Enterprise car rental, misleading vehicle classification

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

SUV means - well nothing much, it is an American term that has drifted over here.

4x4 explictly means 4 driven wheels.

As the OP ordered a 4x4 on the web site, then they should have received one. The fact that Enterprise have tried to explain it away with some waffle about a different type of car is irrelevant.

I suggest a complaint to ASA is in order - company web sites are covered and it is not too onerous to complain. At least it stops anyone else getting caught out.

I would also say that you have a valid complaint that they have done a bait and switch on you, advertised something which they then claim is not available and force you to upgrade to get the same service. The fact that they then provide a higher spec car is irrelevant, you were deceived by their advertising and felt compelled to spend more money. I would insist on the difference being refunded and if they do not play ball I would go legal on them (aside from it is only £40 so too much hassle apart from revenge) - I would also involve trading standards.

lincroft1710

AdrianC wrote: »

not the previous sprogbus one.

"Sprogbus", much better term than "people carrier"

Clive_Woody

AndyMc..... wrote: »

You’re the first I’ve ever heard mention that.

+1 (4x4 is pretty clear to me in it's meaning)

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Clive_Woody wrote: »

+1 (4x4 is pretty clear to me in it's meaning)

I'm afraid the great unwashed public are pretty lax in their use of car terminology and will describe anything that looks vaguely like a Disco as a 4x4 regardless. To be honest, it's fair enough, without reading the badge at the back you can't tell, and 99.995% of the drivers have probably never properly engaged the 4 wheel drive system anyway. I've got a Q3 with 2 wheel drive and people talk about our 4x4 thing. SUV isn't a term that sits well because nobody really knows what it means (they are not sporty, they are often leather clad and have all the gadgets therefore not utility, but yes they are vehicles), whereas 4x4 conveys something that looks like a big boxy car regardless of it being entirely wrong.

AndyMc.....

AdrianC wrote: »

It's certainly not an unreasonable layman's use of the term, no matter how incorrect it may be.

He's talking about the current "SUV"-style 3008, not the previous sprogbus one.

It looks the same as any of the others in the class.

AdrianC

AndyMc..... wrote: »

It looks the same as any of the others in the class.

Which class is that? Rival to things like the Qashqai and Kuga...

AndyMc.....

AdrianC wrote: »

Which class is that? Rival to things like the Qashqai and Kuga...

And the Vauxhall, Hyundai, Kia the list goes on.

AdrianC

The forthcoming Vauxhall/Opel Grandland X is the same car as the 3008. PSA own Opel now, remember? Also wears DS7 and soon Citroen C5 Aircross badges.

Clive_Woody

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I'm afraid the great unwashed public are pretty lax in their use of car terminology and will describe anything that looks vaguely like a Disco as a 4x4 regardless. To be honest, it's fair enough, without reading the badge at the back you can't tell, and 99.995% of the drivers have probably never properly engaged the 4 wheel drive system anyway. I've got a Q3 with 2 wheel drive and people talk about our 4x4 thing. SUV isn't a term that sits well because nobody really knows what it means (they are not sporty, they are often leather clad and have all the gadgets therefore not utility, but yes they are vehicles), whereas 4x4 conveys something that looks like a big boxy car regardless of it being entirely wrong.

You would rather hope that a car hire company was a bit more familiar with what constitutes a 4x4, even if the general public makes incorrect assumptions.

NBLondon

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I'm afraid the great unwashed public are pretty lax in their use of car terminology and will describe anything that looks vaguely like a Disco as a 4x4 regardless. .

True - when many people buy them based on the look/perceived image/ safety claims and higher seating position rather than any need for or understanding of actual engineering. And manufacturers encourage it by producing cheaper 4x2 versions - Range Rover Evoque I'm looking at you here!

Mercdriver wrote: »

Many people would call a new 3008 a 4 x 4 despite the fact that you can't get it in any form other than FWD. They aren't right but not everyone likes using SUV as a term as it is an american term that isn't in universal usage yet.

I'd say SUV is a pretty common term over here though Ian is quite right that it's not very accurate - they are mostly not Sports unless you are comparing them to a van and rarely more Utility than a classical style estate car. It's just marketing waffle (see the current ads for the Seat Arona as an example).

Smaller ones are Crossovers - which presumably means a cross between a hatchback and a proper Utility vehicle. I would take that to be something closer to a car than an off-roader (e.g. Citroen C4 Cactus) but again - it's quite vague and marketing-y.

Back to the original point though - Enterprise should know better and call it "Small SUV/Crossover" and not advertise "4x4" unless they actually are providing a 4x4 version; so I think the OP is justified in a complaint and a refund of the extra paid for the Volvo.