# 4X4s



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Just watching this 4x4 program on 3, I truly don't understand why people have a problem with them. Yes they are big, but i don't hear people screaming for vans or lorries or caravans to be removed from cities - when the drivers of these things if i use a sweeping generalisation are worse.

Don't like them myself and wouldn't purchase one but i believe people should be allowed to buy what they wont.

What about SUV/people carriers!

Climate change my arse, lets just have another pop at drivers and extract every last penny we can.


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

Just watched it myself and it pisses me off too :x


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its just vilifying a proportion of the population. I think TT style cars will be next. :?


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

Program was a load of rubbish. It was obvious what the conclusion would be, before it even started.

I don't like 4x4s either and think they're pointless when not off road, but people should still be allowed a choice. I suppose they do have some uses. Easy to get in and out off when you get old. Or as a substitute for lack of self esteem? Bloke in the escalade 'I'll drive all over you if you're in my way' and revving his engine - what a twat.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2007)

I have horses, and a jetbike. My reason for having my 4x4, because a low torque , battery hybrid cant pull a horse box and probably cant get to where i need to go with my jetbike.

See?
Now im giving reasons why i own one.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Friend has an land rover and the reason is the four horses he owns. Ok hes never ever used it to move the horses but he says its an option if needed.

Also mentioned he gets lots of abuse when hes driving it from other road users and even people in the street.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> Friend has an land rover and the reason is the four horses he owns. Ok hes never ever used it to move the horses but he says its an option if needed.
> 
> Also mentioned he gets lots of abuse when hes driving it from other road users and even people in the street.


MAybe i should drive around with my trailer on the back?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

And a wooden rocking horse in the back. :lol:


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2007)

Toshiba said:


> And a wooden rocking horse in the back. :lol:


 :lol:

I'd only have the "real animal deffamation league" on my back.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont, damned if you get someone else to do it.


----------



## markh (May 6, 2002)

Program was complete staged toss.

Made me go for a pointless drive in the Discovery !


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

markh said:


> Made me go for a pointless drive in the Discovery !


Well done that man, im doing nigh on 600 miles in the V6 tomorrow and Im going to do my damndest to keep the MPG as low as possible. I fucking hate trees, branchy bastards.


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

Ridiculous arguments from start to finish - loads of crap about how bad they were but hardly any proper comparisons. When the got the owners to do the 'tricky' roll manoeuvres, why didn't they then ask them to do the same in a small car? My guess is they would have cocked that up too :?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Leg said:


> I fucking hate trees, branchy bastards.


lol :lol: :lol:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

DUO3 NAN said:


> I have horses, and a jetbike. My reason for having my 4x4, because a low torque , battery hybrid cant pull a horse box and probably cant get to where i need to go with my jetbike.
> 
> See?
> Now im giving reasons why i own one.


Oh but they can! We tow a really big twin axle caravan   and our hybrid Lexus RX400h does it with ease. When maneuvering the petrol engine rarely starts the electric motors do it all. It does have plenty torque, most electric motors do.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2007)

John C said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > I have horses, and a jetbike. My reason for having my 4x4, because a low torque , battery hybrid cant pull a horse box and probably cant get to where i need to go with my jetbike.
> ...


I saw that. "TWIN AXLE CARAVAN" everyone.

My mistake, however i very much doubt its very environmentaly friendly when its towing a big twin axle caravan is it?

However,one of the reasons ( here i go again with my reasons for having a 4x4) i bought my treg was the fact that i liked the look of it.

I couldnt say that about the lexus.

BUt thats another funny thing about 4x4's, you either really like the look of a certain model, or really hate it, theres rarely any sitting on the fence with a 4x4's looks.


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

fut1a said:


> Just watched it myself and it pisses me off too :x


 :evil:

Same here! Too many generalisations! And the people they used were exactly what they were looking for - Idiots who didn't do 4x4 any favours!


----------



## paulie1 (Mar 6, 2007)

Mind you have you seen the crash test done on the G-Wiz electric car?!
That should keep down the numbers of beardy tree fuckers!! :lol:


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

I saw the program too. And while I didn't like the generalisations at all there is a good argument for not requiring a 4X4 in urban areas. There is no reason for 60% of parents to drop their kids at an urban school in 4x4s when luxo barges/estates would do - and are dynamically superior in every sense except off-road.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

DUO3 NAN said:


> I saw that. "TWIN AXLE CARAVAN" everyone.


lol :lol:  :wink:



DUO3 NAN said:


> My mistake, however i very much doubt its very environmentaly friendly when its towing a big twin axle caravan is it?


Nope! 16mpg!



DUO3 NAN said:


> However,one of the reasons ( here i go again with my reasons for having a 4x4) i bought my treg was the fact that i liked the look of it.
> 
> I couldnt say that about the lexus.
> 
> BUt thats another funny thing about 4x4's, you either really like the look of a certain model, or really hate it, theres rarely any sitting on the fence with a 4x4's looks.


Agree - Don't fancy the treg much, each to their own and all that - It was my wife who chose the Lex. Imho in terms of looks it's not quite the TT but the only 4x4 I really like is the Range Rover Sport.


----------



## steveh (Jan 14, 2004)

It's been said before but I'll say it again. If we let these people have their way and they introduce some sort of ban or (more likely) try to tax 4x4s off the road (no irony intended) then they will just turn their attention to a new target. My guess is that that target will be two seater (or 2+2) sports cars and coupes after all, they take up pretty much the same roadspace as a saloon car and, in most cases use as much fuel and pump out as much CO2 but they only carry 2 people or 2 people and 2 kids at a push.

Somebody is going to come along now and try to justify having their car by pointing out that they often have passengers in the back of their TT (or whatever) or that there car is quite economical really. It will start to sound very familiar to the arguments that those of us with 4x4s feel we have to trot out now.

This all might sound a bit far-fetched but who would have thought, only a few years ago, that all this anti-4x4 stuff would be going on now.

Just some food for thought. :wink:


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

With respect, the arguments against 4x4s are hardly new or irrational. They use far too many resources to build and move. They take up a disproportional amount of space on the road and are generally a greater risk to pedestrians than a similarly sized car. Their handling dynamics and performance are blunted by the weight, complexity and wind resistance of their structures. They have no real place in an urban environment except that with ever more unsophisticated traffic calming initiatives and the dreadful state of many urban roads the long wheel travel and robust design become a genuine advantage. Their lofty driving position gives an excellent view of the road ahead, albeit at the expense of other road users, and their larger tyres reduce the likelihood of kerbing an alloy.

As either a vehicle or a plaything the 4x4 has no real place on the UKs roads, but I cannot help but love the Disco 3 and RRS. I just can't help it. Everytime I see a Disco I want one, been the same since they came out. The RRS has become a little too chavvy for my taste, rather too many with 20, 22 and 24 inch rims and "Stunner" tyres on Â£60k motors for my liking. But I still love them.

But, if I see no reason for 4x4s to exist, why do I love the Disco? Simple. All the "Prestige" saloons and estates are as bland as bland can be. For them to appear half-way interesting they need to be making sufficient power to torture the chassis and rims so big they look like they've fallen off an F1 car. No, make no mistake, the reason that people like Big 4x4s is because if you don't drive down autobahns at 120mph every day the A6, 5 Series and E Class are very capable, very refined and very, very boring. Long live diversity, biological and automotive, and let us hope that the automakers recognise that people are bored of just seeing the same, but a little better year in, year out.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

MPVs take up just as much room and serve just the same purpose or lack of purpose but yet these do not attract the same attention. The MPV differs from the 4x4 in only the drive system.


----------



## thejepster (Mar 29, 2005)

Not sure I agree with everything you said here fella :? and I'm not having a go at you, but at the generalisations 


ag said:


> With respect, the arguments against 4x4s are hardly new or irrational. They use far too many resources to build and move. They take up a disproportional amount of space on the road and are generally a greater risk to pedestrians than a similarly sized car.


From my understanding, the energy that goes into building, tooling up, and running a manufacturer of a 4x4 is roughly the same as what goes into a similar sized car. The major difference being the size of the panels, and some of the different internal workings. Ok, the raw material needed for the steelwork, drivetrain and glass area will be a percentage higher than standard, but if you calculate the cost on the basis that production runs would the same, how much different would the costs be? Factor in whole life costs and the environment that they are used in, (what is the typical longevity of a traditional car v a 4x4?) and I'm sure that the resource issue is negated. I'm with you that they are typically more fuel inefficient than an equivalent 7 seater estate, but they are not as inefficient as some performance cars or HGV's... so why are they singled out for persecution?

In terms of roadspace, here are 2 vehicles, both 7 seats, both diesel automatics, and both have good reputations in what they do.
- Vehicle A costs ~Â£34k is 4798mm long and 2118mm wide and does 31.4mpg.
- Vehicle B costs ~Â£33k is 4861mm long and 2104mm wide and does 30.1mpg.
Which one is the 4x4 and which is the people carrier?

Well according to figures from What Car, the shorter, more economical vehicle A is a Volvo XC90 D5 S while B is a 3.0dCI Renault Espace... incidentally, the Volvo has a better pedestrian safety score than the Espace.
Ok, so I've chosen the competition carefully on this one, but it still illustrates how the 'established and rational' arguements are simply too general and unfounded...



ag said:


> Their handling dynamics and performance are blunted by the weight, complexity and wind resistance of their structures.


Yup, no complaints about that assumption! They most definitely don't handle well... and the performance of the average 4x4 is what you would call, leisurely! I would be interested to find out what the braking distances are of the 2 vehicles above, given that their kerb weights are not too dissimilar with only ~150kg in it when empty. Both loaded up with a full complement of kids/luggage, would the Volvo with it's heavier unladen weight and greater towing capacity have stronger brakes?



ag said:


> They have no real place in an urban environment except that with ever more unsophisticated traffic calming initiatives and the dreadful state of many urban roads the long wheel travel and robust design become a genuine advantage.


It's not really the fault of the 4x4 that the roads are not well maintained or designed to facilitate cars with a lower centre of gravity, ground clearance or stronger shocks and springs is it! :wink:



ag said:


> Their lofty driving position gives an excellent view of the road ahead, albeit at the expense of other road users, and their larger tyres reduce the likelihood of kerbing an alloy.


So as well as no 4x4's in an urban environment, are you/the anti-4x4 brigade looking at pulling other larger vehicles off the road? The van, bus, and lorry drivers impede my vision a lot more than a 4x4 driver... and while we're at it, lets take anyone towing a trailer/caravan off the road too! Going back to my Volvo/Renault comparison, is the extra 38mm that the Volvo has over the Espace at its highest point, really going to impede you as a driver? No, didn't think so....



ag said:


> As either a vehicle or a plaything the 4x4 has no real place on the UKs roads...


There is a place for it as both a working vehicle, a necessity and a plaything as we are a country that doesn't revolve around city life and its multitude of transport options. For me, a small city car just wouldn't work. It wouldn't carry a bale of hay to the stables, it wouldn't get me to work when it snows, it wouldn't be comfortable for me to commute 3hrs down the M4 on my way to the office. There are many many people who have requirements that aren't satisfied by anything other than a 4x4, and it is imoral to stop them from having such a vehicle when all the arguments are unjustified, irrelevant and generic in the extreme...



ag said:


> ...but I cannot help but love the Disco 3 and RRS. I just can't help it. Everytime I see a Disco I want one, been the same since they came out. The RRS has become a little too chavvy for my taste, rather too many with 20, 22 and 24 inch rims and "Stunner" tyres on Â£60k motors for my liking. But I still love them.


In full agreement with you here!  8)


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

My name is Mark and I... well I... drive a Toerag


----------



## foojeek (Nov 22, 2004)

Its been written before but 75% of all landrovers ever built (since 1946) are still on the road.

So that stuffs the carbon tree hugging lot.

Like most people I take a strong dislike to being told what to do and how to spend my money, so not really in the plant eating camp :lol:

And if I want to race a V8 range rover, or drive one on the road, or take a flight or have more kids then i jolly well will


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2007)

Sim said:


> My name is Mark and I... well I... drive a Toerag


Dont worry Mark, we can share the abuse for killing the dolphins and the trees for driving a big 4x4.


----------



## malTTeezer (Nov 27, 2003)

never watched the programme as I know I would get :x :x :x 
I drive a 225TT a Saab convertible a pajero 2800TD & a pajero 3.5 v6 petrol, all at different times obviously & they all serve a purpose to me , but I don't give a flying fuck what anybody says I pay my road fund licence & pay ridiculous amount of fuel duty pay stupidly high insurance but it is my choice to do that so they can fuck right off.
there you go :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x rant over


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

eek - flameroom bound i guess.


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

Just filled up both our cars tonight.

Mrs Jams' XC90 Â£57 quids worth of derv

My TT Â£58 quids worth of V Power

Both will be empty by the same time next week. The anti 4x4 and performance car brigade can go FCUK themselves. Both our cars suit the needs of our family very well and more worryingly I've really taken to the XC90 over the laast few months


----------



## cyberface (Apr 1, 2007)

sod everyone! id love a new range rover! there great cars, even if it does feel like your driving a house!!


----------



## LakesTTer (Jan 19, 2005)

I think the phrase "needs must", comes into the equation here. I'm just in the process of getting rid of the TT as I no longer need it. It was bought primarily to get me from London to the Lakes and back in relative comfort and with a degree of speed. Out here in the sticks, I use more petrol going 8 miles down a country road than I ever did over he same distance on the motorway, so it now becomes surplus to requirements. I'm starting my own gardening and landscaping business and I've found that, already some of my potential clients property is inaccessible in a "normal" vehicle. 
I'm looking for an L200 or a Navara, something I can use for work and leisure, round here, something like that is perfect. Almost everyone round here has a 4x4 of some description, mostly 'cos they need them. I'm not talking Cayennes or X5s, I mean proper covered in mud and sheepshit, battered, working pickups.
The problem is, all the pretentious city types who think it's cool to trundle around in a 4x4, with not intention whatsoever of getting it dirty, just so they can say, "I drive a Cayenne, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner" That's why I believe the taxing of 4x4s should be dictated by your postcode.


----------

