Member Since: 02 Mar 2006
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 703
It does not take long to dispel all the myths about 4X4's- but it's hard for some people see the purpose of running a D3 in London. I would run one there - for crash protection purposes, as there are lot's of other 4X4's on the road and being crashed into by one of them in a smart car is not a great option for the smart car driver. 50/50 in a hard smash as to wheather the smart car driver is also decappitated, as the 4x4 rides over the smart & removes the roof & pillars etc. It really is a road war in urban areas, and a 4x4 is the safest option.
6th Mar 2006 9:10 pm
zig
Member Since: 09 Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 619
The bottom line is that a Discovery is not significantly different in terms of fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions than the say likes of a Mini Cooper S according to the Vehicle Certification Agency. This is not taking account of the fact that the Discovery has 7 seats and the Mini only has 4.
However, the message put across by the media and certain politicians is large equals bad small equals good. But the facts do not back this up. They will perhaps use the figures for petrol 4.4 V8 Discovery with 13.5 mpg and 354 g/km CO2 to justify their case, but there must be very few of these sold due to the high fuel consumption, the fact that they are £4000 more expensive and the projected residual prices.
The real culprits in terms of emissions and fuel consumption are the 2 seat high performance sports cars with around 10 mpg and over 400 g/km CO2. However no one seems to be picking up on this fact.
6th Mar 2006 9:34 pm
Gareth Site Moderator
Member Since: 07 Dec 2004
Location: Bramhall
Posts: 26702
Interesting discussion chaps. My own view is one of total disgust at the way a pillar of British media can deliberately try to open up a divisive debate by headlining the article Budget could hold a shock for 4x4 drivers. When the content of the article is actually a proposal to marginally increase road tax for thirstier vehicles in general.
6th Mar 2006 11:14 pm
zig
Member Since: 09 Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 619
Agreed, it will affect more than 4x4 drivers, but that is the way it is being justified.
6th Mar 2006 11:26 pm
LT
Member Since: 31 Dec 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 23369
This topic always amuses me. I own several cars inc.a Smart, which is actually incredibly strong, anyone remember Fifth Gear showing one smashing into a an S class at 60 mph, it's doors still opened & closed!
I had also owned 5.7 V8 engined HSV's since 2000. My last Supercharged one was written off in Dec.
Nobody ever gave me any "Green" based grief for driving the HSV. More to the point though, nobody gives me grief for driving my Saab 9-5 Aero est. This is interesting, as the Saab's urban fuel consumption is approx. 25 mpg, very similar to that of the diesel D3. The D3 is also only approx. 2cm longer than the Saab & not massively wider.
However, just mentioning the fact that I'm considering buying a D3, has resulted in several negative comments from ill-informed people. One person even said "oh, one of those killing machines".
It's sad how the press & the anti-car brigade has brain washed the ignorant into thinking that all 4x4's are the devils spawn!
7th Mar 2006 12:54 am
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
well said LT.
Maybe we should post some real facts to the press... oh wait, they couldn't give a toss as it won't sell papers !
-s
7th Mar 2006 3:49 am
Andy4467
Member Since: 25 Nov 2005
Location: Kent - England
Posts: 203
I thought we allready paid more in tax than the average car driver. Fuel tax - cars that use more of it per mile contribute more in tax - simple!!!!!
Approximate calculation for 100 miles:
BMW320D = 42 mpg(on board computer) = 2.38 gallons/10.82 ltrs
D3 = 24 MPG(on board computer) = 4.17 gallons/18.96 ltrs
at 95 ponce! per litre and Fuel tax (year 2000) at 72.3%
BMW = £10.28 on fuel of which £7.43 is tax.
D3 = £18.01 on fuel of which £13.02 is tax.
Actually another 40 quid a year road tax is a drop is the ocean as I'll buy approximately 2000 ltrs this year for the D3 which is £1373.7 in fuel duty and VAT. And a further 2700 ltrs/year (BMW) which is £1858.58 in duty and VAT.
Ho Hum Some say the glass is half full. Others that it is half empty. I say 'Are you drinking that?"
Cairns Blue, Ebony Leather, SE
BMW 320d M sport
7th Mar 2006 11:51 am
randalls
Member Since: 02 Mar 2006
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 703
Smart vs Disco
'The impact regions (arrangement of the crash box and impact zone) of the smart match those of the other vehicle in the accident, i. e. the smart is zone compatible. Furthermore, the smart has consciously not been designed as a super lightweight but instead has enormous strength in the most important places. By this means the smart is also deformation compatible, i. e. the vehicles in a collision can activate each other’s protection zones.' http://www.smartcarsdirect.co.uk/htmlpages...tests.html
So given that the disco 3 bonnet impact point going to be feet higher than a Smarts - particularly in a side impact - the mass of the D3's bonnet point is probably going to be ploughing through the Smarts driver/passenger window points, probably the area of least protection. The Smart car also seems (according to this article) to be relying on the other vehicle deforming in a crash - A D2 wont, a D3 frame has supposedly more crumple zone to protect other cars & the chassis has some buckle points in it to reduce the full effect of a solid ram going into another vehicle. I still wouldnt fancy my chances in a Smart though.
7th Mar 2006 12:44 pm
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
The bumper on the D3 is designed and positioned as such to strike far lower down than the bonnet as you suggest.
Its has to be in order to comply with crash regs etc.
This is why it has such a low 'chin' and should be far more 'compatible' than many vans, trucks. large saloons and other 4x4's
If a manufacturer like Smart decides to build a car as small as it has, it cannot be expected that all other manufacturers build their vehicles to be perfectly crash compatible with it. Designers have to go for an average to suit most side impact protection.
-s
7th Mar 2006 12:57 pm
randalls
Member Since: 02 Mar 2006
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 703
the pictures of the smart crash tests I saw - had the side ram going squarely into the main mass of the smarts door. I am suggesting that this may not happen in reality particularly with a 4x4, but I take your point about the D3- you notice I also mentioned a D2 which has much less accident compatibility built into it. In the real world a driver cant actually choose what car is going to be impacting into their smart & given there are many more 1000's of D2's around than 3's its statisically more likely a D2 will be impacting into a smart. With the full ram effect of the solid D2 chassis in a side impact going into and/or above the door area I dont see how the smart car is going to withstand this in a high speed sidways impact.
7th Mar 2006 1:25 pm
SN
Member Since: 03 Jan 2006
Location: Romiley
Posts: 13710
The same kind of thread (about SMART cars) came up on a previous forum I was a member of. Here's an indication of what happens when of these things hit anything of any size or have an accident...
Oops how did that last one get in there? Easy mistake Steve N | 21MY Defender | 08MY Discovery 3 (history) | 06MY Discovery 3 (ancient history)
7th Mar 2006 1:41 pm
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
They are just too small... should be labelled as invalid or child carriages
A ford Fiesta would wipe a Smart out too.
On Fifth Gear they kind of proved how strong the Smart was and it was shown bouncing around after impact like a ball... car was in good shape but it was doubtful that the occupants would have survived due to the violent shaking they would have had.
Due to both the strength and its ball like shape.
-s
7th Mar 2006 2:18 pm
randalls
Member Since: 02 Mar 2006
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 703
yep well talking of light cars hitting heavier objects I have seen 2 Ford Ka's flipped in the last 3 months, one on a motorway where it glanced another car side on & immediately flipped, the second last week where one hit a bridge on a tight bend and was flipped straight over & rolled down into a ditch at the side of a steep hill. somehow trying to flip 2.7 tonnes with DSC & ARM seems like it might be much more difficult to achieve.
7th Mar 2006 2:25 pm
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
So its true then....
A large 4x4 is safer for the occupants than a small car ?
Just wanted to check.
-s
7th Mar 2006 2:29 pm
randalls
Member Since: 02 Mar 2006
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 703
I think they are now (LR) the chassis on the D3 for instance has been made wider - more stable and with DSC & ARM to mittigate roll effects. as far as I know some 4x4's will roll easily at speed due the the high centres of gravity - Land Rover seem to have taken this aspect of safety very seriously in their recent designs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
