Educate me on soft SUVs

[XJSsometimeSoon]

Insipred by the RRS thread, I am feeling I am missing the point on cars like the X1, X3, X5, RRS, Q5, Q7 ect ect. I maybe need some eduvation on these as my limited experience with these types of car have shown them to be hugely compromised. for example. Not long after the X5 first came out, one crashed through one of our hedges in about 3 inches of snow. I had just driven on the same piece of road minutes earlier in a knackered old Clio and survived. I did feel smug when towing him out of our field with the tractor.
Example 2 Porsche Cayenne Turbo spinning all good wheels in a muddy field after a farm sale. I must admit it sounded bloody lovely, but there wasn't enough mud to trouble most FWD cars let alone a 4x4.
Example 3 Volvo XC90 Diesel spluttered to a holt on a mildly flooded road, which our V8 Defender (god I miss that car) went through now trouble.
I would like to know what the appeal is? I am sure they will not drive as well as a well sorted saloon, they are crap off road (it could be the drivers) they burn fuel which would be better used in a TVR or some other nuttermobile. I do not think they offer any more space or comfort than a good MPV. I have heard argument that they are good in the snow, however we get about a week and a half of snow in average in this country (UK) and where they get a lot of snow, people stick winter tyres on and plough through (a lesson learnt from a few months living in Sweden)
My final thought is it must be down to image and look of the car, which is a good reason to choose a car, but few state that as their motivation.
We recently changed our Defender to a facelift series 2 Disco, Initally I thought it would be crap off road, despite road bias tyres (Pireilli scorpions) the car has handled deep mud, steep slopes, snow, ice and water without blinking. With suggests the car has been well designed.

I don't want this to turn into a slanging match about wkers in RRS, or Cocks in Audi Q7 or ahole farmers in tractors leaving mud on the road. I would like to hear genuine opinions and reasons.

[Caulkhead]

Mainly tyres. Big fat road tyres look cool but don't grip anything but tarmac. The veicles you mention put fashion before ability off-road.

[FamilyDub]

Caulkhead said:

fashion before ability

^ that

[ChiChoAndy]

Despite what people say, most 4x4's will be adequate off road IF you give it the right shoes and drive it properly. If it is for fields, or muddy tracks, etc, most of these cars will be fine on AT tyres. For more serious stuff, you'll have to look at more serious tyres. A Q7 on good tyres will be netter than a RR with crap tyres, and ao on. Don't be put off by the 'soft roader' image. I've seen Rav-4's out climb defenders, and so on.

(the 4wd/AWD system matter as well, but most of them should cope on stuff that isn't too severe)

[anonymous-user]

SUV's and off road, now there's a concept.

[swamp]

Comfort, high driving and seating position, big boot and small footprint, safety (perceived or otherwise).

[XJSsometimeSoon]

ChiChoAndy said:

Despite what people say, most 4x4's will be adequate off road IF you give it the right shoes and drive it properly. If it is for fields, or muddy tracks, etc, most of these cars will be fine on AT tyres. For more serious stuff, you'll have to look at more serious tyres. A Q7 on good tyres will be netter than a RR with crap tyres, and ao on. Don't be put off by the 'soft roader' image. I've seen Rav-4's out climb defenders, and so on.

(the 4wd/AWD system matter as well, but most of them should cope on stuff that isn't too severe)

I agree with you, I have seen little Susuki Jimnys doing heroic off roading. however the majority of the 'soft roaders' are on huge alloys with low profile tyres, it does not seem logical to me

[oldcynic]

swamp said:

big boot and small footprint

Really? My impression was relatively small boot and big footprint.

[louiebaby]

I think the seating position and comfort have a lot to recommend them. Along with the rubbish state of the roads in some parts of the country.

When / if we have kids, I'd rather put them in the car seat within a 5 door soft-roader or mini-MPV than a Focus or a Golf, as I won't have to bend down into awkward shapes.

And I'll be able to see over hedges, and cruise over speed bumps. I genuinely believe a £15k Defender 2, a few years old, is a better proposition as a family car than a new £20k Golf. With £5k in my pocket for things going wrong and the extra fuel used.

[XJSsometimeSoon]

swamp said:

Comfort, high driving and seating position, big boot and small footprint, safety (perceived or otherwise).

Apart from the high driving position, would some big German or Japanese barge not do the job better?

[swamp]

oldcynic said:

swamp said:

big boot and small footprint

Really? My impression was relatively small boot and big footprint.

It depends. The X3/Q5 have ~550 litres, which compares to a 5er/A6, but they are a good foot shorter. The new Evoque manages 575 litres and isn't much longer than a Focus (bit wide though).

This is one reason why families in London (who need to parallel park) like these sorts of cars over the big estates.

[ChiChoAndy]

XJSsometimeSoon said:

I agree with you, I have seen little Susuki Jimnys doing heroic off roading. however the majority of the 'soft roaders' are on huge alloys with low profile tyres, it does not seem logical to me

Easily fixed. Most cars have the obsession with big alloys, and low profile tyres nowadays, and to be honest, most won't see mud anyway, so probably best they do have road tyres. However, that is easily sorted.

[Twincam16]

What's so good about a high driving position anyway? I feel far safer in something where I sit as close to the centre of gravity as possible so I feel in control. Every 'tall' car I've driven feels like it's going to topple over in corners, and I'm not so much driving it as relaying instructions from the bridge to the engine room and hoping everything works out for the best.

[J4CKO]

Must admit they hold little interest for me but can see why other people like them, just have no designs on ever getting one, we had an ML320 for a bit in about 2004, the novelty soon wore off and I appreciate the new ones are a lot better but they just feel big, heavy and dopey, perhaps if you have other cars it might make sense but as an only car a 3 tonne, auto, diesel powered off roader doesnt appeal as I dont think there is much driving pleasure to be gleaned from them above comfy, high riding and imposing, will always be a compromised, blunt instrument.

I think there is a lot of suburban one upmanship going on along with people needing a seven seater but the MPV's are not "posh" enough, you can spec a Galaxy up to over 30 grand but nowhere on the options list is a German badge and the assumption you are an airport taxi company.

Most arent that big inside realtive to size due to the ground clearance and 4wd drivetrain.

Can see the benefit of 4wd but it is fairly infrequent I would benefit but appreciate others live up farm tracks or in hillier areas. Would rather have my 4wd served in a low slung sports saloon.

The driving position, not bothered, if I am that high up it means then handling is compromised, you get the same driving position in an MPV.

Class, some are, I think the Discovery 4 looks very classy as does a proper Range Rover, trouble is a lot of the buyers dont do subtle and understand the concept of "less is more" and think the already huge Q7, which is not a bad looking vehicle would look better in white with massive black alloys, they aim for class at full speed and overshoot right into gaudy and naff which is in the same area where Khan operates.

I guess I am a little old fashioned in my tastes but really off roaders for me were farm equipment you could drive on the road, they were slow, unweildy and uncomfortable, the new breed do a good job and some of the crossovers do make sense with crap weather, crap roads and high fuel prices.

So, my next car will probably be rwd, low slung with a 300 bhp petrol engine, I dont hate SUV's I just really dont need or want one.

[Chrisw666]

Twincam16 said:

What's so good about a high driving position anyway? I feel far safer in something where I sit as close to the centre of gravity as possible so I feel in control. Every 'tall' car I've driven feels like it's going to topple over in corners, and I'm not so much driving it as relaying instructions from the bridge to the engine room and hoping everything works out for the best.

That depends hugely on the type of driving you are trying to do, while a MX5 or Elise would feel loads more stable in the bends than a off roader the view out of the window from a high position sometimes can make driving a generally more relaxed experience due to being able to see over hedges on what would usually be a blind bend and over the top of cars in front of you in heavy traffic, this can make it easier to anticipate what is coming.

The above is the reason that for a long motorway/A road journey I wouldn't be upset if I had to take a transit type van over a poverty spec hatchback.

[richardxjr]

We went from an mpv to a softroader for the family wagon: this is why:

As much space and high driving position which the missus likes.

Just as good on snow/muddy fields/greenlanes as my old Rangies
(yes rly - it's only a CR-V on Bridgestone Duellers)

On demand 4wd doesn't kill mpg on normal driving

I can tow with it and it'll work on wet slipways and beaches

Tough but plasticky-kid-and-tiprun safe interior

We will get another

[XJSsometimeSoon]

Twincam16 said:

What's so good about a high driving position anyway? I feel far safer in something where I sit as close to the centre of gravity as possible so I feel in control. Every 'tall' car I've driven feels like it's going to topple over in corners, and I'm not so much driving it as relaying instructions from the bridge to the engine room and hoping everything works out for the best.

I happen to agree with you. I drive a Disco and Yaris every day, the Yaris has far better visabilty as the blind spots are tiny. Our Alfa GT is different again, loads of blind spots, but great handling and very responsive. I do not think the high seating position gives you much of an advantage.

[Twincam16]

XJSsometimeSoon said:

I happen to agree with you. I drive a Disco and Yaris every day, the Yaris has far better visabilty as the blind spots are tiny. Our Alfa GT is different again, loads of blind spots, but great handling and very responsive. I do not think the high seating position gives you much of an advantage.

I agree with the blind spots issue too, especially when reversing. With a traditional two- or three-box car, you find yourself looking straight back at whatever you're reversing towards, and the lower the car, the chances are you can see it through the rear windscreen. With a tall SUV, you're looking down towards it, and a significant part is obscured by the metal part of the tailgate.

They're also irritating for other motorists. If you're in a normal-height car, part of anticipatory safety (more important than looking over hedges, to be honest) is being able to see through the glasshouse of the car in front. You can't do this with SUVs, all you see is a wall of metal and you have to guess at what's coming up based on whether or not their brake lights are on. Admittedly it's the same story with vans, but they're like that out of necessity, whereas there's no real reason for the average family car to act as a mobile obstruction. Their popularity troubles me.

[heebeegeetee]

Twincam16 said:

I agree with the blind spots issue too, especially when reversing. With a traditional two- or three-box car, you find yourself looking straight back at whatever you're reversing towards, and the lower the car, the chances are you can see it through the rear windscreen. With a tall SUV, you're looking down towards it, and a significant part is obscured by the metal part of the tailgate.

They're also irritating for other motorists. If you're in a normal-height car, part of anticipatory safety (more important than looking over hedges, to be honest) is being able to see through the glasshouse of the car in front. You can't do this with SUVs, all you see is a wall of metal and you have to guess at what's coming up based on whether or not their brake lights are on. Admittedly it's the same story with vans, but they're like that out of necessity, whereas there's no real reason for the average family car to act as a mobile obstruction. Their popularity troubles me.

Me too. There's too much of this going on: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Having said that, I can see us having a soft-roader when we're pensioners. I think they're ideal for the elderly.

[J4CKO]

Yes, every time you are waiting to turn right someone appears on your left in an SUV obscuring your view, so the improvement in visibility is usually at the expense of someone elses.