I know exactly what they can do mate. and ive seen many get stuck on mud just like that..Wet fields destroy road tyres.
7 seater 4x4 with decent mpg?
- Thread starter DeeJay-Mo
- Start date
I know exactly what they can do mate. and ive seen many get stuck on mud just like that..Wet fields destroy road tyres.
Why would i need to? Ive driven defenders and discoverys (2 and 3) I have a capable 4x4 and a reasonable amount of experience both with road tyres and mud. Landrovers are common as muck round here and flounder as much as anything else with normal road tyres on.
4 minutes in, perfect example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UwOBKSHl-c&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Got some video of it?
Im not saying that landrovers/range rovers arent better than the pseudo 4x4s..im just saying that in mud like the video posted earlier (soaking wet and previously driven in ruts etc), even better 4x4s can have a lot of trouble.
The video in this post is a good example of driving on dry grass
and how bad that bmw is 
you were shocked a 2.5 ton, 7 seater, 4WD, 2.5ltr moving housbrick which could tow a further 3 tons had worse fuel consumption than your golf?
was it an auto as well?
Im not saying that landrovers/range rovers arent better than the pseudo 4x4s..im just saying that in mud like the video posted earlier (soaking wet and previously driven in ruts etc), even better 4x4s can have a lot of trouble.
The video in this post is a good example of driving on dry grass
this is my fave. 4wd is worth nothing if your tyres are ill suited.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5VobNcgRvc
you were shocked a 2.5 ton, 7 seater, 4WD, 2.5ltr moving housbrick which could tow a further 3 tons had worse fuel consumption than your golf?
was it an auto as well?
My thoughts exactly!
Mine is auto, with mud tyres, and does about 25mpg.
Hence I get the train to work.
My thoughts exactly!
Mine is auto, with mud tyres, and does about 25mpg.
Hence I get the train to work.
i had a manual for a couple of years. great car. whats the auto like? is it stoopid, or a good one like in BMW/Audi etc?
It's not bad to be honest. First time I've gone auto. Wouldn't have considered it until a fellow Disco driver told me to at least try one, now I love it. I would however like to upgrade the torque converter to stop it being so revvy. The larger tyres and altered gear ratios are partly to blame for that though.
In summary for a 10 year old big heavy car, it's not bad on road, and excellent off road.
I jumped in the old man's L322 range rover the other day though, now that is a great autobox. Made mine feel old and clunky afterwards.
In summary for a 10 year old big heavy car, it's not bad on road, and excellent off road.
I jumped in the old man's L322 range rover the other day though, now that is a great autobox. Made mine feel old and clunky afterwards.
I'm just shocked people drive them as daily cars
some people need them daily.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 2,192
- Location
- South West
I used my Pathy Daily
Remember that these are just a badge away from a Peugeot 4007 or a Citroen C-Crosser, which you may be able to pick up cheaper
Of the three, the 4007 and Outlander hold their values better than the Citroen. The Crosser tends to be available at slightly reduced prices despite being identical bar a couple of bodywork and badge changes. We've owned a 4007 for about 2 years now and so far its been an excellent car. However fuel wise, it averages 32-36 driven in an unhurried fashion with one eye on the trip computer. The 2.2 HDi engined ones out of the three will knock on the door of 40mpg but only just and only on a long steady run. The wheezy 2.0 VW derived engine fitted to earlier Outlanders only, is best avoided.
For a budget of £7k though, you aren't going to be able to pick up a particularly good example, even a leggy one with lots of miles on it is likely to be very rough around the edges. The interiors of all three of these cars are made of chocolate which scratches and marks if you so much as look at it the wrong way.