Surely the argument is all about the unnecessariness of them?

Yes, your modern SUV might be reasonably economical (for an SUV). After all, it’s pretty lightweight (for an SUV). It can probably go pretty fast, too (for an SUV).
Yes, your SUV might be fairly compact (for an SUV), and its luggage space is not too bad, either (for an SUV).
Yes, your SUV might handle competently enough (for an SUV). Who cares that it’s only 2WD and couldn’t ever go off road?

They’re compromised on a lot of levels with no quantifiable advantage other than looks and size, which is to the detriment of other road users. They’re an extravagance, and it’s understandable that the rest of the (sensible, considerate vehicle-buying) populace are mildly irritated by the silly people who use them.

That said, I don’t think this sort of judgemental attitude does anyone any favours. Considering this is a forum of cyclists, there’s not enough understanding of / sympathy towards other road users IMO.

Some interesting views and facts, thanks to all. I started in the estate camp, having a 5 tourer, was swaying to SUV, then back to estate. Trip to BMW garage yesterday was enlightening though. Same spec engine and trim 320 estate costs a little more than X3. The SUV has bigger boot, more passenger space but a bit less fuel economy. Plus I’d have to spend £30 on a folding step to get bikes on roof carriers.

there’s not enough understanding of / sympathy towards other road users IMO.

&

(sensible, considerate vehicle-buying) populace are mildly irritated by the silly people who use them.

Can you see what you did there…

Bored now, silly thread with no end.

Isn’t this debate , ie the suv in relation to old school cars the same as the modern mtb bike against 10 year ago mtb’s.

In both cases everything looks basically the same, but everything is a bit bigger, efficiency in terms of motion to power input is a bit comprimised (ie slower up hill for bikes) , but the new option is better in getting over bumps in the road/trail and makes the user feels more secure, so feels better.

Isn’t this debate , ie the suv in relation to old school cars the same as the modern mtb bike against 10 year ago mtb’s.

Leave the kittens out of this.

Which SUV tyres for Llandegla car park? And do the optional 19s make the fire road come alive?

Surely the argument is all about the unnecessariness of them?

Then should that be applied to everything then?
Why have more than one bike?
Why have a house bigger than absolutely necessary (i.e. parents and 1 child = two bed house)
Why holiday abroad when you can holiday here?
Why have a TV bigger than 30″
Chips are just potatoes with optional extras
etc.

Life is full of unnecessary ‘options’ and we’re all guilty of indulging in a number of them.

What exactly are we classing as an suv anyway? Seems people are mixing up cross overs, suv’s, luxury vehicles and off road vehicles.

What exactly are we classing as an suv anyway? Seems people are mixing up cross overs, suv’s, luxury vehicles and off road vehicles.

Good question, I’ve so far seen people lump together Range Rovers, Jukes, Foresters and Yeti’s into some magical catch all.

FWIW, and only IMO an SUV is personified by the luxury/executive 2WD/ selective 4WD soft roader eg. Honda CRV’s.

Jukes are Notes undergoing anaphylactic shock. Things of that ilk are mini SUV’s.

Older Foresters, Outbacks and XC70’s, Scouts and Allroads are more of a 4WD estate designed for light off road use and have the appropriate raised ground clearance and suspension adjustments. FWIW an Outback diesel is about 10mpg better than my Mondeo hatch albeit with horrific servicing costs should anything require the engine lifting out.

4x4s are 4x4s.

I’m in the camp of SUV’s being largely redundant in every aspect, I don’t understand why someone would want something heavier, slower and thirstier than necessary but appreciate some folk do for whatever reason. Same with fatbikes really, most people don’t really need one but some seem to think they are the best thing since sliced bread. Horses for courses. Ranting or harrassing people rarely achieves anything, when fossil fuels really start to go up in price it’ll be interesting to see how many folk run with them.

Then should that be applied to everything then?
Why have more than one bike?
Why have a house bigger than absolutely necessary (i.e. parents and 1 child = two bed house)
Why holiday abroad when you can holiday here?
Why have a TV bigger than 30″
Chips are just potatoes with optional extras
etc.

Life is full of unnecessary ‘options’ and we’re all guilty of indulging in a number of them.

Yes but all of those items above have benefits. A SUV (and I’m talking about the fashion led types here) have no actual benefits over a normal car, yet plenty of drawbacks. Why you would pay more money for a worse vehicle is beyond me? Must be an image and fashion thing innit!

when fossil fuels really start to go up in price it’ll be interesting to see how many folk run with them.

Meh, maybe we need tracks…

Having read all this again, I’ve decided to put the 4×4 on the market and buy Fiesta as it’ll be just as practical. Probably. 😐

when fossil fuels really start to go up in price it’ll be interesting to see how many folk run with them.

Shale extraction has set a lid on oil prices of around $110 a barrel. If it weren’t for the tax at that oil price petrol would cost about 50p liter or about 30p now. Petrol is cheap in the US and “virtually free” in the Gulf. Our current prices are artificially high.

SUV have been hugely popular (for the reasons we have stated many times) for a long day and whilst petrol was expensive a few years ago