|
Why do people drive these huge vehicles. For most people something the size of a Golf is more than adequate for their travel needs. They don’t seem very practical to me. Is it just status? What is the growing bulk of vehicles all about?
|
by Big do you mean footprint or height?
Many eco protesters anti SUV stance is based on cars that have no bigger a footprint than a Golf
|
|
I mean bulk. Those huge RangeRover sized things that don’t fit in a standard parking space. Intrigued as to the mindset of people who buy them. Just why?
|
>>.... Intrigued as to the mindset of people who buy them. Just why?>>
Like houses and ice creams, big cars are nicer than little cars. Simples.
|
Seoras the Superb is by most standards a big car but being a conventional estate it doesn't have the bulk of the SUV types I think the OP refers to.
Not sure how big, in terms of cabin/boot space, the current Golf is. I'm thinking of what used to be the Escort sector but I suspect it's larger. If it was just the two of us I'd probably be OK with one but (a) we have family members to carry from time to time and (b) we tow a caravan which requires a kerbwieght well over 1500kg for an 80% match.
The equivalent Skoda SUV I guess would be a Kodiaq. Does CG regard that as 'oversized'?
|
Are they though? Bit of a nightmare to drive and park in an urban environment. In what way are they nicer? Just about everything you get get on a Range Rover you can have on a smaller car. I wouldn’t want one of those vehicles. I could afford one , I just wouldn’t want one.
|
In purely functional terms (space, performance etc) there is little to be gained in buying anything bigger than a Golf or Tiguan size vehicle (if higher seating position is needed).
More than ~150bhp is unnecessary. Most are incapable of safely driving a car faster. Track days aside, even that level of power can lose a licence very quickly.
There may be some limited justification for a larger vehicle with more torque (not power) for those towing caravans, horse boxes etc.
Range Rovers and their ilk - internal fit out makes it a nicer place to sit. Daft demonstration of priorities as it is very likely much better than their home where they spend far more time.
An honest response may be - it is an indulgence from which they get enjoyment. Similar to Rolex watches, bone china teacups, jewellery etc - unnecessary but some find desirable. Separating this from reinforcement of ego, social status, etc is difficult!!
|
it is an indulgence from which they get enjoyment. Similar to Rolex watches, bone china teacups, jewellery etc - unnecessary but some find desirable. Separating this from reinforcement of ego, social status, etc is difficult!!
I guess that’s a fair assessment. Not sure anyone’s buying bone china teacups for status these days though! I totally understand of course that some people do need a large car for towing, have six kids or need to transport the hound of the Baskervilles around the country. Probably in the minority though.
|
>> the hound of the Baskervilles
and his dog...
:)
|
This got me thinking. It’s well known that the biggest MINI is now bigger than the old MAXI. Playing around with online dimensions I found that the MINI Countryman JCW is a mm or two longer and wider than the original Range Rover.
My MK7 Golf estate is longer than both of them and longer than the original Passat estate. Part of the explanation is that extra safety means extra size but I think fashion is the stronger factor.
|
|
I think humans are also typically, ahem, wider than in Mini and Maxi days....
|
>> Part of the explanation is that extra safety means extra size but I
>> think fashion is the stronger factor.
What about the argument that a smaller, lighter car would be more nimble and able to avoid the accident?
A friend is wheelchair bound and their partner finds it difficult to push them around. A car with a large enough boot is therefore a necessity to fit the mobility scooter.
|
>> What about the argument that a smaller, lighter car would be more nimble and able to avoid the accident? <<
When I was a green expat in Canada 60 years ago, and nearly all the natives drove Chevys or Buicks, I bought a used Morris 1100 with a modern trendy transverse engine which made it good for ice rallying. The locals called it a p1ss-pot which could not withstand a collision. I used the same argument that because it was much smaller it was less likely to be hit.
|
A VW golf weighs 1,300 to 1,600 KGs
A VW ID 4 weighs 1,953 to 2,225 kg
One wonders how one can justify all that extra wear&tear and damage caused to our roads and infrastructure caused by that extra weght.
|
|
Maybe one assumes that our roads are built for the heaviest vehicles so therefore if they can take artic lorries and double decker busses then a piddly wee 2 ton car shouldnt be an issue.....
|
>> Maybe one assumes that our roads are built for the heaviest vehicles
Asumption is wrong.
|
>> One wonders how one can justify all that extra wear&tear and damage caused to our
>> roads and infrastructure caused by that extra weght.
Is there any actual evidence of heavier cars = ruts and potholes or is it just failure to maintain?
|
>> >> One wonders how one can justify all that extra wear&tear and damage caused to
>> our
>> >> roads and infrastructure caused by that extra weght.
>>
>> Is there any actual evidence of heavier cars = ruts and potholes or is it
>> just failure to maintain?
No its just as knee jerk* as moaning about range rovers.
*but its possibly true. Many urban roads are not built or maintained for heavier vehicles.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 12 Oct 26 at 13:22
|
>> *but its possibly true. Many urban roads are not built or maintained for heavier vehicles.
Ah AI has pointed me to the 4th power law and axle weight
|
>> Is there any actual evidence of heavier cars = ruts and potholes or is it just failure to maintain?
You don't heed evidence, Bromp, the laws of physics will do. Just remember the ruts that HGVs create in M'ways after a year or two. Plus the fact that heavier vehicles call for bigger wheels. wider tyres, all adding to the unsprung weight.
|
The effect on the road is said to increase with the fourth power of the weight. So a vehicle that weighs twice as much does 2^4* the damage = 16 times as much. Logically this should be calculated on axle weight so if the same weight was spread across 4 axles then it would still be the same per axle but with double the number of axles so then it would then only be twice as much. That is why axle weights matter so much.
Armed with this you can compare your car with a 40 tonne artic on 6 axles if you want. Lorries do far more damage.
Bicycle damage on the other hand would, as Bromptonaut might say, be nugatory.
|
>> A VW golf weighs 1,300 to 1,600 KGs
>> A VW ID 4 weighs 1,953 to 2,225 kg
>>
>> One wonders how one can justify all that extra wear&tear and damage caused to our
>> roads and infrastructure caused by that extra weight.
Fortunately there are now lighter EVs available. Been looking at the Renault 5 and the Inster which would seem to satisfy my motoring requirements and a good proportion of drivers come to that.
7
|
>> Fortunately there are now lighter EVs available. Been looking at the Renault 5 and a good proportion of drivers
Nope, you aint getting 2 adults an two kids (one in a backwards facing child seat) and their luggage in a Renault 5.
However, for my wife's needs (and my joy and delight to gaze on it every morning in yellow or green) I can see a 5 on my drive. No environmental or size virtue signaling there.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 12 Oct 26 at 14:55
|
|
I'm waiting for the new Smart #2 ;-)
|
>> Nope, you aint getting 2 adults an two kids (one in a backwards facing child
>> seat) and their luggage in a Renault 5.
You say that but I'm certain the current 5 is bigger than the original 1961 on Renault 4. Mrs B, her two younger siblings and both parents managed with one for a few years before her father graduated to, if my memory is correct, a Moskvich.
Both choices were driven by the then requirement for personal plates to be transferred only to brand new cars. Her Mother had been gifted a particularly apt one on the occasion of her 21st birthday in 1951.
Still in the family and currently on Seoras the Skoda.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 12 Oct 26 at 15:09
|
|
Don’t have much need for back seat passengers so Renault 5 would suit me fine but Inster does look the more practical option. Amazingly spacious for such a small car. Got a test drive booked. Don’t really care about the looks but if buying on appearance you would choose the Renault.
|
>> A VW golf weighs 1,300 to 1,600 KGs
>> A VW ID 4 weighs 1,953 to 2,225 kg
>>
>> One wonders how one can justify all that extra wear&tear and damage caused to our
>> roads and infrastructure caused by that extra weght.
The additional weight makes almost no difference to the state pf the roads. The impact of weight on road damage and wear is usually accepted as increasing by the forth power. As a bit of anti EV rhetoric the observation has no substance.
Compared to the VW, the EV generates ~5 times (1.5x1.5x1.5x1.5) the damage of the Golf.
Sounds a lot until you reflect on the damage done by a mid size 15 ton truck. This produces ~10,000 times (10x10x10x10) the damage of the Golf.
Genuinely worried about road wear - the solution would be to use vans weighing 2-3 tons for delivery whereever possible.
|
I’ve got a BMW 5 series. It’s a large car, larger than I really need. But when I ordered it I definitely wanted an EV, and I definitely didn’t want an SUV. I wanted a comfortable car with decent performance and one that drove well. I also wanted it to be capable of long journeys, with passengers. So actually, when it came down to it the car I have is practically speaking one of very few that met my criteria. Had they done a 3 series sized car I would probably have had that, and indeed now there is far more choice. And, to use your words, while I am sure an EV Golf with a 300 mile range would be adequate, I don’t see why one should settle for adequate when a more comfortable option is available :)
In reality, parking and using a 5 series in an urban environment is no harder than using my other car, a Mercedes SLK. The SLK is around a metre shorter, 200mm lower and only 100mm narrower. And the biggest constraint to urban driving is width not length I think - which is why it’s much quicker to make progress on a bike. I imagine a Range Rover works in the same way. And since the BMW is noticeably better on long journeys than our old A3 (which is the nearest real world Golf comparison I can make) I have no doubt that when it’s working a modern Range Rover is more comfortable again.
Of course, nowadays a Golf is quite big so perhaps we should mandate nothing larger than an iD Polo, but then I remember how things were Russia before the iron curtain fell, and you could have car you liked as long as it was a Lada Riva. Nice, sensible 4 door, 4 seat saloon with adequate power and easily maintained with just a hammer :)
|
>> I’ve got a BMW 5 series.
As do I, Touring.
>>It’s a large car,
It is, 5 metres long give or take a fag paper.*
>>I wanted a comfortable car with decent performance and one that drove well.
>> I also wanted it to be capable of long journeys, with passengers. So actually, when
>> it came down to it the car I have is practically speaking one of very
>> few that met my criteria.
Exactly. I needed space for a largish cage and 2 dogs, 4 seats, long distance comfy cruiser, good towing abilities, and good fun. It was bought to meet certain required criteria, which it has fullfilled admirably for 9 years. I certainly dont need to indulge in virtue signalling to try and justify my choice..
Now ironically a decent sized range rover, does not provide the space and config I need. If I need to replace the beemer an MG HSP PHEV would just do the job, in exactly the same footprint
*Yes two up, two dogs, cage, its over 2000kg IRO before anyione bites back.
|
>> need. If I need to replace the beemer an MG HSP PHEV would just do
Sorry HS 9. Maybe a Jaecoo 8
Would be reluctant to jump into either however, due to electrical niggles and lack of uk diags and support.
|
Would a Tiggo 8 do the job as well?
Not sure how they are for towing.
There is an MG dealer near me in Falkirk, independent I think, and visited there with a friend when she was looking at cars.
I would happily buy an MG and take it there for servicing etc .... if it wasn't for all the issues I see on the FB groups with the actual cars!
(In my book, avoiding an Arnold Clark dealer is a big factor in the choice)
|
>> Would a Tiggo 8 do the job as well?
Possibly
|
Quite agree with the OP - I've had Golf's since 1991, they do and have done everything I've needed to do with a family and kids (now grandchildren), moving house going on holidays here and across Europe.
Looking at the vehicles in the hospital carpark I just don't know how things can carry on with the increasing size (width) of them, barely squeezing into spaces, cutting corners at junctions and mounting the curbs - many are now bigger than a small work van.
Nor for me.
Have you see the new Jag? - WTF - and this is what somebody thinks the 'public' wants.
|
The new Jag is something else. The only thing it reminds me of is the Bentley Speed Six Blue Train.
Harry Metcalfe is far too diplomatic and possibly too close to Jaguar to say it's terrible, but I'm not sure he'll be buying one.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOasOQUVKp8
|
>> Quite agree with the OP - I've had Golf's since 1991, they do and have
>> done everything I've needed to do with a family and kids (now grandchildren), moving house
>> going on holidays here and across Europe.
>>
>> Looking at the vehicles in the hospital carpark I just don't know how things can
>> carry on with the increasing size (width) of them, barely squeezing into spaces, cutting corners
>> at junctions and mounting the curbs - many are now bigger than a small work
>> van.
>>
>> Nor for me.
>>
>>
It’s perception more than reality though, isn’t it? For cars the difference in size between a small car and a large one isn’t really very much. All cars have got bigger, Golf included. In fact small cars have got proportionally bigger. A 1976 Range Rover was around 4.5m long when a Golf was 3.8m long. Today that Golf is nearer 4.3m, so half a metre longer. But a Range Rover is just over 5m long, so around half a metre longer. Both have grown by half a metre, but the VW is up 13% and the Range Rover just 10%. There are far more Golfs and Golf sized cars around, so that’s the reason car parks feel more cramped, not the odd Range Rover ;)
The problem is exacerbated for those with children though because modern child seats are huge, and you cannot get a modern rear facing child seat in the back of a modern Golf and still have the front passenger seat in a comfortable position. So you need to go for an SUV version, which though it has a very similar footprint appears bigger because it’s a few hundred mmm higher.
If you have two children requiring modern isofix child seats then you are almost obliged to have a mid sized or larger car. The days (of my youth) with three under 5s in either a child seat or Britax multipoint seatbelt in the back of a Mark 1 Golf are no longer acceptable. Debate the rights and wrongs of that, but the higher safety standards of child car seats and cars have both contributed to the need for ever bigger cars, but ironically shrunk the difference in size between a big car and a small one!
|
|
And something I could have googled at the same time but didn’t is the number of cars on the road. It appears as though 1976 there were just under 15 million cars on the road. In 2026 there are just under 37 million. The population has grown from 56 million to just under 70 million. So there are twice as many cars per capita as there were 50 years ago, and 25% more people. That must be the main contributor to car parks and roads feeling crowded surely? We should tax cars more and make it the preserve of the (relatively) well off again and get the riff raff off the road ;)
|
Well I have a 7.5 GTI and easily fit two ISO fix car seats in the back for my two granddaughters - one is 7 1/2 and is front facing the other a year and a half and is in a rear facing seat - she goes behind myself so there is room, in fact we have the same setup in my daughters car and that is a smaller Polo.
|
>> Like houses and ice creams, big cars are nicer than little cars. Simples. >>
Don't agree (and as the owner of a TR7, I suspect you don't either, John). That's why I am about to sell my 15th, and probably last, 205 in a few weeks time.
The main reason people buy these big cars is because the makers invite them to. There are still quite a few minis and superminis about, and quite a few people buy those too.
|
>>That's why I am about to sell my 15th, and probably last, 205 in a few weeks time.
There must be a good story to tell there? Ever since my sister had a 205 XND, G reg if I remember?, Even though it was non turbo, a 1.9 diesel engine in a small car really pulled through the gears (not so much in first gear), I have always wanted a 205 1.9GTI.
|
>> ... I have always wanted a 205 1.9GTI. >>
There are still some on the market, but you may need £10K+ if you want a nice one :-))
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Tue 13 Oct 26 at 09:18
|
>> There are still some on the market, but you may need £10K+ if you want
>> a nice one :-))
I had the base version with a 1.7 diesel and it was a lot of fun on a twisty country lane.
|
I owned, from new, an early 205 Gti….B211 UCP. Metallic silver, thin bodywork, but a hoot to drive.
That was long time ago…
|
... big cars are nicer than little cars...
>> Don't agree (and as the owner of a TR7, I suspect you don't either, John)>>
I do...my A8 is much nicer than my TR7 which I bought as a practical and fun workhorse to be cheaper and more enjoyable in the long run than an ordinary car. 45yrs and nearly 70,000 miles later, it has lived up to my expectations as repeatedly pouring money into replacing wasting assets is unwise for a low mileage driver like me. Buy the (biggest) best and make it last! (my A8 was made 21yrs ago)
|
All those Korean fridge shaped SUV's and the similar looking Chinese ones are stupidly wide now, although not as bad as a Range Rover. To the point not only of not fitting parking spaces but being a nuisance on narrow roads.
They are not the only offenders of course. Even Porsche 911's are massively wide now and I just had a fright from one coming round a right hander well over the white line.
I keep the Outlander (actually not that wide) for towing although I haven't done much of that recently. Nearly all our running about is done in the Mazda 2 Hybrid which is very agile, lively and economical to boot.
I think manufacturers have some responsibility for size. Perhaps every updated model has to be bigger than the one it replaces.
|
|
Didn't it used to be said that safety requirements defined the size and shape these days?
|
I suppose, indeed I know, I’ve sometimes regretted buying a car that was too small, but I’ve never regretted buying one that was too big.
Cars are for shifting people and stuff. Big ones are quite a bit better at that.
|
<< Big ones are quite a bit better at that. <<
until you try to park them. of course ....
|
>> << Big ones are quite a bit better at that. <<
>>
>> until you try to park them. of course ....
>>
S'Ok unless you're worried about scuffing the alloys. ;-)
|
|
…even then, provided one avoids Herne Bay, it really isn’t a problem.
|
|
I am in Australia and I have a 4lt Ford Falcon estate. Considerably bigger than a Mondeo. I have had it for 21 years now and love it. There is nothing like a big 6 cylinder with a TC gearbox for smoothness and power. Lovely for long distance driving and the boot takes two pushchairs and all the grand daughters gear when we take them out. 18 mpg and I don't care because I converted it to LP gas when I got it and that costs me A$1.50 a litre.
|
When I was wee my dad had a succession of Estates as company cars, mostly Cortinas but finished with a Peugeot 504 "Family" estate and if it wasn't for the creation of people carriers and SUVs I would probably have had a few estates. Instead I only had one, a Citroen ZX 1.9D Aura Estate in Black. The only black car I have ever had and as an estate, I could easily do some dead easy work on the side......
Guy round the corner has a Superb Estate and its mahoosive! Very appealing to me!
|
>> Guy round the corner has a Superb Estate and its mahoosive! Very appealing to me! >>
The odd thing is the anti-Tardis effect : although some cars look (and are) a lot bigger outside. some people say they don't seem much bigger inside. I presume much of the extra volume is filled with crash protection and other gizmos ?
|
>>some people say they don't seem much bigger inside.
I think rear space and legroom is important now with big child seats and big adults.
I am only 5'8" but when I am occasionally a passenger in the back of my friend's Corsa I struggle for legroom
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIJ4JaUui-k
Is the new 2cv as a good as the 5 in the retro stakes?
I dont know, I cant make my mind up, I am not going wow like a look at. the 5 or 4
|
|
It looks great from the front, capturing the style of the original. Side view is a bit naff, however.
|
>> It looks great from the front, capturing the style of the original. Side view is
>> a bit naff, however.
I think I have got my thoughts together.
The 5, in style and shape, changed little in its life span, being a "modern"super mini design.
They made a great job with the E5 to ape and update that look that we all knew.
The 2CV however, is a truly ancient design of the 1930's, and the front morphed in looks quite a bit when post war production started. Citroen here have incorprated every look the car had over its long life, and even included the look of the pre production TPV.
As a result, in my eyes it has many features that are retro clever, but all slapped together it looks a bit of a dogs dinner with no design purity.
Its an opinion.
|
It simply doesn't evoke "2CV" for me.
If anything (and certainly from the side) they've rather more achieved the older Fiat 500.
www.recordrentacar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Fiat-500-R.jpg
|
The original 2CV was minimalist in the true sense of the word - ultra thin light bodywork with not a crumple zone in sight, hugely compliant soft suspension (eggs, ploughed field), slow, seats removable for baguette and wine picnic, opening roof, easy to fix with few specialist tools etc etc.
It met a real need at the time and so good was its conception it remained on sale largely unchanged for 42 years.
Current regulations make recreation of anything approaching the original a complete non-starter, even if a few design cues are possible. This may be attractive to some but inevitably compromises the design.
It may not be as bad as the BMW Mini - an awful parody of the original - bloated with none of the qualities that made the original so remarkable.
|
>> The original 2CV was minimalist in the true sense of the word - ultra thin light bodywork with not a crumple zone in sight <<
The whole car is/was a crumple zone !
|
>> The original 2CV was minimalist in the true sense of the word - ultra thin light bodywork with not a crumple zone in sight <<
>>
>> The whole car is/was a crumple zone ! >>
I was at Oulton Park last autumn for a French Car day which included racing for 2CVs - an absolute hoot !
|
Looking online there are claims that the original 2CV was surprisingly good in the old test where they ran the car into a solid block of concrete. This was more by accident (!) than design. It was predictably terrible when hit from the side. As were most non-Volvos in those days.
I hired one from “Rent a Wreck” many years ago on Ibiza. It was indeed a wreck. The main problem was that it refused to turn off the engine even when I removed the key. Luckily there was easy access to the wiring around the steering column and I just pulled a handy wire from its push connector to turn the engine off and reconnect to start. I also had to do a running repair to the connecting rod between the dash gear knob and the gearbox itself.
|
I liked the first BMW Mini; within the constraints of modern (at least, they were then) safety requirements it managed to maintain the wheel in each corner stance which made it go-kart like to drive, it looked like a Mini, handled like a Mini and, fortunately, was better built than any Mini that preceded it. Not only that, it performed better and used less fuel
It’s interesting to reflect that BL made just over 5 million Minis between 1959 and 2000, and ultimately went bust. BMW has made 5.5 million Minis since 2001 and was the third (after Toyota and VW) most profitable car manufacturer in the world last year…
I am unconvinced however by the retro 2CV, though that might be because by the time I learnt to drive (1988) the 2CV was a laughing stock in the way a BL Mini wasn’t. That was just seen as old to my generation. The new Fiat Panda seems more interesting to me, and is also cheap - though not as cheap as is being mooted for the 2CV. The 2CV looks like a Citroen Ami plus rather than a proper car minus, if that makes sense! I note it’s 3.8m long though, 200mm shorter than a Panda and, to counter my owne statement above that cars are griping bigger, it’s 100mm shorter than the original 2CV. I still don’t want one though; if I wanted a small cheap city car then I’d go for the Panda, and if wanted to spend a bit more an ID Polo :)
|
Big cars - Bobby
