A green mans view of 4x4s

[DucatiGary]

you need a 4x4 to get round where i live.

simple as that really, my driveway is 3/4 mile and could do with a resurface!

then you have single track lanes for 20 mins in each direction, that are at present, flooded.

last year when it snowed we rescued 3 people from the fiesta they where driving in, it was completly snowed in on a back lane, we even took them an hour to meet up with one of the lads father, where they got in with him to carry on home.

but most people have them round here, its only scummy town folk who we try our best to avoid anyways, who have a jelous problem with 4x4's.

so it would seem.

[andy400]

I drive a big off-roader, and here's my 2p worth:

1.Climate change is an unproven tax-collection tool.
2.Even we assume that it's true:
2A.Getting rid of 4x4s or other 'guzzlers' would be pissing in the wind overall.
2B.Mine has only done half the national average mileage per year so there's my carbon footprint halved.
2C.I drive at economical speeds and so I'm more likely to achive the stated carbon amount than over-revving, speeding nutters in Saxos or repmobiles.
2D.I most likely won't get rid of it until it's about ten years old, so there's another four cars or so that won't need building.
3.I obey speed limits, and try and stay well under in built up 'child-likely' areas, so don't tell me that I'm more likely to kill a child than an idiot in a small car doing well over the 30 limit - and there's plenty of 'em.
4.It's not the reason I bought it, but there's so many maniacs on the road these days that I really like being in a 3ton machine with FO big girders for a chassis.
5.I don't try and break any country-lane speed records, but as far as I'm concerned the handling is not far removed from the average road car and as such results in no compromise in safety.
6.Further to 3, I try and stay within the speed limits and drive cautiously at all times, so should I hit and destroy a smaller vehicle then it's probably their fault. Besides which, if size-for-size comparison was the key to safety then we should ban all cars as they are dangerous for those on motorbikes or bicycles, or vice-versa.
7.I like my 4x4, and despite what the govt is trying to do, we are still supposed to be a free country.
8.I need and use the off-road capability.
9.I could go on, but I'm off for lunch.

[RobM77]

Gazboy said:

RobM77 said:

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!

Well of course I slow down for them, like everyone else I do about 10-15mph over them, any faster feels like abuse, any slower feels like obstruction of the queens highway.

I can't imagine a Rav4 would have significantly lower vehicle dynamics than a Corolla, and would the buyers of either really give a shit? Both are white goods for commuting & domestics.

O/T- Supra is more capable, carries huge speed, MR2 is more rewarding & feels like a garment.

The biggest factor when it comes to dynamics is centre of gravity, so yes, the Corolla would be a long way in advance of the Rav4 I would have thought, and if it's not, they need to try harder with the Corolla's setup! I can't confess to having driven either though. However, I have driven and X3 and an X5 and compared with a 3 series and a 5 series, and, whilst all four make the best use of what they've got, the CofG in the X models severely compromises both ride and handling. Basic physics at the end of the day. Incidentally, this is why the Boxster is such a cracking drive - the engine's flat and it's practically on the floor!

Andy & DucatiGary: You use your off roaders off road, so that to me makes perfect sense . Gary though - you might be surprised to hear that I do actually live in the country admist single track roads. However, the land is fairly flat so when it snows 2WD is fine, and we're down South, so we rarely get more than an inch or so settling. We do suffer from flooding from two or three nearby rivers, but it's no more than a few times a year and there's usually a way out somehow!

[DucatiGary]

RobM77 said:

However, the land is fairly flat so when it snows 2WD is fine, and we're down South, so we rarely get more than an inch or so settling.

I live in the hills.

you also know i just sold my elise . . . . . . becuase no matter how hard i tried to live with it, it just wasnt happening.

as for snow, last year we had about 3 foot of the stuff for 2 weeks, not really the same as your massive inch or two, but you get the picture

the floods at the weekend where about 40cm high across the road, in several places.

the elise would have been almost up to its roof in water .. .. .. .. .. .. .. im not talking big puddles dude . . . . . .

anyways, im off for a drive round town to do nothing more than look down at the poor people.

[RobM77]

DucatiGary said:

I live in the hills.

you also know i just sold my elise . . . . . . becuase no matter how hard i tried to live with it, it just wasnt happening.

as for snow, last year we had about 3 foot of the stuff for 2 weeks, not really the same as your massive inch or two, but you get the picture

the floods at the weekend where about 40cm high across the road, in several places.

the elise would have been almost up to its roof in water .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

As I said above, you've got the right car for the job.

[ehasler]

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.

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.

Firstly, how do you know who takes their 4x4 off road, or up snow covered tracks in the Lake District? Maybe that gleaming 70k Rangie you see in Chelsea spends half it's time doing 4x4 type stuff up in the Highlands, maybe it doesn't. Anyway, what does it have to do with you?

And what about personal choice? I bought a RR as I like them. OK, it may not handle quite as well as an M5 estate, but the higher view makes it a much nicer car to drive in traffic and around town. In fact, the extra visibility makes it safer to drive than normal cars in some cases.

And to a lot of people, sports cars ARE pointless. Just as pointless as 4x4s. How many bags of shopping and passengers can you get in your Elise?

You're spouting a load of opinion as facts, and in many cases you're totally wrong. Just like the folk who are currently attacking 4x4s, and who will probably aim their wrath at sports cars next. After all, you could argue that there is more need for a car that can drive off road than one that can do 200mph.

RobM77 said:

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

In my case, why would I want a RWD car that will do 160mph when I already have one that will do 190mph and is more fun and handles better than your BMW example, and when what I really need is a car to tow my race car plus big trailer at 60-70mph and waft around the bumpy streets of London at 5mph.

RobM77 said:

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!

Well, my 14 year old Rangie is still more comfortable than most modern cars, has decent enough handling although I admit it's not in the same league as a sports car, and is plenty quick enough around town - it's certainly embarassed a number of cars in traffic light Grand Prixs It also sounds better than anything this side of a TVR!

The latest cars are much better still - wasn't there a recent Evo test where a 4x4 (Cayenne Turbo?) beat an Elise around Bedford? How did it do that? Surely it would have fallen over at the first corner!!! A RR Sport S/C will do 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, and is limited to 140mph. How many Micras will do that?!? A current RR will also beat virtually any car on the road for comfort too.

I could go on and argue more of the points you've made, but I think that's enough for now

[Hereward]

RobM77 said:

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!...

I replaced an E39 M5 (why on earth didn't they make a Touring version?!) with a Touareg V8 to accomodate my expanding family and I certainly don't regard the Touareg as being "crap" on the road. I will never drive in a spirited fashion when I've got my family on board, so sporty handling is an irrelevance to me. Additionally, the performance is somewhat better than a Micra; up to 100mph it's pretty much identical to my old 328i.

Anyway, I bought it because I thought it was cool. MPG and environmental concerns were not even on the radar. "I like it" - that is the only justification one needs to give when discussing the subjective issue of car choice rationale!

Edited by Hereward on Wednesday 12th December 14:05

Edited by Hereward on Wednesday 12th December 14:06

[RobM77]

ehasler 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.

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.

Firstly, how do you know who takes their 4x4 off road, or up snow covered tracks in the Lake District? Maybe that gleaming 70k Rangie you see in Chelsea spends half it's time doing 4x4 type stuff up in the Highlands, maybe it doesn't. Anyway, what does it have to do with you?

Why would I need to know though? Do you think I'm going to start spouting road rage at 4x4 drivers, or putting stickers of tomatoes and bunny rabbits on their windscreens? It seems like I'm being stereotyped as some sort of greenie, which I certainly am not!! (check out my profile). What people drive had got nothing to do with me, and as I've stated before I am all for personal choice. However, I was merely pointing out the lack of logic in using an off roader on the road, which I believe is my right? This is a discussion forum isn't it? I'm quite a laid back friendly guy, and I've absolutely no wish to insult anyone's choice of car.

ehasler said:

And what about personal choice? I bought a RR as I like them. OK, it may not handle quite as well as an M5 estate,

understatement of the year!

ehasler said:

How many bags of shopping and passengers can you get in your Elise?

My girlfriend and I can both do a weekly shop together without a problem in the Elise, and we also go away for the weekend regularly. I've got no kids or pets, and when I'm out in the evenings I'm normally drinking, so I (and all my friends) use public transport for that (usually combined with kipping over someone's house). The Elise also handles my daily commute with ease. It's not got a big enough boot for all of my uses, which is why I'm currently buying another car that'll be better suited to holidays, towing and motorway trips.

ehasler said:

You're spouting a load of opinion as facts, and in many cases you're totally wrong. Just like the folk who are currently attacking 4x4s, and who will probably aim their wrath at sports cars next. After all, you could argue that there is more need for a car that can drive off road than one that can do 200mph.

In all due respect, I think you should re-read my posts. I'm not 'attacking' anything, although some people on here seem to think I am. I'm just not that sort of guy - I don't enjoy confrontation at all. All I've said is that an off roader with lots of ground clearance doesn't handle or ride as well as a normal car (obviously!), and that a vehicle weighing 2 tonnes is slower and doesn't handle as well as an equivalent vehicle weighing 1.5 tonnes (err.. that's obvious as well!). Those are facts, not opinion. Surely we're all agreed on that?

[ehasler]

RobM77 said:

All I've said is that an off roader with lots of ground clearance doesn't handle or ride as well as a normal car (obviously!), and that a vehicle weighing 2 tonnes is slower and doesn't handle as well as an equivalent vehicle weighing 1.5 tonnes (err.. that's obvious as well!). Those are facts, not opinion. Surely we're all agreed on that?

And you are wrong.

A Range Rover (can't speak for any other 4x4 as I've not tried them) rides better than most cars on the road. Depending on the model, they can also be quicker than many other smaller, lighter cars, and as I mentioned in my previous post, one of them (Cayenne Turbo I think) has beaten an Elise around Bedford so is certainly not slower than every car weighing 1.5 tonnes.

You're basing your whole argument on "facts" that just aren't true.

[Ranger 6]

RobM77 said:

.....vehicle weighing 1.5 tonnes....

My 4x4 weighs that..... OK it's a few kgs over

My other 4x4 is much lighter.....

Does that mean I'm OK?

sorry - couldn't resist

[RobM77]

ehasler said:

RobM77 said:

All I've said is that an off roader with lots of ground clearance doesn't handle or ride as well as a normal car (obviously!), and that a vehicle weighing 2 tonnes is slower and doesn't handle as well as an equivalent vehicle weighing 1.5 tonnes (err.. that's obvious as well!). Those are facts, not opinion. Surely we're all agreed on that?

And you are wrong.

A Range Rover (can't speak for any other 4x4 as I've not tried them) rides better than most cars on the road. Depending on the model, they can also be quicker than many other smaller, lighter cars, and as I mentioned in my previous post, one of them (Cayenne Turbo I think) has beaten an Elise around Bedford so is certainly not slower than every car weighing 1.5 tonnes.

You're basing your whole argument on "facts" that just aren't true.

My facts are intended to be comparitive, not absolute. If, in isolation, you raise the ride height on a vehicle, you compromise it's cornering ability; and if, in isolation, you increase the weight on a vehicle, you compromise its speed; etc etc. These are basic facts of vehicle dynamics - and not anyone's opinion. Ergo, given the same cost, investment, and pool of knowledge, a 'normal' road car will always have better 'road manners' than an off roader. When all is said and done, most cars are simply compromises based on their range of abilities. The Elise compromises a small boot in order to be so small, light and agile; a Range Rover compromises on road behaviour in order to be good off road etc etc... Because of the give and take nature of vehicle dynamics, there is no 'catch all' car that does everything, and there never will be. My posts have simply been highlighting the strange choice of motorists who only drive on the road to put their 'compromise' stake in the ground so close to off road ability, when it is something that they'll never use. It is their choice to choose their compromises however they wish, but I can't claim to understand it!

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 15:27

[ehasler]

RobM77 said:

The Elise compromises a small boot in order to be so small, light and agile; a Range Rover compromises on road behaviour in order to be good off road etc etc... Because of the give and take nature of vehicle dynamics, there is no 'catch all' car that does everything, and there never will be. My posts have simply been highlighting the strange choice of motorists who only drive on the road to put their 'compromise' stake in the ground so close to off road ability, when it is something that they'll never use. It is their choice to choose their compromises however they wish, but I can't claim to understand it!

Why is it so hard to understand though?

All cars are compromises I agree, but I'd say a Range Rover has less compromises for the majority of drivers than your Elise. And you don't even need to give up speed and handling - at least one standard 4x4 vehicle will be quicker round some race tracks than your car!

And I bet you don't use 100% of your Elise's performance/handling capability on the road, so by your own argument, it's a strange choice you buying that car!

But it isn't strange at all!! You want a car that does a, b and c, and you've obviously decided that the Elise is that car, and some people want a car that does x, y and z and they've decided that a 4x4 is that car.

[GetCarter]

RobM77 said:

ehasler said:

RobM77 said:

All I've said is that an off roader with lots of ground clearance doesn't handle or ride as well as a normal car (obviously!), and that a vehicle weighing 2 tonnes is slower and doesn't handle as well as an equivalent vehicle weighing 1.5 tonnes (err.. that's obvious as well!). Those are facts, not opinion. Surely we're all agreed on that?

And you are wrong.

A Range Rover (can't speak for any other 4x4 as I've not tried them) rides better than most cars on the road. Depending on the model, they can also be quicker than many other smaller, lighter cars, and as I mentioned in my previous post, one of them (Cayenne Turbo I think) has beaten an Elise around Bedford so is certainly not slower than every car weighing 1.5 tonnes.

You're basing your whole argument on "facts" that just aren't true.

My facts are intended to be comparitive, not absolute. If, in isolation, you raise the ride height on a vehicle, you compromise it's cornering ability; and if, in isolation, you increase the weight on a vehicle, you compromise its speed; etc etc. These are basic facts of vehicle dynamics - and not anyone's opinion. Ergo, given the same cost, investment, and pool of knowledge, a 'normal' road car will always have better 'road manners' than an off roader. When all is said and done, most cars are simply compromises based on their range of abilities. The Elise compromises a small boot in order to be so small, light and agile; a Range Rover compromises on road behaviour in order to be good off road etc etc... Because of the give and take nature of vehicle dynamics, there is no 'catch all' car that does everything, and there never will be. My posts have simply been highlighting the strange choice of motorists who only drive on the road to put their 'compromise' stake in the ground so close to off road ability, when it is something that they'll never use. It is their choice to choose their compromises however they wish, but I can't claim to understand it!

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 15:27

I've read all your posts Rob and I can see exactly where you are coming from. All you say about ride height and weight make perfect sense, they are, after all, the laws of physics.

The thing is, there are many reasons people buy cars. Not all of them are logical. I would suggest that many people who buy off road vehicles and never use them off road don't give a hoot about how they handle on the road, as they will never use more than 50% of the car's abilities.

As has been mentioned here, there are many of us that have off road vehicles that drive them on the road - and we do so, each for our own reasons. I have a huge shaggy dog that pebble dashes the inside of what ever I put him in, I also live in an area where we can get heavy snow drifts on mountain roads, I also like a high driving position - and the fact that my 4x4 will last 40 years + and easily do 500,000 miles. My BMW 5 Tourer was getting to feel seriously second hand when I got shot of it after 80,000 miles (but only 4 years). This is why I drive a Land Rover - DISPITE it having crap road manners - it's what I want... and I hardly ever take it off road....also, when I want manners, I drive my Aston.

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 12th December 15:43

[A57 HSV]

As I've said before, I'll defend anyone's right to drive the vehicle of their choice.
I would never make any assumptions about why they do so.
For example how would I know that the shiny Discovery 3 parked in the centre of London, doesn't also regulary carry 7 people, tow stuff, go off-road, carry heavy & bulky loads, affords a comfortable driving position for a very tall person etc.(just as mine does!). Or whether the Elise, stuck in the traffic jam next to me, was regularly used on track days.
Assumptions about CO2 output are very silly as well.
I don't personally know anyone that drives a G-Whizz, but I know of someone who does. He also flies to New York & back every week.
The "greenies" who despise me for driving my 27mpg Discovery, don't know that we also have a Smart, which when practical to do so always get used for urban journeys, because it's fun to nip around in & most importantly park in tiny spaces. Neither do they know that as a family, over the past 10 years we have been on one European flight p.a. with the exception of one year when we also flew to Canada to visit a relation.
So the G-Whizz owner is a saviour, whilst I'm Satan.
It's all a load of b******s!

Edited by A57 HSV on Wednesday 12th December 15:45

[Hereward]

ehasler said:

...All cars are compromises I agree, but I'd say a Range Rover has less compromises for the majority of drivers than your Elise. And you don't even need to give up speed and handling - at least one standard 4x4 vehicle will be quicker round some race tracks than your car!

And I bet you don't use 100% of your Elise's performance/handling capability on the road, so by your own argument, it's a strange choice you buying that car!

But it isn't strange at all!! You want a car that does a, b and c, and you've obviously decided that the Elise is that car, and some people want a car that does x, y and z and they've decided that a 4x4 is that car.

You've hit the nail on the head.

[RobM77]

Hereward said:

ehasler said:

...All cars are compromises I agree, but I'd say a Range Rover has less compromises for the majority of drivers than your Elise. And you don't even need to give up speed and handling - at least one standard 4x4 vehicle will be quicker round some race tracks than your car!

And I bet you don't use 100% of your Elise's performance/handling capability on the road, so by your own argument, it's a strange choice you buying that car!

But it isn't strange at all!! You want a car that does a, b and c, and you've obviously decided that the Elise is that car, and some people want a car that does x, y and z and they've decided that a 4x4 is that car.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Not for me though - speed and performance aren't of much interest to me. I drive my Elise because I like the feedback it offers. I enjoy 100% of the feedback the car gives me 100% of the time.

In your post; x, y and z do not exist, and that is the crux of my point; so in that sense you have hit the nail on the head. The features that an off roader has that make it good off road manifest as negatives on the road. The features of a sports car that one doesn't use on the road (top speed, ultimate cornering grip etc), aren't actually negatives - you're not aware of either when you're driving.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 15:57

[hornetrider]

Rob, this thread is like bashing one's head against a brick wall. By saying you fail to understand why someone would buy for example a Land Rover, you are failing to see other peoples point of view.

RobM77 said:

Not for me though - speed and performance aren't of much interest to me. I drive my Elise because I like the feedback it offers. I enjoy 100% of the feedback the car gives me 100% of the time.

You are aware that your criteria will be different to other peoples criteria? They may not give a flying about driving dynamics, they just need a big motor to put the dog in and to feel safe getting from A to B. They also enjoyed the dealer experience at Land Rover more than BMW so thought right, Landie it is.

RobM77 said:

In your post; x, y and z do not exist, and that is the crux of my point; so in that sense you have hit the nail on the head. The features that an off roader has that make it good off road manifest as negatives on the road. The features of a sports car that one doesn't use on the road (top speed, ultimate cornering grip etc), aren't actually negatives - you're not aware of either when you're driving.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 15:57

You're not getting it at all.

Some people don't care about feedback and dynamics and are not petrolheads. They have limited budget and need a vehicle that will do x, y and z. Of course x, y and z exist.

x = dog
y = safety
z = 3 kids
v = DIY enthusiast needing to transport stuff about

etc etc

[ehasler]

RobM77 said:

Hereward said:

ehasler said:

...All cars are compromises I agree, but I'd say a Range Rover has less compromises for the majority of drivers than your Elise. And you don't even need to give up speed and handling - at least one standard 4x4 vehicle will be quicker round some race tracks than your car!

And I bet you don't use 100% of your Elise's performance/handling capability on the road, so by your own argument, it's a strange choice you buying that car!

But it isn't strange at all!! You want a car that does a, b and c, and you've obviously decided that the Elise is that car, and some people want a car that does x, y and z and they've decided that a 4x4 is that car.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Not for me though - speed and performance aren't of much interest to me. I drive my Elise because I like the feedback it offers. I enjoy 100% of the feedback the car gives me 100% of the time.

In your post; x, y and z do not exist, and that is the crux of my point; so in that sense you have hit the nail on the head. The features that an off roader has that make it good off road manifest as negatives on the road. The features of a sports car that one doesn't use on the road (top speed, ultimate cornering grip etc), aren't actually negatives - you're not aware of either when you're driving.

In your case, one requirement is good feedback - fair enough, however I would argue that you utilise that 100% of the time... what about when you're pulling up to the lights in traffic? Are you using 100% of the brake pedal feel to ensure you're braking at a point just before you lock up? I certainly hope not!!!

But what if I didn't really care about having great feedback (I have a TVR and 2 Westfields for that), but I wanted something comfy and able to tow a big trailer. That's my x and y, so your post doesn't make sense.

And as I have pointed out several times, but you don't seem to take in, not all off-roaders are bad on the road! Some will be quicker than your lightweight sportscar even with it's great feedback! And some aspects of an off-roader (greater height for example) actually have benefits as well as disadvantages (greater visibility for one).

Also, some features of sports cars are negatives for some people (lack of seats, low ground clearance, limited boot space), as believe it or not, many people actually buy cars for reasons other than performance and handling!

[A57 HSV]

Sorry RobM77, I have to disagree with you.
Last week, two of the "off-road" (X,Y,Z) features of my Discovery 3, namely the high air intake & the ability to raise the air suspension, proved very useful "on-road".
They enabled me to drive through a flooded section of a lane, which the other vehicles queued up either side of the flooded section were unable to do.
This saved me a detour that would have easily added an hour to my journey.
Very useful indeed.
As I always carry a towing strap & various sizes of bow shackles, I was also in the posistion to offer a tow to the unfortunate driver of a car, whose low centre of gravity caused it to stop functioning when it had attempted to drive through the flood. My offer was politely declined, as a recovery truck was due to arrive.
It was also very reassuring to have permanent four wheel drive in the atrocious conditions.
I've always owned at least one V8 powered rwd car for the last 18 years, but I was very grateful not to be driving one that day.

[RobM77]

hornetrider said:

Rob, this thread is like bashing one's head against a brick wall. By saying you fail to understand why someone would buy for example a Land Rover, you are failing to see other peoples point of view.

RobM77 said:

Not for me though - speed and performance aren't of much interest to me. I drive my Elise because I like the feedback it offers. I enjoy 100% of the feedback the car gives me 100% of the time.

You are aware that your criteria will be different to other peoples criteria? They may not give a flying about driving dynamics, they just need a big motor to put the dog in and to feel safe getting from A to B. They also enjoyed the dealer experience at Land Rover more than BMW so thought right, Landie it is.

RobM77 said:

In your post; x, y and z do not exist, and that is the crux of my point; so in that sense you have hit the nail on the head. The features that an off roader has that make it good off road manifest as negatives on the road. The features of a sports car that one doesn't use on the road (top speed, ultimate cornering grip etc), aren't actually negatives - you're not aware of either when you're driving.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 15:57

You're not getting it at all.

Some people don't care about feedback and dynamics and are not petrolheads. They have limited budget and need a vehicle that will do x, y and z. Of course x, y and z exist.

x = dog
y = safety
z = 3 kids
v = DIY enthusiast needing to transport stuff about

etc etc

I assure you I'm banging my head against an even harder wall over here! I just can't believe what I'm reading, especially on a car forum.

Of course everyone's got their own priorities! My point is that x, y, z (and v!) just equal an ordinary car. Almost nothing on the road needs an off roader with big ground clearance, hill descent, locking diffs, etc. It's like using a hammer to write a letter If you need 4WD, then there's the Impreza, Legacy, any Audi Quattro, and a few other cars that provide this. So far we've concluded that something like a Range Rover is useful for towing stuff more than 2 tonnes in weight, or for crossing floods... I can guarantee that the vast majority of drivers do neither. All their requirements would be satisfied by a myriad of other cars on the market, and what's more, they'd be satisfied better and more cheaply. Freedom of choice I understand, but it doesn't stop me pointing out the complete lack of common sense!

I think I give up!

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 12th December 16:29