Predjudice against 4x4's
 

Why? Even on here, some people seem as anti 4x4's as Greenpeace. :(

I'll hold my hands up and say I've got one, a MY02 Honda CRV. Its our main family car. Wife, me and 2 kids, both in child seats. A car of that height is so much easier to get the kids plugged in. If we're out for a day in the Forestry Commissions park, then by the time the kids bikes are in the boot, along with a picnic hamper and some odd's and sods's, its full. A saloon/estate doesnt cut it, for load space. It's a safe, practical vehicle, especially with kids. In environmental terms, its a 215 g/km car, does approx 30mpg. I bought it for 2 reasons.

1. Its a Honda, so reliable.
2. If we get t-boned, the kids will be, mostly, above the impact area.

Now, can someone please tell me why any of the reasons why i chose to buy this car, are environmentally unfriendly?

How many cars on the road, non-4x4's, dont average 30mpg?

Yawn. This has been done to death on Other Marques. Do we have to do it all again?

:eek2:

2. If we get t-boned, the kids will be, mostly, above the impact area.

Unless you get hit by one of the other 4*4s on the road, anyway the CRV isnt really what they are on about, more like Range Rovers, X5's, Cayennes etc.

Hmm,

The thread title says it all, it`s predjudice against 4X4`s.

Go to central London (in fact most large cities will do) and there are loads of large 4X4`s that don`t venture off road at all. People will quote safety factors and the high driving position as selling points for these vehicles but for a large percentage of owners (I`m talking about the city crew here, not country vets etc etc) they just don`t need these vehicles.

Now, of course that doesn`t mean that they shouldn`t buy them. Just don`t expect everybody to understand the reasons why they were purchased over a normal car. I`m sure most people would cope with an estate (Passat etc etc) or MPV (FRV etc etc).

Said it before and i'll say it again

Drive what you want and enjoy it.

And a big:hjtwofing to those who tell you otherwise

only isssue i've got with 4x4 is when people driving them stay 2mm away from my rear bumper, had this on 3 occasions and is down right dangerous.

Oh yeah mate agree there

You'll always get idiots no matter what car they drive

Your cars more of a MVP and a audi A6 avant would be able to pack in more stuff than your CRV,have more passenger space than your crc, be more fun to drive than your CRV and its safer than your CRV too. Just because its big/looks big foesnt automatically mean its safe.

yeah very true, just last ones that spring to mind were 4x4, although i did have a pug doing it other day

I've just traded my mitsi space wagon for a Range Rover, I live in the city but have 2 big dogs, i also move furniture and things about. I could not find a more practicall car for my needs apart from a van.

Estate cars, have a low roof
MPV's, high roof, no boot space
Big 4x4's, boot space, higher roof, comfortable.

I looked at a bmw estate and the load space was alot smaller than the range rover.

I wouldnt call a CRV a real 4x4

but I would call this one, a supercharged range rover:

http://www.landyonline.co.za/specs/s...percharged.jpg

my landlord owns 3 :eek:

It's not prejudice. It's a reasonable charge upon the highest-polluting vehicles. :)

Then again... they're only using it to collect revenue, not putting pressure upon manufacturers to discontinue sales of this type of vehicle. Like levying a BIG tax upon the purchase price. :)

It isn't though really is it? The bigger polluters use more fuel, just kill off road tax and put a couple of pence on a litre of fuel. You'd save a bloody fortune not having to catch road tax evaders as well.

Government are going to do that as well, cameras on bridges etc.

i think this is probably what most people object to - 4*4 selfish attitude, we're above impact area so we're ok - & what about the kids in the other car meeting your engine head on?

yes 4*4s driving at your rear bumper. Its safe for them because if youre behind you have to stay way back to see the road ahead, but do 4*4s show the same courtesy - do they f

Cough up then. Stop moaning.

Gross polluters such as yourself should be charged 600 quid every six months IMO :mad:

Yes, it's a licence to drive like a fecking tool, because in the event of an accident, your own kids are safe. French and Saunders hit the button bang on at least ten years ago with the sketch about the school run arms-race, where Dawn drove a tank over all the other mothers' cars. :)

Please dont say 3 series...

Heres a good known fact. Most SUV's have less carrying space, and passenger space than their car equivelant.

I want to get an SUV one day, but not because I need one to do something, but because I think I will look cool with it.

Who actaully uses a 60grand car to move things around on a regular basis? And if its not a regular basis you could just rent a van for 79.99 for a day you know.

I love the excuses yank tank owners come up with.

French and Saunders kick ass!!! :D:D I love it on here that people don't understand them at all!! They're just crap apparently :lol1: :lol1:

Are not most of our imprezas 4x4 ?

No 30% of them are FWD.

anything with, i think 215co2 emmitions registered after today gets hammered even more diesels are £195 for 12 months and petrols are £190!!

I looked at 1996 525, load space was the same lenght and width, but I gained more hight the range. My dog can now stand up fully in the back. The model I found was £53000 new (ten years ago), with the depreciation I got the car for £6000. So in short, perfect for my needs. you cant find a better specced car for your money.

It's the thin end of the wedge though. It'll be sports cars next (mine averages 16mpg). "Who needs a sports car in London?", "There's no place for them, except on a racetrack". Then we'll all be driving the same EEC VII Euroboxes and wondering where the fun went.

Exactamundo!

I drive a 5.7 HEMI V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee, get a whopping 13 miles to the gallon, and I'm upgrading in a month or two to the new 6.1 SRT that hits sixty in under 5 seconds! :norty: Sure the MPG is single digits!

Don't need a 4x4, although it may come in handy if we have to do a hurricane evacuation cross country! ;) My wife feels safer in a 4x4 over here (Texas) as every other fecker has one. Don't know what they're excuse is, but I just bought the fastest one I could find! (Handles link sinking ship though and wouldn't try to manouvre it near my old home in Hampstead!!! :D )

I love the fact people talk about 4x4's, but people forget to mention the Maybachs and the AMG Mercs, the Lambos, the Audi S's..... etc etc. And the Impreza drivers who, like me given the chance, don't come off turbo!

It amazes me on this site that people are so anti 4x4 when a good proportion drive Impreza turbos.....why do you need such a car when there are far more economic options available ?

these people who protest about such 4*4's moan about them being gas guzzling things but are too stupid to realise that there are certain cars which are worse, and some mpv's and 4x4's have better economy/mpg than cars.

Personally I'm not anti 4x4 but I do have a dislike of the type of people I often see driving BMW X5's. They always seem to be the 'look at me I'm a success' types. The problem is for them if they were a success then they'd have a Cayenne. :D

Sort of reminds me of the type of people that have a fake Rolex or buy an Omega because they can't afford a Rolex (must add here there's nothing wrong with Omegas per se just that I know of at least one person who bought a Seamaster because he couldn't afford a Submariner- and bought a quartz one kind of like a 3.0 petrol X5 on 20's-HA!)

Same here.Nothing against people carriers if you have loads of kids,nothing wrong with that at all. Its when you see the footballers wives type in the X-5 when a small merecedes coupe or a 320 convertable would do.
In the end its their choice,all GB is saying is choices have consequences.

The misses has an SUV. Considerably more passenger room than the scoob bus. Much bigger boot in width as well as height and the back seats fold flat creating a cavernous space, which is great for the dog and ace for shifting building materials about. Add to that the tow bar for the trailer and CO2 is under 200g/km, it's in FWD unless loss of traction is detected or you manually switch to 4WD and it turns out over 30 mpg.

So what was the problem again?