As the OP suggested, most buyers of 4x4s prove without doubt that you can fool (i.e. persuade) most of the people most of the time...
We live in a consumer society where drivers of 4x4s are able to
make their passengers safer
partake of the outdoor life
drive across country
be part of the rugged hunting shooting and fishing set
live longer
and no doubt have better sex lives as well
all through owing a grotesque vehicle totally unsuited to driving in the cities of our cowded island. except central London of course.
But that shows how easily some people can be influenced.
(I will refrain from political similes but there are several:-))
madf
|
I agree that 4x4s are compromised in their design. The 'problem' is the added running gear under the rear floor and the extended travel suspension etc. both mean that the floor has to be raised.
I was amazed a few years ago when I had a ride in a Jeep Cherokee at quite how small it was inside. Father-in-law is on his third Forester (he likes them, obviously) but I find the boot space a bit ridiculous for the size of vehicle. I was also amazed at the 'design' of the rear door of the last shape Rav 4 (side-opening but only to about 60 degrees) because of the need to hang the spare wheel on the rear door. Imagine the outcry if Ford expected Mondeo drivers to put up with the spare wheel mounted on the boot!
|
What actually prompted my thought was reading JC in TG mag saying that even he thought teh new Merc GL was too big - I never thought id hear him say that about a car, but if he has come to such a realisation, maybe the tide is turning. I hear the americans are starting to rethink.
|
|
These cars aren't that big, they just have big wheels are greater ground clearance. The vast difference in size between cars on the road is largely in the mind, as a percentage, the differences are not worth worrying about.
|
4x4's (or more correctly SUV's - an Imprezza is a 4x4, for example) are very well designed to do what they have been designed to do, i.e. go off-road, across country in mud and snow and tow things. There is nothing wrong with their design, its people that buy them to drive around town in the belief that it makes then look trendy that are the problem.
They are not suited to sub/urban driving because they have a 4WD system which is superfluous but adds weight and reduces mechanical efficiency. So it increases fuel consumption and emissions without giving any usable benefit. Moreover it needs a heavy body to hold it all in alignment and encroaches into the body volume. As if that were not enough the compliant and long-travel suspension and high unsprung weight compromises handling and roadholding.
I should stress that I am talking about the true off-road style SUV's and not the Forester/Outback 4x4's which are really just estate cars with higher ground clearance.
|
It depends what you want your car to do. Nobody would say a fork and a spoon are exeptional designs, a good design must be connected with use.
For example the fork is a rubbish design when you want to eat soup, whereas a spoon is a good design. A spoon is good when eating cereal, but is no good when tucking into meat.
To be of a good design the object must be usefull. HJ likes the new RAV 4 for intance and I have to agree with him that it's a very good 4X4. However good the RAV 4 is I have this nagging feeling that in almost every area it could have been made better by lowering the suspension and otherwise making it more car like.
The pinicle of bad design must be the typical Chelsea Tractor. Why do people want to drive around in a 4X4 just around town? Objectivly for 4X4 is a stupid design for this kind of use, but humans being the strange creatures that they are seem to think 4X4's are good designs for this kind of inner city use. Just maybe people who buy 4X4's think they are the best designed mode of transport for them, but I am confused as to the purpose of the design and why it's good if used in the inner city.
However the pinicle of good design for a wealthy person stuck out in the country and who regularly goes off road may well be a big Range Rover. It's confortable, refined, fast, and can get out of muddy fields - perfect.
Objectivly you can't say something is a good or a bad design, you need to look at what people want to do with the said item. What I can't see is why 90% of 4X4 are of a good design looking at their use.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
|
|
4x4's (or more correctly SUV's - an Imprezza is a 4x4, for example) >>
sorry Aprilia , SUV is an Americanism. As i'm not American I don't intend using it. I'm not anti the States, just pro here.
|
|
I agree, but I can't think of anything better. Mitsubishi make a 4WD Evo and a 4WD Galant - but they are totally different to a Range Rover in every way except number of driven wheels. 4x4 is the wrong term. If not SUV then what else can we use - 'off roader' maybe?
|
Westpig, while I don't tend to use the term SUV myself, it has at least one use.
If one does not like the term SUV, what category does one place the FWD Nissan X-Trail - or, for that matter, the FWD RAV-4 that Toyota used to make?
|
4x4 = Range Rover, Disco, X5, ML, Explorer, Grand Cherokee, Landcruiser etc
4WD = Impreza, Evo, X-Type, Quattro, Integrale etc.
|
Westpig, while I don't tend to use the term SUV myself, it has at least one use. If one does not like the term SUV, what category does one place the FWD Nissan X-Trail - or, for that matter, the FWD RAV-4 that Toyota used to make?
don't know, you've got me on that one
|
don't know, you've got me on that one
4x2 ?
|
don't know, you've got me on that one >> 4x2 ?
Or perhaps we could just dumb down and say a 2WD 4X4 :-)
|
If one does not like the term SUV, what category does one place the FWD Nissan X-Trail - or, for that matter, the FWD RAV-4 that Toyota used to make?
Fashion statement?
|
|
|
|
These cars aren't that big, they just have big wheels are greater ground clearance. The vast difference in size between cars on the road is largely in the mind, as a percentage, the differences are not worth worrying about.
I would say that with the Merc GL being virtually the same length as an S-class, it is THAT big.
My general point is, that for their sheer mass, not just length, these cars are not space efficient, especially when compared to an MPV. The normal Merc ML is no more spacious in the back than a Ford Focus and the Range Rover drivers seat feels very cramped, even compared to the older ones and the footwells are very narrow given how wide the car is.
|
|
|
|
"I hear the americans are starting to rethink."
Er, doesn't that imply the ability to think in the first place?
(Sorry, TIC of course, but I did watch the 638 attempts to kill Castro last night..)
|
|
|
|
|
