This discussion is closed.
Forgotpassword
Badges: 0
#81
Report 14 years ago
#81
Look, anyone can make their point look good with statistics: For example:

Audi A3 2.0 Tdi 51.4 149
Ford Galaxy 1.9 Tdi LX 42.8 178
Toyota Corolla 1.6 VVT-I T3 40.4 168
Toyota Rav4 2.0 D-4D XT2 39.8 206
Nissan X-trail 2.2 dci 136 Se 39.2 190
Hyundai Santa Fe 2.0 Crtd Gsi 37.2 202
Land Rover Freelander 2.0 Td4 37.2 205
Renault Espace2.2dci Priviledge 36.7 206
Peugeot 307 2.0 16v Xsi 35.8 188
Mini one 1.6 Cooper S 3dr 33.6 202
Ford Focus 2.0i Zetec 33.1 207
BMW X5 3.0d Sport 4x4 32.8 229
Jeep Cherokee 2.5 CRD Ltd 31.4 250
BMW Z4 3.0i SE 31 221
Audi A4 1.8T Quattro 30.1 226
Land Rover Discovery TD5 30.1 262
Chrysler Grand Voyager 2.8 crd 29.4 0
Porshe Boxter 2.7 29.1 233
Ford Mondeo 3.0 Ghia X 27.4 247
Jaguar XJ8 4.2 SE Auto 26 264
Subaru Impreza 2.0 WRX Sti 25.4 265
Lexus GS300 Se Auto 4dr 24.3 281
Rolls Royce Phantom 6.75 20 385

All figures from the BBC, MPG figures are EU approved combined fuel economy. C02 is number of grammes emitted per kilometre

As can be seen, whilst certain 4x4s do produce more pollutants than certain small cars.. they are by no means the worst. In fact, some small cars are worse in terms of fuel efficiency than some of the 4x4's. And this is the big problem with trying to generalise about a vehicle type. It is STATISTICALLY WRONG to say that 4x4s are terrible polluting vehicles.... a Ford Focus Zetec produces MORE CO2 per kilometer than a Nissan X-Trail, a Mini Cooper does fewer miles to the gallon than a Land Rover Freelander... the issues are not as clear-cut as some would make out.
We should also consider the sales figures for the vehicles. 4x4 sales accounted for only a small percentage of new vehicle sales in the UK last year. Banning them may reduce emissions, but if it does, as can be seen from the above data, it won't be by much. If every X-Trail owner who bought a vehicle last year bought a Ford Focus Zetec instead, there would actually be an INCREASE in emissions. The evil 4x4 ?

All of the above from www.4x4prejudice.org

Why don't people that hate 4x4 realise the biggest polluter of all is Airplanes. If a airplane has 200 people on board, the amount of fuel used per person could quite easily fuel even the thirstiest of 4x4's for ages. I bet 4x4 haters still fly away on holiday though, don't they?

PS: To the person who said the New Disco was more polluting than a Renault. You do realise the engine used in the Disco is a TDV6 is a Jaguar lump, used in Jaguar saloons. I appreciate the weight difference, but this proves that non all 4x4 engines are evil. PS: If a Mini does around 33 MPG, and a Disco around 29 MPG, then the MPG difference is negligible. A Disco will last 200K miles and will go anywhere and carry anything. A Mini will be dead after 100K and most probably scrapped by this time? Not exactly environmentally friendly, is it? You don't complain about Minis being driven around the city streets, indeed, you think that they're nippy and economical. The fact is that a Land Rover Freelander does less damage, but I bet you'd criticise the Freelander driver for driving in London, while the Mini driver would be 'Environmentally responsible'.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#82
Report 14 years ago
#82
(Original post by -mb-)
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!
Ah game theory in practise. Actually you are wrong. The collision would have a greater amount of kinetic energy as 2 landcrusiers have greater mass and hence the chance of damaging yourself is considerablely higher.
0
Dickie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#83
Report 14 years ago
#83
(Original post by foolfarian)
#
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.
Uh, 4x4s are bigger. They *usually* have quite flat fronts. Therefore, larger impact area.

(Original post by foolfarian)
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.
It's better than being thrown into the air and then landing on the ground. And you probably wouldnt get dragged under the car, unless the driver was evil and wasnt braking at all.

(Original post by foolfarian)
3) Wrong, there isn't more space, and the crumple zones are much less effective
Why are the crumple zones less effective? And there is more space - the engine etc mounted lower, so your head doesnt hit it when the bonnet deforms, like I said.
(Original post by foolfarian)
4) No they aren't. Safety tests involve ramming each car into a 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.
They are safer because of their size! If you crash into a wall in a 4x4, then there is more metal to be bent by the force of the impact, so you're not as badly hurt.
I agree, you are still more likely to be in an accident in a 4x4 because it doesnt handle as well as smaller cars, but in a crash, they're better.
0
-mb-
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#84
Report 14 years ago
#84
(Original post by Speciez99)
Ah game theory in practise. Actually you are wrong. The collision would have a greater amount of kinetic energy as 2 landcrusiers have greater mass and hence the chance of damaging yourself is considerablely higher.
Yes, I hadn't thought of it as game theory. Yes 2 Landcruisers is worse then 2 Meganes, but of course, everyone settles for the Landcruiser, because the Landcruiser does better in the Landcruiser-Megane crash, although the 2 Megane crash is the "best" option.
0
Dickie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report 14 years ago
#85
(Original post by -mb-)
Yes, I hadn't thought of it as game theory. Yes 2 Landcruisers is worse then 2 Meganes, but of course, everyone settles for the Landcruiser, because the Landcruiser does better in the Landcruiser-Megane crash, although the 2 Megane crash is the "best" option.
well the best option is no crash at all, really
0
Forgotpassword
Badges: 0
#86
Report 14 years ago
#86
(Original post by lessthanthree)
No car works perfectly on ice. One time we couldn't get the disco 3 off our drive because it's so steep.

Yeah, you are -spacebuggies. They're not as safe, and they're uglier (: of course the aesthetics are down to personal taste, but I find the space buggies to be horrid things. I'd sooner crash in a landrover than I would in an espace.
A Land Rover can pull you out of 3 foot of sticky clay/mud, but it won't get up a wet grass slope or ice i'm affraid. The fact it has 4 wheel drive and decent traction control is it's only advantage over a normal car. The car is limited by it's tyres (and I think Land Rover's stock tyres are pathetic- they need AT's). The only thing that gets you out of ice is snow tyres with studs - and that goes for every car on earth. My Landie is damm good on greenlanes and in the rough stuff, but in winter, it'll still slip a little........that said, i've never got it stuck and it always gets me out when I need it too!
0
Bezza
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#87
Report 14 years ago
#87
(Original post by -mb-)
4x4s are safer for the passengers in an accident. Fact
Interesting idea of a Fact you have there. I always thought facts were true. A quick look at the euroncap website and you'll see that the executive cars have a better average safety rating than the off roaders. They're also better in pedestrian impacts

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.

But if you have 2 normal cars going down a road there's no need for either to mount the verge. It's quite tricky to get past a big range rover on a single track road as there's often a hedge right next to the road, rather than a big verge.

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.
I'm not anti 4x4s because of their environmental impact, though anyone sensible will realise there are more fuel economic cars out there which will be cheaper to run. My main grumble with 4x4s is that they're unecessary and in any kind of collision they completely destroy the other car which isn't good for me or anyone else who doesn't have one.

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.
But if you have a road narrowing scheme they'll struggle to get through the gap - but then most 4x4 drivers think nothing of going "off road" up on the kerb.

There are many on-road uses for 4x4s that other cars do not offer.
Except possibly towing really heavy things, this is bull****

Facts are fine, comparissons are invalid.
Sure, better to crash into a wall in the Renault. But what about into another car?
Another car would be perfect, the problems only start when you crash into someones 2 tonne 4x4 which has very small crumple zones meaning your car and you absorb the brunt of the energy

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!
My point is that most people don't need 4x4s and these people are just making the roads more dangerous for the rest of us. Other cars are safer if no one else has a 4x4.
Forgottenpassword - those statistics would be a lot more meaningful if you were comparing like for like rather than a bottom of the range 4x4 and performance models of other cars. The example comparison I made was taking a V6 diesel Disco, and a V6 diesel Espace, and despite the larger capacity engine in the Espace, it still came out on top.

(Original post by Dickie)
Uh, 4x4s are bigger. They *usually* have quite flat fronts. Therefore, larger impact area.
But a person is the same size regardless of what they are hit by so this is negligible. Hit by a saloon, the point of contact will be the bumper, below the knees so you're legs get swept away and you go up onto the car. Hit by a 4x4 the point of contact will be much higher up towards your organs and centre of gravity so you're much more likely to go underneath.

It's better than being thrown into the air and then landing on the ground. And you probably wouldnt get dragged under the car, unless the driver was evil and wasnt braking at all.
Even if the driver is braking, they're still moving so you can still go under it

Why are the crumple zones less effective? And there is more space - the engine etc mounted lower, so your head doesnt hit it when the bonnet deforms, like I said.
The crumple zones have less give so in a car vs. 4x4 collision, the car absorbs most of the energy. As I said, you're less likely to make it onto the bonnet.

They are safer because of their size! If you crash into a wall in a 4x4, then there is more metal to be bent by the force of the impact, so you're not as badly hurt. I agree, you are still more likely to be in an accident in a 4x4 because it doesnt handle as well as smaller cars, but in a crash, they're better.
Go to http://www.euroncap.com/
0
G4ry
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#88
Report 14 years ago
#88
(Original post by Forgotpassword)
Look, anyone can make their point look good with statistics: For example:

Audi A3 2.0 Tdi 51.4 149
Ford Galaxy 1.9 Tdi LX 42.8 178
Toyota Corolla 1.6 VVT-I T3 40.4 168
Toyota Rav4 2.0 D-4D XT2 39.8 206
Nissan X-trail 2.2 dci 136 Se 39.2 190
Hyundai Santa Fe 2.0 Crtd Gsi 37.2 202
Land Rover Freelander 2.0 Td4 37.2 205
Renault Espace2.2dci Priviledge 36.7 206
Peugeot 307 2.0 16v Xsi 35.8 188
Mini one 1.6 Cooper S 3dr 33.6 202
Ford Focus 2.0i Zetec 33.1 207
BMW X5 3.0d Sport 4x4 32.8 229
Jeep Cherokee 2.5 CRD Ltd 31.4 250
BMW Z4 3.0i SE 31 221
Audi A4 1.8T Quattro 30.1 226
Land Rover Discovery TD5 30.1 262
Chrysler Grand Voyager 2.8 crd 29.4 0
Porshe Boxter 2.7 29.1 233
Ford Mondeo 3.0 Ghia X 27.4 247
Jaguar XJ8 4.2 SE Auto 26 264
Subaru Impreza 2.0 WRX Sti 25.4 265
Lexus GS300 Se Auto 4dr 24.3 281
Rolls Royce Phantom 6.75 20 385

All figures from the BBC, MPG figures are EU approved combined fuel economy. C02 is number of grammes emitted per kilometre
The stats you used are bad, you only have diesel 4x4's and other petrol cars. This is unfair because firstly 4x4's do come with petrol engines and Diesel engines will almost every time emit more CO2 emmissions.
0
Forgotpassword
Badges: 0
#89
Report 14 years ago
#89
(Original post by G4ry)
The stats you used are bad, you only have diesel 4x4's and other petrol cars. This is unfair because firstly 4x4's do come with petrol engines and Diesel engines will almost every time emit more CO2 emmissions.
Oh, but of course the anti 4x4 movement aren't guilty of that at all, are they now????? They would never, ever use misleading stats, would they? The reason most 4x4's on that thread are diesel based is the fact that, most 4x4's are diesel!

My point was, it's very easy to change people's views with stats, hence my 'Anyone can make their point look good with statistics'.

The anti 4x4 movement always use a 4 litre Land Rover compared to a Toyota Prius, so they're not totally realistic either.

My point is, don't believe the anti 4x4 stats you read!

PS: Most 4x4's are, in fact diesel, which is, overall, more environmentally friendly than petrol. Oh, and many 4x4's are LPG'ed, also environmentally sound.

The facts are not as clear cut as you may have thought........

Again, please check out www.4x4prejudice.org . This will at least give you alternative facts and opinions, even if you disagree with them.

Bezza: I compare a TD4 Land Rover Freelander to a Mini. The Mini has a smaller engine, and is a smaller car, yet it is still worse for the environment than a Freelander. My Freelander also carries more, can tow more, has more interior space, etc. You can compare like for like and prove your point, and I can do likewise. The point is, anyone can use stats to make their point look favorable, and make their opposition's viewpoint look bad, and this is exactly what antis do!
0
G4ry
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#90
Report 14 years ago
#90
I took a look at that site. Some of it is just a bit daft, for example:

"People Cause Accidents.... Not Vehicles."

Genius :rolleyes:

I don't see it trying to dispute basic physics about a higher centre of gravity and more prone to rolling.
0
G4ry
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#91
Report 14 years ago
#91
(Original post by lessthanthree)
Pull me the rolling data and I'll believe you. So far I've seen you repeat yourself a gazillion times with that point, and yet you haven't backed it up either.
Was that aimed at me?
0
Bezza
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#92
Report 14 years ago
#92
(Original post by Forgotpassword)
Bezza: I compare a TD4 Land Rover Freelander to a Mini. The Mini has a smaller engine, and is a smaller car, yet it is still worse for the environment than a Freelander. My Freelander also carries more, can tow more, has more interior space, etc. You can compare like for like and prove your point, and I can do likewise. The point is, anyone can use stats to make their point look favorable, and make their opposition's viewpoint look bad, and this is exactly what antis do!
You compare the least powerful land rover, to the most powerful mini so you're not comparing like for like to prove your point.
(Original post by lessthanthree)
Pull me the rolling data and I'll believe you. So far I've seen you repeat yourself a gazillion times with that point, and yet you haven't backed it up either.
http://www.vehicle-injuries.com/rollover-ratings.htm
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#93
Report 14 years ago
#93
(Original post by -mb-)
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!
If its better to crash into a wall into a renault, then it will also be better to crash into another car!
Have you heard of gravity? Cos you seem to know little other physics.

And the world would be farrrr safer if NOONE had a 4x4.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#94
Report 14 years ago
#94
(Original post by Forgotpassword)
Look, anyone can make their point look good with statistics: For example:

Audi A3 2.0 Tdi 51.4 149
Ford Galaxy 1.9 Tdi LX 42.8 178
Toyota Corolla 1.6 VVT-I T3 40.4 168
Toyota Rav4 2.0 D-4D XT2 39.8 206
Nissan X-trail 2.2 dci 136 Se 39.2 190
Hyundai Santa Fe 2.0 Crtd Gsi 37.2 202
Land Rover Freelander 2.0 Td4 37.2 205
Renault Espace2.2dci Priviledge 36.7 206
Peugeot 307 2.0 16v Xsi 35.8 188
Mini one 1.6 Cooper S 3dr 33.6 202
Ford Focus 2.0i Zetec 33.1 207
BMW X5 3.0d Sport 4x4 32.8 229
Jeep Cherokee 2.5 CRD Ltd 31.4 250
BMW Z4 3.0i SE 31 221
Audi A4 1.8T Quattro 30.1 226
Land Rover Discovery TD5 30.1 262
Chrysler Grand Voyager 2.8 crd 29.4 0
Porshe Boxter 2.7 29.1 233
Ford Mondeo 3.0 Ghia X 27.4 247
Jaguar XJ8 4.2 SE Auto 26 264
Subaru Impreza 2.0 WRX Sti 25.4 265
Lexus GS300 Se Auto 4dr 24.3 281
Rolls Royce Phantom 6.75 20 385

All figures from the BBC, MPG figures are EU approved combined fuel economy. C02 is number of grammes emitted per kilometre

As can be seen, whilst certain 4x4s do produce more pollutants than certain small cars.. they are by no means the worst. In fact, some small cars are worse in terms of fuel efficiency than some of the 4x4's. And this is the big problem with trying to generalise about a vehicle type. It is STATISTICALLY WRONG to say that 4x4s are terrible polluting vehicles.... a Ford Focus Zetec produces MORE CO2 per kilometer than a Nissan X-Trail, a Mini Cooper does fewer miles to the gallon than a Land Rover Freelander... the issues are not as clear-cut as some would make out.
We should also consider the sales figures for the vehicles. 4x4 sales accounted for only a small percentage of new vehicle sales in the UK last year. Banning them may reduce emissions, but if it does, as can be seen from the above data, it won't be by much. If every X-Trail owner who bought a vehicle last year bought a Ford Focus Zetec instead, there would actually be an INCREASE in emissions. The evil 4x4 ?

All of the above from www.4x4prejudice.org

Why don't people that hate 4x4 realise the biggest polluter of all is Airplanes. If a airplane has 200 people on board, the amount of fuel used per person could quite easily fuel even the thirstiest of 4x4's for ages. I bet 4x4 haters still fly away on holiday though, don't they?

PS: To the person who said the New Disco was more polluting than a Renault. You do realise the engine used in the Disco is a TDV6 is a Jaguar lump, used in Jaguar saloons. I appreciate the weight difference, but this proves that non all 4x4 engines are evil. PS: If a Mini does around 33 MPG, and a Disco around 29 MPG, then the MPG difference is negligible. A Disco will last 200K miles and will go anywhere and carry anything. A Mini will be dead after 100K and most probably scrapped by this time? Not exactly environmentally friendly, is it? You don't complain about Minis being driven around the city streets, indeed, you think that they're nippy and economical. The fact is that a Land Rover Freelander does less damage, but I bet you'd criticise the Freelander driver for driving in London, while the Mini driver would be 'Environmentally responsible'.
ACTUALLY my silly silly friend, airplanes are far more efficient than cars.
IF you and 300 odd other people board a 747 and go to new york from lonon, think how much more fuel you would be using if you drove the equivalent distance.
For the number of passengers, and the freight they carry, airplanes are a far more efficient and safer transport form then cars
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#95
Report 14 years ago
#95
(Original post by Forgotpassword)
Oh, but of course the anti 4x4 movement aren't guilty of that at all, are they now????? They would never, ever use misleading stats, would they? The reason most 4x4's on that thread are diesel based is the fact that, most 4x4's are diesel!

My point was, it's very easy to change people's views with stats, hence my 'Anyone can make their point look good with statistics'.

The anti 4x4 movement always use a 4 litre Land Rover compared to a Toyota Prius, so they're not totally realistic either.

My point is, don't believe the anti 4x4 stats you read!

PS: Most 4x4's are, in fact diesel, which is, overall, more environmentally friendly than petrol. Oh, and many 4x4's are LPG'ed, also environmentally sound.

The facts are not as clear cut as you may have thought........

Again, please check out www.4x4prejudice.org . This will at least give you alternative facts and opinions, even if you disagree with them.

Bezza: I compare a TD4 Land Rover Freelander to a Mini. The Mini has a smaller engine, and is a smaller car, yet it is still worse for the environment than a Freelander. My Freelander also carries more, can tow more, has more interior space, etc. You can compare like for like and prove your point, and I can do likewise. The point is, anyone can use stats to make their point look favorable, and make their opposition's viewpoint look bad, and this is exactly what antis do!
Pleassssssssssssssssssssse
Referring to that damned 4x4prejudice site for all your data and information is like asking for world news from Fox. Very skewed and very out of shape with reality.
0
-mb-
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#96
Report 14 years ago
#96
(Original post by foolfarian)
If its better to crash into a wall into a renault, then it will also be better to crash into another car!
Have you heard of gravity? Cos you seem to know little other physics.

And the world would be farrrr safer if NOONE had a 4x4.
In a crash between a Landcruiser and a 5* NCAP Megane, the Landcruiser passengers will be better off. Fact.

That is common sense, as well as physics. Have you heard of Kinetic Energy and Momentum? If you had you'd know that more energy would be transfered to the Renault in a collision with a Landcruiser; the Megane would therefore suffer more damage. KE=1/2.m.v^2 will help you understand this.

I clearly can apply physics to this situation better than you can.

Also, there are also other factors such as the way the 2 cars "mesh". i.e. The Landcruiser will ride up over the Megane, over the main crumple zone (engine bay) crushing the weak A-pillar and windscreen, and thus the Megane's passengers.

Yes, it would be safer in we all drove Meganes, but that won't happen, in part becuase we have the right to buy what we want, and in part because 4x4s have other uses.
0
Bezza
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#97
Report 14 years ago
#97
(Original post by -mb-)
In a crash between a Landcruiser and a 5* NCAP Megane, the Landcruiser passengers will be better off. Fact.

That is common sense, as well as physics. Have you heard of Kinetic Energy and Momentum? If you had you'd know that more energy would be transfered to the Renault in a collision with a Landcruiser; the Megane would therefore suffer more damage. KE=1/2.m.v^2 will help you understand this.

Just because the Megane absorbs more energy (due to lack of crumple zones on the landcruiser and the inequality in weight), it doesn't necessarily mean it's passengers will come off worse. The landcruiser's passengers will be less well protected than the meganes. The NCAP ratings are based on how well the car protects it's occupants and they're designed to crumple so the car absorbs the energy so a smaller force acts on the passengers.

I clearly can apply physics to this situation better than you can.

Also, there are also other factors such as the way the 2 cars "mesh". i.e. The Landcruiser will ride up over the Megane, over the main crumple zone (engine bay) crushing the weak A-pillar and windscreen, and thus the Megane's passengers.

Yes, and this is exactly why a lot of people think 4x4 drivers are irresponsible and selfish - while they perceive themselves as being really safe, god help anyone who gets in their way.

Yes, it would be safer in we all drove Meganes, but that won't happen, in part becuase we have the right to buy what we want, and in part because 4x4s have other uses.
The only other use anyone has come up with so far is farm work or towing heavy trailers, which very few people need to do - especially in the city. You refer to these mythical "other uses" but haven't said what they are.
We just seem to be going over the same ground here
0
-mb-
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#98
Report 14 years ago
#98
(Original post by Bezza)
We just seem to be going over the same ground here
We are covering the same ground now, but my post you quoted was specifically dealing with something that fool said.

The other uses are:
- poor weather conditions (floods, snow etc.)
- poor road surfaces, traffic calming, narrow roads etc
- giving good visibility
- seating many people
- towing, which you said.

No other vehicle can offer all this together.
A people carrier will do some
A 4x4 estate car will do some
but not all

And I would also add occupent safety.

You're quite right. When buying a car, I don't give a damn about any safety aspect of it other than occupent safety, especially when it comes to collisions with other vehicles
(which are more common than collisions with walls which is the best substitute NCAP can do, since they can't crash every car into every other car!)

It is not selfish to prioritise the safety of, say, your young children, who are better off in the Landcruiser than a Megane. (ignoring rare collisions not involving other vehicles or rolling)
People would put a young familly in a Megane if they could be sure no 4x4 was going to hit them from behind, but they can't be sure of that.
And there will always be 4x4s as I have said.
0
Forgotpassword
Badges: 0
#99
Report 14 years ago
#99
(Original post by foolfarian)
Pleassssssssssssssssssssse
Referring to that damned 4x4prejudice site for all your data and information is like asking for world news from Fox. Very skewed and very out of shape with reality.
Raher than just posting moronic statements, how about you form an intelligent arguement? How is it 'out of shape'? Have you ever bothered to compare a pro/anti site? No, you haven't, as anyone that did would be able to accept sombody else's viewpoint, although not agree with it. I think you're a xenephobic **** for hating 4x4's, but at least I come on here and put accross intelligent arguements, as opposed to just trashing other's opinions and insulting people.

I think if you compare the anti 4x4 sites with pro 4x4 sites, you will see who puts their arguements forward in a more sensible mannor - with out resorting to stupid criticisms or sensationalism.

To the guy that posted a criticism of me comparing a Mini to a Freelander: What's your point?? I posted a comparison based on size, engine power and size, and load carrying capability. The only thing a Mini does considerably better than a Freelander is 0-60. It isn't the bottom of the line Land Rover, indeed it is Land Rover's most common model, in it's most popular varient.

No one has responded to my point of 4x4's last longer. I know of many 300K+ Landies, but I guarantee that at a similar age, almost all Mini's will be rotton on scrap heaps. The vast majority of all Land Rovers ever produced are still running, now that is actually good environmentally, as you are making less new cars less often.
0
G4ry
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#100
Report 14 years ago
#100
(Original post by Forgotpassword)
No one has responded to my point of 4x4's last longer. I know of many 300K+ Landies, but I guarantee that at a similar age, almost all Mini's will be rotton on scrap heaps. The vast majority of all Land Rovers ever produced are still running, now that is actually good environmentally, as you are making less new cars less often.
Not entirely true, older cars tend not to have catalytic converters, don't have to stick to such stringent emmissions laws as new cars and some even run on leaded petrol - resulting in more CO2 emmissions and pollution from the exhaust. A Citroen 2CV is a fine example of this.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (113)
17.77%
It's just nice to be back! (173)
27.2%
Not great so far... (227)
35.69%
I want to drop out! (123)
19.34%

Watched Threads

View All