4x4 Environmentally Unfriendly?

The message from "Schmoot" contains these words:

But very low compared to a sensible car.

"Schmoot" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Is there an echo in here? Or is there an AOLuser who can't work Google, and so didn't find the massive thread on uk.rec.cars.misc and uk.transport from last week?

I agree (I do not have a 4x4). People do need to stop generalising.

Toyotas (and landcruisers in particular) are designed to last. The amount of energy (and therefore fuel/pollution) needed to build a vehicle far outweighs the total amount of fuel it consumes in its lifetime.

Cars are ever more becoming part of our 'throwaway society' and many makes are designed not to last more than a handful of years.

More manufactures need to build more robust vehicles which may cost more but last much longer and ned replacing less often - in my opinion an excellent way to reduce environmental impact.

Regards

S Lyon

Guy King ( snipped-for-privacy@zetnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Especially if you're willing to put up with diseasel.

Wonder what a petrol LandCruiser does to the gallon? Ah, yes - 17 average, and nearly 400g/km.

That isn't true. The amount of energy used to build a car (including all material extraction/transport/processing etc.) is somewhat lower than the amount of energy it consumes while being driven. A figure of 20%-40% manufacturing (out of 100% manufacturing + running) was quoted in a stydy done in around 1998. I could probably dig up the reference if anyone is really interested.

I'm in agreement with that - it would be a lot better if cars lasted longer.

It's a simple case of people picking something to moan about. I have yet to hear an accurate arguement against 4x4's. They are not bigger, more dangerous to people, more damaging to the enviroment than 'cars'. lot of nonsense.

Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

Mr.Nice. (markvarleyphoto@*nospam*softhome.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

In terms of road space, perhaps not. But they are taller, and this affects the visibility badly for those behind them. This is not, of course, unique to 4x4s.

Plenty of evidence to suggest they are. Not least of which is their much greater mass.

Plenty of evidence to suggest they are. Higher fuel use, higher emissions in absolute terms.

FWIW I read somewhere, that in general, it takes 10-12 years of average motoring, for a car to create as much pollution as was created in it's manufacture. If that is true, it follows that if pollution is the major concern, the life of a car is more important than, (within reason) it's fuel consumption. Mike.

Mike G ( snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Similar number to my recollection.

Depends. If the car uses a lot of fuel, then that break-even point is going to come forward. If the car used a lot of energy or raw material in manufacture, then the break even is going to move back.

Either way, if pollution is the major concern, then a small, light weight, simple economical car that hasn't been transported half way around the world from the factory is going to be preferable to a large, heavy, vehicle with complex electronics and a thirst to shame Oliver Reed that's done

Unfortunately, it seems impossible to buy a small light-weight car of *any* type these days.

Even a Smart weighs around 800kg. The first 2cvs were around 500kg - and would carry four people and luggage. 800kg is around the weight of a Mk1 Golf. A current Golf is getting on for double that.

Aixam are very light

mrcheerful

mrcheerful . ( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

True. 400kg dry.

They're also monumentally s**te. The modern equivalent of the 50s bubblecar, the 20s cyclecar and other evolutionary dead-ends killed off by revolutions in *real* car design such as the Austin Seven and the (real) Mini.

They only make any sense at all with legislation such as the Voiture Sans Permis rules in their native France - and they're the last thing we need...

The big question for me is simply WHY? King of the road, monster truck, arms race syndrome is all I can come up with. Most of them are pretty useless as proper off-road vehicles and not good at handling the bends. Worst of both worlds if you ask me but what do I know. Mate of mine does genuine off-roading and there's only one vehicle for that. For towing maybe one argument used but it's seldom the case. How many 4x4 do you see towing anything anyway, certainly no more than cars. Personally I just see the monstrosities, usually billowing great clouds of carcinogenic soot, and think why oh why?

'The big question for me' is why so much hostility to 4 x 4 owners. I agree that many are just big monstrosities, and most, if looked at from a practical POV can't be justified, and are more fashion accessories than anything else, but so what? I'm not particularly concerned about them. I wouldn't buy one myself, but who am I to critisise what others decide to buy, or drive?

Many of us are open to critisism of what we drive, but again, so what?

I drive a relatively big car, and most of the time I'm the only one in it, so why not have a bash at those like myself for not having a smaller one? This whole argument is senseless IMO, yet it keeps cropping up ad nauseum. I don't like them. Many others feel the same, but that's it AFAIC Mike.

Because they're s**te? And driven by people who don't give a toss about other road users?

IME, they're owned by people who can't drive, and therefore want a vehicle which doesn' show the scrapes when they hit other peoples cars.

Thats your opinion, what says you are correct?

Same generalisation could be made towards BMW drivers or pretty much any luxury car driver.. Point is generalisations are just that and IMO a pretty pathetic basis for an argument.. Same goes for opinions, they are a personal preference and have no relevance in a debate of this nature..

At least this comment was prefixed so we know its an opinion, which is fine.. We may not agree with your opinions but we don't have to..

Just sweeping generalisations IMO. I see nothing to support those views. They're more like hypothetical reasons someone might give in an attempt to justify their personal dislike of 4 x 4's. Mike.

The message from "Mike G" contains these words:

I see evidence to support such views almost every time I'm out on the road. However, I'm willing to admit they're sweeping generalisations, but frequently justified sweeping generalisations.

This is fairly typical of criticism aimed at 4x4's, white vans, BMW drivers or any other of a myriad of types of vehicle and/or people, take your pick. All the criticism have two things in common. First is that it is vehemently against a particular group. Secondly it is generated by a particularly unpleasant class of person with a chip on their shoulder. Enough said.

Huw