A green mans view of 4x4s
Discussion
it is my hope that one of these eco mentalists knocks on the window/deflates the tyres/throws mud over or puts a parking ticket on one of the villianous drug dealer types people seem to stereotype with 4x4s these days and ends up getting shot or stabbed, it might make these irritating 
wits think twice about doing it again.
wits think twice about doing it again.dhutch said:
Im personally am against 4*4 for the school run, for people who dont need them, and should just get a volvo or a audi estate or something.
- They do use an amount more fuel, espically as they often have a larger than average engine.
All motor vehicles use fuel, so where do you draw a line between acceptible trasnport, and planet destroying guzzler? 35mpg 25mpg? 20? 15? - They do use an amount more fuel, espically as they often have a larger than average engine.
At what point does a treehugger driving a frugal car turn into a global warming tyrant driving a guzzler?
Quinny said:
Hereward said:
Quinny said:
Why is everybody so concerned with what someone else is doing?
JealousyI'm sure it plays a part, but I have another theory
Hear me out now
My view is, that these people have such unfulfilling lives, they feel they have to poke their noses into other folks business.
If they occupied themselves with somthing constructive, they wouldn't be so bothered with what everyone else was doing or had or didn't have.
I'm sure I'm not the odd one out when I say,
I really couldn't give a rats arse that the bloke up the road has a Rolls Royce, or the woman down the lane is taking her kids to school in a brand new £80k Range Rover.
It's non of my business, I'm not interested, they ain't bothering me, so why should I have a downer on them?
More people should get on with their own lives, and not go around interfeering in stuff that doesn't concern them
well said
dhutch said:
Im personally am against 4*4 for the school run, for people who dont need them, and should just get a volvo or a audi estate or something.
- They do use an amount more fuel, espically as they often have a larger than average engine.
- And they also use more oil and service etc, for all the extra diffs and gearboxs. And you look like a bit of a cock.
However at the same point, he does have a point that if you actually do need a 4*4 then you should be penalised.
- I only directly know three people with 4*4, one of them has a 6tonne steamboat that he tows all over the place, inc steep small roads to marinas, launch and recovered etc, and the other two have them as farm vehicals as the guy in the essay does, going across unmade feilds in all weathers etc.
But yeah, largly, urrrm. Yeah, thing. And that....
Daniel
IMO better to keep your mouth shut and let people contemplate you're a fool rather than open your mouth and confirm it for them- They do use an amount more fuel, espically as they often have a larger than average engine.
- And they also use more oil and service etc, for all the extra diffs and gearboxs. And you look like a bit of a cock.
However at the same point, he does have a point that if you actually do need a 4*4 then you should be penalised.
- I only directly know three people with 4*4, one of them has a 6tonne steamboat that he tows all over the place, inc steep small roads to marinas, launch and recovered etc, and the other two have them as farm vehicals as the guy in the essay does, going across unmade feilds in all weathers etc.
But yeah, largly, urrrm. Yeah, thing. And that....
Daniel
RobM77 said:
Gorvid said:
Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?
I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....
ers keep equating cars with "need"...?I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....
I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way. I was merely trying to explain why people have the sort of bizarre reactions such as mentioned by the OP. Whilst I don't agree with these agressive anti-4x4 sentiments, I can understand (but not agree with!) how they've come to that conclusion. 4x4s on the road are completely pointless, but of course that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to buy one for 100% road use if they want to.One minute you're defending choice and the next you're banging on about people "deserving to be laughed at" for buying a 4x4?
How can you describe any car as completely pointless? Perhaps it's not you that decides the "point" in other peoples cars.
Perhaps people think you look funny driving around in your elise, who knows.
Edited by stovey on Monday 10th December 22:35
[quote=RobM77
My original point was intended to clear up this confusion. The vast majority of sports cars are designed for the road. The characteristics of a sports car (agility, nimbleness, acceleration, balance etc) are of value on the road, and they don't detract from the road driving experience, much like being Carl Lewis doesn't get in the way of a quick walk to the shops and back. The fact that a Boxster has a lower centre of gravity from a Vectra doesn't get in the way of the car being used on the road, nor does the fact that the engine is in the middle. Off roaders, on the other hand, carry around their off road credentials like a mill stone around their neck - the high CofG, large wheel travel and additional weight result in a poorer driving experience than a Vectra. I suppose it's like being a competitive strong man and trying to go about your everyday life - your extra size and weight will make things difficult without ever offering an real benefits.
As I said before, I'm not against off roaders as such, it's just that buying one for mainly road use obviously causes a lot of people to be rather puzzled! Check out the pictures above for how capable off roaders can be. What the Range Rover's doing in all of those shots just wouldn't be possible in a normal car. The ability to have a car that'll do that and cruise down the M4 in silence is an amazing feat of engineering!
[/quote]
I've got to say that I don't give a stuff if people are confused by my car choice or that it dose not have the 'agility, nimbleness, acceleration, balance etc' of a sports car.
I simply enjoy driving it on the road and off and that all there is to it.
My original point was intended to clear up this confusion. The vast majority of sports cars are designed for the road. The characteristics of a sports car (agility, nimbleness, acceleration, balance etc) are of value on the road, and they don't detract from the road driving experience, much like being Carl Lewis doesn't get in the way of a quick walk to the shops and back. The fact that a Boxster has a lower centre of gravity from a Vectra doesn't get in the way of the car being used on the road, nor does the fact that the engine is in the middle. Off roaders, on the other hand, carry around their off road credentials like a mill stone around their neck - the high CofG, large wheel travel and additional weight result in a poorer driving experience than a Vectra. I suppose it's like being a competitive strong man and trying to go about your everyday life - your extra size and weight will make things difficult without ever offering an real benefits.
As I said before, I'm not against off roaders as such, it's just that buying one for mainly road use obviously causes a lot of people to be rather puzzled! Check out the pictures above for how capable off roaders can be. What the Range Rover's doing in all of those shots just wouldn't be possible in a normal car. The ability to have a car that'll do that and cruise down the M4 in silence is an amazing feat of engineering!
[/quote]
I've got to say that I don't give a stuff if people are confused by my car choice or that it dose not have the 'agility, nimbleness, acceleration, balance etc' of a sports car.
I simply enjoy driving it on the road and off and that all there is to it.
dhutch said:
As someone who is heavly dyslexic and asbergers, my spelling is one of the things ive had to battle with all my life.
Daniel
Know what you are up against mate. Get the Google tool bar. It has a built in spell checker that is really handy for forums.Daniel
BTW: Totally disagree with your first post.
Edited by colonel c on Tuesday 11th December 12:55
stovey said:
RobM77 said:
Gorvid said:
Why do dumb ers keep equating cars with "need"...?
I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....
ers keep equating cars with "need"...?I don't need a car at all. I have two V8's because I WANT to....
I hope you haven't taken my posts the wrong way. I was merely trying to explain why people have the sort of bizarre reactions such as mentioned by the OP. Whilst I don't agree with these agressive anti-4x4 sentiments, I can understand (but not agree with!) how they've come to that conclusion. 4x4s on the road are completely pointless, but of course that doesn't mean someone shouldn't have the right to buy one for 100% road use if they want to.One minute you're defending choice and the next you're banging on about people "deserving to be laughed at" for buying a 4x4?
How can you describe any car as completely pointless? Perhaps it's not you that decides the "point" in other peoples cars.
Perhaps people think you look funny driving around in your elise, who knows.
Edited by stovey on Monday 10th December 22:35
Does one have to have a side in this? You're right - I believe in freedom of choice, but also I don't see the point of 4x4s. That doesn't mean I'm against them. Now, with me that means that if I see someone in a 4x4 I react as if I'd seen someone walking to work in a chicken suit - mild amusement but I don't really care - if it makes em happy that's fine by me! Yes, they're more dangerous if they hit an ordinary car, but so is a lorry or a van.I'm not sure where the hatred of 4x4 owners comes from, but almost certainly it has its roots in those initial feelings of bemusement when I see an urban 4x4. For me, it doesn't manifest itself as anything, but some people obviously feel the need to be playground bullies and have a go at someone for being different, which sadly is human nature.
As for not seeing the point of an Elise, I can understand how people come to that conclusion through totally innocent ignorance. The point of the Elise (I can't believe I'm explaining this on Pistonheads
) is that it's rear wheel drive, small, lightweight and gives a good level of feedback to the road. As I said before, the point of a Mondeo is that it's got four seats, is comfy and safe for the family. The point of a 3 series is the same thing as the Mondeo, but it's rear drive.As you can see, most intelligent people can reason the 'point' of most cars. The point of 4x4s purely for road use is completely lost on me, and no-one has ever been able to explain it to me. People enjoy them, so that's cool, but that isn't a point is it? I've no problem with accepting people enjoying something pointless, but we all have to understand that not everyone is as reasoned and laid back about it!
RobM77 said:
The point of 4x4s purely for road use is completely lost on me, and no-one has ever been able to explain it to me.
No, I think you get it...RobM77 said:
People enjoy them, so that's cool, but that isn't a point is it?
Yes, it is.RobM77 said:
I've no problem with accepting people enjoying something pointless, but we all have to understand that not everyone is as reasoned and laid back about it!
Pointlessness is relative and individual. Imposing a random and arbitrary restriction on others is totalitarian, when the action being restricted is harmless. The safety, roadspace, pinkogreen and other arguments against 4x4 vehicles are fatuous and false. In urban areas buses kill more people per mile travelled than cars or vans of any type, the roadspace taken up by an average 4x4 is little different to a family saloon, hybrids are far less ecofriendly than Hummers. Anti-4x4 principles amount to lifestyle fascism.
dhutch said:
Im personally am against 4*4 for the school run, for people who dont need them, and should just get a volvo or a audi estate or something.
- They do use an amount more fuel, espically as they often have a larger than average engine.
- And they also use more oil and service etc, for all the extra diffs and gearboxs. And you look like a bit of a cock.
However at the same point, he does have a point that if you actually do need a 4*4 then you should be penalised.
- I only directly know three people with 4*4, one of them has a 6tonne steamboat that he tows all over the place, inc steep small roads to marinas, launch and recovered etc, and the other two have them as farm vehicals as the guy in the essay does, going across unmade feilds in all weathers etc.
But yeah, largly, urrrm. Yeah, thing. And that....
Daniel
my old bmw X5 was a damm site more economical tha my current Grand Voyager, lighter too...- They do use an amount more fuel, espically as they often have a larger than average engine.
- And they also use more oil and service etc, for all the extra diffs and gearboxs. And you look like a bit of a cock.
However at the same point, he does have a point that if you actually do need a 4*4 then you should be penalised.
- I only directly know three people with 4*4, one of them has a 6tonne steamboat that he tows all over the place, inc steep small roads to marinas, launch and recovered etc, and the other two have them as farm vehicals as the guy in the essay does, going across unmade feilds in all weathers etc.
But yeah, largly, urrrm. Yeah, thing. And that....
Daniel
bmw 3.0d
grand voyager 2.9d
B
turbobloke said:
RobM77 said:
The point of 4x4s purely for road use is completely lost on me, and no-one has ever been able to explain it to me.
No, I think you get it...RobM77 said:
People enjoy them, so that's cool, but that isn't a point is it?
Yes, it is.RobM77 said:
I've no problem with accepting people enjoying something pointless, but we all have to understand that not everyone is as reasoned and laid back about it!
Pointlessness is relative and individual. Imposing a random and arbitrary restriction on others is totalitarian, when the action being restricted is harmless. The safety, roadspace, pinkogreen and other arguments against 4x4 vehicles are fatuous and false. In urban areas buses kill more people per mile travelled than cars or vans of any type, the roadspace taken up by an average 4x4 is little different to a family saloon, hybrids are far less ecofriendly than Hummers. Anti-4x4 principles amount to lifestyle fascism.
I agree with most of that.However, we have to accept that not everyone is able to chuckle and say "if it makes him happy, that's fine by me". Bemusement can easily turn to hatred if you give people enough political or media spin - it's human nature. Look at the reaction to nuclear power or the MRR vaccine for good examples. Without the government's "climate change" policy and the media publicising anti-4x4 groups, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
Enjoying something does give it a point, but there's still no reasoning behind it, and that is the root of the bemusement (which turns to hatred, as explained above). Let's think of the chicken suit argument. A man may enjoy wearing a chicken suit to cycle to work, but that won't stop people laughing at him. If there is a valid reason (for instance, it's red nose day and he's raising money for charity), then the bemusement stops - simple as that. I suppose you could say that I'd receive a similar reaction if I owned an Elise in central London and only used it to drive 3 miles across the city each morning. If the government had a policy against small blue sports cars that was reported on by the media, then we'd have the same situation!
The ecolentilists who want us all running around in electric Gwhizzes also obviously want us to return to an age where we move no further afield than the boundaries of our villages and start in-breeding with our cousins again. I have a 4x4 in my fleet because I frequently have to move people and a lot of crap between two different locations. What is the alternative? I used to have an estate but it wasn't big enough. What do they want me to drive instead? MPV? Bigger, less economical and death by boredom for this petrolhead. The estate also got 8mpg less than the 4x4. Don't like it? off then.
off then.The Londoner said:
The ecolentilists who want us all running around in electric Gwhizzes also obviously want us to return to an age where we move no further afield than the boundaries of our villages and start in-breeding with our cousins again. I have a 4x4 in my fleet because I frequently have to move people and a lot of crap between two different locations. What is the alternative? I used to have an estate but it wasn't big enough. What do they want me to drive instead? MPV? Bigger, less economical and death by boredom for this petrolhead. The estate also got 8mpg less than the 4x4. Don't like it?
Out of interest, which estate car did you have and what 4x4 do you have now? Estate cars generally have a bigger or equal boot to a 4x4, but crucially because they're lower down it's a lot easier to load stuff into them. Far more effective load carriers.Also, unless you can defy the laws of physics, 4x4s always do less to the gallon with an equivalent performance or engine size 2WD estate car - fact (frictional losses and extra weight). When I ran my 330ci I got about 30-35mpg, whereas the X5 I borrowed with the same engine did about 15-20mpg - simple because it weighed 30% more, had huge tyres and was 4WD. Allowing for the fact that I drove the X5 like a man possessed and it was an auto, I reckon the real world difference would be about 5-10mpg.
Instead of using such flawed logic to justify your purchase, can't you just admit to liking the 4x4 more? This is pistonheads, 95% of people won't mind! (me included!).
RobM77 said:
However, we have to accept that not everyone is able to chuckle and say "if it makes him happy, that's fine by me".
Then we must make sure these selfish self-centric arrogant lifestyle totalitarians have no influence over public policy, let alone get elected. Libdims in the London Borough of Richmond take note.The Londoner said:
Used to have a Volvo 850T5 estate. Got 24 mpg from that. Moved to the XC90 that I get 32 mpg from. Can get way more stuff into it as well.
Ah, that would explain it Obviously the mpg is due to the fact you used to have a T5!! If you wanted similar performance out of the XC90 you'd need a huuuge engine, which would do much less to the gallon.
The XC90 is a much bigger vehicle than the 850, so yes, you'll be getting more luggage space. With two rows of seats free, the T5 is 424 litres, whereas the XC90 is 613 litres (it's a seven seater).
Each to their own, but I think if it was me I'd buy a 5 series estate. A 5 series can manage very close the XC90's luggage figures (it's about 550 litres with two rows of seats free), whilst being more economical, more comfortable, the handling's in a different league (CofG is about two feet lower..), and it's faster too. Each to their own though!
PS - don't compare the depreciation, it'll scare you!turbobloke said:
RobM77 said:
However, we have to accept that not everyone is able to chuckle and say "if it makes him happy, that's fine by me".
Then we must make sure these selfish self-centric arrogant lifestyle totalitarians have no influence over public policy, let alone get elected. Libdims in the London Borough of Richmond take note.RobM77 said:
The Londoner said:
Used to have a Volvo 850T5 estate. Got 24 mpg from that. Moved to the XC90 that I get 32 mpg from. Can get way more stuff into it as well.
Ah, that would explain it Obviously the mpg is due to the fact you used to have a T5!! If you wanted similar performance out of the XC90 you'd need a huuuge engine, which would do much less to the gallon.
The XC90 is a much bigger vehicle than the 850, so yes, you'll be getting more luggage space. With two rows of seats free, the T5 is 424 litres, whereas the XC90 is 613 litres (it's a seven seater).
Each to their own, but I think if it was me I'd buy a 5 series estate. A 5 series can manage very close the XC90's luggage figures (it's about 550 litres with two rows of seats free), whilst being more economical, more comfortable, the handling's in a different league (CofG is about two feet lower..), and it's faster too. Each to their own though!
PS - don't compare the depreciation, it'll scare you!sjp63 said:
RobM77 said:
The Londoner said:
Used to have a Volvo 850T5 estate. Got 24 mpg from that. Moved to the XC90 that I get 32 mpg from. Can get way more stuff into it as well.
Ah, that would explain it Obviously the mpg is due to the fact you used to have a T5!! If you wanted similar performance out of the XC90 you'd need a huuuge engine, which would do much less to the gallon.
The XC90 is a much bigger vehicle than the 850, so yes, you'll be getting more luggage space. With two rows of seats free, the T5 is 424 litres, whereas the XC90 is 613 litres (it's a seven seater).
Each to their own, but I think if it was me I'd buy a 5 series estate. A 5 series can manage very close the XC90's luggage figures (it's about 550 litres with two rows of seats free), whilst being more economical, more comfortable, the handling's in a different league (CofG is about two feet lower..), and it's faster too. Each to their own though!
PS - don't compare the depreciation, it'll scare you!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff