Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

What a lot of nonsense. This really is media hype for the gullible.

Very mild, my immediate response was FOAD.

Also a Land Rover owner/driver, it doesn't guzzle gas (its diesel...). I
get over 30mpg on long runs and the average over 2.5 years is a shade over
29mpg. The car it replaced (a Mondeo) gave an average of 34mpg.

It is the pattern of use which matters,

I do about 15,000 miles a year and don't change cars every year or three.
I keep 'em until they wear out or get broken. The Mondeo got broken, at
near 10 years old. the car before it wore out (or rather the body work
gave up) again not far short of 10 years old. I fully intend to run this
Land Rover until it seriously breaks or is worn out.

Most of the environmental cost of a vehicle is in manufacture and disposal
not actually using it. This is my 5th vehicle in 30 years of driving. I
bet there are many out there who would have got through 10 to 30 vehicles
in that time.

As for not the direct and irrefutable link between 4x4 ownership and being
utterly selfish. It's such a daft statement it doesn't stand up to any
scrutiny and says much more about the gullable, media led, blinkered view
of the author than anything else.


Agree. My Touran is not technically a 4x4, but it sure fits the media
profile of one (7-seater, sometimes full of kids + their stuff, sometimes
just me or the missus). And guess what, it reliably does 45-50mpg, indeed
upto 53 if driven "carefully" on a decent journey.

Far more efficient than my other car, which is a knackered old Daewoo Lanos
and manages typical 30-something mpg.

I also suspect my Touran will last a good deal longer than the Daewoo, one
being a cheapie runaround, and the other being made by a semi-decent german
manufacturer.

Which would the media prefer I ran 2 of - the wrong one I would think.

Cheers

Tim