Life's A Picnic

Win luxury hampers plus Waitrose vouchers & guidebooks

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Sunday Times

February 18, 2007

The truth about four-wheel drives

'Chelsea tractors' are seen as symbols of wanton environmental destruction. But class hatred, envy and gender are distorting the facts, argues Bryan Appleyard

I was queuing to pay at a motorway service station. Violence was in the air. A small, bald man, a lorry driver, was shouting at a young woman. He seemed to be angry because she and her passenger had laughed at him. He had stopped when she had stopped, specially to shout at her. But after a few tense moments his real grievance became apparent. She was driving a 4x4, a BMW, and, as his articulacy crumbled under the weight of his anger, it became clear what was the real issue: he hated her for her car.

In Richmond owners of 4x4s will soon have to pay £300 a year to park their cars. Ken Livingstone, who thinks drivers of 4x4s in London are "idiots", plans to introduce a special £25 congestion charge. The Church says Jesus wouldn't drive a 4x4. The Alliance against Urban 4x4s continues its campaign of so-called "subvertising" — sticking fake parking tickets headlined "Poor Vehicle Choice" on the cars they hate. The alliance has also carried out "a daring protest" at Chelsea football ground aimed at the players' big 4x4s. Mothers using a

"Chelsea tractor" to take their children to school are abused for their crimes of congestion and emission. If Jade Goody were a car, she'd be a 4x4.

"Basically," says Sian Berry, a Green party spokesperson and central figure in the alliance, "they are a disaster for fuel economy."

Meanwhile, there is an academic campaign to establish that 4x4s are unsafe. Students from Imperial College London have watched cars at key sites in the city and discovered that drivers of 4x4s are more likely not to wear seat belts, and to use mobile phones while driving. Other studies have shown that 4x4s are more dangerous to pedestrians. Car insurers have said that 4x4 drivers are 25% more likely to be involved in an accident and are also more likely to be at fault. Each fragment of evidence is turned into a screaming headline about the iniquity of 4x4s.

These cars have become emblems of all our environmental crimes. They represent 7.5% of the UK car market and 100% of British car loathing. The very idea that in town, or even in the country, anybody should use a car in which all four wheels are driven is regarded as a crime comparable to logging the rainforests or clubbing seals. Across Europe, owners of 4x4s (or, as they are also called, Sports Utility Vehicles, or SUVs) have become eco-pariahs, malevolent planet-warmers. If you happen to be sitting in a Range Rover Sport, a BMW X5 or, worst of all, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo S in London, it is best not to catch the eyes of any pedestrian.

The environment is the issue, but not the only one. Berry admits that, if they made a 4x4 as green as a rainforest, she'd still go after them on grounds of safety. But darker forces are also at work. Class hatred is plainly expressed in much of the anti-4x4 rhetoric, as is envy. A City bonus boy driving a Cayenne is, in the eyes of many, the distillation of social injustice. The high driving position — significantly called the "command" position — and the sheer bulk of the vehicles can, to people who can't afford them, seem like the engineering of arrogance.

Sexism is also involved. It's largely women who do the school run and, if they do it in a monster SUV, the resulting congestion is seen as a peculiarly female failing. But there are two more twists of this particular knife. The 4x4 off-road tradition is, in essence, masculine. These new luxury SUVs, however, are absurdly easy to drive. In some cases you can drive over a mountain with no special skills or muscle tone. The electronics do all the work. Women, infuriatingly for some, can do the tough stuff as easily as men.

In fact, secondly, they can often do it better. As I was to learn while Land Rover's experts were giving me an off-road lesson, women are better at this surprisingly delicate art than men. They listen to their instructors and do what they are told, which for men can be as difficult as stopping to ask for directions. Off-roading often requires the driver to do exactly the opposite of what he would do on-road — selecting higher gears, using less power to preserve traction — and men find it harder to quell their instinct to go for high revs and too much power. The real fear of that man in the service station and, perhaps, of men in general when they see a woman in a powerful machine, was that he was being outclassed as a driver.

And, on the subject of 4x4s, it's a case of left and right unite and fight. Right-wing tabloids rage against 4x4s as eagerly as left-wing eco-warriors. These are not cars; these are social history.

Is the loathing of 4x4s justified? This is complex: few people fully understand the issues, the engineering or history. But the place to begin is with a figure — the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by a car per kilometre travelled.

Atmospheric carbon is the substance most likely to end human life or, at least, our reign over the planet. We toss 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide (over 7 billion tons of pure carbon) into the air every year. This traps heat and causes global warming. The UK emits just under 2% — about 550m tons. Of this, about one fifth — 110m tons of CO2 — comes from vehicles. The critical figure for judging the green credentials of a car is, therefore, the weight of CO2 it emits.

So, for example, the Toyota Prius, with a hybrid electric-petrol drive, emits 104 grams per kilometre. The latest Land Rover Discovery diesel emits 244g. The Porsche Cayenne Turbo S emits 378g. Even this, however, does not look too bad next to the Bugatti Veyron, which emits 547g, or the Ferrari Scaglietti, which manages 475g. For perspective, a Ford Mondeo diesel emits 159g, and the European Union target for average emissions across each manufacturer's entire fleet is 130g. What these figures show is that 4x4s are, indeed, higher-than-average emitters, but they are not the highest. Fast cars are much worse. And people carriers can be pretty bad. The Chrysler Grand Voyager, for example, emits 303g. Luxury cars are just as bad. The Mercedes S600 Pullman emits 355g and the BMW 7 series rises to 337g. Why, then, are 4x4s singled out? "Because," say the weary executives at Land Rover who have heard it all before, "4x4 fits neatly into a headline."

This is fair enough. The Richmond parking scheme, for example, was universally reported as an attack on 4x4s, but in fact applied to all high-emission vehicles. The term 4x4 has supplanted "gas guzzler" as the supreme automotive shorthand of hate. It's better than mere words — it's a term that catches the eye before it engages the mind.

The rational answer is that the SUV sector has boomed. In the UK in 1996, 78,000 were sold; last year it was 176,000. This is slightly down on the year before, but, for a number of reasons, it is not clear yet whether it represents a real change.

Sian Berry points out that this growth represents a reversal of the general trend towards lower-emitting cars that has persisted since the oil shocks of the 1970s. Individually, 4x4s may not be the worst offenders, but they are in danger of becoming the most numerous.

Attacking 4x4s, therefore, is a way of reinstating the trend towards lower emissions and of drawing attention to the issue. The fact that 4x4 does fit neatly into a headline is a definite plus.

But there is a serious problem with this argument. At the Westminster offices of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, a body that advises the government on emissions, a self-confessed "tree-hugger", Alex Veitch, hands me a chart. It tracks market share against CO2 emissions. The big peak — between 6 and 18% market share — accounts for vehicles emitting between 130 and 200g. The line drops very steeply indeed above 200, where almost all 4x4s live. In other words, if all 4x4s were taken off the road tomorrow, the effect on emissions would be minimal. The real task, as Veitch sees it, is to drive down emissions of the middle market — the Mondeos and Vectras. "If you focus on 4x4s, you miss the more important point that this is all about low-carbon cars. You might persuade people not to buy a 4x4, but they may just buy a high-emitting saloon."

But for green campaigners the demonisation of the 4x4 is the perfect strategic tool. "We've kept the debate up," says Berry. "Our school-run event really drew it to people's attention. Every time the evidence comes out, like the stuff in the BMJ [British Medical Journal], it backs up our case. Then groups like the Church of England say: what would Jesus drive? Every time it gets into the media, we've got spokesmen ready all around the country to make our case. We're not ranty eco-warriors wanting to wipe out the cars; we say, here's something silly and something can be done about it. Local radio stations feel safe having us on a phone. It's a touchstone issue."

Almost nobody, campaigners say, actually needs four-wheel drive because almost nobody uses them to go off-road. "It's for middle-class people in boring city jobs," says Berry, "who need some way of believing they could get back to nature at any time."

This fantasy element would have startled the originators of four-wheel-drive cars. In spite of the current research, the truth is, four-wheel-drive cars are intrinsically safer because of their ability to cope with poor road conditions ? if they're currently less safe, then it is the drivers who are at fault. For this reason, engineers in the 1950s thought that four-wheel drive was the technology of the future.

Yet, almost from the beginning, glamour was attached to this obscure engineering device. The American wartime Jeep was just so damned sexy. "The British were used to small, round cars like the Austin 7," says John Carroll, the editor of 4x4 Magazine, "then this stark, angular thing comes along driven by guys who look like film stars. No wonder there were so many war babies."

After the war this sexiness survived mostly on film and among off-road hobbyists and collectors. Carroll himself has "about 12" old 4x4s he uses for off-roading, or what petrol heads call "mud plugging". And it was for mud-plugging that in 1947, on his farm in Anglesey, Maurice Wilks, the chief designer of Rover, built the Land Rover. He had taken one look at the Jeep and was convinced he could do better.

And he did. Down at the Land Rover Experience Centre at Eastnor in Ledbury, I drove HUE166. Built at Solihull, this was the first of a pre-production batch of 48 Wilks-designed Land Rovers. It is a joy. Its drive train makes it shimmy weirdly on the road, it is noisy and slow. But there is an almost tangible rightness about it. And, when I later drove a Freelander and a Defender — the current iteration of the original "Landy" — on Eastnor's off-road circuit, I endured a blinding revelation. Serious off-roading, like sex, is about as much fun as you can have without laughing. And — a deep, dark fear, this — it may be even more like sex in that women do it better.

Four-wheel drive cars intended for road use did not take off in Britain until the Range Rover appeared in 1970. Pricey and luxurious, this was a car for the lord of the manor, to distinguish him from his gamekeeper in his original Landy. Yet it was just as capable off-road, and it had plastic seats, bungholes and a floor that was level with its sills, so that its interior could be hosed down after a day of mud-plugging.

The move to on-road four-wheel drive was accelerated by rallying technology and, crucially, by the Audi Quattro, a high-performance car that made four-wheel-drive sexy for urban hot shots with no love of mud. But it wasn't until the late 1990s that the modern 4x4 was truly born. Manufacturers like Toyota, BMW, Audi and even Porsche invaded the market with four-wheel-drive machines. Meanwhile, the Range Rover had lost its bung holes and become a stately cruiser and, in Sport form, a fast two-ton supercar.

Their main market was America, where the love of big cars endures. In fact, over there these cars weren't even seen as big. In the 1970s the US government had reacted to oil shocks by imposing fuel-consumption targets on manufacturers. These never worked. Many big cars were simply classified as trucks to escape the controls, fuel consumption did not fall, and interstates became infested by monstrous vehicles like the Cadillac Escalade, the Chevrolet Suburban or, a favourite with British footballers, the Lincoln Navigator. These scarcely came to Britain, where big 4x4s were to remain a niche, though growing, market.

The new wave of luxury SUVs didn't impress mud-pluggers such as Carroll. "Apart from Land Rovers," he says, "the more expensive these cars became, the less capable they were off-road."

But for urbanites and occasional country dwellers, they were the answer to a prayer. They might never go seriously off-road, but they could. In any case, insists Roger Crathorne, one of the executives behind the Range Rover, it's not a matter of driving over mountains. Wet grass — the sort encountered at gymkhanas and village fetes — is almost frictionless; it is, in fact, the most lethal driving surface. "It's like driving on water-covered ice," says Crathorne, upon whose heart the Land Rover logo is plainly engraved.

Such logic was lost on the greens. These cars were, to them, simply insane. These are vehicles of excess, an affront to modesty and good sense. "Drug dealers' cars" is now the most common term of abuse. And so, with the fake-parking-ticket campaign — an idea copied from America — they became the prime target of environmental campaigners, Ken Livingstone, Richmond council, the Church of England and anybody who felt the need for an object on which to vent their anger at the vanities of the modern world.

The situation is now edgy in the extreme.

The companies are unquestionably rattled. In January the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders issued 4x4s/SUVs: The Facts, a document that successfully crushes some of the more extreme claims of the campaigners, but does not really overcome the objection about emissions. Meanwhile, last year's slight fall in sales remains an uncertain indicator. It could mean nothing, a slight blip in an otherwise upward trend, or it could mean that the craze for big, fat, 4x4 luxo-barges is coming to an end.

For Toyota or BMW, this would be bad news but not catastrophic. They make lots of other cars. But for Jeep in America and Land Rover here, it could be a disaster. Land Rover is now owned by Ford, but its entire being is predicated on four-wheel-drive technology. When you ask anybody there why they don't just switch to two-wheel-drive vehicles, they look at you as if you are having some kind of seizure. If there were no 4x4s, there would be no Land Rover.

The company's predicament is made even more ticklish by environmental politics. America is finally showing signs of coming to grips with its thirst for oil. The European Union, meanwhile, is about to get tough. Its voluntary agreement with manufacturers to reduce average emissions across their fleets to 140g by 2008 has failed to make enough of an impact. So the EU has now announced a legal target of 130g of CO2 per kilometre for new cars by 2012.

With the Freelander, Land Rover's lowest emitter, pushing about 200g of CO2 per kilometre through its tail pipe, the company is plainly facing a looming crisis, a crisis made worse by the fact that Ford, its parent, has just announced a record £6.5 billion loss. There is plainly little room for manoeuvre.

If this were a novel, the blonde, hippie-ish, Tufnell Park-dwelling Sian Berry would be contrasted with tall (6ft 3in), dark, corporate Phil Popham, the managing director of Land Rover. In fact, if this were a novel, they'd probably have an inter-ideological romance. Popham joined the company in 1988, straight from a university course in business studies, and became MD last year. Laid-back and, unlike many of his type, relaxed about time, Popham has all his strategy ducks in a neat row. He has big points to make and he makes them coolly and without digression.

The first is that 4x4s are justified by their "breadth of capability" — the wet-grass gymkhana argument — and their general ability to get around. The second is the "dust-to-dust" cost argument, the true environmental cost of a vehicle from build to scrap. Large amounts of carbon are emitted when a car is built, so, with over 70% of all Land Rovers still on the road, the company can claim its green credentials are much better than emission figures suggest. The credibility of the Prius has been eroded by figures showing its dust-to-dust may be damagingly high.

The third big point is that, because of their ticklish position, 4x4-makers are reducing emissions faster than any other sector. Land Rovers are now mostly diesel. The fleet used to be 75% petrol; this year it will be 80% diesel. Diesel can cut consumption, and thus emissions, dramatically. A petrol Range Rover Sport emits 352g, a diesel 271g. Land Rover is also launching a carbon-offset scheme to offset the carbon production of new cars from build through the first 45,000 miles. Money from sales will go to Climate Care (www.climatecare.org), which will invest in carbon reduction around the world.

Mild impatience crosses the Popham features when I point out this is clear evidence that the company is rattled by the campaigners. "We are doing this in addition to substantive improvements in fuel efficiency. There must be a recognition that we're on a long path of continuous improvement."

The problem with offsetting is that it is open to an obvious criticism: why not do all the beneficial offsetting things and stop emitting as well? At this point we enter the only possible future for Land Rover and, ultimately, for all car makers: new drive-train technology.

Lexus already makes a petrol hybrid SUV — the RX400h — which emits 192g, low for a big 4x4 but not that low for cars in general, and almost twice as high as the Prius. At Land Rover, Mike Richardson, a tweedy individual who reeks of old-school British engineering, is in charge of the low-emission future. Nobody will say when the company will produce its first diesel hybrid, but I suspect it will be sooner rather than later. The cost will be high. Richardson says it currently looks like £3,000 per car. But it has to happen, as all the other low- or zero-emission technologies (fuel cell, all-electric) are a long way off.

The company has already unveiled a concept car, the Land_e, which uses hybrid as well as other technologies that would cut emissions of a fully capable 4x4 to less than 150g. In fact, as you enter the firm's headquarters in Gaydon, Warwickshire, you see an illuminated, animated model of the Land_e. The company knows there is only one way out of the predicament of its heritage.

There can be no doubt that the days of the high-emitting car are numbered. If you are convinced by the arguments for human-caused global warming, this is an unconditionally good thing. But the anti-4x4 frenzy has all too often been misguided, sectarian and even — as I saw in that service station — potentially violent. It is riddled with irrationality and prejudice. Yet it has succeeded in putting pressure on the car makers — and that, I suppose, was always the point.

There is another point made not by green politics nor emission figures. It is made instead by the gleam in the engineers' eyes and by the weird rapture that overcame me while driving HUE166, or while, at the wheel of a modern Defender, I peered down a vertiginous, rock-strewn slope into an icy pool of incalculable depth at Eastnor. The original Land Rover in all its iterations is possessed of something supremely pure; it provides, to make better use of BMW’s slogan, the ultimate driving experience. Even Sian Berry says she never puts a fake parking ticket on a Defender. She says it’s because they genuinely go off-road and they last a long time.

I suspect it’s also because the frank, handsome looks dispel anger with their evident authenticity. Fat 4x4 luxo-barges may have to die, emissions must fall, but the Landy must go on for ever.

"Every journalist that comes in this room," says Gerry McGovern, Land Rover’s sharp-suited design director, "asks me when we are going to modernise the Defender."

"I won't."

"I know."

What do you think of gas-guzzlers?

Join the discussion by adding your comments in the box below

HOW WE MEASURE UP

The EU wants the cars we drive to emit no more than 130g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012. But many of our cars are already ahead of the game. To assess whether British drivers really are self-centred gas-guzzlers, we compared the emissions of the UK's top 20 bestselling cars.

If there is a villain in this piece, it is the company-car culture, which still accounts for most large-car purchases in the UK. That and our desire for prestige through the cars we drive. Company-car taxes have risen in recent years, but not enough to stop us choosing models we may otherwise not be able to afford. If we look at the cars individuals buy, a different picture emerges. The bestsellers are not people carriers or 4x4s, but compact cars such as the Ford Focus and VW Polo. These "superminis" account for nearly three-quarters of the models in the UK top 20. At present only two, the Vauxhall Corsa and Honda Jazz, would meet the new EU target of 130g of CO2 per kilometre, but manufacturers have five years to improve emissions. More importantly, we consumers already have a choice: it's now a question of making the right one.

1 FORD FOCUS

Number sold in 2006: 137,694

CO2 g/km: Petrol 157, Diesel 127

2 VAUXHALL ASTRA

Number sold in 2006: 105,296

CO2 g/km: Petrol 151, Diesel 130

3 FORD FIESTA

Number sold in 2006: 103,856

CO2 g/km: Petrol 152, Diesel 119

4 VAUXHALL CORSA

Number sold in 2006: 73,923

CO2 g/km: Petrol 125, Diesel 115

5 RENAULT MEGANE

Number sold in 2006: 62,069

CO2 g/km: Petrol 165, Diesel 120

6 VW GOLF

Number sold in 2006: 62,011

CO2 g/km: Petrol 166, Diesel 140

7 RENAULT CLIO

Number sold in 2006: 57,192

CO2 g/km: Petrol 139, Diesel 123

8 BMW 3 SERIES

Number sold in 2006: 50,248

CO2 g/km: Petrol 175, Diesel 150

9 FORD MONDEO

Number sold in 2006: 48,021

CO2 g/km: Petrol 173, Diesel 159

10 VAUXHALL ZAFIRA

Number sold in 2006: 47,527

CO2 g/km: Petrol 175, Diesel 165

11 VAUXHALL VECTRA

Number sold in 2006: 44,389

CO2 g/km: Petrol 175, Diesel 157

12 PEUGEOT 307

Number sold in 2006: 41,939

CO2 g/km: Petrol 155, Diesel 129

13 VW POLO

Number sold in 2006: 38,152

CO2 g/km: Petrol 144, Diesel 127

14 VW PASSAT

Number sold in 2006: 38,104

CO2 g/km: Petrol 199, Diesel 151

15 MINI

Number sold in 2006: 38,018

CO2 g/km: Petrol 138, Diesel 118

16 HONDA CIVIC

Number sold in 2006: 37,485

CO2 g/km: Petrol 139, Diesel 135

17 AUDI A4 GRANDE

Number sold in 2006: 35,436

CO2 g/km: Petrol 184, Diesel 149

18 FIAT PUNTO

Number sold in 2006: 34,112

CO2 g/km: Petrol 140, Diesel 119

19 PEUGEOT 206

Number sold in 2006: 33,644

CO2 g/km: Petrol 152, Diesel 112

20 HONDA JAZZ

Number sold in 2006: 30,795

CO2 g/km: Petrol 129, Diesel n/a

All carbon calculations are based on the most recent and basic models in each range. Sales data provided by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) Data Services. To check your car's carbon-emission figure, visit www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/search.asp

Would the Toyota Prius pull my 22ft caravan, no,Would it get me to the best sight,no. The road was blocked by a broken down 3 and a half ton van the other day, would the Prius pull it out of the way,no, but my discovery did.

Vic Birtchnell, London, England

It is the muddled thinking that riles me so. I have a small 4x4 (Hyundai Santa Fe) that is just over the high emissions level at 235. Yet my mileage is only 3000 miles per year. Anyone with say a Mondeo and doing 15000 miles is producing far more CO2.
So the finacial incentives/punishments need to take account of the volume of use. And there is such a device already - CO2 emissions equate almost perfectly with MPG so the fuel duty is a far more effective and targeted financial instrument.
Where is the joined-up thinking we used to hear about?

Paul Lewis, Essex,

we have a jeep cherokee , have only done 2200 miles in 3 years its used for carrying dogs, bikes, and the occasional sheep at lambing time as you can guess ( farmers ) living i the north yorkshire dales it can be hard moving around in winter. If we did not need a 4 x 4 we would be driving a a small car. We would like to know if cars with bigger engines than ours are to be taxed as high as us.

Rosalyn Eshelby, Whitby , North Yorkshire

I drive a Shogun and I love it!! When it snows - and it often does in the Peak District - I feel safe and able to get to my place of work ahead of everyone else in their non-4x4s! I will be buying another 4x4. However, we are being persecuted. In this so-called democratic society there is a frenzied media war going on against drivers of 4x4s with no real or true facts to substatiate this. I vote carry on driving 4x4s and up the enemy!

Jackie Butler, Macclesfield, Cheshire

If 4x4's are such a big problem why do the police and highways agency use them? Quite simply for their towing capacity, I tow a large caravan with mine, it's over 13 years old and still like new, I also sometimes tow a large twin axle trailer, try towing either of them with a toyota Prius!!

I'm keeping my 4x4 thanks, tax me or force me off the road & I'll give up work. My Life My Choice My 4x4!

Gary Firth, halifax,

Emissions are only one factor in the environmental impact story for 4x4s. Taking the dust to dust full life cycle approach of the Oregon study six 4x4s come in the top 20 vehicles on British roads and the two hybrids do not come into the top 50!! Our 4x4 certainly rides the Devon lane potholes far better than than the car.........and thanks to the 4x4 that my daughter in law was driving, she and our three grandchildren survived a side crash from a red light running pick up truck - the police said they would not have been so lucky had they been in a car.
I am as concerned about the environment as anyone else, but like in any debate there has to be a balanced view - the few environmental extremists, like the squeaky wheel, crave attention for one dimension only!! The 4x4 is here to stay, so live with it - the emphasis should be on manufacturing improvements for all mechanical and electronic systems, not pillorying the drivers who mostly want safety for their families.

Randolph Andersen, Cullompton, Devon

I drive a Land Rover Defender, because...............why the heck do I have to justify to anyone what make/type of vehicle I drive? It was bought legally, with money that I earned legally & paid (a lot of) tax on.

Patrick McNab, Droitwich Spa, UK

A fact perhaps ignored by many is that electric or hybrid cars impact on the environment is actually higher than ordinary vehicles!
Their environmental cost of manufacture and destruction is huge (batteries) compared to even a Land Rover, most owners of these vehicles and even the smaller town cars will change them every few years and their total expected life span is around eight years.
Chelsea tractors aside, the life expectancy of a Land Rover is measured in decades and it is a well known fact that over 70% of all Land Rovers ever produced are still on the road today thanks to the large enthusiast community . By the time they are over 15 years old almost all of them will have a significant ammount of recycled parts fitted to them.
A Land Rover Defender is MORE economical than a great deal of cars on the road including the BMW mini cooper !!
I wish people would stop jumping on the band wagon and examine the evidence for themselves.

C Procter, Stafford, UK

The statement "In spite of the current research, the truth is, four-wheel-drive cars are intrinsically safer because of their ability to cope with poor road conditions ?" is totally wrong. Four wheel drive gives better traction, allowing them to gain speed faster. Safety is about being able to slow down or turn to avoid an accident. The higher weight and centre-of-gravity of an off-roader means they are less safe as proved by the higher crash rates mentioned.

Andy Cowe, Lincoln,

I drive a gas guzzler. It's a GM product called a GMC Jimmy, it comes with a 4,300 cc and 6 cylinders in "V" configuration. I bought it used in 1997 with 26,000 Kilometers and have enjoyed it since. I tow a small fishing boat with it and in my job when there is a rush delivery to make, I load it with carton boxes and make it to the customer and I utterly love the high stance of driving. I intend to drive it for 5 more years, perhaps longer as I take good care of my Jimmy. It burns 17 liters per 100 kilometers of Super 95 unleaded fuel, however, our roads are choked with too many cars and our speed limit in the highways is 90 Kph so I believe this is about as much as I can get. Also, the suspension withstands the potholes and patches that cover our fading tarmac roads better than my former Honda Civic Si. I do use the 4 X 4 utility once every 6 weeks. Since I live in a third world country, Costa Rica, I longed to own one and be able to hit the mountains and lakes (two of them actually) every time I could. Our gasoline (petrol) as you call it is around US$0.96 per liter.

Robert H. Bruce, San Jose, Costa Rica

However, the article mentions nothing about how much more deadly it is for a person to be hit by a 4x4, over a normal car. I also hate their size - on narrow roads, 4x4s are forced to drive over the line and then barge their way past you. For a smaller car, it can be very intimidating (and irritating). If 4x4s need to be used on rough country roads, that is a very different thing to all the Surrey mothers who drop off their one child in a 4x4 every morning.

Pip Dunjay, Cobham, England

Here in Australia the arguements for-and-against UAVs (Urban Assault Vehicles!) has raged for years. They are a real problem in cities - most here have never been off-road. My normal car has little dents in its side from 4x4s in shopping centres - usually driven by mums - most likely bought by their husbands.
While there are certainly good reasons for having such vehicles in the country, they serve little purpose in the cities other than tke up room and cost a lot to run. I would but one if I had the need - I don't so I won't!

Bob Harrison, Sydney, Australia

I do get irritated that nearly all pro-4x4 articles attribute opposition to envy. I have always disliked 4x4s, and never want to own one, mainly because they are ugly and not optimised for the job they do. (I wouldn't buy a sports car either. They're equally unsuitable for the job they do, but at least they're not ugly.) The visibility advantage 4x4s height gives them is selfishly achieved at the expense of those behind them. (If everyone drove a 4x4 there would be no advantage.) The so-called safety advantage (admittedly mainly claimed by Americans) of being surrounded by more metal comes at the expense of the person in the lighter car they crush.

I would sympathise with people who say they need the carrying capacity of a 4x4 if they could convince me that a Renault Espace, Renault Grand Scenic, ordinary Renault Scenic or any of many similar MPVs and mini-MPVs wouldn't meet those needs equally well.

I disagree with policies that penalise owners of existing 4x4s though. If one wants to improve the average fuel efficiency of cars on the road, how about a scheme that taxes each new car with above-average CO2 emissions upon first registration, say £100 per gram above the average for new cars, and pays out all the money as a subsidy at the same rate to cars below the average. This would add £6000 to the cost of a 220 gram vehicle and reduce the price of a Citroen C4 (1.6 litre diesel model with EGS) by £4000. The main effect wouldn't be on 4x4s, lot's of ordinary cars that aren't that efficient would also be abandoned in favour of functionally identical ones with much better fuel consumption. Many 1.6 litre cars use a third more fuel than the Citroen I mentioned.

Chris King, London,

I have nothing against 4x4 myself, I rather like them, but definitely not when used as status symbol by some urban/suburgan type of middle class male or female as often seems to be the case: the truck types mentioned in the vehicle are in my view professional vehicles, quite expensive and justified only if you drive in difficult conditions. I was disappointed by bryan Appleyard's article as I usually like his stuff and that's why I read that one, but he totally lacked objectivity in this case. Everytime he mentioned "gas guzzlers" he talked about emissions, except once when he said that the fleet "will be 80% diesel" and "Diesel can cut consumption": Not good enough. He should have provided facts and figures if he wanted to show that the big 4x4 are not "gas guzzlers". Emissions are about pollution. Fossil fuel consumption is another problem and should be reduced as much as possible. Also there are smaller 4x4 types of vehicles available if it is for the occasional drive on wet grass..

Mireille Ferrandon, Edinburgh, Scotland

I would bet the ambulance drivers attending the train derailment in the Lake District on Friday would have been glad to have 4x4 vehicles.

Ken Ashcroft, Harpenden, Herts

I drive a Volvo XC90 which has 7 seats.
The car is often full of people, dogs, shopping etc. I also have horses and go off road in the car. If I didn't have a car like this I would have to do many more trips than I currently do thus contributing more harm to the environment. The command driving position helps me look ahead avoiding accidents.
This car is a sensible option and I would be very angry if anyone stuck a sticker on my car pre-judging its necessity for me. I certainly don't do more journeys than necessary because, in the area where I live, driving is rarely a pleasure.

Sue Thompson, Reading, Berkshire

It's a matter of what's appropriate. My parents own a Freelander, but they live in Cumbria and they're first responders- no-one would expect them to go out in all weathers on country roads in a Smart car. I live in Manchester, five miles from the centre in one direction and five from work in the other- I don't have a car because I can do everything by bike, foot or bus.

If everyone stepped back before purchasing a car and honestly assessed what it would be used for, how many people it would usually carry etc. then based their purchase on this, congestion and pollution would drop even if the miles travelled remained the same. Why? Because the majority of journeys involve only one person and very little luggage- everybody would buy Smarts or similar little vehicles.

Ian Pattinson, Manchester, UK

There are a number of all electric 4x4 the most important id the RAV4 , used in Jersey as a hire car. Since most school runs are a 20 mile round trip an electric car with an 80 mile range would be ideal. And they pay no congestion charge and can park free in London. People like the platform and not the motor so why not go electric. The cost is almost the same but the fuel ciosts about 10% of carbon fuels. Bears thinking about. There are othe electric cars and vans it is only the governments opposition that stops them being widely available.

P. Santamaria , Granada, Spain.

I do love the greens and their insistence on 4 x 4s being demons incarnate. Speaking as one who lives in a snowy, nasty part of the world (New England in Winter) and who travels a lot on untreated surfaces I would not be without 4-wheel drive, starting with my Land-Rover 109 many years ago and presently an early-90s Range Rover.

250,000 miles and counting on the original car with nothing but routine maintenance and it's still in perfect shape - this is a car that owes nothing to the planet as even when it's done (no time soon) it's almost completely recylclable as honest steel, aluminium, glass and the like and the small amount of non-recyclable items aren't a patch on the recycling nightmare of the new plastic cars produced.

Alan Richer, Chelmsford, MA

The part about most CO2 emissions coming from large numbers of smaller cars on the road was interesting. How many of those smaller cars are on the road because their owners like to drive? How many are because of problems with public transportation? Depending on the answers to those questions, green activists may be better off encouraging improvements in busing, commuter trains and the like than attacking SUVs.

That said, one good way to get some of the worst offenders off the road might simply be to require special licensing. Make SUV drivers demonstrate knowledge of how to drive and park their vehicles safely, and of the special risks they take while driving such vehicles. Some will drive safer, some will choose other vehicles. The arrogant types that don't care will, over time, lose their licenses and be forced into something that- while still wasteful- is less dangerous to their fellow drivers.

Michael, Pueblo, CO. USA

the longevity argument is a red herring. there are plenty of normal size cars easily capable of going 200K plus miles. the days of the urban 4x4s are numbered and their drivers are dinosaurs soon to become extinct. end of story.

nigel turner, maidstone, uk

I can easily understand why people buy 4x4s: self preservation. People that I know who have them know or care nothing about Co2 emissions. In an accident anyone would want to be in the bigger car. However, many 4x4s are huge, look brutish and aggressive and have names like "Patrol" "Trooper" and even "Animal". I would rather have a Mini behind me on a motorway than a Cherokee. They are simply scary and that is what their owners want.

Jim Armstrong, Dundee, Scotland

I hate 4 x 4s but it's nothing to do with envy. They take up so much space in car parks that people can hardly open their doors or see on either side when they want to back out. Whether or not our emissions are destroying the planet, there's no question that we have used nearly all the world's fossil fuel reserves in little more than a century, and it seems crazy to me not to economise on those that remain.
Off-road driving is another selfish occupation which turns tracks valued as footpaths in unwalkable quagmires.
It's also pretty selfish to drive a car likely to destroy the opposition in a crash.
I seem to be out on a limb however as my Downing street petition (green-incentive) to abolish income tax and replace the lost revenue by motor and aviation fuel tax has so far attracted only 3 votes, including mine.

Alan Scaife, Warwick, UK

Forget emissions per kilometer - how about through life CO2 costs instead? I think you'll find that many of the so often berated 4X4s last two or three times as long as a smaller model and so from manufacture to scrapping their carbon footprint is smaller.

There is also the question of longevity of an engine/gearbox. My last two 4X4s have both gone over 200K miles on their original drive trains with no need for replacement. My neighbour's small car is on its 2nd engine at less than 100K miles. How much CO2 did that engine cost to make and the old one to scrap? There is no doubt that an engine driven closer to its maximum output lasts less time than one working well within its limits.

Who uses most CO2 or energy, my 15 year old 4X4 or the car buyer who has had 5 new vehicles in the same time span?

Simon Wilson, Farnborough, Hants

This "dust to dust" argument is very interesting. I wonder why the author haven't put in the article the actual figures of total CO2 emmisions for producition of a Land Rover model in comparison to those of Toyota Prius and given us statistics of what those figures stand for in terms of % of the total emmision of those models when counted together with all emmisions of their average "life expectancy".

Xavier, Warsaw,

"These people who say "Its a democracy and I have the right to choose whatever car I like" are shamefully denying their responsibility to live their lives in a way that allows future generations to have any future at all."

Possibly, but no more so than those who fly long-haul - or indeed fly anywhere - for their holidays; or those who eat food unnecessarily imported from abroad; who live in, and thus heat and run, larger houses than their domestic circumstances demand; or who require their staff to fly around the world on business, when conference calling could achieve the same results.

We could all reduce our carbon footprints if we put our minds to it and were prepared to take the pain. The reason why people like me have no time for those who campaign against 4x4s is that their ire is too often too selectively targeted, with the apparent aim of ensuring its someone else's pain that saves the planet.

Denzil Spurway, Chafford Hundred, Essex

Most people that argue against 4x4's are hypocrites. Why I hear you cry? I observed a prime example recently, a women shopping at a well known supermarket launched into a tirade at someone loading their 4x4 with their shopping - no offence love, i thought, but do you know how loaded your shopping bags are with carbon? Do you know how far that food has travelled, often imported, to reach your bag? Furthermore, have you taken a look at what you have in your home (Japanese TV's etc), holidays, the power consumed at home or in the workplace? The automotive industry has a role to play, fair enough, but they are only a comparably small fraction of the problem. My advice is if you are going to bring the 4x4 argument take a look at yourself first.

James Michaels, London,

Not once did the article mention the undeniable fact that these 4x4 are simply too big for the majority of our urban roads when it comes to parking on both sides of the street. The drivers in my limited experience comprise people bathing in an air of superiority and those who have no idea of the dimensions when it comes to parking which results in them damaging our grass verges etc. They do not particularly care for the environment and adopt the attitude - I pay my tax and will park where I wish and sod anyone else.

As to envy, forget it - my status symbol is a Golf hatchback which is perfectly acceptable to my family and dogs and trips to the refuse tip.

Apparently some 80% of these dreadful vehicles are sold in and around the M25 mainly as company cars. Envy - not a bit of it. My stautus symbol is a Golf Hatchback which serves most of the daily purposes it is needed for including trips to the refuse tip.

There is no need for these vehicles on our roads and it is pleasing to see that sales have dropped . Perhaps childeren of parents who have these machines should educate their parents in the ways and needs of the world.

Peter, epsom, UK

A brilliant and comprehensive article but Bryan Apppleyard, admirable fellow as he is, has made the almost universal mistake that cars gives out CO2. They don't. They give out CO (popular with suicides because CO puts you to sleep without auto-resistance). What gives out CO2 is the people in them. If you don't believe me look at the Basic Emission Test with your MOT. The difference may or may not be significant, unlike the error.
Moreover more than a few qualified scientists are sure that global warming is predominantly caused less my human activity than by cyclical reasons over which we have no control - which is why the latter is denied.

martin evans, cley-next-the-sea,

I drive a 4x4 because it make me safer when travelling in an unsafe road environment. My doors lock automatically when I drive off, I have double strength glass, I have the best visibility and my X5 weighs about 2 tons. If anyone hits us in our X5 and is smaller, out of control, a road rage idiot or somone driving whilst uninsured or in an unsafe car, we all have a better chance of survival. I think that these people are most likley to hit me and are either "greens" or people living off the state. I am thus floowing "Darwinian Capitalism" - I am increasing my chances of survival comared with hose who are less well endowed financially.

Jonathan Chapple, Kingston , Surrey

Why the hell is The Times still pretending that there isn't an imperative to cut CO2 emissions OR contemplate the extinction of mankind within the next approx 50 years? This isn't 'scaremongering', its the view of real experts, not Mr Clarkson - God knows why you've put the banner 'expert' over his head. The reason why people like me hate 4x4's is that they symbolise global-warming deniers; to drive one, given the knowledge that we now have, is a statement. The statement is "I'm either too stupid to understand that climate change is real, or I'm so irresponsible that I don't give a damn about it." These people who say "Its a democracy and I have the right to choose whatever car I like" are shamefully denying their responsibility to live their lives in a way that allows future generations to have any future at all. Its reached the point at which for Jeremy Clarkson to say "I don't know what's causing global warming" must be seen for what it is; a statement of stupidity, NOT a 'valid opinion'.

David Jones, Belper, Derbyshire

I drive a Jeep Cherokee (diesel) which is smaller than a lot of 4x4s. CO2 emissions in the region of 262 which is borderline with a lot of more frequently driven cars. My view is mixed. On the plus, I can see much better when driving (only 5ft 4), can use my car for dump trips (and am frequently befriended by friends/relatives wishing to go to Ikea etc) who suddenly forget their hatred for 4x4s and remark on how practical it is! That said, I don't like larger ones as from observation they can't easily be parked (hummers are just ridiculous) and many owners actually don't need a 7 seated version. People should look at their own carbon footprint before criticising. I recycle (including items to charity or resold through ebay), use a compost bin and a wormery, energy saving lightbulbs, renewable green hydro electricity and we holiday in the UK (we don't fly). Additional taxes should be across the board and not singling out one type of car.

Marina, Beckenham,

If you analyse the reasons for urban 4x4 ownership, they all come down to people seeking to overcome their inadequacies as drivers. High driving position and ruggedness make them feel less intimidated, more assertive and potentially adventurous. The extra grip overcomes the fear of lacking the skills to cope with just two wheel drive. The feeling of safety, although misplaced, is needed because ordinary cars are scary. An estate can carry as much as a 4x4 while an an MPV provides a decent view so those aren't valid reasons either. Compared with most of the world our roads are like silk. An African or South American would laugh himself silly at the idea of UK drivers needing 4x4 to cope with roads of a quality that they can only dream of. They would love to afford a 4x4 and would be justified in considering it arrogant or ostentatious to flaunt one here. We can argue forever about emissions and fuel but basically people buy them because they are afraid of something. It's a bit sad really.

Paul, Reading, Berkshire

I own a a smaller 4 x 4 Toyota Rav and thats my choice! I love the 4 x 4 large or small models and everyone should have freedom to own what car they like.

I think the usual do gooders are having too much say and have to complain once again about the have's and have not,s

You pay your money and make your choice! I do not want people telling me what I can drive we live in a democratic country so I thave always thought! The motorist get a rough deal anyway without this nonsence about 4 x 4s

F. Hooper , BRISTOL,

Large, gleaming urban or suburban 4x4s are largely fashion statements. 4x4s with bull bars give an agressive that the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is not worth considering. 4x4 occupants may feel safer, but this is achieved by increasing risk to other road users. As for the 'wet grass' argument: if you need added grip, just get appropriate tyres. On the continent you will see saloon cars with winter tyres cope adequately with Alpine slush and snow. It is the intimidating presence of these fashion accessories that is causing much of the resentment agains 4x4s.

Andy, Broadstone,

There are inevitably going to be aspects of class and envy in the 4x4s in the city debate. However, many more fuel efficient, environmentally friendly and, perhaps most important for those who have a car as a status symbol, better looking cars are within the same price range as the popular city 4x4s. Does nobody else find the vast majority of 4x4s ugly? I could hardly believe how bad that monstrosity that Porsche brought out actually looks!

Hannibal, Belfast, NI

4x4s are fine if you tow horses or boats, or live in an inhospitable part of rural Britain.

Otherwise the average 4x4 is an oversized, ill-handling, slow, inefficient tub.

Having one in town is about as necessary as using a crowbar to open a handbag.

Incidentally, in a dozen years living at the end of a particularly muddy rural track, I have only wished for two more driven wheels on a few occasions. For 360+ days a year my front-drive estate does the job perfectly fine, and gives me 43 mpg.

David Jefferis, Brill, UK

I have had another thought! Surely if we are to be criticised for driving big cars that use more fuel and produce more Co2, the same aguments would apply to any scaled up human extravagence.i.e. big houses; restaurants (we all have kitchens but people go out to eat); cinemas can't be justifiable over and abovestaying at home and watching your own TV; etc; etc; Aren't we just taking the labour extreme views too far and taking away choice, reward and so on. Oh and yes I have a big house and a 4x4, but I also farm and live along a 3/4 mile unmade drive. But I have put in Geothermal heating using my own borehole. I have also used reclaimed materials to build my house and used lime putty in preference to cement. How to do you calculate the plus's and minus's of everyones efforts?

Trevor J Coates, Bath, South Glos

One of the most irritating aspects to me, pedant that I am, is the expression "4x4". One of the 4s clearly refers to the wheels driven, but what is the other one for? Not gears, that's for sure. It just seems a bit of trans-atlantic gobble-de-gook. Why not use the time-honoured abbreviation "FWD" or, if that could be confused with "front wheel drive", "4WD"?

Derek Blewitt, Banstead, Surrey

I still beleivethat many of these anti 4x4 drivers need to look at their own use of other high emitting forms of travel. The biggest is very often air travel. How many people realise that one return flight to Oz equates to 10 years of average 15k miles per annum in a Range Rover Diesel. What is the level of Co2 emission that is coming from unnecessary holiday flights? People travelling around the world to campaign on green issues for instance! How much air travel and Co2 is produced from each Kyoto Conference?? How much Co2 is produced by the armed services each year? What about the Co2 produced by the war on Iraq. 4x4’s are not the real threat it is just more PC crap…

Trevor J Coates, Bath, South Glos

Mr. Robertson of Cottingham is clearly parking next to 4x4s far larger than my Land Rover Discovery. In all the hospital parking bays I park in, as part of my job, I am most careful to leave exactly the same distance from each white line to my car - about the same as a Ford Mondeo - as Mr. Robertson would discover if he wasn't so blinded by prejudice and ignorance. My Disco is higher and heavier than a Vauxhall Astra, but that isn't what he complained about, it is the same width and length. I want to see the EU desired vehicle that emits no more than 130 g/km CO2 while towing a two ton trailer up a 1 in 4 greasy slope, in the dark, in the pouring rain, with seven people in it. I would definitely buy that vehicle, until then I will continue to love my Land Rover Discovery Diesel.

Roger Whittle, London,

i live out in the sticks and drive a 02' disco, i need one, to pull a trailer etc,i have worked hard to buy this as it means i only need one car, i regularly get 30mpg with it, there are loads of "normal" cars that get nowhere near this figure but it is always the 4x4 that gets the bad publicity.
on the above list of cars all the petrol ones have a worse CO2/kgm than the diesel ones, if the gov were serious about emmissions diesel would be cheaper than petrol, would it not?

john, HEXHAM, NORTHUMBERLAND

The anti 4x4 movement is unscientific as the article states. During the recent snow, I was able to move around quite easily, the problems on grass were mentioned, but Hertfordshire Roads are so rough these days that they need the air suspension of a Discovery 3 for comfort

Ken Ashcroft, Harpenden, Herts

Does the new Fiat Panda 4x4 weighing in at less than 1 tonne really deserve the same congestion charge as a 2.5 tonne Land Rover? When you consider that damage to our roads increases with vehicle mass by a power of 4, the land rover will cause so much more damage. As will a lot of other vehicles that aren't necessarily 4WD. Such as Aston's, Bentley's Rolls Royce etc...

The real issue is the increasing mass of vehicles as a result of tougher crash test standards. If road tax and congestion charging etc were to consider this. Car manufacturers would be forced to engineer lighter vehicles which will caused less damage to our roads.

Glen Pascoe, Oxford, UK

My Jeep Grand Cherokee is shorter than a Ford Mondeo estate, does more MPG (33 mpg) than my old Vauxhall Omega estate (which was 2 feet longer)
It just looks big!! but is a great family car, carries a lot of conference material(s) and I am willing to argue my reasons for driving this type of vehicle.
My work, mostly pounding motorways, dictates that I use a large vehicle as I carry a lot of "gear" that just would not fit into a smaller car.

Roger, Clochester, Essex

4x4s are country vehicles for off-road and towing horseboxes or whatever, where most people also know how to drive them. They are a pain in the city, far too big for anything but major roads, take up much too much parking space as too wide for most of our side streets. Many drivers are awful, don't know how high up they are, so don't look in right place - ask any other motorcyclist or pedal cyclist, or most pedestrians

J Babington, London,

Was there no mention of LPG in the article? This is widely available in the UK and, like many others, I run my Range Rover on it. I would like to see the equivalent emission figures for this fuel to give some balance to the debate.

Rob, Alderley Edge,

Thank goodness there's not much fuss about this in Cornwall where 4x4 is seen as useful not swanky. Have you tried pulling a small cruiser up a slipway or dragging a Dory across a beach? I have a biggish diesel 4x4 but I also have a small diesel C3 which does most of the mileage in our family. Its the cost of fuel that puts me off using the bigger car more, but even that one does 28mpg.

David Bracey, Truro, Cornwall

Well this discussion on 4x4 is rather tiresome. Let's actually call the discussion just plain and simple LUXURY TAX! It is really not just 4x4 or SUVs that are being caught - most cars that actually being caught, be in Richmond or London (CCharge) are luxury cars: the Mercedes', the BMWs and Bentleys and of course the Ferraris and Maseratis that one really requires to do shopping in London! At least the SUV can carry up to 7 people whereas a Ferrari ONLY 2! I am really getting sick and tired of the people targeting just SUVs. This government is trying to tax the hell out of their citizens and SUVs are an easy target!

How did Mr Livingstone go on his 250 plus trips - by bike? In addition, giving free entry to central London for electric cars? How does Mr Livingstone think they get charged? Well either fossil fuel is burned or if the trend to electric cars picks up, we will need to build more nuclear power station. Well this is a prospect looking forward to....

David, London,

I feel the issue is not 4x4 but size of vehicle. A 4x4 such as a Subaru or a Volkswagen 4-Motion is perfectly acceptable in town,whereas a Toyota Land Cruiser or Porsche Cayenne etc.is an absolute monstrosity.
A city car needs to be compact, economical and manoeuverable.

Mr Alan Robinson, Kettering, Great Britain

It seems a pity that some people can only achieve the status that they seek by buying cars too big and too heavy than is needed to meet their transportation needs. When you buy a big or heavy car, a large proportion of the energy in the petrol is used in moving the metal around, whereas what is needed is just to move the people around. Large cars, whether or not they are 4x4s, take up too much space, obstruct visibility for other road users, use too much fuel and create too much CO2 - all quite without any sensible rationale to justify it. Farmers need 4x4s. People who live up steep and muddy lanes or in rugged country may need them. Most of the rest of us should just use other means to achieve the status we feel due to us. Buying a bigger car than one needs, quite rightly deserves derision.

David Sexton, East Wittering, UK

Appleyard has not mentioned an aspect of "Chelsea tractors" which causes much irritation to other drivers, but barely seems to impinge on the consciousness of 4x4 drivers. This is the sheer bulk of these vehicles, which makes it inappropriate for them to be parked in standard size bays in carparks. A 4x4 parked in a standard parking bay makes the two adjacent bays virtually unusable. The alternative option, to park a 4x4 straddling two parking bays, simply emphasises the perception of arrogant 4x4 drivers.

W Robertson, Cottingham,

I drive a 6 year old honda crv, a great small SUV, in and around london.

it is safer, shorter and generates less emmsions than many saloon cars

tim, london,

I have a 4 x4 in London, and it's a perfect car for the city. If you drive in London much then you'll realise how poor the general road quality is. The driving position is also good, allowing you a better view of pedestrians, cyclists, and surounding trafic. In fact, the avg speed in London is around 10mph, so hitting anything at that speed (if for some reason you still can't stop) is going to be limited. I've offset the carbon footprint of my car for less than £50 per year, so why charge £8 per day??? This anti-4x4 nonsense has gone on far too long, people don't mind looking at a dirty Porsche 911, a car that is far less effecient, especially when you put 5 people in a 4x4. Mine is a nice car, very comfortable, full of extra's, carbon neutral, and it can take a load of stuff to the tip to be recycled. Some how I think you'd care less if I drove that 911 (larger carbon footprint) around town a lot quicker than my current car.

James Spriggs, London,

I own an Audi A8, also a Mercedes 500 SEL and a Volvo 90.
I also own a high end Techinology based Electrical/electronic engineering company; small in the UK but my partners/principals are Globally No.1 in the world, with a large input into automotive fuel control systems, designs and developments.

Why do I own such cars; simply because they offer the most cost effective solution to a group of requirements I have. Cost effective takes into account the entire gambit of issues relating to pollution of all types.

It is not just the consumption of fuel that contributes to pollution. In fact the most polluting car connected activity that any one person can do is to buy a new car. The massive energy need to extract and refine the raw materials required, process them, design, make and deliver it your front door hugely out weigh the running costs for a very long time.

So, if you want to reduce energy consumption, buy a high quality, long lasting car, and do as I do; use it frugally.

Iain Watts, Nr.Lewes, United Kingdom

Leaving aside the environmental issues for a moment, the simple fact is that many of our rural roads in the UK are not wide enough for these vehicles to be driven safely. They may be fine in the US where most highways are the equivilent to our motorways.

I speak as a cyclist. When riding country roads and meeting a 4 x 4 it is almost invariably the case that the driver will not slow down suffciently and wait until it is safe to pass. I do not know what it is about the cars or those who drive them. Perhaps it is the superior visability. My theory though is that, when used out of town, these are a sort of rural sports car and engender a need on the part of the driver to tear around at the greatest speed possible.

The combination of this attitude and the greater width makes them particularly dangerous to bikes. I should add that other rural road users (including the farming community driving proper Land Rovers tend to be much more patient and even vans are less of a hazard it seems.

Richard Barcan, Bristol, UK

I would Sian Berry to tell me whether I should get rid of my Discovery 3 used to tow a large trailer around Britain for work and as my own personal car and replace it with two vehicles? I plainly cannot haul 3.5 tonnes of goods behind a low-emission car. Therefore I would have to consider buying a van for work purposes and a car for my own private motoring. Due to government policies I am not able to use a van for any personal mileage unless I am willing to pay tax for the privilege.

This situation of two vehicles would surely be more harmful to the environment than one large car that is able to cover any eventuality such as transporting seven rugby players to away matches (again, instead of using two vehicles). Answer?

drjon, East Grinstead, UK

We have two 4x4 vehicles on the farm. One is an extremely dirty landrover that is used every day on the farm for carrying fencing materials, diesel for the irrigation pumps and all manner of filthy things that are needed for our every day work. You could not possibly drive this vehicle in clean clothes. The other is a Toyota that is used for my business to collect horse food for my 14 livery clients, towing my horse trailer, going to collect spare parts for the farm etc. On the plus side 3 members of my family work from home and do not clog up the roads at rush hour. How can you possibly compare our use of a 4x4 to someone doing the school run in London?

Carole Fisher, Nottingham,

I find it incredible that 4x4 vehicles only represent 7.5% of vehicles in the UK. Strange that when I am being tailgated it is frequently a 4x4. Of course the driver remains out of view, just headlights in the rear view mirror. Is it any wonder that car drivers feel intimidated by these vehicles. Then there is the frequent queue jumping, the 4x4 pushing aside smaller cars in its wake and not as safe as we have all been led to believe. As for being jealous that I cannot afford one of these vehicles, I suspect they depreciate fairly quickly so not a particularly good investment then. Ownership of these monster vehicles is just another status symbol, a way of compensating oneself for all those inadequacies in life. Simply the new bling. Hopefully the novelty will wear off soon.

Joy Newman, Stevenage,

Lot of sense in the article, do the Tree Huggers really belive that if I stop driving my Land Rover it will help stop the planet from getting old?. More "Green with Envy" than Green, if you ask me.

Bob James, chester,

If 4 x 4's clog our streets, if they are indeed gas guzzlers etc, etc, and are to be subject to huge hikes in road tax..…. what are the powers that be and the eco warriors planning to do about caravans?

They are large; obstruct the vision of other road users; most definitely clog up roads and, most importantly, what does towing one of these monstrosities do to the petrol consumption of the car pulling them?

Whilst it appears acceptable to criticise anyone who can 'afford' a 4x4, and there seems to be an almost complete disregard for those who do need them e.g. the much maligned country folk…. how is it that all those pulling caravans through our narrow and crowded highways and byways are deemed so saintly by contrast?

Why are they not going to be taxed? Isn’t it about time that such vehicles were subject to the same rates as the rest of road users?

Judy d'Arcy thompson, Harrogate, England

How did you manage to write so much and miss so much out? Why did you not mention the report that analysed the "dust-to-dust" co2 produced by 96 cars. Prius... 84th highest polluter. Jeep... lowest (and there were 2 jeeps in the top ten lowest dust-to-dust polluters). I'm no fan of 4x4... but I am a believer that the car gets far too much blame. Look at a normal families co2 production. Flights twice what their cars produce. Lights about the house, 60% more than their cars... whilever we believe that cars are the problem we'll never move forward. worst of all your report made it sound like any sympathies you had for 4x4 and their drivers were fuelled by freebie 4x4 days out with the manufacturers.

Paul Murray, Manchester,

i watch Jeremy clarkson drive a ford 150 in your country there wasn't any room for it to maneuver any where

Jeff, slc , Utah

Try driving around Kensington and Chelsea everyday all day and you will understand why Mums and Nannies drive SUV s .SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY AND COMFORT .

SUPERNANNY, Kensington, England

If we take this to the extreme and everyone in the uk had a 4x4 or similar large vehicle, then many of us would not be able to get out of our own streets and many small country roads would be virtually impassable.
Apart from the additional damage such larger, heavier vehicles must surely be doing to our roads, drivers of these vehicles are effectively putting two fingers up to the rest of society. the US may have space for these vehicles, we do not.
I think car tax should be based on a combination of emissions, vehicle weight and dimensions.
From a safety point of view, I remember that a number of years ago, several of my motorcyclist friends feared the 'volvo driver' above all others. Why? Because it appeared that volvo drivers drove their cars as if they were invincible. The 'safe' feeling that 4x4 drivers get encourages lack of consideration for other road users.
Again, two fingers up to the rest of us...

steve, Newcastle, Tyne and wear

S Asprey is bang on the nail. Isn't the concern really about the size of the average 4x4 vehicles? Most are huge, yet there are a number of manufacturers, Volvo, Audi, Subaru, supplying smaller 4x4 vehicles which provide equal safety and all the advantages of better roadholding.

It isn't actually necessary to have a 2.5tonne vehicle, which in a city environment is somewhat ludicrous, given their somwhat cumbersome nature. And yes, parking a Ferrari in the city is equally difficult, ask the Top Gear presenters.

But that doesn't mean get rid of all these vehicles, just hope that in the future they are used judiciously, when needed, and not as school delivery vehicles or shopping baskets. Size isn't everything but unfortunately these days we are driven by the "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome, which is promoted every time you open a magazine or watch TV.

Smaller and with more sublety might be the way of the future. The article misses the point a little. But if the big 4x4's were to disappear we might miss one of lifes great pleasures, watching the attempts to park them in city parking spaces. That is serious fun!
PWS

Peter Sutton, Wellington, New Zealand

I own 2 vehicles: a 60 mpg diesel and a 22 mpg 4X4. The more frugal vehicle gets used for the work runs, and all normal domestic motoring. I use the 4X4 for leisure purposes, including towing a horse box or a caravan, for carrying building materials on occasions, and have also moved house 3 times for my son. With the seats flattened, it has superb carrying capacity. I have also often ended up towing "normal" cars off the muddy fields they're parked in for Steam Rallies, Agricultural Shows, etc., or else pulling them out of the snow. These folk don't seem to complain about 4X4's at that point.
One other thing: many 4x4 owners I know have converted their vehicles, at their own expense, to run on LPG. This is much less polluting: around 20% less CO2, no sulphur dioxide or hydrogen sulphide, and minimal nitrogen oxides.
My brother's Wankel engined Mazda produces far more pollution per mile than does my 4X4. And so does the Renault Espace, etc. etc.

Dave Butler, Hook, Hampshire

I do not object to people owning 4x4 vehicles if they need that type for off road or track use in rural areas.
In urban areas they are over bulky and prevent drivers of smaller more fuel efficient cars having good visibility.
They are owned and driven by all social classes as supposed status symbols, just as walking around muttering jibberish into a mobile phone is [or was] a supposed status symbol. I have far more sympathy with families with three of more children who own people carriers as a modern family car can only really carry four in comfort and safety on a long journey. I own a recent Mondeo which will transport my family adequately and is quite fuel efficient if driven gently.
The mantra should be: "need not greed".

David Shires, New Milton,

I'm a working farmer, have had Land Rovers for years and a few years back discovered I can manage without them. I now have a normal van and a normal car to work the farm alleviating the need to drag around that extra ton of steel with me that I don't need. As a result, I'm saving hard earned cash.
I'm really not sure why nice folk in cities would want to drive a 4x4 (unless they had to) but I guess given time, they'll get over it. It's quite possible to manage without them, even in the countryside!

Gerald Addicott, Bath, Somerset

I live in the countryside and access my house down an unmade drive. I drive to work along country lanes and can't get a bus to work. My wife uses a 4 WD drive to get our child to school. There are no school buses and it's a 7 mile journey. I have paid to have the carbons offset for 3 years on the 4WD. The car does 30 MPG, not bad for a big car and much better than many saloon cars which also have higher emissions. People who apply simplistic across-the-board assessments of 4WD use should understand that they are not all Chelsea tractors, some of us actually need them to get around.

Gerry, Suffolk, UK

You fail to recognise the crucial fact that if a person is hit by a 4x4 they have a far greater chance of being killed than if they were hit by a normal car. The irony is you stressing there is a sexist element to being against 4x4s, when you yourself make comments such as 'which for men can be as difficult as stopping to ask for directions'. There is absolutely no purpose for 4x4s in the city, and as you yourself say, it is a class issue - only not how you imagine, it is not the working class who dislike 4x4s because they can't afford them, it's the middle classes and upper classes purchasing 4x4s becausing purchasing expensive things makes up for their lack of humanity.

Maia Kirby, London,

4x4 vehicles in cities are often used as small buses for large families. Since they transport many people over short distances only, the CO2 emitted for each passanger in a year is low compared to a small car used for many more kilometers/year in a rural location transporting just one or two people.

Martin Dean, London,

I sold my Hummer last year and bought a diesel Range Rover to return 22 miles to the gallon instead of 8, however even this seems selfish.

Two points to consider; How many 4x4 owners have a smaller second car to cover longer trips etc.?

How many miles per year does the average 4x4 cover?

chris, manchester,

I think that ,whilst SUVs and 4x4s are big polluters, everybody who wants one should have the right to buy one. I am a big fan of extremely large SUVs like the Hummer H1, and I think the way forward to tackle pollution from cars should not be to cane everybody who drives an SUV, but to develop cleaner, more efficient engines and invest in new sources of propulsion like the hydrogen fuel cell.

The safety issue is different. I read in the article in the sunday times magazine today that SUV drivers are less careful with the way they drive ie not wearing seatbelts. Drivers should be encouraged to drive safely and reduce the risk off accidents especially involving pedestrians. Has anybody actually considered that the pedestrian might be at fault?

So what about the social issue? I think that (as mentioned earlier), if you want to drive an SUV., go ahead. The fact that somebody else cannot afford one is unfortunate. But it is not the SUV drivers fault.

Ryan Boocock, chester, cheshire, England

The major point is that these vehicles are too big and too heavy. The 4X4 hardware adds greatly to the weight. If a car is excessively heavy it requires extra fuel, causing extra emisssions, just to move around. The "Chelsea Tractors" are not good off-road vehicles. They use road tyres which are not suitable for serious off-road use. The passenger space is no greater than a normal car, they are not safer - they tip-over easier in an accident, their handling is poor and they are too wide for British roads. A Land Rover is an excellent farm vehicle - leave it there. How many "gymkhanas and village fetes" take place in the average city?
So they are now mostly diesel, so are many other cars - 11 of the top twenty selling cars meet the 130 g/km requirement. How many 4X4 trucks do? Common consumption figures for diesel "SUVs" are in the low 20ties, any normal diesel car will return 40+ mpg.
We don't need these enormous monsters!.

David James, Budleigh Salterton,

Say what you like - as the owner of a GMC Yukon XL (I believe the biggest SUV currently being manufactured) last weekend I was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler (articulated lorry), the five occupant's of my vehicle walked away with bumps and bruises - I will be buying another one. Had I been in a smaller vehicle the end result could have been very different. Added to which, had I not been driving/car-pooling, there would have been 2 more vehicles on the road therefore higher emissions. A change of habits needs to be encouraged as opposed to a rant against people that drive bigger vehicles.

Mark Ellis, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

The article suggests 4x4s emit less than Ferraris and Bugattis - which is all very well but these are hardly common. It also suggests BMWs are envied - but BMWs are ten-a-penny nowadays - hardly to be envied. The dislike of 4x4s - whether BMWs or KIAs - arises because 1) they're unnecessary - few even go on wet grass let alone mountains 2) they're large and block other drivers' views 3) they're hardly low emission 4) they're often very badly driven by clueless, distracted, and selfish mums and 5) why can't (in an age of obesity) kids WALK any more - my kids (now in their 20s) PREFERRED to walk to school unless it was pouring.

Bill McKinlay, Edinburgh, UK

I have driven 4X4's for the last 12 years, and I've had the vehicles for the practicality of use. I have three children, two elderly parents and a brother, who often need moving en mass. I don't want a people carrier because I also tow a caravan over wet camp sites, I don't have space for two vehicles at home and couldn't afford the insurance and tax for two. I've used them in business for visiting some clients which work from sites, where a two wheel drive vehicle couldn't go and like to drive carefully within the limitations of the vehicle. I feel I have good reason to drive a 4X4 and my choice makes perfect sense. I don't like the blanket of lies that have been spouted to gain recruits into the league against 4X4's and feel that their so called war is not very well thought through. Get your facts right and be even handed or stop wasting my time!

Fisherman, Essex, England

Lots of interesting points but I wonder, is it not time somebody questioned the increase in HGV's on the road and the amount of pollutants they are responsible for. I know of several large companies from electrical retailers to supermarkets who, I believe, should be making more of a contribution. As for 4x4 I live in a rural farming area so do not see the problem although I can appreciate they may cause problems in the City, but no more so than an HGV or a transit van of which I'm told are many and every where.

Chris Jones, Gower, Wales

The article discussed the environmental issues which are are indeed valid, however I am sure SUV's and their drivers are not disliked just for the environmental damage they are doing, but for the sheer arrogance of driving such large vehicles, usually badly, in our congested city centres. Bryan Appleyard suggests that women are better drivers of these monsters; I disagree. Most of the time these vehicles are driven with considerable aggression (usually by males) and often parked badly (usually by females) taking up more than their fair share of space in carparks. I for one dislike having them anywhere near me because they obstruct my vision of the road and traffic therefore putting me at risk. They cause the same problem to other road users as commercial vehicles do, but they do so when they clearly do not have to. The same cannot be said of commercial vehicles which are the size they are because they have a specific job to do which cannot be done by smaller vehicles.

Bashir Chaudhry, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Urban 4X4s are just fashion accesories for the wilfully self indulgent. As Alexei Sayle once said "4X4s are just SO essential when you're going to Sainsburys"

paul donnachie, norwich, norfolk

One answer to the problems discussed in this excellent article would be to require all new cars to have a fuel consumption/CO2 emisssion gauge placed prominently next to the speedometer. My new Renault has a digital consumption read-out, and I must say I was shocked to realize how much more fuel I was using at 130 kph (I live on the continent) than at 140 kph.

Barry James, Sevres , France

Most of the people who have problems with 4 wheel drive vehicles do so because of envy as your article alluded to, they are an easy target for class hatred. If you look at the number of cars that will do more than 150 miles an hour and probably les than 15 miles to the gallon they are increasing every year and yet they are not targeted probably because they are seen as signs of virility and success whereas 4*4,s are seen as signs of superiority, probably by people who have an inferiority complex and don't like to feel that they are being 'looked down on' by people in their 4*4's. I suggest that these people get a life of their own instead of telling others how to live their life.
By the way I do not own a 4*4

Kevin Wilson, Tynemouth, Tyne & wear

A few years ago I was walking in the City with my rather-tricky-to-converse-with boss. We were almost run down by a Range Rover. Happy to have a conversation piece, I ranted for a while about what type of person would have such a ridiculous car in a country which boasts about 200 metres of unpaved road etc etc. My boss looked at me and said, "Well I've got one." I keep quiet on that subject now.
ps. Now I live in South America, I've got one too...and with good reason!

james, Monteria, Colombia

I drive a 2.5 X Type Jaguar .
Like the rest of all this govenment does I well think it is all to do with pleaseing the Idiots who support them. I have only done 7000 miles in my 28month old car so I feel I am a subject of their much talked of Discrimination rule.
I am sure that my emissions are less than any smaller car doing lets say an average of 11,000 miles per year.
SO why am I being charged a higher road Tax ?
Answer . I am not wasting my money thus being able to buy the Car I WANT .

Barry Wainwright, Rotherham, England

I have a Discovery 3 and a Volvo V70, when it is just me travelling I take the Volvo, when it is me and the family (5 sons) I have no choice but to take the Discovery. The Discovery however serves as a dual purpose vehicle as I use it in my business to move mini diggers around. I did my sums and it was much better for the environment if I had a dual use vehicle rather than 2 vehicles. I also run 6 vans in my business, I do worry about the planet, especially for my children and I am in the process of offsetting my complete fuel CO2 footprint,. My problem is that with all the tax we pay on fuel why on earth don't the Government do some offsetting of their own on our behalf (and I dont mean Mr Blairs personal air travel!) with all the extra tax in comparison to other countries? Also we have the ability to make Bio-diesel using rape seed oil, why isn't that available?

Nick Allport, Cheltenham, Cotswolds

I own a 4x4 and I don't use as much fuel as some of the bigger cars and all the big van on the roads all day, and also when it snowed many people were very happy to have me to tow them to safety. In Australia the govenment give's out grants to change from petrol & deisel to gas and insurance is cheeper for 4x4's because they are safer to drive,What do you get here nothing but more ways to TAX you and people like Ms Berry telling you what you can and can't have.As for climate change it's going to happen anyway it has for thousands of year, plus how much polution do all the war around the world cause how much fosile fule is used to power Las vagas for gambling, look at china and the use of coal, So do something about these issues and get off our back about the 4x4 owner we don't tell you how to run your life !!

steve, northamptonshire, UK

A compelling argument for a 2.5 tonne vehicle against a 1 tonne vehicle when hitting a child?

If you cared to do some proper research you might realise that total weight of the vehicle is irrelevant. what IS relevant is the concentration of that weight over a surface area. eg land rover with front end surface area (the 'bumper' on a discovery protrudes very little) of 10 square feet versus a 1 tonne sports car with a wedge shaped pointed front end and surface contact area of 3 square feet? By the way with the sports car the childs legs are hit by the bumper and his head is spun over and hits the bonnet. Do the maths..in tonnes per square foot.

However one of the best ways to combat this is by making sure pedestrians know how to use and cross roads safely rather than blaming car users for driving cars... on the road.

Tony Hughes, Barnsley,

I'm just curious as an outsider how you carpool children to and from school in the UK. I'm in the US, and we participate in a number of carpools for our children's schools. Instead of 5 cars going to pick up each child each day, we and other families in our neighborhood drive one vehicle per day. To accomplish this, one needs a car that seats five in the back- a SUV. So while I know there is an anti SUV furor, it seems to me to be a lot more environmentally friendly to car pool with a larger vehicle than to drive a number of smaller vehicles.

Richard Diamond, Dallas, USA/TX

I,ve been driving for 35 years and I can honestly say I,ve never been aware of needing 4 wheel drive, lets face it you are carrying all that extra weight (transfer gearboxes etc) around all the time and you might need it one day in 4 years when it snows (where I live still havent had any snow)
I suggest they trple the road tax unless its proven an individual needs it (farmer etc)

David James, GOSPORT, UK

I drive a ten year old 4x4 which has done just over 60 000 miles from new. I live in rural area. We also have a small car which is used for city and shopping trips. And I use public transport when I can - not easy in rural areas It is nonsense to drive big limos and 4x4s in congested cities - but on the other hand most town centres seem to be filled with empty, heavily subsidised diesel buses often very old and very polluting. Which pollutes the most. Lastly we buy local produce where we can, I wonder where all these do-gooders source their food and how much they protest against pollution caused by shipping food from all over the world.

Richard, Northumberland,

A well balanced article by The Sunday Times - not pointing blame but provoking discussion and thought. Emissions are only one of the problems with SUVs. It does seem foolish to drive such large cars in the already congested roads found in nearly all towns and cities. However, the bigger problem with 4x4 off-roaders is in the way in that they are driven: usually with aggression and arrogance, SUV drivers bullying other road users in smaller vehicles because they (foolishly) feel safer in their 2500kg tanks. I despair every time an SUV owner says they drive one citing the safety of their children in the event of a collision - lets hope they are never hit by another car side-on - thanks to their tanks high centre of gravity, their tank will simply fall on it's side! Why not buy a premuim quality family hatchback with a five-star Euro Ncap safety rating. You may even find people let you out at busy junctions!

S. Asprey, Ayr,

I don't understand why the Ford Focus is compared with the Vauxhall Corsa as the Focus is a much larger car. Surely you should be referring to the Ford Fiesta.
Also you quote gm of CO2 per kilometre but you don't say which engines the cars have.
So I'm sorry but the article is flawed.

Michael Cawood, Wrexham, UK

I totally agree with Abdul.

Andrew, Paris,

Totally agree with most of the points raised. I don't have a normal 4x4 because I don't need one for family driving, but I do have a 4x4 pick up for work use.

One BIG point though.. You can't "offset" carbon emissions by planting trees. The idea of "Carbon Offset" is another stupid headline grabber that isn't true. you need to lock carbon back up, not just produce oxygen. Incidently, tarmac locks up a lot of carbon... so build more roads, and hey, guess what? you won't need a 4x4 so much then.

Paul, MK,

A very good and balanced article and highlights the issue of emmisions over predudice but 4x4 owners have in the past brought this hatred on themselves in the form of Bull bars. If there was ever a way of sticking two fingers up at everyone else this did the trick with the i will crush you and I don't mind the consequences. Then in London you had what the bodyshops call the Freelander effect which was a dent in the bonnet of your car caused by the spare wheel being hit against it due to bad parking.
Now you have the over sized sports cars that are by there shear size saying to everyone I don't care about the enviroment or your future.
So if these people will stick two fingers up to society then why should the not expect bad feeling in return.

John William Riley, colchester, england

Whilst we have a 4 X 4 hysteria, I would suspect that a far larger contribution to lowering emissions would occur if we banned automatic cars. My experience of these would indicate an average 25% reduction in mpg, this I assume would transfer into proportional increase of CO2 emission / mile or kilometre. Sales of automatic cars particularly in the luxury sector have massively increased in recent years, indeed when I looked at exchanging my 5 series manual car, local BMW dealers almost expected me to pay them to take it off my hands, with gasps of dismay at having to contemplate a non automatic BMW to dispose of.

Michael Scattergood, Tamworth, Staffordshire

everyone should have a hummer. an original hummer. you green loonies can go walk if you want.
global warming ???? another lie like the millenium bug to make money for you liberal trash who won't or can't do any proper work.

peter jones, moscow, cis

Life's A Picnic

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

It's not the hostility of dogs that's off-putting, but their overbearing affection

The truth about four-wheel drives

'Chelsea tractors' are seen as symbols of wanton environmental destruction. But class hatred, envy and gender are distorting the facts, argues Bryan Appleyard

Expert View

Well, I don’t know what’s causing global warming. Reports suggest it’s the Land Rover Discovery

Background