Do you need anything more than a 320d?
Discussion
lostkiwi said:
T0MMY said:
I'm not sure you understand my point...you can't bring up features I don't need and say that without them my choice of car would not be a "do anything vehicle". Let me give you another example...my hypothetical estate car choice has the ability to get under a 1.5 metre bridge, your SUV doesn't so is not a do anything vehicle, regardless of whether or not you happen to live at the end of a road with a 1.5 m bridge and need that ability. It's also not a do anything vehicle as it can't carry 26 tonnes of raw sewage, do you see what I mean?
A 4wd is a do anything vehicle in as much as in general terms it will do everything. Edited by T0MMY on Friday 24th July 19:45
It will drive down motorways, a roads , b roads, unsealed roads, farmers tracks, beaches, snowfields, flooded roads, tow upto 3500kg (which I'm pretty sure no estate car can do), move wardrobes, get the shopping, take the kids to school - pretty much anything pretty much anyone would ask of it. It's a jack of all trades and just as the saying says master of none. It's full of compromise but that doesn't stop it being the consummate all rounder. It's the Swiss army knife of motor vehicles. It may not do some things well (hurtle round a track for example) but it will still do it if you ask it to. A less compromised for the road vehicle may be a 4wd estate, but they aren't the crisp balanced chassis you refer to either.
Even if most of the population don't use all it's abilities it's still a vehicle that will do anything they could ask of it. If people don't want the do anythibg nature of an SUV they'll buy something else, but given sales of SUVs in this country are increasing faster than any other segment there are clearly a lot of people who like the idea of some vehicle to do everything. In some countries SUV sales are greater than car sales.
For some individuals it may not be the type of all rounder they would chose but that's bbecause they have set a different set of criteria. Their all rounder may well be an all rounder in their eyes according to their criteria but in the broader context of (for exampl) a manufacturer making 'one car for all people to do all things' an SUV would be the only vehicle to fit the brief.
Don't get me wrong, I have more than one vehicle (we have 4 between 2 of us) but that's because my SUV is modified for a specific purpose and we choose to run different vehicles for different jobs. That said, if we could only have one vehicle I'd think seriously about it being an SUV.
To put it mathematically, I understand that an off roader does A + B + C + D, whereas an ordinary car you only get A + B; however, because the off roader has C & D, it's A & B are much weaker. What I can't get my head around is why people who only want to do A & B and never do C & D choose an off roader, that was all. I understand why mountain rescue use them, or farmers, or beach lifeguards etc, but people who take the kids to school, go on holiday, go shopping etc - that's what I'm confused about.
Your analogy earlier with my personal preferences for the 320d isn't really valid because I've listed my criteria and demonstrated how the 320d matches them - it was all completely logical - the only argument came from people who don't like diesels or who don't like the notion of a 4 door saloon car, which is fair enough. All I'm expecting with this new example is for someone to reveal to me that an off roader is actually better at satisfying peoples' criteria than for example an estate car would be - as far as I can see it, from any angle, it isn't.
cerb4.5lee said:
I am the other side of the coin after having a E92 M3 and I would prefer a Manual F-Type and a manual Aston and a manual 350z over the M3 purely because of the fact that the M3 is when all said and done based on a hum drum saloon in the first place whereas the others are built as ground up drivers cars for me.
Having driven a 350 they're light years away. I think every Aston is a bit of a disappointment for me, I love the Vantage, and was close to buying one but I feared it wouldn't live up to my expectations? F-Type, well it's a looker, but for me totally OTT, sod all practicality and did they have to make it so brash? I'd take the older XKR100...if it had a manual box. My M3 is grower. The lack of torque actually appeals to me as I have been brought up on cars that you have to work to enjoy. The brakes, let's be honest are pretty s
t considering the performance. The fact that £20K buys you a liveable 420HP 4 door V8 saloon is quite remarkable IMO. It's not a swiss army knife, won't tow and definitely isn't a 640d 
Neither will it go off road, carry as much as an estate or be anything other than what it is. For that I have a Caterham and a cheap old wagon. One of the best cars I ever owned (DC2) was based on a very ordinary Japanese coupe. I don't see a vehicle that does everything, there are niches the same as everything else. However. I don't fall for cars, I drive them. It could be years or months I have any of them, I wish I was different and have honestly regretted selling things on a whim, I just stop really wanting them around, it's very odd. Perhaps I am due a classic?
yonex said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I am the other side of the coin after having a E92 M3 and I would prefer a Manual F-Type and a manual Aston and a manual 350z over the M3 purely because of the fact that the M3 is when all said and done based on a hum drum saloon in the first place whereas the others are built as ground up drivers cars for me.
Having driven a 350 they're light years away. I think every Aston is a bit of a disappointment for me, I love the Vantage, and was close to buying one but I feared it wouldn't live up to my expectations? F-Type, well it's a looker, but for me totally OTT, sod all practicality and did they have to make it so brash? I'd take the older XKR100...if it had a manual box. My M3 is grower. The lack of torque actually appeals to me as I have been brought up on cars that you have to work to enjoy. The brakes, let's be honest are pretty s
t considering the performance. The fact that £20K buys you a liveable 420HP 4 door V8 saloon is quite remarkable IMO. It's not a swiss army knife, won't tow and definitely isn't a 640d Neither will it go off road, carry as much as an estate or be anything other than what it is. For that I have a Caterham and a cheap old wagon. One of the best cars I ever owned (DC2) was based on a very ordinary Japanese coupe. I don't see a vehicle that does everything, there are niches the same as everything else. However. I don't fall for cars, I drive them. It could be years or months I have any of them, I wish I was different and have honestly regretted selling things on a whim, I just stop really wanting them around, it's very odd. Perhaps I am due a classic?
I personally love the brash and showy nature of the F-Type Coupe and chuffed its now offered with a manual gearbox although sadly not the V8 model, I would also love a V12 Vantage with a manual box as I like the shape and the fact they have shoe horned a massive engine in.
I will admit when I drove a 350z it did leave me a tad disappointed because I thought the engine was ordinary and I felt you could feel its kerb weight too but I do still love them though.
You are spot though in that no car can do it all and I think its nice to have something that does most things well as a daily and then have something to set your pants on fire at the weekend and for me that is the best set up.
RobM77 said:
I realise that, but my (or our?) point was that the all round ability that SUVs have encompasses things that don't get used in day to day life and having those abilities makes it worse at the things that do get used.
To put it mathematically, I understand that an off roader does A + B + C + D, whereas an ordinary car you only get A + B; however, because the off roader has C & D, it's A & B are much weaker. What I can't get my head around is why people who only want to do A & B and never do C & D choose an off roader, that was all. I understand why mountain rescue use them, or farmers, or beach lifeguards etc, but people who take the kids to school, go on holiday, go shopping etc - that's what I'm confused about.
Your analogy earlier with my personal preferences for the 320d isn't really valid because I've listed my criteria and demonstrated how the 320d matches them - it was all completely logical - the only argument came from people who don't like diesels or who don't like the notion of a 4 door saloon car, which is fair enough. All I'm expecting with this new example is for someone to reveal to me that an off roader is actually better at satisfying peoples' criteria than for example an estate car would be - as far as I can see it, from any angle, it isn't.
I think that's missing the point completely. I have a 4x4 and only yesterday filled it to the gunnels with crap and drove the family down to the south of France. We all had loads of room, the car was quiet and cruised at 90mph on a single tank of fuel. When I got out I was a bit tired after 12 hours in the car but I wasn't stressed and could still walk. No heeling and toeingTo put it mathematically, I understand that an off roader does A + B + C + D, whereas an ordinary car you only get A + B; however, because the off roader has C & D, it's A & B are much weaker. What I can't get my head around is why people who only want to do A & B and never do C & D choose an off roader, that was all. I understand why mountain rescue use them, or farmers, or beach lifeguards etc, but people who take the kids to school, go on holiday, go shopping etc - that's what I'm confused about.
Your analogy earlier with my personal preferences for the 320d isn't really valid because I've listed my criteria and demonstrated how the 320d matches them - it was all completely logical - the only argument came from people who don't like diesels or who don't like the notion of a 4 door saloon car, which is fair enough. All I'm expecting with this new example is for someone to reveal to me that an off roader is actually better at satisfying peoples' criteria than for example an estate car would be - as far as I can see it, from any angle, it isn't.
,feeling of the road or other b
ks was required.My D4 does everything I ask of it and I like being able to see over the top of inferior saloons and estates, it also holds considerably more wine and cheese than any estate I've seen so no need for the Halfords roof boxes I saw so many 'equivalent' estate cars wearing yesterday. Air suspension is also cool as I can lower it into service height or raise it up much to my own amusement and amazement of others whilst in traffic jams. Try that in your teeny, tiny repmobile.
It's a bit like saying what's the point of using a steak knife to eat your rib eye when you can get by with a 320d~shaped plastic spoon.
wormus said:
RobM77 said:
I realise that, but my (or our?) point was that the all round ability that SUVs have encompasses things that don't get used in day to day life and having those abilities makes it worse at the things that do get used.
To put it mathematically, I understand that an off roader does A + B + C + D, whereas an ordinary car you only get A + B; however, because the off roader has C & D, it's A & B are much weaker. What I can't get my head around is why people who only want to do A & B and never do C & D choose an off roader, that was all. I understand why mountain rescue use them, or farmers, or beach lifeguards etc, but people who take the kids to school, go on holiday, go shopping etc - that's what I'm confused about.
Your analogy earlier with my personal preferences for the 320d isn't really valid because I've listed my criteria and demonstrated how the 320d matches them - it was all completely logical - the only argument came from people who don't like diesels or who don't like the notion of a 4 door saloon car, which is fair enough. All I'm expecting with this new example is for someone to reveal to me that an off roader is actually better at satisfying peoples' criteria than for example an estate car would be - as far as I can see it, from any angle, it isn't.
I think that's missing the point completely. I have a 4x4 and only yesterday filled it to the gunnels with crap and drove the family down to the south of France. We all had loads of room, the car was quiet and cruised at 90mph on a single tank of fuel. When I got out I was a bit tired after 12 hours in the car but I wasn't stressed and could still walk. No heeling and toeingTo put it mathematically, I understand that an off roader does A + B + C + D, whereas an ordinary car you only get A + B; however, because the off roader has C & D, it's A & B are much weaker. What I can't get my head around is why people who only want to do A & B and never do C & D choose an off roader, that was all. I understand why mountain rescue use them, or farmers, or beach lifeguards etc, but people who take the kids to school, go on holiday, go shopping etc - that's what I'm confused about.
Your analogy earlier with my personal preferences for the 320d isn't really valid because I've listed my criteria and demonstrated how the 320d matches them - it was all completely logical - the only argument came from people who don't like diesels or who don't like the notion of a 4 door saloon car, which is fair enough. All I'm expecting with this new example is for someone to reveal to me that an off roader is actually better at satisfying peoples' criteria than for example an estate car would be - as far as I can see it, from any angle, it isn't.
,feeling of the road or other b
ks was required.My D4 does everything I ask of it and I like being able to see over the top of inferior saloons and estates, it also holds considerably more wine and cheese than any estate I've seen so no need for the Halfords roof boxes I saw so many 'equivalent' estate cars wearing yesterday. Air suspension is also cool as I can lower it into service height or raise it up much to my own amusement and amazement of others whilst in traffic jams. Try that in your teeny, tiny repmobile.
It's a bit like saying what's the point of using a steak knife to eat your rib eye when you can get by with a 320d~shaped plastic spoon.
I think the people who most criticise 4x4s and their owners are the ones who've never owned one. When you get to a stage on your life where you are a middle aged Dad with failing eye site, a 4x4 is just the ticket. You can take your kids and their mates to endless parties with 7 comfortable seats, you can take things to the dump and not have to bend down when getting in and unloading it. Fit in a wardrobe as has been previously mentioned and drive to the south of France in comfort. I also drive it to the train station for my commute and have no need to change my tires when it does occasionally snow.
Contrary to popular beliief, not everyone on piston heads wears Nomex racing trainers and drives around looking for bigger, cars to intimidate. Most of the time we cannot see smaller cars let alone be bothered by them.
Contrary to popular beliief, not everyone on piston heads wears Nomex racing trainers and drives around looking for bigger, cars to intimidate. Most of the time we cannot see smaller cars let alone be bothered by them.
wormus said:
I think that's missing the point completely. I have a 4x4 and only yesterday filled it to the gunnels with crap and drove the family down to the south of France. We all had loads of room, the car was quiet and cruised at 90mph on a single tank of fuel. When I got out I was a bit tired after 12 hours in the car but I wasn't stressed and could still walk. No heeling and toeing
,feeling of the road or other bks was required.
My D4 does everything I ask of it and I like being able to see over the top of inferior saloons and estates, it also holds considerably more wine and cheese than any estate I've seen so no need for the Halfords roof boxes I saw so many 'equivalent' estate cars wearing yesterday. Air suspension is also cool as I can lower it into service height or raise it up much to my own amusement and amazement of others whilst in traffic jams. Try that in your teeny, tiny repmobile.
It's a bit like saying what's the point of using a steak knife to eat your rib eye when you can get by with a 320d~shaped plastic spoon.
Sounds good, which model is it? ,feeling of the road or other b
ks was required.My D4 does everything I ask of it and I like being able to see over the top of inferior saloons and estates, it also holds considerably more wine and cheese than any estate I've seen so no need for the Halfords roof boxes I saw so many 'equivalent' estate cars wearing yesterday. Air suspension is also cool as I can lower it into service height or raise it up much to my own amusement and amazement of others whilst in traffic jams. Try that in your teeny, tiny repmobile.
It's a bit like saying what's the point of using a steak knife to eat your rib eye when you can get by with a 320d~shaped plastic spoon.
wormus said:
I think the people who most criticise 4x4s and their owners are the ones who've never owned one. <snip>
Contrary to popular beliief, not everyone on piston heads wears Nomex racing trainers and drives around looking for bigger, cars to intimidate. Most of the time we cannot see smaller cars let alone be bothered by them.
The same thing is probably true of 99% of cars that get berated on here!Contrary to popular beliief, not everyone on piston heads wears Nomex racing trainers and drives around looking for bigger, cars to intimidate. Most of the time we cannot see smaller cars let alone be bothered by them.
Ares said:
The same thing is probably true of 99% of cars that get berated on here!
Touché Monsieur. Although if I ever claimed my Landie was as fast as a 997 I'd expect a good flaming. If you're ever in Bedfordshire, you are welcome to drop by with some garden waste and I'll prove how much more it holds than a 911 and your 640d put together wormus said:
Touché Monsieur. Although if I ever claimed my Landie was as fast as a 997 I'd expect a good flaming. If you're ever in Bedfordshire, you are welcome to drop by with some garden waste and I'll prove how much more it holds than a 911 and your 640d put together
Yes, but expect that sometime soon now with the return of Captain Random 
wormus said:
I think the people who most criticise 4x4s and their owners are the ones who've never owned one. When you get to a stage on your life where you are a middle aged Dad with failing eye site, a 4x4 is just the ticket.
Seems to me that if you eyesight is failing, then getting a taxi or relative to drive you would be a much safer proposition for everyone.lostkiwi said:
The point is an all rounder by definition has to do everything. It will likely not be good at a few things it does but it can still do anything.
Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
So what about all those SUVs which have all the dynamic downsides of a tall wobbly off-roader, but few or none of the useful bits that would actually make them useful of-road? e.g. CR-V, RAV4 etc. It's like a butter knife styled to look like a Swiss army knife, but made out of rubber.Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
Mr2Mike said:
lostkiwi said:
The point is an all rounder by definition has to do everything. It will likely not be good at a few things it does but it can still do anything.
Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
So what about all those SUVs which have all the dynamic downsides of a tall wobbly off-roader, but few or none of the useful bits that would actually make them useful of-road? e.g. CR-V, RAV4 etc. It's like a butter knife styled to look like a Swiss army knife, but made out of rubber.Going to 2wd removes the ability to do anything as does removing ground clearance. Whether you use all the capabilities is irrelevant. The car wasn't made for you - it was made for a group of people who want a complete all rounder. You don't and for that reason you chose something else that's compromised in some areas you don't use.
It's like saying a butter knife is a better all rounder than a Swiss army knife. It might be for what you use a knife for but the Swiss army knife is a better all rounder for most people.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff