Why do people buy 4x4s

Builderfromhell

I recently started reading on this forum as I am looking for a 4x4 for work.
I have looked at the photos of some of the posters 4x4 vehicles.
What confuses me and has always confused me is why do people buy 4x4 if they are unlikely to drive off road. I reckon there are essentially 3 kinds of people;
1. People who need 4x4s for work. These would typically be farmers, Quarry workers etc.
2. Off road enthusiasts. People who like to drive through mud and thta kind of thing at weekends
3. Others. The vast majority of 4x4s I see around towns and Cities are driven by people who don't seem to fit into the above two categories. These peoples motives are a mystery to me. Why spend upwards to 65,000 on a vehicle that guzzles fuel, is difficult to park, is too wide for narrow streets, has a big turning circle, depreciates enormously when you drive it out of the garage. Most of these people will never drive off road. It's a mystery to me.

Some of you seems to fall into category 3. My friends and I have discussed this matter at lenght and are frankly bewildered by the reasoning behind buying a 4x4 when you could buy a practical car.

peasant

*gets popcorn and the baning stick at the ready*

kaizersoze

peasant wrote: »

*gets popcorn and the baning stick at the ready*

Move over. You're hogging all the seat.:D

copacetic

I'm thinking about a 4x4 and wouldn't fit in 1) or 2). I do a fair bit of mtn biking and road biking and general activities around Wicklow. I'm thinking of a 4x4 for the really good sized interior space for bikes as well as the practical nature of the materials, washable etc etc. When I say 'good sized' I mean the shape of the space rather than the no. of litres (i.e high sided).

I may not really need the four wheel drive but have had plenty of times when it could have come in handy and the car almost got stuck getting up a hill in winter or getting out of a field.

I wouldn't dream of a people carrier or something like that. Most people I know into outdoor sports have either a 4x4 or a van.

Anyway, basically I think you need another couple of categories.

MrFoxman360

Well I use my Pajero for what is was built for, and I seem to find myself off road every couple of days, for one reason or another. I need it for its load space, its off road ability, and its towing ability, so I guess that puts me in the first group.

I take your point about many people having them and not actually needing them, but so what, i don't see a problem, every body gets stuff they don't need.

I find it strange that drivers of "4x4's" as they are called, seem to need to justify buying or owning one, with one reason or another. I mean people buy cars with 3 litre engines, and nobody seems to bat an eyelid, so I don't see why 4x4s are branded as gass guzzlers, when many cars have similar size, if not bigger engines, the mpg wouldnt be too different even taking the weight difference into account.

All the same, when you see a parent ( I wont differenciate between genders ) on there way to school in a 7 seat land crusier with two kids, on road tyres, with not even a hint of dirt in sight and no towbar to be seen, you would wonder why they have one at all. Safety reasons, or image reasons perhaps

mumhaabu

People are entitled to buy what they want and spend their money as they wish. I drive a saloon myself but have no problem with 4X4 drivers, people love to tar them all with the same brush, but I find them often more considerate and courteous than other drivers on the road.

People love to argue points such as gas guzzling and bad parking, however it is the driver of the SUV filling their tank and paying the excessive taxation, and as for parking the majority of Irish car park space are too small anyway and often littered with obstacles such as stupid trees and bollards. I'd love to cut down every "manicured" tree I see in car park and the invariable mega kerbs around it that take up almost half the car space.

I think every one is entitled to buy a SUV if they wish and the typical Anti-SUV rants here are nothing but typical Irish begrudgery.

Plus SUV MILFs are hot!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes: Cue Controversy :pac:

B00MSTICK

I just laugh at them tbh, no point in getting upset over it.

bitemybanger

Most of the lads posting here would be genuine 4x4 off roaders but i see where your coming from, every day i see Range Rovers, Defenders even Hummers on the roads, theese are serious off road machines but id say less then 1% of them have ever seen as much as a dirt track and never will, but when you spend 100+k on a Range Rover id like to get the most out of it:)

eoferrall

mumhaabu wrote: »

People are entitled to buy what they want and spend their money as they wish. I drive a saloon myself but have no problem with 4X4 drivers, people love to tar them all with the same brush, but I find them often more considerate and courteous than other drivers on the road.:/

I am the exact opposite, when i cycled to college it was always women in Range rovers that would nearly take you out, think they literally can not see around them in these vehicles. Still happens now when i cycle instead of driving! You think with the bad press they receive they would make more effort to observe the road around them. But you get this with other cars also before I get crucified here!

Slig

Builderfromhell wrote: »

I recently started reading on this forum as I am looking for a 4x4 for work.
I have looked at the photos of some of the posters 4x4 vehicles.
What confuses me and has always confused me is why do people buy 4x4 if they are unlikely to drive off road. I reckon there are essentially 3 kinds of people;
1. People who need 4x4s for work. These would typically be farmers, Quarry workers etc.
2. Off road enthusiasts. People who like to drive through mud and thta kind of thing at weekends
3. Others. The vast majority of 4x4s I see around towns and Cities are driven by people who don't seem to fit into the above two categories. These peoples motives are a mystery to me. Why spend upwards to 65,000 on a vehicle that guzzles fuel, is difficult to park, is too wide for narrow streets, has a big turning circle, depreciates enormously when you drive it out of the garage. Most of these people will never drive off road. It's a mystery to me.

Some of you seems to fall into category 3. My friends and I have discussed this matter at lenght and are frankly bewildered by the reasoning behind buying a 4x4 when you could buy a practical car.

Suppose I would fit into category 3,
Mine has nothing to do with work, sure the high ground clearance helps on site and the rear is handy for opening out drawings if its raining but everybody else in the office drives a car (except the secratary who has a rav 4)
It is never off road (properly). its equiped with road tyres and has no bullbars, mudflaps or extra lights.
On rare occasions however I do tow our boat (2 ton, 25ft trailer) so legally I need a 4x4 and there is no way I would even attempt to pull it up the slip way in a car. I also tow a 3.5 ton mini digger about once every 2 months. Therefor I only use the jeep properly once or twice a month but still drive it to work every day.
Does that mean that I should put loads of chrome bars, highlift jacks and sand ladders on so that I look like category 2 or just coat it in dirt so that it looks like a category 1?
I'm happy to drive what I do and dont need to justify it to anybody, jesus its like askin opinions about a convertible:D

Mahatma coat

or convertible 4X4's




I've found that when I started drivin the cruiser for work I got used to the higher drivin position, I like to drive my little BMW too but I do find that I generaly have a preference for the Landcruisrers

Just got my third one this week so I have the full range now

Slig

What I dont understand is the Nissan Quashai(?) or the Hyundai Tuson or the new ford SUV thingy. What is the point in something that:
1) has less room on the inside than an MPV but is bigger on the outside
2) worse driving charactistics, road holding, braking distance and turning circle than a car of equal size.
3) Costs more to buy, tax, insure and run than a standard car or MPV plus constant 4x4 must wear tyres a lot faster.
4) and makes you a target for vandalism.

wet-paint

Just got my first Jeep, a 1994 Diesel Cherokee there this week for the grand price of NoPounds. Sweet.
I got mine to go kayaking with. It's got a roof rack, loads of space (I used to bring four boats, four people and four big bags of gear in my Ford fiesta til the suspension started giving me jip), decent clearance for scouting rivers up sh1tty boreens, I'll pull the club trailer when we're off on kayaking trips, and I also go up the bog with it. Using 30% SVO with it too, keeping the costs down.
That said, it's the second car, and I'll use the Festy for commuting and ****.

And the Jeep is easy to park and drive in town.

oflynno

well
i have a 1993 toyota hilux crewcab
because
i'm always arsing around with cars and tractors and plant,building stuff and using the trailer for not-work stuff
it pulls the trailer safely
i have 3 kids i fire in the back all the time and they are safe too

so..me happy

trishasaffron

I think its the suburban ones that annoy. I drove into Blackrock Shopping Centre (old Roches) car park today - the first 10 parked car were all 4x4s - BMW, Land Rover, Lexus.....real off road terrain there!

Two things that makes me laugh when people talk about the need for them when they have kids:
1. Proven relative lack of safety of such vehicles
2. Height of the seats means kids can't get into the seats themselves but have to be helped in.

But then I came from a family of 9 all of whom fitted in a saloon car. Them b the days.

Slig

trishasaffron wrote: »

I think its the suburban ones that annoy. I drove into Blackrock Shopping Centre (old Roches) car park today - the first 10 parked car were all 4x4s - BMW, Land Rover, Lexus.....real off road terrain there!

Two things that makes me laugh when people talk about the need for them when they have kids:
1. Proven relative lack of safety of such vehicles
2. Height of the seats means kids can't get into the seats themselves but have to be helped in.

But then I came from a family of 9 all of whom fitted in a saloon car. Them b the days.

God I remember when cars didnt even have seatbelts in the back...and I'm not even 26 yet:eek:
The safety excuse doesnt wash anymore, anybody concerned about their families safety will check the NCAP safety rating of the car not how many wheels have drive(also very difficult to get a rating on most 4x4s).
Generally people carriers are designed to carry families safely while 4x4s are designed to drive over stuff:D

oflynno

memories,what!

i used to go down to my uncles as a youngster

he had a datsun sunny
him driving,wife in passenger seat with one kid
nana in the back
me and two more kids in the back with nana
and the baby in a moses basket across our laps headin' everywhere

then he got a triumph acclaim and we had loads of room,we thought.

Golferx

trishasaffron wrote: »

I think its the suburban ones that annoy. I drove into Blackrock Shopping Centre (old Roches) car park today - the first 10 parked car were all 4x4s - BMW, Land Rover, Lexus.....real off road terrain there!

.............

And why, in any sense of the word, could anyone be "annoyed" by the choice of vehicle of another road user? Sour grapes? Jealousy? What were you driving yourself?

I assume you were equally miffed by any vans carrying less than a full load?

Any MPV with less than 7 occupants?

What about anything with more than 100bhp? Totally unnecessary to have anything more than that in an urban environment, if one wants to dictate what others are "allowed" drive.

trishasaffron wrote: »

............

Two things that makes me laugh when people talk about the need for them when they have kids:
1. Proven relative lack of safety of such vehicles
2. Height of the seats means kids can't get into the seats themselves but have to be helped in.
............

What lack of safety is proven? (Don't even think about bringing some American so-called test or survey)

Of course kids can get into the seats themselves, in exactly the same way they get into the seats of a car, or an MPV, heck it's even easier than getting on to a Dublin Bus.

Some of the 4x4 opposition is so laughable. Critics pick the most obscure things to make their point, and usually make themselves look rather foolish with the ensuing nonsense.

I drive a Pathfinder.
It's big, it's comfortable, it's spacious, and it's one hell of a practical car. It's easy to drive and easy to park. It's not economical, but, we cannot have everything. And nobody, especially the friends of our D4 cycling Minister (you know, the one with the State car following him with his bags) has any business telling me what I can and cannot buy/drive.

Builderfromhell

Builderfromhell wrote: »

I recently started reading on this forum as I am looking for a 4x4 for work.
I have looked at the photos of some of the posters 4x4 vehicles.
What confuses me and has always confused me is why do people buy 4x4 if they are unlikely to drive off road. I reckon there are essentially 3 kinds of people;
1. People who need 4x4s for work. These would typically be farmers, Quarry workers etc.
2. Off road enthusiasts. People who like to drive through mud and that kind of thing at weekends
3. Others. The vast majority of 4x4s I see around towns and Cities are driven by people who don't seem to fit into the above two categories. These peoples motives are a mystery to me. Why spend upwards to 65,000 on a vehicle that guzzles fuel, is difficult to park, is too wide for narrow streets, has a big turning circle, depreciates enormously when you drive it out of the garage. Most of these people will never drive off road. It's a mystery to me.

Some of you seems to fall into category 3. My friends and I have discussed this matter at lenght and are frankly bewildered by the reasoning behind buying a 4x4 when you could buy a practical car.

Just to clarify, I am not saying I dis-agree with people driving 4x4s nor am I| suggesting that people shouldn't drive them. The point I was making is that I don't understand why people choose them over other vehicles. I also don't understand why people play golf instead of just walking in fields, or fish for hours when you can buy fish in a supermarket, or get studs put in their tongues etc. etc. but I am not saying they shouldn't.

It's the idea of spending around €60,000 on a BMW 4x4 which will never be driven off road. I just don't get it. The people who have to design these things must be perplexed. DESIGN BRIEF; Design a vehicle that is comfortable on the road but can drive along streams. Everyone knows the more expensive models will never be off road ie. Volvo, BMW, Porsche.

Tackleberry.

i would like to have a car along with my 4x4 but don't want another insurance policy (bill) i only use mine for bringing dogs around on a days shooting but also i think that all the 4x4 in the cities are someday going to hit the bog as i don't anyone trashing a new 4x4 the way the way the old one are, I SAY let the rich kids break in your next off roader.

Sam Kade

wet-paint wrote: »

Just got my first Jeep, a 1994 Diesel Cherokee there this week for the grand price of NoPounds. Sweet.
I got mine to go kayaking with. It's got a roof rack, loads of space (I used to bring four boats, four people and four big bags of gear in my Ford fiesta til the suspension started giving me jip), decent clearance for scouting rivers up sh1tty boreens, I'll pull the club trailer when we're off on kayaking trips, and I also go up the bog with it. Using 30% SVO with it too, keeping the costs down.
That said, it's the second car, and I'll use the Festy for commuting and ****.

And the Jeep is easy to park and drive in town.

You got a 94 jeep cherokee for nothing, I thought they were paying people to take them away:D

Slig

Golferx wrote: »

And why, in any sense of the word, could anyone be "annoyed" by the choice of vehicle of another road user? Sour grapes? Jealousy? What were you driving yourself?

I love that, its everybodys defence on this forum:D. They attack a car that your driving so you try have a go at theirs

Golferx wrote: »

What lack of safety is proven? (Don't even think about bringing some American so-called test or survey)

Longer braking distances, generally more top heavy and big suspension travel makes them easier to tumble, can definately say the rwd ones are a handful in the wet.

I love the pathfinder, given a choice that would my next 4x4

KELTICKNIGHTT

have a cherokee [liberty] commerical which i use for work and also use for offroading,car wouldnt work for me and either would a van,i wouldnt spend 60k on anything with wheels but to each to there own,your always going to get complainers here about 4x4, or something else,maybe you should complain about the 58% tax on fuel which would better all,as in belgium just started doing reduceing tax on fuel to help people,

pjordan

Actually I've discovered to my detriment more than once in the last year since I bought a Landrover Freelander, that the entire off road thing for many of these so called off road vehicles is a misnomer.

Admittedly they are pretty good in moderately rough terrain and the extra clearance over that of a car is good for forest roads, tracks and green field driving (I do a good bit of MTBing, walking and canoeing which tends to bring me to places like that) but anything more challenging than that, especially without specialist tyres and yer likely to find yerself stuck.

Mind you many in rural Ireland would argue that the state of some of the regional roads requires the use of a 4X4 which is theoritically more up to the wear and tear imposed on it by the state of and potholes on such roads.

Course the irony of this is that much of the state of these roads is caused by the heavier impact of such 4x4's, bigger and bigger tractors and the increasing amount of truck traffic delivering building materials to rural building sites.

KELTICKNIGHTT

roads in ireland cant even live to cars yet alone 4x4s,van,trucks artics
artics are too big for alot secondly roads,thats why we pay such high road taxes for crap roads and tax heavy on fuel[58%]

wet-paint

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

roads in ireland cant even live to cars yet alone 4x4s,van,trucks artics
artics are too big for alot secondly roads,thats why we pay such high road taxes for crap roads and tax heavy on fuel[58%]

What the ruddy hell does that mean?
We pay taxes because artics (sic) are too big for roads? Roads in Ireland can't live to cars?

KELTICKNIGHTT

roads are crap in conditions and size specialy with artics, do you understand that,and we pay enough in taxes,so they could drop tax on fuel to help

peasant

Kelticknight ..please don't stray from the topic

KELTICKNIGHTT

peasant wrote: »

Kelticknight ..please don't stray from the topic

well i use for work mostly as i need it with road conditions i go too,off beaten track,but wouldnt buy 50k up wards as would pay me too

fofs

I live in the country and acar just does not provide reliable transport in the winter, as I am an older gent 60 plus I find the 4x4 keeps me from having to shovel the driveway. Even when schools are closed because of deep snow I just go to 4 wheel low range and carry on, to sum up thats why I own a 4x4.