pete75 wrote:Ben@Forest wrote:al_yrpal wrote:With mud, gravel patches, thorns after hedgecutting and even more potholes on the roads the present trend towards more and more SUVs and 4x4s can be partially explained.
When reading this sort of opinion I think about how country vets like the 'real' James Herriot got about in Austin 7s and the like in the 30s and 40s. In rural North Yorkshire I think about a third of roads were not yet tarmacked. Yet they got about in ordinary cars. Mud, thorns and potholes do not require a SUV, let alone a 4x4. It is only fashion which dictates such.
Those cars had high ground clearance, large diameter wheels, a separate chassis and were built for how the roads were at the time. Tyres too were different with deeper tread and patterns better able to clear mud. Most modern cars are designed for smooth tarmac.
A few years ago we rented a remote Swedish holiday cottage by a lake in the middle of a forest. Half a mile up a track to the nearest road, 8 miles to the nearest village, 20 miles to town but partly on a gravel road, 30 miles via tarmac. The family who owned the cottage lived all the year round in an adjacent grand house they'd built for themselves, and commuted to work through long tough winters. They were clearly prosperous - mum and daughter had several horses between them, son into quadbiking, dad into boats, all with associated trailers for moving them around.
A family like that in the UK would probably have had 2 SUVs. Their vehicles for this lifestyle? VW Passat, Renault Clio and Ford Transit. The even smarter looking house up the track had a Mercedes saloon and Chrysler retro cruiser. Plenty of other smart houses around, but we literally never saw an SUV, the only 4x4s were for forestry work.
I agree with Ben, very few people need SUVs they're just about fashion and status.