Do you need anything more than a 320d?
Discussion
lostkiwi said:
And that's what makes them an all rounder for most of the population that have one. They can do everything to one extent or another. An estate can't do everything ergo it's not as much of an all rounder.
Surely the only things an SUV can do that an estate like a 5 series touring can't do is handle proper off road and tow over 1800kg? Which comes back to my original point - if you don't need to do those then why own one? I'm not trying to argue, I just genuinely and quite innocently don't get it.I'm probably reasonably demanding on load space and go anywhere ability. On the load space front, I regularly transport my windsurfing stuff around as well as guitar and amps and my cello, but I'd actually find an off roader harder work because most of the literage in the boot is vertical, not horizontal, (if I made your living room a metre taller, could you fit more in it?! Now if I made it a metre longer, how about then...), and the roof bars on an SUV are too high up to be accessed properly - I have never seen a surfer or windsurfer with an SUV, ever (although I have seen a kayaker, and that was like watching the chuckle brothers as he needed two step ladders and a mate to unload the thing!). On the weather side of things, I live in the country where the roads aren't cleared or gritted and grew up in a similar location, but I've never been stuck or felt the need for four wheel drive. I've owned a four wheel drive car and have driven off roaders on occasion, but the only time the all wheel drive's been useful has been in fields - snow, ice, farm tracks etc have always seemed fine to me in a normal car.
We might be going a bit off topic here though - sorry, my fault!
k-a-thon postings.lostkiwi said:
And that's what makes them an all rounder for most of the population that have one. They can do everything to one extent or another. An estate can't do everything ergo it's not as much of an all rounder.
But that's what I'm saying, they can't do everything. An estate can't do proper off-roading whilst an SUV can't do proper on-road handling. I don't know about you but I spend a lot more time driving on tarmac than I do driving up 45 degree mud banks. Fair enough if you tow enormous loads and actually use the off road ability but I suspect 99.5% of owners don't. I just spent 5 days driving around in a Range Rover on holiday and whilst I'm sure owners will say they have "car-like" handling, that's only true if the car in question is a 1980s Volvo. It was also far too big for the tiny roads we were on and frankly I don't quite see how they're meant to be considered the height of luxury as it was no quieter than a decent big car and had a worse ride. I also found it excruciatingly embarrassing but that's just me
RobM77 said:
Isn't that a 320d though? 
I don't entirely disagree actually, maybe a BMW estate with a nice petrol engine but that's down to whether economy or fun is more important. A big petrol engined beemer is a great all rounder but you still "need something more" if you like driving as it ain't ever going to be a track toy.You're projecting your needs, use and wants onto SUV owners Rob.
The simple fact is that the SUV will do everything you could ask of it and for some that's enough. A modern SUV is quiet, refined and comfortable, built to take abuse, tow anything if required and do it for years. They aren't a driver's car in the main (there are exceptions) but for many that doesn't matter.
Many of the things they can do aren't of interest to you but they are your priorities and choices. You don't live in an area where there's snow but others do, or regularly visit those areas, or are prepared to put up with other shortcomings in the event that if snow or floods hit they're able to move about still.
Personal priorities, personal requirements and personal choice.
The simple fact is that the SUV will do everything you could ask of it and for some that's enough. A modern SUV is quiet, refined and comfortable, built to take abuse, tow anything if required and do it for years. They aren't a driver's car in the main (there are exceptions) but for many that doesn't matter.
Many of the things they can do aren't of interest to you but they are your priorities and choices. You don't live in an area where there's snow but others do, or regularly visit those areas, or are prepared to put up with other shortcomings in the event that if snow or floods hit they're able to move about still.
Personal priorities, personal requirements and personal choice.
lostkiwi said:
A modern SUV is quiet, refined and comfortable, built to take abuse, tow anything if required and do it for years.
Basically the only actual difference to a normal car that you've highlighted is the maximum towing weight, which almost no one with a luxury SUV will actually use, and for which you've sacrificed some degree of driver enjoyment, which many more people will use.
I'm not bashing SUVs out of hand, just can't see how you can possibly think an SUV is a better do everything vehicle than a normal car. Not to mention the fact they cost more to buy and more to run too.
Edited by T0MMY on Friday 24th July 19:09
T0MMY said:
A modern estate car is quiet, refined and comfortable, built to take abuse, can tow most things if required and do it for years;)
Basically the only actual difference to a normal car that you've highlighted is the maximum towing weight, which almost no one with a luxury SUV will actually use, and for which you've sacrificed some degree of driver enjoyment, which many more people will use.
I'm not bashing SUVs out of hand, just can't see how you can possibly think an SUV is a better do everything vehicle than a normal car. Not to mention the fact they cost more to buy and more to run too.
It's no different to you sacrificing the sheer do anything nature of an SUV for the enhancement on one aspect of driving. A great many people don't actually care that much about driver enjoyment or handling as long as the vehicle does what they ask if it. Basically the only actual difference to a normal car that you've highlighted is the maximum towing weight, which almost no one with a luxury SUV will actually use, and for which you've sacrificed some degree of driver enjoyment, which many more people will use.
I'm not bashing SUVs out of hand, just can't see how you can possibly think an SUV is a better do everything vehicle than a normal car. Not to mention the fact they cost more to buy and more to run too.
Like Rob you're projecting your priorities onto the general population and presuming everyone wants a finely balanced chassis and good handling when in reality most wouldn't ever exploit the handling or chassis.
For many a car us nothing more than a fashion statement or means of getting from A to B.
Clearly the population like SUVs as sales are increasing faster than any other segment.
lostkiwi said:
It's no different to you sacrificing the sheer do anything nature of an SUV for the enhancement on one aspect of driving. A great many people don't actually care that much about driver enjoyment or handling as long as the vehicle does what they ask if it.
Like Rob you're projecting your priorities onto the general population and presuming everyone wants a finely balanced chassis and good handling when in reality most wouldn't ever exploit the handling or chassis.
For many a car us nothing more than a fashion statement or means of getting from A to B.
Clearly the population like SUVs as sales are increasing faster than any other segment.
Nobody disputes that last point.Like Rob you're projecting your priorities onto the general population and presuming everyone wants a finely balanced chassis and good handling when in reality most wouldn't ever exploit the handling or chassis.
For many a car us nothing more than a fashion statement or means of getting from A to B.
Clearly the population like SUVs as sales are increasing faster than any other segment.
Most buyers of SUVs would do just as well with a FWD hatchback. It's almost all fashion. If it was about 'go anywhere', they wouldn't come on summer tyres and have no underbody protection of any worth. It's an aesthetic, which is fine. But don't claim to be a driving enthusiast if you buy an SUV over an estate (unless you actually take it off road).
ORD said:
Nobody disputes that last point.
Most buyers of SUVs would do just as well with a FWD hatchback. It's almost all fashion. If it was about 'go anywhere', they wouldn't come on summer tyres and have no underbody protection of any worth. It's an aesthetic, which is fine. But don't claim to be a driving enthusiast if you buy an SUV over an estate (unless you actually take it off road).
Since when does the definition of a driving enthusiast include only driving on tarmac? It's like saying Paris Dakar isn't a real motorsport event.Most buyers of SUVs would do just as well with a FWD hatchback. It's almost all fashion. If it was about 'go anywhere', they wouldn't come on summer tyres and have no underbody protection of any worth. It's an aesthetic, which is fine. But don't claim to be a driving enthusiast if you buy an SUV over an estate (unless you actually take it off road).
My Defender was being used in a quarry on Monday. Deep water, mud and steep hills. Great fun. Next month it's in a magazine feature and quite probably on the cover.
What an SUV comes fitted with is a decision made by the manufacturer. Fitment or not of mud tyres etc makes little difference to its overall flexibility- it just introduces compromises in certain aspects to reduce compromise in others.
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 24th July 19:25
Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 24th July 19:29
lostkiwi said:
It's no different to you sacrificing the sheer do anything nature of an SUV for the enhancement on one aspect of driving. A great many people don't actually care that much about driver enjoyment or handling as long as the vehicle does what they ask if it.
Like Rob you're projecting your priorities onto the general population and presuming everyone wants a finely balanced chassis and good handling when in reality most wouldn't ever exploit the handling or chassis.
For many a car us nothing more than a fashion statement or means of getting from A to B.
Clearly the population like SUVs as sales are increasing faster than any other segment.
I'm not sacrificing a "do anything nature", a normal car can do anything that most of us will actually do. Alluding to me missing out on abilities I don't need is a little like me saying you've sacrificed the ability to carry 26 tonnes of raw sewage by not buying a tanker, regardless of whether there will ever be a point in your life where you would actually need to.Like Rob you're projecting your priorities onto the general population and presuming everyone wants a finely balanced chassis and good handling when in reality most wouldn't ever exploit the handling or chassis.
For many a car us nothing more than a fashion statement or means of getting from A to B.
Clearly the population like SUVs as sales are increasing faster than any other segment.
I'm also not quite sure how the way the car drives can count as just one aspect of driving. That is driving. The whole time you're driving it, you're feeling the way it drives!
The point is an all rounder by definition has to do everything. It will likely not be good at a few things it does but it can still do anything.
Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
lostkiwi said:
The point is an all rounder by definition has to do everything. It will likely not be good at a few things it does but it can still do anything.
Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
I'm not sure you understand my point...you can't bring up features I don't need and say that without them my choice of car would not be a "do anything vehicle". Let me give you another example...my hypothetical estate car choice has the ability to get under a 1.5 metre bridge, your SUV doesn't so is not a do anything vehicle, regardless of whether or not you happen to live at the end of a road with a 1.5 m bridge and need that ability. It's also not a do anything vehicle as it can't carry 26 tonnes of raw sewage, do you see what I mean?Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
Edited by T0MMY on Friday 24th July 19:45
lostkiwi said:
You're projecting your needs, use and wants onto SUV owners Rob.
The simple fact is that the SUV will do everything you could ask of it and for some that's enough. A modern SUV is quiet, refined and comfortable, built to take abuse, tow anything if required and do it for years. They aren't a driver's car in the main (there are exceptions) but for many that doesn't matter.
Many of the things they can do aren't of interest to you but they are your priorities and choices. You don't live in an area where there's snow but others do, or regularly visit those areas, or are prepared to put up with other shortcomings in the event that if snow or floods hit they're able to move about still.
Personal priorities, personal requirements and personal choice.
Oh no, I wasn't at all, I was just replying to what you said an SUV was good at. Perhaps I replied badly and should have used more generic examples. If I was talking about my priorities then we'd be talking about centre of gravity, tyre sidewalls, damper and spring rates etc. The simple fact is that the SUV will do everything you could ask of it and for some that's enough. A modern SUV is quiet, refined and comfortable, built to take abuse, tow anything if required and do it for years. They aren't a driver's car in the main (there are exceptions) but for many that doesn't matter.
Many of the things they can do aren't of interest to you but they are your priorities and choices. You don't live in an area where there's snow but others do, or regularly visit those areas, or are prepared to put up with other shortcomings in the event that if snow or floods hit they're able to move about still.
Personal priorities, personal requirements and personal choice.
You mentioned carrying stuff and towing, so that's what I was commenting on - and all that I was saying is that surely an estate car does that as well, just a bit better? What exactly can you fit in an off roader that won't go in an estate car? And where do road use only owners go that an estate car won't go? Moving on from that, how is any of it easy, better, more enjoyable or in some other way preferable? Genuine questions - I'm trying not to be argumentative.When did I say we don't get snow here?
We get loads in winter and most of the roads here aren't cleared or gritted.I think many have trouble understanding that some normal cars, for example a 320d, might be more fun to drive for certain drivers, than a car that seems designed more specifically for that purpose.
Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
lostkiwi said:
Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant.
On the contrary, I think that's the point I (and others) are making. We don't mind people buying any car they want, that's great and I love those sorts of interesting people, but it's just curious that everyday people who aren't that passionate about cars and just want an A to B tool choose a car that heavily compromises it's daily use ability and safety with it's ability to do a set of things that most owners will never do or even get close to doing. I guess it's a bit like that guy that does the London Marathon in a vintage diving suit - he does it for charity and because he's a bit eccentric, but if all the serious runners who just want to set a good time turned up in vintage diving suits with lead boots, I'd be confused - not upset or taking the piss or anything, just confused.Kawasicki said:
I think many have trouble understanding that some normal cars, for example a 320d, might be more fun to drive for certain drivers, than a car that seems designed more specifically for that purpose.
Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
Very true. Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
If I could have only one car, a manual 3 series would come higher on my list than a lot of 'sports cars'/GTs.
I would take an E90 M3 over an F-Type, almost any Aston, a 991 Turbo, etc. All heavily compromised to my mind, the Porsche by being impossibly fast for the road
ORD said:
Kawasicki said:
I think many have trouble understanding that some normal cars, for example a 320d, might be more fun to drive for certain drivers, than a car that seems designed more specifically for that purpose.
Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
Very true. Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
If I could have only one car, a manual 3 series would come higher on my list than a lot of 'sports cars'/GTs.
I would take an E90 M3 over an F-Type, almost any Aston, a 991 Turbo, etc. All heavily compromised to my mind, the Porsche by being impossibly fast for the road
The basic 3 series and the M3 do handle and drive better than many GTs and Coupés that I've tried and to be honest there's no real reason why they shouldn't, unless you're taken by a car's image and marketing (like most PHers seem to be). The 350Z for example platform shares with many other cars - it's a good car, but in my humble opinion not really anything above a 3 series and with a lot of compromises and negatives (steering and throttle response for example). To give balance to that view I should swiftly add that the 3 series and M3 could certainly be better and yes, there are lots of coupés that drive much better in my opinion.
RobM77 said:
ORD said:
Kawasicki said:
I think many have trouble understanding that some normal cars, for example a 320d, might be more fun to drive for certain drivers, than a car that seems designed more specifically for that purpose.
Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
Very true. Perfect example...I drove a 318is (e36), then I drove one of the first 350z. I would pick the bmw, to me it was the better drivers car.
If I could have only one car, a manual 3 series would come higher on my list than a lot of 'sports cars'/GTs.
I would take an E90 M3 over an F-Type, almost any Aston, a 991 Turbo, etc. All heavily compromised to my mind, the Porsche by being impossibly fast for the road
The basic 3 series and the M3 do handle and drive better than many GTs and Coupés that I've tried and to be honest there's no real reason why they shouldn't, unless you're taken by a car's image and marketing (like most PHers seem to be). The 350Z for example platform shares with many other cars - it's a good car, but in my humble opinion not really anything above a 3 series and with a lot of compromises and negatives (steering and throttle response for example). To give balance to that view I should swiftly add that the 3 series and M3 could certainly be better and yes, there are lots of coupés that drive much better in my opinion.
T0MMY said:
I'm not sure you understand my point...you can't bring up features I don't need and say that without them my choice of car would not be a "do anything vehicle". Let me give you another example...my hypothetical estate car choice has the ability to get under a 1.5 metre bridge, your SUV doesn't so is not a do anything vehicle, regardless of whether or not you happen to live at the end of a road with a 1.5 m bridge and need that ability. It's also not a do anything vehicle as it can't carry 26 tonnes of raw sewage, do you see what I mean?
A 4wd is a do anything vehicle in as much as in general terms it will do everything. Edited by T0MMY on Friday 24th July 19:45
It will drive down motorways, a roads , b roads, unsealed roads, farmers tracks, beaches, snowfields, flooded roads, tow upto 3500kg (which I'm pretty sure no estate car can do), move wardrobes, get the shopping, take the kids to school - pretty much anything pretty much anyone would ask of it. It's a jack of all trades and just as the saying says master of none. It's full of compromise but that doesn't stop it being the consummate all rounder. It's the Swiss army knife of motor vehicles. It may not do some things well (hurtle round a track for example) but it will still do it if you ask it to. A less compromised for the road vehicle may be a 4wd estate, but they aren't the crisp balanced chassis you refer to either.
Even if most of the population don't use all it's abilities it's still a vehicle that will do anything they could ask of it. If people don't want the do anythibg nature of an SUV they'll buy something else, but given sales of SUVs in this country are increasing faster than any other segment there are clearly a lot of people who like the idea of some vehicle to do everything. In some countries SUV sales are greater than car sales.
For some individuals it may not be the type of all rounder they would chose but that's bbecause they have set a different set of criteria. Their all rounder may well be an all rounder in their eyes according to their criteria but in the broader context of (for exampl) a manufacturer making 'one car for all people to do all things' an SUV would be the only vehicle to fit the brief.
Don't get me wrong, I have more than one vehicle (we have 4 between 2 of us) but that's because my SUV is modified for a specific purpose and we choose to run different vehicles for different jobs. That said, if we could only have one vehicle I'd think seriously about it being an SUV.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff