The Old Git Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 You got more than 16 from a Rangie? Wish I could - mine's good for 12!!! I think I was getting around 18 from it , although I could have been kidding myself My range rover is a 19 year old shed that cost me £30. The main reason I have got it is for towing my boat Mine cost me about £5k and was in good nick. That might account for the difference in fuel consumtion if it was generally in better nick. Before that I had a LWT Land Rover which had been fitted with a Ford 3.0 V6 motor. I'd bought that to replace my Granada Estate which was getting knackered towing my RIB on and off beaches and up slipways. That got me into competing in the 4x4 club events and I also bought a Suzuki. Mind you, I haven't seen that since the foot and mouth outbreak as I kept it on a mate's farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddy Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 You know the situation, you're driving down a narrow road with ditches and hedges on either side, a car approaches, it's a 4X4, and by the look of it the only time it's ever been "off-road" before is when it mounts the kerb on the school run. Well, whenever I've been in a situation like this it is a very rare event indeed if the 4X4 driver has the courtesy to take their vehicle "off road" to let my diddly car past. They drive those things like they're really expensive cars not wanting to risk a bit of mud (ok they're expensive but they can take the ditches a lot better than my car can, or they would if they got the chance). Still, if I paid that much money for something I would probably never even drive it, let alone drive it in mud, I'd live in it instead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 A bit of a sweeping statement.. My Land Rover was smaller than the Granada Estate it replaced. My Suzuki is a lot smaller than most cars on the road. As stated before, the BMW X3 diesel is more fuel efficient that the Mini Cooper Come on Old Git, I'm not falling for that. You can always pluck out extreme examples of anything to fit. Take the most economical car and compare it with the most economical 4x4. Take the smallest car and compare it with the smallest 4x4 - then we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Why has nobody ever started a thread about Golf umbrellas? Oversized, never used on the golf course and an annoyance to other pavement users. Maybe like Observer says, it is a matter of free choice? We all have it. Some use it for practical reasons, some use it for visible effect. Big deal. In the case of vehicles surely the most important thing is not the type of vehicle, but the type of driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Have a look at The Godzilla SUV, it even comes in "Road Rage Red" The Godzilla is big--extremely big. Excessive. Extravagant. Deadly? Of course. But not to you. Because when you think about it, who do you really care about? Yourself, perhaps your loved ones. Everyone else is just in the way. When you're driving the Godzilla, they will run for cover. And if they don't? Well, it's not like they weren't warned. Exciting features include the "Sure-Crush" collision-attrition system, guaranteed to obliterate even those measly little first-generation SUVs. To let them know you're coming, "Insta-Dazzle" extra-high floodlight-rated headlights. Forward battering ram. Onboard oil refinery. Choice of couch or Barcalounger driver's seating. It's been said that SUV owners are selfish, gluttonous, even anti-social. That's exactly the customer we are looking for--and we're finding more every day! After all, somebody is going to hog the road and waste gasoline. It might as well be you. Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 4x4s: Perfect for taking half a primary school class into remote, difficult to access areas. Well I'm sorry, but your excuse of 4 x 4 year olds = 1 x 16 year old will not go down well in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Free choice is a vague term. And when does your free choice overlap and infringe on someone else's free choice? And 4x4s can affect the attitude of drivers. They feel more protected and then take more risks. I believe, generally, you're more safety concious the less protected you are. i.e. motorcyclists are the most safety conscious, 4x4 drivers less so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 i.e. motorcyclists are the most safety conscious.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If they were that safety conscious, they would never ride them in the first place. But I get the gist. Anyway...... Why has nobody ever started a thread about Golf umbrellas? Oversized, never used on the golf course and an annoyance to other pavement users........ I have one, which I do use on the golf course. But, admittedly, now I have it more in the hope of squeezing half of Obs's Netball team under together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 And 4x4s can affect the attitude of drivers. They feel more protected and then take more risks. I'm sorry but that statement is complete and utter bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Why has nobody ever started a thread about Golf umbrellas? Oversized, never used on the golf course and an annoyance to other pavement users. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I use mine on the golf course. The problem isn't golf umbrellas. It's short people who use umbrellas and don't look where they're going. It's usually short people who drive 4x4s too. Short, angry people like Napoleon and Hitler. They would have driven 4x4s and kept poking people eyes out with their brollies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 And 4x4s can affect the attitude of drivers. They feel more protected and then take more risks. I'm sorry but that statement is complete and utter bollocks. Come on Obs. Admit it, you've seen a small gap and decided to tilt your 4x4 on two wheels to squeeze through or the bridge at Douglas harbour has started to open but you've decided you can jump the gap. I see it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Come on Old Git, I'm not falling for that. There's nothing to fall for. It's a statement of fact - I swapped my car for a 4x4 which was smaller than the car was You can always pluck out extreme examples of anything to fit. Take the most economical car and compare it with the most economical 4x4. Take the smallest car and compare it with the smallest 4x4 - then we'll see. Aren't you plucking extremes yourself with the "most economical" or "the smallest" ? How big do you think a Suzuki is? How about a RAV 4? Even a Land Rover 90 is not that big. They might be a bit taller than most cars but they're not necessarily longer. It you want to talk economy, leaving aside my big scary fuel guzzling 1.3 Suzuki, one of my cars is a Smart and the other is a diesel. I can think of plenty or ordinary petrol saloon cars that would struggle to meet their mpg figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 The main problem with 4x4s as far as I can see is that those who don't drive them find them intimidating because of their size, then make up loads of bullxxxx reasons relating to economy and even the attitudes and road manners of those who drive them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 What's wrong with fuel guzzling anyway, you buy a fuel guzzler and you have to pay the price for the fuel. What's the problem? Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Mine cost me about £5k and was in good nick. That might account for the difference in fuel consumtion if it was generally in better nick. Have to admit to mine being a bit of a shed. My mate keeps saying I should join the 4wd club and compete (he used to in his postman pat fourtrak that he did up. Mine's ok apart from looking tatty and a case of disappearing sills though. Before that I had a LWT Land Rover which had been fitted with a Ford 3.0 V6 motor. ......That got me into competing in the 4x4 club events and I also bought a Suzuki. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, I know that landy. Watched it up at Dhoon quarry last year in an event. If you're who owned it back then, then I know you & your brothers. Sort of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.