Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Sustainability in car design

I would doubt your use of the word "normal".

Either way, and back to the original question, the definition of kinetic energy depends on the mass of the body concerned. For a given speed, twice the ,ass requires twice the energy and therefore twice the fuel used. So the bloat of the drug dealer SUV is an environmental disaster even before its used for a half mile school run.

I have had a long line of drug dealer wagons, most have been default fitted with the black window tint when I have purchased them. I like to have the rear blacked out simply because I do carry some expensive computer equipment quite often and want to take as many precautions as possible protecting it and my N.C.B.

I do agree with you comment re visibility, that also applies when they are behind you (just like white vans etc) as you find you cannot so easily see bikes/blue lights and other filtering activities.

I guess we could coin a new issue Howard, E=SUV2 (cannot find the raised 2 for squared) on impact.

The fact remains that most SUVs around us are driven by young women alone.

On the school run the SUV outnumbers conventional cars.

So fashion trumps what? Common sense? The environment? Whatever.

A good cross section of experiences and discussion.
If I can simplify things without too much controversy then here goes.
Why does someone buy a certain car?
Pure functionality......based on analysing the use it will be put to.
Fashion......following the herd to “fit in” or portray a lifestyle.
Fun......a toy to enjoy.
Affordability.......getting, keeping on the road, running costs, ability to own multiple cars to cover needs.
There will also be a combination of these governing the choice of manufacturer, deals, personal views.
Marketing is a huge budget. Last weekend I heard Toto Wolf say the Mercedes budget was 4.5 billion utilising the sporty image from F1. I think this includes the cost of F1 (300m a year?). Correct me if I am wrong! I remember the marketing from my days in the cigar industry. Hamlet, Mannikin......big budgets to create an image with fun. I mean big too. Blind testing showed our cigars were less liked for smoking but the advertising moved them up in preference.
Buy a Morgan....you buy into a lifestyle. No good for a family day out but you get another people carrier or similar for that.
High mileage commute? Diesel ( unless it creates extra eco costs).
So, why do I own a Morgan?
Enjoyment from the driving experience plus the social aspects. I nearly built a Caterham but the Morgan fills the void in a friendlier way that includes . She called a Caterham a motorised coffin. The Morgan is acceptable. A win win situation.

I never had the guts to buy a Caterham, but I still have an itch.

Likewise the Lotus Elan.

More interesting numbers:

Jaguar XF 2.5d with 240hp AWD - Length 4.954 mm - Width 1.982 mm - Height 1.457 mm - Weight 1.808 kg - Official consumption (mix) 5,7-5,9 l/100km = 49,6-47,8 mpg - Emissions 151-155 g/km of CO2

Jaguar F-Pace 2.5d with 240hp AWD - Length 4.731 mm - Width 2.071 mm - Height 1.666 mm - Weight 1.880 kg - Official consumption (mix) 6,3-6,5 l/100km = 44,8-43,5 mpg - Emissions 166-171 g/km of CO2

Numbers' conclusions: the SUV, compared to the sedan:
223mm shorter (-4,5%)
89 mm wider (+4,5%)
209 mm taller (+14,3%)
72 kg heavier (+4%)
0,6 l/100km = 4,8 mpg more “greedy” (+10,5%)
15 g/km of CO2 (+9,9%) more contaminant

My doubt is where do you get your information saying the SUV is twice the mass than the corresponding sedan? Because numbers say it's shorter (easier to park?) and it weights just 72 kg more than the sedan. This means that, as pointed out by DaveW, if SUVs are driven by only a young woman, and you drive your sedan with two people inside, you probably weight more than this "massive", "huge", "monstruous" SUV...

I understand you don't like SUVs and you have your reasons, but numbers tell that some of these points you mention (size weight, consumption) are not double at all, but a discrete "below" 10% at least with the example given (I won't do this exercise with other brands / models, as I know they are very high chances they will be too similar)

It is conceivable that a reasonable percentage of the population just aren't interested in driving round like their hair is on fire, so they just do not give monkeys about a cars handling, aerodynamics or weight saving.

They may just want an SUV as it offers

Good ride comfort
Easy Ingress / Egress - particularly lifting little kids in and out
Good drivers visibility - makes it easy to see the extremities
Good rear seat passenger visibility - as it stops kids throwing up

If 91% of privately owned cars are being funded by PCP's they may also go for the cheaper option which is often the SUV as it has better residuals, presumably as more people want them, so they are easier to shift to the second owner.

The world is thankfully full of different people living different lives with different priorities, so one persons view of common sense is not necessarily the same as someone else who may just be trying to juggle a busy life of a full time job whilst trying to look after kids and ageing parents and their car is just a tool for doing a job.

No no this is the twitter generation, they want it all their own way now and with added Unicorn

Yes a fair point on the PCP and manufacturer value etc.

Added unicorn?
Please explain.......

PeterJ....you need to expand your view on life today......
We are in a media based bullshit era where expectations and entitlement rule.
Wikipedia and google provide answers to evrything you need to know plus stuff you don’t.