Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Sustainability in car design

Wow, 750kg battery. That’s nearly as much as a Morgan

Drive what you enjoy......
Many “enjoy” falling into the fashion roundabout. They buy a car that fits them into a look they desire. Chelsea Tractors are a prime example. This is a big factor in manufacturers thinking and marketing. Take a good 4x4 , glam it up, advertise it as a lifestyle accessory, charge a lot more.
Vanity costs ££££££££

[quote=Hawki]Wow, 750kg battery. That’s nearly as much as a Morgan[/quote

Add in the multitude of extras, many being bling and marketing ploys, and the weight goes even higher.
It amazes me that manufacturers fatten up their cars while striving to reduce emissions. It adds to the spiralling cost of cars. No spare wheel? No, sir, it takes up space and adds weight. Ah! You want the top of the range with all the bells and whistles....we have also filled the car with batteries to reduce luggage space that helps keep the car lighter. Good for emissions, sir. We are an eco friendly manufacturer!
The Fast Show effect.....”suits you, sir”

It is also funny to watch how the recent emissions changes have had such a sudden effect on engine sizes and gearing.

Where the weight gain went on years back the engine size went up, 2L was becoming the normal. Then 2L turbo to get the torque especially with Diesel. Larger cars got 3L-V6 and 4L-V8 to give the comfort and legs.

Now you are looking at 2.0L turbo in the large cars and 1.0-IL3T and 1.5-IL4T in even quite large cars. At the same time the use of autoboxes means the gearing has climbed higher and higher to allow economy/emissions to be optimised. I have seen some of the car weights start to come back down again as they work to recover the emissions balance across the fleets. It also means that where they use to have a GTi/R/N model on all cars they are holding back on many of these as it upsets the balance.

The new 2020 Skoda Superb is 1463kg and that is quite a large car so things do seem to be getting better with the pressure on emissions.

The ongoing problem is that far too many cars are made and sold to people who can't really afford to buy.

And loaded with bells and whistles to pull in the punters.

None of this is planet saving.

New Nissan Juke are fitted with plastic Tail Gate.

It is worth comment that the "price" of a car is first shown as the monthly PCP, not the on the road cost.
PCP finances the depreciation, nothing more, so the lower the depreciation projection the more "affordable" the monthly payment.
The result is people driving cars that they could never afford on a 3 or 4 year HP agreement.

Agree, nothing about modern car design and construction is "planet saving".
Ironically COVID mad have done more to reduce pollution than any policy or program.

Well, as many of you said, it's a matter of likes and dislikes, but criticising the SUVs because they are "huge" and "heavy" is not that fair and not that correct...

The SUV has many big advantages compared to the sedan they derivate from: such as:
- much larger boot (trunk) and more spacious inside.
- seats at higher position meaning that entry / exit the car is so much easier (fun to see that the new A8 has a "lifting" system to help entrying / exiting...). Still not my case, but when you're over a certain age and have hip problems or any other kind of...
- higher driving position gives you a little better vision on the road as you can see "over" and not "through" most of the cars the cars in front
- if it's a SUV with 4x4 (they were "born" with the 4x4 trasnmission in mind) this means better grip in all conditions

About sizes, those who believe I'm wrong, please have a look at the dimensions of these few examples:
a) Jaguar XF is 4.954 mm long and has a boot of 415 dm3 - The F-Pace, its corresponding SUV, is shorter with 4.746 mm length, but 650 dm3 boot.
b) Mercedes E class is 4.935 mm long and has a boot of 540 dm3. The GLE is 4.924 mm long (little bit shorter) and has 630 dm3 boot.
c) BMW 3 series is 4.709 mm long and has 375 dm3 boot. The X3 is 4.708 mm long and a boot of 450 dm3.
d) Audi A4 is 4.762 mm long and 460 dm3 boot. The Q5 is 4.682 mm long and 550 dm3 boot.

True is that the SUV is always a little (very few mm) wider than the sedan, but as you see, they are the same length or even shorter! So NO: the SUV are not "huge" cars. Just taller. Numbers say so, not me.

True is that they are usually heavier (with 4x4 versions this is more notorious), and their aerodynamics are worse, meaning they consume more fuel. Disadvantage here. But if you choose a big engine, the difference with the sedan is not so big.

About stability, I'm sorry to disagree again.... the SUV is clearly higher, but average no more than 200 mm than the sedan. This doesn't mean that the center of gravity is also 200 mm higher. It might be less than 100 mm higher. And this has not a terrible effect on the stability of the vehicle. Sometimes the SUV, with a 4x4 transmission, has the center of gravity as lower as the 2 wheel drive sedan...

My personal conslusions: based on the numbers and my personal experience:
- Are the SUV ridiculous large vehicles compared to the sedan? NO, they can be even shorter in general. So parking is not the issue.
- Are they more spacious inside? YES.
- Is it easier to enter / exit the SUV than a sedan? YES.
- Is the drive of an SUV more challenging because a poorer stability due to a much higher center of gravity? NO. And also YES but not because of the center of gravity but because of the weight.

I like almost every type of car (but the Fiat Multipla LOL!) and after four years driving an F-Pace and using it to tow a trailer with my M3W inside, I can tell you that there are little chances I come back to a sedan.

Another different story is if you're just two, and don't need 4x4 or large boot nor tow a trailer... then the SUV might not be really your car. However, as mentioned here too, there are small SUVs, quite compact and economical, that can be a nice choice too.

One would have thought that the COVID situation world wide must have provided significant opportunities for statistical analysis even if the New Scientist claims that the situation itself is having little impact. Hopefully there will never be another chance to drive such an opportunity by such means so hopefully this opportunity is not being squandered.