Safe Speed Forums

The claim that big 4x4’s are environmentally less friendly than saloons and sports cars in the same price range has been undermined by research.

Wonder if the green sandaled brigade will believe this survey? It only compares them to luxury saloons.


http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... 23,00.html

That pulls the rug out from under the Lib Dems and their anti-4x4 ramblings.

They are going to have to completely re-think their persecution stratergy..

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Can hear the lentils rattling already, but hey, they can always go for the luxury Jag owners (especially those with more than one)

Of course the lentil eaters will disbelieve this research, they will find a way of connecting the resaerch company with the 4x4 manufacturers

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

The study does seem to have been a bit biased, as it seems to be basing its conclusion on comparison of mpg, but then says that the 4x4s tend to be diesel and the others petrol. Mpg of the two fuel types cannot be compared in this simple manner, due to the differing amounts of energy contained per unit volume. Also, their emissions are completely different, so when comparing environmental impact it makes no sense to compare based on mpg alone.

dunno, surely the average luxury big 4x4 driver is your affluent family mum. Now if she wasn't driving said kiddie shuttler, what'd it be? probably be a big petrol engined merc or equivalent. the m class seems to have taken over the traditional stomping ground of heavy & thirsty old volvos.

The common arguement that 4x4's are evil because they use more fuel than an average family saloon is flawed, because the people who buy them probably wouldn't have considered a mondeo as an option.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Nowhere did I object to them comparing the 4x4s with luxury saloons. My objection was them not taking into account that a gallon of diesel contains more energy than a gallon of petrol, therefore the same mpg represents worse economy for a diesel, and that a diesel emits completely different types of pollution to a petrol engine which means that a comparison based solely on mpg is not valid.

Found this in the internet.....people with toooooooooo much time on their hands and not enought important stuf to worry about...

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/supporters.htm


quotes....
#And if a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed
#4 times as much carbon dioxide as smaller family cars
#They are the equivalent of driving a tank through the streets

And they eat babies too..

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I'm not keen, personally, on the idea of using a 4x4 when a lighter more efficient car can do the job, but the one thing that has made me seriously consider buying one is speed humps. I'd consider myself entirely justified in buying one as a response to these hazards intentionally placed in our roads. After all, adapting to our environment is what got us to where we are.

I was in Perth a few months ago & the 4x4 bashers (GreenPeace) were littering windscreens with tat. How did they arrive - diesel minibus... What were they targeting - anything 'boxy with big wheels' including Vitaras & RAV4's with piddly little engines! I had to refuse accepting a leaflet as I'd just parked beside an offending Vitara in my petrol guzzling V6 saloon - did I get stickerd - NOPE! Perhaps they should look at emmisions & not shapes if they must waste more trees printing biased tat. I'm sure that a 1988 Sierra smoking along with worn rings & no cat is a much bigger polluter than any modern 4x4. Incedently I DO agree with the reduced emmisions policy, if I could buy a powerful, comfortable car that was economical to run - sure I'd buy it. But until such times......

Why buy a 4x4 when you can rent a bulldozer?

_________________
Andrew.

Fairy snuff but 4x4's tend to be diesels because ultimate performance is not an issue, fuel economy is so you're effectively steered in the direction of diesel when making a decision.



My feelings precisely, london's roads bear more in common with a vehicle manufacturers endurance testing & proving ground than a decent driving surface and your average family car simply isn't designed to take that much punishment. A good 4x4 is. and it's not just springs and shocks that are the issue, tracking and alignment is messed up, bottoming out breaking sumps and exhausts, steering components, all of the parts adversely affected are build to higher standards and/or better protected by the height on a real off-roader.

I'd love to see a graphical display of year-on-year 4x4 ownership against the number of speed bumps.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I'd love to take the loony ban off-roaders nut-cases round to my mates house, his family have a total of 7 4x4's! His collection includes

New Range Rover(Diesel)
BMW X5(Diesel)
Mk 2 Range Rover(V8)
Mk 1 Range Rover(V8)
Series 1 Land Rover(V8)
Series 2 Land Rover(Diesel)
Series 2 Land Rover(2.25)

The reaction on their faces would be priceless!

Personally I hate the damn things from a driving point of view. He's let me lose in the Mk1 RR V8 and I while it was nice being up high, it was a very uninvolving drive and not especially quick to say it only returns about 14mpg. Oh and the Series 2 Landies were scary to drive, the steering wheel seemed to have only a very lose connection to what actually happened at the wheels! But each to their own I say!

Just finished another 11 hour day on my 4X4. It's got 32 forward gears, 24 for going backward. Power shuttle, 4 speed semi powershift and the mightiest airconditioner known to man. The 5.9litre cummins punches way above it's weight. and the best thing about it is looking over the top over ranger rover roofs.

If I had the money to spend on a 4x4, I'd buy a proper car, with proper performance and proper handling. Any 4x4 that's clean is driven by some body who's not confident enough to drive a small car.

If you want a 4x4, by all means have one, but I'll stick to my car and won't be pushed around, as a land cruiser VX owner found out

4x4 driver? Poofs, the lot of 'em

Adam -
Relatives mention Italian tanks in WW2, with 4 reverse gears and one forward( in case attacked from behind)

Take a look at the emmissions of a Honda CRV petrol and diesel and compare them to any mondeo sized family car. It's one of the cleanest and safest (passanger and pedestrian) cars around - let alone 4x4s.

What I find annoying is that while most mainstream 4x4s take up the same footprint as a family car, people still drive them like they are the size of busses. Perhaps the manufacturers should put parking sensors on all sides.

Nah - they'd never go off. Folk would still park six feet from the kerb thinking they were about to touch it and that the sensors were faulty

A lot of the ones i see could do with a booster cushion in the driver seat so that mumsy could look over the wheel, the other ones could do with a stronger return spring on the throttle

Hi all,

the Land Rover is mean't to be one of the most environmentally friendly vehicles available (although I'm sure few of the owners have them due to this fact). Around half-or more even-of all the emissions produced by a vehicle is during when it is made and about 60% of all LR's made are still on the road so their longevity and popularity accounts towards their green credentials. Their design and build is also simple and uses very few parts therefore the energy required to be used to re-design and fit out luxury cars and 4X4's is avoided.

I would also like to point out that my daily runaround is a so called "banger", which is portrayed as emitting clouds of smoke and guzzling gas by the left loonies (and most other people) but this is simply not so.

My car has nearly 160000MLS, is 15 years old, does 40MPG around town and nearly 60MPG on motorways, it emits no smoke and has passed every emission test with flying colours and has never seriously let me down, if it has it was only down to my negligence over an existing problem, the car is a 2.0 Cavalier injection, which I think would be deemed a severe polluter and a danger to us all by the sandal brigade but I know different.

Regards


Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Andy - suspect if you take head off and check , including valve stems that there is next to no carbon either in the engine or on the stems wasn't on mine after about 180thousand - Haynes manual gives the idle of one type as 1&max and the other as .7 to 1.2 as against 3.5% after 1988
engineered as a non polluter.