Porsche Cayennes

[Muffin`]

4X4 cars were designed for off-road use. Hence why they are massive vehicles with large engines. A Golf is designed as a practical car for every day use. No body doing a commute to work or the school run needs a 4X4. There are plenty of other solutions; estates for example.

Off Road cars came about after WW2 the Range Rover was the started for the "SUV". The RR never proclaimed to be a hard core one job 4x4 at heart but a road going more civilised car with off road capabilities. Can the same not be said for MPVs most of those things now weigh a good two tons?

Like Ken Livingstone said, the people driving 4X4s in urban areas are "idiots."

Ken Livingston says lots of things like "I hate cars If I ever get back into power I will ban them". He really is the definition of an idiot, he has made his class war against the rich quite public. You seem to share his views.

My aunty has a 4.4i X5 as a company car, yet she recently purchased a 1.6 Golf because she thinks the 4X4 is ridiculous. That's an example of someone I would rather have in society.

Seems a bit harsh? You would be rid of people from society who don't share your views? Can I instead suggest a Fascist Party?

 

[Muffin`]

Don't you dare call me ignorant. There is NOTHING to stop a child running out in the middle of the road by accident. Hitting them with an X5 is far more likely to kill them there and then than if they were hit by a Golf.

The fact is kids do run out in to the road and do get hit, if you don't believe this then you should NOT be driving.

Nothing? Like common sense and education of "Don't run out there Timmy"? Do you think the state should intervene in day to day society so people don't get hurt because of their own stupidity? Nanny State party is just starting up...


Kids do indeed run out in the road, but a S-Class, Espace, Bus, Wagon, Van...can all be waiting, but no, it’s those evil 4x4 drivers, with their high prices and their big houses, tax them, tax them all!

 

[Tommy B]

and why should they not buy a 4x4? We can laugh at their poor purchasing choices but why should we ban them? Cant we ban idiots on the internet instead?

The problems they cause other road users vastly surpass the benefit they provide to the owner. Explain to me why it is common knowledge that road rage is usually caused by a scenario involving a 4X4?

I just don't see why people buy them. It's like buying the loudest speakers in the world and then using them as an artistic coffee table.

On a different note, in society people need to be willing to give things up for the general good. We can't all be greedy, selfish idiots who get what we want the whole time. Although that's the way the culture in this country is encouraging us to think.

 

[Tommy B]

Nothing? Like common sense and education of "Don't run out there Timmy"? Do you think the state should intervene in day to day society so people don't get hurt because of their own stupidity? Nanny State party is just starting up...


Kids do indeed run out in the road, but a S-Class, Espace, Bus, Wagon, Van...can all be waiting, but no, it’s those evil 4x4 drivers, with their high prices and their big houses, tax them, tax them all!

You seem to think I'm making a class war here, I'm not. I am not criticising wealth or the upper class in my arguments, only 4X4 drivers. In fact I completely oppose the obsessive-tax-society Labour have set up and I think we are on the acceptable limit of taxation at present. For your information my mum used to drive a Range Rover about 7 years ago and ditched it because she also thought they were ridiculous.

I don't think we should entirely ban 4X4s or tax them (too heavily ) but there should be measures in place to discourage people from purchasing them and if that means the EU are going to have to take drastic action on the manufacturing front then so be it. I just don't see what's wrong with saying you shouldn't own one unless you use it for its purpose.

 

[Muffin`]

I'd disagree. They take up too much road space, they don't fit in some car parking spaces, they are usually overpowered, they usually driven not by function but by status symbol etc

Too much road sapce? How so? Like an Estate car?

Your Golf is overpowered, I mean do you really need a turbo? Do you really need a 1.8?

I just don't understand why people don't buy normal cars

Because its personal taste? It would be a very boring world if we were all the same, not to mention what it would do to the economy. Wnd what is a normal car? Is there set limits? Will the entire range of cars in your perect world exist as 3 types? Hatchback, Estate and Saloon?

Why do they feel the need to have a car that can get up a god damn mountain in urban areas?

Why do people have trainers if they don't exercise?

 

[Muffin`]

You seem to think I'm making a class war here, I'm not. I am not criticising wealth or the upper class in my arguments, only 4X4 drivers.

On a different note, in society people need to be willing to give things up for the general good. We can't all be greedy, selfish idiots who get what we want the whole time. Although that's the way the culture in this country is encouraging us to think.

The problems they cause other road users vastly surpass the benefit they provide to the owner. Explain to me why it is common knowledge that road rage is usually caused by a scenario involving a 4X4?

I thought road rage was caused by guys in BMW's on the outside lane of the M5?

In fact I completely oppose the obsessive-tax-society Labour have set up and I think we are on the acceptable limit of taxation at present. For your information my mum used to drive a Range Rover about 7 years ago and ditched it because she also thought they were ridiculous.

You seem to know a lot of people that bolster your argument, isn't that a nice coincidence?

 

[Tommy B]

There is nothing wrong with a 1.8 T Golf. It is a sensibly sized engine for a sensibly sized car. It gives the driver acceptable fuel economy and performance which is substantial enough to provide driving enjoyment.

It should be accepted by car manufacturers that as a car gets bigger, its performance is going to get worse. With this in mind, I don't see why they have to put such massive engines in to provide sports-car performance. I think people should pick. Do they want a massive, pointless 4X4 which is slow OR a smaller, more sensible car which is fast and efficient.

 

[Tommy B]

You seem to know a lot of people that bolster your argument, isn't that a nice coincidence?

I fully appreciate that you may question my credibility but I can only give you my word, unless you want me to try and dig up some old pictures to prove it

 

[Muffin`]

There is nothing wrong with a 1.8 T Golf. It is a sensibly sized engine for a sensibly sized car. It gives the driver acceptable fuel economy and performance which is substantial enough to provide driving enjoyment.

I don't see why they should have that removed and be forced into something else because of Daily Mail readers *shocker* misunderstanding of what they are. You can't argue that the government intervening and saying "You can't have that" because some people just don't like them.

It should be accepted by car manufacturers that as a car gets bigger, its performance is going to get worse. With this in mind, I don't see why they have to put such massive engines in to provide sports-car performance.

They should accept that a bigger car should be slower, so that means putting the same engine in across the range? If you want something quick, sorry - 'normal' get a Golf, and if you really must have that 'Chelsea tractor' in your moment of 'Kensington mentality' then you must accept that it will only do 15mpg and 0-60time of 3 years because it's been designed for a Golf but has to lug around 2.5t of steel.

They put those 'massive engines' in because, funnily enough, people want them - you seen the engines in the top end German Exec Saloons? Don’t look you might have a stroke.

Sorry but your crack pot ideas will never be implemented onto the market.





Are you going to answer any of my points or is that it just another senseless rant from the misinformed misguided Tommy B?

 

[Matt82]

They are all rich housewife cars. They are all revolting and the RR Sport especially is god awful.

Men should not be seen dead in them unless they are driving them for employment purposes, drug dealing included.

haha love that post. or if they are going off road.
other than that, all they are good for is the school run or the hair dressers (for gay men)

 

[tem07]

Love them.
They are all different, some of them look ugly with the silver skirts on the windows though... But Gemballa do some awesome body conversions for them!
Oh will people shut up about the "Chelsea Tractor" stuff - it's driving me mad.
People don't just have a Cayenne for the school run, talking about the school run, it's safer than a bloody Mini Cooper and you can fit more luggage - name me a car which can have 4 noisy kids and all their bags etc and still manage to keep them safe?

 

[[TW]Fox]

There is nothing wrong with a 1.8 T Golf.

To you, perhaps. Just as to others that there is nothing wrong with a 4.4 Range Rover. You reserve the right to ridicule them for chosing a 4.4 litre Range rover, just as they reserve the right to ridicule you to chose an overhyped sack of junk. It's personal choice and the right to an opinion.

HOWEVER..

You are not advocating that. You actually want them banned becuase you personally don't like them and frankly this is pathetic and this is why I've commented in the way I have.

I don't like 4x4's, I think they are pointless, bought for the wrong reasons, and most of the time a complete waste of time. If somebody asks about them on here I'll always post something sarcastic BUT I'll draw the line at BANNING them or taxing them to oblivion because frankly thats plain wrong.

It gives the driver acceptable fuel economy and performance which is substantial enough to provide driving enjoyment.

LOL, sounds like a translation of a brochure for a Chinese car

It should be accepted by car manufacturers that as a car gets bigger, its performance is going to get worse.

No it shouldn't.

With this in mind, I don't see why they have to put such massive engines in to provide sports-car performance. I think people should pick. Do they want a massive, pointless 4X4 which is slow OR a smaller, more sensible car which is fast and efficient.

Or they should pick what they like.

 

[Steve]

Would you give up your pc, big tv and other luxuries as they are all made in china and cause a hell of a lot more co2 than cars all in.

I drive 4.6 Range Rover because I want something comfy and sturdy for my 4 week old girl to go it, I do circa 1200 miles a year so produce less co2 than you do, I happily fit in parking spaces (I can drop the air suspension if need be) I can see over cars infront of me and parked cars so I can see kids on the pavement that you can't.

Oh and if you have seen my other thread I am getting a 4.5ltr TVR as I like you love acceleration and want something fun. THat will only do a few k a year so even combined my co2 output will be nothing.

I could also go on about how co2 is meaningless, the pointless of the kyoto agreement and debunk global warming but you wouldn't listern. I could also point out that the uk puts out a small percentage of global co2, and that cars a small percentage of that, and 4x4 and performance cars an even smaller percentage again by volume.

I do like the fact that because you say so a 1.8t is fine but nothing else, if you had said that we should all use them for just transport and nothing over 1 litre was truely needed you would have gained far more respect for your argument.

Write i'm off to rape some baby pandas in their eye sockets and give them aids, its what we 4x4 owners do you know

 

[Tommy B]

I have to admit that post did make me laugh.

At the end of the day, it's ok to have 6 litre sports cars because that's what they are designed for. 4X4s are designed to go off road, not to go faster than a speeding bullet. It almost sounds dangerous to me that the Cayenne Turbo S does 0-60 in something like 5 seconds. By all means, it's acceptable to put a large engine in a 4X4 so that it isn't underpowered but I think it's ridiculous that car manufacturers are trying to give them sports car performance.

I admit I have said some silly things about banning them etc, but do you see where I'm coming from. Where does it stop? I'm sure Porsche could probably bring out a 12 litre Cayenne with 800bhp and idiots would still buy it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

At the end of the day, it's ok to have 6 litre sports cars because that's what they are designed for. 4X4s are designed to go off road, not to go faster than a speeding bullet.

Actually the BMW X5 was designed to offer on-road handling you'd expect of a car, in a 'lifestyle' vehicle, to create a new market segment. They didn't sit down at the table and say 'Lets design an offroad car'.

It almost sounds dangerous to me that the Cayenne Turbo S does 0-60 in something like 5 seconds. By all means, it's acceptable to put a large engine in a 4X4 so that it isn't underpowered but I think it's ridiculous that car manufacturers are trying to give them sports car performance.

So lets ban them becuase Tommy doesn't like them.

 

[Tommy B]

Do you or do you not agree that it's ridiculous giving a 4X4 such incredible performance?

Because the Cayenne Turbo would give an M3 a hard time! I mean ffs:

Engine Layout/Number of cylinders 8
Displacement 4,806 cm³
Engine layout/Drive Front / permanent all-wheel drive
Power 368 kW (500 hp)
Max. torque 700 Nm
at rpm 2,250 - 4,500 1/min
Compression ratio 10.5 : 1
Tiptronic S
Performance Top speed 275 km/h (171 mph)
Acceleration from 0 – 100 km/h (0 - 62 mph) 5.1 s
Acceleration from 0 - 160 km/h (0 - 100 mph) 11.4 s
Elasticity (80 - 120 km/h) (50 - 75 mph) 5.5 s

 

[[TW]Fox]

It's no more ridiculous than giving enormous Mercedes saloons or Audi estates the same performance.

 

[Tommy B]

In fact I'm astonished that the Turbo actually does 19mph combined.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So you didn't even know anything about the fuel consumption then?

 

[Muffin`]

In fact I'm astonished that the Turbo actually does 19mph combined.

How does that matter? Are you still of the view that 4x4 are going to cause us to run out of fuel soon?