Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    if you were at the roadshow, you'd have seen a disco 3 up on four pistons.

    the car was NOT bolted to them, just sitting on them.

    The four pistons were moving randomly and rapidly up and down.

    The car was up, down, sideways, all over the damn place.

    It sure as hell didn't fall over.

    I'd say the traction and suspension were pretty much second to none. I have NEVER seen a rolled landrover.
    I have never seen gamma radiation, but it doesn't mean i wanna go near sellafield anytime soon
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Dickie)
    actually... 4x4s can be better than normal cars to be whacked with, becuase:
    -larger impact area -> lower pressure
    -steeper angles on the front of the vehicle -> you arent thrown upwards by the bonnet/windscreen - you just go forwards with the car
    -obviously, 4x4s are bigger. therefore, the engineers have acres more space to put the engine etc under the bonnet. therefore, there's usually a nice gap between the underside of the bonnet and any harder things, like the engine. With smaller cars, theres less space, so your head may just crash into the top of something when the bonnet deforms.

    For drivers, they're safer too *technically*, ie. more likely to survive an accident. Which is good, because thanks to the bad handling and the size, they're more likely to be involved in an accident than smaller cars.
    #
    1) Larger impact area my ass - how often do you think the size of the car is the issue when hitting a pedestrian. it'd have to be a tiny car - or a very big human to mean point impact.
    2) Going forward is a good thing? great, you now get dragged under the car - after of course you are ejected head and all onto the road.
    3) Wrong, there isn't more space, and the crumple zones are much less effective
    4) No they aren't. Safety tests involve ramming each car intoa wall at certain speeds. If the crash dummy registers certain forces, then the car fails. So how is it that 4x4s fail more? Not only are they more dangerous IN a crash, but they are more likely TO crash.

    Dude, you talk sooooo much junk, and try to make it sound like real facts. Back it up or back off the mic.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    1) 4x4s are no worse environmentally than many sports cars and people carriers
    (They are often diesels)
    2) 4x4s offer better visibility and thus greater opportunity to avoid accidents in the first place
    3) 4x4s are safer for the occupents in an accident (which is what counts if you're the owner)
    4) 4x4s are ideal for towing boats/horses etc. due to the torque they offer
    5) 4x4s are also good in floods and on narrow lanes, on "traffic calming measures" and on poorly made roads
    (which are common due to the government and global warming <-which will not stop if we abandon 4x4s, sorry)

    A 4x4 does not have to be used off-road to be a sensible purchase.

    A people carrier can only really offer a couple of the above benefits, while suffereing many of the same disadvantage. What should I buy instead for all these on-road uses?

    Exactly.

    Therefore I would, and probably someday will, buy a 4x4. (And I will just drive sensibly so as not to roll it!)

    I would love a Landcruiser Amazon (http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyo...&menuid=112358), just annoy you superior greenies armed with incorrect information and one-sided arguments.

    (Someone is welcome to link to a non-4x4 which deals with all my initial points)
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by -mb-)
    1) 4x4s are no worse environmentally than many sports cars and people carriers
    (They are often diesels)
    true.
    2) 4x4s offer better visibility and thus greater opportunity to avoid accidents in the first place
    debatable - its all about the angles, both front and rear. I don't think being 5 foot higher gives you that much better vision ahead, but certainly makes it worse for immediately ahead. But i think theres not much to go on here

    3) 4x4s are safer for the occupents in an accident (which is what counts if you're the owner)
    False
    4) 4x4s are ideal for towing boats/horses etc. due to the torque they offer
    True
    5) 4x4s are also good in floods and on narrow lanes, on "traffic calming measures" and on poorly made roads
    Debatable with regards to narrow roads - have you ever tried to get past a big 4x4 on a single car lane in devon or cornwall? very tricky.
    (which are common due to the government and global warming <-which will not stop if we abandon 4x4s, sorry)
    !!! Are you kidding me? You so must be american or something, because they are the only ones i know of that use this kinda of enviromental denial.
    A 4x4 does not have to be used off-road to be a sensible purchase.
    Yes it does, or at least used to pull trailers, caravans etc. Fact is that actually the load one of these modern 4x4s can pull is actually much less relative to what the olde land rovers could.
    yes i used olde instead of old deliberately.

    A people carrier can only really offer a couple of the above benefits, while suffereing many of the same disadvantage. What should I buy instead for all these on-road uses?
    They are safer
    They are more efficient
    They are more practical for the uses most people have for 4x4s.

    Exactly.

    Therefore I would, and probably someday will, buy a 4x4. (And I will just drive sensibly so as not to roll it!)
    4x4s roll much more easily for a number of reasons such as wind factors, higher centre of gravity, looser suspension. its a tad arrogant to suggest all those who have lost their lives in 4x4 rolls have done so through their own fault.

    I would love a Landcruiser Amazon (http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyo...&menuid=112358), just annoy you superior greenies armed with incorrect information and one-sided arguments.

    (Someone is welcome to link to a non-4x4 which deals with all my initial points)
    Yes i feel strongly about this
    Many of my friends have them - but for good reason, i come from the country and they are a damned sight more practical on some of the B roads there. But i can't see why someone in the city should need one, even if they do take a break once a year to scotland.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -mb-)
    1) 4x4s are no worse environmentally than many sports cars and people carriers
    (They are often diesels)
    Comparing the 2 extremes - Hummer less than 11 mpg in tests, Porsche Carrera GT 16 mpg
    2) 4x4s offer better visibility and thus greater opportunity to avoid accidents in the first place
    How much do you think the person in the car behind can see? In my experience bugger all
    3) 4x4s are safer for the occupents in an accident (which is what counts if you're the owner)
    But so much more dangerous for anyone unfortunate enough to be in a car hit by one or a pedestrian nearby. Due to the lack of crumple zones in a big "off roader", the other car takes the brunt of the damage and the 4x4 is more likely to go bouncing off if it hits a stationary object. They are also prone to rolling over http://www.vehicle-injuries.com/rollover-ratings.htm
    4) 4x4s are ideal for towing boats/horses etc. due to the torque they offer
    Fair point, and they obviously do have their uses, but this can quite easily be done with a land rover defender - there's no need for all your X5s or Merc MLs. Also a tractor would work fine, but I can't see it being the next big thing in Chelsea.
    5) 4x4s are also good in floods and on narrow lanes, on "traffic calming measures" and on poorly made roads
    (which are common due to the government and global warming <-which will not stop if we abandon 4x4s, sorry)
    How is a 4x4 good on narrow lanes or on traffic calming measures such as road narrowing? Speed bumps, yes - they'll run over them as easily as if it were a small child. You also prove that global warming is blamed for everything these days - even people building bad roads!

    A 4x4 does not have to be used off-road to be a sensible purchase.
    A 4x4 is designed to be used off-road and pretty much anything else can be done just as well if not better by another vehicle.

    Therefore I would, and probably someday will, buy a 4x4. (And I will just drive sensibly so as not to roll it!)
    Well you're a selfish tw4t then
    And before you start calling me a crazy green hippy, I'm not at all (I'm quite anti all the green energy stuff going on here at the moment as currently the only clean energy source that's economically viable is nuclear, but no one seems to realise this and keeps talking up wind power :rolleyes: ) I just have strong feelings against people that are so selfish as to buy one of these dangerous vehicles - there is no need for them in most places and they therefore have no place on the roads of cities.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PublicSchoolAnn)
    What do you think of them?
    I have been watching watch dog and some hippy folk are trying to get them banned.
    I think off roaders are fab.
    Three days ago I got a Land Rover Discovery for my 18th birthday.. (Feb 4)
    Its great and I can use it when we go out bush.

    I dont really think you need them in the UK unless you are a farmer or go off road. I mean there really is no need for them in the cities.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    Three days ago I got a Land Rover Discovery for my 18th birthday.. (Feb 4)
    Its great and I can use it when we go out bush.

    I dont really think you need them in the UK unless you are a farmer or go off road. I mean there really is no need for them in the cities.
    exactly, a land rover in the city is like having a mini-gun for 'self-defense'
    totally OTT
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    unless of course that person in the city goes off road, then its ok. But people who say "Ohh, yes, I have a Land Rover... I drive it all around Town" just for the sake of having one is sad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PublicSchoolAnn)
    What do you think of them?
    I have been watching watch dog and some hippy folk are trying to get them banned.
    I think off roaders are fab.
    4x4's are awesome bois, land rover stylin'. the bowler wildcat is wicked man, its awesome!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    Actually, there's quite a need for them on the school run.

    Discos have 7 seats? What other cars offer you 7 seats? Oh yeah - People carriers.

    Which are safer? Discos
    Which emit less pollution? Discos

    People car pooling are better off doing it in a Disco than they are in a ford galaxy.

    That, and they're doing it in style :p:
    Let's just compare this shall we - Land Rover Discovery, 2.7 V6 automatic vs. Renault Espace Initiale, 3.0 V6 dCi automatic.

    Discovery:
    Fuel - diesel
    Seats - 7
    Fuel economy - 27.2mpg (combined)
    CO2 emissions - 275g/km
    NCAP safety ratings - doesn't seem to have been tested yet, but the new Range Rover has 4* front and side impact, 1* pedestrian test, and the Freelander only has 3 and 1 respectively

    Espace:
    Fuel - diesel
    Seats - 7
    Fuel economy - 29.7mpg (combined)
    CO2 emissions - 252g/km
    NCAP safety ratings - 5* front and side impact, 2* pedestrian test

    So that leaves you with the fact that a Disco is more stylish (subjective anyway as it looks butt ugly to me), which is precisely the wrong reason for buying a big off roader.

    My sources if you want to check my facts:
    Land Rover
    Renault
    Telegraph review of Espace 3.0 dCi
    NCAP safety ratings
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    exactly, a land rover in the city is like having a mini-gun for 'self-defense'
    totally OTT
    Agreed totally selfish and alot of mums on the school run know they have a bigger car than you and deliberately abuse this fact. I have no problem if you
    1) live on a working farm
    2) comute to school through swamp land
    3) don't use it on the school run
    4) own a large boat/trailer

    However the majority of owners do not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    I just copied what topgear said as a "general" thing. not disco vs renault

    but it was good of you to go to all that trouble, I guess. (:
    I was just proving that you're wrong - in practically all situations an off roader is unnecessary as there are much better alternatives out there. They have just become some ridiculous status symbol that people try to convince themselves that they actually need.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Chelsea Tractors should be banned :mad:

    The amount of times I've seen a woman taking her kid to school in a totally unnecessary 4x4 vehicle is disgusting.

    Hopefully the next sloaney trend will be the Smart Car.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PublicSchoolAnn)
    What do you think of them?
    I have been watching watch dog and some hippy folk are trying to get them banned.
    I think off roaders are fab.
    yes they are...if they're off road. in cities they are unnecessary - dangerous and fuel eaters.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Chelsea Tractors should be banned :mad:

    The amount of times I've seen a woman taking her kid to school in a totally unnecessary 4x4 vehicle is disgusting.

    Hopefully the next sloaney trend will be the Smart Car.
    I think the brits are becoming a bit too american leading to the
    My nob is bigger than yours (because my car is)
    and the
    Im a better parent than you (because my car is huge)

    Now the italians actually are well into their smart cars. I think i saw more smart cars ina week in rome than ever in the UK. Evvvvvvvveryone has one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    Oh, yes I hope you feel better. Comparison of one pair of cars. I'm entirely wrong. *nodnod* Good for you.

    There've been plenty of times where I've been damn pleased we had a 4x4 or we simply wouldn't have been able to get around. We live in a city, but it's hilly, and I'm thankful that we've got a beast to throw around in some conditions. Plus we're a big family, so the 7 seats is excellent.
    Oh, I feel much better thanks. Seeing as you've failed to come up with a single example backing up your point of view, all the evidence points to you being entirely wrong, yes.

    Which city do you live in then that's so hilly you absolutely need to have a 4x4? I've yet to come across a road that my little old renault clio can't get up in normal conditions and I live in a very rural area. Maybe in ice and snow but then there are plenty of "off roaders" that can't either (I've seen plenty getting stuck in snow - including *shock horror* Discos). If the weather's really this bad then it's dangerous regardless of your car and there's nothing that you need to do that badly. Ok then, if you need 7 seats I'll let you off as a 4x4 is the only option open to you - or am I forgetting a whole type of cars here?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Yes i feel strongly about this
    Many of my friends have them - but for good reason, i come from the country and they are a damned sight more practical on some of the B roads there. But i can't see why someone in the city should need one, even if they do take a break once a year to scotland.
    4x4s are safer for the passengers in an accident. Fact

    Fourwheel drives are only slightly wider than other vehicles (a foot maybe?).
    But with a four wheel drive you can mount the verge or whatever on a country lane, and rather than burst the tyre or get stuck, you'll be fine.


    Abandoning all 4x4s in the world right now would make damn all difference to global warming. Fact. Vehicles are an irrelevance, they form a tiny proportion of total emmisions. Power generation, heavy industry and aircraft are the real culprits.

    4x4s are not damaged by traffic calming measures as many other cars are, due the high ride height and adaptable suspension, so they're better for that too.

    There are many on-road uses for 4x4s that other cars do not offer.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bezza)
    Oh, I feel much better thanks. Seeing as you've failed to come up with a single example backing up your point of view, all the evidence points to you being entirely wrong, yes.

    Which city do you live in then that's so hilly you absolutely need to have a 4x4? I've yet to come across a road that my little old renault clio can't get up in normal conditions and I live in a very rural area. Maybe in ice and snow but then there are plenty of "off roaders" that can't either (I've seen plenty getting stuck in snow - including *shock horror* Discos). If the weather's really this bad then it's dangerous regardless of your car and there's nothing that you need to do that badly. Ok then, if you need 7 seats I'll let you off as a 4x4 is the only option open to you - or am I forgetting a whole type of cars here?
    people carriers are cheaper, more economic, more spacious inside, and less polluting than a 4x4.
    And ice is never really a factor in the city unlike the country. I hate the country when i tsnows. its ok for a few days, then it starts to melt and you fall over all the time.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bezza)
    And before you start calling me a crazy green hippy, I'm not at all (I'm quite anti all the green energy stuff going on here at the moment as currently the only clean energy source that's economically viable is nuclear, but no one seems to realise this and keeps talking up wind power :rolleyes: ) I just have strong feelings against people that are so selfish as to buy one of these dangerous vehicles - there is no need for them in most places and they therefore have no place on the roads of cities.
    I am not blaming global warming for bad roads! (though it will have some effect) (That is governments)

    The reply to your point about traffic calming is in the previous post.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bezza)
    Let's just compare this shall we - Land Rover Discovery, 2.7 V6 automatic vs. Renault Espace Initiale, 3.0 V6 dCi automatic.

    Discovery:
    NCAP safety ratings - doesn't seem to have been tested yet, but the new Range Rover has 4* front and side impact, 1* pedestrian test, and the Freelander only has 3 and 1 respectively

    Espace:
    NCAP safety ratings - 5* front and side impact, 2* pedestrian test

    My sources if you want to check my facts:
    Land Rover
    Renault
    Telegraph review of Espace 3.0 dCi
    NCAP safety ratings
    Facts are fine, comparissons are invalid.
    Sure, better to crash into a wall in the Renault. But what about into another car?

    If I had a choose which car to be in in a head on collision with a 5* NCAP Renault Meganne and a Landcruiser, I'll choose the Landcruiser every time.

    My point is that 4x4s are safer if everyone else has one!
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.