I think in defence of some SUV owners the smaller 2 wheel drive ones can be negligible compared to the estate versions (was thinking Skoda 1.0 petrols), Also what is also apparent is that there is a shift away from estate cars toward suv's (current car citroen C5 estate, I cannot replace it with another Citroen estate) I think more what the o.p was getting at was the bigger thirstier end of the SUV market. Personally I would rather see a lot less (performance/ luxury gas guzzlers on the road). I mean who actually need more than a (newer)2 litre petrol (and I know some people do) but if you live in a town and are not towing anything a (newer) 2 litre petrol should be more than enough for anyone ( but this being stw someone will find a reason for needing one)
is molgrips turning into the new TJ?
(ps. 4WD diesel estate here that gets about the same MPG as the hallowed passat...)
2 litre petrol should be more than enough for anyone
Try telling my next door but one neighbours, Mr & Mrs plus 2 teenage kids, still think its necessary to have two massive merc & volvo SUV's* if they had just one SUV & a gas guzzling sports car it would make more sense 🤔
*no reason other than for show
Try telling my next door but one neighbours, Mr & Mrs plus 2 teenage kids, still think its necessary to have two massive merc & volvo SUV’s* if they had just one SUV & a gas guzzling sports car it would make more sense 🤔
*no reason other than for show
Precisely, car ownership for some is just a willy waving competition and the sooner people are financially crippled/punished for buying something ridiculous the better because the writing is on the wall for these type of cars and hopefully the tax will make them worthless a lot sooner than normal type cars.
the sooner people are financially crippled/punished for buying something ridiculous the better because the writing is on the wall for these type of cars and hopefully the tax will make them worthless a lot sooner than normal type cars.
And what about the folk that actually do need them - should they be punished for that too? Maybe there should be a panel of STW types sitting in judgement and deciding taxation levels.
There are many types of unnecessary vehicles around, be that big engines, ludicrous performance, inefficient aero, wide tyres etc. this isn't a SUV specific issue.
And what about the folk that actually do need them – should they be punished for that too? Maybe there should be a panel of STW types sitting in judgement and deciding taxation levels.
Well if you need one for business etc have it so you can claim back tax but too many people are buying new cars that are away above what they need. On the other hand a car enthusiast that has a 15 year old Porsche 911 that only does 1000 miles a year do I think he should get taxed more ( the car already exists and he doesn't use it much) it's the new car buyer getting something that is 'adequate' for their needs, not over and above stupid driving about yourself in a 3 litre diesel.
So what were saying is, if you have enough money, you can have whatever you want and that's fine?
Isn't that how it already works?
So what were saying is, if you have enough money, you can have whatever you want and that’s fine?
Isn’t that how it already works?
Well yes it is how it works but heavier taxing would at least stop some of these vehicles making it on the road with manufacturers reducing the volume they make of these type of vehicles. FWIW I an not holier than thou (I have a camper and a car)however I also accept people need to travel but buy a vehicle that is adequate for what you need not over and above.
I'm honestly quite sad that the conclusion of threads like this is always:
It's too complicated, what gives us the right to tell those people what to do when those other people are doing X which is just as bad, what about this other slightly bigger issue, what about China, it you're so righteous why do you still do Y, etc. etc.
And the net result is lots of poor people in countries far from here will be ****ed over, because we want to be slightly more comfortable entering our vehicles or feel like we've done enough by buying something as inefficient as the 15 year old car it replaced, and numerous other small decisions that come together to form the situation we're in.
Which just leads us back to what was said on page one - people can't be trusted to make responsible decisions - so government should step in and legislate. Every time I go out round me you're guaranteed to see sole individuals driving around in things like huge Q7's on narrow lanes where they can't pass or clogging narrow streets that were designed for small cars. The infrastructure hasn't changed much but now we have 'normal' vehicles whose footprint would have only occurred 20 years ago in minibuses and works vans.
Could be done by needing a special permit to drive outsized polluting vehicles for work needs or special personal entitlement needs...and tax them to the hilt- which will happen sooner or later anyway.
It shouldn't have to be that people who feel strongly about ethical or social issues have to justify their whole existence for their opinions to qualify as valid....but as some people can't operate without it, here's mine: 45 years Vegetarian, practically vegan but I like the occasional Cheese, work from home, have a car but put only 3 tanks in last year, ride everywhere, had 3 flights in last decade, don't buy needless consumer tat, in fact rarely buy anything - I'm practically Jesus, It goes Jesus-Kanye- then me, so you see you have to listen now and I say don't buy SUV's...
see, that doesn't work does it....
legometerology
I’m honestly quite sad that the conclusion of threads like this is always:
It's the outcome of
a) Everyone must drive the same as me because it's what everyone else needs
b) Maintaining every SUV is fundamentally "bad" after people went and bought EV ones or 60+ mpg ones...after scrapping their diesel they had been told to buy to save the planet
This totally does my head in. I have a Discovery 4. It does mid twenties, costs a fortune to tax and service and goes wrong at the least opportune moment. It's dirty, polluting and not kind to the environment in any way. But I drive it because I like it. Its the best way of carting my family, my dogs, my bikes and all our luggage wherever we want to go, in a reasonable amount of luxury, in any weather.
Plus, it only does about 3000 miles a year, so don't tell me I'm doing the planet in when countless sales reps do 30,000 miles a year in 1.6 Diesel Volkswagens and BMW 320d estates.
While I still have the freedom to choose, I'll keep driving it. When I replace it I'll have a V8 Range Rover, just to annoy the tree-huggers.
And me scrapping it overnight is going to make precisely no difference to anything at all.
You are such a badass.
I think posts like that rather sum up the mentality of many SUV owners. Sadly, it confirms what I suspected - they're arrogant, selfish, unreasonable, and will basically make consumer choices, no matter how damaging, in order to seek approval/disapproval of other people. I guess when you have societies where even large minorities of these types of people exist and then throw in a fairly ruthless industry like the automotive sector, you end up with a situation where only government can mitigate the damages inflicted on the environment and public health, but that is not happening and will not happen any time soon.
It’s dirty, polluting and not kind to the environment in any way. But I drive it because I like it.
As the esteemed Chris Harris points out in that rather good video clip from earlier in the thread, the car industry came up with a better design solution for your requirements over 30 years ago in the Renault Espace...the industries offerings to the marketplace nowadays really are a turgid blip in automotive history driven by other far less practical desires...
Plus, it only does about 3000 miles a year, so don’t tell me I’m doing the planet in when countless sales reps do 30,000 miles a year in 1.6 Diesel Volkswagens and BMW 320d estates.
As I said - regardless of how many miles you do, in your car you are still unarguably wasting fuel. And it's too precious to waste.
I waste fuel too, I'm not trying to proclaim superiority. But those are the facts and you need to come to terms with that. You are simply in the wrong.
And me scrapping it overnight is going to make precisely no difference to anything at all.
No but you having a '**** the environment I'll do what I like I don't care' attitude has a negative impact. Plus with you passing that attitude it onto your kids*, and your attitude validating their own poor behaviour, I reckon you've got quite a bit of carbon on your hands there.
* that and the issue that they will be hearing experts and scientists telling them that we need to save energy, then at some point they'll say 'Daddy do we have an efficient car?' and you'll have to say 'no, but don't listen to those ****s we're right and we can do what we like', and if we're unlucky they'll internalise that attitude, take it through life and end up like those regressive people who vote for Tory Brexiteers cos 'they've had enough of experts' and end up ****ing the entire country cos they think they know best. But you know best don't you?
Treasury is considering how to increase road tax for higher emission cars as "car buyers are, on average, making higher emitting choices"
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/351849/drivers-could-pay-ps2135-year-road-tax
why does it matter if you waste fuel? There's a finite amount of it, which will be turned into a given amount of CO2. As long as you're not burning it in something ancient which is pumping out particles that could be caught in a CAT or other filter, all you are doing is (very very marginally) speeding up the fuel->co2 conversion process, which will stop once its all run out
I felt a proper charlie this morning as i drove up a snowy hill past the guy in the Passat Estate who was stuck in a hedge.
I stopped, offered my apologies for destroying the planet, bid him a cheery fare-thee-well and carried on my way to work in my snow tyre clad 4wd world killer.
In the same way you pay for the tax on fuel in relation to emission, you should pay tax on the vehicle commensurate with the emissions from its construction.
If a mid/large car is 17 tonnes and a luxury SUV is 45 tonnes and the average fuel use is 3.6 tonnes for and 5.5 tonnes respectively for 11000 miles, then over 10 years, the additional annual tax on each vehicle should be 10% of the construction emissions x the tax on the fuel the car would use to make those emissions. After 10 years, The car tax becomes a flat rate like now.
For the car, you'd effectively be paying additional fuel tax equal to about 3700 miles of driving at whatever its MPG, say 50, so about £300 tax per year, and for the SUV more like 8000 miles of driving at 25 MPG, so £1100 a year. All for 10 years. If fuel tax goes up, so does your tax, etc.
So a mid/large car would cost £3000 in tax over 10 years, an SUV, £11000. If tax goes up beyond say 70p, then the tax scales too.
you should pay tax on the vehicle commensurate with the emissions from its construction.
You do, you pay tax on purchase price of the car which is based on the wholesale price which is based on the manufacturing cost which ultimately depends on the base materials and manufacturing going in to making it. That's why they are more expensive - and people buy them still.
There’s a finite amount of it, which will be turned into a given amount of CO2.
We might not burn it all. We could end up leaving much of it in the ground, if we get our act together.
As I said – regardless of how many miles you do, in your car you are still unarguably wasting fuel. And it’s too precious to waste.
I waste fuel too, I’m not trying to proclaim superiority. But those are the facts and you need to come to terms with that. You are simply in the wrong.
It's really not that important.
If he scraps the Disco and gets something else then that's another load of ore to be mined, smelted and bits from across the planet moved about to create a new car.
The case for scrapping a brand new SUV that's getting 60 mpg to change it for a Passat that gets 50 mpg seems even dodgier but regardless the point of 60 mpg vs 61 mpg itself is pointless.
In terms of the bigger picture what this ranting about 1-2 mpg difference and every fraction counts achieves is
When I replace it I’ll have a V8 Range Rover, just to annoy the tree-huggers.
that and the issue that they will be hearing experts and scientists telling them that we need to save energy, then at some point they’ll say ‘Daddy do we have an efficient car?’ and you’ll have to say ‘no, but don’t listen to those **** <s>we’re right and we can do what we like</s> .. instead they are the same idiots telling people with 65 mpg SUV's they should scrap them and get a 63 mpg estate.
In the same way you pay for the tax on fuel in relation to emission, you should pay tax on the vehicle commensurate with the emissions from its construction.
If a mid/large car is 17 tonnes and a luxury SUV is 45 tonnes and the average fuel use is 3.6 tonnes for and 5.5 tonnes respectively for 11000 miles, then over 10 years, the additional annual tax on each vehicle should be 10% of the construction emissions x the tax on the fuel the car would use to make those emissions. After 10 years, The car tax becomes a flat rate like now.
Although I like that direction, 10 years is WAY WAY too long IMHO and would probably lead to even more early scrap-age.
IMHO there needs to be more incentive to not scrap a car and that would possibly involve taxing the manufacturer or putting them on the hook for any car that doesn't get to say 250k...
This would be offset against tax breaks for the manufacturer for making the car more economical to replace an engine or part of that makes it more efficient and/or less polluting.
instead they are the same idiots telling people with 65 mpg SUV’s they should scrap them and get a 63 mpg estate.
Where the flying **** did I say that?
I suggest you slow down and really read my posts carefully. That's not what I'm saying AT ALL.
The case for scrapping a brand new SUV that’s getting 60 mpg to change it for a Passat that gets 50 mpg seems even dodgier
Can you link to where I supposedly made that case?
Where the flying **** did I say that?
Calm down... it say "they".
They is the people who said "get a diesel it's better for the planet" then "scrap the diesel its killing the planet"...
I suggest you slow down and really read my posts carefully. That’s not what I’m saying AT ALL.
You went on and on about the extra height of a SUV and how its less efficient....
This is how your voice joins the "theys"....
As for reading it carefully .... try reading what I wrote.....
So when John doe is sat in his new V8 Range Rover and little Jane asks ‘Daddy do we have an efficient car?’ a very likely answer would be that they can't win.. they looked at a 68mpg SUV and got told it's inefficient and if they bought the same chassis without a raised roof they'd be getting a whopping 1-2 mpg more on the urban cycle. No pleasing them.. so might as well get the V9 Range Rover...
Let's see if I can make it clearer ....
Whilst people go on about every last mpg and every drop of fuel and every extra inch of height affecting efficiency then when he's asked to justify the V8 Range Rover his answer will be along the lines of "doesn't matter what car I get those ***ers will criticise it and say I should have bought whatever they are saying this year".
You went on and on about the extra height of a SUV and how its less efficient….
Yeah it is.
My main gripe is the people who drive inefficient cars. So that's the big Range Rovers and S8s and all the rest of it. You managed to find something technically classed as a compact SUV that gets decent MPG - great, well done. But the point stands.
You also pointed out that scrapping cars for more efficient models doesn't necessarily make sense due to the manufacturing impact, but we already knew this.
So when John doe is sat in his new V8 Range Rover and little Jane asks ‘Daddy do we have an efficient car?’ a very likely answer would be that they can’t win.. they looked at a 68mpg SUV and got told it’s inefficient and if they bought the same chassis without a raised roof they’d be getting a whopping 1-2 mpg more on the urban cycle. No pleasing them.. so might as well get the V9 Range Rover…
What? As I said - my gripe is with inefficient cars.
Let’s see if I can make it clearer ….
Nope. That makes little sense.
Again. Inefficient = bad, efficient = good. Do we agree?
This whole we were told to buy diesel thing, every time.
It was and still is true that diesel cars produce a lot less CO2 than petrol cars. Hence why they were promoted so much and as a result the UK transport sector produces a lot less CO2.
What has changed is that we now realise how bad NO2 emissions are for our health.
We are constantly finding out things that we thought were fine for us and now realise aren't: asbestos, bacon etc.
Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, I have only been dipping in and out of this thread but I wanted to get that off my chest.
VW Tiguans, are about the same size inside as a Golf
Except they're nowhere near the same on the inside, the Tiguan is much larger inside and out than a golf.
Yeah it is.
My main gripe is the people who drive inefficient cars. So that’s the big Range Rovers and S8s and all the rest of it. You managed to find something technically classed as a compact SUV that gets decent MPG – great, well done. But the point stands.
Nope. That makes little sense.
The point is if you go on about how SUV's are intrinsically "inefficient" due to roof height when there are not only lots of but increasing numbers of SUV's that are quite literally within a couple of mpg of something with a similar perceived boot space that instead of buying a 60mpg SUV Joe/Jane Doe will just say "sod it .. I get criticised whatever I buy unless its a tiny citycar I can't get a pram/bike whatever in so I'll just buy a big Range Rovers or S8".
Again. Inefficient = bad, efficient = good. Do we agree?
My view is we need to move people away from completely inefficient cars into much more efficient cars. Based on this I see these ....
You managed to find something technically classed as a compact SUV that gets decent MPG
that are from my observation replacing the big/efficient SUV's in terms of new cars I see this as something to encourage.
Inefficient = bad, efficient = good. Do we agree?
Yep, my SUV is much more efficient at transporting seven people than any five seat car. 🙂
This whole we were told to buy diesel thing, every time.
It was and still is true that diesel cars produce a lot less CO2 than petrol cars. Hence why they were promoted so much and as a result the UK transport sector produces a lot less CO2.
What has changed is that we now realise how bad NO2 emissions are for our health.
We are constantly finding out things that we thought were fine for us and now realise aren’t: asbestos, bacon etc.
Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, I have only been dipping in and out of this thread but I wanted to get that off my chest.
So I had mentioned this earlier and this diesel NoX is the a question ...
How do I score Nox vs CO2 ?
It's incredibly complex and depends what / how you score....
If I'm driving in the middle of nowhere then how bad is the NoX??? Unlike CO2 the NoX is a far more localised effect... I think everyone agrees in towns and cities its bad but at what point is reducing the CO2 better?
Yep, it's complex but NoX isn't new.... perhaps some of the health issues are but certainly a large part of current city emissions problems are a result of the earlier diesel is good, petrol is bad over simplification where lots of people mistakenly bought diesel not only where the NoX was going to have the worst effect but where the diesel was not going to be efficient either .
Aerodynamic drag from the body work is only a small factor in the inefficiency of an SUV and only really becomes significantly important at speed over 40mph. The biggest factor by far is weight. A A focus hatchback is around 1220kg for a small engined model without leather, a focus estate around 1350kg for the same spec. A Kuga is closer to 1500kg and is smaller inside than the estate and larger than the hatch. For fuel economy - real world (from Fuelly) the 140bhp 1.0l Focus gets around 40mpg, the Kuga with the same engine - closer to 30. That figure is far worse for the diesel with the hatch attaining 58mpg and the Kuga 42mpg. The Kuga is also slower to 60 despite using different gear ratios to try and lessen it. 25-30% difference. Not manufacturers figures, real figures. Not a tiny city car vs a Range Rover, two cars to seat 4 adults with a decent sized boot, from the same manufacturer using the same engine and a slightly revised gearbox (Kuga).
So 150-300kg heavier for the same job. More bodywork = more weight = bigger brakes = larger wheel/tyres to stop it and more fuel to make it go. In town, where you're constantly accelerating and decelerating, those MPG figures would be far worse.
Yep, my SUV is much more efficient at transporting seven people than any five seat car.
Is your 7 seat SUV more efficient than a 7 seat MPV?
Aerodynamic drag from the body work is only a small factor in the inefficiency of an SUV and only really becomes significantly important at speed over 40mph.
I think most people do most of their miles over that speed as we tend to drive a long way on NSL roads or motorways.
Yep, it’s complex but NoX isn’t new….
No, the US has been much stricter than we have for ages. However only recently the scale of the problem was uncovered in the UK because proper monitoring was done.
A Kuga is closer to 1500kg and is smaller inside than the estate and larger than the hatch.
Interesting, you can make the same argument for Focus over Mondeo. The Focus Estate is bigger than the Mondeo.
Is your 7 seat SUV more efficient than a 7 seat MPV?
At driving up snowy hills and through building sites and along unpaved roads to remote military sites?
Very much so.
Fuel wise? It’s slightly more economical than the SMax it replaced.
Efficiency has many metrics
We might not burn it all. We could end up leaving much of it in the ground, if we get our act together.
Lol. Have you met humans? If there’s money to be made by exploiting a resource, it will be exploited.
The only way to leave it in the ground is to not have any machinery that burns it, anywhere. That’s an impossibly big ask. It’s not just cars that burn oil.
This isn't about YOU PP and you damned well know that you're in the minority of people who actually use a 4*4 for it's intended purpose most of the time.
What I'm talking about are people like my mate who has a Range Rover to go to work, because twice per year he goes camping and/or tows a horsebox or transports 6 people over distance. so for 99.9% of his journeys he's driving all four wheels of his 2.7 tonnes vehicle, damaging the roads, environment, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, I had a Focus followed by a Kuga that was based on the exact same chassis. Regardless of the estate’s boot the bit that most people think most important, the seating area, ‘felt’ much bigger in the Kuga. Most of that was probably down to the higher roof and raised seating position which gives the impression of more leg room. Regardless what the STW brains trust thinks, this is usually the reason people buy jacked up hatchbacks.
It might be a great way to ferry your kids around, but the particulate concentrations inside the SUV must be off the scale.
Nobody owned up to buying a new SUV for the 2020 reg then?
I will be leasing one for sure. It will be another 1L or hybrid.
Frustrating Skoda are messing with engine options though.
I’ve only seen one 20 plate car so far, and I drive for a living, so i see many many vehicles every day.
Not seen many 20's either.
Tbh even though this discussion is fun the argument is lost as many manufacturers are replacing traditional salons/estates with some form of SUV full stop. It was mentioned earlier that Citroen don't sell any big estates anymore and I read that Ford are replacing the Mondeo/Galaxy/S-Max with one do-it-all SUV.
People buy them for a variety of reasons and getting all angry and preachy doesn't change anyone's mind but as with every other type of car the SUV will develop in lots of different directions, many of which will be more efficient than the estate it replaced (and that you can no longer buy) until the point the SUV will be superseded by something else.
Because people like them, simple ! I'll never understand why some people are even bothered as to what other people choose to spend their money on...…. It has to be jealousy, or perhaps there's a deeper lying issue they need to get sorted out.
My advice, rather than worrying what other people are doing with their lives, get on with living your own life. In the grand scale of things we ain't on the earth very long, so it'd be a shame to waste your time worrying about what others are doing......
