that was based on the same platform. It was a much bigger car, especially for rear passengers and in the boot. The Kuga was 4x4 but happily did 45mpg.
The term SUV is used to describe such a wide range of vehicles these days that it makes this thread pretty pointless tbh.
You could deliver online shopping, or be a mobile bicycle repair man. Otherwise those 6 kids’ parents are still going to need to own a car.
I think the ‘point’ was six kids via one car journey saves up to 5 other car journeys?
Most car journeys are local.
double the amount of pollution is emitted from cars in the first five minutes of their journey, as testing has shown that it can take longer than this for pollution control systems to reach operating temperature.
https://airqualitynews.com/2018/05/10/drivers-urged-to-ditch-cars-for-short-journeys/
*
Honestly steve you are just blabbering whatabout now.
The bottom line is this: Do not buy an inefficient car.
Do you disagree with this point?
This is a gross simplification, what people need to do is make more informed choices.
Whether a Passat is considered efficient is dependent upon people's needs and how they use the car as is the effect on the environment. It may well be for you for others it could be very inefficient. Neither does efficiency in MPG relate meaningfully to emissions and pollution.
My mothers old Fiat 500 was very good in MPG and terrible at emissions. Some of the worst emissions are old 2CV's despite them being good MPG for the time.
Ignoring EV's and hybrids..
If its used 95% for long motorway trips only then that's different to 95% short trips in town. Perhaps a less efficient petrol engine is better than a more efficient diesel depending how you "Score" efficiency and convert NOX / CO2 to some "environmental score".
If you do 25,000 miles a year it's different to 3,000
If you have an "inefficient" car for a reason (like you tow a caravan or boat etc. most weekends in summer) is it better to have a second car like an EV or can you use a bike locally?
For some it may be better overall to have a compact/efficient MPV, especially a hybrid.
Even if you have an older "inefficient car" is it actually better or not to scrap it or get another 200k out of it?
The issue I have is the amount of misleading information... including the ALL SUV's are bad or deisel is bad or scrapping a car is better for the environment that are or have been put forwards.
Malvern Rider
double the amount of pollution is emitted from cars in the first five minutes of their journey, as testing has shown that it can take longer than this for pollution control systems to reach operating temperature.
Depending how you SCORE pollution it is worse for deisels ... but if the next 4 hours of your journey are on bypass and motorways then this is (depending how you score) then less.
The issue I have is the amount of misleading information… including the ALL SUV’s are bad or deisel is bad or scrapping a car is better for the environment
Agreed. This is beyond ridiculous.
Everything is degrees.
To be honest my Karoq is within about 5% of boot space of the Octavia anyway. And I much prefer how that space is distributed.
We have an EV for the GF as she does such low miles. On balance I bet we're way below the average estate owner in terms of CO2.
You can't talk about environment without looking at your overall impact.
