Adrian wrote:
> 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.
No - choosing to drive a large, uneconomic car uses more fuel and
pollutes more. I've recently run an LS400 Lexus (Similar mass/footprint
to a Discovery 1) and a 3.9 Discovery. The Discovery was significantly
more economic than the Lexus - largely due to a manual gearbox vs the
Lexus autobox. My current motor (2.5TD discovery) gets 2-3 times the
fuel economy of either with a not too degraded driving experience.
As for tangible reasons to use a 4x4 in an urban environment - howsabout
"Only owning one car and actually needing 4x4 utility occasionally"? If
I were to keep 2 cars - one for town running and one for "Real" running
I'd end up in the situation of doubling the maintenance (They'd both
need the annual maintenance regardless of milage actually driven) which
would increase the maintenance spares I'd use by at least 100% -
including polluting substances such as lubricants. This would have a
significant impact on my environmental footprint - I'd suspect it would
increase it by a nominal 50% over just using the 4x4 for all running.
It would also increase my fixed costs by at least 100% just on road
tax, insurance and the likes.
Also, if you were to force all of the 4x4 drivers who use their cars in
cities into modern Eurobubbles you'd have a *major* impact on the
environmental footprint of those drivers. For the most part they
already *have* the 4x4s - they're pre-existing cars. The eurobubble
would need to be manufactured and the majority of the pollution a car
creates over its life is in its manufacture - instant negative short
term environmental impact.
Next off you have to dispose of a nominally good 4x4 - nobody will want
them if they're penalised off the roads, there'll be no 2nd hand market
and as such they'll need to be disposed of - instant negative long term
environmental impact.
Take a Land Rover for example - there's figures that reckon 70%+ of the
ones ever manufactured since 1948 (that's 57 years guys!) are still in
use. Now, I know this is exceptional and almost no other manufacturer
can claim it, but that's an average lifespan of over 40 years for a
vehicle, whereas Eurobubbles tend to vanish from the roads after 15
years at most, and getting rapidly less because of their complexity -
they all rely on electronics to meet their environmental requirements,
and replacing the airbags at £1000 a pop on an 8 year old car is
non-economically viable. That's (even being generous) 4 eurobubbles
being bought over the lifespan of a Land Rover with a consequent 4x
increase in manufacturing and disposal environmental impact.
I'd state that what needs to be challenged isn't actually 4x4s as a
concept, but the modern trend towards monster 4x4s. The Series 1 and
Series 2 Discoveries were actually a sensible size - as said, shorter
than a Mondeo, or when launched than a Granada, not actually that
thirsty compared to equivalent sized saloons (Granada, 1992 era
5-series BMW). The big problem is that the current "Every car must have
the impact of a soap bubble" mindset is that every car is getting
bigger just to be able to cram in the crush zones, pedestrian impact
padding and passenger safety devices. This increases frontal area and
drops fuel economy no matter which way you look at it.
Another issue I'd take with the drive to bubbles on wheels is that all
of the "Safety" stuff has a noticable tendency to drop the actual
responsibility of drivers. When you can walk away from a crash at 60MPH
and be fine the next day you have less inclination to drive carefully
than if you *know* you are going to be badly injured - I'm not saying
that we shouldn't have safety devices, but personal responsiblity would
be a great idea too.
The pedestrian safety concept is similarly flawed, albeit to a lesser
extent. Getting pedestrians to actually take responsibility for their
own actions would be a great idea.
>
> Why do people? Style. Fashion. Preference.
In my case it's because it gives me a car that will eat motorway miles,
carry me round a town, double as a van and also allow me to track
across muddy fields and flooded roads which I do on a not to irregular
basis. It saves me having to have three vehicles.
>>> 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.
The Disco 3 is a monster by any reckoning. I have no idea what Ford were
smoking when they designed it, but I'd be personally more than happy
for excess taxation for *any* vehicle that size - car, 4x4 whatever.
The L332 Range Rover is no better nor is the Grand Amazon nor any of
the new breed of MegaSUV.
P.
