Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Sustainability in car design

I guess that I will now give up on this one! It is obviously an emotive subject but its all about the use of an acronym and its associations and not the cars themselves. For me, my mid size 'SUV' was all about accessibility and practicality. The average car seats and lower profile of body made access difficult for my aged mother and my wife who has mobility difficulties. The seat is at exactly the right height for easy transfer especially when parked adjacent a pavement. It is also great for carrying the paraphernalia of life including wheelchairs at one end and prams at the other. It is not an overly big car at 300mm shorter than my previous estate.

Yes, I don't see the point of overly big or heavy cars but then neither do I see the point of producing cars that are capable of twice the speed limit.

This is why I would like to see some honest independent assessment of whole life costs so that purchasers and users can make some rational decisions. Having said that of course rationality doesn't apply to cars: otherwise we wouldn't have bought our Morgans.

You do make a fair point Rob. Our neighbour has a BMW X1. It is the simple 2WD 1.8L De. They have a large dog and it folds in nicely. By appearance it is an SUV. I would not put it in the same planet munching class as my ML63.

The report you mention also seemed biased to create headlines. They asked 100 members of the public to collect the content as I understood it. It seemed deliberately destined to cause headlines using easy targets. It also seemed to have a noticeable demographic involved from the interviews I watched.

If they taken the approach of identifying the top issues and then understanding how we could reduce those it would have made more sense. Air Travel, Freight, Cow Farts.

While I am not pro-SUV, I am neutral, I find it odd that everyone lumps all of them into the same pot with comments about being so heavy and too large. Well, have a look on your driveway. Your normal tiptop is vastly larger and heavier than what cars were many moons ago. All cars for that matter are heavier and larger with each iteration and you never see anyone complaining about that.

There are many popular 'SUVs' that actually have a smaller footprint than the average car. Most of these are based on a normal car platform and use the same engines. So aside from the full fat Land Rovers and large luxury SUVs, almost all are car based.

Just find it strange that some can view SUVs so negatively but on the same hand have a glass guzzling tin top sitting in the drive.

Working in the automotive industry, I'm VERY thankful for the launch of our SUV as it's what saved us during the time of launch. I for one am happy that the 1000's of people I work with can keep a job and watch a company go from strength to strength.

To the original point of this post - you are spot on Rob. While a lot of work is being down behind the scenes for sustainability, the infustructure at the end of the line isn't quite there yet. There are a TON of components in most cars today make from recycled materials and while I can't give secrets away, there is a lot happening in the industry. It's getting this into parts of the car where it makes sense from a marketing point of view to discuss. Most wouldn't care much that your wiring harness is made from recycled materials, for example.

A whole range of reasonable arguments are made here in the posts in favour of an SUV. I believe that, at least in Germany, the term "SUV" is viewed very ambivalently. And in my opinion the car manufacturers have done themselves a disservice by giving the name "SUV" to their reasonable normal-sized cars, which are simply built a little higher to allow a more comfortable entry and a better all-round view. As mentioned before, a BMW X1 and very similar cars of other brands, for example, are such a well thought-out car for many everyday practical target groups. And I see those cars in a positive light.

But if you call these cars "SUV", they are seen negatively by quite a few people. It would be time to invent a new name (or class) for these sensible cars. Because what I meant in my original post are the core cars called SUV. And they weigh 3 tons and are heavy status symbols. Of course we should be allowed to make free decisions, that's how it should stay.

If I lived in the wilds of the Peak District, on a farm up two miles of rough track and needed to ferry sacks, children etc. I would want a basic 4 wheel drive car. However a "prestige" marque 4x4 to ferry the kids to school half a mile away or to go to Waitrose is going over the top. Most of the new estates around us have them on the drive (at least one!) and the drivers ,sadly ,usually female, think they are impervious to all around them. They rarely indicate, often on the mobile, taking bends and junctions on the wrong side of the road. Whilst out running you can probably hear me shout at least once "If you can`t control it- don`t drive it!". A family car would easily suffice, but one has to keep up with the Farquahars next door.

Tangentially................"People Carriers" tends to present a different response.

You might argue that People Carriers should be the default for those needing to carry people, but I doubt the prestige end such as the BMW X1 would ever contemplate calling such cars "People Carriers".

I had a couple of Golf Plus "People Carriers" as loan cars and quite honestly, they were devoid of driving pleasure. If you're a petrol head then surely every journey should be a pleasure, and that model did not deliver. Not that the ordinary Golf oozes charisma, but it does deliver what is expected.

Remember for VAG it's Posh;Sensible;Sporty;Budget. Audi;VW;SEAT;Skoda................

But there are enough consumers who are happy with a kind of a modern sensible car of enhanced seating level who are not enjoying to drive sporty in a first place. Why not name BMW X1 and the like e.g. MSC, midsized sensible cars.

I don't think any prestige brand wants to be seen as sensible Heinz. VW manage that image well enough but sensible doesn't really equate to fashion and it's fashion which pushes prestige sales, as we know.

Car manufacturers seem to have a Leming type mentality. They all strive to produce vehicles to match the mix that others have. If they don’t it seems they think sales are being lost because they are not providing a vehicle to compete with others. They MUST have a vehicle in each niche sector. Development costs are eye wateringly high so there is a cycle of pushing money into sales promotion to cover these costs and try to get profits. It can be a vicious circle until the plug (no pun intended) is pulled. Basic platforms are usually designed to be used for several models...as the CX Morgan platform does so some cost savings there.
In striving to generate sales in car tech increases as enticements to buy. Do we REALLY need them all? Heavy 4x4 systems that are unnecessary,Electrically adjusting seats, heated seats, electric windows, wing mirrors, overly complex “infotainment” to name a few.
Batteries add huge weight to EV’s yet they still pile on added tech that adds more weight. This increases costs and affects economy and performance.
EV variants of cars are significantly more expensive than ICE variants so private buyers have longer payback times versus ICE variants.
If EV’s are the route for cities, short journeys then why not produce a simple, basic spec not loaded with tech and toys? If anyone NEEDS extras then add on packages could be bought.
Until the car industry can free itself from fashion trends then they will simply continue to pander to fashion based competition. Unfortunately the public are increasingly moving along with fashion envy and badge snobbery, often funded by PCP plans to encourage spending.
Me? The everyday car fills a function. Currently a Kia Sportage as it fits the needs very well. If the EV variants were cheaper then I’d be happy to go that route as the cashflow over ownership time would be closer to the ICE variants. I went diesel when my commute mileage was high and it was economically sensible. When I stopped commuting I reverted to petrol as that was the economic sensible option.

There is a first drive report of the Audi eTtron Fastback in Autocar this week.
About the size of most SUVs it weighs in at 2.6 tonnes, including its 750kg battery.
Yet its range is varely 200 miles.
They like it, but question its real efficiency, which at normal re-charging point prices, they estimate to be the same as a 40mpg...
I really don't get it.

Like DW, I don't like driving large, high riding cars. I've driven about 750,000 miles since I was 18, in the EU, across western Europe, in North America and one one, never to be forgotten trip, in India.
The vehicles ranged from 7.5 tonne horse boxes, many, many cars, most rented, and as well as the cars we owned, a variety of motorbikes. All of those I've enjoyed driving were small, low and quite quick.
Now I'm retired the Plus 8 fits the bill, other than it is strictly 2 seats and has minimal carrying capacity, even so it is used as a daily drive whenever possible. Driving it makes me smile. .
The Mercedes C Class estate is about as large a vehicle I want to drive: if we didn't have a horse and need the carrying space for horse stuff, much as I like the driving car I'd probably get something smaller..but I do like the excessive engine, even if it is no more efficient (inefficient?) than the Plus 8
As has been said in another post, if you need to carry a large load, rent something.

Drive what you enjoy, not what you think you should.