Not if the Co2 argument is to be beleived. Emmissions on BMW 4x4s are significantly less than most sports cars, the S2k is very high for its CC. So again whos causing more problems Mrs Jones in here 4x4 taking here 2.5 kids to school or Mr Jones in his s2k alone? Most Women who use the 4x4 for a school run have more than one child so occupancy argument is not really valid.

 

Does anyone believe the CO2 argument?

This thread was about 4x4s attracting high levels of tax, so either they do, or they don't?

Some CO2 comparisions:
X5 30d - 217g/km
5 estate 30d - 180g/km

Q7: 234g/km
A6 Avant - 190g/km

So the 4x4s are way more polluting

Some further comparisions including current sports cars - using an old S2000 is a little unfair

X5: 217 - 325 g/km
Z4: 192 - 219g/km

Q7: 234 - 317g/km
TT: 139 - 247g/km

Cayenne: 244 - 361 g/km
911: 225 - 328g/km
Boxter (S) - 214 - 262g/km

 

Most people only have 1 car.
So you buy the car that does the most of the things you need a car to do.

Sure, you might spend most days taking just 1 or 2 people around Suburbia.
But if you need to occasionally take 5 adults and luggage up to the lake district then you consider that when you buy a car.
If you need to bounce over 23 speedbumps every day, you might want some bigger suspension.
If you sometimes need to put 2 extra kids in the boot, and want 5 star crash rating and sometimes want to fold the seats flat to carry antique chairs to Norwich or 10 boxes of documents to London then you look for something with space.
If you remember the floods last year, and the snow this year then you might want something higher. Especially if it’s the same price and running costs as a ‘normal’ car.

Sure, in a perfect world everyone would have a smart car for the summer school run and then have a spare range rover in the garage for the grown-up trip to Glenshee in December. But that’s not going to happen.

 

Not on the South East they don't.

2 or 3 is the norm in my town (I live at the cheap end).

 

We have 4, although one isn't road legal

 

I said most people, not most houses.

2 or 3 cars per household is normal.
His, hers, and kids.

And if you have 2 cars it makes sense to have 1 fun car and 1 practical car.. . and you don't get much more practical than a 4x4.

if three then maybe 1 4x4, one sports car and one humdrum 4 door hatcback for taking to tescos or leaving in the cinema carpark.

 

Why is a 4x4 more practical than an estate car for anything other than off roading?

 

I wasn't suggesting an occupancy argument.

I was suggesting a "space on the road" argument if anything, a consideration for other road users argument

 

A 4x4 offers no real practical advantage over an estate car other than its 4 wheel drive, its ground clearance and better vision.

I think our road tax is £285 so not really.

 

I guess you’d need to compare beaters with beaters and prestige with prestige.

My 4x4 is a beater. There aren’t many estate cars than can collect a tonne of cement from the builders merchants without several trips or broken suspension.
There are many estate cars that have the ground clearance to drive safely in 6” of mud when I go to field archery.


For prestige cars the serious suspension isn’t as important.
But, I’ve always found prestige 4x4 to be a lot more comfortable then the equivalent estate.
I’d rather be in the back seats of a 5 year old Range Rover than the back of a 5 year old 5 series estate – and they cost about the same to buy and run.


Also, whether it’s a beater or prestige, it’s nice to have the option of putting the car in 4wd if the conditions are hazardous.
Anything from an inch of standing water on the motorway through to muddy wet A roads and up to 6” of snow.


So, in short.
4x4s are better for crappy weather, for carrying lots of crap, and for looking spiffy.