Sadly, I won't be able to maintain this high brow debate but I'll reply in my usual, dumbed down way as that's all I can manage.
I haven't seen a 4x4 driven particularly worse than say a Ford Escort. Granted, 4x4's stand out more but this is probably why people moan about them (Not saying anyone moans here!)
You don't get people saying "Damn Ford Escort drivers - shouldn't be allowed to drive anything bigger than a Fiesta."
If someone cut you up in a Disco (Land Rover that is - not on the dance floor) then you're bound to say "what do they need a car like that for?"
If someone did it in a Merc 320 - no-one's going to say - why do they need a 3.2 car around here?"
Can't agree more with Mark's suggestion though - given you could get smaller trucks!
--
Adam
|
|
Why would a different licence category help? (Almost) every person on the road has a driving licence but the forum is littered with complaints about car drivers, why should it be any different for another vehicle classification?
|
Because they are different to drive than cars ordinaire, and they handle differently especially in emergency situations.
I have no axe to grind one way or the other on SUV's. If I had the money to run one I probably would. I can however appreciate the arguments against. I think its highly likeley that some kind of restriction or enforcement will be placed on SUV type vehicle in town and urban sitiuations. Its simply too much of a vote winner not to. I can see Kens manifesto now. Possibly a money maker too.
|
Problems with SUV's:
If someone is following me in one 10ft off my bumper at any speed and I have to stop quickly, they will not be able to stop as quickly, crunch. The dynamics of an SUV are inferior to contemporary cars and the tyres are a compromise, being not as good on the road as car tyres in either the wet or dry.
At least 50% of them have bull bars which can be the difference between a bruise or a fatal injury in the event of an accident involving a pedestrian. Bull bars should be banned with immediate effect.
|
Been a silent observer for a while now.
Just writing about the posts previously
1)"The dynamics of an SUV are inferior to contemporary cars and the tyres are a compromise, being not as good on the road as car tyres in either the wet or dry"
Cheddar can you back that vague statement up with solid proof, like comparing for example 60 to 0 stopping timings between an SUV and a mid sized hatch, and then I will believe you.
I take the point about the bull bar though and it is something that should be banned apart from those who really need it.
2)"I don't have an SUV
I don't like SUV's"
Vague and unsubstantiated.Nuff said.
3)"Is there a problem with these vehicles and/or the way they are driven? If so what measures should be taken? Surely any debate should address just those questions"
Cardew ,if there is even a relatively minor problem with them, then in this day and age where Health and safety breathes down your neck every minute,you can be very sure that they would be immediately taken off the roads.
Especially when they are already the subject of adverse scrutiny.
The way they are driven, yes there are gits who drive them , but then there are gits who drive other vehicles too.
4)"Because they are different to drive than cars ordinaire, and they handle differently especially in emergency situations"
Please elaborate.I really would be interested in knowing in what way they differ in handling?
Brakes not as responsive?? Larger weight causing increasing stopping distances?
The most significant statement is however this one.
5)"If I had the money to run one I probably would"
I think that I would also have bought an SUV, if I had the money.
I also think this is true of most who oppose the SUV.(Renaultfamily I am not however implying that you feel this way, just took your statement as a representative one to make my point)
However that does not make me jealous of those who can afford them.
I feel that this is the main reason why everyone wants to have them off the road.Not its large footprint , not the wastage of natural resources, not the pedestrian impact factor.
|
Re handling of big SUV's. Yes they do handle differently. They are very unpredictable under sudden steering input at speed. Brake hard and throw in some steering input its very possible to get them to roll. Has been known for SUV (range rovers best for this) to actually climb over the central crash barrier of Motorways**. Corner a big SUV* at the type of speeds you might be tempted to corner your hothatch and you will soon find yourself with an armfull of trouble.
Now thats not to say they are dangerous, it just means that you need to know this is how they behave, and drive accordingly.
Plus they usually have turning circles of an aircraft carrier, so some appreciation of this in tight city manouvers might be called for.
**from anything over 60mph turn sharp right towards the barrier, it leans badly to the left raising the front right and centre of gravity over crash barrier height. Couple that with some powerful 4 wheel drive and it will happily hop over the barrier.
It usually lands front right wing down and then flips onto its roof and side into the oncoming traffic.
*Sometimes not so big, the small suzuki 4x4's were always tipping over.
|
Several people have mentioned the need for additional licensing or training due to the difference in handling/turning circles etc of 'SUV's'.
Anyone over about 25 can drive a 7.5t wagon on their car license, at 20ft long and 8ft wide, surely this requires more skill concerning manoeuvring, turning and general road skills than your average SUV?
|
Probably becuase people think "Hey it looks like a big truck, it feels like a big truck, sounds like a truck - I had best be careful till I know how a big truck drives"
Step inside a big SUV and settle into your Airconned, leather seat clad cockpit and turn on your Hi-Fi with your nice quite engine and auto box and you think "Hey this is just like a car".......
|
|
Fair point, my other half jumps at the chance to have a drive in a Touareg, but wouldn't touch an escort van because "it's got no rearveiw and i cant see out of the sides"!
|
|
2)"I don't have an SUV I don't like SUV's" Vague and unsubstantiated.Nuff said.
Vague? -Do you mean BazzaBear probably does have an SUV?
Unsubstantiated? He really does like them?
Buck up BazzaBear - say what you mean!!
3)"Is there a problem with these vehicles and/or the way they are driven? If so what measures should be taken? Surely any debate should address just those questions" Cardew ,if there is even a relatively minor problem with them, then in this day and age where Health and safety breathes down your neck every minute,you can be very sure that they would be immediately taken off the roads. Especially when they are already the subject of adverse scrutiny. The way they are driven, yes there are gits who drive them , but then there are gits who drive other vehicles too.
You have misunderstood or deliberately taken the phrase "Problem with these vehicles" out of context..
All motorcycles have a problem; they have little protection in an accident and riders suffer casualties.
46 Ton Artics have a problem; they lack manoeuvrability and have long braking distances.
What on earth has it to do with Health and Safety.
The most significant statement is however this one. 5)"If I had the money to run one I probably would" I think that I would also have bought an SUV, if I had the money. I also think this is true of most who oppose the SUV. I feel that this is the main reason why everyone wants to have them off the road.Not its large footprint , not the wastage of natural resources, not the pedestrian impact factor.
If you conclude, that is the most significant statement, and that envy is behind the objections most people have to SUVs I must question your analytical powers.
Speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, I hope you do not think me immodest when I say I could afford to buy such a machine. However my reasons for not buying one are as follows.
Firstly, and most importantly, I have no requirement for off-road capability which is surely the main purpose of these vehicles.
They have generally poor performance and/or fuel economy and do not handle, brake or hold the road well as saloons. If you want X other opinions to confirm that; read X other road tests.
In short they do not fit my personal requirements for a motor vehicle.
If you have read any threads in the BR you are well aware of the reservations some people have about SUVs and there is little point in rehearsing them. Similarly the reservations about their drivers are not necessarily that they are "gits" but rather that they lack the skills to drive them safely and/or they encourage an intimidatory driving style.
|
|
Not going to be further drawn into this thread except to say that IMO Cardew has hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
>> 2)"I don't have an SUV >> I don't like SUV's" >> >> Vague and unsubstantiated.Nuff said. Vague? -Do you mean BazzaBear probably does have an SUV? Unsubstantiated? He really does like them? Buck up BazzaBear - say what you mean!!
Yeah, sorry about that. I will admit that my opinion that I don't like SUV's is entirely subjective. Under the circumstances I thought that'd be enough though. :D
Ehegazy: What exactly are you getting at?
My point was just that despite the FACTS that I don't have or like SUV's, I don't see that complaints about them in general were relevant to the original thread.
|
I reckon that the real reason people buy the bigger SUVs is that they like sitting higher than the average executive car that they can afford, but there is no executive (upmarket brand) model that meets their requirements.
I like sitting higher and have bought a Hyundai Trajet for my wife. However, for my business, I need something that says 'I am successful' hence I have owned Hondas, Mercs, BMWS, Volvos and Saabs. The only higher vehicles from these manufacturers are SUVs. I don't need or want 4x4 and the bulk of these cars (e.g. XC90, X5, ML270) that make them very thirsty and less interesting to drive than their lower equivalents.
I wish they would make an upmarket MPV. Renault tried it with the Avantime and if it had been any other brand as above it would have sold well.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
For the purposes of discussion, it might be useful if there was a generally accepted definition of an SUV. If there is, I have yet to hear of it.
Clearly a Fiat Panda 4 x 4 isn't. Ditto a Subaru Legacy. But what about a Subaru Forester? what about a RAV 4, which I gather handles much like a hatchback? And in particulary, what about the now-discontinued non-four-wheel-drive version of the RAV 4?
Could someone please enlighten me?
|
IM Humble O
SUV = minimum 2.5litre diesel, weight minimum 1.5 tons, 4X4, urban mpg no higher of 20mpg petrol and 25mpg derv Using tyres not suitable for regular saloon cars
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
Espada, don't you need an upper limit for all those things too? At the moment you'd be including the 'true 4x4s' in your definition of SUVs.
|
So, if I've understood you correctly, and got my facts right,
the Dicovery, Jeep Cherokee, Toyota Land Cruiser, VW Touareg, BMW X5 all ARE SUVs by your definition
while the Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV 4, Nissan X-Trail are NOT
Or something like that.
|
|
(Sorry - should have made clear that my post was replying to Espada III rather than BazzaBear.)
|
|
well lets face it, a Rav is no larger than a Galaxy and probably uses less fuel, so who could take offense at that?
|
|
You are assuming that people are rational . . .
|
Well, I can enter the debate as an interested party. We now own an SUV and it's a heavy one. Mitsubishi L200 double cab complete with Carryboy rear canopy.
We've had it a week now and since it was ordered I've been drumming it in to Mrs ND that this needs to be handled with respect. Not that I needed to, she's so chuffed to have a vehicle that will open up new work to her (try doing arboriculture in rural locations with a Transit van......) and her first ever new car that she's driving it like a pro. Mind you, she's driven tractors, worked with tracked excavators, rebault engines..... this is no ordinary woman :o)
Thing is, there are people carries out there with many of the problems you associate with the SUV. There are 15 year old Escorts and Astras with brakes that pass the MOT (just) and shock absorbers and bushes right on the edge that are just as vulnerable. What we are really talking about here is driving behaviour appropriate to the conditions, conditions that include the vehicle in use. Behaviour is hard to legislate/control with our Police force operating as it is at present, so the simpler approach of banning vehicles makes for pleasing headlines and minimal legislative costs.
'smy tuppenn'orth.
|
|
I have done a fair few miles in a L200 double cab. Its actually quite chuckable for a lorry and very forgiving. The driving position is appaling tho, gave me real thigh ache and back ache.
|
|
Oh and the owner did 87k miles from new with not a hint of mechanical or electrical agro. Its a good wagon
|
Agree with driving position. The seat is too low.
Going to take it up to London in 10 days so will get a feel for whether a drive to the Alps in it is an option or not.
|
The remarks about handling amaze me. My Range Rover has a very sophisticated air suspension system, power brakes (Not the usual servo type), ABS and traction control. I can assure you it handles superbly, can be hustled extremely quickly on the twisty bits and it stops more quickly than some saloons I've driven. The air suspension stops it leaning like a 2cv. Also,the brakes are proportional to the size and weight of the vehicle. 4x4 manufacturers are not trying to stop large vehicles with Fiesta brakes! The tyres are only a compromise on proper off roaders like Land Rovers etc. The SUV brigade are usually shod with road tyres because the manufacturers know they wont be getting muddy. I bet my Rangie is more sure footed on wet and slippery roads than the average saloon. I know not all 4x4s are this sophisticated or expensive.
I have to say though I'm getting extremely bored with this thread.There are types of vehicle I don't particularly like but I wouldn't seek to criticise the owners for their choice. We are all intelligent enthusiasts are we not? Lets discuss something else and finally lay this to rest.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
In reply to BazzaBear and tyro (sorry- posted last night and just logged on)
All 4x4 above my basic specs are big, heavy and far less easy to handle than the equivalent exec saloon the owners would have driven, say 10 years ago. So 4x4 or SUV; it makes no difference to driving on the road. Both are equally irrelevant to me.
I have lots of friends who have Lexus RX300s, Range Rovers, Landcruisers, XC90s etc. None has ever gone off road and the only reason for buying these cars was a) a feeling of security in a heavy car and b) they like sitting high. All a wealthy enough not to give a damn about mpg.
I would comment that any executive saloon e.g. Volvo S80, Merc E-class is far safer than these 4x4, but I accept that they are not as high. I too like sitting high, but refuse to buy a 4x4 becuase they are too high and too profligate for me. As I mentioned in a post above, if Volvo or Merc made the Avantime, I would have had one. But it drove poorly and was too fragile to consider.
I suspect that many of the drivers of SUVs are
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
"I have to say though I'm getting extremely bored with this thread."
It is not mandatory to look at the thread!
|
"I have to say though I'm getting extremely bored with this thread." It is not mandatory to look at the thread!
For some of us it is.
|
>> "I have to say though I'm getting extremely bored with this >> thread." >> >> It is not mandatory to look at the thread! For some of us it is.
That's what you get your annual 'Ploughmans' for!
|
The remarks about handling amaze me. My Range Rover has a very sophisticated air suspension system, power brakes (Not the usual servo type), ABS and traction control. I can assure you it handles superbly, can be hustled extremely quickly on the twisty bits and it stops more quickly than some saloons I've driven. The air suspension stops it leaning like a 2cv. Also,the brakes are proportional to the size and weight of the vehicle. 4x4 manufacturers are not trying to stop large vehicles with Fiesta brakes! The tyres are only a compromise on proper off roaders like Land Rovers etc. The SUV brigade are usually shod with road tyres because the manufacturers know they wont be getting muddy. I bet my Rangie is more sure footed on wet and slippery roads than the average saloon. I know not all 4x4s are this sophisticated or expensive.
V8man
Your post concerns me for several reasons.
Firstly, you RR does not handle 'superbly'. It is fitted with the Dunlop/Lucas/Land Rover 'EAS' ('Electronic Air Suspension) system developed in the early 1990's. I was involved in the development of this system from the LR side. The system is not 'very sophisticated' - it uses a Dunlop 'rolling lobe' air spring alongside a conventional damper. The EAS is there ONLY to correct height due to load variation. Height correction occurs only after a steady 12 second change in height as detected by four potentiometers connected between the bodyshell and chassis rails - it is *not* an active or semi-active system and has no real impact on the handling.
I drove these RR's extensively both on and off road and the handling does not compare with a saloon car, nor does the braking performance - the CoG is high and there is a pronounced 'pendulum' effect. I witnessed an experienced police driver get caught out in one of these and put it on its side.
The braking system is one of the least impressive aspects of the car. RR used the WABCO system which I've never been fond of. It uses a high pressure hydraulic pump and pressure accumulator system. My major concern about this system is that if the driver ignores the system failure warning light he can basically be left with no brakes at all (I think this is mentioned in the handbook). Moreover the circuits are split in an odd way such that if the 'rear' circuit fails you can be left with no brakes on the rear and only 50% braking on the front. If the system failure light ('STOP') comes on on a RR then you really better pull over!
The tyres, as fitted from the factory, do not give the same adhesion as saloon car tyres, the compound and tread pattern are quite different. This is not a car you should be hustling quickly along twisty roads - you will end up killing someone. If you want to drive fast on twisty roads then choose a car with a low CoG, low roll-centre, with shorter suspension travel plus a premium 'road' tyre.
Anyone with a 4x4 needs to realise the handling limitations of these vehicles - doesn't matter how much it cost, you can't change the laws of physics. Its is dangerous to drive them like a saloon car. I note Mark(RLBS)'s comments about 4x4's and extra driver education and training - its a very good point!
|
Anyone with a 4x4 needs to realise the handling limitations of these vehicles - doesn't matter how much it cost, you can't change the laws of physics. Its is dangerous to drive them like a saloon car. I note Mark(RLBS)'s comments about 4x4's and extra driver education and training - its a very good point!
"You can't change the laws of Physics" should always be said with a scottish accent! I must admit I drive my small 4x4 with the same point in mind; most of the changes made by 4x4 manufactures hide the limitations of the vehicle, not remove them. Driven sensibly they are fine.
|
I would class the L200 Mits as a "light truck" rather than an SUV. It's relatively lightweight and nimble, but has enough presence in traffic to show you mean business.
Known where I live as the "Strada", the new shape has given in to the marketeers' concept of what Starbucks patrons regard as bar-hopping transport, i.e. raise the suspension, put nice multi-colored shocks on and keep 'em polished, then chrome everything else, but don't get 'em dirty, but the older, more square one (I owned a '97) was a proper 4WD no nonsense truck.
Its 2.5 turbo diesel was one of the quieter of its ilk (compare that with a bag-of-nails Isuzu) and had plenty of go on the open road. However, it really did excel in jungle-bashing, where we used to have a great time damaging natural resources (!)***, crossing rivers &c until Communist guerillas et al made that a bit too dangerous. I've carried two 750 lb Harleys in the back, and up to 12 construction workers (not together!) The Strada was ahead of Nissan and Toyota at the time.
The first weekend I had it, even before its first 1000km checkup, we took it up Mt Pinatubo, navigating our way the volcano up via the lava flows and river beds and gave it back to Citimotors on the Monday totally covered in grey lahar (lava paste) apart from where the wipers worked and a few "portholes" on the side windows.
They were not amused, as I recall. I said well I was only trying to see if the thing could do all the things your saleslady said it could......
As for city work, Manila streets in the rainy season can be flooded in mere minutes to door level or higher, no worries, that Strada ploughed through it all. I've towed 2 Land-Rovers out of the mud with it and all sorts of other stuff. For the rough tracks, put it in low 4WD and 1st, change the CD and let the idle carry it forward.
We then switched to the F-150 Ford, what a sweet V-8, but a bit too urban at the end of the day.Too much weight up front, not enough at the back = interesting oversteer on expressway on and off ramps. Shouldn't have sold the Strada but got a sweetheart deal on the Ford when they had just arrived here and were looking for market share. By then the Mits had 6 figures on the clock but apart from a good deal of bodywork repairs occasioned by encounters with an unforgiving Mother Nature, I don't think much was spent on it bar tyres and servicing. Growlette learned to drive in it and distinguished herself the day after passing her test by declining the offer of the guard managing the barrier of the Oasis Hotel in Angeles City to let her in, in favour of making a new unplanned entrance through the perimeter fence. I still have the bill somewhere...
The older L-200's here fetch good prices still, the newer ones are perceived as a bit too gay-looking alas. Sometimes you just wish companies would stick to the knitting instead of change for change's sake.
*** tree-huggers---- don't spill that organic Patagonian coffee grown by hillside cooperatives in horror: in the tropics everything gets back to the way it was mighty quickly.
|
I would class the L200 Mits as a "light truck" rather than an SUV. It's relatively lightweight and nimble, but has enough presence in traffic to show you mean business.
With a kerbweight of 1720kg (3792lb) and GVW of 2830kg (6239lb) it isn't bad when "dry" (only200kg more than a Laguna for kerbwight) but when being used in its daily configuration it's pretty hefty as there's 100kg or so of Carryboy top on it, then there's the chainsaw, mower, hedgetrimmer, assorted hand tools, fuel cans, chainsaw and 2-stroke oils, spraying kit, ropes etc.
But yes, it is light when compared to a RangeRover or Landcruiser. And I have to agree it is pretty nimble for its size.
The older L-200's here fetch good prices still, the newer ones are perceived as a bit too gay-looking alas. Sometimes you just wish companies would stick to the knitting instead of change for change's sake.
We opted for the business-like GL rather than the tart's handbag 4-Life spec for this very reason.
|
I have finally narrowed the choice of SUVs that can be bought in the price range of approx £12000-14000.
The Nissan Xtrail-Looks good, claimed fuel consumption 39mpg! on the diesel.Plus Nissans famed reliability record.
Rav4-Claimed to drive like a hatchback,good resale values and reliability, dont know how good the diesel is though.
Hyundai Tucson/Terracan-less dearer, though not so good resale values and reliability.
Santa Fe-looks a bit unusual in places hence a no no, but cheaper 2nd hand than the others.
Nissan Terrano-Dont know much about this one, but seems a bit dated in comparison.Plus a mileage of 23mpg on the diesel!
Honda CR-V -otherwise good but no diesel.
Any Backroomers who have actually owned/driven one of these , or better still has driven more than one of them,would appreciate your opinions.Also if there is anything else that can be obtained at this price range which has a reasonably good resale market demand .
|
John
I think you would be better launching this on a new thread. It looks like you are going to get ignored on this one.
|
I've driven the Xtrail quite a bit, although it was in South America but I can't imagine its that different. It wasn't very good off-road and I found the engine pretty rough. Its not as big inside as it seems like it ought to be, either.
I quite like the look of the Santa Fe.
The Rav4 is not my kind of car at all. All the disadvantages of an SUV without any of the advantages. Not very nice to drive, doesn't seem very sure footed on tarmac and hopeless off-road. Although the one I used to use would be about 4 years old by now.
Other than that, not much to say really.
|
The majority of Santa Fe(s) - what is the plural? - in USA are FWD; as are other SUVs.
Given that the majority of SUV users in UK have no requirement for 'serious' off-road use I am surprised that more FWD SUVs are not marketed here.
Presumably they would be quite a bit cheaper and lighter whilst retaining the advantage of extra ground clearance and a high driving position that some people require.
|
Yes, that's the one ND. Here it not only is, but is also classed as, a "light truck". That means it attracts no 10% VAT (commercial vehicle), and the annual registration dues are lower so there is a benefit vs an SUV, i.e. having most of the needful with perhaps a bit less luxury. Put the Carryboy on the back with 2 beds in and off you go (but you'll have to move your mowers etc first..... basically you've got a Pajero at a lower price.
I think the basically similar but more option-rich Nissan Frontera has overtaken it here now, but still a very good choice.
BTW, put a chain and lock on that spare. I lost 2 before I got wise. Those mags are lovely to look at but mas mahal to replace...
|
BTW, put a chain and lock on that spare. I lost 2 before I got wise. Those mags are lovely to look at but mas mahal to replace...
The kind chap at www.cairn4x4.com sent us a carryboy spare wheel lock when we bought the top from him. He also chucked in a bonnet stone-cip guard and some wind deflectors for the side windows. What a star!
Cheers for the heads up though,
ND
|
Softroaders: 'SUVs' that have an electronic 4wd system ie. resembles 4w traction control. Pretty much an enlarged sedan. (RX 330, X trail, Forester etc)
Off Roader: 'SUVs' with a seperate high-low range selector and diff locks.
Most ppl but SUVs because sedans do become boring.
|
www.nosuv.org/
... where you'll find a link to this rather funny site: www.changingtheclimate.com
|
|
|
|
|
