Call for 4wd modification law revision

[fatkat]

Just heard on the news (might be a bit slow), however, a small 4y/o kid ran out into traffic, and HAPPENED to get into the way of a modified 4wd.

Now, the government is blaming modified 4wds for the accident?! WTF?! the kid ran out infront of the car, if it was a small car the exact same would have happened, the kid would have gotten killed no matter what it was.

The 4wd in the story is a highly modified '84 lux singlecab, looks like an 8" lift with 35's. The kid probably got taken out by the diff casing. If it was a passenger car the kid would have gotten MORE decked given that a 4y/o isnt very big and would have been dragged under the car.

Sorry i just hate it when the blame is put on the modified vehicle in any situation.


What if it was a unimog?

[bazza]

ahahahah thats the biggest load of crap. bahhahaa. bhahahaha. funniest thing i have read all night.

[brisneyland]

33's and a two inch lift I'd say. About as mild as you can get.

Journos like that should be run over repeatedly.

[Rik]

Who is singling out modified 4wds? I thought it was just the pedestrian safety councils?

Whilst I don't like the idea of super-raised 4wds on suburban roads, and believe they need special licensing and registration, the circumstances surrounding this accident have nothing to do with the type of vehicle! Talk about jumping the gun. This even had front page of todays Daily Terrorgraph :eek:

And to justify my opinion of 4wds, I believe the licensing and registration system needs to be revamped completely, with different categories depending on car size, weight, power and type. We really need to take a step back and look at the big picture, about necessity of certain vehicles and how appropriate they are for certain situations.
Right now there's alot of noise in the media about petrol and toll prices, as well as traffic problems. If we all reassessed our own personal transport needs, I'm sure alot of these problems would be reduced. But instead, the "me, me, me" attitude gets in the way, so our government is expected to subsidise our unsustainable way of life.
Huzzah for tangential rants :rolleyes:

[Binaural]

I don't love raised 4WDs but this is ridiculous, the type of car was totally irrelevant here. It's like the writer was told to run a story about evil 4WDs and just grabbed the first related thing. Journalism at its best, go the terrorgraph :rolleyes:

[zids]

little johnny howard: hmm... toddler hit by a car oh well........ wait, what did you say, it was a 4 wheel drive??? BAN ALL MODIFIED FOUR WHEEL DRIVES, its the sensible thing to do!

[floody]

Of course, were it a more normal type of passenger vehicle without ludicrous suspension raising, then perhaps it may have stood half a chance of STOPPING or AVOIDING the child...Or not.
But traditional 4X4s are worse in those situations to begin with, not to mention when massive tyres are fitted and the centre of gravity is jacked to hell.

Media/pollies chasing a scapegoat, anyway. It will be back to skylines next week, soon as this week's P-plater doriftos into a pole.

of course, IMO, 4x4s should be subjected to a) luxury vehicle tax for the luxo ones, which would kill the market by blowing prices out, currently your top end cruisers, Merc 4bies, Bimmer X-s are all under commercial vehicle tarriffs - like a Hilux, triton, hiace etc, rules designed to let in cheap, no-frills vehicles for industry/tradies - so lets see how they sell with 20% extra on the price.
b) serious 4X4s should be subjected to usage based, special interest vehicle rego with logbooks etc. Then the serious 4x4 drivers, farmers and so forth could still have their f#cking dangerous tanks to go off road with, IF THEY'RE SERIOUS.
Maybe even solution C) specialist driver testing to be allowed to drive these bloomin' massive vehicles with poor dynamics, which would knock out a lot of the soccer mum population.

[master pain]

Of course, were it a more normal type of passenger vehicle without ludicrous suspension raising, then perhaps it may have stood half a chance of STOPPING or AVOIDING the child...Or not.
But traditional 4X4s are worse in those situations to begin with, not to mention when massive tyres are fitted and the centre of gravity is jacked to hell.

Media/pollies chasing a scapegoat, anyway. It will be back to skylines next week, soon as this week's P-plater doriftos into a pole.

of course, IMO, 4x4s should be subjected to a) luxury vehicle tax for the luxo ones, which would kill the market by blowing prices out, currently your top end cruisers, Merc 4bies, Bimmer X-s are all under commercial vehicle tarriffs - like a Hilux, triton, hiace etc, rules designed to let in cheap, no-frills vehicles for industry/tradies - so lets see how they sell with 20% extra on the price.
b) serious 4X4s should be subjected to usage based, special interest vehicle rego with logbooks etc. Then the serious 4x4 drivers, farmers and so forth could still have their f#cking dangerous tanks to go off road with, IF THEY'RE SERIOUS.
Maybe even solution C) specialist driver testing to be allowed to drive these bloomin' massive vehicles with poor dynamics, which would knock out a lot of the soccer mum population.


I agree^^!

[fatkat]

I dont know if the media hyped it up or not, but i'm pretty sure the kid ran out infront of the 4wd, like as in less than a metre? as little kids do?

btw passenger cars are designed to throw adults over the bonnet to reduce injury. a 4y/o is alot shorter than an adult. He would have gotten nailed either way. i.e. head into grill.

[Elbo]

It's ridiculous if people are raising/modifing their cars just for the hell of it.. and especially to drive arround city's (if in fact this incident was in a city)
but.. if this was a genuine 4X4 owner who goes up bush on the weekends and was in fact driving somewhere, not just showing off to mates, or doing something stupid around little kids amazed at the huge car, then it is no different to any other road fatality, involving any other type of car; and therefore should not be targeted just because 'it was a 4WD, ban them all.. blah blah blah'
It's a fatal accident. (full stop) I wish people would stop trying to make the 4WD a scapegoat.

[fatkat]

They even SAID it was not the drivers fault, at all, the kid ran STRAIGHT out infront of the 4x4, not even a motorbike would have been able to stop in time.

So WHY are they blaming the 4wd? seriously?

raising a 4wd for the hell of it is pointless i agree. but banning them isnt going to solve the problem, or special licences, or anything. If people want to drive their modified 4x4s around, they will.

Transport minister must be some sort of halfwit if you ask me.

[hairy]

It's ridiculous if people are raising/modifing their cars just for the hell of it.. and especially to drive arround city's (if in fact this incident was in a city)
but.. if this was a genuine 4X4 owner who goes up bush on the weekends and was in fact driving somewhere, not just showing off to mates, or doing something stupid around little kids amazed at the huge car, then it is no different to any other road fatality, involving any other type of car; and therefore should not be targeted just because 'it was a 4WD, ban them all.. blah blah blah'
It's a fatal accident. (full stop) I wish people would stop trying to make the 4WD a scapegoat.


this occured in south winsor if im not mistaken? so i think he had perfectly good reason to have the 4WD as there is some good 4WD'ing around that area..althogh i havent seen any pictures of the hilux i asume it was a competion truck being from around that area.

i think the transport minister is thinking of bringing in some sort of law to do with engeneers certs not just for 4WD's but for other modifyed cars as well. this messure would include taking a closer look at modifcations such as lifting a 4WD or lowering a car as many people dont exactly do these things by the books and therefore making there cars unsafe(eg: sring chop or a back yard spring over)

Being pretty heavly into car modification my self i think this is pretty unfair that they are blaming this accident on a modified car, i think they would have done the same thing if it was a pro street capri or something like that and would have blamed the accident on the over powered car.

But in the end i think the child was better off being hit by a lifted hilux than your average family car due to the reasons stated above.

[fatkat]

They already have pretty strict engineers rules. They already look at lift kits, as well as bullbar mounts, tank mounts, gearbox mounts, anything related to a lifted 4wd they will check over with a magnifying glass, if your 4wd is modified it NEEDS engineers. end of story. otherwise you arent going to get blue slip.

my mini NEEDS engineers to get rego, it even SAYS on the rego sticker CONDITIONAL. now wtf do they need tighter laws for? QLD has a "modification plate" thing, i agree with that, but not "tougher laws" on 4wd modification, they just need to check the modifications out to see if they are safe, ie no 8" lifts with 44" claws on road, dodgy cross-over steering mods etc etc. no new laws like "lets ban them all" like they do with anything else that exists in the world.

sorry i just hate it when the government bans everything for the sake of it.

[tu plang]

little johnny howard: hmm... toddler hit by a car oh well........ wait, what did you say, it was a 4 wheel drive??? BAN ALL MODIFIED FOUR WHEEL DRIVES, its the sensible thing to do!

I'd be incredibly surprised if this wasnt a state government issue :rolleyes:

[floody]

They already have pretty strict engineers rules. They already look at lift kits, as well as bullbar mounts, tank mounts, gearbox mounts, anything related to a lifted 4wd they will check over with a magnifying glass, if your 4wd is modified it NEEDS engineers. end of story. otherwise you arent going to get blue slip.

my mini NEEDS engineers to get rego, it even SAYS on the rego sticker CONDITIONAL. now wtf do they need tighter laws for? QLD has a "modification plate" thing, i agree with that, but not "tougher laws" on 4wd modification, they just need to check the modifications out to see if they are safe, ie no 8" lifts with 44" claws on road, dodgy cross-over steering mods etc etc. no new laws like "lets ban them all" like they do with anything else that exists in the world.

sorry i just hate it when the government bans everything for the sake of it.


Very few 4wds ever get engineer inspected or approved - and mostly the cops don't seem to care. Put bigger wheels, better suspension, brakes and tyres on your road car though....you're an instant target.

So you end up with a plethora of ear splittingly loud (i.e. most diesels with open exhuasts), vision obscuringly huge vehicles which handled exceptionally poorly from the factory, then with the addition of massive flexy ply tyres and stupid tall suspension become downright dangerous... Its not like adding wider, lower profile tyres, or lowering with decent shocks and springs on a regular car which would result in a positive result, most 4x4 mods are negative for pavement performance. Couple all this with the fact that brakes generally aren't upgraded, the vehicles are extremely heavy, and a lot have power upgrades which would stress the braking and handling before it was reduced.. Even when they do get engineered, its just for legality - not necessarily practicality or safety. The law deals more with materials and so forth rather than things like suspension geometry, mass centralisation, braking/handling performance...You can have an extremely poor handling 4x4 which satisfies engineering rules.

Argh.

Anyway, it seems like it wasn't the truck/driver's fault anyway.

[lotec]

of course, IMO, 4x4s should be subjected to a) luxury vehicle tax for the luxo ones, which would kill the market by blowing prices out, currently your top end cruisers, Merc 4bies, Bimmer X-s are all under commercial vehicle tarriffs - like a Hilux, triton, hiace etc, rules designed to let in cheap, no-frills vehicles for industry/tradies - so lets see how they sell with 20% extra on the price.
excuse me? maybe you should double check that, or maybe tassie is different, i know we played something ludacris like 30 grand luxury vehicle tax on our 4wd...

[Rik]

Doesn't any vehicle over $57k have luxury vehicle taxes on it?
But that said, I'm pretty sure there's still tax cuts on 4wds as Floody mentioned, which is pretty stupid when you look at the current market :rolleyes:

[floody]

excuse me? maybe you should double check that, or maybe tassie is different, i know we played something ludacris like 30 grand luxury vehicle tax on our 4wd...

As far as I know , most and probably all. 4x4s are under the commercial vehicle tariff bracket. How do you know what tax you paid? dealer receipts don't show import costs! Volvo highlighted this when their full-banana luxo XC70 softroader was like $15k cheaper than the top of the line "road" version, because of the tariff group difference. I know this was post-GST, but perhaps things have changed again?

[Hamer]

whats the deal? out of all of the people i know with modified 4x4's (a fair few) none of them are as dangerous as the wankers driving around in thier 'fully sick' skylines n that kind of crap. if your gonna blame someone for un-safe cars IMO it sould be the 'fully sicks'

[floody]

whats the deal? out of all of the people i know with modified 4x4's (a fair few) none of them are as dangerous as the wankers driving around in thier 'fully sick' skylines n that kind of crap. if your gonna blame someone for un-safe cars IMO it sould be the 'fully sicks'

One stereotype begets another.... Thing is if one of the "fully sicks" gets into a bad situation they might have half a chance of getting out of it, avoidance isn't a strongpoint with top heavy, heavy weight 4x4s..

[Kona.S.P]

Hahhahaha what a joke....
When i get my landrover im going to raise it to the shit house, put some big ass wheels and towbar on it and tint the windows so black no one can see in.
How can you blame the 4WD when it is purly the retarded kids falt, wont be doing that again.

[Hex515]

I think it is a big call to put accidents involving 4wd's down the the vehicle itself. They are more from lack of driver experience/showing off.

And plus how would you feel like being a mountainbiker when you are riding down the street (doing nothing wrong) and looked at with rage/anger by motor vehicles due to the fact that some younger kid was playing chicken on the road the other day with his bike. Maybe some special bike licences should be put in place to ride on the road?

Anyway maybe that is a bad statement above... :o

[S.]

This thread really shows what a bunch of tightarses Australians are. There always has to be someone to blame, something to ban, every time some kind of accident occurs. THIS is why our road laws are so rediculously anal, this is why our OH&S laws are so over the top, and this is why there are dozens of letters in the paper every day from people wanting to enforce their will on others FOR NO GOOD REASON. One person wants to ban raised 4wds, the next person says "That's not enough, let's ban ALL 4wds" and someone else says "Hang on, we could go one better and ban anything that wasn't designed solely for maximum safety".

For every time you call for something else to be banned/restricted/require a special licence, take one from the following list and impose it on yourself:
1. No riding down DH tracks at over 40km/h
2. No jumping bikes
3. No riding down DH tracks without full body armour, a camelback, a full-face helmet and 200W lights as well as a reversing beeper
4. No riding off-road without a special licence
5. No riding "luxury" bikes that cost over $500 without paying a CBT or "crippling bike tax".
6. No riding on footpaths (regardless of age, if you're not old enough to ride on the road then TOO BAD)
7. No riding on the road unless you pay $160 rego for your bike, plus third party insurance
8. No parking bikes on the footpath

And so on. Do you really want to live in a place like that? If not, shut the hell up about trying to ban/restrict stuff just because YOU don't like it, because it's fucking selfish, and very childish.

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

Yeah, I agree with S. I'm not the biggest fan of Toorak tractors myself, the drivers do tend to be very nonchalant about cutting you off or in the case of cyclists quite abusive (Not so tough when they have to step out of the cabin though - cowardly twats!) however running around banning everything left, right and centre isn't the way. A small minority of people DO require 4wd's for their livelihoods and like S. is saying, where do you stop with the bans? V8's next? Rear wheel drive cars? Sports bikes?

I'm pretty sure that the cost of fuel in the near future will reduce numbers down to those who really need them anyway...

[rooks]

the reason there blaming the modified 4x4
is because the guy wouldnt even have been able to see the kid

if it was a smaller car mabey they would have seen the kid and slamed on the brakes

[S.]

the reason there blaming the modified 4x4
is because the guy wouldnt even have been able to see the kid

if it was a smaller car mabey they would have seen the kid and slamed on the brakes

And if it was a bigger car or a semi-trailer, maybe the kid would have seen it and not run out in front of it. So what? If the kid ran out close enough to the car that the driver couldn't see it (realistically that means, for a 3ft high kid, within about 5ft of the front of the car, max), there is no chance in hell that any car would have stopped in time.

From that, I feel that I can fairly safely say that this is just 4wd-haters seizing an opportunity to point the finger at those damn MURDEROUS 4wds. It's just insanity. Why don't we just ban cars instead, I mean, the kid would have been dead regardless of whether it was a B-double or a Smart car at that kind of distance (presuming that the car was traveling at ~50km/h or more, ie roughly at whatever the speed limit is). Oh no wait, that would affect far too many of the self-righteous wankers who like to think that it's everyone else who is causing problems but what they're doing is fine. What makes it ok to have a bonnet that's 2ft high? 3ft high? 4? 5? 6? Why is nobody blaming the kid for running out directly in front of a car, regardless of its size?

Do you not see what I'm getting at here? It's just outright hypocrisy. People want to ban/restrict everything they don't like, but when it's something they DO like (like, oh, say MOUNTAIN BIKING) then they crack the shits and whinge about how tight other people are.

[hairy]

ah well im with fatkat on this one, i think once a modified gets involved in something like this it is immediately ridiculed by people with no lives and nothing better to do with there time.

[brisneyland]

Smart Cars should be banned; the crumple zones couldn't possibly be big enough.

Likewise for Barinas.

Excels should be banned, because too many Excel drivers leave their rear fog lights on and it's a hazard.

Trucks should be banned because they're too big.

Delivery vans should be banned because many of them don't have windows.

Buses should be banned because I once saw one with advertising on it that I believe disparages females.

Shit parents should be banned.

The concept of personal responsibility should be banned. Society will bear the costs of individual stupidity, not the stupid individual.

Three year olds should be banned because they cause road accidents.

Deadshit journalists should be banned.

Harold Scruby should be banned.

Let's just go and ban the living shit out of everything in our society that distinguishes one individual from another until we're a bunch of boring, grey, homogenous fuckups.

[S.]

Thank you. :)

[Wattsy]

im amazed the kid didnt just go straight under the car, unharmed with it being that big.
the amount of 4wd's for parents have for the kids around here is stupid, and most also do around 70kph
with the kids in the car, in 50 zones. (i live in a more private school area)
seriously, the soccer mum 4wd driver should be banned, not the modified well knowledged driver.
(seeing as the modified ones ACCUALLY see offroad)

[fatkat]

I remember watching a mitsubishi 4wd video from the 80's. It described the 4wd as a recreational vehicle, allowing the driver to escape from the hussle and bussle of the city.

Then the soccer mum discovered the 4wd and said WOW I FEEL POWERFUL! and from there 4wds have been given a bad name.

The "fully sicks" in their tryhard lancers and distastefully modified skyline GTS's would have probably not seen the kid, given that their seats are reclined all the way back and they are hanging off the steering wheel.

It does not matter what vehicle a driver drives, someone is going to say they are a bad driver. If they drive a volvo they will be labled as a volvo driver, for example. Its even worse if you actually UNDERSTAND or LIKE a motor vehicle, instead of using it as a consumable resource.

Most politicians probably wouldnt understand. Canberra has no traffic and most of the time they get jeeves to drive them places.

I work in a restaurant, i see the uptight losers with no lives and nothing better to do than complain ALL THE TIME. Its like their life wouldn't be complete if they couldnt find something to complain about.

fuckers.

[S.]

I remember watching a mitsubishi 4wd video from the 80's. It described the 4wd as a recreational vehicle, allowing the driver to escape from the hussle and bussle of the city.

Then the soccer mum discovered the 4wd and said WOW I FEEL POWERFUL! and from there 4wds have been given a bad name.

The "fully sicks" in their tryhard lancers and distastefully modified skyline GTS's would have probably not seen the kid, given that their seats are reclined all the way back and they are hanging off the steering wheel.

It does not matter what vehicle a driver drives, someone is going to say they are a bad driver. If they drive a volvo they will be labled as a volvo driver, for example. Its even worse if you actually UNDERSTAND or LIKE a motor vehicle, instead of using it as a consumable resource.

Most politicians probably wouldnt understand. Canberra has no traffic and most of the time they get jeeves to drive them places.

I work in a restaurant, i see the uptight losers with no lives and nothing better to do than complain ALL THE TIME. Its like their life wouldn't be complete if they couldnt find something to complain about.

fuckers.

I couldn't agree more.

[GuRhInDiZzLe]

little johnny howard: hmm... toddler hit by a car oh well........ wait, what did you say, it was a 4 wheel drive??? BAN ALL MODIFIED FOUR WHEEL DRIVES, its the sensible thing to do!
hate to tell u zidsy but its got nuthing to do with our little johnny. matter such as this are state matters. meaning if it was in NSW witch i have no idea if it was, it would be morris iemma u should be upset with.
get a new bike as well alex. its too brown

[exvitermini]

\ Why don't we just ban cars instead.

i vote S. as prime minister... and ban all cars excepet ones used on special tracks(ie race tracks) or private land......
should help with people bitching about 4wds,imports(what i like as long as their not rice cr,,)poor roads,petrol prices etc etc oh and it will mean people will have to walk/ride futher then to their car.what has to be good as it will be supporting healthy life styles

[floody]

I remember watching a mitsubishi 4wd video from the 80's. It described the 4wd as a recreational vehicle, allowing the driver to escape from the hussle and bussle of the city.

Then the soccer mum discovered the 4wd and said WOW I FEEL POWERFUL! and from there 4wds have been given a bad name.

The "fully sicks" in their tryhard lancers and distastefully modified skyline GTS's would have probably not seen the kid, given that their seats are reclined all the way back and they are hanging off the steering wheel.

It does not matter what vehicle a driver drives, someone is going to say they are a bad driver. If they drive a volvo they will be labled as a volvo driver, for example. Its even worse if you actually UNDERSTAND or LIKE a motor vehicle, instead of using it as a consumable resource.

Most politicians probably wouldnt understand. Canberra has no traffic and most of the time they get jeeves to drive them places.


I couldn't agree more.

You and Fatkat are so willing to submit to believing one stereotype, but not another...

Put aside your rage at the media, and at self indulgent pressure groups lobbying for change with every dirty tactic they can get.

It does matter what car someone drives. Surely you aren't suggesting someone with marginal driving skills is fine in a tall, long, very heavy, poor handling barge of an AWD, something with the dynamics of a small truck?

Are all skyline drivers dickheads? Or don't you have a better stereotype to come up? I could just as well say most modded 4X4 drivers are slack jawed, drooling hillbillies, and most large luxo 4x4 drivers are poorly skilled soccer mums who speed around while picking up their snotty little progeny from some over priced, morally reprehensible private school - in fact that would resonate rather closer to the ring of truth.

However, there are more people with large 4X4s who don't use them in any semblance of their intention , than all the skyline drivers (good and bad) put together.
Driving along on a wet day, have you never worried what will happen when, should you have to perform some evasive manoevre in your decent handling/stopping vehicle, and that 2000+kg 4X4 with the tiny contact patch of its block treaded, flexy sidewalled tyres, 1940's style suspension and steering, and extremely high C.O.G. tries to do the same?
Or even what will happen when that Landbruiser speeding behind you as you're stopped at the lights misjudges their stopping distance?

I have absolutely no qualm with 4X4 users who: a) USE their 4X4 in its intended fashion, b) can handle their vehicle properly and drive it appropriately - and a suitable licensing/permit system would not hurt them. However those people are an infinitessimal minority compared to the rest of the social climbers, soccer mums, accountants, and those jumping on the cheap luxury gravytrain.

As for the "fully sick" people as you keep referring to, well, they ARE a minority as well - they're just a highly visible one. Surprisingly so far they've proved mostly harmless, at least to others...
In their favour, even a chopped spring equipped GTS-T skyline with 20" khromiez, 30 profile Nankang tyres, super loud blowoff valve and a giant GT-wing is going to have SUBSTANTIALLY more chance of avoiding trouble - by way of the car's far superior dynamics even when wogified - than that towering metal monstrosity that is the urban 4x4. If we have marginally skilled drivers, then at least if they're in easy to handle cars the odds are somewhat better.

Fark this has gotten long...

Basically, I don't say Ban 4x4s. I say enact specific licensing legislature, and an usage based registration structure. That way the people who CAN drive them properly will be able to, and people who DO use them the way they are intended (and effective) will be able to. This incident hasn't been the catalyst for these thoughts, as it was clearly the infant's fault, but in fact I've held this opinion for a number of years now.

[Hamer]

One stereotype begets another.... Thing is if one of the "fully sicks" gets into a bad situation they might have half a chance of getting out of it, avoidance isn't a strongpoint with top heavy, heavy weight 4x4s..
exactly! my buddy wasnt watching where he was going and drove into the back of a new merc! luckily he had a modified 4x4, the front tyre was stuck in the back window, he was stuck.....until...low range, reverse straight off no damage done to his rangie...see how much better 4x4's are?

[S.]

You and Fatkat are so willing to submit to believing one stereotype, but not another...

Put aside your rage at the media, and at self indulgent pressure groups lobbying for change with every dirty tactic they can get.

It does matter what car someone drives. Surely you aren't suggesting someone with marginal driving skills is fine in a tall, long, very heavy, poor handling barge of an AWD, something with the dynamics of a small truck?

Are all skyline drivers dickheads? Or don't you have a better stereotype to come up? I could just as well say most modded 4X4 drivers are slack jawed, drooling hillbillies, and most large luxo 4x4 drivers are poorly skilled soccer mums who speed around while picking up their snotty little progeny from some over priced, morally reprehensible private school - in fact that would resonate rather closer to the ring of truth.

However, there are more people with large 4X4s who don't use them in any semblance of their intention , than all the skyline drivers (good and bad) put together.
Driving along on a wet day, have you never worried what will happen when, should you have to perform some evasive manoevre in your decent handling/stopping vehicle, and that 2000+kg 4X4 with the tiny contact patch of its block treaded, flexy sidewalled tyres, 1940's style suspension and steering, and extremely high C.O.G. tries to do the same?
Or even what will happen when that Landbruiser speeding behind you as you're stopped at the lights misjudges their stopping distance?

I have absolutely no qualm with 4X4 users who: a) USE their 4X4 in its intended fashion, b) can handle their vehicle properly and drive it appropriately - and a suitable licensing/permit system would not hurt them. However those people are an infinitessimal minority compared to the rest of the social climbers, soccer mums, accountants, and those jumping on the cheap luxury gravytrain.

As for the "fully sick" people as you keep referring to, well, they ARE a minority as well - they're just a highly visible one. Surprisingly so far they've proved mostly harmless, at least to others...
In their favour, even a chopped spring equipped GTS-T skyline with 20" khromiez, 30 profile Nankang tyres, super loud blowoff valve and a giant GT-wing is going to have SUBSTANTIALLY more chance of avoiding trouble - by way of the car's far superior dynamics even when wogified - than that towering metal monstrosity that is the urban 4x4. If we have marginally skilled drivers, then at least if they're in easy to handle cars the odds are somewhat better.

Fark this has gotten long...

Basically, I don't say Ban 4x4s. I say enact specific licensing legislature, and an usage based registration structure. That way the people who CAN drive them properly will be able to, and people who DO use them the way they are intended (and effective) will be able to. This incident hasn't been the catalyst for these thoughts, as it was clearly the infant's fault, but in fact I've held this opinion for a number of years now.

Sorry, I didn't mean that I agree that it's "someone else" (in this case the "phully-sick" stereotype) who is more of a problem or whatever, I couldn't care less what they do. I am constantly annoyed by the notion that because one type of vehicle (and we are generalising very broadly here) isn't THE safest thing on the road, then it should be banned/restricted/need some special thing for someone to be able to use it. 4wd handling dynamics are not that far removed from your typical family car (especially modern ones) in terms of everyday driving (yes I've driven a few). Late-model 4wds also have exceptionally good brakes (anyone driven a recent Landcruiser?), and will stop in a reasonably comparable distance to your average family car. This isn't just hyperbole either, check http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/stop_distance.shtml. 2004 VZ Commodore vs 04 Landcruiser, they're nearly identical. You can see there's a considerable difference when compared to a 20-year-old Landcruiser SWB or a 25-yr-old Kingswood, but old cars having longer stopping distances is no surprise.

Another thing that annoys me is the claim that because 4wds are heavier, they'll do more damage than a lighter car in a crash, and that this is bad. Whilst this is a logical (and, in no other context at all, fair) argument, it neglects the fact that people don't bother comparing their own sedans/whatever to other, lighter cars. A Suzuki Cino is about 700kg dry, iirc. A late-model Falcodore is typically around 16-1700kg, which is about 2.3 times as heavy. That means for any given impact, 2.3 times as much momentum is going to be transferred to the impacted-upon object. That not a reason for complaint? Then why is a ~2400kg 4wd, which is roughly 1.5 times as heavy as said Falcodores, fine to criticise for its weight when we could all be driving cars that are less than half the weight of an average family car? We must be able to save millions of lives by doing that! Imagine how many lives we could save by all riding 200kg motorbikes! We'd actually end up having a negative road toll!

Then there's the visibility argument. If you can't see past the car in front of you, deal with it. IMO that's the most pathetic argument known to man.

Handling dynamics is a tricky one. There's no question that higher/heavier vehicles don't handle as well, but again, why are 4wds unacceptably bad when normal family cars are so much worse than other lighter/smaller cars to start with? It's just hypocrisy.

Some people also argue that they roll over more easily (true) and that they use more petrol (also true), but those factors are far more to the detriment of the owner than anyone else, so I fail to see why this would ever be used as an argument for banning/restricting them.

And in the end, I'm sick of the idea that stuff should be banned just because it suits a certain person or people. What business of yours is it what other people do with their cars? How would you like it if other people tried to interfere with everything you did just because it wasn't the most efficient/safe/necessary means to do something? Just lay the hell off. Other people driving 4wds doesn't affect your quality of life, so to all the naysayers, I suggest shutting the fuck up or finding a worthwhile cause to whinge about. Everyone talks about "the good old days" when people/the government weren't so tight about everything, then proceeds to try and push us in the opposite direction by wanting to tighten controls on everything just to suit themselves.

Edit: not directed at you floody other than about stereotypes.

[Arete]

S. you sound like an NRA member. :p

[Simon B]

Doesn't matter whether you are driving modified 4wd's or cars its the driver and i c many people driving 4wd's like they where just in there barina. They meant to driven as they know that they are driving something heavier.

[S.]

S. you sound like an NRA member. :p

hahaha. Personally I DO think that it's pointless to go and buy a 4wd for city-only driving (which is obviously what a lot of people are doing) simply because (for my purposes anyway) they don't offer any real advantages other than size, but whatever, people choose them for various reasons and I don't think it's anyone else's place to try and stop them.

[cam-o]

Good rant S. I think you've hit it on the head.

Another factor in this that annoys the shit out of me is the generalisation of all 4x4s as death trucks. There is a rapidly growing segment of that market that is just as safe if not more so than a Falcadore. I'm talking X5's, M series, Territory, Forester etc. I've owned 4 falcadore sedans and 2 utes. Current ride is an 05 AWD Territory and it is by far the safest car I have owned, both for occupants and pedestrians. Yes it is a little higher than the sedan, it also has a wider track which negates the height to a surprising degree. Now add AWD, ABS, Traction control, stability control and brake force distribution and it's ability to stop and/or aviod trouble is simply staggering. Plus it has reverse sensors and dramatically better vision than the utes ever had.

[Binaural]

Another thing that annoys me is the claim that because 4wds are heavier, they'll do more damage than a lighter car in a crash, and that this is bad. Whilst this is a logical (and, in no other context at all, fair) argument, it neglects the fact that people don't bother comparing their own sedans/whatever to other, lighter cars. A Suzuki Cino is about 700kg dry, iirc. A late-model Falcodore is typically around 16-1700kg, which is about 2.3 times as heavy. That means for any given impact, 2.3 times as much momentum is going to be transferred to the impacted-upon object. That not a reason for complaint? Then why is a ~2400kg 4wd, which is roughly 1.5 times as heavy as said Falcodores, fine to criticise for its weight when we could all be driving cars that are less than half the weight of an average family car? We must be able to save millions of lives by doing that! Imagine how many lives we could save by all riding 200kg motorbikes! We'd actually end up having a negative road toll!


Preclaimer: much as I loathe them, 4WDs have a purpose and people should be allowed to own and drive them. Whether they deserve lax licencing restrictions and preferential import duty regimes is another matter..... Now, back to the argument at hand :)

Your exaggeration about the importance of weight ratios is actually closer to reality than you probably expected. "Passengers in a vehicle struck by another twice its weight are ten times more likely to die. When an SUV strikes a passenger car on the driver side, the driver of the car is 30 times more likely to die than the SUV driver."(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_6_84/ai_62896425). So weight of a vehicle is really, really important in an accident, and large disparities tend to kill people rather than injure them.

Also, I think that mass is only one of the factors that makes 4WDs more dangerous to other vehicles than most other types of common passenger car. Firstly, many larger 4WDs have a highly rigid truck-style underpinnings that deform less in accidents. Secondly, they strike much higher up and sometimes above the bumper on lowered cars, which for raised 4WDs can send the car through the weak upper section of a car rather than the reinforced lower section. Thirdly, bullbars (largely fitted to 4WDs) kill pedestrians far more efficiently than bumpers, and help the 4WD get great purchase on whatever they hit (note though than they are soon to be banned for this reason in Aus).

So in summary, 4WDs are considerably more dangerous than other common types of passenger car, and their use should be discouraged. At the moment, 4WDs are artificially cheap due to preferential import taxing - 5% versus 15% for normal cars under 55k, due to some brain-dead classification. At the very least this should be normalized, and preferably increased to encourage people to buy other types. It's not like most of them go offroad anyway, and it won't discourage people who really want them or need them (farmers etc).

PS You sound like John Birmingham, not the NRA - you should put "he died with a felafel in his hand" on your reading list if you haven't already :)

[parallax]

If the driver was a P-plater, the terrorgraph would be having a field day. They'd probably be trying to implace xle-to-ground hieght restrictions. Goddam fuckers.

You can take your "War on p-platers" and shove it up your fucking arse.

[floody]

You make some good points S., but I'll agree to disagree on this one - thats just my viewpoint on things...

On the weight and handling thing, I'm just of the opinion that big "normal" sedans and wagons definitely aren't great, but I won't agree that since 4X4s are "just a bit further" its not a problem, I think they are just the step too far.

As I say, I have no problem with people who use traditional large 4X4s offroad, on the farm, on rough gravel roads, for towing large weights....But not people who solely use them with mum and 2 snotty kids around the suburbs.
But hey, Maybe we should just have a free for all, if we can't restrict one freedom in the favour of the majority, bigger is better, lets add woodgrain and leather to the Hino medium rigid truck range, and to Merc Unimogs and have soccer mums cruising around the leafy suburbs in those, haha.

Funnily enough, I drive a skyline myself....lol.

[brisneyland]

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=http://www.trac.org.au/myths/anti4wd.htm

have a read.

[Dumbellina]

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=http://www.trac.org.au/myths/anti4wd.htm

have a read.

Had a read - myth buster by the Dr of "digital research" at Bond University. I love stats, but more their explainations. The Outdoor Recreation Party are a discredited political party, remember loopy Malcolm Jones that fella who set up bogus political parties (eg the marijuana party, I hope my vote counted) and claimed travel allowance while still living in sydney.

"RTA statistics indicate that as many as 32% of 4WDs are registered (via postcodes) in designated non-urban areas" Who owns the other 68% of Toorak Tractors?

When the pedestrian killer stats show that 4WDs kill as many kids as trucks, their response is "Unfortunately it is a known fact that the heavier the vehicle that strikes a child pedestrian the more likely it is to cause serious injury or death". When tying stats to the proportion of road users, its shows that sedans kill more people (derrr because more people drive them) but they figures its because "Is this because larger vehicles are slower or more easily seen?". Has this prick seen how recklessly some dicks in Jeeps, Prados drive.

[Simon B]

People should take more respsonceablity for there kids around roads and teach of them better.

[S.]

Preclaimer: much as I loathe them, 4WDs have a purpose and people should be allowed to own and drive them. Whether they deserve lax licencing restrictions and preferential import duty regimes is another matter..... Now, back to the argument at hand :)

Your exaggeration about the importance of weight ratios is actually closer to reality than you probably expected. "Passengers in a vehicle struck by another twice its weight are ten times more likely to die. When an SUV strikes a passenger car on the driver side, the driver of the car is 30 times more likely to die than the SUV driver."(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_6_84/ai_62896425). So weight of a vehicle is really, really important in an accident, and large disparities tend to kill people rather than injure them.

Also, I think that mass is only one of the factors that makes 4WDs more dangerous to other vehicles than most other types of common passenger car. Firstly, many larger 4WDs have a highly rigid truck-style underpinnings that deform less in accidents. Secondly, they strike much higher up and sometimes above the bumper on lowered cars, which for raised 4WDs can send the car through the weak upper section of a car rather than the reinforced lower section. Thirdly, bullbars (largely fitted to 4WDs) kill pedestrians far more efficiently than bumpers, and help the 4WD get great purchase on whatever they hit (note though than they are soon to be banned for this reason in Aus).

So in summary, 4WDs are considerably more dangerous than other common types of passenger car, and their use should be discouraged. At the moment, 4WDs are artificially cheap due to preferential import taxing - 5% versus 15% for normal cars under 55k, due to some brain-dead classification. At the very least this should be normalized, and preferably increased to encourage people to buy other types. It's not like most of them go offroad anyway, and it won't discourage people who really want them or need them (farmers etc).

PS You sound like John Birmingham, not the NRA - you should put "he died with a felafel in his hand" on your reading list if you haven't already :)

So it'd be more dangerous to be my mate in his Cino getting rammed by Joe Average in his Falcodore, than to be Joe Average in his Falcodore getting rammed by A. Housewife in her 4wd? Then my point stands. I'm not questioning that 4wds cause more damage in a crash (that's pretty obvious), just arguing that it's hypocritical to say that one weight difference is too much while another is fine. My car weighs about 1200kg, the mass ratio between that and a large family sedan is about the same as that between the sedan and a 4wd. But nobody who owns a car the same size as mine whinges that those sedans are DEATH MACHINES and SHOULD BE BANNED RIGHT THIS MINUTE etc.

You're right about the chassis and (in some cases) about the height being more risky, and I agree that bullbars are pretty unnecessary unless you do often drive in the bush. With regard to pedestrians (and regardless of bullbars), from http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/mgraph11/index.cfm:
"The proportion of 4WD crashes involving pedestrians (11 per cent) was almost half the proportion of passenger car crashes involving pedestrians (20 per cent).However, 4WD and passenger cars had a similar level of involvement in single vehicle crashes (38 per cent and 41 per cent respectively)."
I'm not entirely sure why 4wds are hitting less pedestrians, maybe 4wd drivers actually get a BETTER view of people about to walk out across the road because they're up higher or something, but the claim (which is not something you said Binaural) that 4wds are a menace to pedestrians should be left out of it IMO.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/images/mono11_fig2.jpg

That study also says/shows that most 4wd crashes are on high-speed roads (54% - supposedly mostly out in the country).
"...the majority of 4WD crashes occur on rural roads and this number has been increasing. In 1990, 57 per cent of 4WD crashes occurred on rural roads and by 1998 this had increased to 68 per cent."

However I suppose the real proof is in the pudding. According to their tallied statistics relative to kilometres traveled (note that this survey was conducted in 1998), 4wds are slightly more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a passenger car, and still half as likely to be involved as a heavy truck (heavy trucks being those over 4.5t, which already require specific licencing - does it really solve everything?).
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/images/mono11_table1.jpg

All said and done, I agree that their use, when not necessary, should be discouraged. But as always I think that the best way to do this is to educate people (not that you've insinuated otherwise Binaural) rather than try and make them pay out the arse, or just slapping restrictions on stuff. I don't agree with the current pseudo-subsidisation (it may be targeted at primary producers, but I think that if that's the case, it should be specified as such), but I also don't agree that they should be taxed MORE than a normal car.

[fatkat]

All hail S.

FYI i dont like mothers driving big 4wds, or any 4wd for that matter- i was almost run over by a small asian mother in her porsche cayenne S.

Should be a "you must be this tall to drive" sign before they buy one.

[floody]

All hail S.

FYI i dont like mothers driving big 4wds, or any 4wd for that matter- i was almost run over by a small asian mother in her porsche cayenne S.



lol, scary incident, but HILARIOUS mental image! :p

[S.]

All hail S.

FYI i dont like mothers driving big 4wds, or any 4wd for that matter- i was almost run over by a small asian mother in her porsche cayenne S.

Should be a "you must be this tall to drive" sign before they buy one.

Ironically, those Cayenne "4wds" (which in reality are just an AWD station wagon that's been raised 4") out-accelerate, out-handle and out-brake most modern sedans anyway. The onus is completely on the driver there :)

[Binaural]

So it'd be more dangerous to be my mate in his Cino getting rammed by Joe Average in his Falcodore, than to be Joe Average in his Falcodore getting rammed by A. Housewife in her 4wd? Then my point stands. I'm not questioning that 4wds cause more damage in a crash (that's pretty obvious), just arguing that it's hypocritical to say that one weight difference is too much while another is fine. My car weighs about 1200kg, the mass ratio between that and a large family sedan is about the same as that between the sedan and a 4wd. But nobody who owns a car the same size as mine whinges that those sedans are DEATH MACHINES and SHOULD BE BANNED RIGHT THIS MINUTE etc.

You're right about the chassis and (in some cases) about the height being more risky, and I agree that bullbars are pretty unnecessary unless you do often drive in the bush. With regard to pedestrians (and regardless of bullbars), from http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/mgraph11/index.cfm:
"The proportion of 4WD crashes involving pedestrians (11 per cent) was almost half the proportion of passenger car crashes involving pedestrians (20 per cent).However, 4WD and passenger cars had a similar level of involvement in single vehicle crashes (38 per cent and 41 per cent respectively)."
I'm not entirely sure why 4wds are hitting less pedestrians, maybe 4wd drivers actually get a BETTER view of people about to walk out across the road because they're up higher or something, but the claim (which is not something you said Binaural) that 4wds are a menace to pedestrians should be left out of it IMO.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/images/mono11_fig2.jpg

That study also says/shows that most 4wd crashes are on high-speed roads (54% - supposedly mostly out in the country).
"...the majority of 4WD crashes occur on rural roads and this number has been increasing. In 1990, 57 per cent of 4WD crashes occurred on rural roads and by 1998 this had increased to 68 per cent."

However I suppose the real proof is in the pudding. According to their tallied statistics relative to kilometres traveled (note that this survey was conducted in 1998), 4wds are slightly more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a passenger car, and still half as likely to be involved as a heavy truck (heavy trucks being those over 4.5t, which already require specific licencing - does it really solve everything?).
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/images/mono11_table1.jpg

All said and done, I agree that their use, when not necessary, should be discouraged. But as always I think that the best way to do this is to educate people (not that you've insinuated otherwise Binaural) rather than try and make them pay out the arse, or just slapping restrictions on stuff. I don't agree with the current pseudo-subsidisation (it may be targeted at primary producers, but I think that if that's the case, it should be specified as such), but I also don't agree that they should be taxed MORE than a normal car.

Ah, but you have left a critical example out there - what happens when the 4WD hits the Chino? That's a mass ratio of about 3.5 to 1, and you are now talking about an extremely serious mass disparity in an accident. As I pointed out above, when the ratio of the two vehicles gets more than even 2 to 1 then people in the smaller car start dying at a accelerating rate.

Your statistics on pedestrian accidents are interesting and not what I expected. However, I would say that the decreased accident rate is due both to the 4WD driver having better visibiliy and ALSO the better visibility of the 4WD to the pedestrian. I could confirm this by looking at accident rates for trucks and buses but I am feeling too lazy :) Still, I would argue that there is a higher death rate from actual impacts; I will do a bit of research later and to see if it stands up (I recall seeing something ages ago indicating this was the case but maybe due to bullbars).

I reckon that one of the big reasons 4WDs are selling like hot cakes because they are artificially cheap and that's why I reckon turning up the import duty short-term would reverse the trend nicely. Not forever, mind you, but until we saw a big reduction in 4WDs being bought for the city. I am a bit cynical about the value of education in shaping buying habits, so I reckon an extra nudge there would inspire people to check out alternatives.

Good points though S., interesting debate all round.

[S.]

Yeah I'm aware of the 4wd hits Cino, Mack truck hits 3-yr-old tricyclist (:p) scenarios and how much worse they are again, but the point still stands: some people complain about the weight ratios and whatnot in their own interests, when the majority of road users still pose the same (relative) danger to light car users, even worse to motorbikes and to some extent cyclists (I say "some extent" because cyclists are usually not moving with the flow of traffic in the same manner that motorbikes/cars do, and so obviously the circumstances of collisions are somewhat different). It's not that it's an incorrect argument, it's just that it's hypocritical (and thus pretty typical of your average Australian nowadays; man I'm patriotic).

The death rate may be higher for 4wds when they actually hit, but even if they're 50% more likely to kill you upon impact than a typical car (which I doubt unless you're <4ft tall), if they're only hitting people at half the rate then overall they're still 25% safer in that respect than a typical car. I would also hypothesise that 4wds are less likely to impact with the head of an adult, as the higher bumper hits you in the lower torso (which is about where your centre of mass is) rather than undercutting you at the knees and smashing your head into the windscreen. I could be completely wrong, that might even be worse, but it's still a possibility.

I agree about the low-pricing schemes, as far as I'm concerned, unless you actually ARE a primary producer then the excise on em should be the same as all other cars. Maybe car manufacturers could be given incentives to market alternatives or something, I haven't really thought a great deal about that... just that banning/restricting isn't the answer IMO.

[Rik]

I could be completely wrong, that might even be worse, but it's still a possibility.Cars are designed with pedestrian impacts in mind, there's heaps of standards relating to that. I doubt 4wds have even half the standards to comply to relating to pedestrian safety.
And yes, cars are designed to collect the legs and push the driver on to the bonnet, rather than splat the torso then drag them under the wheels.

[S.]

Cars are designed with pedestrian impacts in mind, there's heaps of standards relating to that. I doubt 4wds have even half the standards to comply to relating to pedestrian safety.
And yes, cars are designed to collect the legs and push the driver on to the bonnet, rather than splat the torso then drag them under the wheels.

From http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/walking/walking%20safely-07.htm
Actually, there are no ADRs relating to pedestrian safety, other than one about the "shape and function of internal or external attachments" (presumably aerials, towbars etc?).
"Currently there are no ADRs covering pedestrian safety, with the exception of ADR 42.9 which refers to the shape and function of internal or external attachments. These rules however do not regulate the shape and stiffness of the front of the vehicle."

But yeah read the rest of the report. Basically it says that my fantastical hypothesis was about 100% wrong.

[Dumbellina]

Here's some news in Tas about 4WDers stuffing up the bush - problem is that land managers throw us in the same boat.

Churning the Wild to a Recreational Death
Source: http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17004206%255E921,00.html
23 October 2005
Off-roaders call it mudplay. Others say it is nothing but vandalism.
Retired CSIRO librarian Denis Abbott and consultant geologist Keith Corbett recently took a group of scientists and bushwalkers to Southport Lagoon Conservation Area.
Submissions were being called for a Parks and Wildlife Service plan for the area.
The scientists wanted a first-hand look at the 4280ha Conservation Area between Southport and Recherche Bay in the state's far south.
What they got was a first-hand shock.
"It was unbelievable, it just went on and on," Mr Abbott said. "It's being destroyed".
The Conservation Area had been closed to off-roaders for five months over winter.
Since 2000 the Parks service has restricted winter use because off-roaders were wrecking it in the wet.
When the scientists visited last month the Conservation Area had been open to off-roaders for a week.
But the damage was already extreme.
"We were shocked and angered to see the extent of damage to natural vegetation and habitats, to visual landscapes and wilderness values, and to historical and cultural values, by recreational vehicles having open slather with no apparent control or monitoring," Dr Corbett said.
Dr Corbett worked for more than 20 years with the mining industry as a Tasmanian Government geologist.
He said the mining industry would have been castigated for doing far less environmental damage than that caused by off-roaders.
"The mining industry accepts it must act responsibly, there are stringent regulations, but these recreational vehicles are a law unto themselves," Dr Corbett said. "Why are these people untouchable?"
Dr Corbett was so concerned he wrote a submission for the management plan process.
For 10 years attempts to finalise a plan for the Conservation Area have failed.
The draft management plan, for which submissions closed last month, pulls no punches.
It says inappropriate vehicle use and fire are major threats…
Full article: http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17004206%255E921,00.html
See also: Claims Vehicles Damaging Tasmanian Coastline 16/10/05
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483332.htm
Back to Contents

[S.]

Man those people are full of shit. Enviromental damage, yes I'll accept that. "...damage to... historical and cultural values"? Yeah I can only imagine how a few blokes in 4wds completely wiped out your "historical and cultural values". :rolleyes:

[scblack]

Don't you love the way the 4wd bashers jumped on the back of Phil Kearns' tragedy this week. What a load of half-arsed, ill informed namby pambys basically.

They have "resurrected" the call for 4wd reversing cameras.:rolleyes:

A couple of facts:
1.The NRMA rates large cars as WORSE than 4wds for reversing vision.
2.Phil Kearns was NOT reversing his 4wd when he hit his daughter.

So how about we start bashing the WORST rear vision vehicles - large cars - come on people, they have been certified as worse than 4wds by our largest motoring body.

If you do not want to be a hypocrit in 4wd bashing, you MUST want to ban large cars.

Phil Kearns has suffered a massive tragedy this week. I have met him a few times, he is a genuine nice bloke. I hate the fact of people using something like this to further their own ill-informed (to some degree, for some matters) agendas.

[S.]

Shuddup scblack, everyone knows that 4wds are the worst at everything that could possibly ever be related to safety, and their drivers go OUT OF THEIR WAY to accidentally murder small children and destroy people's historical and cultural values and kill wildlife and ram into the side of people's cars at head height and roll over every time they turn a corner JUST OUT OF SPITE.

[wombat]

So how about we start bashing the WORST rear vision vehicles - large cars - come on people, they have been certified as worse than 4wds by our largest motoring body.
They actually stated that? Wow, I honestly expected more from the NRMA; blanket claims like that seem rather silly to me.

Anyway, everyone knows that the worst rearward vision is found in rear-engine sportscars, like Lambos......*drools*.:)

[Dumbellina]

I hate 4WD who tear-up bush tracks for the sake of it - the reason they were banned from Barrington was because they were destroying trails by driving up very steep terrain when it was sodden. There were ruts knee-deep the entire length of the mountain - not just one but one either side.

I also hate city 4WD'ers - I mean those Tourag things, when was going to Woolies like the dunes in the Sahara in the Dakar race. Yes Phil Kearns was not reverse, he was driving foward and she run up to the side and was hit by the rear wheel. He could not see her.

[Simon B]

S. how about you shut the hell up there seems to be alot shit dribbling down your chin. A 4wd is a 4wd an till you get some dickhead behind the wheel that makes a bad name for all the other 4wders that try and be responseable.

[Binaural]

Shuddup scblack, everyone knows that 4wds are the worst at everything that could possibly ever be related to safety, and their drivers go OUT OF THEIR WAY to accidentally murder small children and destroy people's historical and cultural values and kill wildlife and ram into the side of people's cars at head height and roll over every time they turn a corner JUST OUT OF SPITE.

Man, you need to stop giving that straw man such a hard time :rolleyes:

PS Simon, if you read the rest of the discussion you might guess that S. is joking....

[S.]

S. how about you shut the hell up there seems to be alot shit dribbling down your chin. A 4wd is a 4wd an till you get some dickhead behind the wheel that makes a bad name for all the other 4wders that try and be responseable.

Are you stupid or just dumb? Read what I said again then try and believe that it was 100% serious.

[Doggy]

Im one of those 4wd drivers who have lifted their toys, put 35's (diameter in inches of the tyres that is for people who dont know) on it, put diff locks in it and generally delight in running other people off the road because quite simply Im bigger so get the f*ck out of my way:rolleyes:.


Yes my patrol is big, yes it wont handle as well as a ricer or car and yes its a hideous eyesore to all other people:rolleyes: but do I try to drive it like a ricer...NOOOOO!. I dont speed, I dont tailgate, Im respectfull of other road users and it actually gets used off road :eek: . Funnilly enough the accidents I have been involved in have all involved cars running up (or under) my arse, due to their own stupidity, not my 4wd's. The plus side is that once I have checked the driver is all right and checked my car is all right, I can still drive off:D
I dont hate ricers, some of my mates drive ricers..and they are so much happier now they have come out of the closet (im kidding) but a chopped spring ricer with huge chromies will handle and bounce just as bad as a 4wd. I actually had one scream past me today that was bouncing all over the road because all they had done was chop the springs. Thats not to say all ricers are like that, some are done extremely well...the same as the difference between a badly modded 4wd and a properly modded 4wd.
Whoever it was that said modded 4wds only sit on puny tyres can bear in mind that my tyres are 12.5 inches wide which is wider then most ricer tyres I would think, so there is plenty of tread touching the road.
With regards to 4wd braking - power compared to ricer cars breaking - power, how many half arsed built ricers actually upgrade their braking system when they boost up the turbo and bling the motor up??? not that many I would imagine because it is more of an after though.
Dont get me wrong on all this, I cannot stand people who buy a 4wd and never ever take it off the bitumen ie: soccer mums, yuppies. Those tourags, ravs, cayenne's, tributes and so on arent even 4wds..there is no low range or proper 4wd, just AWD. I think the above should be pushed over a cliff as the majority of them are the ones that give those that use their 4wds for their intended purpose a bad name. I have actually had a go at a few people that have shopping trolley 4wds about it as it p*sses me off

Rant over

[scblack]

Dont get me wrong on all this, I cannot stand people who buy a 4wd and never ever take it off the bitumen ie: soccer mums, yuppies. Those tourags, ravs, cayenne's, tributes and so on arent even 4wds..there is no low range or proper 4wd, just AWD. I think the above should be pushed over a cliff as the majority of them are the ones that give those that use their 4wds for their intended purpose a bad name. I have actually had a go at a few people that have shopping trolley 4wds about it as it p*sses me off

Rant over

I agree with you overall Doggy - I own a "pretend" 4wd myself - Ford Escape, and it does go offroad, but not as far as yours by far.

My post is just to let you know that Cayenne's, Toureg ARE real 4wd's - they do have low range, and are very capable 4wd's, even with the road based tyres they are given standard. The Cayenne and Toureg are sister cars, engineered by Porsche, and there is an Audi version yet to come.

[scblack]

They actually stated that? Wow, I honestly expected more from the NRMA; blanket claims like that seem rather silly to me.

Anyway, everyone knows that the worst rearward vision is found in rear-engine sportscars, like Lambos......*drools*.:)

Wombat, they had a rating system that rated the poor rear vision. I cannot remember exact numbers, but 4wd's were rated about 68, with large cars rating a 75 or something. It's not a blanket statement.

I saw a Lamborghini Diablo crawl past me here in the city yesterday, and crap it's a loud idle, but such a good idle.........*slobber*

[lotec]

My post is just to let you know that Cayenne's, Toureg ARE real 4wd's - they do have low range, and are very capable 4wd's, even with the road based tyres they are given standard. The Cayenne and Toureg are sister cars, engineered by Porsche, and there is an Audi version yet to come. agreed, and god damn those tdi tourags are powerful
Anyway, everyone knows that the worst rearward vision is found in rear-engine sportscars, like Lambos......*drools*.:) a lamborghini has rearward vision? :eek:
heheh fyi the newer ones e.g galardo and i think the murcialago? arnt anywhere near as bad, and lambos are mid engine not rear engine! :p

although that was after they were taken over by the germans so i guess they would at least have had SOME sense added to them :cool:

[scblack]

a lamborghini has rearward vision? :eek:
heheh fyi the newer ones e.g galardo and i think the murcialago? arnt anywhere near as bad, and lambos are mid engine not rear engine! :p


They don't NEED rearward vision, if they are having trouble seeing to change lanes or something, that problem is simply solved, using the ACCELERATOR.

[cam-o]

Wombat, they had a rating system that rated the poor rear vision. I cannot remember exact numbers, but 4wd's were rated about 68, with large cars rating a 75 or something. It's not a blanket statement.


Any idea if they covered Utes? I can tell you from experience, the rear vision in my wife's Territory beats the crap out of my Falcon ute. Now THAT is dangerous in the vision department.

[scblack]

Any idea if they covered Utes? I can tell you from experience, the rear vision in my wife's Territory beats the crap out of my Falcon ute. Now THAT is dangerous in the vision department.

This is not quite the results I saw, but here's a May ratings from NRMA.

http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-research/reversing-visibility/index.shtml

[gumbyhead]

Agree totally with you Doggy,
I to drive a big 4wd, that handles like shit, has poor visiblity etc.
You know what, I drive slow because of this. A big 4wd owner will be much more likely to know the limitations of his truck. A "ricer's" limitations are less, but they are still there, and the chances are when they do find their limits they will be going a lot faster. I can remember a lot of 18yo asain boys crashing their brand new skyline/supra/lancer/wrx into power poles over the years.
Back onto the whole braking thing, most serious 4wd run higher compression ratios to assist with engine braking going down steep descents.
In my case I drive a diesel. I can be driving down a very steep hill, and still have to use the accelerator, or else I'll stop, unlike most petrol sedans. An experienced 4wdriver will use the engine as a brake and stopping distance won't be that much longer.

[floody]

Yes my patrol is big, yes it wont handle as well as a ricer or car and yes its a hideous eyesore to all other people:rolleyes: but do I try to drive it like a ricer...NOOOOO!. I dont speed, I dont tailgate, Im respectfull of other road users and it actually gets used off road :eek: . Funnilly enough the accidents I have been involved in have all involved cars running up (or under) my arse, due to their own stupidity, not my 4wd's. The plus side is that once I have checked the driver is all right and checked my car is all right, I can still drive off:D


Sounds like you do the right thing, and can handle your car properly, which is great.
I wonder how many people have accidents such as you mentioned because they simply can't see what's going on in front due to tall, wide slab of steel in front (though yes, they would have to leave a less than satisfactory gap to the next car for it to happen).


I dont hate ricers, some of my mates drive ricers..and they are so much happier now they have come out of the closet (im kidding) but a chopped spring ricer with huge chromies will handle and bounce just as bad as a 4wd. I actually had one scream past me today that was bouncing all over the road because all they had done was chop the springs. Thats not to say all ricers are like that, some are done extremely well...the same as the difference between a badly modded 4wd and a properly modded 4wd.


Chopped springs are a bad thing, absolutely. Though, IMHO the results aren't generally as pronounced as "bouncing all over the road", that generally requires something else to be flogged out (shock absorbers without enough rebound damping to control the raised spring rate generally). Amazed at your mechanical acumen to diagnose the suspension condition of a car just by watching it go past, though.


Whoever it was that said modded 4wds only sit on puny tyres can bear in mind that my tyres are 12.5 inches wide which is wider then most ricer tyres I would think, so there is plenty of tread touching the road.


Width doesn't necessarily equate to a large contact patch - comparing large, wide spaced treadblocks like a lot of 4x4 mud tyres (for example), versus smaller tyres with closely spaced smaller blocks with smaller grooves, the smaller tyres often have more rubber on the road. Not to mention that mud clearing designs don't equate necessarily to good water evacuation on the road.


With regards to 4wd braking - power compared to ricer cars breaking - power, how many half arsed built ricers actually upgrade their braking system when they boost up the turbo and bling the motor up??? not that many I would imagine because it is more of an after though.


I got a chance to look up close at a 3 litre Turbo diesel GU Patrol today...Its brakes were about the same size (if anything smaller) as the ones on my (1400kg) skyline. I find that a wee bit frightening on a 2350kg car. Particularly one which can cart around ~600kg of passengers, AND tow a trailer. I find the whole thing rather scary, and its the sort of thing that worries me.

I think its pretty safe to say most performance car braking systems are more than adequate to stop a mildly modified car. I agree there are some twats who want to build a turbo civic or something and expect it to pull up the car on stock brakes with an extra 200hp or so..

On the situation of modifications, you really don't see many people chucking a V8 in their old hilux (as an example) and going for a bigger braking system - in fact with 4x4 modding I would suggest such half arsed shortcuts are the norm not the exception. You see plenty of dodgy (unsatisfactory) solutions with driveshaft and steering angles , suspension geometry, weight centring, fuel systems (plenty of dodgy dual tanks), backyard chassis mods...
Many/most of these modifications make a car downright unsafe on the road at any speed, not just unable to slow down effectively from excessive speed like a modded "ricer" with more power and stock brakes.


Dont get me wrong on all this, I cannot stand people who buy a 4wd and never ever take it off the bitumen ie: soccer mums, yuppies. Those tourags, ravs, cayenne's, tributes and so on arent even 4wds..there is no low range or proper 4wd, just AWD. I think the above should be pushed over a cliff as the majority of them are the ones that give those that use their 4wds for their intended purpose a bad name. I have actually had a go at a few people that have shopping trolley 4wds about it as it p*sses me off

Rant over

Its a shame they're all so expensive. The Cayenne particularly would be a VERY capable off roader, given in top spec they have in cabin height adjustment, quick release swaybars, high and low range, massive brakes, and mountains of power and torque. Most will never go off road, and if they did the tossers who own them would probably just get into trouble anyway.
But again, you're right on the money.

I'm supposing you use your 4x4 offroad, hence the mods. You drive responsibly, and have modified it safely (?guessing), and understand the particular demands of driving a big, heavy poor handling vehicle. Thats exactly how it should be, its just a shame so many wankers don't see it the same way.

[wombat]

Wombat, they had a rating system that rated the poor rear vision. I cannot remember exact numbers, but 4wd's were rated about 68, with large cars rating a 75 or something. It's not a blanket statement.
What I mean is that every car should be different, I find it hard to believe that all "large cars" and all 4WDs are so similar that they can be given a blanket class rating. What about the difference between station wagons and sedans?

I know the big glasshouse in our crumpledoor wagon gives it great vision, but I've driven the same model sedans and the C pillars can be a bit of a shit. I've only ever reversed a large 4WD a couple of times, but it was a Pajero that rode pretty high, and whilst I could see just as clearly out the back as from the station wagon, my field of vision started about 10 feet further away from the bumper.

Lotec: my bad, should have clarified that they are mid-engined, but it's still behind the driver, either way it's not particularly conducive to reverse parking.;)

[Doggy]

Your right floody...I drive it safely, its modified correctly and I do understand how to drive it correctly..its just every other f**ker that doesnt:D

Im speeeecial

[lotec]

I got a chance to look up close at a 3 litre Turbo diesel GU Patrol today...Its brakes were about the same size (if anything smaller) as the ones on my (1400kg) skyline. I find that a wee bit frightening on a 2350kg car. Particularly one which can cart around ~600kg of passengers, AND tow a trailer. I find the whole thing rather scary, and its the sort of thing that worries me. thats just like someone who drives an SLR mclaren or a ferrari enzo saying your brakes are downright scary, sure tehres might be bigger, more powerful (and carbon ceramic :D ) but it doesnt mean that yours arnt able to stop your car

edit: im sure youll love this one floody, we're considering putting SMALLER brakes on our 4wdso we can put smaller rims on so we can put bigger tires :)

[Doggy]

[QUOTE=floody]Sounds like you do the right thing, and can handle your car properly, which is great.
I wonder how many people have s such as you mentioned because they simply can't see what's going on in front due to tall, wide slab of steel in front (though yes, they would have to leave a less than satisfactory gap to the next car for it to happen).



Chopped springs are a bad thing, absolutely. Though, IMHO the results aren't generally as pronounced as "bouncing all over the road", that generally requires something else to be flogged out (shock absorbers without enough rebound damping to control the raised spring rate generally). Amazed at your mechanical acumen to diagnose the suspension condition of a car just by watching it go past, though.



Width doesn't necessarily equate to a large contact patch - comparing large, wide spaced treadblocks like a lot of 4x4 mud tyres (for example), versus smaller tyres with closely spaced smaller blocks with smaller grooves, the smaller tyres often have more rubber on the road. Not to mention that mud clearing designs don't equate necessarily to good water evacuation on the road.



I got a chance to look up close at a 3 litre Turbo diesel GU Patrol today...Its brakes were about the same size (if anything smaller) as the ones on my (1400kg) skyline. I find that a wee bit frightening on a 2350kg car. Particularly one which can cart around ~600kg of passengers, AND tow a trailer. I find the whole thing rather scary, and its the sort of thing that worries me.

I think its pretty safe to say most performance car braking systems are more than adequate to stop a mildly modified car. I agree there are some s who want to build a turbo civic or something and expect it to pull up the car on stock brakes with an extra 200hp or so..

On the situation of modifications, you really don't see many people chucking a V8 in their old hilux (as an example) and going for a bigger braking system - in fact with 4x4 modding I would suggest such half arsed shortcuts are the norm not the exception. You see plenty of dodgy (unsatisfactory) solutions with driveshaft and steering angles , suspension geometry, weight centring, fuel systems (plenty of dodgy dual tanks), backyard chassis mods...
Many/most of these modifications make a car downright unsafe on the road at any speed, not just unable to slow down effectively from excessive speed like a modded "ricer" with more power and stock brakes.


Dodgy car - You could tell it was a dodgy chop job floody, because it was a beat up et turbo with shoddy bodywork and the way this thing handled was absur

Cars crashing into me - Both cars that had crashed into me didnt crash because of the hulking 4wd behemoth in front of them, they crashed because they were trying to overtake in a bad spot and they were speeding and not looking what was in front of them...........hence the reason I just laughed at them

Tyres - I actually drive on the road with 35" all terrain tyres, so basically they are pretty much car tyres. The off road tyres are shonky for road driving, hence I dont use them everyday.

brakes - mine is a short wheel base patrol...its got brakes big enough to stop the full length patrol so I dont have any worries...cant comment for other 4wds though

Cayennes - They arent a decent 4wd, I have recovered a couple from places they shouldnt have gone in the first place, but the drivers were city bound yuppies who thought "oh it says its 4wd so I must be able to go these places"...they dont have proper recovery points and I nearly snapped this guys $200,000 cayenne in half trying to recover him

[lotec]

Cayennes - They arent a decent 4wd, I have recovered a couple from places they shouldnt have gone in the first place, but the drivers were city bound yuppies who thought "oh it says its 4wd so I must be able to go these places"...they dont have proper recovery points and I nearly snapped this guys $200,000 cayenne in half trying to recover him
might have had something to do with the high speed road tires they come with, after a few small mods they have the potential to be really good off road

[floody]

Dodgy car - You could tell it was a dodgy chop job floody, because it was a beat up et turbo with shoddy bodywork and the way this thing handled was absur

Cars crashing into me - Both cars that had crashed into me didnt crash because of the hulking 4wd behemoth in front of them, they crashed because they were trying to overtake in a bad spot and they were speeding and not looking what was in front of them...........hence the reason I just laughed at them

Tyres - I actually drive on the road with 35" all terrain tyres, so basically they are pretty much car tyres. The off road tyres are shonky for road driving, hence I dont use them everyday.

brakes - mine is a short wheel base patrol...its got brakes big enough to stop the full length patrol so I dont have any worries...cant comment for other 4wds though

Cayennes - They arent a decent 4wd, I have recovered a couple from places they shouldnt have gone in the first place, but the drivers were city bound yuppies who thought "oh it says its 4wd so I must be able to go these places"...they dont have proper recovery points and I nearly snapped this guys $200,000 cayenne in half trying to recover him

lol@idiots in the ET...I have a mental picture...Theres a Pulsar ET down here with a massive, ridiculous body kit and TWIN 5" exhausts (one of which is connected)....Ricer indeed.

Yeah I figured people probably weren't just hitting you because they couldn't see, just threw it in as a discussion point. Ultimately you should have enough room to react to the car in front no matter what goes on in front of them, and I agree that people who don't are f#ckwits

I wish the town cowboys in raised, mudtyre shod, SHINY Patrols, Surf's, Luxes etc would get the same clues you have in driving and equipping a vehicle appropriately.

Lotec, its nothing like the same. We are talking about production vehicles, for normal road use, not hyper performance super cars. It stands to reason to me that a vehicle with 60% more weight needs substantially more brakes for constant stopping from the same speeds as the more lightweight one. Hence the relatively-not-large brakes on the GU surprised me, though I can see they're restricted by what will fit in a smallish diameter rim.

Going smaller diameter to fit 4X4 tyres needn't be such a bad thing if you go to better vented rotors and stronger calipers - should see some of the serious braking hardware Escort guys wedge inside 13 and 14" wheels. If you just fit puny brakes....

[lotec]

yea not gonna cheap out on brakes on such an expensive car, if we ever DID have an accident that involved running up the back of something / whatever and the insurance company found out the car had shitty little brakes on it im pretty sure they would have something to say about paying up... ;)
its just the current brakes wont clear anything smaller than a 18" rim, which for a car thats designed to be a serious offroader IMO is a joke

[Lowrider#1]

Agree totally with you Doggy,
I to drive a big 4wd, that handles like shit, has poor visiblity etc.
You know what, I drive slow because of this. A big 4wd owner will be much more likely to know the limitations of his truck. A "ricer's" limitations are less, but they are still there, and the chances are when they do find their limits they will be going a lot faster. I can remember a lot of 18yo asain boys crashing their brand new skyline/supra/lancer/wrx into power poles over the years.
Back onto the whole braking thing, most serious 4wd run higher compression ratios to assist with engine braking going down steep descents.
In my case I drive a diesel. I can be driving down a very steep hill, and still have to use the accelerator, or else I'll stop, unlike most petrol sedans. An experienced 4wdriver will use the engine as a brake and stopping distance won't be that much longer.
Yeh, i agree with you there, gumbyhead, IF people had the skills to control a 4wd PROPERLY, much as you described before, they would not be such a problem. But, as mentioned previously, we have the people who seem to NEED a 4wd in the middle of suburbia.
I go to a private school, and my little brothers both go to private schools. (and yes, we're all avid MTBers!! :D) but, going to my littlest bro's school (my old primary school), the amount of 'soccer mums' with MASSIVE, cumbersome, underhandling 4wds is astounding. Have you ever safely been able to drive out of a 'nose in' parking space with a 4wd blocking your view?? And, on top of that, more often than not, because they are so large and have such bad handling, they're not parked in the space properly, either. :mad:
Many people say that they need the space. I've heard this from familys of five people (two parents, three kids), which is the same as mine (mum, dad, three boys, myself, 15, corey, 13, and tyrone, 10) and we drive two large 2wd cars (5-series bmw and a 2004 fairlane) and have never needed the 'space' of a 4wd.
There is CONSIDERABLY less legroom in the back of a 4wd than in the back of either of my cars. People with bigger familys say that thy need the extra two or three seats in the back, which is fair enough, but why spend 100K on a 'luxury' 4wd when you could save money and buy a mercedes station wagon, for instance all the luxury, better handling, better economy, faster and cheaper.
My father used to have a farm, and we still have the old 4x4 triton ute from the farm, we haven't gotten rid of it yet, as it's handy for the odd moving job or as a workbench (big toolbox in the back :D ). My dad is always complaing about how much of a piece it is, and how he cannot see why the 'yuppies' buy these overtly huge vehicles, apart from to compensate :p lol sorry if i have offended anybody there. Yes, there are the minority who customise 4wds for recreational and/or competition purposes. they are much like us MTBers. we don't NEED $4000 bikes with 10 inches of suspension, we just enjoy it. and I can definitely tell you now that my DHer works a helluva lot better down a track than downtown, which is what it is intended for. Same with four-wheel drives.
Also, they are considerably less fuel efficient, and as some of you may know, that at the bowser, diesel is much dirtier than petrol. I've seen a few white-collar businessmen jump out of their big, shiny luxury 4wd to fill up the oil burning rig at the bowser, only to get pissed off because there's crap all over their new armani suit or whatever.
Also, the term "luxury" dumfounds me. how can you be in luxury when they ride like crap really. They bounce around like all hell, they have crap turning circles, and are no more comfortable (and a lot more expensive) than a luxury car.
I'm no trying to tell people what to do, or what sort of cars to buy, but i am saying that i don't see the point of buying an off-road car to drive on the road, in mid-city traffic. It's like buying a big-travel mountain bike instead of a light, fast road bike to ride roads in the city.
Sorry it go a bit long, btw. :p
Cheers,
Lowrider

[lotec]

There is CONSIDERABLY less legroom in the back of a 4wd than in the back of either of my cars.
Are we talking rav4 or real 4wd? sweeping generalisations dont mean shit, youve clearly never sat in a range rover or even from memory a landcruiser (the real one, not the prado)
People with bigger familys say that thy need the extra two or three seats in the back, which is fair enough, but why spend 100K on a 'luxury' 4wd when you could save money and buy a mercedes station wagon, for instance all the luxury, better handling, better economy, faster and cheaper.
a lot of diesel 4wds would kill a merc station wagon on economy
My father used to have a farm, and we still have the old 4x4 triton ute from the farm, we haven't gotten rid of it yet, as it's handy for the odd moving job or as a workbench (big toolbox in the back :D ). My dad is always complaing about how much of a piece it is, and how he cannot see why the 'yuppies' buy these overtly huge vehicles, apart from to compensate :p
How the fuck can you compare a triton ute to a luxury 4wd e.g porsche or range rover?
Also, they are considerably less fuel efficient,
you obviously have no idea.
and as some of you may know, that at the bowser, diesel is much dirtier than petrol. I've seen a few white-collar businessmen jump out of their big, shiny luxury 4wd to fill up the oil burning rig at the bowser, only to get pissed off because there's crap all over their new armani suit or whatever.
if theyre retarded enough to spray themselfs in the face with diesel they will do it with petrol too. personally, ive never been stupid enough to, or known anyone stupid enough to do such a thing though.
Also, the term "luxury" dumfounds me. how can you be in luxury when they ride like crap really. They bounce around like all hell, they have crap turning circles,
Once again, you prove your ignorance when you have some idea, or experience to back up your arguments, please feel free to edit your post :rolleyes:

[Joel O]

if he was referring to the legroom in the back seat of older patrols then he's spot on, they're shockingly small in the back seat, comparable to a holden barina type car.

the new landcruisers have great leg room though, even the prado,s are alright for legroom.

[fatkat]

As previously mensioned by me, and others, those "yuppy" 4x4s ARENT 4x4s!!! they're just big, euro, things! Don't tell me that a cayenne, tourage (spelling) or a x5 or merc 4x4 can go anywhere a patrol or landcruiser can. Look on outerlimits 4x4.. notice noone has a new "yuppy" 4x4 for fourwheeldriving?

Maybe because as previously stated, they dont have proper recovery points, and they use the most unreliable, expensive, unpractical suspension for offroad use ever known to man. Even the new rangie, as advanced as it is and how incredibly capable it is, i still wouldnt want to take it far out bush (cape york landcruiser way, or victoria high country up step ladder track), because who the fuck is going to know how to fix it?

Sorry i hate people comparing these yuppy 4x4s to actual 4x4s such as troopys, patrols, older hilux's or even a nicely modified 'zuk.

Cayennes and tourags are designed FOR the soccer mum, that is their INTENDED purpose. As stupid as it may sound, its the reality, soccer mums are scared of big cars, so they have to have a big car to compensate.

[lotec]

As previously mensioned by me, and others, those "yuppy" 4x4s ARENT 4x4s!!! they're just big, euro, things! Don't tell me that a cayenne, tourage (spelling) or a x5 or merc 4x4 can go anywhere a patrol or landcruiser can. Look on outerlimits 4x4.. notice noone has a new "yuppy" 4x4 for fourwheeldriving?

Maybe because as previously stated, they dont have proper recovery points, and they use the most unreliable, expensive, unpractical suspension for offroad use ever known to man. Even the new rangie, as advanced as it is and how incredibly capable it is, i still wouldnt want to take it far out bush (cape york landcruiser way, or victoria high country up step ladder track), because who the fuck is going to know how to fix it?

Sorry i hate people comparing these yuppy 4x4s to actual 4x4s such as troopys, patrols, older hilux's or even a nicely modified 'zuk.

Cayennes and tourags are designed FOR the soccer mum, that is their INTENDED purpose. As stupid as it may sound, its the reality, soccer mums are scared of big cars, so they have to have a big car to compensate. an x5 and ML will have no chance, theyre not 4wds, ive been offroad in one and it was scary, scraped on everything and if we'd come across some mud or something we would have been screwed, the cayenne and rangie ARE 4wds (with new tires anyway), you might know we have one of the new rangies by now and we were 4wding one day, came across a convoy of landcruisers / prados / pajeros and a grand cherokee, we got stuck behind them untill they all pulled over to let us past about 20 minutes later, the jeep had to turn back because it couldnt get down the track when we had stopped at the end of the track to have some food etc the convoy caught up about 20 minutes later and congratulated me on my driving / admired the car etc etc, they couldnt believe they were seeing a new rangie covered in mud, dust (and scratches from sticks and stuff :( ) and couldnt believe how capable it was that we had got down the track so much quicker than them, without even trying. and its not like im an incredibly experienced 4wder either, im still on my L's

edit: and the fact no one on outerlimits has a rangie / cayenne / whatever doesnt mean theyre not 4wds, it cimply means that they cant afford to drop that much money on a car thats more than likely going to get a thrashing and loose a hell of a lot of resale value

[scblack]

edit: and the fact no one on outerlimits has a rangie / cayenne / whatever doesnt mean theyre not 4wds, it cimply means that they cant afford to drop that much money on a car thats more than likely going to get a thrashing and loose a hell of a lot of resale value

Bingo!

lotec - you're dead right there.;)

[fatkat]

My argument wasnt that the new rangie wasnt capable, it is very capable, i was reading up on it in a magazine, and so is the new disco.

BUT who the fuck is going to know how to fix it?

[scblack]

BUT who the fuck is going to know how to fix it?

If I was to win a big lotto tomorrow, I'd be buying a Cayenne within two seconds. And it would get me anywhere round Australia, no problems.

I see your point fatkat, not many backyard guys are going to know how to fix a Cayenne, but then its in a different market to your Landcruisers.

If I was to tour Australia, I'd probably get a Pajero, or Prado or something, for the same reasons as you.

But that does not reduce the effectiveness 4wd'ing of the Cayenne/Toureg/Rangie.

[fatkat]

Well I guess im into club 4x4.. not so much touring so yes a tourag or cayenne or rangie would get you most places in australia.. (maybe not rover park but thats different)

Still does not justify why soccer mums need them in the city.

This topic has gone so offcourse haha.

[thewayitis]

Alright.... I know for a fact that if you lift you 4wd a certain amount of inches, you have to do brake and surve (sp?) tests. My 4wd has a 2 inch bodylift and 2inch suspnsion lift, and that is totally legal in Victoria. Most of the guys I know who have put bigger engines in there 4wds have put on bigger brakes as well. People who drive these modifiyed 4wds, know for a fact that they dont handle like a sports car. Thats no what they intend on doing. On outer limits i have seen shit loads of old rangies, they go off. and police DO go over modified 4wd with a fine tooth comb, Extended shackles is the first thing they look for.

[GTGribble]

The whole 4wd debate has just gotten way to personal and is being pushed by certain people in the media with different agendas. You only have to look into the papers and see the stories that make the news, like the one about most 4wders being overweight and arrogant. I hate road cyclists with a passion, but im not about to jump on some silly bandwagon and ban them. They are only out doing what they enjoy, and thats fine with me even though i still hate them.

As for modified 4bs, i own one, i use it, and its engineered. The cops have never gone over mine "with a fine-toothed comb" because its not outrageously modded (for the record i also have extended shackles that ARE engineered). Some people go way too overboard with mods when all you need in a 4b is a bit of clearance, slightly bigger rubber (im talking 35's max) and lockers then you can drive 99% of tracks around. Besides that if you make your truck too capable then the "terrain v truck" challenge becomes too easy.

Another thing that shits me is all the massive FJ-40's and whatnot going around with tyre shinned 42" swampers, white leather interiors, gazillion dollar paint jobs, 700hp 350 chevys, stereos that would rival Home nightclub's and when you ask them where they take it wheeling they go "Are you serious? Why would i take this offroad? It will wreck it!

Im going to go and do some work now before i get all shitty. :D

[Norco03]

The original topic of converstion/debate was modified 4wd's, not new 'people mover replacements' AWD vehicles (damn i hate the term SUV so American.)

I also own a modified 4wd, SWB patrol, lift, tyres etc. and i live in St. Ives!!! I didnt buy it for its on road manners, or its fuel efficiency, but for its off road ability. Petrol kills me every week but like so many of my mates who couldnt understand why i wanted a 4by, after one trip off road looking at stuff some people cant even ride down, they change their tune and now they want one too!

Debating whether the car is more dangerous is useless, many responsible drivers know the limits of our vehicles. It all comes down to the driver and their attitude. I used to drive a modified VL commodore before the Patrol, and now i dont worry about getting done for speeding, i just cant!

Theres way more to come but theres just too many long posts in this thread it took me almost an hour to read the whole thing.

Drew.

[Doggy]

edit: and the fact no one on outerlimits has a rangie / cayenne / whatever doesnt mean theyre not 4wds, it cimply means that they cant afford to drop that much money on a car thats more than likely going to get a thrashing and loose a hell of a lot of resale value

Bingo!

lotec - you're dead right there.;)

Guys I hate to ruin the argument of not having the money to throw away into a luxury "4wd"( I use that term loosely). Im on outerlimits and quite alot of people drive rangies (there has to be some stupid people in the world:D ) and quite alot of others have put more money into their cruisers and patrols then some luxury 4wds are worth and they get flogged off road with many of them being competition vehicles and they lose the resale but meeeeeeh its all about the fun

[Doggy]

If I was to win a big lotto tomorrow, I'd be buying a Cayenne within two seconds. And it would get me anywhere round Australia, no problems.

I see your point fatkat, not many backyard guys are going to know how to fix a Cayenne, but then its in a different market to your Landcruisers.

If I was to tour Australia, I'd probably get a Pajero, or Prado or something, for the same reasons as you.

But that does not reduce the effectiveness 4wd'ing of the Cayenne/Toureg/Rangie.

Anywhere in Australia with no problems....are you sure:D

I would like to see a cayenne attempt the first pic and the second pic. The beach picture was taken about 50metres away from where I recovered the cayenne. On second thoughts....take the cayennes off road, last time i pulled one out I made 50 bucks out of it:D

[scblack]

Anywhere in Australia with no problems....are you sure:D

I would like to see a cayenne attempt the first pic and the second pic. The beach picture was taken about 50metres away from where I recovered the cayenne. On second thoughts....take the cayennes off road, last time i pulled one out I made 50 bucks out of it:D

Doggy, only a modified vehicle could get where those pics have been taken. What you're showing us, is that Patrols etc cannot do stuff like that without enhancements.:D

I would like to see a cayenne attempt the first pic and the second pic. I would like to see a standard Landcruiser or Pajero do it - they could not do it either. Pointless argument.:D

I guarantee that a Cayenne could get you to any LOCATION in Australia - but not necessarily via the obscure, backtracks you seem to frequent. "Roads" like your first and second pic are chosen by you, for your hobby, thats "extreme" dude - not really necessary to be driven. It's like, whats your point of the holiday - the destination - or the road to get there.

[cam-o]

Here's a modded 4WD (AWD) that can upset the anti soccer mom brigade:
NizPro Turbo Territory, XR6 Turbo head and turbo, 17lbs of boost, 392 kW at the wheels, 11.7 second quarter mile, 3.8 second 0-100. :eek:

(edit: yes, they have upgraded the brakes and gearbox and lowered it, and yes, it is ADR approved.)

[thewayitis]

A patrol or a crusier could of got up there an modifed...... Its the drivers ablilty...... I read in 4x4 monthly that you should learn first with open diffs, and then try lockers.....

[Doggy]

A patrol or a crusier could of got up there an modifed...... Its the drivers ablilty...... I read in 4x4 monthly that you should learn first with open diffs, and then try lockers.....

Precisely right there....learn how to drive first then figure out what you need. I started in a shitbox hilux that I tipped over, crunched into things and generally caused much carnage to. I learnt how to drive then I went out and got the black and silver SWB patrol in the photos and spent the coin on doing that up the way I wanted it with spring lift, diff locks and big arse tyres:D, many thousands down the track and its sweet as. Just on those tracks, you have to bear in mind that photos are decieving...a stocko would... does make it up the second pic but with great difficulty and sometimes a winch is called for:)