SUV Hatred

[Julian Scott]

GetCarter said:

J4CKO said:

GetCarter said:

I'm currently getting more than 900 mpg from my SUV. I wonder what the tyre slashers are getting from their cars.

(yes 900, not 90)

Eh, how does that work, I thought the equivalent for a Tesla when worked out was 100 and something ?

How do you claim 900, energy use wise, are you confusing SUV and bicycle ?

Ha... okay. First up, I can't do EV as there is sod all infrastructure here (NW Highlands). And just to prove that, several people with EV cars were under the impression that they could tour here this year, and got totally stuck. Others managed it, but I am not one for range stress!

So it's Hybrid for me. And that's where the 900 mpg comes in. We work from home and do about 25 to 30 miles a day, dog walking, local shop etc, and the car does similar on battery, so in the 6 months I've had the car, I've used about 4 gallons of petrol... and done nearly 4000 miles.

Hence.

So 100% of electricity generated from truly zero cost means? .....somehow doubtful

[Julian Scott]

Ezra said:

Julian Scott said:

Sat here waiting for my new car to be delivered (F-Pace SVR). Or rather, initially waiting for the delivery driver to call to say he is an hour away.

I'm like a kid at Christmas, pretending to work, but actually looking at reviews and comments on this and other sites/forums.

This is the first SUV/4x4 I’ve owned, but not the first I’ve driven. I’m a big fan of the driving position and the drive of an SUV as much as the extra benefit the greater loadspace begets, but on this and other forums, the anti-SUV sentiment is prominent, especially to those who can’t demonstrate a specific and unequivocal need for such a car. Despite the car’s 5l supercharged V8, 542bhp and British credentials, am I set for a barrage of hatred and criticism?

Good for you OP. Hope you've not had any 'hatred' directed your way. I wouldn't want to own an SUV, but thats a personal choice thing. However, when me and Ms Ezra drove across the Rockies a few years ago we specifically asked for the largest SUV the rental firm had. Ended up with a Chevy Suburban for a week. It was absolutely massive and absolutely awesome. So what if you don't have an unequivocal need for your SUV....your money, your choice - end of.

ps - whilst I'm not keen on SUV's I'd definitely want the V8 542bhp!

Thank you - the feedback has been 100% positive in the real world (aside from the old lady waving her walking stick on hearing the exhaust note, not realising I was only doing 20mph).

[Julian Scott]

GetCarter said:

braddo said:

GetCarter said:

Not quite sure what you mean, but as I mentioned, to charge from 0 miles to 30 costs me £3.60, and I don't have to +/- 1000 miles and +/- 36 hours a year traveling to a fuel station.

I think it's like this - £3.60 to travel 30 miles, that's equivalent to approx 2 litres of petrol, which is 0.44 gallons to travel 30 miles = 68 mpg equivalent for your trips on electric.

I get what you're saying.

Except of course I've done 4000 miles on 4 gallons of petrol. Electricity has provided +/- 95% of the miles I've driven. I've also saved +/- 1000 miles of travel to get fuel. What may or may not be the fuel consumption if I didn't use the electric energy is spurious, as I did!

Exactly - you're being selective with the costing. It's a bit like me saying that I've done 1500 miles on just one tank of Premium Unleaded, and ignoring the fact that I've used 4 tanks of super unleaded.

[Julian Scott]

vanman1936 said:

Recently bought a Stelvio Quadrathingy, my first SUV.

Come from a history of sport to GT cars plus cheap track day toys. So have had fast / good handling cars….no driving god though!

An insanely good car. Laugh out loud quick (think 997 911 TT quick) and handles better than most sport saloon cars.

Worth a watch.

https://youtu.be/l5GrHhRl6Rg

I came from a Giulia Quadrifoglio to the Jag SVR. Dealers aside, the Giulia was an amazing car.

[Julian Scott]

braddo said:

GetCarter said:

I get what you're saying.

Except of course I've done 4000 miles on 4 gallons of petrol. Electricity has provided +/- 95% of the miles I've driven. I've also saved +/- 1000 miles of travel to get fuel. What may or may not be the fuel consumption if I didn't use the electric energy is spurious, as I did!

No argument with the saved time/miles for getting fuel! cf. Some posts on PH claiming that EVs won't work in isolated areas because their range isn't big enough - err, your fuel station is at home!!

For you, if you have travelled say 3800 miles on electricity it will have cost you roughly £450 in electricity costs. But your saved mileage for fuel fillups has saved a couple of hundred quid too? Anyway, people are just pointing out the electric range isn't free but still far cheaper (and time saved) than a non-hybrid.

Its a great solution, but claiming 900mpg when it's only actually done 200 miles on 4 gallons of fuel is a little disingenuous!

[Julian Scott]

Hybrid motoring is a compelling argument from a pure practicality perspective.

I flirted with a new RRS P440E - very few of my journeys are over 10 miles, so it would run on pure EV power for most of the time.

But I wouldn't blindly ignore the cost of the electricity when calculating 'mpg' ;-)

[Julian Scott]

Rob 131 Sport said:

It’s up to the individual what they drive. However in a typical 80 mile drive today I witnessed / experienced 3 number Angry (30 something Dad’s) in mid sized SUV’s driving dangerously aggressively. Stand up to her and buy that used Guilia, A4, 3 Series, C Class that you really want.

Also 2 number large ‘badge’ 4x4 SUV things with all the courtesy of a punch in the face. Driving right on my bumper and then pushing in at the head of a motorway queue.

Not saying that all SUV Drivers are like that, but unfortunately there are quite a number.

Drivers, not SUVs?

You think those 3 angry dads would drive like a hearse driver in a saloon/estate?

[Julian Scott]

cerb4.5lee said:

Rob 131 Sport said:

It’s up to the individual what they drive. However in a typical 80 mile drive today I witnessed / experienced 3 number Angry (30 something Dad’s) in mid sized SUV’s driving dangerously aggressively. Stand up to her and buy that used Guilia, A4, 3 Series, C Class that you really want.

Also 2 number large ‘badge’ 4x4 SUV things with all the courtesy of a punch in the face. Driving right on my bumper and then pushing in at the head of a motorway queue.

Not saying that all SUV Drivers are like that, but unfortunately there are quite a number.

I'm nothing like that in mine. Even my missus has a go at me at how sedately I drive it! I have other more sporty cars though, so when I get in the SUV I just want to relax and chill out in it. It has decent enough performance if I wanted it with 0 to 60 in 5.7 seconds-330bhp/516Ib/ft of torque, but I barely ever use it though.

Same. My wife and kids have noted how much more sedately I drive now, probably why a 550hp 2.2tonne Supercharged V8 is giving me better than a 500hp 1.6tonne 3.0 saloon.

I hardly ever use full throttle now; I did this morning on a stretch of dual carriageway, and it surprised me how quick and brutal the acceleration was - such is the infrequency of using full throttle.

I'd wager that far more people drive more calmly in SUVs than more aggressively compared to non-SUV options.

[Julian Scott]

beresd said:

Humble brag of the week.

‘How can I tell everyone about my SVR without just saying I’m getting an SVR’

And yes. I will see you and think you’re a bell end.

Perhaps I should have instead posted on a site for car enthusiasts?

[Julian Scott]

wlomas20 said:

Brave Fart said:

I've encountered two types of SUV-hater, although I'm sure there are more 'types'.

Type 1 is the engineering nerd, who chunters on about a high centre of gravity and excessive weight compared to an estate car. Said nerd also likes to criticise SUVs' handling, but the owners of these cars couldn't care less about any of these things, I have found.

Type 2 is the eco-loon, who singles out the SUV as the chief cause of climate catastrophe. But this loon wants us to live in a dark, cold shed, surviving on thin gruel whilst helping to re-wild the local park. Nutter, and best ignored if possible.

Meanwhile, consumers vote with their wallet and choose the car they feel best suits their needs, and why shouldn't they?

OP, enjoy your new car - there's a F-Pace SVR near me that drives past every so often, and sounds glorious.

I'm more of the engineering SUV hater because although those sort of things are factors consumers don't care about they do effect the cars, safety, efficiency and cost.

Heavy cars are less safe than lighter ones because they have longer braking distances and handle poorly, therefore they cannot swerve to avoid things and cannot stop as quickly.

They are also less fuel efficient and therefore cost more money to fuel compared to smaller cars and they are worse for the environment (BTW I'm not some sort of mental eco-warrior, tree hugger but its still not good).

The cars themselves are also much more expensive than their hatchback equivalents and often don't have much more room than hatchbacks, estates are cheaper and have more room.

Some do have decent off-road capability compared to hatchbacks or estates but they are the more expensive ones and most people don't use that off-road capability because they don't go any further of road than a grass carpark at a fair which most vehicles can manage. And those who do need to go off-road for example farmers aren't going to buy one of those crossover things because they are useless. At the same time they are not going to buy some super expensive Bentayga because it will get wrecked, they will go on Ebay and buy a 10 year old Land Rover or Range Rover or maybe a new Defender.

Although the engineering that goes into them is amazing, they are utterly pointless because every ability that SUV's have the consumer doesn't use because they don't need to do so.

Some of what you say has ground, but a lot doesn't, and SUVs are no more 'utterly pointless' than the vast majority of cars bought each year.

Aside from increasingly heavy cars being everywhere with every new model of pretty much every car, the engineering factors that it with increased braking power, etc... SUVs are never in the most crashed car types in any list/analysis I've ever seen.

Estate cars also do not offer more room, like for like.

Off-road capability is a total misnomer, SUVs are not bought for their off-road ability, or suitability for farmers.

Oh, and I'm getting better average mpg out of my SUV than I did out of the car it replaced (and yes, that's surprised me too)

[Julian Scott]

Spleen said:

We may as well apply that logic to every single vehicle bar those that are the most benign. I’m lucky enough to own a Ferrari (albeit 14 years old) and although I don’t race around at Vmax everywhere I’d hardly describe it as pointless.

Actually, technically it is pretty pointless. That's what makes it so brilliant and desirable.

[Julian Scott]

Granadier said:

Blib said:

What surprises me is that many SUV models offer surprisingly meagre cabin space for their size.

This is particularly noticeable if you compare them with a traditional MPV, which is also a large car but often uses its footprint more efficiently. I had a Chrysler Voyager which seated 7 quite spaciously, still leaving a decent luggage area at the back. Also the Voyager had a virtually flat floor, so you could walk through from front seats to middle seats, or step over the minimal centre console from driver's seat to passenger's, not to mention having an enormous load area like a van if you took out the middle and back seats. And sliding doors on each side...

MPVs are pretty much vans with windows, a part of why they died off.

SUVs sit in between cars and MPVs/vans in terms of refinement (although often more refined) and in terms of interior space.

[Julian Scott]

Strangely Brown said:

Rob 131 Sport said:

It’s up to the individual what they drive. However in a typical 80 mile drive today I witnessed / experienced 3 number Angry (30 something Dad’s) in mid sized SUV’s driving dangerously aggressively. Stand up to her and buy that used Guilia, A4, 3 Series, C Class that you really want.

Also 2 number large ‘badge’ 4x4 SUV things with all the courtesy of a punch in the face. Driving right on my bumper and then pushing in at the head of a motorway queue.

Not saying that all SUV Drivers are like that, but unfortunately there are quite a number.

In a drive of similar length today I saw pretty much the exact opposite. I watched SUVs being driven sedately and calmly being passed by impatient and arrogant tossers in their typical fleet / PCP german sedans.

The point being that it is drivers that are the problem, not what they choose to drive.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 14th October 16:37

I'm about to take the Mrs and her friends to a restaurant the other side of some twisty b-roads. The journey there will in 'comfort' mode, and will be that comfort, sedate and very calm vision you paint.

On the way back however, in Dynamic mode, she'll roar and be far from sedate

[Julian Scott]

TCX said:

Julian Scott said:

Strangely Brown said:

Rob 131 Sport said:

It’s up to the individual what they drive. However in a typical 80 mile drive today I witnessed / experienced 3 number Angry (30 something Dad’s) in mid sized SUV’s driving dangerously aggressively. Stand up to her and buy that used Guilia, A4, 3 Series, C Class that you really want.

Also 2 number large ‘badge’ 4x4 SUV things with all the courtesy of a punch in the face. Driving right on my bumper and then pushing in at the head of a motorway queue.

Not saying that all SUV Drivers are like that, but unfortunately there are quite a number.

In a drive of similar length today I saw pretty much the exact opposite. I watched SUVs being driven sedately and calmly being passed by impatient and arrogant tossers in their typical fleet / PCP german sedans.

The point being that it is drivers that are the problem, not what they choose to drive.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 14th October 16:37

I'm about to take the Mrs and her friends to a restaurant the other side of some twisty b-roads. The journey there will in 'comfort' mode, and will be that comfort, sedate and very calm vision you paint.

On the way back however, in Dynamic mode, she'll roar and be far from sedate

Your wife has a 'dynamic mode'?

LOL - pretty sure that was left at the alter :-(

[Julian Scott]

carlo996 said:

wlomas20 said:

I'm more of the engineering SUV hater because although those sort of things are factors consumers don't care about they do effect the cars, safety, efficiency and cost.

An engineering perspective, great!

wlomas20 said:

Heavy cars are less safe than lighter ones because they have longer braking distances and handle poorly, therefore they cannot swerve to avoid things and cannot stop as quickly.

No.

wlomas20 said:

They are also less fuel efficient and therefore cost more money to fuel compared to smaller cars and they are worse for the environment (BTW I'm not some sort of mental eco-warrior, tree hugger but its still not good).

No.

wlomas20 said:

The cars themselves are also much more expensive than their hatchback equivalents and often don't have much more room than hatchbacks, estates are cheaper and have more room.

No.

wlomas20 said:

Some do have decent off-road capability compared to hatchbacks or estates but they are the more expensive ones and most people don't use that off-road capability because they don't go any further of road than a grass carpark at a fair which most vehicles can manage. And those who do need to go off-road for example farmers aren't going to buy one of those crossover things because they are useless. At the same time they are not going to buy some super expensive Bentayga because it will get wrecked, they will go on Ebay and buy a 10 year old Land Rover or Range Rover or maybe a new Defender.

Irrelevant.

wlomas20 said:

Although the engineering that goes into them is amazing, they are utterly pointless because every ability that SUV's have the consumer doesn't use because they don't need to do so.

So you like them.

Glad we sorted that out.

[Julian Scott]

jm8403 said:

nobrakes said:

Just irritating - yes, you have to hold back a bit to get the same view of the road ahead as you would a normal car (obviously making due allowance for distance etc etc).

Oh didums. The amount you have to hold back shouldn't make much difference, especially if you're already in a low car anyway as you're such an anti SUV person, I assume you're in an mx5 or a porsche everywhere?

Surely the needlessly enormous SUVs are so tall every true PH driving god can see under them from the driving seat of their focussed sports car?

[Julian Scott]

Noesph said:

AndyF2020 said:

It's not hatred but it can be a pain in the @rse if you live somewhere with narrow roads and every third or fourth car coming towards you is an SUV - it would be the same if everyone started driving transit vans.

Pretty much this for me. I live on the Surrey Sussex border. On small country roads the amount of people in SUV's who won't pull in at all pisses me off so much. They pretty much push me into the ditch / hedge in a city car while they just carry on driving down the middle of the road.

It really does very much seem to be the case of "Fu*k the poor people, can't you see I'm in a range rover and therefore better than you. I'm not moving over for you"

Maybe you need a sign on your car to remind other drivers that you are more important than they?

[Julian Scott]

livinginasia said:

Great choice of car, OP. I have an FPace (only the 25T) but I love it. Soooo comfortable - amazing view from the seating position - east to get into and out of with my rugby damaged back, and plenty of room to get my elderly mother’s electric scooter in the boot.

I honestly don’t get the “hatred” for this type of car - but that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

A month in and it doesn't exist in the real world, quite the opposite.

[Julian Scott]

GT9 said:

Julian Scott said:

Noesph said:

AndyF2020 said:

It's not hatred but it can be a pain in the @rse if you live somewhere with narrow roads and every third or fourth car coming towards you is an SUV - it would be the same if everyone started driving transit vans.

Pretty much this for me. I live on the Surrey Sussex border. On small country roads the amount of people in SUV's who won't pull in at all pisses me off so much. They pretty much push me into the ditch / hedge in a city car while they just carry on driving down the middle of the road.

It really does very much seem to be the case of "Fu*k the poor people, can't you see I'm in a range rover and therefore better than you. I'm not moving over for you"

Maybe you need a sign on your car to remind other drivers that you are more important than they?

I was out in the SUV this weekend on a county road near the Surrey/Sussex border, and twice I had to pull over into the scenery to avoid being struck by a a shed coming the other way being driven at race pace. One of them was a very muddy knackered old Peugeot, the other I don't even remember as I was more focused on not scratching the paint on the nearside. Do I also need a sign?

You were in an SUV, your story clearly didn't happen

[Julian Scott]

GT9 said:

To be fair, my use of small country roads is more of an exception to the norm, so I naturally drive even more defensively to avoid any drama and it's almost always me who seems to be doing the pulling in.

If it's a daily thing, I can understand why it would become annoying to have to regularly negotiate oncoming traffic, given that you are bound to come up against all sorts.

But if that means you adopt an aggressive approach to making progress, then you are also part of the problem.

I adopt a decent, respectful approach to making progress. I've also not had any form of RTC or even near miss for over 20 years. Maybe they are connected?