Is a 4x4 (even an urban dwelling one) that is occupied by at least 3 people on every journey better or worse than 3 Corsas with only one person inside?

[YeahBut]

Discuss.
(For Fio)

worse

better

better

depends on the weight of the people and whether or not it's diesel surely? and whether or not it has england flags flapping around and spoiling what little aerodynamic sense it had.

and is it a hard top or a soft top 4x4?

Better - in terms of parking, congestion and possibly pollution.

Worse - they tend to bring out ranting and road rage in others.

Also (on a slightly eyore note), really worry about what 4x4's can do to a pedestrian if they are involved in an accident.

Surely even the most gas guzzling 4x4 (with the exception of the Hummer) would be more economical/environmentally friendly than 3 seperate smaller cars ?

ah, now there's a question:

is an urban 4x4 that always does 30mph or less in the city better or worse than a micra that does 45?

Corsa: 62.7 mpg

4x4's: some do as little as 12 mpg
(prob less with 3 people in it)

ndeP - not necessarily. we used to have a landrover that did 20mpg. lots of small cars do 60mpg these days

but does a corsa do 62.5 in town?

whoops, did I just admit to owning a landrover? what was I thinking? I may have eaten a sausage roll in it too.

Bundle, that is an unfair comparison, IMO. You have chosen to pit the most economical Corsa engine against the thirstiest 4x4 engine. Hardly like for like, is it ? Plus, 67.2mpg is more like 45mpg in town driving (the least economical style of driving).

Sorry, 62.7mpg.

not sure what the town mpg is - say that's it's 50mph consumption (ie most efficient) I'm sure the 4x4 consumption even at 50mph isn't going to be much better than 12mpg...so for me they can never be better. I'm not sure how direct the relationship is between global warming & fuel consumption but on consumption of non-renewable energy and the valid point about impact on pedestrians if there's an accident, I can't bear them.

SP - PMSL at the England flags!!!!
As to your Q - suppose it depends on the damage that both cars would inflict upon other vehicles or pedestrians in the event of a collision. Pedestrians hit by a car at 40mph, regardless of type, have an 80% chance of being killed (according to the road safety ads).

ndp even if it's 45mpg, that is slightly more "efficient" than 3 x 12 = 36

12mpg is uncommon these days though, even in town.

so what is it then?

ok jeep cherokee 21mpg but am assuming that's the best case scenario (ie 50mph) so would be a lot lower than that in town...anyone have a definitive number?

The big downer for me with 4x4's is the pedestrian damaging element. Assuming that everybody is going at 30mph is it more likely that a pedestrian will be injured by 3 corsas or 1 4x4? (Poor pedestrian if he is hit by all 4 of them!)

That would depend on the drivers of the 4 cars, wouldn't it, MP ? Although, of course if the pedestrian was hit by the 4 cars in identical accidents, then he/she is statisically more likely to sustain a fatal injury as a result of being hit by the 4x4