RE: BMW X3 M Competition vs. Jaguar F-Pace SVR
Discussion
Admittedly nothing like these, but I had a p250 ePace for the week as a rental, and it struck me that it was more of a pain having an SUV than a 'normal' car, rather than it being more practical:
It did V8 fuel economy, but without the noise or performance.
It wasn't that spacious inside, but was tricky to thread through a tight multistorey. Getting out of the car was actually problematic in some car parks.
The seats were marvellous, but the ride wasn't as good as I had hoped (20" wheels probably didn't help).
Handling was neither here nor there, it was as inert as any other modern car, with endless grip and traction but no fun.
This did confirm to me that performance SUVs are missing the point, make them luxury or utilitarian. If it was softer it would have been better.
It did V8 fuel economy, but without the noise or performance.
It wasn't that spacious inside, but was tricky to thread through a tight multistorey. Getting out of the car was actually problematic in some car parks.
The seats were marvellous, but the ride wasn't as good as I had hoped (20" wheels probably didn't help).
Handling was neither here nor there, it was as inert as any other modern car, with endless grip and traction but no fun.
This did confirm to me that performance SUVs are missing the point, make them luxury or utilitarian. If it was softer it would have been better.
The ride quality of the Jag would sway me in its direction out of the two, but I'd probably buy a Macan Turbo over either of these, the height adjustable air-suspension option of the Porsche makes it more appealing to me, as I actually do spend a lot of time driving down some rough muddy tracks etc.
big_rob_sydney said:
the article said:
...both would be more dynamically accomplished if they sat closer to the ground and went to fat camp. But they are also quicker in a straight line than most decade-old supercars, big enough to lug a family and come with the slippery weather security of clever all-wheel drive systems. Plus you can even take them off-roading. Only kidding!
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.
Do you feel this way about vans trucks/lorries and buses? If you don't then that's fair enough but maybe others buying SUVs feel safer being higher up/more visible to them? I have no dog in this fight as I'm not an SUV lover at all but your vitriol says more about you than it does about those who choose to drive them.
sidesauce said:
big_rob_sydney said:
the article said:
...both would be more dynamically accomplished if they sat closer to the ground and went to fat camp. But they are also quicker in a straight line than most decade-old supercars, big enough to lug a family and come with the slippery weather security of clever all-wheel drive systems. Plus you can even take them off-roading. Only kidding!
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.Do you feel this way about vans trucks/lorries and buses? If you don't then that's fair enough but maybe others buying SUVs feel safer being higher up/more visible to them? I have no dog in this fight as I'm not an SUV lover at all but your vitriol says more about you than it does about those who choose to drive them.
trucks/lorries and buses are the size they are because the form factor of their intended function requires them to be that size. How a bus can carry 50 people if it is a 2 seat convertible has yet to be explained to me.
Of course we know those vehicles are larger than normal sized cars. Thank you Captain Obvious.
But we are taking about a situation where people have discretion to buy what they like, and selfishly choose something so overbearingly large, when it is not NEEDED.
If you still don't get it, maybe next time I'll use smaller words for you.
big_rob_sydney said:
sidesauce said:
big_rob_sydney said:
the article said:
...both would be more dynamically accomplished if they sat closer to the ground and went to fat camp. But they are also quicker in a straight line than most decade-old supercars, big enough to lug a family and come with the slippery weather security of clever all-wheel drive systems. Plus you can even take them off-roading. Only kidding!
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.Do you feel this way about vans trucks/lorries and buses? If you don't then that's fair enough but maybe others buying SUVs feel safer being higher up/more visible to them? I have no dog in this fight as I'm not an SUV lover at all but your vitriol says more about you than it does about those who choose to drive them.
trucks/lorries and buses are the size they are because the form factor of their intended function requires them to be that size. How a bus can carry 50 people if it is a 2 seat convertible has yet to be explained to me.
Of course we know those vehicles are larger than normal sized cars. Thank you Captain Obvious.
But we are taking about a situation where people have discretion to buy what they like, and selfishly choose something so overbearingly large, when it is not NEEDED.
If you still don't get it, maybe next time I'll use smaller words for you.
big_rob_sydney said:
trucks/lorries and buses are the size they are because the form factor of their intended function requires them to be that size.
Rob, you've nailed it there, completely agree. I've got an X3, I'd rather drive something else, but unfortunately it's the type of vehicle that ticks all the functions I require (good ground clearance for terrain I go over, comfortable, great for towing and good traction on slippery surfaces and enough room in the back for all the kit ) so I have to live with it's form factor.
I've been thinking about getting a van to achieve the same things, but thats even bigger and seems more unsociable.
Interesting thought, the X3 is still much smaller than a HiLux or Ranger which is what I would have had to have bought decades ago to achieve the same thing.
Sorry it appears to be ruining your life, can't do much about that.
Try and cheer up.
cerb4.5lee said:
samoht said:
chelme said:
I'm not keen on these generally, but from what I have read, the elephant in the room is the Stelvio.
Was PH intending for this to be a duel of the also rans?
Yeah, surely the Alfa would be better than either, right ?Was PH intending for this to be a duel of the also rans?
I like the looks of the Giulia but the Stelvio just doesn't look right to me.
On the performance and dynamics/handling front however, the Stelvio is significantly better than either of these two...by all accounts the Jaguar and BMW are too heavy, cumbersome, blunt and jaguar aside, dull compared to the Stelvio.
As regards reliability, I think the BM would probably come last, considering recent stats...careful not to let prejudice get in the way of reality.
chelme said:
cerb4.5lee said:
samoht said:
chelme said:
I'm not keen on these generally, but from what I have read, the elephant in the room is the Stelvio.
Was PH intending for this to be a duel of the also rans?
Yeah, surely the Alfa would be better than either, right ?Was PH intending for this to be a duel of the also rans?
I like the looks of the Giulia but the Stelvio just doesn't look right to me.
On the performance and dynamics/handling front however, the Stelvio is significantly better than either of these two...by all accounts the Jaguar and BMW are too heavy, cumbersome, blunt and jaguar aside, dull compared to the Stelvio.
As regards reliability, I think the BM would probably come last, considering recent stats...careful not to let prejudice get in the way of reality.
In saying that I'm certainly not brave enough to spend my money on a JLR product though that's for sure. I'd definitely have an Alfa though.
Miserable SodI had a Jaguar F Pace S. in the UK whilst my other car was being fixed.
It had a big 6 diesel and I loved it. It handled really well, the ride was great and I thought the inside was so much nicer than my other car. My other car was an x5 40e which really was terrible, even blinked with cream leather and massive black wheels. It wasn’t my choice and was a hand me down at work! For me there would be no doubting my choice here and a V8 too!!
It had a big 6 diesel and I loved it. It handled really well, the ride was great and I thought the inside was so much nicer than my other car. My other car was an x5 40e which really was terrible, even blinked with cream leather and massive black wheels. It wasn’t my choice and was a hand me down at work! For me there would be no doubting my choice here and a V8 too!!
gigglebug said:
It really is comical isn’t it. It will be interesting to find out why Big Rob chose an LS as oppose to to any number of much smaller cars that can carry the same amount of people.
It's very easy to conclude that the 2 or 3 same anti SUV activists on PH are inherently unhappy people. big_rob_sydney said:
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.
Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
fk you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.
I agree, how dare these vans, lorries and SUVs interfere with your God-given right to see the car in front of the vehicle in front of you? It's an utter disgrace, I'm not surprised you're outraged.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.However, I have a different issue. I despise so-called "executive" cars. I hate those things for the unbridled selfishness of the owners of those abominations,
Where most of these executive cars won't take 4 suitcases, the need for a large boot is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that can carry 4 people and their luggage.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I'm an angry man and having an oversized car makes me feel better about my failings at life". These "executive" cars are even longer than these oversized SUV abominations!
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my Mini and been unable to park because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where these stupidly long cars take up additional space and prevent me from parking.
f
k you, and the stupidly impractical overly long nail you rode in on.PhilboSE said:
big_rob_sydney said:
I just hate these things, for the reasons quoted by the article itself, but also by the unbridled selfishness of the owners of these abominations.
Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
fk you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.
I agree, how dare these vans, lorries and SUVs interfere with your God-given right to see the car in front of the vehicle in front of you? It's an utter disgrace, I'm not surprised you're outraged.Where most of these Chelsea tractors won't even see a patch of mud, the need for awd/4wd is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that have these drive-trains.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I sit higher and can see further".
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my car and been unable to see through a vehicle in front of me because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where visibility is diminished for all around these QE2 sized land barges.
And what is the alternative? Do we all therefore pile onto an arms race towards vehicular obesity, not to gain any visibility advantage, but simply in order to stand still?
f
k you, and the fat-arsed horses you rode in on.However, I have a different issue. I despise so-called "executive" cars. I hate those things for the unbridled selfishness of the owners of those abominations,
Where most of these executive cars won't take 4 suitcases, the need for a large boot is not required. Even so, there are plenty of traditional cars that can carry 4 people and their luggage.
The biggest "reason" quoted is simply "because I'm an angry man and having an oversized car makes me feel better about my failings at life". These "executive" cars are even longer than these oversized SUV abominations!
And that, my friend, is the selfishness right there. The number of times I've been in my Mini and been unable to park because the owner has selfishly bought such a big lump of metal, is astounding. It creates a situation where these stupidly long cars take up additional space and prevent me from parking.
f
k you, and the stupidly impractical overly long nail you rode in on.In any case, many straw men here wanting to attack the messenger and not the message. If I chose to drive a small, medium, or large size car, it does not change the fact that these things seriously diminish visibility of following vehicles.
If you want to play the "what about you and your car" game, then I fear you are too stupid to understand this article and what is being discussed.
Had the exact same comments about the stupidly over-sized nature of these abominations been made by Mother Teresa, I'm sure some of you would have found an equally stupid counter to her, and ignored the inherent issues being discussed.
Try and play the ball, and not the man, and then you'll maybe have something worth listening to.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff