Are SUV's that bad?

prospect

Recently, in conversation with friends I suggested the possibility of buying a small SUV. I was shot down as not being enviornmentally friendly, and having no respect for other road users (they use up too much road space, yadda yadda, they cause pot holes cause they are so heavy yadda yadda).

This got me thinking. Are small SUVs that bad, when compared with other cars. I did a very quick little check, using cars that I could get the relevant info on, and I averaged the results I got.

I used all 5 door diesel variants, and all are approx 2.0L.
SUVs = Hyundai Tuscon, Suzuki Grand Vitara, LandRover Freelander
CARS = Merc C-Class Estate, BMW 7 Series, Renault G.Espace

Results (averages)=

Lenght (mm) - [SUV=4410] [CAR=4813]
Width (mm) - [SUV=1816] [CAR=1830]
Kerb Weight (kg) - [SUV=1607] [CAR=1795]
Fuel (l/100Km) - [SUV=7.8] [CAR=7.6]

So, the SUV is "smaller" in all respects, except fuel consumption and the difference there is only 0.2L per 100Km.
Why do people stereotype these vehicles so much, yet ignore far bigger offenders, like people driving large petrol executive cars? If I had used petrol cars I am certain the fuel consumption result would be reversed.

kaimera

First and foremost they are more of a danger to other motorists and peds if involved in an accident.

Unless things have changed since the last report I'd read.

big_al

They are budget SUVs so hardly fair to compare with high-end cars. Why not do your average sums with cars of approx same value or badge? Is there a 2.0 diesel 7 series?

prospect

big_al wrote:

They are budget SUVs so hardly fair to compare with high-end cars. Why not do your average sums with cars of approx same value or badge? Is there a 2.0 diesel 7 series?

True, but:

If someone was to announce they were buying a 'budget' suv they are tarred with the stereotype,

But

It that same person was to buy a 'high-end' car they would not. Yet the stats I have shown seem to suggest the cars are worse offenders!

Also, I would have picked a few 5L mercs, and big petrol cars, but I didn't. So the price is really irrelevant, it is more about dimensions and engine capacity etc.




BTW, I am not in this for an argument or anything, I am just curious about it.

Henry Ford III

They are big, high, heavy, and relatively thirsty. They kill pedestrians.

They handle and brake less well than comparable saloons and estate cars.

On the upside they are viewed as cool, and you get to sit up high.

Your choice.

prospect

Henry Ford III wrote:

They are big

Shorter and narrower than the cars

Henry Ford III wrote:

They are heavy

Lighter than the cars

Henry Ford III wrote:

They are relatively thirsty.

Not by a lot. And less thirsty than alot of big petrol cars.




Are thoughts like this misconception? Do we just think like this because when we think of an SUV we assume they are all like petrol Range Rover Sports, or Volvo XC90's. Should they not be classified differently. Or are they esentially the same, and large petrol 'executive' cars should be thrown into the mix...

big_al

Prospect,
price and size are completely relevant. With the espace and 7-series you have chosen two of the LARGEST cars on th road. OF COURSE the dimensions will be greater than the small SUVs (!!??)

Big Nelly

SUV is not bad, it is the amount of mothers in them who cant drive for there life, so the SUV is driven around the place like its an artic lorry, taking up the whole road, parked in the worst spots every and use every car in the car park for a game of bumping cars.

for those who know the area, sit around the Coolmine area when the kids are coming and going from school to see this happen, little jonnie comes out from school and mammy brings the artic up, instead of pulling in safely so car can move on mammy will pull up anywhere so that little jonnie doesnt have to walk the extra metre, this usual means blocking half the road while Jonnie hops in but then mammy 1 see mammy 2 so off she head for a chat while everyone is trying to move on, of course then mammy 2 sees mammy 1 so she pulls in the artic in the closest spot to mammy 1 artic and blocks up more of the road.

Ahh the joys of the SUV

maidhc

Per my rant above: Last year an SUV driver backed into my drivers door.. outside FBD insurance! They drove off. Earlier in the week an SUV driver backed in to rear 1/4 panel of my parents avensis in Dunnes... and dissappeared. Judging by the height of the scratches there is no way it could have been a car on either occasion.

I know a guy who dumped his L200 for a VW touran and still raves about how cheap the touran is to run in comparison: the tyes are about 1/4 of the price, the TDi does over 50mpg where as the L200 couldn't manage 30. And the Touran drives like a car.

I also have the misfortune of living near a riding school which seems to be frequented by motherly types bringing their darlings to lessons in their RAV4's and X3s. The road is narrow, and to say their road manners leaves something to be desired is an understatement...

And at the end of the day, why bother. We have a reasonably large farm and never found use for one, so what on earth do non farmer/builder types do? For the same money you can get a nicer car.

prospect

big_al wrote:

Prospect,
price and size are completely relevant. With the espace and 7-series you have chosen two of the LARGEST cars on th road. OF COURSE the dimensions will be greater than the small SUVs (!!??)

Price is irrelevant to this discussion.

Size is completely relevant and I am aware of that.
But my point is:

Why are the people who buy the espace and 7-series not tarred with the same brush as the people who buy the listed SUVs?

el tel

Most importantly, a small SUV could be seriously damaging to one's street cred

prospect

Okay,

so going by maidhc and Big Nelly, the stereotype is associated with the driver, rather than the machine!

unkel

Why would you compare a €100,000+ BMW 7-series to a LandRover Freelander?

Here's a comparison that is fair: for the price of the Freelander, you could get a very well specced VW Passat with a powerful diesel engine that would consume 30% less fuel. Never mind that it is also a better car in every respect compared to a Freelander

Or are you picking the cars to provide you with the answer you want to hear?

P.S. the 7-series uses less fuel than the Freelander too...

CJhaughey

The *SUV* is an american phenomenon.
Over there the Suv is over 5 litres sometimes 6-7 litres and huge.
we have little small jeeps here that aren't much more than cars with big wheels and we get all the bandwagon jumpers saying *Save the planet man" those big SUVs are just bullying me off the road and Killing pedestrians, Cattle and the earth!
but you don't hear the same bandwagon jumpers saying the same thing to the Exec up the street driving a big Beemer or Merc do you?

big_al

@ Nelly, in terms of 'footprint' on the road, they don't take up much more than your average car. although less than prospect's average cars. Because they are higher and 'look' bigger, you stereotype mothers collecting their children from school? What's your point caller?

Regarding safety, yes, the older versions didn't offer much in terms of pedestrian protection - that has changes a lot in recent years. In any case the increased driver visibility I would consider a trade-off. So, better visibility and and improving pedestrian safety in my book means safer vehicles.

And, no, I don't drive one.

maidhc

prospect wrote:

Okay,

so going by maidhc and Big Nelly, the stereotype is associated with the driver, rather than the machine!

To a degree yes, but there are still fundamental questions as to why you would buy one rather than a comfortable and powerful car. Even though we have a couple hundred acres in which I could drive a 4x4 I drive a focus. The downsides of a 4x4 just are not worth the occasional venture off road.

Big Nelly

prospect wrote:

Okay,

so going by maidhc and Big Nelly, the stereotype is associated with the driver, rather than the machine!

Well I would say that, if you did research you would see the majority of SUV bought in Ireland/UK are for mothers to bring Jonny around, watch even TV adverts and anytime its an ad about a product for mothers they are in an SUV.

Then you go onto the road and watch the way these things are driven by these drivers then you see why there is an atitude, I am not attacking all women drivers but even my girlfriend goes nuts looking at these drivers and is worse at abusing them than me! she loses the rag with them!! then you get the "WOMEN DRIVERS" so it aint just men.....

Big Nelly

unkel wrote:

Why would you compare a €100,000+ BMW 7-series to a LandRover Freelander?

Here's a comparison that is fair: for the price of the Freelander, you could get a very well specced VW Passat with a powerful diesel engine that would consume 30% less fuel. Never mind that it is also a better car in every respect compared to a Freelander

Or are you picking the cars to provide you with the answer you want to hear?

P.S. the 7-series uses less fuel than the Freelander too...

I have drove jeeps and learned how to drive in one but if I was buying a car or a jeep I would go car, would love the new 6-speed Passat, they are an animal

big_al

Big Nelly wrote:

Well I would say that, if you did research you would see the majority of SUV bought in Ireland/UK are for mothers to bring Jonny around . . .

Did you ever hear such sh**te?

prospect

unkel wrote:

Why would you compare a €100,000+ BMW 7-series to a LandRover Freelander?

Here's a comparison that is fair: for the price of the Freelander, you could get a very well specced VW Passat with a powerful diesel engine that would consume 30% less fuel. Never mind that it is also a better car in every respect compared to a Freelander

Or are you picking the cars to provide you with the answer you want to hear?

P.S. the 7-series uses less fuel than the Freelander too...

Okay guys, there is only so many times I can explain this, so PLEASE READ the posts I have made. Price is NOT RELEVANT.

Am I not dictating myself well here?

Lets do this as an example.

Two neighbours, each with an army of kids buy a new car. One gets a petrol Grand Espace, one gets a diesel 7 seater Grand Vitara. The price difference is not relevant here, okay!

Now, the Espace is Longer, Wider, Taller and uses 2.5 more litres per 100Km. Yet the guy with the Grand Vitara is the one stereotyped as not being enviornmentally aware etc etc.
In my eyes, the opposite is infact true.

or

If I posted a thread tomorrow saying I am thinking of buying an old S-Class, the only advice I'd get is to make sure I get the 5L or 6L petrol version.
If I posted a thread tomorrow saying I am thinking of buying a diesel SUV, all I would get is the usual SUV related abuse.

You see my point. Price is NOT RELEVANT.

prospect

CJhaughey wrote:

we have little small jeeps here that aren't much more than cars with big wheels and we get all the bandwagon jumpers saying *Save the planet man" those big SUVs are just bullying me off the road and Killing pedestrians, Cattle and the earth!
but you don't hear the same bandwagon jumpers saying the same thing to the Exec up the street driving a big Beemer or Merc do you?

That is exactly my point.

prospect

maidhc wrote:

To a degree yes, but there are still fundamental questions as to why you would buy one rather than a comfortable and powerful car. Even though we have a couple hundred acres in which I could drive a 4x4 I drive a focus. The downsides of a 4x4 just are not worth the occasional venture off road.

I never mentioned 4x4. Just SUV, i.e. a 2wd TALL estate car.

Big Nelly

big_al wrote:

Did you ever hear such sh**te?

great post, such intelligence shown, now do you have an arguement or are you just a troll?

big_al

Big Nelly wrote:

great post, such intelligence shown, now do you have an arguement or are you just a troll?

Yes, nelly. My argument was bluntly stating the daftness of your post. Sorry if that was too blunt. Oh, and before patronising an intelligent person, go dig out those old english grammar books. They'll help you do it so much better ;-)

AlanD

Here's a very interesting article about this exact topic

SUV Article

Well worth a read....

Big Nelly

big_al wrote:

Yes, nelly. My argument was bluntly stating the daftness of your post. Sorry if that was too blunt. Oh, and before patronising an intelligent person, go dig out those old english grammar books.

So what is your arguement? I have clearly stated and backup my facts with a location you can go and watch exactly what I am talking about. You just posted a pile of cr*p with nothing to back it up. Thats called a troll

big_al wrote:

They'll help you do it so much better

What? think you should take your own advice, if you can't post anything decent don't bother at all. Don't worry your so called opinion won't be missed at all

prospect

Ah lads, lets keep to the topic please.

Good article AlanD. But it doesn't really draw much conclusions. All it is saying is that SUVs may not be as popular in the future, but regardless they need to become safer and more efficent. But I would say this applies to all vehicles!

unkel

prospect wrote:

Good article AlanD. But it doesn't really draw much conclusions

I thought this summed it up quite nicely for someone that doesn't want to read the whole article:

4car wrote:

Take two cars: one a typical large five-seat SUV like any mentioned above; the other a conventional upmarket estate costing the same and carrying the same number of people. The biggest difference between them is that the SUV will be a lot higher off the ground and weigh rather more. This burdens the SUV with three specific problems: weight, a high centre of gravity and compromised aerodynamics. A higher driving position means a higher centre of gravity

Compared to our conventional estate, the SUV will use more fuel yet offer less performance. It will emit more CO2 and therefore hit company car drivers harder. It will have less grip, be less agile and require more braking effort to stop. In addition to this, it is also highly likely that it will be less refined and have a less comfortable ride

Then he gets on with the usual stuff about poor safety, 4WD that is rarely if ever used and has no benefits except in snow, which we don't really have in Ireland. Conclusion is that SUVs are a fad and their popularity will decline drastically

AlanD

I think the article makes some very interesting points though.

Your typical SUV driver could be a yummy mummy driving little Johnny around the place. Your typical SUV driver could also be a labourer who needs a tough car for work. The point is that many people do want these types of cars for whatever reason and I think each and every person has the right to purchase whatever they want, even if it is to keep up with the Joneseses down the road who have just bought a new X5.

Where a lot of the responsibility lies is with the manufacturers. SUV's in the proper anti-environment sense are big lumps of things that weigh as much as a planet. They need big engines to move them around at any sort of pace, use more fuel to keep them at that pace compared to an equivalent car and then are designed in such a way that whatever it hits will be destroyed. If Land Rover's assertions that they are moving with the times to create SUV's made out of lighter material, which could run with smaller more efficient engines and which meat possible future safety regulations, then I don't see the problem with them. The article is right that they will become unpopular but since they make companies a lot of money, it's in the manufacturers interest to move with the times and make them more acceptable to all walks of life. Not just the well heeled.

As for a small SUV? I see no problem whatsoever with them. They are practically cars on stilts.....

prospect

unkel wrote:

I thought this summed it up quite nicely for someone that doesn't want to read the whole article:

Okay, but he is referring to large U.S. vehicles.

In the examples I used, the SUVs are infact lighter.
Also, none are 4wd.

BnA

CJhaughey wrote:

The *SUV* is an american phenomenon.
Over there the Suv is over 5 litres sometimes 6-7 litres and huge.
we have little small jeeps here that aren't much more than cars with big wheels and we get all the bandwagon jumpers saying *Save the planet man" those big SUVs are just bullying me off the road and Killing pedestrians, Cattle and the earth!
but you don't hear the same bandwagon jumpers saying the same thing to the Exec up the street driving a big Beemer or Merc do you?

Agree 100% CJ.

big_al

Good article Alan but the author seems to have a slight bias towards cars. Anyway, whatever the SUV bashers say, they're just cars. Albeit slightly bigger (in general, prospect!). Is it because they deviate from the norm that 'normal' people will always have something to say. E.g., at the other end of the scale, most car drivers aren't exactly enamoured with motorbikes . . .

@Nelly . . . whatever, at all at all :-)

emaherx

I know SUV's kill peolpe
but don't Honda Civic's kill people also?
I know there is a diffrance in weight, but when I drive my Landrover Defender, I do so with due care.
I think you'll find more people are killed by speeding cars, then SUV's (not trying to imply that no SUV driver speeds)

prospect

big_al wrote:

Anyway, whatever the SUV bashers say, they're just cars. Albeit slightly bigger (in general, prospect!).

Wooahh there now a minute.
I am not referring to large, petrol 4wd SUVs, like a X5.
I am talking about the smaller, diesel ones, like a Rav4.

As said elsewhere, are they not just an estate car on stilts?

blastman

According to an article I read, SUV drivers can be more complacent because they are driving a large heavy vehicle which will survive a crash better than say, a Honda Civic. Also, SUVs are less nimble than the aforementioned Civic and therefore less able to avoid an accident in the first place. This picks holes in the argument that they are somehow safer than a normal car, a major reason why the mummies claim they need to buy them.

big_al

prospect wrote:

Wooahh there now a minute.
I am not referring to large, petrol 4wd SUVs, like a X5.
I am talking about the smaller, diesel ones, like a Rav4.

As said elsewhere, are they not just an estate car on stilts?

Me neither, but a rav or freelander or CRV are bigger and heavier than say a golf or focus estate (even one on stilts!)

prospect

big_al wrote:

Me neither, but a rav or freelander or CRV are bigger and heavier than say a golf or focus estate (even one on stilts!)

Well thats true I suppose.



So speaking of the smaller, 2wd, diesel SUVs, it seems to me that the mainstream 'issues' with them is:

1. Misinformation regarding their weight/size (footprint)/economy.
2. Perception of the drivers ability, i.e. usually a woman who is not capable or willing to drive the machine properly

Yes or no?

alias no.9

Here's a useful and valid comparrison based on one of the examples cited in the original post, the hyundai tucson. Like many soft roaders, the tucson is based on a humble family car, the hyundai elantra, so here's the comparrison based on each model with a 2.0CRDI engine…

The tucson is 4% shorter, 4% wider, 18% higher, 25% heavier, 11% thirstier, 19% slower to 60mph, it has a 12% lower top speed and can't seat any additional passengers. On a positive note, it does have 47% more luggage space but we're comparing it to a hatchback rather than an estate. Other than this all it's got is a higher driving position and a greater ability to mount kerbs outside schools making parking spaces where a humble elantra could never hope to go, who cares if it forces other peoples little darlings to have to walk out onto the road while restricting the visibility of other drivers to their movements. There is no price available for the elantra 2.0crdi in ireland, but in england the tucson 2.0crdi carries a 49% price premium over the elantra 2.0crdi. I'm not saying I'd consider buying an elantra in a million years but if you want to pay a huge extra price for a tucson, essentially a tarted up elantra, it's your money.

prospect

alias no.9 wrote:

Here's a useful and valid comparrison based on one of the examples cited in the original post, the hyundai tucson. Like many soft roaders, the tucson is based on a humble family car, the hyundai elantra, so here's the comparrison based on each model with a 2.0CRDI engine…

The tucson is 4% shorter, 4% wider, 18% higher, 25% heavier, 11% thirstier, 19% slower to 60mph, it has a 12% lower top speed and can't seat any additional passengers. On a positive note, it does have 47% more luggage space but we're comparing it to a hatchback rather than an estate. Other than this all it's got is a higher driving position and a greater ability to mount kerbs outside schools making parking spaces where a humble elantra could never hope to go, who cares if it forces other peoples little darlings to have to walk out onto the road while restricting the visibility of other drivers to their movements. There is no price available for the elantra 2.0crdi in ireland, but in england the tucson 2.0crdi carries a 49% price premium over the elantra 2.0crdi. I'm not saying I'd consider buying an elantra in a million years but if you want to pay a huge extra price for a tucson, essentially a tarted up elantra, it's your money.

Very good comparison.

big_al

prospect wrote:

Well thats true I suppose.



So speaking of the smaller, 2wd, diesel SUVs, it seems to me that the mainstream 'issues' with them is:

1. Misinformation regarding their weight/size (footprint)/economy.
2. Perception of the drivers ability, i.e. usually a woman who is not capable or willing to drive the machine properly

Yes or no?

YES and YES. They're just (different) cars and the stereotypical driver being a provisional licence holding, school-running mummy is unfortunate

maidhc

alias no.9 wrote:

Here's a useful and valid comparrison based on one of the examples cited in the original post, the hyundai tucson. Like many soft roaders, the tucson is based on a humble family car, the hyundai elantra, so here's the comparrison based on each model with a 2.0CRDI engine…

The tucson is 4% shorter, 4% wider, 18% higher, 25% heavier, 11% thirstier, 19% slower to 60mph, it has a 12% lower top speed and can't seat any additional passengers. On a positive note, it does have 47% more luggage space but we're comparing it to a hatchback rather than an estate. Other than this all it's got is a higher driving position and a greater ability to mount kerbs outside schools making parking spaces where a humble elantra could never hope to go, who cares if it forces other peoples little darlings to have to walk out onto the road while restricting the visibility of other drivers to their movements. There is no price available for the elantra 2.0crdi in ireland, but in england the tucson 2.0crdi carries a 49% price premium over the elantra 2.0crdi. I'm not saying I'd consider buying an elantra in a million years but if you want to pay a huge extra price for a tucson, essentially a tarted up elantra, it's your money.

That says it all really.

AlanD

prospect wrote:

Wooahh there now a minute.
I am not referring to large, petrol 4wd SUVs, like a X5.
I am talking about the smaller, diesel ones, like a Rav4.

As said elsewhere, are they not just an estate car on stilts?

Yep they are, however some are really not as safe as their car equivalents....check out EuroNCAP.....

joeblogg1

Right
I am bloody fed up with all the rubbish being talked about here (most of the posts have nothing at all to do with the original post anyway)

I drive a 2.7 Litre Diesel Ssangyong Rexton. It is a permanent 2 wheel drive switchable to 4 wheel drive if I go into a field in mid winter in west Kerry (which I am unlikely toi do)

Yes you can all say what the hell does he want one of those on the road for
Yes you can say who does he think he is etc etc etc etc

Read My Lips :Go drive your own eco friendly rust bucket and leave me and other SUV drivers alone!!!!!

My car is diesel with better mpg and less emissions than many of my previous autos.
I have better vision and less blind spots from the drivers seat than in any car I have ever driven before (including Mercs, BMWs, Fords, VWs etc etc)

I am constantly almost side swiped/rear ended etc by bloody idiots in Nissan Micras on the M50 as they appear to think that they are really driving a Ferrari and that their 1.0 Litre engine really develops 500 bhp, thereby allowing them to overtake on the inside and pull back out into the fast lane without indicating etc etc. Given this level of absolute genius driving out there , yes I do feel safer in my big car and I would have an even bigger one if given the choice. (Roll on the Humvie!!!)

I dont drive this car for status (it is a Ssangyong, not an X5). I could have bought a small Merc, BMW , Audi or Jag for the money but nothing came even close to the level of kit inside and the level of comfort in this car.

prospect

maidhc wrote:

That says it all really.

Well, although it is an excellent comparison, it still doesn't address the original point.

Who is less considerate to other road users, and less environmentally aware:

1. Woman with 1 child in a 2wd Diesel Nissan X-Trail
2. Businessman on his own in a 5L petrol S-Class merc

?

Zaph0d

Auto purchase always lead to an identity crisis: Am I a honda civic kind of guy? Am I a diesel driver? Am I a red car type?

in this case the OP wonders if he is a SUV guy. Apart from cost, the practicalities don't count for much when picking a vehicle for yourself; they're used to justify the emotional decision after the fact.

To answer your question you need to study the other drivers of such vehicles and see if you identify with them and their values.

To me a small SUV is contradictory. The message is 'I would like to drive a powerful muscular truck but I can only afford this jumped up noddy car that corners like a pram full of concrete. I am a loser."

dts

The diesel xtrail is 4wd not 2wd.
I hated SUV's untill I drove one. After the test drive I bought one and now I am looking into getting rid of my other car for a second.
As for:
Who is less considerate to other road users, and less environmentally aware:

1. Woman with 1 child in a 2wd Diesel Nissan X-Trail
2. Businessman on his own in a 5L petrol S-Class merc

Both!!!!!!!
oh and dont forget the scrotes who get a saxo stick a big exhaust on it and some plastic bits to make it go faster, they are just as bad.

At the end of the day an SUV is fun to drive:D

unkel

prospect wrote:

Okay, but he is referring to large U.S. vehicles.

No, he isn't. But granted he is talking about large SUVs. Everything he is saying applies too about comparing a same price estate with a small SUV, as in Passat estate vs Freelander. As I already quoted, the Freelander uses 30% more fuel

SUVs will be around for a while as they have their use, but people will laugh about them being used to ferry the kids around in a few years time, same as we're now laughing about the PT cruiser. A fad.

Unfair too in comparing a small 5 seater SUV to a 7 seater MPV. Some people have more children (to drive around) than others...

prospect

Zaph0d wrote:

Auto purchase always lead to an identity crisis: Am I a honda civic kind of guy? Am I a diesel driver? Am I a red car type?

in this case the OP wonders if he is a SUV guy. Apart from cost, the practicalities don't count for much when picking a vehicle for yourself; they're used to justify the emotional decision after the fact.

To answer your question you need to study the other drivers of such vehicles and see if you identify with them and their values.

To me a small SUV is contradictory. The message is 'I would like to drive a powerful muscular truck but I can only afford this jumped up noddy car that corners like a pram full of concrete. I am a loser."

Couldn;t be more wrong.
It is not for me at all, my wife mentioned it, as an option for herself. BTW we have no kids!!

I would prefer she got a better spec'd diesel car for the same money and because I was a bit 'anti-SUV'. But that is what got me thinking. What is the real difference? And my conversation with friends re-inforced my thoughts. Everyone seems too willing to jump on the SUV-Bashing-Bandwagon without considering the facts.

I am more of a sports coupe type, and currently drive an MX5. But it was a nice attempt at psychology there....

dts

If you need 7 seats which would you prefer to drive, and MPV or a SUV?
First a van with windows:eek: , second a cool looking jeepy thing!:cool:

prospect

unkel wrote:

Unfair too in comparing a small 5 seater SUV to a 7 seater MPV. Some people have more children (to drive around) than others...

As I said before unkel, PLEASE READ THE POSTS.

From post #20:

prospect wrote:

Two neighbours, each with an army of kids buy a new car. One gets a petrol Grand Espace, one gets a diesel 7 seater Grand Vitara. The price difference is not relevant here, okay!

Now, the Espace is Longer, Wider, Taller and uses 2.5 more litres per 100Km. Yet the guy with the Grand Vitara is the one stereotyped as not being enviornmentally aware etc etc.
In my eyes, the opposite is infact true.

both 7 seaters.

Anan1

There is, to my knowledge, no such thing as an SUV that is as good on-road as its car equivalent. Jacking up a car will by definition have a negative effect on handling, pedestrian safety, and fuel consumption. There are some people who genuinely need 4x4s. For many, however, they are visible proof of a disturbing trend towards a "f@ck other road users" mentality.