4 x 4 - raison d'etre?

motorguy

andydiysaver wrote: »

If you look at the responses, a pretty good thread Sinbad, it's got people talking from both sides of the camp. That's the whole point of a discussion. I genuinely wanted to know why people drive these things because I don't understand it, I'll never be a fan of them and I've given my reasons

But we've told you WHY, but you still resort to age old stereotypes to define the drivers of 4x4s?

We just like them. End of. I dont wake up thinking "Oh i need to pretend to people that i have money therefore i will have to buy a 4x4".

I buy a car because it impresses me. If it happens to !!!! people like you off, then thats just an added bonus.

andydiysaver wrote: »

You talk about irrational, please tell me what is rational about owing a vehicle built for rough terrain, in the middle of a city?

What is rational about owning a Ferrari in the middle of a city?

OR owning a convertible in a country with such a wet climate?

Thats the whole point of cars - its about choice - driving what you want rather than it being a rational or logical decision.

sinbad182

andydiysaver wrote: »

If you look at the responses, a pretty good thread Sinbad, it's got people talking from both sides of the camp. That's the whole point of a discussion. I genuinely wanted to know why people drive these things because I don't understand it, I'll never be a fan of them and I've given my reasons

You dont genuinely want to have a discussion - you wanted to vent/rant because something has upset you about 4x4 cars or their owners.

I've made great points plenty of times, read my original post or get someone to read it to you as it has paragraphs in so is an enormous essay. Plenty on here agree with me, plenty disagree with me. Plenty of the opposing camp also write huge "essays", I bet you feel like you are drowning helplessly in literature and only Dr Seuss and big bird can save you....

You've made great points eh, if you say so yourself?!

You havent made a single decent point, as I and others have told you. The vast majority of responses have been to point out that there are very few difference in the ownership and thought processes between owning any other large luxury vehicle and a 4x4. You've chosen to ignore these in favour of stamping your feet and throwing your toys out the pram because everyone else wont just agree with you.

You also seem to have trouble with the concept of someone not wanting to read paragraphs of malinformed, baseless ranting, with their ability to do so. Not surprising, given the apparent lack of comprehension skills you've displayed throughout this 'discussion'.

You talk about irrational, please tell me what is rational about owing a vehicle built for rough terrain, in the middle of a city?

Because most of these cars arent built for rough terrain, they're built for the luxury market, and people buy them because they look nice, drive well, and they want them.

This has been explained to you quite a number of times, the reason you're still asking the same old question is down to one of two possible reasons - the lack of comprehension I hinted on above, or the fact you dont want the discussion to steer away from the one-track mindset you had when you started it.

Which is it, so I know how to address you in future?

andydiysaver

motorguy wrote: »

What nonsense - a speeding sports car is more likely to "take out" pedestrians or other drivers if driven by an idiot.

On the subject of Ferrari's versus Freelanders


how many Ferrari's do you see out there next to Freelanders?


If one in a hundred Freelander drivers had a bad day and had a smash and one in two Ferrari drivers also did that because it's such a powerful motor, do you think more Ferrari drivers would cause crashes every day?


it's simple numbers and concentration of those numbers made possible by a fashion propagated by a classy people like Katie Price

andydiysaver

sinbad182 wrote: »

You dont genuinely want to have a discussion - you wanted to vent/rant because something has upset you about 4x4 cars or their owners.



You've made great points eh, if you say so yourself?!

You havent made a single decent point, as I and others have told you. The vast majority of responses have been to point out that there are very few difference in the ownership and thought processes between owning any other large luxury vehicle and a 4x4. You've chosen to ignore these in favour of stamping your feet and throwing your toys out the pram because everyone else wont just agree with you.

You also seem to have trouble with the concept of someone not wanting to read paragraphs of malinformed, baseless ranting, with their ability to do so. Not surprising, given the apparent lack of comprehension skills you've displayed throughout this 'discussion'.



Because most of these cars arent built for rough terrain, they're built for the luxury market, and people buy them because they look nice, drive well, and they want them.

This has been explained to you quite a number of times, the reason you're still asking the same old question is down to one of two possible reasons - the lack of comprehension I hinted on above, or the fact you dont want the discussion to steer away from the one-track mindset you had when you started it.

Which is it, so I know how to address you in future?

wow, an essay, I knew you could do it!!!

motorguy

andydiysaver wrote: »

On the subject of Ferrari's versus Freelanders


how many Ferrari's do you see out there next to Freelanders?


If one in a hundred Freelander drivers had a bad day and had a smash and one in two Ferrari drivers also did that because it's such a powerful motor, do you think more Ferrari drivers would cause crashes every day?


it's simple numbers and concentration of those numbers made possible by a fashion propagated by a classy people like Katie Price

More irrelevant waffle.

Back to the question at hand, would you concur that a Ferrari (or any sports car for that matter) in the city in not rational?

motorguy

andydiysaver wrote: »

wow, an essay, I knew you could do it!!!

Try reading it then - you might learn something

sinbad182

I think its safe to say Andy's troll by numbers routine has run its course if he's resorting to witless one liners in response to his 'argument' being taken apart.

I'm assuming he's a troll btw - no one is really this simple, are they?

Strider590

sinbad182 wrote: »

I'm assuming he's a troll btw - no one is really this simple, are they?

Personal attacks is trolling too, trolling doesn't work if nobody bites, "it take two to tango".

And when people resort to Ad_hominem, then they really have already lost the argument.

Just saying........

sinbad182

Strider590 wrote: »

Personal attacks is trolling too, trolling doesn't work if nobody bites, "it take two to tango".

Just saying........

Actually no, calling a troll a troll or an idiot an idiot is not trolling, it's just responding to what's in front of you.

I've given Andy the benefit of the doubt anyway and assumed he's on the wind up, I dont actually think he's this dense.

Oh, and just saying, but telling people that they've lost an argument is generally the sign of someone who doesn't have anything worthwhile to put in themselves.

DKLS

StrongWork wrote: »

:money:

547bhp
502lbft torque
0-62mph in 4.7 sec

Out of the way poor people!

Nice, a mate has an Audi Q7 that has been somewhat tinkered with it currently has 1000lbft torque which is enough to spin the planet faster. Awesome machine. If I ever drop the lotto I fancy one of those Brabus G-wagons.


I actually think a decent 4x4 makes the ideal city car, great visibility, lots of toys to keep you happy whilst you in the inevitable jams, much better than sitting in some crappy Korean eco box.