Demise of the 4x4?

[johnmc]

Here's an interesting article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4309470.stm

Fuel's heading for $4/ US Gallon (smaller than a UK Gallon) over there and
allegedly towards £1.20 per litre (£5.40/gallon) here.

Oh joy! I have to say I've notice a big increase in my fuel bills this last year.

I reckon I'm paying out £50/month more for fuel.

Thoughts!
John

 

[psmart]

John, we've had these discussions before....

Its one of the enviromentalists favourite claims that 4x4's are fuel hungry.... excuse me... why do you need a 3.2, 5.0, 5.5, 6.3 petrol in a Merc? What is the environmental impact of man starting up a 6.3, driving his bairns to school 1 mile down the road, driving back, before going to golf...? What about the MPV's, Viano's etc, are these bricks more enviromentally friendly and fuel frugal...?

Also, the socio greens (enviromentalists) claim that small cars are better, but running a small car, 1.1litre multi-point injection 750Kg Fiat, I laugh at there stupidity, when I see Im getting 40mpg from this car, yet can regularly get over 30 in my 4x4.

It only means that the more frugal 4x4's will hold there value more, because they'll still be sought after.

Global warming.... now thats a laugh, this planet has cooled, heated up, frozen time and time again.... consider the fact that we are living only a short distance above a super heated molten rock furnace, and should it fissure in the arctic/antarctic, most of us will drown in the UK!!

You can see whats coming, the government want to tax 4x4's more, so they stir up the enviromentalists, who in turn bleat to the press, rant and rave, hold rallies, and so the government can stick on the extra taxes knowing full well they wont get a backlash!

 

[Alfie]

Totally agree.

The whole arguments about 4x4's are rendered void by any vehicle greater in size than a 4x4 which includes buses, vans coaches etc. Not to mention that the impact of cars on global warming is far less than the methane produced by cows and pales into insignificance by every aeroplane flight!

Those who argue for higher fuel taxes on the motorist do so either through blind ignorance of what effect the motorist has on the planet or the desire to thinly spread a tax across a wider group rather than pinpointing the real culprits, in the hope it wont be noticed. Oh look I've just described this government!

 

[Apial]

If you want to drive a 4x4 to do exactly the same job as a smaller car, then you will have to pay for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against 4X4s per se, but driving one with no need makes as much sense as driving a double decker bus to the supermarket.

I regularly get 53 mpg, and my brother upto 63 mpg from diesel MINIs. That puts your super economical 4X4 into a very expensive fuel bill for what? You like to burn money? Or do you use it because an economical car couldn't do the job?

I also have a small Shogun Pinin. It just about manages 30 mpg, but more normally 24 mpg when towing a horse trailer. It is a really awful car to drive, and the only reason I have it is because I need a car to tow a horse trailer out of a muddy field. It gets used for less than 1/3 the miles per year of the MINI.

I would not dream of using the Shogun when the MINI would do the same journey for 1/2 the price without a trailer attached. The MINI is a much better drive.

Very rarely I take out my 300CE24, less than 1000 miles per year. It does slightly better fuel consumption than the Shogun with the trailer attached, 26 mpg on a decent run. The 300CE though is not transport, it is a work of engineering art. I would never consider my ownership of it along utilitarian lines.

Now if you want to remove all fuel tax, then we will all want to drive around wasting fuel, and eventually it will all run out. Then what?

Global warming has been proved to be taking place due to the use of carbon fuels in the last century. The "hockey stick" graph has been demonstrated .

Short of reducing population growth, how do you think we can reverse the trend? Something has to happen to reduce the use of carbon fuels. Taxing fuel use encourages the consumer to seek out more frugal choices in transportation. Clearly taxation is working because people are finding that they just can't afford to drive around wasting fuel in guzzlers and are switching to more economical transport choices. Those that don't need a 4x4 will switch. Those that don't need an MPV will also switch.

Hit the Americans with £5 a gallon and they will suddenly be more interested in smaller cars too.

Drive a 4X4 by all means, but just don't complain if you can't afford to fill it.

 

[Alfie]

If you want to drive a 4x4 to do exactly the same job as a smaller car, then you will have to pay for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against 4X4s per se, but driving one with no need makes as much sense as driving a double decker bus to the supermarket.

I regularly get 53 mpg, and my brother upto 63 mpg from diesel MINIs. That puts your super economical 4X4 into a very expensive fuel bill for what? You like to burn money? Or do you use it because an economical car couldn't do the job?

I also have a small Shogun Pinin. It just about manages 30 mpg, but more normally 24 mpg when towing a horse trailer. It is a really awful car to drive, and the only reason I have it is because I need a car to tow a horse trailer out of a muddy field. It gets used for less than 1/3 the miles per year of the MINI.

I would not dream of using the Shogun when the MINI would do the same journey for 1/2 the price without a trailer attached. The MINI is a much better drive.

Very rarely I take out my 300CE24, less than 1000 miles per year. It does slightly better fuel consumption than the Shogun with the trailer attached, 26 mpg on a decent run. The 300CE though is not transport, it is a work of engineering art. I would never consider my ownership of it along utilitarian lines.

Now if you want to remove all fuel tax, then we will all want to drive around wasting fuel, and eventually it will all run out. Then what?

Global warming has been proved to be taking place due to the use of carbon fuels in the last century. The "hockey stick" graph has been demonstrated .

Short of reducing population growth, how do you think we can reverse the trend? Something has to happen to reduce the use of carbon fuels. Taxing fuel use encourages the consumer to seek out more frugal choices in transportation. Clearly taxation is working because people are finding that they just can't afford to drive around wasting fuel in guzzlers and are switching to more economical transport choices. Those that don't need a 4x4 will switch. Those that don't need an MPV will also switch.

Hit the Americans with £5 a gallon and they will suddenly be more interested in smaller cars too.

Drive a 4X4 by all means, but just don't complain if you can't afford to fill it.

What you say makes SOME sense but not completely. Taxation is merely a vehicle for revenue generation for the government of the day. I am lucky in that I can afford to run my cars and probably could do so if petrol were £20 per gallon or more but thats not the point. If fuel duty were removed not everyone would drive huge cars, a few might but the majority would simply like to have more cash left to spend on other things. Motorists complain mainly about the state of our roads and the cost to run their cars. They dont complain about the fact that they cant afford to run a bigger vehicle even at our inflated fuel prices.

Petrol is taxed at approximately 625%, yes six hundred and twenty five percent. There is VAT on fuel which is also paid on the fuel duty. So its a tax on top of a tax. This government is very very good at taxing people and the motorist is the hardest hit of all. Thats the poor motorist and the wealthy ones. Then there is the road fund licence plus the insurance tax. Now just how much revenue is extracted each year by the government from the motorist? billions and billions. How much do they spend on the roads and the infrastructure? Less than 10% of what they cream off us. The rest is diverted into other things like the £40,000 it cost to move the civil servants from Prescotts office to another because he wanted to stay in the same building when his role was recently 'adjusted'.

What about trains? Now some say they are far more enviromentally friendly. I am afraid not. It takes a huge amount of energy to run a train. Where does that energy come from? Presently from coal fired power stations. The government prop up the railways with grants and funding so the commuter at present does not pay the true cost of a ticket. It is effectively subsidised by the taxpayer (aka motorist). Still I suppose some of that is due to the extortionate salaries paid to the militant train drivers but thats another story......

Anyway, I'm off on holiday in an hours time to a country that has great roads and cheap fuel....Back in a weeks time.

 

[timslim]

. The government prop up the railways with grants and funding so the commuter at present does not pay the true cost of a ticket. It is effectively subsidised by the taxpayer (aka motorist).

I am sure my missus wouldn't agree with you on that one, after paying £7k a year to STAND on a smelly, dirty train for 2 hours every day, thats if they arrive on time or at all....but I do get your point

 

[Myros]

I like cars, mine especially

but I was prepared to use public transport to get to work. I even tried it for 6 weeks, yes 6 whole weeks.
1) wait an interminable amount of time for a bus that might or might not stop for me. ( usually 15mins, somtimes more) cost , about £1.30. Duration 10 mins, + 15 mins wait = 25 mins
2) Wait for the delayed/cancelled/ overcrowded train. Somtimes on time, usually a bit late, occasionally not there. Duration 25 mins travel, variable waiting, and wait at the other end, outside the station, as obviously it was a surprise train that no-one was expecting, and they couldn't find a platform for it. (if it were once, I'd believe it, but every day!!!!!) total anything from 45 minutes upwards. Cost, about £8.50 return.
3) catch another bus to work, again with up to 15 mins waiting and a 10 minute run, cost £1.30, time 25 mins.
4) repeat all that to get home.
Time = 3hours and upwards, cost £13.70 ish.

By car, journey time both ways 45 minutes, sometimes an hour, so call it 2 hours. Distance, 19 miles, so 38 miles, at about 26 mpg in the 280 and 300 TE = £6.50 at 98 p a litre. Even in the SL at 22mpg costs £7.68.
and I'm warm/cool/dry and fully wogan-ed up by the time I get to work, and I can set off when I like.
Okay, I live in a big town and work in a big city, but for me it's a no-brainer. For my wife and kids, it's even more useful and economical. Have you tried getting two toddlers and a double pushchair on and off a bus or a train recently. Fun it isn't.
If there were a tram which ran reasonably close from home to reasonably close to where I work ( main roads both) then I might think about it again.

 

[psmart]

but I was prepared to use public transport to get to work. I even tried it for 6 weeks, yes 6 whole weeks.

If there were a tram which ran reasonably close from home to reasonably close to where I work ( main roads both) then I might think about it again.

I've had the joy and pleasure in working and living in a multitude of countries, and without a doubt, Japan (Tokyo) and Hong Kong are a workers paradise in terms of transport. In Japan, everything works like a Swiss watch, very clean, very modern, personal TV's to blare adverts at you (which are subsidising your fare) and it was cheap. I could get from my apartment to my office in 25minutes, door to door for a journey approaching East Croydon to Bank, guaranteed, never late. The same applies if you decided to go to Osaka (London to Edinburgh) etc, everything on-time, very fast, very comfortable.

If the Japanese and the Chinese can get it right, then why cant the British, inventors of most of this technology, with Billions of capital made yearly available from the fleeced motorist? Japan has 125million people, living in a livable land mass less than England, everythiing is over-built, and yet they can still build new train systems and excellent roads (motorways are toll roads though) in an instant. Road works...? Whats that to the Japanese? These guys pitch up at nightfall, fix the road and by morning they are gone, try telling this to the UK Transport Agency morons who regularly cone off roads for years at a time!

The original question, 4x4's and there demise, why are we evening asking this question, its quite clear to see, that in the UK, people need private transport, and there will always be a section of people that need these type of cars, wether its because they live off the beaten track, towing, active sports etc. Sure, you'll get those who perceive them as extensions of their image, but upping the tax and costs will never hurt these people, only the genuine users.

Apial, what is the price of your life? When Im driving my Fiat (my motorhomes shuttle car), Im openly conscious that one crash will send me to the next world, just like your Mini. Sure, your saving on mpg, but whats the likelyhood of you walking away from a head-on with an S-Class? In our C class, we can get 66mpg driving steadily, and we stand a far better chance of survival than a Mini? So does your Mini really make than much sense?

 

[neilairman]

roller any one

why does every one keep knocking these 4x4's. what about rollers,bentley's, cars with 3 lt engines plus create just as much pollution.
dont be brain washed by the governments ( and livingstones ) green stance.
this government needs buckets of cash for its wars, nhs,schools,john prestcot
dont people have the right to choose what they want to drive any more,
i have a device fitted to ny car wich saves me fuel, cuts my admissions and makes my car run like a dream. log on to google and check out c-tech 3000
its worth a look.

 

[davidsl500]

why does every one keep knocking these 4x4's. what about rollers,bentley's, cars with 3 lt engines plus create just as much pollution.
dont be brain washed by the governments ( and livingstones ) green stance.
this government needs buckets of cash for its wars, nhs,schools,john prestcot
dont people have the right to choose what they want to drive any more,
i have a device fitted to ny car wich saves me fuel, cuts my admissions and makes my car run like a dream. log on to google and check out c-tech 3000
its worth a look.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40036

 

[johnmc]

Hi,
Sadly Ken Livingston and his crew are not just aiming at 4x4 with their £25/day London Congestion Charge. It's all vehicles over a certain co2 emissions level. Many V6 solutions from 3.0ltr upwards, and large diesels will have to cough up too. There's a serious proposal out there for increasing road tax close to £2,000 a year for large cars too, with graduated levels.

Makes me furious. The alternative transport options are useless and frankly dangerous. Most evenings the trains out of Edinburgh have as many people standing as they have seated, all having paid peak fares. Work that one out.
I'm sure it's worse down South. For me to get to work or the airport by train it takes 1.5hours, by car 20mins. The station is 7mins walk from my house, and there's another 7mins from work. But, I need to become a sardine and change trains, making for a long and painful journey. No thanks!

There's no doubt about global warming. How much is man made, anyone's guess. We've not been around long enough to know what's "normal" for this planet. One things for sure, we are making it worse. I loved the example of cow generated methane, but while I laughed it also occurred to me that the reason there's so many cows farting around is that we need to eat them. Since 1800 the global population is up 600%, and so will the number of cows to feed us be up by 600%. Our fault then! We can't have 6billion people eating, driving, flying etc. We do need to do something. Oil is also used to make plastic. Imagine life without it.

Bye!
John

 

[big x]

What you say makes SOME sense but not completely. Taxation is merely a vehicle for revenue generation for the government of the day. I am lucky in that I can afford to run my cars and probably could do so if petrol were £20 per gallon or more but thats not the point. If fuel duty were removed not everyone would drive huge cars, a few might but the majority would simply like to have more cash left to spend on other things. Motorists complain mainly about the state of our roads and the cost to run their cars. They dont complain about the fact that they cant afford to run a bigger vehicle even at our inflated fuel prices.

Petrol is taxed at approximately 625%, yes six hundred and twenty five percent. There is VAT on fuel which is also paid on the fuel duty. So its a tax on top of a tax. This government is very very good at taxing people and the motorist is the hardest hit of all. Thats the poor motorist and the wealthy ones. Then there is the road fund licence plus the insurance tax. Now just how much revenue is extracted each year by the government from the motorist? billions and billions. How much do they spend on the roads and the infrastructure? Less than 10% of what they cream off us. The rest is diverted into other things like the £40,000 it cost to move the civil servants from Prescotts office to another because he wanted to stay in the same building when his role was recently 'adjusted'.

What about trains? Now some say they are far more enviromentally friendly. I am afraid not. It takes a huge amount of energy to run a train. Where does that energy come from? Presently from coal fired power stations. The government prop up the railways with grants and funding so the commuter at present does not pay the true cost of a ticket. It is effectively subsidised by the taxpayer (aka motorist). Still I suppose some of that is due to the extortionate salaries paid to the militant train drivers but thats another story......

Anyway, I'm off on holiday in an hours time to a country that has great roads and cheap fuel....Back in a weeks time.

Where do you get the 625% figure from ?
Per passenger mile trains are much more environment friendly than cars.Some are diesel of course and some run from electricity generated from nuclear,oil,wind,gas as well as coal fired power stations.

adam

 

[angus falconer]

What about the MPV's, Viano's etc, are these bricks more enviromentally friendly and fuel frugal...?

MPV's and Viano's don't have enourmous tractor transmissions bolted underneath with all the massive extra weight and drag that they bring to the party.....

 

[RichHammond]

I have also read of a new goverment proposal to increase road tax to near £1800 for 4x4's and other large engined vehicles. I find this rediculous, for my sins I need a 4x4 to pull my caravan, if tax were increased to this level it would spell the end for many holidays/hobbies that people enjoy. I just hope the goverment realise how drastic this proposal will effect peoles lives and votes as most normal people like me could not justify paying this amount.

 

[hawk20]

MPV's and Viano's don't have enourmous tractor transmissions bolted underneath with all the massive extra weight and drag that they bring to the party.....

It's not that simple. My ML270cdi had a combined fuel economy figure of 30mpg. Very good compared to most petrol driven MPV's.

Old cars are far more environmentally unfriendly than diesel powered 4x4's. So are 5 litre petrol SL's and 5 litre petrol S classes, big Jaguars and so on. The top of the range, modest looking Mondeo (petrol) has higher CO2 emissions than the big, butch and beautiful Mercedes ML320cdi.

All this is beside the point really. Nothing Britain does will make a ha'porth of difference. We are 60 milllion people out of a world population of 6 billion. That is 1% of the problem. Now knock 20% off our emissions and you have reduced the problem to 99.8% of its size. BIG DEAL.

Forget harming our industry and our lives to save point four noughts bugger all of the problem. Either we work on China India and the US to take major steps or we are irrelevant. Unilaterally disarming doesn't work. You don't even get invited to the talks.

 

[Myros]

perhaps another slightly Green point

my 21 year-old SL may be big and thirsty, but it has only been made once. That's one car's worth of construction energy for 21 years worth of existence. Likewise our 124 ( 18 ) and our 202 ( 12)
How many Nissan Micras does that equate to?

 

[angus falconer]

my 21 year-old SL may be big and thirsty, but it has only been made once. That's one car's worth of construction energy for 21 years worth of existence. Likewise our 124 ( 18) and our 202 ( 12)
How many Nissan Micras does that equate to?

My point exactly. I am a fan of recycling and I am currently recycling my second C43.

 

[angus falconer]

It's not that simple. My ML270cdi had a combined fuel economy figure of 30mpg. Very good compared to most petrol driven MPV's.

Old cars are far more environmentally unfriendly than diesel powered 4x4's.

Yes, good point. There's an old 500 SEC round my way which I always thought was quite cool until the owner fired it up I - then I was reminded what out-of-tune pre-cat engines can pump out in terms of stink.

And my car is hardly a paragon of low fuel consumption......