Jaguar 4x4

[400bhp]

Like this numpty driving a four wheel drive fast?

THAT is not a 4x4

That is a fantastic example of how 4WD should be used.

 

[400bhp]

I've had some fast-ish cars in the past (540d/M3) and I'd wager this thing would match them on the straights, be pretty close in the twisties and drop them for dead on twisty soaking wet or icy roads.

Like I said, any clown can drive them in a straight line.

On a proper test (track) it's just a lump of turd, hence not sporty.

 

[400bhp]

[QUOTE 3476955, member: 9609"]So what is it then, it has 4 wheels and delivers power 4 wheels[/QUOTE]

4WD

Whatever

It's semantics.

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

Spot on.
It is a bit of a car arms race out there and 4x4 off roaders are the trident missiles.
Our concerns over road safety have greatly increased over the last say 30 years (anyone remember the fuss over being made to wear a seat belt in early 80s) and although roads are now much safer they are perceived as being more dangerous.

Ditto any car really

Look at, for example;
Escort 1 & a Focus
Golf 1 & mark 6 (or it 7 now?)
Corsa 1 & the present one
Range Rover 1 & the present 'L405' model


I've uploaded 2 photographic examples
That Standard 10 was once the archetypal family car - the Micra towers over it (probably more room in the Standard, & certainly better all-round visibility)

 

[tyred]

I parked my Peugeot 205 beside a 208 one day and the 208 almost seems huge in comparison but doesn't appear to be hugely more spacious inside. I checked up the dimensions and found

Length (205) 145.9" (208) 156"
Wheelbase (205) 95.2" (208) 99.9"
Width (205) 61.9" (208) 68.5"
Height (205) 54" (208) 57.5"
Weight (basic models) (205) 790kg (208) 975kg

The extra 4" in the wheelbase is no bad thing as it should allow a little extra leg room and improve stability and ride comfort when driven. The 205 was always tight for headroom so assuming at least some of those extra 3.5" appear inside, it is a good thing.

The 6.5" extra width is unwanted imo as it still wouldn't be wide enough to comfortable sit three adults across the back seat and most of that is probably used up by the airbags in the doors etc.

Most of the extra weight is probably due to crash protection and also extra standard equipment like electric windows that some people think are essential but I can happily live without.

I've never even sat in 208 but I would expect it to be quieter and more refined, a more modern engine and sophisticated fuel/ignition systems and improved aerodynamics have probably improved the fuel consumption but probably not by much in the real world. So probably a reasonable update and progress.

However, I would still prefer my 205. It's DIY friendly and simple to maintain, light weight, high ground clearance and narrow tyres make it more usable in the snow or in the fields so it suits my needs. It's also probably more fun to drive. Sure, it's more dangerous should I wrap it around a tree but I try my best not too, unlike some drivers I see

 

[Piemaster]

Nice motor, shame they didn't fit a rear window.

It's an optional extra, the checkbox is next to the 'indicators' one.

I've never even sat in 208 but I would expect it to be quieter and more refined, a more modern engine and sophisticated fuel/ignition systems and improved aerodynamics have probably improved the fuel consumption but probably not by much in the real world. So probably a reasonable update and progress.

I'd think the extra weight and width of a 208 will go some way to offsetting any fuel savings from better aerodynamics and engine improvements. But as you say real world stuff can make a difference. Waiting at traffic lights both will do 0 mpg but I'd expect the 208 to use less fuel doing it. Moving results would be an interesting comparison, but you need the same conditions (air con on/off) exactly same driving style, traffic, etc.

 

[Over The Hill]

Ditto any car really

Look at, for example;
Escort 1 & a Focus
Golf 1 & mark 6 (or it 7 now?)
Corsa 1 & the present one
Range Rover 1 & the present 'L405' model


I've uploaded 2 photographic examples
That Standard 10 was once the archetypal family car - the Micra towers over it (probably more room in the Standard, & certainly better all-round visibility)


View attachment 76926 View attachment 76927

Good points Richard and Tyred .
Perhaps there is an arms race plus a nuclear arms race.
Mrs OTH had a Pug 306 and the a 307. The difference in the two was amazing. I don't have the figures but it grew a bit in size but went up a huge amount in weight. Looking into it, it also went up a huge amount in the safety rating and it seems that the only way of getting the shell more rigid in a car is to add lots of metal to it.
We went up from a 205 when we had the kids and all the stuff they have but the 208 is now so big we can probably drop down a model at the next change.

I think the Polo is now bigger than the Golf first was. But I suppose they cannot go down in size for a model only bigger.

I guess it is down to them only making the cars we buy.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

[QUOTE 3477259, member: 45"]The Micra shrank then grew, now it's shrunk again.[/QUOTE]

Your balls are bigger than the latest Micra.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Like I said, any clown can drive them in a straight line.

On a proper test (track) it's just a lump of turd, hence not sporty.

I guess we'll have to agree to differ on what's sporty.

These two seem pretty sporty to me:

http://www.gizmag.com/range-rover-suv-sport-svr-nurburgring-record/33175/

(Subject to verification the SVE equals the 2008 BMW Alpina B3 Biturbo Coupé lap time.)

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-porsche-cayenne-turbo-s-photos-and-info-news

 

[mustang1]

[QUOTE 3472827, member: 9609"]We always follow America, and enormous SUVs and even bigger Pick Up trucks have been all the rage there for quite some time - so I guess they will become more and more common here. And with more efficient engines and cheaper and cheaper fuel I see no deterrent whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

I wish we follow america with larking spaces at carparks. Not only are the spaces too narrow for cars of today's size, but more importantly in UK they are perpendicular to the road's direction. In america the spaces are at 45 degree angles so getting into and out of the space is far easier.

 

[mustang1]

I wonder why people still call these types of car a "4x4" when some of the versions are available in 2wd.

 

[mustang1]

I can't wait for the impending ad campaign! I hope the ads show the intended demographic lifestyle choicers. I hope we get the chance to see their base-skate-surfing prowess after an exhilarating yet stress-free drive to the beach through deserted city streets and alpine passes. Perhaps a responsible yet hilarious slightly bearded slightly hipster bloke-man will be at the helm. Who knows, it's a long shot.

Excellent point!
Recent adverts of note: Hassan qashqait, the car flies and stuff all over the city. Wth's that about? And I know what you mean about the bearded hipster guy, can't recall what car advert he's in.

 

[mustang1]

[QUOTE 3477388, member: 45"]They might be sporty but they're a huge compromise. More power needed to move the brick through the air. Tricker suspension to keep things steady around corners.

Something like the Lotus Elise is sporty. Functional, correct, fast. It's not attempting to be sporty while also meeting whatever need the driver of a 4x4 requires, so it doesn't need engineering to cope with the compromise.[/QUOTE]
But an Elise has two seats. Weird.
Anyway I jest. You guys seen truck racing?

 

[mustang1]

Not wanting to get at anyone who owns a car like this but I am really interested in why you choose a SUV rather than a large estate car or hatch.

I go with the Estate car option. Reasons-
I don't drive across ploughed fields so don't need 4 wheel drive.
I tow a caravan with it perfectly well.
It has more room inside than most SUVs
It uses about a quarter less fuel than a SUV
It has a lower centre of gravity and so sits lower, is more sporty and smooth.
It has much better safety features than most 4x4s.
It costs less to service, tyres cost less.
It is made to drive on the road - which is what I do, not made/compromised to do something I don't need it to do.
It is safer on the road for bikes and other road users who can be seen around me better.

So why go for an SUV?
I can only think of -bullying presence on road.

Fashion.

 

[Piemaster]

For most that buy an SUV the image they believe it gives them, as in @just jim campaign. If they actually made an honest list of what they needed chances are it would come out as an MPV, similar bodyshell but with more space no 4x4,better fuel consumption. It's a vanity choice and their money.
Doing the list thing on Autotrader when we bought the car a lot of the results were SUVs. We live in a city, we use roads to go to the shops. Sense prevailed and we bought a Skoda Roomster.