RE: Range Rover Goes Further with Range e
Discussion
sideways sid said:
I may be wrong but I read somewhere that manufacturers do (or will) have to pay a penalty to the EU based on the average emissions across their entire range.
By bringing this out, LR lower their average, thus enabling them to continue building the ones with supercharged V8s for those of us who prefer them.
That's why Aston market the Toyota Yaris, and partially explains Porsche's partial ownership of VW.
Seems a shame to have the tail of emissions wagging the dog of designing, building and selling cars...
It might sound like I've downed a bottle of Conspiracy tablets today, but I doubt that the manufacturers will take a hit on this. For example, a "green" RR will still be an RR therefore £££. Aston's "yaris" is a gesture; seen any on the road? Porsche have the luxury of the little Blue motion Polo's to help them.By bringing this out, LR lower their average, thus enabling them to continue building the ones with supercharged V8s for those of us who prefer them.
That's why Aston market the Toyota Yaris, and partially explains Porsche's partial ownership of VW.
Seems a shame to have the tail of emissions wagging the dog of designing, building and selling cars...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking RR but the system stinks.
Incidentally (& naively), and I will galdly be put right, if RR / JLR are owned by TATA in India, how does EU law affect them. Is it to do with the right to sell within the EU?
Pixel Pusher said:
Incidentally (& naively), and I will galdly be put right, if RR / JLR are owned by TATA in India, how does EU law affect them. Is it to do with the right to sell within the EU?
A) Yes, place of sale, doesn't matter if the owners were Martian.B) JLR Headquarters is a UK registered office.
Edited by JonnyVTEC on Thursday 17th February 14:19
JonnyVTEC said:
Pixel Pusher said:
Incidentally (& naively), and I will galdly be put right, if RR / JLR are owned by TATA in India, how does EU law affect them. Is it to do with the right to sell within the EU?
A) Yes, place of sale, doesnt matter if the owners were Martian.B) JLR Headquarters is a UK register office.
kambites said:
inkiboo said:
"The 'Range_e' is the first capable 4WD model from Land Rover to achieve 89g of CO2"
That means it is CC exempt!
At least until they realise that the way they measure the CO2 output for plug-in electric vehicles is stupid and change it. This does 89g/k in much the same way that an electric car does 0g/km. In other words, it doesn't. That means it is CC exempt!
Pixel Pusher said:
Twincam16 said:
My only real 'thing' against big 4x4s are the visibility and crash implications. I can't see round them, they're more 'lumbering' than a normal car and will cause more damage if they crash.
Surely no worse than a / van / bus / coach / hgv etc.? At least the "big 4x4s" have more suitable crumple zones and deformation aspects than large commercial vehicles.If you can't see round them, surely the solution is to back off or alter road position slightly? By the way, please don't think that I am criticising your driving. Not my intention.
Also, in terms of crash protection and crumple zones - yes, they do meet the same standards as cars, but it doesn't stop the bumper of a Range Rover or a Land Cruiser being at head-height to the driver of a sports car.
jamespink said:
Great achievement, just got to get the weight down now. Good to know our engineers lead the world in some areas still. Imagine the back to back numbers comparison with an Escalade!
http://www.cadillac.com/escaladeHybrid/2010/#GMC has been making hybrid SUVs for a while now
sideways sid said:
I may be wrong but I read somewhere that manufacturers do (or will) have to pay a penalty to the EU based on the average emissions across their entire range.
By bringing this out, LR lower their average, thus enabling them to continue building the ones with supercharged V8s for those of us who prefer them.
That's why Aston market the Toyota Yaris, and partially explains Porsche's partial ownership of VW.
Seems a shame to have the tail of emissions wagging the dog of designing, building and selling cars...
Aston Cygnet = Toyota IQ, not Yaris. But close By bringing this out, LR lower their average, thus enabling them to continue building the ones with supercharged V8s for those of us who prefer them.
That's why Aston market the Toyota Yaris, and partially explains Porsche's partial ownership of VW.
Seems a shame to have the tail of emissions wagging the dog of designing, building and selling cars...
question from me here, is there no cars yet that just have the engine to power a alternator or even a few alternators that just power the batteries that power generators to power the wheels? yes there would be some co2 output but the engine could be set to run at its most efficient so low emissions,and think of the range you could have?
To many steps there for the wheels output to make sense at the moment. You need a really efficient engine to give a net gain once you have handled the energy so much.
The GM Volt can do what you describe, however does have a, very late to the programme, direct mechnical drive as its more efficient than running as a series hybrid like its initial concept suggested.
The GM Volt can do what you describe, however does have a, very late to the programme, direct mechnical drive as its more efficient than running as a series hybrid like its initial concept suggested.
Quinny said:
Why is my choice of transport any of your business
It's not, per se, but worrying about efficiency whilst buying a Range Rover is a bit backwards. If maximising MPG is your thing, you'd make far bigger gains buying something that doesn't run such huge tyres or have the CdA of a house. mft said:
Quinny said:
Why is my choice of transport any of your business
It's not, per se, but worrying about efficiency whilst buying a Range Rover is a bit backwards. If maximising MPG is your thing, you'd make far bigger gains buying something that doesn't run such huge tyres or have the CdA of a house. Quinny said:
Twincam16 said:
I'd still say that if you weren't going off-road there's no particular need to drive one. More drawbacks than positives, I would've thought.
Why is my choice of transport any of your businesskambites said:
Twincam16 said:
It isn't, I just don't see why anyone would want to put up with the drawbacks of driving a 4x4 on the road if they weren't going to use it off road.
I'm sure many people would say the same about sports cars, substituting "off road" for "on a track", obviously. However, when I've driven 4x4s I've been slightly disconcerted by how little I can see out of the back. I could quite easily reverse straight up the bonnet of a small car I never actually saw.
No wonder the average family car is getting taller to compensate, but in doing so, it too is getting bulkier and the handling worse, increasing the potential for accidents.
I'm not telling people they can or can't drive particular kinds of car, I'm just amazed that so many people find things like the BMW X6 and Range Rover so easy to drive, especially around urban streets.
Twincam16 said:
Can't really think of any drawbacks of driving a sports car on 'normal' roads that are up there with the massive blind spots and hulking dimensions of a 4x4 though. Roughly speaking, most 'sports cars' are, in shape, a slightly lower 2-door often without a roof. Rear visibility is only really an issue if it's mid-engined.
Well off the top of my head:primary ride quality (they typically have stiffer suspension)
visibility (you can't see over roadside objects and through other cars as you're lower down)
headlight glare (you're closer to the projection cutoff of other cars' dipped beam headlights)
passenger space
load space
fuel economy
obviously not all sports cars suffer from all of these disadvantages, but most suffer from most.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff