I hear the iMMD system is quite good (as a half-way house!) but I've only driven the HSD RAV4.

Perhaps my expectations of such unwieldy buses are a bit managed, but I thought it was quite good as long as you try to not let the ICE thrash itself. Cruisin' around town on the accumulator is very civilised.

 

i am thinking both

The HRV will suit her rather industrial (ab)use of a car, the boot is massive and demonstrates to Nissan how to do packaging so it will fit bikes in the back, wheels off, and she can trot around in the slightly lofty position which takes her fancy. it was anodyne enough, far better than the nissan, lighter and better handling, no clunking, red hot brakes

the turbo is quite new so will suffer catastrophic depreciation and given i will avoid driving it the diseasel will suffice, maybe chipped.. i dont want to pay £30k for a luke warm mini suv only for the cat's mother to kerb the wheels, never ever ever ever ever clean it inside or out and chuck a muddy mountain bike in the back while jnr kicks the back of the seats

So the e will replace gas guzzler if it's good, the two S2s will stay, one as a summer only car wrapped in cotton wool, the other as the toy.. saves me buying a FartBlood

 

she wants to dedicate no effort to this endeavour so i thought simple, proven, was best.. maybe i'll look at that CHR.. i want to steer to smaller SUVs

 

an interesting if imperfect test of a few of the range tanks


worst was a Merc, doing 75pc of its claimed range, best a Kia at 90pc of its claimed range

so if the e sits in the middle, for the slower one, 80pc of 136.. 108 miles

makes my BM look tidy at c260 miles range

 

What a fucking freak show that image is.

Only the Ian Paice looks presentable.

Anyway, it largely depends how much hidden reserve the mfr. has included by oversizing the accumulators.

Probably not a problem for the Ebeneezer Goode as a little run-around. But for those YMCA-style Macho-mobiles, a cancer engine remains the only sensible powertrain.

 

i hate them all Nick.. the Jag looks awful from the back, like an old Megane arse.. i mean RS

it demonstrates the futility of luggin around a metric ton of battery. ironic the two cheapest cars did the best but owning a teslaaaah seems an odd prop to me

none of them should be towed which seems hard to swallow haha

 

Ian is rather wide & bulky from the rear.

But as far as Slits' Unwieldy Vehicles go, I can tolerate the more feminine looks of that and the Porsches; all the others look egregious and all the bleedin' same. I really struggle to identify what SUV is in the way, these days.

There can be no efficiency when a vehicle has the aero of the Cutty Sark and the mass of the USS Enterprise.

Hence why the cheapos are the only ones that make any vague sense. But don't look at the Tesla too closely - the inside is laughable.

 

the Tesla 3 is pretty hideous but the claimed 1600kg is right at the low end for these things and same ballpark weight as my 3 series

it doesnt appeal to me but they do seem to have the battery tech nailed. The S has better proportions and i'd argue is better full stop. the X is too big for uk roads. I dont see any being a sales success here but they are selling as many cars as Honda i think (not many )

the Kia is only 100kg more so also good. the e-tron weighs 2.5t and the Jag is much lighter but still over 2t.. that arse is just wrong and it screams fat chic to me

 

Like the oddly high roof on the Maybe-Tesla-does-the-Astra(o), it's an aero device, which is perhaps forgivable.

The sheer size/mass of the damn thing isn't.

Makes me hanker after a 323F with the tiny V6...same shape; better size.

 

ooh.. it didnt like my emoji

years ago i used one of those mazdas to pass MOT emissions on a 20XE Pauxhall

ideal for little miss Thunberg that.. plus purrs like a kitten