Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilipGarsed)
    I had a fairly detailed reply written out but managed to delete it in Firefox :mad:. I'll continue the debate tomorrow after some sleep!

    Goodnight!
    lol, alright, see you tomorrow then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Double the fee.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Double the fee.
    On what grounds? On the grounds of pollution or size you'd then have to double the fee for saloons and people carriers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SyncMaster_770)
    On what grounds? On the grounds of pollution or size you'd then have to double the fee for saloons and people carriers.
    No, I just like doubling fees. :rolleyes:






    Bigger problem to the roads, bigger fees.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Bigger problem to the roads, bigger fees.
    Ermm...elaborate if you will. How are they a bigger problem to the road exactly? (in a way in which large saloons and MPVs are not)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SyncMaster_770)
    Ermm...elaborate if you will. How are they a bigger problem to the road exactly? (in a way in which large saloons and MPVs are not)
    I didn't say "large saloons" and "MPVs" weren't a problem?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    I didn't say "large saloons" and "MPVs" weren't a problem?
    Touché good sir.
    Offline

    0
    Well that was nicely settled, i must say. :cool:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SyncMaster_770)
    'Immensely'. Not really, since the majority of pollution isn't actually caused by cars. A much bigger polluter is aviation, for a start. If you thrash a 1.2L engine at 5000 RPM on a motorway, it'll give a very bad MPG and give out a lot of pollution, whereas a 5L engine would be working at about 2500 RPM, so would be more efficient. I frequently need to move a lot of stuff between place to place, and therefore need a car with a big loadspace, and hence, a bigger engine. If you banned my car, then every time I needed to move anything, i'd have to call a removals company.....who'd bring a 10L diesel lorry, which would cause far more pollution.
    True, but most petrol is used up on city roads where speed is quite low and often stop-starts occur. A 5 litre car around a city is hardly necessary. Howmany people go on long-distance motorway journeys in their 5 litre DB7? Not many cos they will drink petrol like nothing. A 2 litre car is much more efficient in general.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol, wow theres like a proper debate going now. Hehe i still stand but what i said and that will never change, (lol still believe that the brand brand new range rovers aren't that good off-road, but thats more of a personal opinon, i prefer the older landy's, i love the 90's and i love bobtails) woo me going off in my own little world now.. anyway yeah, if people are coming up with all these statistics about engine size amount of pollution and saying that 4x4's are more damaging to the land, then how come they are road leagal and pass all the tests to do with fuel emmisions etc. And its up to the individual person if the decide to buy a veichle that does only 10mpg cause its their money comeing out of their pocket not yours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    New Range rover not good offroad :eek: - Tell me one stock 4x4 that could beat it. Nice to have another offroader on the forum thought (one who also loves bobtails!). Really, the bottom line is that, People Carriers take up just as much space on the road, and sports cars and luxury saloons cause as much pollution. Therefore, if you ban the 4x4 on these grounds, then, logically, you must also ban these other cars. I will gladly look into an alternative to my 4x4, when somebody is able to suggest one vehicle that can tow, carry large loads, go offroad and transport 5 people and their luggage in comfort down the motorway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Colonel)
    Many cars are about status. Why do people buy jag x-types when they could have a mondeo which is pretty much the same thing.
    No. Just no. Completely different.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SyncMaster_770)
    one vehicle that can tow, carry large loads, go offroad and transport 5 people and their luggage in comfort down the motorway.
    Chrysler Grand Voyager. Except it can carry seven people. Plus luggage, and a trailer. And it goes offroad without breaking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Nissan X-trail!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Chrysler Grand Voyager. Except it can carry seven people. Plus luggage, and a trailer. And it goes offroad without breaking.
    A chrysler grand voyager isnt a 4x4 in sense of what i mean, that is a people carrier -
    http://www.rhinocentral.co.uk/customers.html - a real 4x4 for people who actually go off-roading lol - (me being biased) lol now someone will say about harming the country side..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Chrysler Grand Voyager. Except it can carry seven people. Plus luggage, and a trailer. And it goes offroad without breaking.
    and in a crash everyone dies.

    and im not sure it could go offroad. id like to see one try
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People should be able to drive whatever they want if they can afford it.

    I just hate the ***** that drive their big ****ing tanks through the city streets so carelessly and not giving a **** about other people. I have a big ****ing ding in my rear quarter because of some ***** opening the back door on their 4x4 now. :vmad: :banghead: :mad:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As previously mentioned a grand voyager is an MPV- the cherokee/wrangler are the Jeep 4x4s.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynox)
    As previously mentioned a grand voyager is an MPV- the cherokee/wrangler are the Jeep 4x4s.
    but the voyager is a chrysler car, not a jeep :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SyncMaster_770)
    When you say 'scientific fact', what you actually mean is 'statistics', which are not one and the same.

    I believe the week that Churchill released the accident stats, another insurer released figures to the contrary - I will try and find them later.

    As for the figures about energy required to produce a car - Over 2/3 of all Land Rovers ever produced are still running, and the most popular 4x4 in the UK is a Land Rover - so the cars don't end up on the scrap heap after 15 years, like most others will.

    As for the fuel consumption of Saloon Vs. 4x4. We have a Merc S600 and that gets 17mpg combined. The 4.4L Range Rover gets 19mpg combined (both these cars are some of the most 'inefficient' in their classes) Also, as i've said earlier, the most popular 4x4 in the UK is more fuel efficient than a Mini Cooper. The point is that, stats prove nothing, they can easily be made to work for one side or the other.

    On the city driving front I agree in theory. Your theory being that the 4x4 is only driven in the city. It may be driven in the country/offroad for most of its time, and just commute into the city for work each day (I know many people who do this, as they have only one car).

    Your diesel engine arguement is flawed insofaras it's not targeted towards 4x4s in general, rather at all diesel engined cars.

    A comparitively high proportion of 4x4s run on LPG - very clean fuel.

    As for load transporting - a 4x4 is easily the best option in my experience. It can hold vastly more than normal cars, and a lot more than estates. In the last 8 weeks, it's been loaded to capacity at least 10 times. Now, by your reasoning, I should buy a van as I transport loads. That means I have to buy 2 vehicles (a car and a van), and surely that's a bigger waste of resources, isn't it? Our 4x4 does the school run, but it also goes offroad, and carries loads around. If you can find a more efficient alternative, i'll gladly look into it.
    OK:

    Firstly, when I say scientific fact, I did mean scientific fact - those equations that I (originally incorrectly ) mentioned last night. I agree with your point on Statistics however, it is possible to twist them how you like. The statistics I have read suggest to me that 4x4s are cause more problems than they solve in terms of environmental and safety issues. I have also noticed this from statistics I have read from what I consider to be (fairl) impartial sources such as papers, BBC etc. (I'm afraid I don't have any to quote directly - this is the picture I have built up over time). Obviously, being an enthusiast I'm sure the sources you take your information from are more pro 4x4s. It is even possible we could interpret the same stats in completely different ways.

    With regard to the issue of the durability of Landrovers etc. I don't dispute the point that such vehicles are more durable - this is inevitable due to their heavier construction. This will, to a point offset some of the extra production energy costs. What concerns me, however is that the usage of these vehicles is changing. Whereas 30 years ago a farmer (for example) might have bought a 4x4 for work purposes, and still be running it today (and all credit to him), people now tend to purchase these vehicles as a fashion acessory, which means they are more susceptible to more frequent replacement. If a 4x4 is replaced as cars are today as models come in and out of fashion, then the energy wastage from the production of these vehicles increases.

    When comparing 4x4s with normal cars, it doesn't make too much sense in my opinion to compare two 'worst case scenarios' - such as the two you quote. The range of fuel consumption for 4x4s is smaller than that for 'OTHER CAR' and the mean is lower. There are certainly some pretty lousy cars out there as well - it sounds to me like the mini cooper needs a redesign!. However, the most efficient cars can manage more than 40 mpg.( To be fair, my argument on fuel consumption is aimed at ALL vehicles with excessive fuel consumption, not just 4x4s. However, as 4x4s do tend to be near the bottom of the pile in terms of efficieny I believe that wherever possible alternatives can and should be used: hence my oposition).

    A more powerful engine may be beneficial for offroading - it depends what you're doing. I do feel myself that people overstate the need for 4x4s sometimes. 4x4s would have an advantage over trafitional cars in extremely rural aeas, but reality is that in the UK the majority of rural areas have quite good, well surfaced roads. In most cases I believe you could probably use a car. A 4x4 would be an advantage in areas prone to winter snowfall, but they still can't drive through big drifts and they are basically as useless as cars on ice.

    My diesel argument was a general one, but I was making the point that arguing that such and such a 4x4 is very efficient because it is a diesel does not necessarily ring true.

    Could you expand on the proportion of 4x4s burning LPG? It is certainly a cleaner fuel in terms of particulate emissions, but it does still produce carbon dioxide. (The importance of this point does depend on your stance on globl warming).Is there a particular reason why a greater proportion of 4x4s than cars use it?

    Finally, in terms of load transporting, I was actually suggesting the hire of a vehicle for this. I don't know about your particular situation - indeed it is possible that a 4x4 is more appropriate to your needs. My objection is to the people who use these vehicles without needing to. I am coming from the point of view that oil is a finite and precious resource. Similarly, the environment must be protected, so we need to use our resources in the best way possible. By sharing resources by, for example hiring trucks rather than owning them, we make better use of these resources. (This applies to all forms of transport and is not specific to 4x4s)

    And thank you for debating this so reasonably - too often I find these issues turn into slanging matches, with both sides becoming completely entrenched.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 18, 2005

3,446

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.