spoonman on triple m

Agree..
dont listen to the radio at all anymore, full of ads and people who think they are funny.... but arent.

Tele? Gave up on that many moons ago...

the reality thing really bleep s me. thats all people talk about, they dont have lives anymore.. all virtual!
Richard Branson in on it, and also the clothing one now? FFS, get over it.

Tony Shaw.....wasn't he a swimmer....doesn't he run a swim centre in Pendle Hill now? I went there once, and had to leave after a couple of minutes, due to all the chlorine in the air. I do digress....

Even though this is an obvious bait.......

Tony, stopping distances are actually not that bad. Extra weight (ie.. more downward pressure), combined with wider tyres and larger brake pads (more surface area) would actually make braking good, if not excellent. I know my Landcruiser (AWD, ABS, etc...) can stop a lot better than my old 2000 model falcon.

Visibility is actually better than a typical sedan in a lot of 4WD's (that was an NRMA study, I believe). If it is a problem, a mirror or camera can be installed (I have the camera that looks down at the back bumper, so I can reverse safely).

The thing is, all vehicles have various issues. The driver has to learn to drive knowing those issues. I for one never reverse around children. I think all vehicles should do that, but there are so many stupid people near my daughters school that reverse their cars without looking it is no wonder there are not more accidents than there are already.

As for being high on the road, yes they are. So are vans. So are trucks. So are utes. So is any car with a roof rack (which I would need to have if I were forced to have a car). It becomes a non issue if people dodn't tailgate. The 3 second rule applies as much to cars as any other vehicle. At 60km/h, that is a gap of 50m. If your visibility is affected that much that far away, that you can't stop intime to avoid an accident, I don't think the problem is the other vehicle.... I also belive a half decent driver should be keeping an eye on the larger vehicle 5 cars ahead in the queue of traffic. If you can see them stopping, it's a pretty good chance you will have to as well... If we all drove cars, we could only see one car ahead anyway!

I for one prefer my landcruiser because it is not as long or wide as a commodore or falcon (read: better in a carpark), it uses less fuel (10 - 10.5L / 100km), and when I go on holidays, it accomodates me and my family with ease. I don't need to take a trailer, or install roofracks, except to take the canoe.

We can only afford one vehicle, so I would much rather had an underutilised landcruiser than a gas guzzling, overloaded sedan. What would you prefer, as a fellow road user? I also tow 3.5 tonnes fairly regularly, a scarey thought in anything bar a 4WD.

To bring up a few more points - I plan on keeping my current vehicle for at least 10 years (probably a lot more). It is 7 years old now, done 60,000km, so I am looking good. In that time, I would have gone through at least 3 cars. What a waste of resources!

I also have 8 seats - great for going out on Saturday nights, or taking kids to and from parties. We have 7 or 8 people in our car a few times each week, taking at least 1 other vehicle off the road in the scheme of things.

We also regularly go bush for a day or 2, taking our 2 kids to see truely interesting and educational things. Have you ever seen the look on a 3 year olds face when you are standing in the middle of a pine forrest, silently watching kangaroos only meters away? Or the look of a 5 year old at the top of a mountain, looking out at 360 degree views? I have, and I agree that a 4WD is not essential, but it takes a week long trek down to a lovely day out....

In short, get a life, and stop worrying about how we live our lives!

Chump

Hey Chump, It's good to see some valid thought about arguments for keeping them instead of the typical "It's my right to drive a four wheel drive". I agree totally with most of what you said and think maybe some other solutions would be better than a ban, like having reversing camera's or mirrors compulsory in these larger vehicles.

Tony,

No worries.

I do agree that it is my right to drive a 4by, and I shouldn't have to justify it to anyone else. It is just that with the current publicity, I thought more non-4wd'ers might visit sites like this, and I would put up a couple of valid points.

It is OK normally to squabble and say macho things when it is only us here, but to someone that doesn't have anything to do with the outdoors, it would look a bit funny. We are actually a decent mob!

Cheers,

Chump

I agree with the visibility as it is easier to see out of a Landcruiser/Patrol than what it is out of a small car, especially hatchbacks. But to say that a landcruiser uses less fuel than a Commodore??? I dont think so. From someone that owns both a Commodore and a Patrol, I can assure you that you are not going to convince anyone that big 4WD's are economical.

No big vehicle is very economical. I can say, with a certainty, my Landcruiser gets better than 11L/100km. Commodores and Falcons get worse. It is a bit funny, actually. The cruiser is at least 50% heavier, with a larger motor, yet gets better economy....

I am looking at the technical specs for a VZ Commodore, and it says combined fuel consumption is 11.6L/100km. Click Here.

The specs for a BA MKII, BF/SY falcon are shown HERE.

I do notice on the Toyota web site HERE the Landcruiser is listed as 13L/100km. This is with the standard wheels. If you put the skinny wheels on, economy improves.

I regularly get between 10 and 10.5L/100km, as do many other people on this forum. Do a search for "Landcruiser Fuel Economy 105 Series" on Google, and there are many people in that situation.

It would seem more fuel efficient to me......

So, lets get this straight. Everything on the internet is to be taken as gospel? Except the Toyota website of course. You make the point that you get better economy than claimed by Toyota, (which is no doubt true), so is it not plausible that the other manufacturers figures might not also be skewed to the heavy side? You talk later about evidence to back up fact, but you are only listening to the evidence you want to hear.
Tanka

No, everything on the internet is not to be taken as gospel.

I don't drive a commodore or a falcon, so I have no idea what their figures are, apart from what the manufacturers claim. I also don't frequent commodore or falcom forums, so I have no idea what the actual figures are.

I can only assume all the manufacturers sites are right. They sound about right. I stated I put narrower tyres on my vehicle, and get better than what the manufacturer states. I'm sure if people put narrow tyres on their commodore or falcon, they would improve their fuel economy.

A quick google finds all sorts of figures for a commodore, from 10.5 to about 18 L/100km.

That same google finds figures between 10 and 12 l/100km for 105 Series, NA Landcruisers.

My main point was, the argument that big 4WD's are gas guzzlers is wrong. My 8 seat 4WD gets the same / better economy than a 5 seat car, despite being much heavier. There is much more room inside, and the payload, both internal and towing, is in another league.

The politically correct brigade is rapidly running out of arguments.....

Troll, or someone from the media sparking for a story?

Truckster,

I hope it's someone from the media - it means this site is getting more and more notice taken of it..

Some of the questions are a bit too leading to be a troll, and he seems to ask a question, get shot down, then move on to the next one in the list.

I hope in my heart of hearts it is Harry Screwball himelf (the walking class w@^ker), but i doubt he'd actually go looking for facts....

CHump

Here here....

Hi Ken, Don't get me wrong i'm not against 4wd's as i drive one everyday of the week. I'm very uneducated and just wanted to hear some well thought out arguments toward them. Listening to "Spoonman" last night there was a lack of well presented arguments and facts siding with 4wd's. This was quite possibley because anyone with a decent argument wasn't put to air.

Do 4wd tyres wear the road more than conventional sedan tyres?

Cheers, ToNy!
29/9/05 16:04:19

Ken, allow me....

Tony, although it has been a few years, I did do Civil Engineering at Uni. When designing roads, engineers do not worry about cars or 4WD's, they design according to semi-trailers.

What is a difference of 1.5 up to 3 tonnes going to make, when you have something that is 40 tonnes on that same stretch of road?

I spose you could argue cars are more likely to spin their wheels.

Also, from my answer above, 4WD's have bigger tyres than cars, so surface area in contact with the road would be larger. So, in terms of kg/cm, the downward pressure would be about the same, as it would be for a motor bike, or a semi (i would assume...). A tyre can only stand so much pressure!

In an off road situation, cars would cause much more damage than a 4by, but they don't tend to go off road.....

Lol, Maybe there should be a ban agains car owners from using any off road tracks because they cause too much Damage.

Track damage is a major concern, and it is not a laughing matter.

ANYONE found recklessly damaging tracks should be severely reprimanded - be it in a car, 4WD, trail bike, or whatever. It all comes back to being responsible for your actions when behind tonnes of steel and plastic.

It is not the vehicles that should be banned, it is the stupid reckless people with no regard for anyone else. You will find those type of people do not drive one sort of vehicle over another, nor live in a particular area........

Boc 1971,

The issue of special 4WD licence is one where we as 4WDers should not compromise ! Why would you suggest a separate licence is appropriate is beyond me. As you say your HiAce is as big and heavy as a 4WD, do you want to have a separate licence for these vehicles as well ?
A normal car licence allows people to drive a wide range of vehicles, fast slow, big and little. Singling out 4WD's for a whole range of 'special' treatment as some misguided lunatics are doing makes no sense; having support for this from a fellow 4WDer is disapointing.
It is not the type of vehicle that is the problem here. Lunatics in old commodores kill themselves and others at a far higher rate than 4WD's yet there is no outcry about this. The whole anti 4WD push is based on very little factual data and a large amount of lies. It comes from a highly erratic section of humanity with a range of agendas some obvoius and some hidden, and not a lot of credibility; radio and TV current affairs reporters being high on the list. Hardly the basis for changing licence requirements or any of the draconiam anti 4WD measures they promote.

Ken

Ken,

Google is our friend here. It is easy to dig out the real facts about 4WD's, and shut these morons up. Dr Jenkins has made a good start with his article (can't remember where it was - it was floating round here a few weeks ago), but it is easy to go further.

Like this Tanka guy telling me there is no way a large 4WD is more fuel efficient than a large car. Mine is. A quick google proved the point.

Most of what these people come out with can be proved either wrong, or a totally non-issue if we just use common sense, and back up what we say with evidence. People looking over these posts will see one side of the argument (THEM) makes ridiculous claims, then the other side (US) disputes those claims with facts, then moves on.

Hopefully within time people who actually listend to this crap will do a little research for themselves, have a coke and a smile, and shut the f*ck up!

Cheers,

Chump

it just reinforces the fact that wankers like that don't have two brain cells to rub together.....

I stopped listening to MMM about 5 years ago. Never looked back