Why so much hatred for 4x4's & SUV's?

vikingaero

I don't care whether people have 4x4s or not - whatever!

But if you are concerned about economy then 4x4s are less efficient than the equivalent hatch or estate car. 4x4s carry the extra weight of the 4x4 mechanicals which on some cars is like carting 2 fully grown male adults around all the time.

The high position and greater frontal area of 4x4s also mean that they are less aerodynamic and consume more fuel.

99.9% of the time people never use the 4x4 capabilities of the car so they would actually be better off buying the hatch/estate equivalent and putting on a pair of winter tyres for the few months when they need extra traction. This is what many drivers in Highland Scotland do. They don't want 4x4s and during the winter put 2 winter tyres on the front of their cars for directional stability and traction and leave standard tyres on the rear.

MrsE_2

vikingaero wrote: »

I don't care whether people have 4x4s or not - whatever!

But if you are concerned about economy then 4x4s are less efficient than the equivalent hatch or estate car. 4x4s carry the extra weight of the 4x4 mechanicals which on some cars is like carting 2 fully grown male adults around all the time.

The high position and greater frontal area of 4x4s also mean that they are less aerodynamic and consume more fuel.

99.9% of the time people never use the 4x4 capabilities of the car so they would actually be better off buying the hatch/estate equivalent and putting on a pair of winter tyres for the few months when they need extra traction. This is what many drivers in Highland Scotland do. They don't want 4x4s and during the winter put 2 winter tyres on the front of their cars for directional stability and traction and leave standard tyres on the rear.

No I didn't choose a 4x4 for fuel economy.

However I did make my choice of 4x4 one of the less thirsty ones.

catlover1_2

hi,


i had read this with a growing sense of bemusment .... I drive a car not a 4 x4 but surely comparing cars and 4x4's is meaningless unless you are more specific ... my partners 5 series is bigger then most 4 x 4 as is my car an Alfa , also the fuel ecomny is similar in fact the X5 is better then my petrol car (I looked at an X5 before I got a cheaper Alfa as i couldn't justify the price of the X5).

But if you compare one to a smart car or fiesta then of course its bigger but then a standard average salon is bigger then these urban little cars ... I drive over 50,000 miles a year so I prefer to do this in comfort, plus fiesta's etc.. are not really bulit to do 150,000 miles in 3 years.

Who's to say what a noraml car is ... btw the reason I considered the X5 is that I have horses and it would cope better on the unpaved roads, grass etc... at the stables and many horse shows ... I also have a lorry to transport the horses which gets much worse fual economy then a 4 x 4

Also there are vast differences between petrol and diesal , etc....

xx

tomstickland

Yeah I totally agree sports cars should not be allowed for normal public roads either

Considering that pretty bog standard Fiesta can top 100mph and a typical TDi might have 140BHP and be capable of 120mph, why "ban" sports cars? The original Lotus Elise had 117BHP, less than loads of rep cars.

bathgatebuyer

The biggest issue that I have against 4 x 4s is the additional height of the bonnet which makes them more likely to kill or seriously injure a child than a typical road car. While other road vehicles have a similar additional height - such as a transit - they have a purpose as a commercial vehicle. The city 4 x 4 driver has no commercial need to have a vehicle which poses such an additional danger.

The children and passengers inside the 4 x 4 may be safe, but any child hit by the front of a 4 x 4 is more likely to die because the front is not designed to 'crumple' and absorb the impact in the same way a road car is.

For that reason alone, I dislike them.

cyclonebri1

People in general dont dislike 4x4s. Here in the sticks quite a few folks actually need one.

What, I think they dislike, is people who clearly don't need them using them to chauffer the kids to school. That they give an image of physical superiority or invulnerability to the driver is yet another issue.

zeon999

very true but like I already said if there is a perpouse for the vehicle then thats a bit different if your gonna make use of it then you can justify using the vehicle.

But to use a big Range Rover to take the kids to school and back each day and thats all the vehicle does is just abusing the option of being able to use 4x4s.

Again if you somebody who does alot of miles and is driving round in your car alol day then of course your going to want to use a large vehicle which is comfetable to drive.

It using your head a little bit though which not all people seem to be able to do.

I would even go as far as to say that not all people should be victimised for using a 4x4, but the question was why do people not like 4x4's I answered the question of why 4x4s have such a bad name and I here is but its ok cos its not that big or there are bigger things than me or its not that bad to the enviroment there are worse things out there.

Of course there is and if you are making good use of it then fine I personally dont have a problem with it, infact to be honest I have never been that bothered by 4x4s at all, but the question was why do so many people hate them and I answered the question.

Only to get excuse after exuse for answering the question asked. If you dont want to here the answer to something dont ask the question.

MrsE_2

I'm not making excuse after excuse.

I asked for a real reason.

That they are bigger - not so, my car is prob a little smaller than my DHs

That they are gaz guzzlers - not more so than a lot of med-large cars.

zeon999

tomstickland wrote: »

Considering that pretty bog standard Fiesta can top 100mph and a typical TDi might have 140BHP and be capable of 120mph, why "ban" sports cars? The original Lotus Elise had 117BHP, less than loads of rep cars.

Differnce is the Ford Fiesta is much much more eco freindly than the lotus elise.

To be honest I dont see the point in even making cars which do 100MPH anymore not like you are allowed to go that quick. I used to think differently before when I was racing round on the streets myself but my veiw on this has changed since a car accident and I have grown up a little.

I dont understand why there is the need to keep making cars quicker and bigger at all, they should be trying to make cars better for road use but they dont.

If the maximum speed were allowed to go here in the UK is 70MPH why do we still have such a need to make street legal cars go over 200MPH and then moan that everybody speeds and everybody is such a dagerous driver?

Surely every UK car should have a speed limiter of 70 cos it is breaking the law to go any faster anyway, surely now they have such good GPS and black box systems why is it that all new cars sold in the UK dont have built in speed limiters for the zone your driving in?

zeon999

MrsE wrote: »

I'm not making excuse after excuse.

I asked for a real reason.

That they are bigger - not so, my car is prob a little smaller than my DHs

That they are gaz guzzlers - not more so than a lot of med-large cars.

This is pointless, cos you are making excuse after excuse you just did it again, that dont change why most people dont like 4x4s.

Yours might be smaller than most medium to large cars but most 4x4s have a much higher front contact area making them dangerous to other road users and pedestrians. FACT

They are very un economical. FACT

Wether you compare it to other larger cars, vans trucks or not is not really the point cos I also dont think you should have fast or big cars just for the sake of it either, you should buy for your needs and not cos of a fashion statement of look at me in my fast car or look at me in my big 4x4.