What’s so bad about Landies……Defenders with roof mounted gimpys are useful for keeping the zombies away….any that get close can then me run under the wheels with impunity.

Starting off, better. Slowing down and cornering, no change.

Assuming you’re going too fast for the conditions.

If driven properly, a 4wd will get much further than a 2wd car on the snow. Slowing down thanks to engine breaking and low range (not to mention the various electronic traction aids in more modern vehicles) is much more effective than slowing down a 2wd car in steep, slippery conditions.

There is a lot of grumpy old men posts, I have to smile. 😀

Who cares about 4x4s, next people will say having a car that does more than 70mph is shameful because the national speed limit is 70 mph…

*shakes fist angrily* boo hiss Ferrari /rage

Pretty sure all the girls & boys at Jaguar-LandRover are more than happy people buy the cars they build. By the way 4×4 will get more economical I’ve seen the development theories JLR are predicting (just give it 5-10 years in R&D). If they crack it expect to see more BIG cars on the road.

I’ve had a few 4x4s and just sold my 2004 Defender and replaced the wife’s car for an X5 (I’ve 8 bikes and a motorbike so we all have our vices)

In the 3.5yrs, 12,000miles I lost £400 on the Defender. In a similar vain but 19’000 miles I lost £31,500 on my wife’s unpractical sports car (we have 2 dogs).

Both averaged about 26mpg. The Defender was cheaper to insure and service.

The X5. Far better then the first one. Drives like a car. Changes gear at around 1200rpm and for the grunt very economical. Would I have one -NO. But then again would the Wife have 8 bikes – NO.

I’m going to replace my ageing Volvo XC70. I want a cheap ass run around. Something I can put 2 dogs in / bikes, use sod all fuel and costs £35 a year to tax. I’m looking at Citroen Nemo Multispace. All bar one of my mates is threating to disown me.

So where’s the vanity?

If driven properly, a 4wd will get much further than a 2wd car on the snow. Slowing down thanks to engine breaking and low range (not to mention the various electronic traction aids in more modern vehicles) is much more effective than slowing down a 2wd car in steep, slippery conditions.

I’m intensely sceptical of this, and I am not alone. But we’ve done all this before on STW.

So where’s the vanity?

Driving an X5 even though it does 26mpg? Does that not count?

So molgrips, I’m sure you’ve got a 2l tdi with dsc box. If im right, there are cheaper, more frugal cars out there. Why have you got that one? We all make choices, it’s not a communist state, we’re allowed to have impractical things purely because we want to.
In fact, if hitler had had his way, we’d all be driving in the same car, a sodding beetle (huzah, godwins law!)

lot of tierd people on here , i got a disco 2 cos i like it , i also have used it off road, and it tows my pikey van nicely up to scotland and back very well thanks.get over yer selfs.

I’m intensely sceptical of this, and I am not alone. But we’ve done all this before on STW.

Just checking: You’re intensely skeptical of something you’ve never actually experienced?

If a 4wd with high centre of gravity heads round a snowy corner as fast as a lower slung normal car, assuming grip is the same, then of course the normal car stands less chance of rolling. That assumption is of course flawed as a 4wd with proper tyres will have much more grip – which I admit might lull an inexperienced driver into a false sense of security.

If however, both vehicles are trying to negotiate their way down a snowy steep twisty hill. The 4wd’s ability to smoothly regulate its speed to a walking pace means it’s likely to get down in a controlled manner. This is my experience of driving 4wds in such conditions. My experience of cars in such conditions is that with some luck you might get to the bottom in one piece, but you’ll have spent most of your time fighting the ABS. You’ll also have much less chance of avoiding anything coming the other way.

You do know the main reason 4wds have low range is for descending, rather than climbing, don’t you?

the key thing to driving in snow is tyres. a 4×4 on racy low profile road tyres will get stuck before a 2wd on mud and snow tyres.

I remember driving a 2cv around in snow one year – it was great – tall narrow tyres gave great grip and they had a fairly open tread pattern

the key thing to driving in snow is tyres. a 4×4 on racy low profile road tyres will get stuck before a 2wd on mud and snow tyres.

Absolutely. But a 2wd on M+S tyres will get stuck before a 4wd on the same.

UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.[2] Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4×4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.[3]

The RAC Foundation says, “You could blame some of the higher accident rate for 4x4s on size. Drivers who are new to these cars might not realise how wide they are. There is also psychology involved – if you feel more secure inside a big 4×4, you might drive with less care than you should.”[2]

When accidents happen they are also significantly more damaging to other cars and pedestrians, especially children due to the greater height making it more likely to cause head injuries. But hey, as long as little Tarquin and Jemima inside are ok on the school run, and you can drive through some snow once a year, who cares?

A 4×4 is twice as likely to be involved in a fatal rollover as an ordinary car.[5]
If a pedestrian is hit by a 4×4 they are twice as likely to be killed.[6]
In a side-impact collision with a 4×4, a car driver is around 4 times more likely to be killed than if they were hit by another car.[7]

When I lived the hills i quickly swapped to a Subaru Impreza with H/L ratio gear box and winter tyres after my car got stuck at the first sign of snow. Its not just snow either. Living somewhere a couple of hundred feet higher means a significant increase in light snowfalls when its raining elsewhere, frost and ice over the winter. Even passing other cars in narrow lanes is much easier without the fear of getting stuck on the verge.

Then we moved to the City and my car got some odd looks. Came in handy though the first winter, when I spent an afternoon towing cars and small trucks out of the snowed up inclines around the local hospital where the Wife works.

You’re intensely skeptical of something you’ve never actually experienced?

Yes. I’ve never experienced it (directly) which is why I can’t claim that it’s not true. I’m just skeptical that’s all. I think that unless you are off-roading or snow is deeper than about 6-8″ you will manage as well in 2wd as 4wd if you have appropriate tyres. If you are skillful with the brakes that is.

So molgrips, I’m sure you’ve got a 2l tdi with dsc box. If im right, there are cheaper, more frugal cars out there. Why have you got that one?

I have two cars: the above mentioned TDI I got for towing purposes (I regretted the DSG afterwards as it does cost MPG, I got it because Mrs Grips is less comfortable with manuals), and the Passat bought three years before because it was the lowest emissions car available at the time (early 2006).

(Now that’s not to try and claim I’m the greenest person around – I have driven a lot in the past although much less now, and of course two cars isn’t great. Neither are transatlantic family visits.)

These threads always seem to end up in environmental-oneupmanship.

I (currently) work in promoting sustainable transport of one form or another, and the simple fact that all the contributors to this thread have actually considered their choices is more than most people seem to do!

So on the whole, despite some of the vehicles mentioned being stereotypically ungreen, you’re all one step ahead of most of the folk I work with!

These threads always seem to end up in environmental-oneupmanship.

I prefer to think of it as pointing out a certain demographic that ruins the whole image of a particular brand:

I prefer to think of it as pointing out a certain demographic that ruins the whole image of a particular brand:

I see it as some trying to dress up the perfectly bloody obvious as some kind of profound insight to enlighten others.

But some do – so the point is indeed moot (i.e. up for discussion – I assume you meant mute?)

Moot/Mute.

So, pro 4x4ers – never mind environmental issues, are you happy about the increased likelihood of being at fault in an accident, killing other drivers, and pedestrians, especially children? Or does it not apply to you because you’re special?

Grum, would a 4×4 driver also be less likely to be injured or killed themselves in an accident than a non 4×4 driver. ?

If so then it seems sensible.

EDIT- correct auto spellcheck.

You say sensible, I say incredibly selfish and anti-social. ‘I’m all right Jack’.

I’m not sure that many drivers of ordinary cars die when they run over children either tbh.

Grim, would a 4×4 driver also be less likely to be injured or killed themselves in an accident than a non 4×4 driver. ?

I’d say that depends. If you hit another car, maybe you’d be less likely. However there’s more to it than that. You might hit a lorry, in which case you’d be worse off (more energy); you might be knocked into a stationary object, which would again be worse; then there’s the issue of being less able to avoid an accident due to size and worse handling (in most cases).

I saw a list of road deaths in the USA sorted by model of car adjusted for mileage – there was no correlation between size and number of deaths.

There seem to be differences of opinion though.

I know it’s the daily mail, but TRL did the research.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-517515/Forget-reputation–4×4-drivers-SAFESTon-road-report-claims.html

I think this study is from the Mail too, but the stats are from Churchill – says the opposite

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1585016/Safe-bet-for-a-bump.html

As I said

There seem to be differences of opinion

😉

I think that unless you are off-roading or snow is deeper than about 6-8″ you will manage as well in 2wd as 4wd if you have appropriate tyres. If you are skillful with the brakes that is.

But if you’re not, you’re more likely to have an accident through losing control.

So, pro 4x4ers – never mind environmental issues, are you happy about the increased likelihood of being at fault in an accident, killing other drivers, and pedestrians, especially children? Or does it not apply to you because you’re special?

Well, as statistically (according to insurance companies) anyone male is more likely to have an accident than anyone female, most of us had better stop now eh? Or perhaps only women should be allowed to drive 4wds to equalise the risk?

You say sensible, I say incredibly selfish and anti-social. ‘I’m all right Jack’.

Depends where you live I guess. If you don’t drive in towns much, you’d be much less likely to kill a child if you drive a tank on a daily basis than someone who drives a prius past a school every day.

Even the one you linked though says

the study showed pedestrians, in particular children, motorcyclists and occupants of small cars were significantly more likely to be killed or seriously injured when in a crash with a large SUV.

@zokes

Well, as statistically (according to insurance companies) anyone male is more likely to have an accident than anyone female, most of us had better stop now eh?

Except being male is something you have no control over. Whereas very few people, especially those living in urban areas, need to buy 4x4s.

Depends where you live I guess. If you don’t drive in towns much, you’d be much less likely to kill a child if you drive a tank on a daily basis than someone who drives a prius past a school every day.

If you don’t drive in towns much you might have some reason to get a 4×4. And lots and lots of people drive 4x4s on the school run – ever gone past a school at 3.30pm? Most of the time it’s absolute bedlam at schools near me.

Whereas very few people, especially those living in urban areas, need to buy 4x4s.cars

FIFY

I wasn’t saying they are safe, just saying that it doesn’t appear as simple as you made it out to be.

But to be honest, I would go for whatever is safest for me.

What about being hit by Vans or Trucks ? Is that safer or more dangerous ?

Do people who drive those deserve the same sort of flack 4×4 drivers get.

I do try to avoid pedestrians whenever possible anyway, so I don’t feel the need to take any extra precautions in that respect, regarding the choice of what I hit them with if my normal “don’t run people over” precautions fail.

Would you think driving around with an old mattress strapped to my bonnet would help ?

(I don’t drive a 4×4 by the way)

zokes – If you don’t need a car at all, then it makes even less sense to buy a massive, expensive, environmentally unsound one that’s dangerous to everyone else around you, no?

But to be honest, I would go for whatever is safest for me.

What about being hit by Vans or Trucks ? Is that safer or more dangerous ?

I’m all-right Jack.

Vans or trucks have a practical purpose though.

Would you think driving around with an old mattress strapped to my bonnet would help ?

Reductio ad absurdum argument.

If you don’t need a car at all, then it makes even less sense to buy a massive, expensive, environmentally unsound one that’s dangerous to everyone else around you, no?

Very few people need cars – instead they have grown to want them to allow them to fulfil various life choices, including where they live, work, go at the weekend etc.

Let’s face it, most people killed on the roads are killed by cars. Just because there are more of them doesn’t make that OK. If you’re killed, you’re dead, and probably past caring about whether it was a prius, a RR, a bus, or a giant panda dropped from a great height.

I do try to avoid pedestrians whenever possible anyway

Most people do. However accidents do happen, of course.

Zokes – but you might not be dead if you were hit by a normal car, as opposed to a 4×4! What a bizarre argument.

Reductio ad absurdum argument

Not really.

You say people are more likely to die if they are hit by a 4×4 than a car.

So people should get rid of their 4×4’s and buy cars instead. Fine that’s that sorted.

But what about the fact that people are more likely to die when hit by cars than milk floats ?

Or what about Vans ?

Or what about Lorries ?

Why are people so keen to stop other people driving 4×4’s ? Because they don’t go offload ? So what.

Most car never reach there top speed. Get rid of them.

Most vans are never fully loaded. Get rid of them

So people should get rid of their 4×4’s and buy cars instead. Fine that’s that sorted.

But what about the fact that people are more likely to die when hit by cars than milk floats ?

That is precisely a reductio ad absurdum argument because milk floats aren’t remotely practical for most people’s uses.

Lots of ‘whatabouttery’ in that last post too.

All I’m suggesting is that people should buy cars appropriate to the use they are for (with the bonus of not creating unnecessary danger to others/damage to the environment). No-one has to wear a hair-shirt or do anything silly.

That is precisely a reductio ad absurdum argument because milk floats aren’t practical for most people’s uses.

Interesting.
Average speed in London 10mph
Milk float 15-20mph
You could be right as milk floats are way too fast… 😛

But what about the fact that people are more likely to die when hit by cars than milk floats ?

Or what about Vans ?

Or what about Lorries ?

Vans and lorries are required for a purpose. You need them to keep the economy running.

Urban SUVs are not required in any way. There’s absolutely no reason to have one.

So if someone wants to use a vehicle that makes them feel safe, gives them a good elevated view of the road, looks affluent and could be useful in occasional bad weather

4×4 is the most appropriate car for them.
Or Maybe a nice big pimped out Van.

(I think that covers most of the people that buy them ?)

Zokes – but you might not be dead if you were hit by a normal car, as opposed to a 4×4! What a bizarre argument.

But if there hadn’t been a car because the driver chose not to be so selfish and screw the environment and everyone else around them, and so chose not to make the journey, there wouldn’t have been an accident in the first place.

How often have you driven somewhere when:
a) you didn’t really need to make the journey at all
b) you could have walked / cycled
c) you could have caught public transport, even if it might have involved a bit of faff

Urban SUVs cars are not required in any way. There’s absolutely no reason to have one.

FIFY