RE: PH Footnote: Crossed out
Discussion
RoverP6B said:
Qashqais aren't practical! They're tiny inside, like a reverse Tardis...
Crossovers are significantly roomier than any car of the same length. My Ateca is based on the Leon, the floorpan is the same height off the ground as the Leon but the roof is much higher. The seats are more upright and this translates to significantly more legroom (front and particularly rear) than the hatchback on which it is based.I challenge you to find ANY evidence whatsover that crossovers are "like a reverse Tardis". You write this s
t, but you just have no clue.RoverP6B said:
and the second gen is huge on the outside!
Qashqai: 1806mm width, 4394mm length540i width: 1868mm, 4936mm length
Remind us again what your point was about huge?
RoverP6B said:
length is the one dimension on our roads that is theoretically infinite.
The UK roads are infinite in length? Interesting concept. Now height, we have plenty of that, but you choose to defend a long car and denegrate taller ones. The mind boggles.RoverP6B said:
I've never got into my estates and thought 'I wish this car was shorter'. Narrower, yes (when I'm on a single track country lane)... and they're low enough not to clout things like car park height restrictors.
You have got to be stting me. You think that car park height restrictors are any sort of issue for any road car? Take a look round your next multi storey, you will see Range Rovers in there (the only SUV to have, according to your narrow minded viewpoint).RoverP6B said:
Hmm, I don't see a 540iT in your garage, but then I've yet to update mine... I didn't say I'd recommend my bus as the responsible choice for MPG-conscious motorists though!
But you advocated it instead of a crossover as if it was the only sensible choice! Make up your mind what your position is, then at least have a stab at sticking to it.RoverP6B said:
So far, it's been returning ~25mpg, driven very conservatively as I get to know it... it seems to get better the faster it goes.
Yes, that makes sense. Cars are well known for their increased economy at higher speeds. Those increased engine revs and higher wind resistance somehow work in the exact opposite way that you would expect.RoverP6B said:
In a family car, that's utterly crucial. Why people put up with mushy unresponsive brakes,
Indeed. BMWs of that era are reknowned for their braking performance and lack of fade. Oh wait...RoverP6B said:
I'll never understand. CofG - my 540iT w/sport suspension sits 2 inches lower than my 520iT. Guess what? On an average Surrey B-road, even some A-roads (the A248 through Albury has a tight double S-bend that will catch out a soggy chassis) there's a noticeable reduction in roll, and at speed when the 520i is starting to let me know it's reaching the limits of lateral grip, the 540i is still on rails. Swap either of them for e.g. an E53 X5, it's going to roll far more. Basic physics!
How does the 540i kerb weight of 1735kg affect braking and handling performance compared with a 1300kg crossover I wonder? The funny thing is, despite all your protestations about grip and physics etc, you don't see crossovers (or any other cars) spinning off the road as a result. There are cars with way more lateral grip than your 540i, but it's utterly irrelevant.RoverP6B said:
PhilboSE said:
Crossovers aren't SUVs. They are not sold as such. They are taller versions of the hatchbacks on which they are based. They have the same drivetrains, same interiors, basically it's the identical experience to the hatchback
They're sold using marketing gibberish promoting an outdoorsy adventurous lifestyle that they can't live up to because they'd get stuck in a damp field.RoverP6B said:
PhilboSE said:
except you have moreless interior space for a tiny substantial reduction in fuel economy
FTFY!No-one has said that a crossover is an amazing drive, or the right car for everyone. As I keep on saying, they're an appliance. But they are undeniably practical and fit for what they are sold for, and why people buy them. And (to go back to the original article) they are no more "samey" in their appearance than all of the hatchbacks and saloons on which they are based.
RoverP6B said:
PhilboSE said:
RoverP6B said:
I could make an exception for the Subaru Outback, Forester etc because they're proper workmanlike vehicles used by real country folk for country work.
Which is a completely different sector. Permanent 4WD estates vs 2WD crossovers, so another facile observation. But let's stick with it. Have you compared the price and fuel economy of these cars vs the crossovers? Why do you think crossovers outsell them 1000 to 1?RoverP6B said:
See above. Yeah, it burns a bit of juice (not as bad as you suggest), but it's not filling the air with toxic particulates either.
It's filling the air with more toxic particulates than the 1.4 petrol engine in my Ateca. What was your point again? (Nice attempt to play the eco card with a 4 litre V8, BTW. I don't buy into the eco card, but I certainly wouldn't try to play it if I had a 540i...)RoverP6B said:
However, my point is, overall it's no bigger than these mid-size SUVs.
It's wider and longer. That makes it bigger in every dimension that matters from a "size" perspective.RoverP6B said:
get a bigger more usable loadspace (i.e. my E39 will haul a load of stuff that just won't fit in the likes of an X3)... and some of these estates (most notably Mercedes E-classes) can be had as 7-seaters too.
The E39 is a bigger car than the X3! Why do you insist on comparing apples with f**king potatoes? A transit van has more space than your E39, what does that prove? There is no point making these utterly pointless comparisons.RoverP6B said:
Have you seen the size of these crossover wkmobiles?!
Er yes, I have one. Which makes me somewhat more qualified to have an opinion than someone who, seemingly, has never actually sat inside one.kmobiles?!RoverP6B said:
They're bloody enormous outside, way wider as well as taller than my old bus
Already completely disproved above with actual verifiable numbers.RoverP6B said:
there's not that much in it length-wise
Ah, so "not that much" doesn't matter if it supports your argument. We see how this goes. Your car is 12% longer than the Qashqai you hate so much. But that's OK, because it's you, right? If I say that your 540i handles "not that much" better than a crossover, we can ignore that observation, how about that?RoverP6B said:
and yet there's no pay-off internally, the boot floor is tiny and far too high,
Utter garbage.RoverP6B said:
and in the real world where handling matters, the difference between a Golf and a Tiguan could be the difference between the car staying on its wheels or rolling, and that can be the difference between life and death.
I can't even be bothered to respond to this utter bilge, but it's worth quoting.RoverP6B said:
I've seen too many fatal accidents occur on local roads here simply because of a car rolling when it shouldn't have done.
No you haven't. You are now spouting total arse gravy. Back this up with any single evidence that you can, go on. Out of all the things that contribute to road accidents, the thing that concerns you the most is crossovers rolling over? Personally, I'd be more concerned about 60 year old duffers in oversized overweight cars who get nervous about the width of their cars when driving down country roads...You tried you justify your prejudices against crossovers (or is it all modern cars? I can't tell) but your arguments are facile and just don't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
I'll leave you with this observation: no-one has said that crossovers are the last word in driving pleasure, economy, load lugging ability or anything else. However, compared with the cars they are based on, they are roomier and more practical. IF you were considering buying a Golf THEN you might consider buying the Tiguan, for the extra interior space. Other car choices exist, for equally valid reasons, and those of us with crossovers seem to be able to recognise that.
However you seem to be part of a small cohort of people that say "I don't want one of these cars for myself and therefore they are all rubbish and my car is better in every single way" which is an observation of such small mindedness it really needs to be held up to ridicule.
Get over yourself. Your 540i is really not the last word in anything. It's a set of compromises in size, space, efficiency, styling whatever that you have decided is the right choice for you. Just try and open your mind to the fact that other people might, just might, have a different set of factors in their lives that means that a different set of compromises is the right choice for them. Simply tell us you don't like crossovers, you're entitled to an opinion, just don't try to justify it with a load of horses
t.Andy20vt said:
Sure have the Lotus (or similar) as a weekend drive but why don't you also buy something that's enjoyable to drive for the 95% of the time you actually spend driving?
Perhaps you could educate us what amazing chariot this is that is the pinnacle of driving pleasure and yet performs all family duties with panache? If there's something out there that has the driving feedback of a Radical, the performance of a 911, the open top of a Spider, seats 7, and is learner driver-friendly all in the size of a crossover then I'd really like to know because I'd be able to sell quite a few of my cars!
Or maybe, y'know, all cars are compromises of one sort or another?
PhilboSE said:
Perhaps you could educate us what amazing chariot this is that is the pinnacle of driving pleasure and yet performs all family duties with panache?
I didn't say that the every day family car had to be the pinnacle in driving pleasure, just that as this is Pistonheads, if you're going to spend 95% of your time driving something as a family vehicle, then it may as well be something with with a bit of life, character and driving enjoyment to it.I'm sorry but whichever way you look at it, an Ateca/Tiguan or whatever other generic bland small SUV style car you choose, has little in the way of anything that's enjoyable or characterful about it once it's on the move - or sat still for that matter. It's the ultimate bland 'follow the crowd' and 'sucked in by the marketing' car for someone with little actual interest in cars or driving them. I suspect that this is the car that would make even an accountant bored. It's the equivalent to eating at a Harvester Pub every night because 'you know what you're going to get', rather than risk venturing into the award winning Nepalese restaurant next door where a far more tasty and memorable dinner can be had for considerably less money.
Andy20vt said:
I'm sorry but whichever way you look at it, an Ateca/Tiguan or whatever other generic bland small SUV style car you choose, has little in the way of anything that's enjoyable or characterful about it once it's on the move - or sat still for that matter.
Agreed. And exactly like a Mondeo/3er, which are generic bland small saloon style cars. But less practical IME.nickfrog said:
Agreed. And exactly like a Mondeo/3er, which are generic bland small saloon style cars. But less practical IME.
With the exception that the Mondeo and 3 Series are far more rewarding to drive with roughly equal practicality - more practical perhaps if it's a 3 series touring (IMO having driven 600 + varied miles in each of these including the Ateca).Andy20vt said:
nickfrog said:
Agreed. And exactly like a Mondeo/3er, which are generic bland small saloon style cars. But less practical IME.
With the exception that the Mondeo and 3 Series are far more rewarding to drive with roughly equal practicality - more practical perhaps if it's a 3 series touring (IMO having driven 600 + varied miles in each of these including the Ateca).Which means that a buying decision comes down to size, styling, price, running costs, affordability etc - and everyone has their own personal factors about where to position those sliders. To shuttle a family around in a semi-urban environment - a crossover is a reasonable choice. When those photocopiers need selling - a 3 series!
Andy20vt said:
It's the ultimate bland 'follow the crowd' and 'sucked in by the marketing' car for someone with little actual interest in cars or driving them
I've given you some insight into the cars I currently own and why. I've done my ARDS and track a Radical. Seeing as you're the one throwing around blanket statements such as this, perhaps you could give us some insight into your vehicle(s) of choice and your driving credentials? Or are you one of those who bought into the whole "ultimate driving machine" bullcrap and leased a 325i because you're a real driver? Do you look in a baker's window and go yes, I'll have that one, it's a real cake eater's cake, that one?Edited by PhilboSE on Monday 23 October 19:38
Andy20vt said:
nickfrog said:
Agreed. And exactly like a Mondeo/3er, which are generic bland small saloon style cars. But less practical IME.
With the exception that the Mondeo and 3 Series are far more rewarding to drive with roughly equal practicality - more practical perhaps if it's a 3 series touring (IMO having driven 600 + varied miles in each of these including the Ateca).I am simply stating that this doesn't correspond to my personal experience of those cars compared to a crossover/SUV, based on owning them for 5 years and having previously used estates for at least as long as family cars.
Which has nothing to do with being new, how it's financed or any lifestyle/marketing BS (I think the Tiguan looks stupid).
I just prefer them for the intended use, ie they work better for us overall as a family car.
I still don't understand your 95% thing though.
PhilboSE said:
You are massively overplaying this "rewarding drive" aspect of a 3 series and it's practicality. I agree with nickfrog, there's absolutely nothing amazingly special about the way a 3 series drives (M cars excluded). It's the same experience as 95% of the market, including crossovers.
Doh, it's RWD haven't you noticed? You drive a trackday car and you seriously not tell the difference?nickfrog said:
I still don't understand your 95% thing though.
Quite simple really, if you're going to spend 95% of your driving time/life in one of your vehicles, best to make sure it's a good one, something that's rewarding to drive.Andy20vt said:
Quite simple really, if you're going to spend 95% of your driving time/life in one of your vehicles, best to make sure it's a good one, something that's rewarding to drive.
Ah I hadn't seen the "if" the first time round, sorry ;-) :Andy20vt said:
It's completely irrational that a family man who likes driving would hobble themselves, at great expense, for 95% of the time driving a car that's utter guff to drive, yet keep a fun car in the garage for once in a blue moon when the kids don't need transporting. Sure have the Lotus (or similar) as a weekend drive but why don't you also buy something that's enjoyable to drive for the 95% of the time you actually spend driving?
If I had to spend 95% of my driving time in a Mondeo or a diesel 3er Estate, I would probably shoot myself. But each to their own.As it is, the 25% of my driving time in the Tiguan is bliss as it's functionally superior to those to transport the family or on occasional but long M'way journeys (IME). The rest is probably to and from track days and the Ring, that neither would be very good at either.
Andy20vt said:
PhilboSE said:
You are massively overplaying this "rewarding drive" aspect of a 3 series and it's practicality. I agree with nickfrog, there's absolutely nothing amazingly special about the way a 3 series drives (M cars excluded). It's the same experience as 95% of the market, including crossovers.
Doh, it's RWD haven't you noticed? You drive a trackday car and you seriously not tell the difference?I'm not saying a BMW is the wrong choice, but you insist on maintaining it's the ONLY choice. Which is just, well, odd.
PhilboSE said:
Andy20vt said:
Doh, it's RWD haven't you noticed? You drive a trackday car and you seriously not tell the difference?
Ah, now we're getting some insight into how you think. Apparently RWD trumps every other aspect of car performance and handling. If its RWD, it's better. Got it. Even if the manufacturer engineers out any enjoyable aspects of RWD and has the TCS intervene at any hint of rear wheel slip, which is what BMW have done?FWD was originally (correctly) touted as giving much better handling and grip, and various manufacturers who stuck with RWD much longer than needed were generally louded when they moved to FWD.
But I guess Andy's too young to remember chod like the Chevette, and probably only thinks of Sierras and Mk2 Escorts in terms of the hotter variants, not the utterly dire cooking versions.
Ah, that RWD staple diet of cart springs and live axles...
Andy20vt said:
Doh, it's RWD haven't you noticed? You drive a trackday car and you seriously not tell the difference?
Sadly, RWD doesn't guarantee good handling. It normally helps because it usually gives you a lower PMOI, lower COG and better steering but in this instance, the 3er is set up to safely understeer (quite rightly) but to even push understeer under a moderate throttle and a bit of lock. It has very little steering feedback. Which is probably why I find it soporific. Like a Mondeo if you like. Which doesn't make those cars bad, but hardly more exciting than an Ateca for the purpose intended.Comparing that to a far more neutral LSD equipped front driver like a DC5 or a Megane helps understand that set up is as important as which wheels are driven.
PhilboSE said:
RoverP6B said:
and in the real world where handling matters, the difference between a Golf and a Tiguan could be the difference between the car staying on its wheels or rolling, and that can be the difference between life and death.
I can't even be bothered to respond to this utter bilge, but it's worth quoting.
Funny how the laws of physics get dismissed round here as "utter bilge". I've seen far too many unnecessary, avoidable rollover accidents happen on real public roads, principally because the vehicle concerned is too tall, too short-coupled in some cases, and just not set up to handle well...
RoverP6B said:
Funny how the laws of physics get dismissed round here as "utter bilge".
They don't - what is dismissed as utter bilge is the idea that the Tiguan will kill you.If a slightly higher COG with adequately tuned suspension kinematics to mitigate the onslaught on the laws of physics is still such a threat to life, how do you survive driving such a high COG car as a 540i (the suspension of which may not be in tip-top condition) when an Elise would offer so much more rollover resistance with a lower COG ?
I'm going riding later today and will shove the bike in the Tiguan so this might be my last message.
Andy20vt said:
nickfrog said:
I'm going riding later today and will shove the bike in the Tiguan so this might be my last message.
Haha in case you die of boredom on your drive in the Tiguan? Why don't you take the Renault - drive would be much more fun?
You're nearly there in terms of comprehension too : the Tiguan will take the bike with 2 wheels on. The Renault won't. Conversely, the Renault will be my choice for the next track day, particularly as I won't need the bike nor the Tiguan there.
At least I won't endure a 3er diesel or a Mondeo that not only will be as soporific to drive over the 12 miles (and won't get to operating temperature anyway) but won't let me put the bike in without dicking about with the 15mm front through-axle.
In other words different cars fulfill different briefs and fit different people's needs. I still have no issues with people having fun in a Mondeo or a 3er diesel.
Edited by nickfrog on Wednesday 25th October 11:19
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff