Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Darkman

4X4S Aren't Going Away, They're Just Getting Cheaper To Run

Recommended Posts

The new Landrover E Rover can do 85mpg. Yes, 85mpg.

It's runs on electricity and diesel, and is a sign of things to come.

Personally I think it makes perfect sense. Instead of going back to the stone age, or squeezing into tiny cars, why not just make larger more comfortable vehicles cheaper to run and environmentally friendly?

Of course this will piss off the fake green brigade, who use environmental issues to bash other people. I prefer not to run a 4x4 for financial reasons, but if things changed I'd buy one in a shot.

land-rover-range-e-plug-in-rear.jpg

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2011/02/land-rover-to-premiere-range-e-diesel.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can plug it into the mains, so does that 85mpg take into account all of the electricity you're using as well? If not, that's a triumph of marketing fantasy over engineering reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've never been able to understand is why the government doesn't legislate an MPG for diesel and petrol cars.

I would initially set it to say 55 for for petrol, 70 for diesel then increase it to 85 and 100 over the next 10-15 years. That way any luxuy car makers who wanted to sell into the UK would have to get smarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've never been able to understand is why the government doesn't legislate an MPG for diesel and petrol cars.

I would initially set it to say 55 for for petrol, 70 for diesel then increase it to 85 and 100 over the next 10-15 years. That way any luxuy car makers who wanted to sell into the UK would have to get smarter.

You can't move two tons of tin 85 miles on a gallon of petrol.These hybrids are a con.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't move two tons of tin 85 miles on a gallon of petrol.These hybrids are a con.

You can if 70 miles is under electric power. Not sure what happens on a 300 mile journey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've never been able to understand is why the government doesn't legislate an MPG for diesel and petrol cars.

I would initially set it to say 55 for for petrol, 70 for diesel then increase it to 85 and 100 over the next 10-15 years. That way any luxuy car makers who wanted to sell into the UK would have to get smarter.

????

We would all be in Sinclar C5s!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's powered by an electric motor up to 50mph, for 20 miles, then it switches to diesel. The facts are a little unclear but apparently at faster speeds the electric motor also kicks in again and the range is 700 miles. Electric charges relatively cost peanuts btw. This E Rover is also tax exempt of course.

I think whether you knock hybrid now or not, it's only a matter of time before the technology is improved. Where there's a market, there's a product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's powered by an electric motor up to 50mph, for 20 miles, then it switches to diesel. The facts are a little unclear but apparently at faster speeds the electric motor also kicks in again and the range is 700 miles. Electric charges relatively cost peanuts btw. This E Rover is also tax exempt of course.

I think whether you knock hybrid now or not, it's only a matter of time before the technology is improved. Where there's a market, there's a product.

Should be perfect for the school run then - it may actually provide the claimed MPG if basically run off the electric motor. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have one if it did 850mpg.

Awful tasteless things. Look like a blinged up garden shed on wagon wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiocy like this gets on my wick. 4x4 have utility and I'd never stop anyone buying them. But in the se of England buying a massive car is ******ing stupid. The infrastructure surrounding personal transport simply isn't aligned to leviathan vehicles. They are problematic to park, make other peoples lives difficult, are dangerous to pedestrians and ultimately are for the most part vanity purchases where the actual utility of the vehicle is rarely if ever tested. Of course the drivers thereof see fit to rationalise these concerns away as the rantings of the environmentally deranged.

With immigration remaining unchecked we will continue to see more cars on the roads. The problem with large vehicles isn't just consumption it's space. I'm constantly amazed by the need to carry two kids in a car capable of carrying 7. Why not buy a ******ing coach and be done with it?

That's not to say that minimising consumption isn't a goid thing anyhow. But if a 2 tonne behemoth can get 85mpg what could a well designed mid size get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can understand the resentment of these vehicles, especially when used a status symbol.

But for me you can't escape the fact you have a better field of vision, better protection in a smash, more space for passengers/pets and a smoother ride from a larger vehicle. That's four plus points.

I drive a very small car for economy. And economy is the ONLY plus point of a small car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can understand the resentment of these vehicles, especially when used a status symbol.

But for me you can't escape the fact you have a better field of vision, better protection in a smash, more space for passengers/pets and a smoother ride from a larger vehicle. That's four plus points.

I drive a very small car for economy. And economy is the ONLY plus point of a small car.

Honestly? I give you ease of parking, ability to fit through gaps, nimbleness and I don't concede field of vision either. That's another rationalisation. I've had large and small and there are benefits to both. In the USA an f150 is perfectly reasonable. In Stoke newington = **** monkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smallest car that does everything you need and really want (i.e. things you like that aren't just acting like a showoff) makes sense. For some people that'll be a large vehicle. For most it offers no practical advantages whatsoever apart from very rarely, and even then the most common one is that you don't have to go to all the effort of putting the back seat down.

Hybrid / electric cars need to consider the source of the electricity. Claiming mileages that assume the electric part is zero is lying in a roundabout way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can if 70 miles is under electric power. Not sure what happens on a 300 mile journey.

If they do 20 miles at 50mph then at motorway speeds they'll do maybe 12 miles. Then the other 288 miles will be at worse mpg than standard as I assume it'll be carting 100kg of batteries around with it, plus electric motors, etc. I'm sure it'll have regenerative braking to recharge the batteries a bit, but as Scotty said 'you cannae break the laws of physics' - and 4x4s will always consume a lot of energy at high speeds because of their big cross sectional area and poor aerodynamics having to smash such a big tunnel through the air.

It should be better at stop start city driving as they won't use as much energy when at rest (as long as you switch all the toys off). But a vicious cold spell like the one we had in December really saps the battery power, but at least hybrids have infernal combustion engines to keep the wheels rolling.

It's a big, over engineered effort to keep the 4x4 market alive in the face of rising fuel prices IMO - although they'll always have a place on a farm or building site. And as an ostentatious status symbol.

Making cars smaller and lighter is the best way to get genuine low energy vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can understand the resentment of these vehicles, especially when used a status symbol.

But for me you can't escape the fact you have a better field of vision, better protection in a smash, more space for passengers/pets and a smoother ride from a larger vehicle. That's four plus points.

I drive a very small car for economy. And economy is the ONLY plus point of a small car.

That's a popular misconception.In fact one of the biggest drawbacks of a 4x4 is that they have significantly longer stopping distances than smaller vehicles.It's a basic law of physics,rather like an oil tanker taking ten miles to stop.You are driving a vehicle that weighs in excess of two tons kerb weight,so all up it may well be nearer three.A car like a Fiesta or a Polo will stop in a much smaller distance.Bear in mind that braking from 70mph if one vehicles stops in 10 metres less the one still going is still travelling at 30mph when the other comes to a halt. 30mph is a major shunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a popular misconception.In fact one of the biggest drawbacks of a 4x4 is that they have significantly longer stopping distances than smaller vehicles.It's a basic law of physics,rather like an oil tanker taking ten miles to stop.You are driving a vehicle that weighs in excess of two tons kerb weight,so all up it may well be nearer three.A car like a Fiesta or a Polo will stop in a much smaller distance.Bear in mind that braking from 70mph if one vehicles stops in 10 metres less the one still going is still travelling at 30mph when the other comes to a halt. 30mph is a major shunt.

That would hold good if all other things were equal. I think you'll find that heavier vehicles have larger/better brakes so the stopping distances aren't worse for larger vehicles. Its probably the other way round, the smaller, lighter vehicles brakes are less efficient and their stopping distances are greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've never been able to understand is why the government doesn't legislate an MPG for diesel and petrol cars.

I would initially set it to say 55 for for petrol, 70 for diesel then increase it to 85 and 100 over the next 10-15 years. That way any luxuy car makers who wanted to sell into the UK would have to get smarter.

I've always thought along these lines, to be honest. We have been told for years that "Gobal Warming" (or Climate change, or whatever ****** it's being spun as this week) is the single biggest threat to humanity since forever yet, to all intents and purposes, the only thing done to tackle it is to tax people! If politicians really, really believed that big cars contributed towards the problem then why not just ban them? Alternatively, just do as you suggest and require them to conform to certain tight fuel consumption requirements. It's easy to do and doesn't prejudice or benefit any individual manufacturers because they are all bound by the same rules

They don't though which leads me to the conclusion that they really don't believe their own hype and this is just a big money making scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would hold good if all other things were equal. I think you'll find that heavier vehicles have larger/better brakes so the stopping distances aren't worse for larger vehicles. Its probably the other way round, the smaller, lighter vehicles brakes are less efficient and their stopping distances are greater.

That's not the limiting factor though.All modern cars have brakes that are sufficiently powerful to lock the wheels but the limiting factor is how much kinetic energy the tyres can disssipate into the road surface.On a 4x4 the extra weight means that this is less proportionate to the vehicle.Where you see anti-skid surfaces put down on the approach to roundabouts etc this is the reason why.Following your theory the best braking performance should be provided by a juggernaut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pah - you lot and your lame chat about 'big' cars.

My first vehicle was a 5.7 LTR V8 10 seater van. Don't whinge to me about parking and getting into tight spaces. :D

Chevrolet_Beauville_--_01-17-2011.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can understand the resentment of these vehicles, especially when used a status symbol.

But for me you can't escape the fact you have a better field of vision, better protection in a smash, more space for passengers/pets and a smoother ride from a larger vehicle. That's four plus points.

I drive a very small car for economy. And economy is the ONLY plus point of a small car.

That may be true, but a problem is that you gain these advantages at the expense of everyone else. Things get better for you, but they get worse for everyone else, which is one of the reasons people object to them. The guy in the 4x4 may be able to see over the traffic, buy the guy in the mini next to him can't see a damn thing. The guy in the 4x4 may survive a crash with the mini, but the guy in the mini's going to be dead. Once everyone's in a 4x4 we'll be back to square one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true, but a problem is that you gain these advantages at the expense of everyone else. Things get better for you, but they get worse for everyone else, which is one of the reasons people object to them. The guy in the 4x4 may be able to see over the traffic, buy the guy in the mini next to him can't see a damn thing. The guy in the 4x4 may survive a crash with the mini, but the guy in the mini's going to be dead. Once everyone's in a 4x4 we'll be back to square one.

All the visibiliy in the world is useless if you aren't looking, its why I hate cars tbh I constantly can't see through the pillars which do not exist on bikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the limiting factor though.All modern cars have brakes that are sufficiently powerful to lock the wheels but the limiting factor is how much kinetic energy the tyres can disssipate into the road surface.On a 4x4 the extra weight means that this is less proportionate to the vehicle.Where you see anti-skid surfaces put down on the approach to roundabouts etc this is the reason why.Following your theory the best braking performance should be provided by a juggernaut.

May be but as a rough rule of thumb a larger more expensive vehicle would be more likely to have electronic braking aids, for example ABS, which would improve stopping distances against a smaller vehicle without. Without becoming pedantic over the physics, which of course your correct about, there is no great difference in stopping distances between most cars on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be but as a rough rule of thumb a larger more expensive vehicle would be more likely to have electronic braking aids, for example ABS, which would improve stopping distances against a smaller vehicle without.

ABS does not improve stopping distances significantly, and lengthens them in certain circumstances. What it does do is makes the vehicle more manoeuverable under heavy braking, by eliminating wheel lock as far as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be but as a rough rule of thumb a larger more expensive vehicle would be more likely to have electronic braking aids, for example ABS, which would improve stopping distances against a smaller vehicle without. Without becoming pedantic over the physics, which of course your correct about, there is no great difference in stopping distances between most cars on the road.

As above ABS does NOT reduce your stopping distance. Its a physics issue of ground contact patch and weight distribution issues. I can stop very quickly on my CBR any harder and the rear wheel lifts up reducing the contact patch. Any harder than that and I go over the bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.