SUVs - Whats the point?

[FiF]

Just to pick up on the point "can't see the need for heavier SUVs in towns."

This says more about the person who wrote that than anything else frankly. It smacks of assuming that anyone who sees me driving up the Tything in Worcester automatically assumes that I only EVER drive in town, completely ignoring that I might have come from the depths of Worcestershire countryside into town for a 15 minute call and then out to the forest before later going onto unmade tracks and home.

What am I supposed to do, go home, pick up another car, seems a Jazz might be popular and then go back the wrong way, to swap back vehicles to come back along some of the same roads just to avoid upsetting the delicate sensibilities of folks who don't appear to agree with the concept of freedom of choice.

[Jammez]

There's not much point to most types of car on the road, we just want them, people make them so we buy them!

I have 3 4x4's which is a bit silly if I'm being honest but I love them. No different to someone buying sports cars/classic cars/fast cars/motorbikes blah blah. We don't all have to understand the why, it's what makes Pistonheads exist.

I think what's far more pointless is new parents who seem incapable of having a child without having to purchase a soft roader of some kind to ferry around all the pointless crap they insist on attaching to their child! Got people in my office who don't have 2 pennies to rub together who got pregnant and the first thing they did is buy £20k worth of soft roader because apparently you couldn't possible have an Astra and put a child in it!

My folks had a mini, we'd get 100's of us in there no bother!

Still it's their choice!

[Hoofy]

Jammez said:

I think what's far more pointless is new parents who seem incapable of having a child without having to purchase a soft roader of some kind to ferry around all the pointless crap they insist on attaching to their child! Got people in my office who don't have 2 pennies to rub together who got pregnant and the first thing they did is buy £20k worth of soft roader because apparently you couldn't possible have an Astra and put a child in it!

On the bright side, it's flooded the market with cheap 4x4s which means I have a cheap car that can actually be used as a practical vehicle. The alternative is buying a van or MPV.

[Ares]

Willy Nilly said:

Ares said:

OK. I know around 20 farmers. They all have Defenders. Most of them are in Cheshire though. I don't know a single one with a Skoda. I do know of one with a Peugeot 505 estate though.

I take your point regarding a Transit, but equally few of us have a Connect/Berlingo lying around either, nor are we likely to buy one just for the few times we need to carry a van load of crap. Especially when an SUV is 99% has good for the normal person for load carrying...and a damned sight better the rest of the time.

Thanks for the tip on the Tractor. I was just about to cancel my order for a Quadrifoglio for one, but if it's too big I'll stick with the Alfa!

This site is just full of handy tips!

What you keep struggling to grasp is that someone says how they must have an SUV because they are easier to load. The reference I make regarding the Transit, is that it's a big vehicle which makes parking it more difficult and as it's higher, it's more difficult to load by hand. I can park my little car just about anywhere and because it's small, the doors can be opened wider (they will open to about 90 degrees) making loading much easier than a car that takes up more room in the space and then has a door card thats getting on for a foot thick, the case of a Cayenne.

Again, people say how the commanding view of their big, rugged off roader allows them to see over the hedges. My point is that my tractor is head and shoulders higher than even an L405 RR and while I can see over most hedges, the size of the vehicle negates any advantages the height advantage gives me because I'm constantly having to look for gaps to let incompetently driven SUV's past.

The bosses other daughter has a Discover Sport and was complaining over winter how it was sliding everywhere, obviously my car was fine in the snow, but the low profile, performance road tyres fitted to the car designed, or at least marketed, to ford every river and climb every mountain, weren't offering much grip....

I know 3 people that run D4 Commercials. One does silly miles, up to 60k/yr and the other 2 about 25k. So these vehicles are working for a living, full of tools and and work stuff and pulling fuel bowers and light plant. But JLR are now going down the Ponce Rover market and leaving these customers high and dry with no replacement.

What you keep struggling to grasp is that I've had SUVs and I know, from experience, that they are easier to put a child into, and easier to load in general.

What you keep struggling to grasp as well is that people don't buy SUVs for their ability to rival a micro-car in the parking stakes. In 5 years of SUV ownership, I never struggled once to park them. Given the often have a smaller footprint that a large estate car, they are often easier to park than their corresponding car.

What you also keep struggling to realise is that you tractor has the benefit of a high position, but is far far bigger than an SUV...ergo, a car that has the elevated position WITHOUT the bulk of a tractor, is an attractive proposition for some. No you, your Jazz is omnipotent, but for some people.

What you also keep struggling to grasp is that any Discovery that cannot beat a Jazz, both on normal road tyres, is purely down to the ineptitude of the driver.

JLR launch their new Defender in the next 12 months.


Finally, What you also keep struggling to grasp is that people are free to buy whatever they like. Most people wouldn't consider a Jazz to be a competitor for any SUV. I can't think of a single reason the led to either of my SUV purchases that would be even remotely covered with a Jazz.

[sonnenschein3000]

Plate spinner said:

Having asked a few people that drive them, I think it comes down to the projected image and feelings of superiority.

Nothing wrong with that I guess, many folk are hugely driven to achieve these things whether they openly admit it or not.

And in a lot of cases, borrowing up to their eyeballs to achieve that!

[SBDJ]

I have an old Range Rover as the family vehicle. Yes it's big and thirsty but it is a hell of a lot easier to put my 8 year old in his car seat at a height where I don't have to bend down - it really does hurt for me to get him into a normal height car. Then his wheelchair - which takes up the entire boot of his mothers Audi A3 (you have to take the parcel shelf out too) fits in the boot with plenty of space to spare.

If, as alluded to earlier, someone hates me for my choice of vehicle then that is entirely their problem.

[RobM77]

Ares said:

What you keep struggling to grasp is that I've had SUVs and I know, from experience, that they are easier to put a child into, and easier to load in general.;)

That's rather misleading; it depends on what you're loading, where you're loading it and how tall you are. For me, as a regular carrier of loads, a car is the only option for what I load, but for others an SUV may be easier. One answer won't suit everyone though.

Lifting a child half a metre to the back seat of my car is much easier than lifting the same child one metre to the height of an SUV. That's just basic physics because the energy required to move a mass vertically to a given height is simply "mass * g * height". You then need to get the child from that height into their car seat, and your own body height and particular back/movement issues then come into it, because to do that you need to stoop/bend more with a car than with an off roader. Personally, I find a car easier for this because my bad back is affected by lifting, not stooping - plenty of my friends find the opposite. Horses for courses.

The same applies to loading the boot. P.E. = mgh, but the SUV's boot is typical presented in front of you at belly/chest height, whereas a car's is down at knee/waist height. Again, I prefer the car, but many prefer an off roader.

The loading space of SUV vs car is also different. SUVs tend to achieve their volume with a cuboidal space, whereas cars have much less height and more length. An SUV is much easier to get a washing machine into, for obvious reasons, but for packing multiple loose items, a car is far better because stacking such things vertically is unsafe and also makes access annoying. For example, when I go racing I have about ten 'really useful boxes' with tools, spares etc in, and in my car they lay out one deep so I can access them during a race meeting without unloading them - in an SUV you can't get to them because they're stacked, and they also represent a hazard in an accident or even just cornering, because they'll tend to topple.

Loading the roof is the last thing and the easiest to describe: Twice a week I load long heavy objects onto the roof of my car and for this, from experience, I've chosen a car that's as low as possible. Having tried the same thing with a Mondeo I can report it was markedly harder. An SUV is almost impossible, and certainly not safe. Next time you're at a surf or windsurf spot have a look at the car park - we all drive cars with roofs at chest height, or vans where we can load boards into the van itself. Roof bars and off roaders are a non-starter.

So in summary, SUVs and cars have different talents when it comes to load lugging - one is definitely not better than the other.

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 13th June 11:57

[Wild Rumpus]

Granfondo said:

nickfrog said:

Wild Rumpus said:

A big, comfortable SUV is ideal for towing your competition/trackday car

But if you have a low COG estate you can use that for track days or racing so you don't need the SUV at all.

You see lots of estates at track days all over the country!

I could go rallying in an estate car, I suppose, but I would still need a big 4x4 to tow it to and from the events. Also a full cage makes it difficult to use as a family car....

[RobM77]

Wild Rumpus said:

Granfondo said:

nickfrog said:

Wild Rumpus said:

A big, comfortable SUV is ideal for towing your competition/trackday car

But if you have a low COG estate you can use that for track days or racing so you don't need the SUV at all.

You see lots of estates at track days all over the country!

I could go rallying in an estate car, I suppose, but I would still need a big 4x4 to tow it to and from the events. Also a full cage makes it difficult to use as a family car....

I'd just like to point out that I tow a large covered trailer weighing 1400kg all over the UK with my 3 series saloon and have no problems at all. The only time you'd want an SUV is to get the high towing capacity if you're towing a heavier trailer. Most club racers and caravanners have used tow cars for decades with no issues. I also get about 35mpg when towing and benefit from 70mpg when not towing, which pays for my racing compared to running an SUV as a daily....

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 13th June 12:00

[RobM77]

Whilst I'm at it I'd like to point out that the seeing over hedges thing is a complete myth, at least in rural Berkshire where I live, and certainly in the West Country where many of my family are. Hedges are simply too tall. A typical SUV driver's eye level is at about the same height as when you're walking along (around 5'7" to 5'9"?), so if you're an average height bloke, next time you're walking down a country lane, crouch to belly height and back up to full standing height and tell me how much you can see over the hedges It'll make no difference at all. To actually see over a hedge you need to be up in a lorry or a tractor.

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 13th June 12:03

[cwis]

barker22 said:

To the posters on the first pages telling us about how great the CRV is. Pulling an x5 up a hill etc... Is this the same CRV that doesn't even have real 4wd. Where Honda released an official statement to that effect. If a CRV pulled an X5 up a hill then it was purely down to the X5 having bald tyres and being goosed, or the CRV having an awesome set of shoes on

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/attention-all-hon...

Models mentioned in earlier pages are earlier ones - 2002 to 2004. 4WD definitely works on them - I've got one, have standard tyres on it, and don't get stuck in snow...

I wouldn't call it "proper" 4wd though - it's one of those Haldex style ones that needs some slip from the front wheels before the rear drive clutches in. I had an early Rav4 in the past with "proper" 4wd - (3 open diffs with a locker on the central one), and that was "better" in inclement conditions - it actually became quite tail happy on the power!

[Wild Rumpus]

RobM77 said:

Wild Rumpus said:

Granfondo said:

nickfrog said:

Wild Rumpus said:

A big, comfortable SUV is ideal for towing your competition/trackday car

But if you have a low COG estate you can use that for track days or racing so you don't need the SUV at all.

You see lots of estates at track days all over the country!

I could go rallying in an estate car, I suppose, but I would still need a big 4x4 to tow it to and from the events. Also a full cage makes it difficult to use as a family car....

I'd just like to point out that I tow a large covered trailer weighing 1400kg all over the UK with my 320d saloon and have no problems at all. I also get about 35mpg. I've heard that SUVs are better, but I've yet to find the 320d deficient in any way and I've not had any stability issues to date. I guess I could do with a more powerful engine for really steep hills, but for that I could just get a 330d. Note that the cost of going a long way at 15/20mpg is double that at 35mpg. Plus, when the trailer's unhitched for 95% of my miles my mpg goes up to 70, and with the low CofG I can enjoy great handling (I've modded the suspension) which is more than can be said for an SUV.

I have also towed with normal cars and they can manage, but my trailer with a car on it, a full tyre rack and jerry cans in the storage box is over 1800kg, which would be too heavy to be towed by a 3-series. Also, getting 1800kg balanced to give 90kg noseweight (which is the limit for most cars, many are lower) is tricky. A big SUV with a 3500kg tow limit and maximum 150kg noseweight gives a big margin. Also, steep hill starts are effortless in my Range Rover, the same thing in my old Volvo 940 was a struggle with a strong smell of burning clutch. The sheer mass of a big SUV helps with stability when towing as does my self-levelling air suspension.

[Shotaro]

RobM77 is everything OK at home mate? You seem very anti-SUV, I get you point - we should all sell everything we own and buy the wunderbar 320d saloon because that's all the car anyone will ever need evidently, but did you wife run off with an SUV salesman or something? Do you need a hug?

[RobM77]

Wild Rumpus said:

RobM77 said:

Wild Rumpus said:

Granfondo said:

nickfrog said:

Wild Rumpus said:

A big, comfortable SUV is ideal for towing your competition/trackday car

But if you have a low COG estate you can use that for track days or racing so you don't need the SUV at all.

You see lots of estates at track days all over the country!

I could go rallying in an estate car, I suppose, but I would still need a big 4x4 to tow it to and from the events. Also a full cage makes it difficult to use as a family car....

I'd just like to point out that I tow a large covered trailer weighing 1400kg all over the UK with my 320d saloon and have no problems at all. I also get about 35mpg. I've heard that SUVs are better, but I've yet to find the 320d deficient in any way and I've not had any stability issues to date. I guess I could do with a more powerful engine for really steep hills, but for that I could just get a 330d. Note that the cost of going a long way at 15/20mpg is double that at 35mpg. Plus, when the trailer's unhitched for 95% of my miles my mpg goes up to 70, and with the low CofG I can enjoy great handling (I've modded the suspension) which is more than can be said for an SUV.

I have also towed with normal cars and they can manage, but my trailer with a car on it, a full tyre rack and jerry cans in the storage box is over 1800kg, which would be too heavy to be towed by a 3-series. Also, getting 1800kg balanced to give 90kg noseweight (which is the limit for most cars, many are lower) is tricky. A big SUV with a 3500kg tow limit and maximum 150kg noseweight gives a big margin. Also, steep hill starts are effortless in my Range Rover, the same thing in my old Volvo 940 was a struggle with a strong smell of burning clutch. The sheer mass of a big SUV helps with stability when towing as does my self-levelling air suspension.

See my edit above. For my 1400kg trailer a car is no problem, but yes, SUVs do have much higher towing limits. If you're towing a classic 911 in a covered trailer then yes, a car won't do it. The issue is though if I drove an SUV as a daily the increase in fuel consumption would mean I'd have to quit racing

[Hugo a Gogo]

nickfrog said:

Most of them have a smaller footprint than the "equivalent" estate - compare a Tiguan to a Passat for instance. They actually de-clogg British roads in that respect.

it what sense is a Tiguan equivalent to a Passat?

Interior space is much smaller in every way

[Hungrymc]

Hugo a Gogo said:

it what sense is a Tiguan equivalent to a Passat?

Interior space is much smaller in every way

That's one example of why some people go for them. Despite being smaller, they feel roomy and comfortable partly due to the more upright seating position, higher roof, proximity to the windscreen etc. For my daily plodder, it being comfortable and a nice place to sit is as important as any other attribute and more important than most. What that means to me off course may be different to what it means to you.

[Sheepshanks]

MorganP104 said:

Yes, that's right, I agree... Bear with me. All these halfway house cars, the ones that couldn't get you out of a damp field, the 2wd cars that look like they should be 4wd, the chunky stick on plastic bits that are supposed to make them look "tough".

I must admit that when my wife got a Tiguan, I made sure it was the 4Motion one, and I got a deal on a set of VW winter wheels and tyres - simply to do all I could to avoid it embarassing us!

[Sheepshanks]

Hungrymc said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

it what sense is a Tiguan equivalent to a Passat?

Interior space is much smaller in every way

That's one example of why some people go for them. Despite being smaller, they feel roomy and comfortable partly due to the more upright seating position, higher roof, proximity to the windscreen etc. For my daily plodder, it being comfortable and a nice place to sit is as important as any other attribute and more important than most. What that means to me off course may be different to what it means to you.

Tiguan is Golf sized. It's a bit weird as it does feel altogether bigger (we have a Golf in the family too) but it's remarkably incapable of carrying much stuff.

[Cold]

Amazing how upset some people get with other people's buying decisions. I wonder why this is? Surely there's got to be some underlying psychological reason for demanding that a stranger justifies their car choice?

[Hoofy]

sonnenschein3000 said:

Plate spinner said:

Having asked a few people that drive them, I think it comes down to the projected image and feelings of superiority.

Nothing wrong with that I guess, many folk are hugely driven to achieve these things whether they openly admit it or not.

And in a lot of cases, borrowing up to their eyeballs to achieve that!

For many. Not sure if that applies to someone who bought a £1000 Honda CRV.