were saying :
Which very few people need to do.
Which very few people need to do.
Which very few people need to do.
For you. They block sightlines for others far more than "normal cars" - but the same applies to small vans, sprogbuses, pimptint chavmobiles, and others.
Indeed. Those are six claims on very subjective ground, and many of them are of dubious merit at best.
Safety - While there is a certain element of mbutt winning in any impact, the EuroNCAP ratings for 4x4s certainly show no great reduction in occupant injury over similar priced "normal cars", and show much less pedestrian protection. Increased mbutt increases the energy in an impact and projects it to the less mbuttive vehicle in a two-car impact, so increasing the likelihood of injuries to the occupants. Primary safety - the ability to avoid accidents in the first place - in the vast majority of on-road conditions is also far lower in 4x4s than "normal cars".
Reliability - Many of the "prestige" 4x4s come very low down in quality surveys.
Economy - Comparing apples-with-apples, 4x4s ALWAYS consume more fuel and emit more pollutants.
Specification - Price-for-price, specs are very similar, if not better on "normal cars".
Security - That'll be why a recent press release from the vendors of an aftermarket stolen-car-tracker boasted about how their device had enabled the theives of 28 BMWs to be caught in one month - half of which were X5s, despite the X5 forming a small minority of BMWs on the road. Several Disco IIIs were also mentioned in the press release. Most (70%) car thefts now are key thefts, to which 4x4s are no less vulnerable than "normal cars".
That leaves "comfort" as the only one where 4x4s can't be easily proven to offer no real advantage - because it's purely subjective.
When viewed dispbuttionately, they're usually good at a few things which most people never ened to do, and utterly mediocre at daily life.
