living in rural North Yorks, 4 x 4s abound from Q7's to tatty old Landies.
We cannot think of a half decent looking 4 x 4, excepting Audi quattro versions. Thumbs down went to all RRovers, Q7, Q3, Mitsus. Only the X5, LR Defender and Q5 got anywhere near a few points on our beerometer. (or should that be pints). Even all Subarus were deemed ugly, which sadly I have to agree with.
|
I would generally agree with the exception of the Range Rover. Love 'em, and always have. Never been an ugly one, IMHO.
I have never yearned for a 4x4, but my lotto win garage would almost certainly include a Rangie of some description.
|
|
I agree on the X5 and defender, and I quite like the toyota landcruisers. I also liked the landrover 101.
|
In my book, only one cuts the mustard in the looks stakes,
www.peterstoys.com/range-rover-no1.htm
|
Does it really matter what they look like, they're a vehicle designed for a job, the chances are that it needs high ground clearance, massive axle articulation therefore room for the wheels to move in the arches, big tyres on smallish wheels, all inside a basically squared off overall shape, which will have to be robust enough to take the punishment.
It's reliability, durability and capability that counts, not it's prettiness.
|
I suppose this is a splinter from the unusual sightings thread. Discussion of SUVs, all aspects of the things including their appearance, which elicits wall-to-wall vehement condemnation from some - I've never fully understood why - is a guaranteed crowd-pulling rabble rouser here.
I would have a use for a 4wd but not an SUV. There are a couple of old Ferguson tractors here when things are really urgent, but I would quite like a small 4wd. However the only one I would consider actually owning is a Haflinger. Can't afford one, so haven't got one.
I quite like Unimogs but they are too big.
The point I am making is that the appearance of these things is of no interest whatsoever to a rational person. What they are about is function.
|
|
I still don't really want to like mine. It's a bit of a "desperate housewives" choice really. However, secretly, I'm slightly ashamed to admit that I do...Maybe I had a Tonka deprivation issue as a child...
|
At least it's not a Cadillac Escalade Humph.
Now there's an effete-looking monster if you like.
'Buy me!' it bawls hoarsely. 'I've got feet of clay and drink like a fish! The American new wave!'
|
>> I still don't really want to like mine. It's a bit of a "desperate housewives"
>> choice really. However, secretly, I'm slightly ashamed to admit that I do.
Well as you cant see yourself in it, I suppose that's understandable. You have to admit, its the runt of the litter.
|
>> The point I am making is that the appearance of these things is of no
>> interest whatsoever to a rational person. What they are about is function.
I agree, but you could apply the same argument to all types of car, not just 4x4s.
Styling is not rational, but emotional, and emotion plays a part in most vehicle purchasing decisions. If it didn't we'd all drive the cheapest, most functional tool for the job.
|
>> Styling is not rational, but emotional, and emotion plays a part in most vehicle purchasing
>> decisions. If it didn't we'd all drive the cheapest, most functional tool for the job.
>>
Good point.
To take an example. The VW Golf and Scirocco have a huge amount in common mechanically. The Golf would be a far better match for my NEEDS than a Scirocco, but I'd take the Scirocco every time.
Silly, I know. I can't help being drawn to the handsome, but ultimately less useful, car over the more capable (but "plain-and-a-bit-boring-looking") one.
|
Similar to what Londoner says, I could have taken the cheaper Passat (or maybe Passat estate) but I liked the look of the Passat CC more. But if you spec'd up the others to the same spec as the Passat CC GT they actually cost as much or maybe more. Especially the estate.
And that was for the 140PS examples. I'd get more money towards the Passat saloon/estate in 2.0d 140PS guise due to lower emissions. In 170PS guise that advantage went.
Anyone have thoughts on the new Audi Q3?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 01:24
|
4x4s don't lend themselves to good looks, like GB says, more about purpose. Although i guess the argument to that is, why are Ford Transit "Super Sports" and Renaultsport Traffic's so popular?
When we end up discussing 4x4s in the pub, conversation always ends the same way...
... random car conversation ...
"Yeah but it's not as ugly as James' X6 though"
"Yeah why'd you buy the X6 over the X5, what a ******"
"But if he was going to get an X5, he should have just gone for a Range Rover sport"
"Nah, if you were going to get an RRS, you'd just do it properly and buy a Range Rover"
Always ends up at the Range Rover for us. Cracking machines, although only with sensible shoes on.
|
>> why are Ford Transit "Super Sports" so popular?
One of our subbies has just got one of those. Rear light guards, second row of seats, blacked-out windows in the back, towbar. We keep asking him to quote for tarmacking the yard every time he visits...
|
Does it matter? When you're inside it you can't see the outside.
Who looks at the fireplace when they're stoking the fire is an old, crude saying that springs to mind.
|
The physical outline needed for a 4x4 is hardly the best starting point when it comes to looks. Why some have to really make matters worse is beyond me - e.g. Porsche Cayenne, BMW X6.
Even the current Discovery is a dead ringer for a Lego 4x4 model - I'm seriously not sure which came first! But when a vehicles styling is so similar to childrens plastic bricks, you know looks ain't gonna feature!
Only the Defender and pre-bling facelift Range Rover with sensible tyres has anything in the looks department, but from different starting points.
|
A BMW X6 went past me the other day and I was amazed how ugly it was. I'm neither for nor against 4x4s in general but this monstrosity just shouted 'footballers wives'
It was perhaps the most grotesque lump of motoring I've seen in my life. At least the RR has a pleasing shape to it, and the Freelander 2 is good looking in a chunky way.
|
>> Freelander 2
Good shout, the FL2 is good looking, although some colours are less flattering than others to my eye.
I really want to like the metallic red and the golden orange ones but somehow they're not 100%. I think i'd still go for the metallic red if i was buying one though.
|
I know what you mean about the mettallic red, lovley when its gleaming but may be a bit too much colour ! Orange ones are gross, I have the FL2 in Stornoway grey so a little bit more subtle.
As for the ugliest the Porsche Cayeene and the BMW X6 has to be top of the class apart from the old Dacia Dusters !
|
|
I had a loan of a FL2 in a sort of 'gunmetal grey' - perhaps it was Stornoway. It did look nice though, shame I had to give it back!
|
Funnily enough, I've been eyeing up this critter for the last few days ~
tinyurl.com/6884s8k Autotrader
|
|
Same Road Tax as a Phaeton W12. Oof.
|
>>Same Road Tax as a Phaeton W12. Oof.<<
Is it? - I hadn't checked that yet, we'll knock that idea on the head then :)
|
>>298g CO2. Wowser<<
To be quite honest Al, I've never really understood these ratings, being form the old skool, like,
but I understand money alright, and that most 4x4's are more expensive, tax wise, than a 'sensible' car :)
|
Well it's not always the case. Some 4x4s emit under 200g, but these are usually diesels I would imagine.
The model you selected there will set you back over 400 notes a year on road tax. Be very wary of petrol 4x4s!
Although that's going byAutotraders rating of this car as Group M for road tax. Parkers says it's group K, which is about half that. Which one is correct? No wonder we're confused about road tax costs.
|
>> Be very wary of petrol 4x4s!
Bah. Knock £800 off the purchase price and call it quits :-)
|
>>Be very wary of petrol 4x4s!<<
A senior moment! - I thought it was an oil burner :-)
Gotta be a TD4.
|
>>Who looks at the fireplace when they're stoking the fire is an old, crude saying that springs to mind<<
You been on the sherbet again b/t :-D
|
|
The first Cayenne didn't look all that ugly to me. But I was following a new one the other day and its bum had not only got bigger, it had got uglier too. Not that that would bother a rational person who thought they needed one.
|
>> Not that that would bother a rational person who thought they needed
>> one.
BZZZZT. fffft.
Blew a fuse trying to work that one out. ;-)
|
Instead of the Phaeton Alanovic...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_LM002
That'd be ideal for carting the sprogs to school :-)
3.5mpg seems a bit thirsty, although the large tank (£396 for a tank of fuel just now) should make that less of an inconvenience...
|
|
Thinking rationally, I'd need the estate version. I do have a Jack Russell, after all.
|
How's about this one, do we like the 3 door? ~
tinyurl.com/5tts4ns Autotrader.
|
Still a massive 240g CO2. Autotrader states it's Group L for road tax, £425 a year. Yeeouchie.
My personal tolerance is set at Group K, up to and inc 224g CO2, £245 a year. The latest facelift 3.0TDi Phaeton gets in to this bracket at 224g, and that's the model I'll be looking for in a couple of years time.
|
I wondered if anyone would remember the Lamborghini Cheetah and its production descendants. One of those would be excellent for racing over the desert. I bet Gaddafi's got a couple.
It would have to have the 4-cam V12 though. A pushrod V8 would be boringly hard-wearing and reliable.
|
>>Still a massive 240g CO2.<<
Oh sod it then, I'll go back to the Suzuki SX4 :)
|
>>Wise man.<<
Vulcan logic :)
|
|
Friends bought a V6 Freelander without realising its fuel consumption. It was chronic, and they got shot of it in double quick time without hardly driving it!
|
|
Same thing happened to a friend of mine with a Jeep Cherokee. Desire for status symbols is sharpish tempered when the bills keep on flooding in.
|
Beer in N Yorks. Can't be bad. Reminds me of University reunions in Swaledale.
I think that 4x4s need to look utilitarian, so I'd probably go with a Land Cruiser J40 or similar. I quite like the original Range Rover.
An up to date Land Rover without all the blingy bits looks OK, IMHO.
|
Pub discussion. Ugly 4 x 4's - DP
