Will Cove (
[email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :
>> Safety? EuroNCAP yesterday released the figures on the new Grand
>> Cherokee. On the same day as the figures were released for the first
>> car to get the full four stars for pedestrian safety, the Jeep got
>> zero marks. Not zero STARS. No. Zero MARKS. Woo. State-of-the-art,
>> guys.
> ... and you say that I'm cherry-picking!
I do. You don't seem to like it one bit when you perceive that others
may be doing it, do you?
> If you look at the Euro-NCAP site, you'll see that there are not too
> many family cars that beat the CR-V and X-Trail on safety.
For occupants, true.
Because it's far easier to make occupants safe in a larger heavier
vehicle.
> Of course, I note that you conveniently forgot to mention that the GC
> you so vilify rated pretty highly for occupant safety.
Actually, it didn't.
Four star occupant safety for a brand new large heavy car is really
nothing special at all. Disappointing, in fact.
It'd be a reasonable score for a modern Supermini, without all that
structure to dissipate the crash energy.
In the EuroNCAP new Nov 05 ratings, there's only one vehicle gets lower
than 4*. The Chevrolet Matiz. The child occupant safety of the GC is
equal lowest, at 3*.
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=6
Quote from the EuroNCAP chairman in the press release from the 23rd (on
EuroNCAP's website, under Media Centre) - "(The 4* ped safety)
achievement is particularly clear, coming as it does in the same phase
as a car that has scored no points for pedestrian protection. There is
no longer any excuse for such neglect"
And I haven't even mentioned the JiangLing LandWind yet.
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
<shrug - it's a barely-warmed-over Frontera, so no surprise it's ****>
> FWIW, someone I work with recently bought an
> 02-plate V70 diesel - and he can't get 40 mpg out of it. FWIW, I chose
> the comparison because I recently switched from a 2.5 litre Volvo 850
> from which I couldn't get more than about 32 mpg.
Try learning to drive economically. Fuel economy is *entirely* in the
driving style. Does your driving include *any* urban/cold-start/short-
journey? Of course it does. The extra-urban figure doesn't. Here in the
real world, you'd get nowhere near 40mpg out of a Diseasel Freelunch,
either. Or, indeed, anywhere near the extra-urban figure for ANY car.
If you want achievable figures, use the combined, not the extra-urban.
36.7 for a TD4 Freelunch, 48.7 for a V50 D4, 41.5 for a 2.4D V70.
Perhaps the 29.1 for a petrol auto 2.4 V70 should be compared with a 2.5
V6 auto Freelunch? 22.7? Ouch.
>> Hmmmm. 58.9mpg extra urban, and 50g/km of CO2 less than the
>> Freelander. The Landy's not quite so impressive, is it?
> But it's nowhere near as thirsty as many non-4x4 types. If you want to
> legislate against the Freelander on grounds of "poor fuel economy",
> it's only fair to catch all those cars that fare worse. This is the
> point. The anti-4x4 campaign is unfair and cannot be justified.
Have I said it is fair and can be justified? No, because I don't think
it is. I'm merely pointing out that your feeble rebuttals are easily
demonstrated to be massively flawed, and certainly do not help your
case.
Choosing to drive an SUV (and I loath that term) 4x4 DOES use more fuel
and pollute more. That is incontrovertible. They do not offer more
safety, when viewed as a whole - they don't even offer big benefits when
viewed for occupant figures alone. There are no tangible reasons to use
an SUV/4x4 in an urban/suburban environment.
Why do people? Style. Fashion. Preference.
That preference carries a cost. Fact. Accept it.
>> Mondeo - Well, the figures I found are 4804x1812 - so 8,704,848 sq mm
> [ you forgot the mirrors - the width is 1958 including them! ]
Both figures were from Parkers. OK, we'll go with manufacturer figures.
www.landrover.com gives the Disco 3 as 4835x2190 with mirrors.
www.ford.co.uk gives the Mondeo estate as 4804x1958 with mirrors.
Ooops. That difference just doubled to 12%.
<looks down> I'd get a doctor to have a look at that bullet hole in your
toe, IIWY.
> but they would also get the Jaguar XJ, BMW 7-series and similar
> vehicles that have a larger footprint than the Disco 3.
How many people use XJs/7-s/S-class for the "school run"? VERY very few.
How many use large SUV/4x4s? Many.
> If you want to ponder, ask about the fairness of a campaign that seeks
> to ban one vehicle type yet does not seek to ban vehicles that fare
> worse in the criteria that campaign chooses.
Indeed. You are aware that the unladen weight of a Disco 3 is up to half
a ton heavier than a LWB 416CDi Merc Sprinter? Yet many places have bans
on vehicles of over 3.5ton MAM. Indeed, many people's driving licences
won't even permit them drive vehicles of over 3.5t MAM.
The only reason the Disco 3 comes in under that 3.5t MAM is because of
an artificially low payload - so low that it's barely any higher than
that of my 602cc 1979 Citroen Dyane van. 500kg payload for a 7-seater is
not far off the absolute bare minimum for Type Approval of 68kg per
occupant seat. Still, with all the seats in place, there's not much over
a foot of boot length left anyway.
