Tyred of SUV’s

Again that is unfair on rural communities that *have* to do some miles just to get around and do life.

That would be a ‘lifestyle’ choice for many of them who have moved away from the facilities in towns for the quieter life. Don’t expect a subsidy from the rest of us for this. Many of these ‘communities’ have no affordable housing nor young families in them.

FWIW last car up a French alp in winter is always an old panda 4×4 with skinny tyres and a 1.2l engine, and never a BMW X5.

Those panda 4×4 are legendary.

X5s, Audi Qs, Volvos are pure style over substance and driven by the kind of person who has as much spatial awareness as a blind chimp on Es., who abandons rather than parks, who thinks that they’re being social minded if they keep their engine running to keep themselves warm.

TINAS I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don’t see how an SUV is a status symbol. Think that’s the wrong argument. Surely there’s a large proportion of SUV drivers who can’t afford an electric car.

It’s not SUV Vs Electric, it’s SUV Vs the equivelent “car”.

Ford Fiesta Vs Puma/EcoSport
Nissan Micra Vs Juke
Jaguar XF Vs F-Pace
Bentley Continental Vs Bentayga
TESLA MODEL S VS MODEL X

Want to drop your carbon footprint by several percent without comprimising anything at all, get a car not an SUV.

It would be nicer if more people didn’t have cars, fly, eat meat or have inefficient homes. But when such a large proportion are pissing carbon dioxide up the metaphorical wall for zero objective use then that’s an even worse thing.

It’s only a matter of time before we’re all driving things like this:

You’ve made me waste good beer 🍻😂

I’m not sure why getting jumped and beaten up when you’re walking home is so funny.

Or seeing someone getting stabbed in front of you.

Or waking up to see two cars ablaze outside your window.

But hey, comedy is subjective, I guess.

Edit to add: And I completely forgot to mention coming home one day to find the police in the flat and my flatmate in tears trying to give a statement because she’d been racially abused and sexually assaulted on the bus.

Oh how we laughed about it afterwards.

make some nudge nudge wink wink comment about a minority that you think is oh so clever because you’re being bigoted but with plausible deniability and congratulate yourself on being so witty.

Congratulations
Not only have you managed to make it a personal attack but you’ve done it with the most obnoxious statement on the thread.
You know nothing about me and you’re idea of me is ignorant and typical of a snidey little dick hiding behind a keyboard.

Well done. You’re an actual ****

@sandwich

Are you reading what your posting ?
That last one is a belter.
Absolute rubbish but a belter all the same.

I’m not saying that rural livers need an suv but your statement above is just nonsense.

Actually I would go further. It’s impossible to live without a carbon footprint. Anyone who chooses to continue living should face massive punitive penalties in order to encourage as many people as possible to kill themselves.

Did I win Whataboutery Top Trumps?

@BruceWee – No, but you’re well on the way to winning #TOTW (and the T isn’t for thread)

Guys, get more reflective, introspective even, about your own impact / carbon footprint and how you can tweak it downwards. It’ll never be zero, but stop telling other folk they’re the problem or being all defensive about your own position.

Chill. And see if you can, in any way shape or form, help the planet do the same.

And no I’m not holier than anyone. Flame me if you must.

I run a transit van but have solar thermal panels lol
I feel balanced haha

Not a VW!!!

Heathen.

👿😜

PS how do you fit solar thermal to a Ford?

magic lol

Climate is the new religion to keep us under control

WWG1WGA bro

You know nothing about me and you’re idea of me is ignorant and typical of a snidey little dick hiding behind a keyboard.

Well done. You’re an actual ****

So I see your initial plan to ignore whatever else I wrote fell by the wayside. I blame myself. Sometimes I can be simply too charming and engaging.

@BruceWee – No, but you’re well on the way to winning #TOTW (and the T isn’t for thread)

It seems that the strength of feeling generated when you touch someone else’s car is matched only by talking about kicking someone’s dog.

Do you ever get the feeling that society has a pretty messed up value system?

Guys, get more reflective, introspective even, about your own impact / carbon footprint and how you can tweak it downwards.

Yep, the level of defensiveness and excuses for a simple thing like car choice shows exactly why bigger changes to lifestyle will never happen without governments passing laws, rules and regulations.
I suppose they have done that with cars with electric only new cars from 2030 but that is way too far out and a lot of petrol cars will be purchased in next 9 years and live on for 10+ years past 2030.

Now apply limitations to food choice, holidays, travel etc,. and see how that goes…

SUVs use more materials to manufacture, are less aerodynamic, heavier and less efficient.

Citation needed – what do you define as an SUV, and have you done detailed analysis of the amount of materials that make up SUV’s, compared to large saloon and estate cars, ‘cos it’s all too easy to point at a Discovery parked next to a Fiesta, and say, there’s your proof.

@CountZero – MK5 golf kerb weight 1,164–1,617 kg
MK1 Tiguan kerb weight 1,546 – 1,770kg

A quick search, the heavy golfs are the more powerful models (tdi 140 is 1318kg) so on average a Tiguan based on a golf will be heavier.
The Tiguan tdi 140 is 1665kg.

@CountZero

Citation needed – what do you define as an SUV, and have you done detailed analysis of the amount of materials that make up SUV’s, compared to large saloon and estate cars, ‘cos it’s all too easy to point at a Discovery parked next to a Fiesta, and say, there’s your proof.

No citation, but I’m an aerospace engineer who works on multi-disciplinary optimisation and so have a good understanding of structures, aerodynamics and systems, so let’s take a look

Anything with permanent 4×4 will lose around 20% in fuel economy. ALL SUVs have a larger body with a larger frontal area. As drag is the dominant factor in efficiency above 40mph, and drag force is made of components related to the surface area and the reynolds number the form drag and viscous drag are substantially higher for an SUV as speeds increase. Due to the larger body, SUVs generally have larger wheels and tyres than a conventional car. Larger wheels and tyres decrease range in Evs by around 8-10%. More bodywork, higher seats, larger wheels and tyres all increase vehicle weight which increases the need for bigger brakes and further increases weight. Increased weight needs more power to accelerate and so is less efficient.

Whichever way you look at it, from an environmental standpoint, SUVs are awful.

The Discovery is a good example of what’s wrong. 2.3t weight, average MPG with the 2.0 diesel is 27MPG (real). Jaguar XF estate with the same engine is 1.8t and with the 18″ wheels will return 48MPG (real) 500KG heavier (half a bloody tonne) and almost half the MPG. Definitely half in towns/short runs.

paino
Full Member

Not sure I condone this behaviour….oh who am I kidding, this is brilliant

The OP…

Quite a hateful post – No doubt the sort of person that if they were a walker, would be glad to see ‘footpaths’ sabotaged to try and stop bikers using them.

Really not the way to bring people that are considering a change into the discussion. How do you expect people to react to your zealous gloating…divisive.

[edit – dammit I spent 20 minutes dredging these citations up and have been beaten to it]

Citation needed – what do you define as an SUV, and have you done detailed analysis of the amount of materials that make up SUV’s, compared to large saloon and estate cars, ‘cos it’s all too easy to point at a Discovery parked next to a Fiesta, and say, there’s your proof.

I feel like you’re setting a deliberately high barrier to justify your ignoring the painfully obvious.

But here you go.

Fiesta Vs Puma

Both are built on the Ford B2E platform so share the majority of the underpinnings, engines, gearboxes, wheel sizes, interiors, spec, pretty much everything except the styling. one is a Car the other is an SUV. albeit a 2WD one so you’re onto a winner with this comparison as it’s not also dragging around an underused transfer box and an extra couple of differentials.

Fiesta 1284 kg (kerb weight of the heaviest option)
Puma 1358 kg (ditto).

So there you go, it took 5.7% more resources to build an SUV than a car despite the fact that in almost every way they’re identical.

Citations:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+fiesta+kerb+weight
https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+puma+kerb+weight

Fuel Efficiency (bearing in mind this SUV isn’t also having to spin up a load of unused gearboxes like anything larger, this is the best case for you).

Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost mHEV 56.5 mpg
Puma 1.0 ecoboost mHEV – 52.3 mpg
(I was going to go for the 1.0 EcoBoost without the hybrid bit but they don’t do a Puma with that engine, only the 1.5)

So again the “SUV” is burning through 7.6% more fuel on exactly the same platform! And that’s on their idealized test rig. In the real world, you won’t get those figures, and you’ll do even worse the heavier the car as real people aren’t as smooth as the computer simulation, and larger frontal area will have a big impact at a real world 70mph Vs the 56mph or whatever the highway mpg figure is given at.

Citation:
https://www.ford.co.uk/content/dam/guxeu/uk/documents/price-list/cars/PL-Puma.pdf
https://www.ford.co.uk/content/dam/guxeu/uk/documents/price-list/cars/PL-New_fiesta.pdf
Taking the “highest” mpg figure for each model.

And that’s the best comparable vehicles I could think of. If you took a more realistic comparison of what people actually buy and compared a midrange Audi A3, BMW 3 series, Jag XF or Ford Focus against their actual 4×4 equivalents (Q3, X3, Discovery, Kuga) the difference is more like 20%+ like for like, or 50% if you try an up-spec the 4×4’s engine to match it’s weight.

SUVs are mostly a fashion thing.
People (buyers) like the looks, the high seating position, and the ‘feeling’ of safety.
The fact that a regular saloon, hatch, or estate with comparable space inside is more efficient in virtually every measurable way is completely lost on most people.
It’s all very well arguing that “it’s only a couple of mpg less” that would be ok if you were the only person on earth with a car, but you’re not, there’s millions of the bloody things.

Also I don’t think it’s Puma 1.0s that are having their tyres let down. More like the Merc GLsomething that the people across the road have. Pretty much the biggest car I have ever seen on the road in the UK.

I was just having a look at my car, which is an suv.
Subaru forester- weight 1556kg 1557L boot space (seats down) combined econemy of 47.9mpg.
Compare that to another Subaru, the outback: weight 1649kg 1848L boot space (seats down) combined economy 50.4mpg. Both 2.0 td.
So, the normal estate car is heavier, but has more space inside, and uses about 5% less fuel.
I’ve used these as examples because i have one, and i also know they both use the same spec of engine/gearbox/4wd/suspension etc.
Doesn’t look good for the suv, whatever way you look at it.
Reduce (size)
Reduce (use)
Reuse (keep it on the road as long as you can)
Replace- but only if you absolutely must.

That works until we all buy even higher cars since we want to have the visibility and,

Maybe, or perhaps it’s marginal gains or product managers in car companies will understand the details and start engineering better seats or windscreens for people who are only five foot wee (I’ll put money on it most car manufacturers still have men in design decision roles, and inevitably they will be to some extent “petrol heads”).

ideally, have lights at the right height to blind other car drivers and cyclists even when not at high beam.

I’ve got self levelling headlights and never been flashed by anyone who thought I had them on full beam. Mine is fairly bottom of the range so if headlight dazzle is your only objection to taller vehicles I think you’ll find it diminishing as older ones are replaced.

However, keep up hating the SUVs rather than greenwashing hybrids that never bother to plug-in; weekend van-lifers lugging half of B&Q needlessly to work everyday so they can run their diesel heater in a poorly insulated van at the weekends; more aerodynamic sportier cars that spend their days pointlessly leapfrogging traffic with hard acceleration and braking; tiny wee cars that are used for journeys that would have been quicker to walk anyway or the umpteen deliveries a day (often from the same companies) rather than consolidating into fewer shipments.

So, the normal estate car is heavier, but has more space inside, and uses about 5% less fuel.

Problem is fuel is too cheap.
Anyone that can afford to own/lease such a car and maintain it, tax it and insure it etc is perfectly able to pay 5% more on fuel. They should never have stopped the fuel duty hikes when the blockades happened in 2000. At double the price more people would be pausing for thought to ask if that journey is needed and taking economy into buying decisions – and I suspect fleet managers would be asking why their staff weren’t getting the mpg that should be possible.

@poly
I agree, but not just fuel, cars in general are too cheap.
We need to stop rushing about this planet as if we own it.

The Discovery is a good example of what’s wrong. 2.3t weight, average MPG with the 2.0 diesel is 27MPG (real). Jaguar XF estate with the same engine is 1.8t and with the 18″ wheels will return 48MPG (real) 500KG heavier (half a bloody tonne) and almost half the MPG. Definitely half in towns/short runs.

But that is the stupidity of labelling one “class” of vehicles as bad (and by implication another class as better) I have an SUV which in real world use (including have kayak roof bars on for most of the summer and occasionally towing a trailer) is averaging 50.8 mpg in the last 6000 miles (mostly not motorway miles either). So THIS suv is still better than the Jag XF. Probably not as sporty or fun but on “mpg” is better. Yes presumably the same drive chain in a more aero body with unnecessary weight trimmed would be even better – but why decide that SUVs are the enemy (and should be using public transport as the sign they put on windows says) but not your worse Jag…

So THIS suv is still better than the Jag XF.

NO. Your SUV is at 50mpg according to you and on the journeys you drive. I took an average from REALMPG on all the Discovery’s and XF Estates listed with the SAME ENGINE as they’re approximately the same size/market segment and made by the same company so have similar systems interior, etc.

Mine is an apples to apples comparison of why an SUV is bad vs an estate car. Yours is a totally random comparison between two entirely dissimilar vehicles based purely upon their broadly allocated class. I actually answered the question.

Mine is an apples to apples comparison of why an SUV is bad vs an estate car. Yours is a totally random comparison between two entirely dissimilar vehicles based purely upon their broadly allocated class. I actually answered the question.

But that’s the point you are intentionally missing. The OP and the actions his post linked to were targeted at vehicles purely because they were in the same broadly allocated class. Stigmatising all SUVs is stupid if some suvs are actually better than the direct comparison alternative. So if the action has its intended effect I’ll feel awkward getting another suv when this one’s time is up – but rather than buy the greenest vehicle all I’ll care about is not getting one with the stigma – a Jag XR sounds like a good option, unfortunate that it puts out a wee bit more co2 than my current car but, it must be better because nobody was letting down the tyres on estate cars and sticking signs on the window!

Modern engines have made great gains in efficiency so a 50MPG SUV is feasible, but the point is that for the same outlay – or more likely alot less- the driver could have gone for something like a Volvo V40 2.0 Diesel which real world give more like 60+MPG (discontinued but similar, you know what I mean). Its that difference multiplied by the tens of millions of the things on the road that makes such a huge difference to our collective consumption and emissions. One would like to think that anyone who has taken on board the ramifications of what’s been discussed at Cop in the last few weeks, that if one’s in the enviable position to purchase new cars in the future- then they will be better informed, if not pressurised, into making more considered choices. Anyone who’s adamant that they need one can pay a 30% premium in a tax that could be directed at compensating the parts of the world where the impacts will start to be felt. The usual tired old excuses, the same ones we’ve been hearing for decades, are gong to get boring pretty quickly.

Look. SUVs are less aerodynamic and heavier – for the sake of looks and style. That’s all there is to it. Getting bogged down comparing cars is pointless. If you drive one you’re using more fuel than you need. End of.

There are lots of other ways to use more fuel than you need, of course. But that does not change the first fact. There’s really nothing to argue about.

Stigmatising all SUVs is stupid if some suvs are actually better than the direct comparison alternative.

Name a single one.

And no, saying your personal choice is more efficient than some big sporty estate isn’t a direct comparison.

A direct comparison would have been to pick the equivalent hatch/estate from the same manufacturer.

The big sporty estate is an environmentally poor choice too. We’re talking about the fac that people walk into dealerships and are deliberately buying cars that are bigger and less fuel efficient than they could be.

That’s a different argument to banning cars entirely, banning sporty cars, banning personal car ownership in cities or anything else. It’s simply saying people could have reduce their carbon footprint by ~2% simply by making a slightly better choice at no cost to them.

a Jag XR sounds like a good option, unfortunate that it puts out a wee bit more co2 than my current car but, it must be better because nobody was letting down the tyres on estate cars and sticking signs on the window!

If people are really going to be so childish about the whole thing then god help us.

This thread is a real whaboutery fest isn’t it.

I have a genuine question for those who are decrying SUV drivers: do you consume animal products?

It has been shown by multiple studies and research bodies that meat and dairy contribute far more in terms of emissions than plant-based food sources. It is known that it is perfectly possible to survive on a 100% plant-based diet (as many plant-based foods are supplemented with B12, or you can personally supplement).

If you are criticising anyone driving an SUV (in your opinion) unnecessarily, yet you consume meat and dairy (also unnecessarily), then you’re a hypocrite of the highest order.

It is known that it is perfectly possible to survive on a 100% plant-based diet (as many plant-based foods are supplemented with B12, or you can personally supplement

A B12 supplement isn’t necessary. As a vegetarian I get it from eggs. A vegan obviously won’t, and it can’t be got from ants but there’s loads in fungus, so mushrooms, yeast, marmite, whatever,vegans don’t need to miss out on anything.
.
[edit] it can be got from ants but that’s meat. Plants.

If you are criticising anyone driving an SUV (in your opinion) unnecessarily, yet you consume meat and dairy (also unnecessarily), then you’re a hypocrite of the highest order.

That’s not really how that works I’m afraid. All someone then has to do is compare themselves with a meat eating SUV driver and we’re back as we were.

Or, as mentioned above, it’s just more whataboutery

It’s not whataboutery at all – if you criticise someone over a personal choice that they have made, that is contributing more environmental harm than the valid alternative – yet you yourself are unwilling to take an equally valid alternative to something you do in order to reduce your environmental harm, then that is hypocrisy.

Do the best that you can, with what you are able, and don’t be a dick about it. Is that really so hard?

Ok, so your small estate driving enemy is also a vegetarian. Does that now make their argument more valid? Otherwise you are just shouting “but what about the meat?!”

I have a genuine question for those who are decrying SUV drivers: do you consume animal products?

I have a good answer for you. My grandfather was a farmer who over 60 years ago recognised that the model of agriculture at the time was unsustainable. He switched to a more sustainable life-style and brought up his entire family from that point forward as vegetarian. I’ve been vegetarian my entire life, so 46 years, the last 3 practically vegan…though I have a penchant for the occasional cheese. Have been aware of the need to minimise consumption in everything for well over 20 years, and my footprint through my life and currently will be minuscule compared to what some people on here have normalised. Do I get to tell you what to do yet? no – you’ll probably find another excuse, and I’d settle for just a huge tax rebate. I should probably get to drive whatever I want on those metrics, but I’d never drive an SUV ’cause they’re crap.

I think we need to get away from the mindset of, ‘I do X, therefore I am entitled to Y.’

We’re beyond the point of calculating our carbon footprint and saying things like, ‘I’ve looked at our carbon footprint, therefore the four flights we’ve taken this year are fine.’

If you want to drive an SUV drive then drive an SUV. If you want to eat meat every day then eat meat every day. If you want to live in a huge difficult to heat house then live in a huge difficult to heat house. If you want to fly round the planet every year then fly around the planet every year.

However, you can no longer expect anyone to endorse any of these choices and just because you drive an electric car don’t expect to be let off the hook for eating meat every day, living in a big poorly insulated house, or your next flight to Madiera.

From now on we all have to do what we can in every aspect of our lives. I am in no way perfect but in everything I do now I’m trying to minimise my impact.