4 x 4 - raison d'etre?

motorguy

reeac wrote: »

Noone's come back with an answer to my point about the problems caused by blocking other drivers' visibility.

You mean like vans and lorries do?

Also, if you're sitting at the recommended distance from the highway code, you'll have ample view and braking distance.

HTH

motorguy

snowcat75 wrote: »

Footprint I couldn't give a rats !!!! about, I can guarantee I often have a bigger footprint than anything on the road...

If they want to buy an expensive 4x4 then fine, however dont justify either the need, or the pretense that's its needed, or even that there economic or cheep to run there not, but most of all when that urge to go "off roading" kicks in don't use my fields to drive in, as so many others seem to. Give me poachers and hare courses any day.

My point was, they're probably smaller than a lot of large exec cars.

The point is they dont HAVE to justify themselves to you. If they want one, WHO CARES.

motorguy

flashnazia wrote: »

Big tvs in other people's houses don't tend to affect others.

Big huge cars that: take up two spaces in car parks, threaten to run over small beings because the drivers can't set them, usually contain drivers that feel they can act like an a-hole because they are higher than other cars etc, do tend to affect other people.

I've never yet seen 4x4's taking two spaces. Certainly no moreso than other car drivers anyway.

Perhaps "small beings" should be better controlled by their parents and not let stand in the road? Also, i'd contest that a big 4x4 can stop quicker with those massive brakes and driving aids anyway. PLUS as the driver has a better vantage point, they're more likely to see an issue arising.

And i've news for you - !!!!!!!s dont restrict themselves to sometimes driving 4x4s.

Ultrasonic

Stooby2 wrote: »

It's a diesel.

In which case 35 mpg is terrible fuel economy. Yes it might be better than even older big 4x4s, but it is still crap compared to a normal diesel car (of the same age).

I would prefer fewer big 4x4s on the road but I understand it is a personal choice. But defending them of the basis of fuel economy just doesn't stack up.

RichardD1970

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I'm about order a RR Sport.

It's got 7 seats, an excellent driving position and the one I drove for 2 days averaged 36mpg; not bad for a car with that power/practicality.

Yes, they're the more expensive option, but if you can afford it (and I know mine will be used off road), then I don't see the issue.

CK

snowcat75 wrote: »

Really a range rover sport, a Client of mine had one a loyal discovery owner and pig farmer, It failed on just about all its uses, thirsty , impractical and most of all compleatly usutable off road with its big skirt, big alloys on Road tyres that continually had punctures, and endless mechanical issues.. He was a Pig farmer, Hes now got an old defender.

As I said many of these 4x4s fail because there trying to be all things to all people. Unless 4x4s are on mud tyres without the bling they fail at the use there advertised as.

Agree, the old RR Sport was rubbish, not a Range Rover (actually a dressed up Disco) and not sporty.

The new one, on the other hand is an excellent car. A proper Range Rover with full off road capability, damn quick and handles well for such a big car.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/land-rover/range-rover-sport

I would if I could afford it

Ultrasonic

reeac wrote: »

Noone's come back with an answer to my point about the problems caused by blocking other drivers' visibility.

Well I agree it is an issue, not just in carparks but also when just following one down the road. On a normal car you can see through the car in front, behind a tall 4x4 you can't. This reduced forward visibility makes it less safe for the following vehicle. Yes, I know the same is true behind a lorry, but they are big for a reason. And yes, I will leave an appropriate distance between me and the vehicle in front, but the lack of forward visibility is still always going to be less safe.

The other issue is people buying cars for a high driving position finding that as more and more people do the same that they then want a vehicle that is even taller... Perhaps we should have legislation for maximum passenger vehicle height before it gets silly .

StrongWork

DKLS wrote: »

Its people like the Op that make me want to go and buy a 4x4

:money:

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

Out of the way poor people!

gilbert_and_sullivan

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Agree, the old RR Sport was rubbish, not a Range Rover (actually a dressed up Disco) and not sporty.

Thats interesting, is the new model not built on the Disco chassis?

reeac

leosayer wrote: »

What is there to say? Ban high sided vehicles?

You seem to have a sensible strategy for dealing with those problems. For those who can't deal with high sided vehicles they should avoid parking next to them and avoid getting next to them at roundabouts.

I accept that big vans have a useful role in carrying lots of stuff but why big 4x4s for carrying a couple of people? Yes, avoid parking next to them but they still insist on parking next to me.

RichardD1970

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Thats interesting, is the new model not built on the Disco chassis?

No, to quote,

The new Sport has much more in common with the Range Rover than the old model, sharing most of its primary suspension and transmission parts and key components of its aluminium monocoque chassis (adopted instead of the original model’s heavy, old-tech, twin-rail steel chassis).