A green mans view of 4x4s

[MilnerR]

Buying a 4x4 is becoming ever more attractive, even if it's just to piss off the envious self righteous twonks referred to in the above article. The girlfriend of an acquaintance of mine is one such person. She hates the fact that I drive such an inefficient car and if I had two cars whose combined MPG was less than 40mpg she'd stop talking to me altogether - unless she wanted a lift, then her anti-car rants are forgotten.......

[GetCarter]

Several 2p's worth I'd like to add.

As for 4x4's being completely pointless on the road. Er... not round here they aint. I can't get out of my driveway in anything other than a 4x4 in bad weather (I know, ‘cos I've tried). Even when I was in the Lake District folk in 2 wheel drive cars needed me to tow them up hills in snow and ice (or they would have been stuck there for the duration).

I get miffed when people (read media) talk about 4x4s when they mean off road vehicles. My Golf is 4x4 FFS.

(Apologies if this has been mentioned) Bloody BBC 'Breakfast' the other day said it cost £41 to fill up a mini and £96 to fill up a gas guzzling 4x4 (pic of Defender in background)... What's that all about?? My Defender has an almost identical fuel tank size to a mini!

[RobM77]

GetCarter said:

Several 2p's worth I'd like to add.

As for 4x4's being completely pointless on the road. Er... not round here they aint. I can't get out of my driveway in anything other than a 4x4 in bad weather (I know, ‘cos I've tried). Even when I was in the Lake District folk in 2 wheel drive cars needed me to tow them up hills in snow and ice (or they would have been stuck there for the duration).

I get miffed when people (read media) talk about 4x4s when they mean off road vehicles. My Golf is 4x4 FFS.

Most people I know who live in places with uphill slippery driveways etc have 4WD cars, just like you, such as Subarus etc. They tend to be the preferred transport of foresters, farmers and gamekeepers etc (at least round my way that's what they all drive). Decent road manners with plenty of grip for crossing fields etc. I even made it across muddy fields in my Celica Carlos Sainz when I had it In my posts above, when I said 4x4, because of the context I meant this as a shortened form of "4x4 off roader". Most of my derogatory comments were regarding the pointlessness of having a foot or two of ground clearance on something like a Range Rover, because this seriously harms a car's ride and handling on the road.

GetCarter said:

(Apologies if this has been mentioned) Bloody BBC 'Breakfast' the other day said it cost £41 to fill up a mini and £96 to fill up a gas guzzling 4x4 (pic of Defender in background)... What's that all about?? My Defender has an almost identical fuel tank size to a mini!

That's just stupid! The size of the fuel tank on a car and the cost to fill it up has got nothing to do with the mpg it does. People are always asking me what it costs to fill up my Elise, and I've never understood the relevance. People also ask me how far I can go on a full tank! Equally, what's the relevance of that?!

[ehasler]

GKP said:

Unfortunately it gets very expensive to buy a bespoke car for each individual situation, so I'll stick with the practical (and fun) wagon for 90% of my motoring needs and the silly sportscar for my hobby/tinkering.

I don't really understand why people (especially those who claim to be motoring enthusiasts) say that 4x4s have no point on the road - are they really that blinkered?

I own a Range Rover (a nice burbling 4.2 V8 with sports pipes ) for several reasons, including towing my race car + big, heavy enclosed box trailer (even more pointless than a 4x4 ), lugging stuff to the tip, wafting around town when I don't want to use my (pointless) sports car, trips to IKEA and occasionally taking it off-road for fun. It'll also still get me around on the 2 or 3 days of the year when we get a bit of snow.

OK, so a normal estate car could probably do 90% of what my Rangie does, but what should I do? Own an additional car for when I don't want to drive the TVR but also don't need to go off-road or tow my race car?

Edited by ehasler on Wednesday 12th December 11:03

[RobM77]

ehasler said:

GKP said:

Unfortunately it gets very expensive to buy a bespoke car for each individual situation, so I'll stick with the practical (and fun) wagon for 90% of my motoring needs and the silly sportscar for my hobby/tinkering.

I don't really understand why people (especially those who claim to be motoring enthusiasts) say that 4x4s have no point on the road - are they really that blinkered?

I own a Range Rover (a nice burbling 4.2 V8 with sports pipes ) for several reasons, including towing my race car + big, heavy enclosed box trailer (even more pointless than a 4x4 ), lugging stuff to the tip, wafting around town when I don't want to use my (pointless) sports car, trips to IKEA and occasionally taking it off-road for fun. It'll also still get me around on the 2 or 3 days of the year when we get a bit of snow.

So what should I do? Own an additional car for when I don't want to drive the TVR but also don't need to go off-road or tow my race car?

If you're going off road, that's cool - you've got exactly the right car. However, my point was that for your intended use without the off road (as is the case for most buyers of off roaders), there are a myriad of cars that would do those jobs just as well, if not better. You can take your pick from cheap, fun to drive, fast, great handling, comfortable etc.

If you want an example, how about a BMW 540i? Good enough handling to be a laugh round a track, wonderful balance on the road, supremely comfortable long distance cruiser, a towing weight of 2 tonnes, huge boot, properly sorted ride and handling, lovely 4.5 litre V8, and it isn't trying to lug around a gargantuan Range Rover - instead it's only pulling 1.5 tonnes and will push (not pull..) you to 60 in 6 seconds and on to 100 in about 15! In a totally different league to a Range Rover V8 for on-road manners, the only difference being you won't be able to tow 3 tonnes and go off road, which are things very few RR owners actually do. Those comments aren't directed at you, as you may well be lugging over 2 tonnes and I know you go off road, they're directed at people who don't do these things (probably over 90% of RR owners).

Another example is my Dad's use. He runs a building company, and frequently takes setting out equipment to sites, tiles, bags of cement, even bricks! The sites are often muddy with rough ground. He also tows my racing car plus tyres and spares to race meetings, and travels long distances on holiday with my Mum. He's on his second BMW 320d, and it's the perfect car for the job.

Sports cars are not pointless - they're designed for use on the road, and what track characteristics they do have built into them usually only improve their on-road abilities (a track is just smooth tarmac after all, just like a road!). The difference with an off roader is that the off road capabilties (huge ground clearance, off road damping, off road diff characterstics etc) seriously hamper their on-road abilities. Compare Silverstone with the B660, and then compare a rutted forest with the B660 - it's quite clear that a car designed for two environments would give better road manners if it was designed for the former two, not the latter two.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 11:27

[GKP]

RobM77 said:

If you want an example, how about a BMW 540i?

I don't like them. What's your next suggestion?

[RobM77]

GKP said:

RobM77 said:

If you want an example, how about a BMW 540i?

I don't like them. What's your next suggestion?

You're on Pistonheads and you don't like a rear drive V8 that'll do 160mph!? It depends what you want out of a car. Virtually any normal four seater car will do the sorts of jobs listed above. There are a myriad of cars out there to handle every job, you just need to come up with a list or priorities and choose from there.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 11:31

[jesta1865]

RobM77 said:

If you're going off road, that's cool - you've got exactly the right car. However, my point was that for your intended use without the off road (as is the case for most buyers of off roaders), there are a myriad of cars that would do those jobs just as well, if not better. You can take your pick from cheap, fun to drive, fast, great handling, comfortable etc.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 11:15

i have a mate who uses a discovery for his company vehicle, ok its a tdi, not a v8, but it never goes off road, reason he has a 4x4 is because he works with boats, and its capable of moving over 3 tonne boats on the road, he uses it to launch and recover them, none of which an estate, 2wd (tried several times) or even pickup can do.

incidentally, he has used it in the yard to move boats over 10 tonnes.

i also have a mate who used to be in traffic bib and they have used range rovers to tow artics off the road to get the traffic flowing again.

having had a number of sports cars, and used them to commute to work etc, they are pointless in traffic.

you know you keep chipping away at the 4x4 owners arguments, but have exactly the same reaction as us 4x4 owners, whenever anyone has a dig at sports cars. the earlier poster hit the nail on the head, we have to stick together, banning one type of car will be the thin end of the wedge, i stand for freedom of choice.

oh and whoever posted, i would rather drive my 14 year old range rover than a brand new vectra, rofl.

[ewenm]

jesta1865 said:

RobM77 said:

If you're going off road, that's cool - you've got exactly the right car. However, my point was that for your intended use without the off road (as is the case for most buyers of off roaders), there are a myriad of cars that would do those jobs just as well, if not better. You can take your pick from cheap, fun to drive, fast, great handling, comfortable etc.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 11:15

i have a mate who uses a discovery for his company vehicle, ok its a tdi, not a v8, but it never goes off road, reason he has a 4x4 is because he works with boats, and its capable of moving over 3 tonne boats on the road, he uses it to launch and recover them, none of which an estate, 2wd (tried several times) or even pickup can do.

incidentally, he has used it in the yard to move boats over 10 tonnes.

See, I'd class launching boats as using it off-road. I think Rob's getting at the "fashion-4x4" market and even then is on dubious ground IMO.

[GKP]

RobM77 said:

There are a myriad of cars out there to handle every job, you just need to come up with a list or priorities and choose from there.

It needs to be four wheel drive and have 'Land Rover' written on the back. Apart from that, I'm fairly flexible.

[RobM77]

jesta1865 said:

RobM77 said:

If you're going off road, that's cool - you've got exactly the right car. However, my point was that for your intended use without the off road (as is the case for most buyers of off roaders), there are a myriad of cars that would do those jobs just as well, if not better. You can take your pick from cheap, fun to drive, fast, great handling, comfortable etc.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 11:15

i have a mate who uses a discovery for his company vehicle, ok its a tdi, not a v8, but it never goes off road, reason he has a 4x4 is because he works with boats, and its capable of moving over 3 tonne boats on the road, he uses it to launch and recover them, none of which an estate, 2wd (tried several times) or even pickup can do.

incidentally, he has used it in the yard to move boats over 10 tonnes.

i also have a mate who used to be in traffic bib and they have used range rovers to tow artics off the road to get the traffic flowing again.

having had a number of sports cars, and used them to commute to work etc, they are pointless in traffic.

you know you keep chipping away at the 4x4 owners arguments, but have exactly the same reaction as us 4x4 owners, whenever anyone has a dig at sports cars. the earlier poster hit the nail on the head, we have to stick together, banning one type of car will be the thin end of the wedge, i stand for freedom of choice.

oh and whoever posted, i would rather drive my 14 year old range rover than a brand new vectra, rofl.

Towing weight is a big advantage to a 4x4. Most cars don't get much above 2 tonnes for a towing weight, and a Range Rover will tow 3 tonnes I believe.

If you're in a lot of traffic then yes, a sports car is rather pointless. Thing is though, the ability to drive up Mount Kilamanjaro is a bit wasted in traffic as well That just leaves about 90% of the cars on sale in to choose from!!

jesta1865 said:

you know you keep chipping away at the 4x4 owners arguments, but have exactly the same reaction as us 4x4 owners, whenever anyone has a dig at sports cars. the earlier poster hit the nail on the head, we have to stick together, banning one type of car will be the thin end of the wedge, i stand for freedom of choice.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm all for freedom of choice, and I don't want to ban any type of car. I have absolutely nothing against people who drive 4x4s on the road at all! I'm rather keen on 4x4s to be quite honest - they're fantastic feats of engineering.

All I'm doing is questioning the logic of someone who buys an off roader for use entirely on the road, as they're crap at that. Your average modern Range Rover or X5 etc is in a different league to the early efforts that graced our roads ten of fifteen years ago, but they still have the road manners, ride and handling of a Vauxhall Vectra, with the mpg of a fast car, but the performance of a Micra! Their ability to go off road and tow heavy loads means that they're wonderful machines, but if you remove this need from the repertoire of the owner they'd be better off in that Vectra burning money.

I'm sure if people drove Gibbs Aquadas everywhere, we'd be in agreement! It'd be they're choice to do that, and banning them would just be wrong, but it's a pretty daft choice if you never need to cross any water.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 11:42

[RobM77]

GKP said:

RobM77 said:

There are a myriad of cars out there to handle every job, you just need to come up with a list or priorities and choose from there.

It needs to be four wheel drive and have 'Land Rover' written on the back. Apart from that, I'm fairly flexible.

[RobM77]

ewenm said:

jesta1865 said:

RobM77 said:

If you're going off road, that's cool - you've got exactly the right car. However, my point was that for your intended use without the off road (as is the case for most buyers of off roaders), there are a myriad of cars that would do those jobs just as well, if not better. You can take your pick from cheap, fun to drive, fast, great handling, comfortable etc.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 11:15

i have a mate who uses a discovery for his company vehicle, ok its a tdi, not a v8, but it never goes off road, reason he has a 4x4 is because he works with boats, and its capable of moving over 3 tonne boats on the road, he uses it to launch and recover them, none of which an estate, 2wd (tried several times) or even pickup can do.

incidentally, he has used it in the yard to move boats over 10 tonnes.

See, I'd class launching boats as using it off-road. I think Rob's getting at the "fashion-4x4" market and even then is on dubious ground IMO.

Towing the boat there needs an off roader if you're towing weight is over 2 tonnes though. Most cars that I know of top out at about 2 tonnes for towing weight, whereas something like a Range Rover will tow up to 3 tonnes.

[hornetrider]

GKP said:

RobM77 said:

If you want an example, how about a BMW 540i?

I don't like them. What's your next suggestion?

Rob, do us a favour mate, wind your neck in.

You seem to have the opinion that yours is right, everyone with an off-road style vehicle who doesn't use it off-road is misguided, ill-informed and merely needs pointing towards their nearest BMW dealership.

Who are you to decide what people should drive instead of their off-roader?

Oh, and you keep banging on about the fact they have no real advanatages on the road. I'll give you one - active and passive safety. Visibility and crash protection are invariably safer with large high vehicles.

I would rather be hit by a 10 year old Rangie whilst in a 10 year old Rangie than a 10 year old Mondeo estate. Whilst not a priority for me, for a lot of people its a key consideration.

[RobM77]

hornetrider said:

GKP said:

RobM77 said:

If you want an example, how about a BMW 540i?

I don't like them. What's your next suggestion?

Rob, do us a favour mate, wind your neck in.

You seem to have the opinion that yours is right, everyone with an off-road style vehicle who doesn't use it off-road is misguided, ill-informed and merely needs pointing towards their nearest BMW dealership.

Who are you to decide what people should drive instead of their off-roader?

Oh, and you keep banging on about the fact they have no real advanatages on the road. I'll give you one - active and passive safety. Visibility and crash protection are invariably safer with large high vehicles.

I would rather be hit by a 10 year old Rangie whilst in a 10 year old Rangie than a 10 year old Mondeo estate. Whilst not a priority for me, for a lot of people its a key consideration.

I guess that's about right, I am of that opinion Winding my neck in might be a good idea I think I've made my point.

Regarding passive safety though, surely a 2 tonne off roader with a high CofG is less likely to be able to get out of the way of an accident than a lighter and lower car? Basic physics surely?

The active safety for the occupants in current off roaders is good (early ones had a tendancy to roll over!), although every time I've driven a large off roader I've felt a bit bad about what would happen if I ran into a smaller and lower car. Most people look after number one first, but nevertheless it gave me the shudders to think of the X5 I drove for a few weeks hitting someone in a Micra or Fiesta etc.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 12:15

[hornetrider]

RobM77 said:

Regarding passive safety though, surely a 2 tonne off roader with a high CofG is less likely to be able to get out of the way of an accident than a lighter and lower car? Basic physics surely?

Well you are being very choosy about your arguments and in this case, accident scenario.

Evasive action capabilities come far far lower on the safety list than resistance to being smashed up I reckon, don't you? I mean, yes, you may be able to swerve out of the way of an oncoming car in your Elise, but into what? A tree? The wagon coming the other way? A kerb and end up flipping it into someone's garden while they are sunbathing on the lawn?

RobM77 said:

Every time I've driven a large off roader I've felt a bit bad about what would happen if I ran into a smaller and lower car. Most people look after number one first, but nevertheless it gave me the shudders to think of the X5 I drove for a few weeks hitting someone in a Micra or Fiesta etc.

Well, quite. But that's the whole point, no?

[RobM77]

We're talking about active and passive safety here though aren't we? The ultimate in active safety is probably a Caterham or an Elise, and the ultimate in passive safety is probably a Range Rover. Both cars fall down on the opposing discipline quite badly (wikipedia, for example, states that for a car to have good active safety, it must have "a low centre of gravity with good handling characteristics". No need to say why a Caterham has bad passive safety!!). The safest car combines both factors, so is probably something solid, lightish in weight and with keen handling - maybe a Porsche of some description?

[garybezz]

Ok then, my 2p as a driver of a large off road style 4x4.

I think its safe to say that nothing on the road, with the possible exception of goods vehicles, is ever used to its full capabilities - ie. how often does mr average in his Mundano carry 4 passengers, with the boot laden to capacity, flat out at the limits of its handling ?
So I drive something that most of the time can do things I dont need but occassionaly make use of what it can do.
I tow a fairly light race car but with spare wheels, parts, tools fuel etc it soon adds up and I much prefer towing with something well within its capabilities rather than swerving all over the motorway with an overloaded estate car.
I live on the edge of the Peak District so theres a few days every year where I wouldnt be able to get out of the street without 4 wd and if I dont go to work I dont get paid.
The alternative would be a 'normal' road car and a shagged out Transit or something for towing and miss a few days work but surely its more 'environmentally friendly' to just own one vehicle that can do everything I want ?
A final point, always overlooked by the yoghurt weavers is that, by and large, 4x4s last longer than 'cars'. Whats the enviromental benefit of say a Land Rover having twice the life span of a Vectra or whatever ?

BTW just to be clear, I think climate change is a load of boocks anyway

[RobM77]

Gazboy said:

Rob, next time you are in the area feel free to drive my modern city econobox over our local speed humps.

Also, do you really think a 2wd Rav4 is designed for off road use? It simply doesn't compare to an Amazon. A lot of these small SUV's are no more practical than small hatches but no one buys a small hatch for their dynamics or how they perform on track- my econobox exists soley to get me to work, get the groceries, take the dog to the vet and transport my kid to and froe- a Rav4 (for example) will do all the above and have the bonus of taking speedhumps in it's stride without breaking some seriously expensive components.

I'm quite near actually I must admit I've never had an issue with speed bumps in the Elise, but I know they vary from town to town and some are rather large! Personally, I just slow down for them, then when I'm out of town on the A and B roads I'm not hampered by a comedy CofG.

How are you finding the Supra compared with the MR2 by the way? Both look great!

[Hooli]

i cant remember who put it but

someone up the thread said:

2ft of ground clearance on a RR

your having a laugh right? my old disco with tyres 3" larger in diameter than standard only had 9" of ground clearance. i doubt even a unimog has 2ft of clearance.