RE: Audi SQ7: UK Review
Discussion
A standard parking space for cars in the UK has been 4.8m by 2.4m for many years. Many car parks have been designed to this specification.
A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
CS Garth said:
PhantomPH said:
Other people seem to label anything more than they can afford and not to their taste, as a 'chav wagon'.
Why do you persist with the assumption that no critic can afford it? Edited by PhantomPH on Tuesday 11th April 09:38
I don't care what people can afford. People like Je8008135 clearly do. I was directly referencing that posters' stance (well...strongly implied stance if you see the quotes above).
(Ha - I spelled 'boobies' - don't act like you're not impressed)
Bladedancer said:
"There's a lot of prejudice and ignorance displayed in any SUV thread, we've come to expect that from the small minded people [...]" and the "you can't afford it so you're bitter / jealous" arguments being thrown around.
First of all, why does this defense always come up in SUV discussion? Don't you understand you're just reinforcing the stereotype by saying that? "I can afford it, you can't so you're jealous". How is that helping the case exactly? It sounds like something straight from the playground. And how do you know the person leveling the critique can't afford it? Isn't it a bit patronizing to make that assumption?
I made the first statement, but I didn't make the second statement. The people playing the "not rich enough" and "jealous" arguments are the anti-SUV brigade who are projecting those values onto the people who buy them. Absolutely no-one here has said "I bought an SUV because it's expensive and flashy". That prejudice has excluively come from the anti-mob.First of all, why does this defense always come up in SUV discussion? Don't you understand you're just reinforcing the stereotype by saying that? "I can afford it, you can't so you're jealous". How is that helping the case exactly? It sounds like something straight from the playground. And how do you know the person leveling the critique can't afford it? Isn't it a bit patronizing to make that assumption?
As for the statement that I did make:
Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Small minded: having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook; petty.
If you read the thread through then I'd say that these are absolutely correct definitions of some of the things that have been said.
Bladedancer said:
Secondly, since when one has to be able to afford something in order to have an opinion on that thing?
Who has said that? I haven't, and I don't recall it being said by others.Bladedancer said:
Thirdly, citing ignorance is usually a sign you've run out of arguments and are doing the MJ's "you're ignorant" thing that South Park parodied so well.
Well, the arguments usually raised against SUVs go along the same lines:- They're too big (no bigger than other vehicles already on the road; vans are bigger, Bentleys etc are longer, supercars are wider etc.)
- They use too much fuel (much less than say supercars)
- They can't be parked (my wife has managed to do so for 10 years without an issue)
- No-one needs a car that big (some of us make a good case for so doing, and most people drive a car that is bigger than they need - for example singles who drive a 4 or 5 seater saloon)
The fact is, there isn't a single rational argument that can be levelled against SUVs that also can't be levelled at other types of vehicle. Yet some people reserve their sentiments exclusively for SUVs, and particularly the more expensive ones. The only thing that can explain this is prejudice.
Bladedancer said:
You also seem to ignore that fact that although you personally might truly have a need for a 7 seater giant SUV with a monster of an engine (for whatever reason...) many people who buy it do not. Those "stereotypes" don't come from nowhere.
No, stereotypes come from unbased statements being repeated over and over, usually to reinforce insecurities from those who make them. The whole anti-SUV thing kicked off with the eco lobby having a pop at them in the early 2000s, with all the same kind of statements being made then as are being repeated now.Bladedancer said:
You will also struggle to refute the fact these cars have become a prestige thing and people buy them regardless of whether it makes sense or not. They just want to be seen driving a RR/SQ7/Breyugly/GL63. Marketing has done its thing and these are the consequences sadly.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I'd assert that this is an argument propagated to support the anti-SUV sentiment. "Marketing has done its thing". Really? Show me an advert for any SUV where it's being marketed as a prestige item or status symbol. Get this: ALL car adverts try to associate their product with a glamorous/aspirational lifestyle. I'd assert that the SUV adverts focus on their flexibility/practicality, not their supposed desirability. If the argument that "they're only bought for the prestige" holds water, then why doesn't everyone drive a similarly priced sports car, or an executive saloon? Maybe, just maybe, people have bought a car which they've decided is best for their needs. Or it's the car that they want. I'd assert that everyone knocking SUVs on this thread has bought the car that they want not the car that they need. It's just that it seems that some people can't accept different choices made by different people, and then they have to project false values onto them.The fact is that the frothing mouths are exclusively preserved for SUVs which suggests selective judgements are being applied: simple prejudice. However these individuals are completely unable to make even qualified statements such as "SOME people buy these for reason X" - they are always a blanket statement: "these cars are ONLY bought as vulgar chav chariots" etc - which says a lot more about the person making such statements.
It always interests me that the folk who weigh in heavily with "anti" posts on threads about vehicles various (not just 4x4s) quite frequently have profiles which say very little about themselves or, more strangely yet for a motoring forum, their cars be they owned, previously owned or desired.
As for the " jealous because you can't afford it" I don't think anybody said that did they ?
The "how many times a day....I've earned it" was particularly catty and wholly unwarranted.
Odd behaviour indeed.
As for the " jealous because you can't afford it" I don't think anybody said that did they ?
The "how many times a day....I've earned it" was particularly catty and wholly unwarranted.
Odd behaviour indeed.
alock said:
A standard parking space for cars in the UK has been 4.8m by 2.4m for many years. Many car parks have been designed to this specification.
A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
You're not wrong and actually the exact reason I would not buy one (as stated previously). That being said, I find my own car one of the toughest I've owned to get in and out of in standard parking spaces as the doors are very long, the car is low and if someone has parked at an angle or close to my drivers' door, I really struggle to get in.A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
4.4m x 1.8m
Edited by PhantomPH on Tuesday 11th April 11:17
As mentioned I think SUV simply suit the lifestyle and requirements of most of the people who buy them.
I think the best selling (or one of the best selling cars) is the Nissan Quashiquieieurihg thing - an SUV, hardly a good brand, but gives you the same stuff.
Generally big loading area, lots of room inside, easy to get in and out of, etc.
I think the best selling (or one of the best selling cars) is the Nissan Quashiquieieurihg thing - an SUV, hardly a good brand, but gives you the same stuff.
Generally big loading area, lots of room inside, easy to get in and out of, etc.
I don't see any of this bullying that people keep talking about or alluding to. I see d
heads in all sorts of vehicles, driving like dheads. The type of car seems unimportant, to me at least. But then I don't have an inferiority complex.
More people need to learn to deal with their own insecurities, and to understand that their perception of reality is entirely inside their own head
heads in all sorts of vehicles, driving like dheads. The type of car seems unimportant, to me at least. But then I don't have an inferiority complex.More people need to learn to deal with their own insecurities, and to understand that their perception of reality is entirely inside their own head
je777 said:
But I won't bother with you any further as apparently you're the sort of person who believes they can invent 'personal issues' about complete strangers solely so they can feel good about themselves for 'winning' on the internet - may I suggest the Daily Heil for that sort of thing.
With the greatest of respect, I'm assuming your parents took you away on holiday when your school was covering irony.PhilboSE said:
Bladedancer said:
"There's a lot of prejudice and ignorance displayed in any SUV thread, we've come to expect that from the small minded people [...]" and the "you can't afford it so you're bitter / jealous" arguments being thrown around.
First of all, why does this defense always come up in SUV discussion? Don't you understand you're just reinforcing the stereotype by saying that? "I can afford it, you can't so you're jealous". How is that helping the case exactly? It sounds like something straight from the playground. And how do you know the person leveling the critique can't afford it? Isn't it a bit patronizing to make that assumption?
I made the first statement, but I didn't make the second statement. The people playing the "not rich enough" and "jealous" arguments are the anti-SUV brigade who are projecting those values onto the people who buy them. Absolutely no-one here has said "I bought an SUV because it's expensive and flashy". That prejudice has excluively come from the anti-mob.First of all, why does this defense always come up in SUV discussion? Don't you understand you're just reinforcing the stereotype by saying that? "I can afford it, you can't so you're jealous". How is that helping the case exactly? It sounds like something straight from the playground. And how do you know the person leveling the critique can't afford it? Isn't it a bit patronizing to make that assumption?
PhilboSE said:
As for the statement that I did make:
Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Small minded: having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook; petty.
If you read the thread through then I'd say that these are absolutely correct definitions of some of the things that have been said.
Indeed. On both sides.Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Small minded: having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook; petty.
If you read the thread through then I'd say that these are absolutely correct definitions of some of the things that have been said.
PhilboSE said:
Bladedancer said:
Secondly, since when one has to be able to afford something in order to have an opinion on that thing?
Who has said that? I haven't, and I don't recall it being said by others.But you can chalk it up to me making stuff up if you wish.
PhilboSE said:
Bladedancer said:
Thirdly, citing ignorance is usually a sign you've run out of arguments and are doing the MJ's "you're ignorant" thing that South Park parodied so well.
Well, the arguments usually raised against SUVs go along the same lines:- They're too big (no bigger than other vehicles already on the road; vans are bigger, Bentleys etc are longer, supercars are wider etc.)
- They use too much fuel (much less than say supercars)
- They can't be parked (my wife has managed to do so for 10 years without an issue)
- No-one needs a car that big (some of us make a good case for so doing, and most people drive a car that is bigger than they need - for example singles who drive a 4 or 5 seater saloon)
The fact is, there isn't a single rational argument that can be levelled against SUVs that also can't be levelled at other types of vehicle. Yet some people reserve their sentiments exclusively for SUVs, and particularly the more expensive ones. The only thing that can explain this is prejudice.
- Are they big? Yes. A car that doesn't fit in a 6-6 width restriction, and many new SUVs don't - is big. I'd say too big for UK.
- Too much fuel - agreed it depends on your definition of "too much". But they use more than similar size saloons/estates with the same engine. Mass and aerodynamics take their toll.
- Can't be parked - your wife can park the Q7 - kudos to her. Alas, plenty of other SUV owners can't park their tanks to save their life. The fact that *you* can do it doesn't mean *everybody* can.
As for supercars - this comparison comes up a lot. But look how many supercars are on the roads compared to the SUVs. Even in London I see a supercar once in a while but SUVs? Dozens every day and I'm talking the big stuff, RR, Q7, X5, GL.
PhilboSE said:
Bladedancer said:
You also seem to ignore that fact that although you personally might truly have a need for a 7 seater giant SUV with a monster of an engine (for whatever reason...) many people who buy it do not. Those "stereotypes" don't come from nowhere.
No, stereotypes come from unbased statements being repeated over and over, usually to reinforce insecurities from those who make them. The whole anti-SUV thing kicked off with the eco lobby having a pop at them in the early 2000s, with all the same kind of statements being made then as are being repeated now.My personal opinions on the matter come from many years spent driving and seeing the onward march of the SUV. While there has always been bad drives, and always will be, the sheer bulk of the SUVs magnifies bad habits, like cutting corners, intersections, inconsiderate parking so on and so forth. Things people could get away with driving a 4.2 meter hatchback they can't get away with driving a 5 meter long and 2 meters wide SUV.
You can claim it's all propaganda, but I can see empirical evidence every day commuting to work.
PhilboSE said:
Bladedancer said:
You will also struggle to refute the fact these cars have become a prestige thing and people buy them regardless of whether it makes sense or not. They just want to be seen driving a RR/SQ7/Breyugly/GL63. Marketing has done its thing and these are the consequences sadly.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I'd assert that this is an argument propagated to support the anti-SUV sentiment.And I don't know what other evidence you'd like to be honest.
We can go down the make-a-show out of picking up kids from private school route and you can try refute that but let's be honest - just like 5 series, E-class or A6 were seen as a status thing, RR, Q7 and GL are seen as those now.
PhilboSE said:
"Marketing has done its thing". Really? Show me an advert for any SUV where it's being marketed as a prestige item or status symbol. Get this: ALL car adverts try to associate their product with a glamorous/aspirational lifestyle. I'd assert that the SUV adverts focus on their flexibility/practicality, not their supposed desirability. If the argument that "they're only bought for the prestige" holds water, then why doesn't everyone drive a similarly priced sports car, or an executive saloon? Maybe, just maybe, people have bought a car which they've decided is best for their needs. Or it's the car that they want. I'd assert that everyone knocking SUVs on this thread has bought the car that they want not the car that they need. It's just that it seems that some people can't accept different choices made by different people, and then they have to project false values onto them.
The fact is that the frothing mouths are exclusively preserved for SUVs which suggests selective judgements are being applied: simple prejudice. However these individuals are completely unable to make even qualified statements such as "SOME people buy these for reason X" - they are always a blanket statement: "these cars are ONLY bought as vulgar chav chariots" etc - which says a lot more about the person making such statements.
You say its not marketing. Ok.The fact is that the frothing mouths are exclusively preserved for SUVs which suggests selective judgements are being applied: simple prejudice. However these individuals are completely unable to make even qualified statements such as "SOME people buy these for reason X" - they are always a blanket statement: "these cars are ONLY bought as vulgar chav chariots" etc - which says a lot more about the person making such statements.
Let's ask a different the question.
What can an SUV do that a AWD estate can't?
When you go along the list of things going for the SUVs, once you remove things other car types can do, you will have 2 things remaining: ride height and 7 seats, which btw only some SUVs offer, and even then in some cases it may only be an option.
Marketing has done its job well because they created a market where there was no need for it. While RRs do have their uses since they are off-road capable, most SUVs offer little (or nothing, or even fall short) over similar sized hatches or estates. Marketing isn't just about ads btw.
If you asserted that *everyone* on this thread has bought the car they wanted not the one they needed. Well sir, my humble self proves you wrong. I bought a car I needed, not the one I wanted. But that is beside the point. Or maybe I just misunderstood your point.
As for SUVs being the target - you make the "oppressed minority" plea here. The problem here is that you can slap any valid criticism on any subject with the "you're ganging up on me" label. In other words - this line of defense blends the difference between valid critique of something with what is colloquially called *hate*.
Edited by Bladedancer on Tuesday 11th April 13:46
alock said:
A standard parking space for cars in the UK has been 4.8m by 2.4m for many years. Many car parks have been designed to this specification.
A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
In all fairness the fault is with UK regulations (and councils, and builders) being stuck in 1962 and thinking all cars are the size of a postage stamp.A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
But since this is the reality of UK - Q7-sized care are indeed impractical for this country.
Bladedancer said:
You say its not marketing. Ok.
Let's ask a different the question.
What can an SUV do that a AWD estate can't?
When you go along the list of things going for the SUVs, once you remove things other car types can do, you will have 2 things remaining: ride height and 7 seats, which btw only some SUVs offer, and even then in some cases it may only be an option.
Marketing has done its job well because they created a market where there was no need for it. While RRs do have their uses since they are off-road capable, most SUVs offer little (or nothing, or even fall short) over similar sized hatches or estates. Marketing isn't just about ads btw.
If you asserted that *everyone* on this thread has bought the car they wanted not the one they needed. Well sir, my humble self proves you wrong. I bought a car I needed, not the one I wanted. But that is beside the point. Or maybe I just misunderstood your point.
As for SUVs being the target - you make the "oppressed minority" plea here. The problem here is that you can slap any valid criticism on any subject with the "you're ganging up on me" label. In other words - this line of defense blends the difference between valid critique of something with what is colloquially called *hate*.
What can a SUV do that an awd estate car can't ?Let's ask a different the question.
What can an SUV do that a AWD estate can't?
When you go along the list of things going for the SUVs, once you remove things other car types can do, you will have 2 things remaining: ride height and 7 seats, which btw only some SUVs offer, and even then in some cases it may only be an option.
Marketing has done its job well because they created a market where there was no need for it. While RRs do have their uses since they are off-road capable, most SUVs offer little (or nothing, or even fall short) over similar sized hatches or estates. Marketing isn't just about ads btw.
If you asserted that *everyone* on this thread has bought the car they wanted not the one they needed. Well sir, my humble self proves you wrong. I bought a car I needed, not the one I wanted. But that is beside the point. Or maybe I just misunderstood your point.
As for SUVs being the target - you make the "oppressed minority" plea here. The problem here is that you can slap any valid criticism on any subject with the "you're ganging up on me" label. In other words - this line of defense blends the difference between valid critique of something with what is colloquially called *hate*.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 11th April 13:46
My dear Sir one would look an absolute buffoon taking one's A4 Quattro Avant on a shoot;)
On a less tongue in cheek footing having had a quick look at your posting history ( I know it's terrible isn't it but 'I'm bored waiting for some work to be done on my car) it seems your interaction on PH comprises almost exclusively of posting negative views on vehicles (not just SUVs) reviewed by PH staffers or otherwise featured on the site. This includes on the one hand claiming the only good thing about a Merc GL63 is the engine and then on the other elsewhere deriding the AMG V8 as pointless and wasteful.
Is there anything you enjoy about modern motoring ?
RSK21 said:
What can a SUV do that an awd estate car can't ?
My dear Sir one would look an absolute buffoon taking one's A4 Quattro Avant on a shoot;)
But in all seriousness anyone who does drive in fields or more severe off-roading conditions will know that most 4WD SUVs are superior to 4WD cars as a result of their ground clearance. How many people with SUVs that require this is another thing altogether.My dear Sir one would look an absolute buffoon taking one's A4 Quattro Avant on a shoot;)
One thing that has been overlooked about SUVs is the reason my partner has her Kia Sportage (as opposed to an estate car) is that it is far easier to load a child into a car seat in a higher car, and she likes the higher seating position.
When you then add in the better towing capabilities larger SUVs and pickups tend to offer, we have quite a few non-ostentatious reasons to buy a large SUV or pickup.
Which leads me to something else. Everyone who is complaining seem to be complaining about top end SUVs being large, but what about crew cab pickups which can be massive (longer than SUVs)? I once borrowed a Hilux when between cars and I hated the fact that I had to use two parking spaces (length wise) at the supermarket etc.
TomScrut said:
But in all seriousness anyone who does drive in fields or more severe off-roading conditions will know that most 4WD SUVs are superior to 4WD cars as a result of their ground clearance. How many people with SUVs that require this is another thing altogether.
One thing that has been overlooked about SUVs is the reason my partner has her Kia Sportage (as opposed to an estate car) is that it is far easier to load a child into a car seat in a higher car, and she likes the higher seating position.
When you then add in the better towing capabilities larger SUVs and pickups tend to offer, we have quite a few non-ostentatious reasons to buy a large SUV or pickup.
Which leads me to something else. Everyone who is complaining seem to be complaining about top end SUVs being large, but what about crew cab pickups which can be massive (longer than SUVs)? I once borrowed a Hilux when between cars and I hated the fact that I had to use two parking spaces (length wise) at the supermarket etc.
I couldn't agree more.One thing that has been overlooked about SUVs is the reason my partner has her Kia Sportage (as opposed to an estate car) is that it is far easier to load a child into a car seat in a higher car, and she likes the higher seating position.
When you then add in the better towing capabilities larger SUVs and pickups tend to offer, we have quite a few non-ostentatious reasons to buy a large SUV or pickup.
Which leads me to something else. Everyone who is complaining seem to be complaining about top end SUVs being large, but what about crew cab pickups which can be massive (longer than SUVs)? I once borrowed a Hilux when between cars and I hated the fact that I had to use two parking spaces (length wise) at the supermarket etc.
There are plenty of reasons people like SUVs and why they have become as popular. Whisper it so the hair shifrt " car I need not that I want" brigade don't get too upset but one of these is just because *they just like them* ! Whatever next ?
To put it all down to "marketing" is really rather myopic and a view sometime peepetuted to rationalise and justify the view of those who posit that view in the first place. Ironic in the extreme given the science and psychology of marketing !
TomScrut said:
But in all seriousness anyone who does drive in fields or more severe off-roading conditions will know that most 4WD SUVs are superior to 4WD cars as a result of their ground clearance. How many people with SUVs that require this is another thing altogether.
One thing that has been overlooked about SUVs is the reason my partner has her Kia Sportage (as opposed to an estate car) is that it is far easier to load a child into a car seat in a higher car, and she likes the higher seating position.
When you then add in the better towing capabilities larger SUVs and pickups tend to offer, we have quite a few non-ostentatious reasons to buy a large SUV or pickup.
Which leads me to something else. Everyone who is complaining seem to be complaining about top end SUVs being large, but what about crew cab pickups which can be massive (longer than SUVs)? I once borrowed a Hilux when between cars and I hated the fact that I had to use two parking spaces (length wise) at the supermarket etc.
We have a Seat Ateca in our family.One thing that has been overlooked about SUVs is the reason my partner has her Kia Sportage (as opposed to an estate car) is that it is far easier to load a child into a car seat in a higher car, and she likes the higher seating position.
When you then add in the better towing capabilities larger SUVs and pickups tend to offer, we have quite a few non-ostentatious reasons to buy a large SUV or pickup.
Which leads me to something else. Everyone who is complaining seem to be complaining about top end SUVs being large, but what about crew cab pickups which can be massive (longer than SUVs)? I once borrowed a Hilux when between cars and I hated the fact that I had to use two parking spaces (length wise) at the supermarket etc.
We needed a car with a bigger boot to replace the wife's old hatchback and although we would have preferred an estate car, the Ateca was a shorter vehicle with more load space and competitively priced; the length of the car was important as parking where we live means you get a finite amount of space for your car. It's got a 1.4 turbo petrol engine in it, which is perfectly sufficient for what it needs to do and actually doesn't ride or handle too badly, but it's never going to handle like a car because it's big unwieldy beast. That said, it is not a sports vehicle!
Ultimately if we're all honest, the main reason people buy the expensive Range rover and Audi models is because they want a giant luxury vehicle that's comfortable and for some reason aren't happy with your typical RS6 or equivalent luxury saloon and are probably less fussed about it handling like one.
In all seriousness, very few will ever drive a £70-90,000 Sport Utility Vehicle (and I use the word Sport with irony because they don't look sporty regardless of how much you stick on them!) off road because it would cost too much to fix when things break.
You mention a Hilux but that's an example of the sort of vehicles people would be prepared to drive off road and use to transport goods because it's a practical usable vehicle that's cost effective to maintain, run and use in that sort of environment.
We just have to be truthful and ask when was the last time any of us ever saw an Audi SUV going off road
Does it mean the owners are up themselves? No.
mrnoisy78 said:
Ultimately if we're all honest, the main reason people buy the expensive Range rover and Audi models is because they want a giant luxury vehicle that's comfortable and for some reason aren't happy with your typical RS6 or equivalent luxury saloon and are probably less fussed about it handling like one.
In all seriousness, very few will ever drive a £70-90,000 Sport Utility Vehicle (and I use the word Sport with irony because they don't look sporty regardless of how much you stick on them!) off road because it would cost too much to fix when things break.
You mention a Hilux but that's an example of the sort of vehicles people would be prepared to drive off road and use to transport goods because it's a practical usable vehicle that's cost effective to maintain, run and use in that sort of environment.
We just have to be truthful and ask when was the last time any of us ever saw an Audi SUV going off road
Does it mean the owners are up themselves? No.
It may not be the norm but a friend of mine has a new Q7 having had two previous generations ones. He always specs the off road pack (although no low range shows it's not for really serious stuff) and I have seen that all have been perfectly capable on farms and in forests which would defeat a standard estate car.In all seriousness, very few will ever drive a £70-90,000 Sport Utility Vehicle (and I use the word Sport with irony because they don't look sporty regardless of how much you stick on them!) off road because it would cost too much to fix when things break.
You mention a Hilux but that's an example of the sort of vehicles people would be prepared to drive off road and use to transport goods because it's a practical usable vehicle that's cost effective to maintain, run and use in that sort of environment.
We just have to be truthful and ask when was the last time any of us ever saw an Audi SUV going off road
Does it mean the owners are up themselves? No.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff