R50
- Thread starter Wayn0r
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
but id probably just get the a8 £14000 for a 4.2 quattro ...thank you very much! 
RRsport, suprisingly good offroad especially in the deep mud. Not so good at fitting through tight gaps and over mounds with side steps fitted though 
http://omgwtfbbq.co.uk/pic/DSC00374.JPG
http://omgwtfbbq.co.uk/pic/DSC00374.JPG
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,259
I always get told i'm 'special' with my likes and dislikes, but I love this. Prefer the new X5 facelift personally based on looks, but this thing follows a close 2nd.
Watching a film the other night, and noticed a Saab 9-7x SUV, anyone know why it has not been launched over here?
Watching a film the other night, and noticed a Saab 9-7x SUV, anyone know why it has not been launched over here?
Awesome machine, however I think most people are missing the point of this car.
It has not designed, built, or marketed to be the biggest selling VW car ever they are simply giving the potential Tourag owner another option - which is what most prestige manufacturers offer.
I know VW isn't a prestige manufacturer, but with a flagship Tourag there is more prestige than you average Landrover Freelander.
It has not designed, built, or marketed to be the biggest selling VW car ever they are simply giving the potential Tourag owner another option - which is what most prestige manufacturers offer.
I know VW isn't a prestige manufacturer, but with a flagship Tourag there is more prestige than you average Landrover Freelander.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,259
But can it pull a 747
. I would find it very very hard to purchase a Cayenne if I hit the showroom and saw a 911 Turbo But can it pull a 747
You're just being silly here, someone looking to buy a Cayenne will not be in the same market for buying a 911 Turbo.
It's like me going to Tesco to buy a tube of Colgate Toothpaste but a Harpic Toilet Cleaner caught my eye and I had to have it instead.
if I had to get an suv, life or death, it would have to be a range rover sport, it's more of a real 4x4 than all of these tarted up pieces of crap. It's pretty stupid to look for the fastest model and say you want that, nobody in the right mind would be buying an SUV looking for speed and road handling, it should be for function, practicality and the ability to offroad. The germans should stay away from the SUV market, it just doesn't fit.
To me, the reasons I have quoted from you would justify for me and MANY other SUV buyers to get a high end german 4x4. When I have a family i'll probably consider something like a Range Rover, but because I dont go offroad and prefer the looks i'd get the Sport. Dont see the problem with big cars and why people go over the top about them. More often than not its about knowing you have something thats capable, even if you never use the functionality.
to me, having an offroader and keeping it on road is like buying a carrera GT and using it to drive around town to the shops at 20mph. I wouldn't be satisfied with the fact it COULD do over 200mph if it's only doing 20 for its entire life
I like how people buy SUVs thinking they are safe for their kids, then they prove worse in crash tests
I like how people buy SUVs thinking they are safe for their kids, then they prove worse in crash tests
Problem is though, although you like it, you're unlikely to actually fork out all the cash to buy one
and this is what Fox is referring to. The people in a position to be able to fork out all the cash to buy one of these new, are very likely to be put off by the VW badge. Why buy a VW when you can buy a Cayenne Turbo or a Range Rover Sport.
Yes there are no doubt lots of people who think "ohh nice car" the number of people who will actually fork out and buy one will be quite low.
I know what you mean but that could be said with a lot of things in life. Hell I have a wallet which cost £230, dont need it, could have got a £5 market jobby, but I like it and it does what I need it to. Or for a better example, why have a car which goes above 100mph? We all know its insta-ban!
I always thought in real life 4x4s fare well in crashes?
depends
there are 2 issues here. Some 4x4s (namely the Landrover Freelander) appeared quite safe because they were big chunke 4x4s, but were in fact only 3 * euro NCAP rated, reflecting that in fact their designs were very old and they werent terribly safe cars at all.
The 2nd issue is that of euro ncap ratings. Small cars (say the Fiat 500) may well have high euro ncap ratings, but those ratings are based upon collisions with similarly sized objects. You crash against a bigger object, the tables are turned in favour of the bigger car though.
There is a caveat to that though, and thats that the newer cars fare much better against old cars, no matter what size they are. 5th gear crashed a megane into a big old volvo and the megane trashed the volvo caving in the passenger compartment etc.. but leaving the megane drivers unscathed.
But the fact still remains, you might think you're safe in your 5 * fiat 500, but crash into something equally as strong (ie a modern car) and you're always going to come off worst when crashing into something bigger
But i've never known modern 4x4s to be anything but just about the safest thing around (untill you're sandwiched in a 88ft artic sandwich)
I like it. My old V10 was superb - monster torque that surprised more than a few challengers, including someone in a VX220
I prefer the looks and interior space of the Q7 though.
haha
along comes our stereotypical customer. Male, motoring enthusiast, large ammount of capital to spend on a vehicle and a business owner
couldnt be any more VWs target customer for this car any more if spie tryed
and he prefers the Q7 ....
there's also the issues of rollover and the weight making braking take longer
"In 2003, for example, a driver of an SUV was 11% more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than someone in a standard car. One of the key reasons is the extra height of the vehicles, which gives them a higher centre of mavity and makes them more prone to roll over in a collision or even a sharp road manoeuvre."
that said they have been improving on those issues in recent years
"In 2003, for example, a driver of an SUV was 11% more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than someone in a standard car. One of the key reasons is the extra height of the vehicles, which gives them a higher centre of mavity and makes them more prone to roll over in a collision or even a sharp road manoeuvre."
that said they have been improving on those issues in recent years
Whilst I agree with some of the sentiment, once you start down the path of applying logic to a car buying decision, the most of us are on shaky grounds.
For example, how many people on here have fairly quick cars and actually USE the ability of their car on a regular basis. In our days traffic jams and GATSOs, it's pretty rare for myself.
As for the safety of an SUV, I got the impression that whilst some are safe to be in if you have an accident, that by the nature of their increased height of the centre of mavity and generally worse brakes, that they'd be more likely to be in an accident.