In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
The extra CO2 a large 4X4 produces over a similar passenger
capacity car with the same performance probably


ESPACE 3.0 dCi

CO2 EMISSIONS: 252g/km
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (urban) 21.2mpg/ (extra urban) 38.3mpg/ (combined)
29.8mpg

Top speed 130mph. 0-60 10.4sec. 0-100 31.6sec. 50-70 6.0sec. MPG 19
overall 43 test route


Land Rover Discovery3 2.7 V6 TD range
CO2 EMISSIONS: 249 g/km
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (urban) 24.5mpg / (extra urban) 34.5mpg / (combined)
30.0mpg

Top speed 109mph. 0-60 12.2sec. 0-100 42.8sec. 50-70 13sec. MPG 17
overall. 24 test route.

Forgetting acceleration and top speed which are unimportant to many, the
key figure is the 50/70 mph time for overtaking. The Disco takes more than
twice as long as the Espace due to its excessive weight. (and all tests
have said it's excessive)

The official fuel consumption figures are known by all who actually drive
to be a bit of a joke. Autocar - where these figures come from - take all
their test cars over a standard route which is designed to be more
representative of most urban/suburban driving.

Their overall result includes performance testing on a track so is
unlikely to be representative of daily use.

On the touring route, the Espace managed 43 mpg, the Disco 24.

Which proves my argument that if you take a car type vehicle with the same
performance as a 4X4 you'll save both the planet and mucho money on fuel.
Just comparing similar sized engines in the two makes no sense to anyone
with half a brain cell, since the on road performance is chalk and cheese.
But ruins your argument further since the smaller engined car with the
same performance as the 4X4 will be even more economical and produce less
CO2.

So you're guessing. (You're wrong, too.)

No I'm not. Compare the figures for the much slower BMW X5 to a BMW 5
series touring fitted with the same engine.

Again with the BMW fixation.

Really? I was simply doing the comparison since they are available with
identical engines - rather than your obvious ploy of using different
makes, one of which may have a state of the art engine design, and one
possibly due for replacement shortly. And the Ford V-6 in the Disco *is* a
recent design.

Or any other you want to make.

4x4s are heavy and have much more friction in their drive train. Which
makes a big difference to their town fuel consumption. And the poor
aerodynamics make them use more fuel at speed.

Sorry Dave, but if you're going to get all accurate and
use facts, then you probably won't get an answer.

He'll have to start providing facts instead of hand waving.

I'm afraid you're not making much of a fist of it.

And again, what does my (or anyone else's) choice of vehicle have to do
with *you*? Would you care to describe your car so that I can tell you
that you don't need it and would be best served by Shank's pony?

I'm not telling anybody to walk. Might help and if tried to understand
what's written before jumping to conclusions.

Although walking or cycling to school would seem a good idea for many
kids, given the current figures on obesity in youngsters.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.