• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Vehicle discussion. The SUV vs standard types of car.

Status
Not open for further replies.

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Moderator note - Split from this thread:

You would expect a lot to be - not all by any means. Just as you would expect a lot of Renaults in France and a lot of Fiats in Italy.



Maybe to an extent. I don't think that that would have been the main factor in Japan building its industrial base though.



I think there are people who would like to think that laissez-faire ideology is part of our national character trait. However, look back into history and you have Peterloo, Tolpuddle Martyrs, Fabians, Quakers etc. The latest brand of laissez-faire only dates from the late 1970's.

The UK has a lot of Ford's and Vauxhall's, since they are perceived to be British.
But recently, as a result of cheap dealer finance, a lot of people are now driving ridiculous SUV things or driving premium brands such as BMWs, Mercedes, Audi and Volvo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The UK has a lot of Ford's and Vauxhall's, since they are perceived to be British.
But recently, as a result of cheap dealer finance, a lot of people are now driving ridiculous SUV things or driving premium brands such as BMWs, Mercedes, Audi and Volvo.

SUVs of the kind you get in the UK aren't "ridiculous". They are quite practical, particularly for older people - you don't have to sit down low into them and they often have a large luggage capacity for holidays and shopping. Most of them don't have the energy-sapping 4 wheel drive anyway.

Massive American ones might be, but outside of Defenders, Rangies and Discoveries (and the odd Nissan Pathfinder) most of them are really just MPVs (very practical vehicles) with a fancy, rugged looking body.

Yes, a Range Rover in central London is a bit ridiculous. But a Vauxhall Mokka being driven around some Northern suburb is no more ridiculous than an Astra estate.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
SUVs of the kind you get in the UK aren't "ridiculous". They are quite practical, particularly for older people - you don't have to sit down low into them and they often have a large luggage capacity for holidays and shopping. Most of them don't have the energy-sapping 4 wheel drive anyway.

Massive American ones might be, but outside of Defenders, Rangies and Discoveries (and the odd Nissan Pathfinder) most of them are really just MPVs (very practical vehicles) with a fancy, rugged looking body.

Yes, a Range Rover in central London is a bit ridiculous. But a Vauxhall Mokka being driven around some Northern suburb is no more ridiculous than an Astra estate.

No they are ridiculous, everyone who previously got a Focus or something, is now buying a huge great big Kuga or Qashqai. Which are significantly heavier, which means that they use more fuel and produce more emissions.

People don't buy them to be practical, they'd buy an estate otherwise. It's all about showing off, and they buy one to join the ridiculous band wagon.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
SUVs of the kind you get in the UK aren't "ridiculous". They are quite practical, particularly for older people - you don't have to sit down low into them

There are loads of tiny cars which are pretty tall. I'm a large guy and I drive a 12 year old Citroen C3. That's simply because of headroom and ease of getting in/out.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There are loads of tiny cars which are pretty tall. I'm a large guy and I drive a 12 year old Citroen C3. That's simply because of headroom and ease of getting in/out.

The Vauxhall Mokka (which I used as an example) is about the same size as the C3 Picasso and about the same "boarding height", and not massively different on fuel economy.

Some "regular" cars are higher than others, but they are all still pretty low for older people. An MPV or SUV is definitely more practical for them.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
The Vauxhall Mokka (which I used as an example) is about the same size as the C3 Picasso and about the same "boarding height", and not massively different on fuel economy.

Some "regular" cars are higher than others, but they are all still pretty low for older people. An MPV or SUV is definitely more practical for them.

It uses the same platform as a Vauxhall Viva (new) and the Chevrolet Spark.
Just uses a taller and heavier body shell.
You get more boot space in a saloon such as a Passat or Rapid. Plus those cars are better to drive and lighter and more fuel efficient.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
No they are ridiculous, everyone who previously got a Focus or something, is now buying a huge great big Kuga or Qashqai. Which are significantly heavier, which means that they use more fuel and produce more emissions.

People don't buy them to be practical, they'd buy an estate otherwise. It's all about showing off, and they buy one to join the ridiculous band wagon.
Indeed and we really need to get away from that back into more fuel efficient family cars.

Another downside is that a substancial amount of our vehicle manufacturing is orientated to SUV's and luxury gas guzzlers which really needs to change.

In terms of getting more manufacturing in the UK well the country needs to try and do that particularly advanced manufacturing but then a fair bit of that is related to the aircraft industry which will be hammered, what we likely need is even more focus on energy efficiency and replacing fossil fuels etc.

In terms of the bog standard stuff that's gone to such as china, well it went there for a reason of cost and wont easily come back, plus of course much manufacturing is in the hands of multi nationals which do whats best for them and not the UK.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
SUVs of the kind you get in the UK aren't "ridiculous". They are quite practical, particularly for older people - you don't have to sit down low into them and they often have a large luggage capacity for holidays and shopping. Most of them don't have the energy-sapping 4 wheel drive anyway.

Massive American ones might be, but outside of Defenders, Rangies and Discoveries (and the odd Nissan Pathfinder) most of them are really just MPVs (very practical vehicles) with a fancy, rugged looking body.

Yes, a Range Rover in central London is a bit ridiculous. But a Vauxhall Mokka being driven around some Northern suburb is no more ridiculous than an Astra estate.
No, they're not.

Having driven a significant variety of cars from the business rentals random car generator, and having a lot of people in the family with mobility difficulties, let me address these points in term.

"You don't have to sit low in them", no you don't. But...
The boot floor is very high, so you have to lift your wheelchair, shopping, walker, etc into a higher position than would otherwise be needed, a lot of persons of limited mobility are cared for by persons of limited mobility, having to lift mobility equipment or everyday items that 1'6" higher into the boot presents a very significant difficulty.
There is then the issue of what one has to do once in the seat, due to the higher floor of these vehicles, you have to then lift your legs (that can barely hold you up) into the vehicle, while also twisting your body at the same time to get them into position. This is not ergonomic for someone suffering with limited mobility. What you need is a higher seat, retaining the low floor.

"Often have large luggage capacity" Just no.
I have a small hatchback estate, and can fit more into this 4200mm long vehicle than I could into a Nissan Qasquai, or any of their other ridiculous counterparts when travelling over any kind of distance, 3 large bags of luggage would not fit properly. I have been over the last year mobilising engineers and operatives between our operating base and London, and the only way I could fit three adults in these toy off roaders with equipment was to make significant use of the back seat. When the hire company caved and sent me either an Insignia Hatch or a Focus Estate, it all went in no problem.
Oh, and burned around 10 - 15mpg less fuel!

Another example of the stupidity of the Qasquai in particular. Myself and my partner have bikes that we recently purchased, and on some days he's ridden to work because I needed the car to travel further afield. My old car, a Corsa C, well beyond it's "Expected miles" so very much paid off it's production carbon. It would take around 30 seconds to load the bikes into the back, throw the seat down, front wheel off, in. In the company Qasquai I had, it took 7 minutes. As side from having to lift it 4 times higher off the road, it just wouldn't fit, even with the seats down, it resulted in needing to put the back wheel in first and have the front wheel removed and the handlebars released and spun. Practical my a***.

"Don't have 4 wheel drive"
The simple fact is, you're moving something heavier and with a larger hole to cut through the air, this uses more fuel, most vehicles with four wheel drive nowadays never use it and it is clutched out in most conditions.

The Mokka burns around 25% more fuel than the Corsa and has less space inside and less luggage space for the same footprint.

Mini SUVs are not practical in any way, they are statments of so called "style" or part of the urban mothers' arms race, nothing more.

Edit: The kind of car for persons of limited mobility would be something from the Ford * Max range, such as the B Max or C Max, with it's low floor, high roof, higher seats and extremely low boot floor and entry. Even the S Max with it's slightly raised boot floor worked quite well for getting three persons of limited mobility, two able bodied, and all associated luggage around Central Manchester for 5 days.
 
Last edited:

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
"Often have large luggage capacity" Just no.
I have a small hatchback estate, and can fit more into this 4200mm long vehicle than I could into a Nissan Qasquai, or any of their other ridiculous counterparts when travelling over any kind of distance, 3 large bags of luggage would not fit properly. I have been over the last year mobilising engineers and operatives between our operating base and London, and the only way I could fit three adults in these toy off roaders with equipment was to make significant use of the back seat. When the hire company caved and sent me either an Insignia Hatch or a Focus Estate, it all went in no problem.
Oh, and burned around 10 - 15mpg less fuel!

Have to agree with that. We go on holiday as 4 adults, each with a large suitcase, hence we hire "estate" cars from foreign car hire firms. The number of times they "upgrade" us to a SUV is really annoying as you simply can't get 4 large suitcases in the boot - the floors are higher with less of a "well" in the boot so you often can't even get one suitcase on top of another. Then they often have sloping sides or sloping hatchback, again meaning you can't get suitcases one on top of another. If we book an "estate", we want an estate, end of! Car hire firms seem to have great difficulty in understanding something so simple. On our last trip to Berlin, the Sixt desk at Schonefeld airport were particularly stupid in insisting that the Mercedes SUV they gave us was an "upgrade" that we should be grateful for, despite only being able to get 2 suitcases in the boot! We ended up with a BMW SUV but we could still only get 3 suitcases in the boot meaning a long drive with a suitcase between our back seat passengers which wasn't comfortable.

Ironically, our biggest "surprise" was a small private firm operating from the car park of a Med island airport. They were full of apologies that they couldn't give us an estate there and then when we arrived, but gave us options - they could take us by mini bus to our accommodation and bring an estate the next day, or they could give us 2 cars, or they could give us a Honda Jazz instead for half the price. We were quite perplexed at the idea of a Honda Jazz, but the guys knew what they were doing - they insisted it would fit 4 suitcases in the boot, so we let them try and they did it - very snug fit mind you, but they'd obviously done it before and knew their cars. It worked well, we only needed the boot space to get us to/from the airport. That make of the Jazz was very "boxy" at the back with an almost vertical hatchback - well designed to maximise capacity rather than superficial looks!
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
Have to agree with that. We go on holiday as 4 adults, each with a large suitcase, hence we hire "estate" cars from foreign car hire firms. The number of times they "upgrade" us to a SUV is really annoying as you simply can't get 4 large suitcases in the boot - the floors are higher with less of a "well" in the boot so you often can't even get one suitcase on top of another. Then they often have sloping sides or sloping hatchback, again meaning you can't get suitcases one on top of another. If we book an "estate", we want an estate, end of! Car hire firms seem to have great difficulty in understanding something so simple. On our last trip to Berlin, the Sixt desk at Schonefeld airport were particularly stupid in insisting that the Mercedes SUV they gave us was an "upgrade" that we should be grateful for, despite only being able to get 2 suitcases in the boot! We ended up with a BMW SUV but we could still only get 3 suitcases in the boot meaning a long drive with a suitcase between our back seat passengers which wasn't comfortable.

Ironically, our biggest "surprise" was a small private firm operating from the car park of a Med island airport. They were full of apologies that they couldn't give us an estate there and then when we arrived, but gave us options - they could take us by mini bus to our accommodation and bring an estate the next day, or they could give us 2 cars, or they could give us a Honda Jazz instead for half the price. We were quite perplexed at the idea of a Honda Jazz, but the guys knew what they were doing - they insisted it would fit 4 suitcases in the boot, so we let them try and they did it - very snug fit mind you, but they'd obviously done it before and knew their cars. It worked well, we only needed the boot space to get us to/from the airport. That make of the Jazz was very "boxy" at the back with an almost vertical hatchback - well designed to maximise capacity rather than superficial looks!

The Honda Jazz is very roomy for its size especially inside the cabin, in fact the bigger Astra I have now has a bigger boot than the Jazz but the cabin feels less roomy. But the Astra for me is much more enjoyable to drive than the CVT Jazz which is why I got rid of mine.

Unless I lived in one of the more remote area's of the country where an SUV might actually be useful or had a job where an SUV would be useful I would never dream of buying one, as there are plenty of hatchbacks and Saloons which are far cheaper to run and suited to my needs. SUV are just the car to be seen in for many people, a friend of mine had a nice BMW saloon but now he's swapped for a large SUV and I just think why? his kids are are grown up he doesn't need a big car and as he likes fast cars he's had to go for a big gas guzzling engine to give him the required power.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
A related issue is the way most hybrids are SUVs or other larger types of vehicle. This supplies a measure of greenwash for those who buy them, but I suspect when everything is taken into account they would be doing less damage to the environment with a smaller car even if internal combustion only.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You get more boot space in a saloon such as a Passat or Rapid. Plus those cars are better to drive and lighter and more fuel efficient.

"Better to drive" is subjective, I prefer an upright driving position.

"Lighter"? Might be in some cases, but I had a Vectra estate a while ago and that was quite weighty.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
A related issue is the way most hybrids are SUVs or other larger types of vehicle. This supplies a measure of greenwash for those who buy them, but I suspect when everything is taken into account they would be doing less damage to the environment with a smaller car even if internal combustion only.

It would be better for the environment if everyone drove a 1 litre KA or similar. But that's not the point. If I'm not taking a load of "stuff", for which a larger vehicle is useful, I'd be on the train anyway.

FWIW the most practical vehicle I have ever owned was a Citroen Berlingo Multispace - cavernous luggage space, spacious for the driver and dirt cheap. Did about 40 to the gallon (petrol) which is about the same as an Astra estate. I doubt putting a fancy "rugged" body on it would make much difference - indeed I think there is a "sort of SUV" version which is basically just some extra plastic.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
"Better to drive" is subjective, I prefer an upright driving position.

"Lighter"? Might be in some cases, but I had a Vectra estate a while ago and that was quite weighty.

My car is a saloon, but I have the sports trim, with the lowered chassis. Being lower to the ground means the car goes round corners with a lot less body roll than a SUV, which also means you can enter tight corners at a higher speed.
I also have a low down driving position, which I prefer.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
My car is a saloon, but I have the sports trim, with the lowered chassis. Being lower to the ground means the car goes round corners with a lot less body roll than a SUV, which also means you can enter tight corners at a higher speed.
I also have a low down driving position, which I prefer.

I suspect our vehicle preference and driving styles are as far away from each others' as is possible :)
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Birmingham
"You don't have to sit low in them", no you don't. But...
The boot floor is very high, so you have to lift your wheelchair, shopping, walker, etc into a higher position than would otherwise be needed, a lot of persons of limited mobility are cared for by persons of limited mobility, having to lift mobility equipment or everyday items that 1'6" higher into the boot presents a very significant difficulty.
There is then the issue of what one has to do once in the seat, due to the higher floor of these vehicles, you have to then lift your legs (that can barely hold you up) into the vehicle, while also twisting your body at the same time to get them into position. This is not ergonomic for someone suffering with limited mobility. What you need is a higher seat, retaining the low floor.

Both my partner and father are mobility impaired, in both cases their biggest struggle with cars is getting in and out of them. What they need is the seating position to be at such a height whereby when they're sat down with feet on the floor outside the car, their knees are below the level of their hips. Most 'normal' cars don't allow you to do this, MPVs and small crossovers/SUVs do. Small MPVs seem to have gone out of fashion now compared to say 5 years ago so if you want a higher car the vast majority of available options are crossovers/SUVs, but as a previous poster mentioned, the differences between these and an MPV are largely cosmetic anyway.

As for the higher boot, my partner doesn't need to lift anything into it but my father uses it for his weekly shopping, a higher boot floor is an advantage in this regard as less bending is required.

"Often have large luggage capacity" Just no.
I have a small hatchback estate, and can fit more into this 4200mm long vehicle than I could into a Nissan Qasquai, or any of their other ridiculous counterparts when travelling over any kind of distance, 3 large bags of luggage would not fit properly. I have been over the last year mobilising engineers and operatives between our operating base and London, and the only way I could fit three adults in these toy off roaders with equipment was to make significant use of the back seat. When the hire company caved and sent me either an Insignia Hatch or a Focus Estate, it all went in no problem.
Oh, and burned around 10 - 15mpg less fuel!

On this I agree, for the size of the car, SUVs/Crossovers often do have disappointing luggage space, also 4 wheel drive is completely pointless for 99% of uk car owners.


MPVs are not practical in any way, they are statments of so called "style" or part of the urban mothers' arms race, nothing more.

Edit: The kind of car for persons of limited mobility would be something from the Ford * Max range, such as the B Max or C Max, with it's low floor, high roof, higher seats and extremely low boot floor and entry.

What?

'MPVs are not practical in any way', but you have just recommended 2 of them as being well suited for people of limited mobility?
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
It would be better for the environment if everyone drove a 1 litre KA or similar. But that's not the point. If I'm not taking a load of "stuff", for which a larger vehicle is useful, I'd be on the train anyway.

FWIW the most practical vehicle I have ever owned was a Citroen Berlingo Multispace - cavernous luggage space, spacious for the driver and dirt cheap. Did about 40 to the gallon (petrol) which is about the same as an Astra estate. I doubt putting a fancy "rugged" body on it would make much difference - indeed I think there is a "sort of SUV" version which is basically just some extra plastic.

The new astra does 50mpg.
A 1 litre KA is a complete dog to drive, imagine driving that on the motorway, although it's ok for short urban journeys.

Something like a 1.6 litre diesel is good though, it's got plenty of torque for motorway cruising.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
On this I agree, for the size of the car, SUVs/Crossovers often do have disappointing luggage space, also 4 wheel drive is completely pointless for 99% of uk car owners.

Most UK market SUVs are not 4WD, or just offer it as an option, for precisely that reason. They are primarily just a body style, which affects very little other than the marketability of the product when compared to a similarly sized MPV, and I dispute any suggestion that these are not practical vehicles - they are, very much so.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The new astra does 50mpg.

Not the Astra of 2005, which is when I had the Berlingo. I'm sure the new Berlingo would have a similar improvement - I haven't looked at it, but I suspect the petrol offering wouldn't be an old style 1.4 8V, but a more modern 1.0 16V with a turbocharger. Note also that 40ish was what I was getting from it, not an artificial published figure.

The Vectra (2008, 1.8 VVT petrol) was far less economical than the Berlingo, somewhere between 30-35mpg overall.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
AKA, driving like a moron.

I drive the appropriate speed for the corner, I'm saying you can go round corners at 40/50 mph on a NSL road with a car with good handling. That would be nearer 30mph with a SUV
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Birmingham
Most UK market SUVs are not 4WD, or just offer it as an option, for precisely that reason. They are primarily just a body style, which affects very little other than the marketability of the product when compared to a similarly sized MPV, and I dispute any suggestion that these are not practical vehicles - they are, very much so.

I generally agree, but I do stand by the view that most modern SUVs really should have more luggage capacity than they do. In part it's down to their rear end styling often being more inspired by a hatchback with sloping tailgate rather than a far more practical vertical tailgate as is common with the majority of estates.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I generally agree, but I do stand by the view that most modern SUVs really should have more luggage capacity than they do. In part it's down to their rear end styling often being more inspired by a hatchback with sloping tailgate rather than a far more practical vertical tailgate as is common with the majority of estates.

Yes, I'd agree with that, and I do think it's a shame that say Land Rover has "fastbacked" the Disco, which was once a fairly practical vehicle. It's also happened to estates, though - look at the Insignia which replaced the Vectra, for instance, the boot capacity is rubbish - I think the Astra actually has more.
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Birmingham
I drive the appropriate speed for the corner, I'm saying you can go round corners at 40/50 mph on a NSL road with a car with good handling. That would be nearer 30mph with a SUV

Fair enough, my initial comment was a kneejerk reaction and somewhat harsh, sorry about that.
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
636
Well, I have to agree, there is no valid business case for SUVs beyond image, status anxiety and self esteem. All of which are valid reasons - but no-one ever seems to admit to them, do they?

When compared to their equivalent estate car or MPV, they are more expensive, slower, less economical, poorer handling, harder to stop and uglier. They do not carry more stuff or people than the others. They don't go further off road. They're not better in snow on standard tyres compared to a 2WD car on winter tyres. They are more consumptive, even in 2WD mode and they won't go round corners.

They are a keep-up-with-the neighbours, I'm doing well in life, I have a need to big myself up tools. They are items of fad and fashion - no different from pick-up trucks in urban environments.

Our neighbour, in his Q7, claims he has it to go skiing in once a year. It's clad in sports tyres. He basically has a 2.5 tonne sledge when braking downhill in snow. He's polishing it weekly and it's 3-litre diesel engine gets him to the shops and the station every day. He will never do it in his wife's VW Up.

People buy these things to make themselves look good. But they're not honest enough to admit that.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Not the Astra of 2005, which is when I had the Berlingo. I'm sure the new Berlingo would have a similar improvement - I haven't looked at it, but I suspect the petrol offering wouldn't be an old style 1.4 8V, but a more modern 1.0 16V with a turbocharger. Note also that 40ish was what I was getting from it, not an artificial published figure.

The Vectra (2008, 1.8 VVT petrol) was far less economical than the Berlingo, somewhere between 30-35mpg overall.

My car from 2003, is also a 1.8 petrol VVT. That does 30 mpg on a good run (non motorway driving)
That isn't a Vectra though, something a bit more luxurious and much better to drive.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
There are loads of tiny cars which are pretty tall. I'm a large guy and I drive a 12 year old Citroen C3. That's simply because of headroom and ease of getting in/out.

I drive a Zafira which provides sufficient headroom for my 6 ft 5 in frame. Any time I try to get into a modern saloon, I have to twist my head round to 'limbo dance' through the door. I used to drive a Cavalier which was fine; modern saloons seem to offer lower ceilings or smaller doors.
 

JohnMcL7

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2018
Messages
861
"Often have large luggage capacity" Just no.
I have a small hatchback estate, and can fit more into this 4200mm long vehicle than I could into a Nissan Qasquai, or any of their other ridiculous counterparts when travelling over any kind of distance, 3 large bags of luggage would not fit properly. I have been over the last year mobilising engineers and operatives between our operating base and London, and the only way I could fit three adults in these toy off roaders with equipment was to make significant use of the back seat. When the hire company caved and sent me either an Insignia Hatch or a Focus Estate, it all went in no problem.
Oh, and burned around 10 - 15mpg less fuel!

I'm not a fan of SUVs but I felt I shouldn't just discount them when considering a new car given a large amount of luggage capacity is important to me. However as you say they don't have much luggage capacity for their size compared to an estate so I bought another estate car although on the look out for another now and I guess in an attempt to reverse the decline in estates many of them don't seem to have great capacity now with foregoing boxy looks with even the big Volvo V90 doesn't offer as much capacity as you'd expect.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm not a fan of SUVs but I felt I shouldn't just discount them when considering a new car given a large amount of luggage capacity is important to me. However as you say they don't have much luggage capacity for their size compared to an estate so I bought another estate car although on the look out for another now and I guess in an attempt to reverse the decline in estates many of them don't seem to have great capacity now with foregoing boxy looks with even the big Volvo V90 doesn't offer as much capacity as you'd expect.

If you want that capacity you probably want an MPV. Most of them are effectively just standard estates stretched vertically. For instance the big Ford (it's not called the Galaxy any more, is it?) is basically a vertically stretched Mondy.

SUVs are then mostly just stylised versions of that, which if you don't care about the style is probably not worth the extra.

There are then "proper" 4x4s - Defenders, Rangies etc which do have the capability to off-road, but this is largely pointless if you don't need it, and the extra transmission kit just wastes fuel. But I'm not sure I'd really call any of these SUVs.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
I wasn't a fan of SUVs at first, admittedly, but they've grown on me.

I'm very happy with my Renault Kadjar. Very spacious interior, good on fuel and great to drive.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,785
Location
West Riding
What no-one has mentioned about the desirability of SUV's, is that they are felt to have good protection in a crash, which people with children value.

I don't have one myself though, although I have driven them. Some people prefer to be higher up, which an SUV obviously caters for. I do agree that many SUV's just seem to be smaller cars raised up these days, they aren't bigger in actual dimensions. Personally, although insured on an Audi A4 estate I dislike driving it because it is totally impractical in most of the situations I encounter on a day to day basis. It's too big (long) for most parking spaces and it's just annoying to drive around small towns with tight corners, as good as it is at cruising on a motorway for long distances. I'd take my A3 any day as it's more practical, more fuel efficient and as mentioned above it corners extremely well due to being low down. I got given a Q3 (SUV) as a courtesy car and as nice as it was, the only advantage was a higher driving position, but that was at the expense of cornering ability.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top