RE: Cupra Ateca | PH Fleet
Discussion
Jon_S_Rally said:
I couldn't be less interested really. I have seen a couple and I suppose I did notice them, but I have zero interest in owning one. If I ever buy an SUV, it would be for practical reasons, such as towing or going off-road, so something like this has zero appeal, as it's purely style over substance.
For road use, I would choose an estate every time. I just don't see the point in sacrificing fuel efficiency and driving dynamics, just for the sake of sitting a few inches higher. All that means is that you're looking at the top of the back window of the car in front, instead of the boot badge.
Sooner or later, the eco mob will remember that SUVs are a bad thing, and the world will turn against them again. That day can't come soon enough to be honest.
FOR the LOVE of GOD !!!!For road use, I would choose an estate every time. I just don't see the point in sacrificing fuel efficiency and driving dynamics, just for the sake of sitting a few inches higher. All that means is that you're looking at the top of the back window of the car in front, instead of the boot badge.
Sooner or later, the eco mob will remember that SUVs are a bad thing, and the world will turn against them again. That day can't come soon enough to be honest.
i hope this thread doesnt go the same way as the X3m !!!
Horses for courses, each to their own, you cant dismiss having too much choice, not your bag fair enough but get over it !!
moldy said:
FOR the LOVE of GOD !!!!
i hope this thread doesnt go the same way as the X3m !!!
Horses for courses, each to their own, you cant dismiss having too much choice, not your bag fair enough but get over it !!
If we had "too much choice" we'd be tripping over NA large capacity manual lightweight sports cars, pretty family saloons, rugged, tough 4x4s. Instead, all we have to chose from is what ugly shape you want your farty DSG front wheel drive 4cyl in. Thats not choice....i hope this thread doesnt go the same way as the X3m !!!
Horses for courses, each to their own, you cant dismiss having too much choice, not your bag fair enough but get over it !!
Harry_523 said:
moldy said:
FOR the LOVE of GOD !!!!
i hope this thread doesnt go the same way as the X3m !!!
Horses for courses, each to their own, you cant dismiss having too much choice, not your bag fair enough but get over it !!
If we had "too much choice" we'd be tripping over NA large capacity manual lightweight sports cars, pretty family saloons, rugged, tough 4x4s. Instead, all we have to chose from is what ugly shape you want your farty DSG front wheel drive 4cyl in. Thats not choice....i hope this thread doesnt go the same way as the X3m !!!
Horses for courses, each to their own, you cant dismiss having too much choice, not your bag fair enough but get over it !!
I have *no* issues with SUV's, cross-overs, MPV's, diesels etc for those that want one but I don't and the issue is that *because* the entire "market" is focused on them there is little else.
Jon_S_Rally said:
I'm in favour of less choice because they're pointless. It's like a Leon Cupra ST, but just slightly worse in almost every way.
You're right, it is a worry that the econ mob are going to realise that sports cars are a bad thing environmentally, which is precisely why the industry shouldn't be drawing attention to itself with stuff like this.
I'm sure you can buy one with a smaller engine but, again, that same engine in a Leon ST would be better, so what's the point in it?
These are nothing more than a styling exercise for people who want to feel 'cool' because they are driving something that looks like an SUV, therefore expensive and purposeful. Or for people who think sitting six inches higher somehow makes them safer or a better driver.
If people want to buy one, good luck to them, but I can't help but find it a bit ridiculous. The car industry is under scrutiny for its emissions, we keep getting told that we need to travel more cleanly, and yet most manufacturers are putting all of their energy into designing, manufacturing and selling cars that are inherently less efficient than their saloon/hatch/estate counterparts. It just demonstrates how laughable the whole debate surrounding sustainable transport is.
How sustainable is a Cupra ST compared to a 1.0 Ibiza, as it's inherently less efficient ? Where does it stop ?You're right, it is a worry that the econ mob are going to realise that sports cars are a bad thing environmentally, which is precisely why the industry shouldn't be drawing attention to itself with stuff like this.
I'm sure you can buy one with a smaller engine but, again, that same engine in a Leon ST would be better, so what's the point in it?
These are nothing more than a styling exercise for people who want to feel 'cool' because they are driving something that looks like an SUV, therefore expensive and purposeful. Or for people who think sitting six inches higher somehow makes them safer or a better driver.
If people want to buy one, good luck to them, but I can't help but find it a bit ridiculous. The car industry is under scrutiny for its emissions, we keep getting told that we need to travel more cleanly, and yet most manufacturers are putting all of their energy into designing, manufacturing and selling cars that are inherently less efficient than their saloon/hatch/estate counterparts. It just demonstrates how laughable the whole debate surrounding sustainable transport is.
People buy them because they like them, far more practical than a Cupra ST IME. But I have no issues with a Cupra ST, probably because I accept that different people like different things, just live and let live and don't worry about the marketing and other people's motivation, do your own thing.
Edited by nickfrog on Monday 24th June 21:31
Harry_523 said:
If we had "too much choice" we'd be tripping over NA large capacity manual lightweight sports cars, pretty family saloons, rugged, tough 4x4s. Instead, all we have to chose from is what ugly shape you want your farty DSG front wheel drive 4cyl in. Thats not choice....
For clarity, are you saying people who need a family car used to have NA large capacity manual lightweight sports cars for the school run, Tesco shop and to go on holiday with the kids ?Test drove one this week, I can't make my mind up, on the one hand it seems a lot of car for the money (for a new sporty SUV) given the drivetrain I thought it might cross into the fun boundary but it's a bit dull, understeery and the engine seems to have lag everywhere and no notable engine note, we are looking at this to replace 2 tonnes of diesel korean steel as a tow car, but the bland Korean has more steering feel and better throttle response, yes, really. The missus likes it so I will probably end up with one anyway.
We almost replaced our Tiguan with an Ateca - would've been just a 1.4T SE Tech - until Mrs PB realised we could push the budget and get into a Disco Sport.
It's a shame the Cupra treatment is a bit chavvy to my mind but, as I expect to be heading back to the VAG fold once our time's up with the crappy Landie, I won't rule one of these out. I'll appreciate the poke, even if Mrs PB won't quite so much.
It's a shame the Cupra treatment is a bit chavvy to my mind but, as I expect to be heading back to the VAG fold once our time's up with the crappy Landie, I won't rule one of these out. I'll appreciate the poke, even if Mrs PB won't quite so much.
nickfrog said:
For clarity, are you saying people who need a family car used to have NA large capacity manual lightweight sports cars for the school run, Tesco shop and to go on holiday with the kids ?
Nope, simply that saying that we dont actually have that much choice of cars, so justifying the existence of this thing under the banner of "more choice is good" is BSHarry_523 said:
Nope, simply that saying that we dont actually have that much choice of cars, so justifying the existence of this thing under the banner of "more choice is good" is BS
No need to justify anything, they're brilliant functionally as many here have experienced if you can see past the image, but I appreciate you don't like the highly subjective way they look. They have replaced both some saloons, some estates and some hatches. Those are still available however. They haven't replaced sports cars, that's BS, as you eloquently put it. It's entirely possible to have a SUV and a sports car, the two are not mutually exclusive. So remove SUVs and you have less choice, not more. I would have thought that's a pretty simple thing to comprehend. PistonBroker said:
We almost replaced our Tiguan with an Ateca - would've been just a 1.4T SE Tech - until Mrs PB realised we could push the budget and get into a Disco Sport.
It's a shame the Cupra treatment is a bit chavvy to my mind but, as I expect to be heading back to the VAG fold once our time's up with the crappy Landie, I won't rule one of these out. I'll appreciate the poke, even if Mrs PB won't quite so much.
We've got a 1.4 SE Tech. It's great. I saw a Cupra at the dealer last week when I went to pick ours up from its service...Not sure it's worth £15k more than we paid, but I've yet to drive it.It's a shame the Cupra treatment is a bit chavvy to my mind but, as I expect to be heading back to the VAG fold once our time's up with the crappy Landie, I won't rule one of these out. I'll appreciate the poke, even if Mrs PB won't quite so much.
nickfrog said:
Harry_523 said:
Nope, simply that saying that we dont actually have that much choice of cars, so justifying the existence of this thing under the banner of "more choice is good" is BS
No need to justify anything, they're brilliant functionally as many here have experienced if you can see past the image, but I appreciate you don't like the highly subjective way they look. They have replaced both some saloons, some estates and some hatches. Those are still available however. They haven't replaced sports cars, that's BS, as you eloquently put it. It's entirely possible to have a SUV and a sports car, the two are not mutually exclusive. So remove SUVs and you have less choice, not more. I would have thought that's a pretty simple thing to comprehend. 
ked.Ford have said they're going to drop all sedans and compact cars from 2020 (apart from the Focus and Mustang) in the US. In Europe they're also Focusing on SUV's and LCV's. It's unlikely there will be a new Mondeo or even the S-Max or Galaxy.
It's been a few years since I looked but IIRC only BMW were selling in the 'D' segment, everyone else was seeing declining sales and so they've dropped (or plan to drop) those cars.
Fastdruid said:
That's not the way it works though is it. Everyone is dropping saloons and "traditional" cars for them. If you want an SUV you're already spoilt for choice. If you don't like SUV's and "crossovers" you're fked.
Plenty of saloons and estates and hatches avaliable from what I can see, plenty of choice. Different people like different things hence the manufacturers producing different things perhaps. ked.nickfrog said:
How sustainable is a Cupra ST compared to a 1.0 Ibiza, as it's inherently less efficient ? Where does it stop ?
People buy them because they like them, far more practical than a Cupra ST IME. But I have no issues with a Cupra ST, probably because I accept that different people like different things, just live and let live and don't worry about the marketing and other people's motivation, do your own thing.
It stops with us all being transported about in electric pods and not driving at all. That's the way the ecomentalists seem to be taking us at the moment, convinced of their own intellectual superiority, despite the flaws in some of their ideas.People buy them because they like them, far more practical than a Cupra ST IME. But I have no issues with a Cupra ST, probably because I accept that different people like different things, just live and let live and don't worry about the marketing and other people's motivation, do your own thing.
Edited by nickfrog on Monday 24th June 21:31
My point is simply that, cars such as this fly in the face of the industry's claim that it is trying to become cleaner and more sustainable. They are a far bigger (quite literally) "f
k you" to the green movement than something like a Cupra ST and, sooner or later, someone is going to notice that. Personally, I'd rather be able to buy fast ICE cars for as long as possible, so drawing attention to ourselves with something as obviously inefficient as an SUV, let alone one with a powerful petrol engine, is not particularly smart in my view.Jon_S_Rally said:
My point is simply that, cars such as this fly in the face of the industry's claim that it is trying to become cleaner and more sustainable.
It's not a claim, it's a fact. They are getting cleaner and more sustainable overall, they have no choice, they have to comply.. A quick look at their CSR report will confirm that. Which allows them to also make cars that are marginaly less environmentally friendly like SUVs... and sports cars. nickfrog said:
It's not a claim, it's a fact. They are getting cleaner and more sustainable overall, they have no choice, they have to comply.. A quick look at their CSR report will confirm that. Which allows them to also make cars that are marginaly less environmentally friendly like SUVs... and sports cars.
But that doesn't change my point does it? These cars have virtually no benefit over their equivalent hatch/estate, but do have notable disadvantages in terms of efficiency, regardless of the powertrain. Of course, they are making them because of market demand but, if they had any real morals, they would be telling customers how pointless they are, which is another area where one of the flaws in the environmental argument is exposed. Saving the planet is trumped by profit/market wishes. A few years ago, people got very angry towards SUVs, so I'm sure it will happen again eventually.Anyway, no sense going in circles. My opinion is my opinion, your opinion is your opinion.
Jon_S_Rally said:
But that doesn't change my point does it? These cars have virtually no benefit over their equivalent hatch/estate, but do have notable disadvantages in terms of efficiency, regardless of the powertrain.
It's quite literally the opposite IME. Estates can't match SUVs in terms of space and practicality in a smaller footprint. The Karoq is far more practical than my A4 Estate so to get the the same benefits I would need an A6 Estate, which is worse environmentally and still wouldn't quite work while being far too long. The list of other benefits is very long and the list of downsides very short. You're entitled to your opinions but not to your facts.
nickfrog said:
Jon_S_Rally said:
But that doesn't change my point does it? These cars have virtually no benefit over their equivalent hatch/estate, but do have notable disadvantages in terms of efficiency, regardless of the powertrain.
It's quite literally the opposite IME. Estates can't match SUVs in terms of space and practicality in a smaller footprint. The Karoq is far more practical than my A4 Estate so to get the the same benefits I would need an A6 Estate, which is worse environmentally and still wouldn't quite work while being far too long. The list of other benefits is very long and the list of downsides very short. You're entitled to your opinions but not to your facts.
An SUV will ride worse, corner worse and be heavier than an Estate. You cannot escape physics. You make a tall car and you shift the centre of gravity up. That means it'll roll. If you "make it handle" then it'll have to be stupidly stiff and so comfort will suffer. Obviously there are "clever things" you can do with variable damping/springs etc but they cost more and add weight over and above the extra weight you have for 20cm of extra metal/glass.
I'd just far rather something lower (and lighter) than this trend to make ever taller vehicles (and that even goes for my current car, it's 5in taller than the old outgoing model, I'd rather it was far lower).
Fastdruid said:
Only if you care about height of luggage. The Karoq has 15l more luggage space than the A4 Estate but then it's 20cm taller. The Karoq has a *smaller* area of boot floor with more height. So unless you pack it to the ceiling (which is undesirable) the A4 is better.
An SUV will ride worse, corner worse and be heavier than an Estate. You cannot escape physics. You make a tall car and you shift the centre of gravity up. That means it'll roll. If you "make it handle" then it'll have to be stupidly stiff and so comfort will suffer. Obviously there are "clever things" you can do with variable damping/springs etc but they cost more and add weight over and above the extra weight you have for 20cm of extra metal/glass.
I'd just far rather something lower (and lighter) than this trend to make ever taller vehicles (and that even goes for my current car, it's 5in taller than the old outgoing model, I'd rather it was far lower).
The Karoq is lighter than my A4 estate.An SUV will ride worse, corner worse and be heavier than an Estate. You cannot escape physics. You make a tall car and you shift the centre of gravity up. That means it'll roll. If you "make it handle" then it'll have to be stupidly stiff and so comfort will suffer. Obviously there are "clever things" you can do with variable damping/springs etc but they cost more and add weight over and above the extra weight you have for 20cm of extra metal/glass.
I'd just far rather something lower (and lighter) than this trend to make ever taller vehicles (and that even goes for my current car, it's 5in taller than the old outgoing model, I'd rather it was far lower).
The ride is far better on 17' balloon tyres, softer suspensions and longer travel
It's more practical as it's shorter yet I can fit as much stuff in the back, including bikes upright which I can't in the A4 as it's shallow. So the shape of the loplad area is very desirable indeed.
I don't use the Karoq for track days, I have the Megane. I wouldn't use the A4 either so its lower CoG is irrelevant. If I wanted low I would buy an Elise, not a Mondeo. The Karok has abundant reserves of lateral grip for road use.
Both exist : estates and SUV, so what's the problem. Different people prefer different things.
Edited by nickfrog on Tuesday 25th June 12:05
Last one, just to throw some more facts into the equation as people seem to like them.
Aerodynamics is one of the big influencing factors here. As an example, I took two cars at random; an A4 Avant 2.0TFSI and an A4 All Road 2.0TFSI (both current models). Same engine in both, same basic body structure. However, that suspension lift, coupled with the 40kg weight penalty that comes with turning it into an All-Road means that projected MPG (according to Parkers) drops from 46mpg to 41mpg. CO2 goes up from 139g/km to 153g/km. According to their figures, that's 60-dd miles less per tank.
And that's for a car with zero practical advantage over the regular estate. Want to go proper SUV? A Q5 with the same engine drops economy down to 40mpg and CO2 goes up to 159g/km. For that, you get an extra 45 litres of boot space, or 40 with the seats down. Given that, most of the time, most people get no where near the boot capacity of their car, we come back to the reality that there are actually very few reasons to choose an SUV over a regular estate car. For your extra boot space that you never really use, you get worse economy, worse performance, worse emissions, worse handling, more weight and, more often than not, you get to pay more for the privilege; not just to buy the thing, but also to maintain it.
Aside from the few people that actually use them for towing, or going off-road, if most people were honest with themselves, they would admit that the real reason they buy SUVs is because they like the look of them, or because they appear more prestigious. While I absolutely understand that and know that car purchases are often subjective and highly emotive (plenty of my own have been), my original point stands firm - it's a bit ridiculous in these times of growing pressure to cut emissions and be more sustainable that OEMs are actually cutting back on production of normal cars in order to satisfy demand for a vehicle type that is, and always will be, inherently worse for the environment.
Sooner or later, the ecomentalists will notice (just like they did with diesel) and that will only give them more reason to attack the continued use of ICE cars. Personally, I'd happily sacrifice a few SUVs in order to put that off for as long as possible.
Anyway, I'm out. Enjoy your Chelsea tractors
Aerodynamics is one of the big influencing factors here. As an example, I took two cars at random; an A4 Avant 2.0TFSI and an A4 All Road 2.0TFSI (both current models). Same engine in both, same basic body structure. However, that suspension lift, coupled with the 40kg weight penalty that comes with turning it into an All-Road means that projected MPG (according to Parkers) drops from 46mpg to 41mpg. CO2 goes up from 139g/km to 153g/km. According to their figures, that's 60-dd miles less per tank.
And that's for a car with zero practical advantage over the regular estate. Want to go proper SUV? A Q5 with the same engine drops economy down to 40mpg and CO2 goes up to 159g/km. For that, you get an extra 45 litres of boot space, or 40 with the seats down. Given that, most of the time, most people get no where near the boot capacity of their car, we come back to the reality that there are actually very few reasons to choose an SUV over a regular estate car. For your extra boot space that you never really use, you get worse economy, worse performance, worse emissions, worse handling, more weight and, more often than not, you get to pay more for the privilege; not just to buy the thing, but also to maintain it.
Aside from the few people that actually use them for towing, or going off-road, if most people were honest with themselves, they would admit that the real reason they buy SUVs is because they like the look of them, or because they appear more prestigious. While I absolutely understand that and know that car purchases are often subjective and highly emotive (plenty of my own have been), my original point stands firm - it's a bit ridiculous in these times of growing pressure to cut emissions and be more sustainable that OEMs are actually cutting back on production of normal cars in order to satisfy demand for a vehicle type that is, and always will be, inherently worse for the environment.
Sooner or later, the ecomentalists will notice (just like they did with diesel) and that will only give them more reason to attack the continued use of ICE cars. Personally, I'd happily sacrifice a few SUVs in order to put that off for as long as possible.
Anyway, I'm out. Enjoy your Chelsea tractors
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff