Usually I can get excited aboiut most new cars in some way; but yesterday in Geneva I just couldn't see the point of the X6, can anyone enlighten me?
It's the culmination of BMW's design depts experiment to see how ugly a car needs to be before people will stop buying it even though it has a BMW badge.
Darth's right. Awful.
Darth Balls has it spot-on; nothing I can add can express my utter contempt for the people who thought this car was a good idea. Trying to be charitably, I suppose they were just trying to make a living; the real contempt I have is for the people who would considering buying one...
Contempt for people who buy a car ? That's a bit harsh, isn't it ?
From what I’ve read on the X6 there seems to be a competition among the various journos to see who can slagg it off best. You can almost feel the vibes that they are just willing this car to fail and fail miserably.
Ok, I’m going to be in minority of one here, but hey, I’m told it’s good to have differing opinions, right? I know many detest the X6’s looks. Somebody even described it as an X5 with an invisible elephant sitting on its arse, which made me chuckle. Then I saw pictures of a red X6 on a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />London street and I thought it looked quite fetching. Regardless, looks are a subjective thing.
As to the “point” issue. Well, one “could” make the argument that most cars larger than a Renault Clio are pretty pointless, but I won’t go there. What I’ll say is this. I think it’s generally accepted that over 90% of SUV/4x4s in the UK almost never go off-road. The X6, if reports are to be believed, is going to be among the best on-road drives (if not THE best) in the SUV sector. So if you are among the 90% “on-roaders”, must have an SUV, enjoy your driving and don’t need huge amounts of space, then the X6 might actually have more of a “point” to it than say a Land Cruiser or even a Range Rover Sport to you.
Ok, that’s me done playing the devil’s advocate, so let me have it. Just go easy on me; I’m having a stressful day as it is. :)
I see and understand all of the points you make. Where it all went from bad to worse for me was when i sat in it. Sitting behind someone else there i sno space in the back and the head room is attrocious. (i am 5'7). The boot is also a complete nonsense. I just can't see what it gives abouve an x5; and if one is that bothered about the driving xperience, why not have a car! Personally if I was having a 4x4 I would have a proper Range Rover (not a sport) diesel and forget about all pretence of sporting dynamics!
With regards to this, last week I spent half a day in a Cayenne GTS - maybe the best 4x4 for a cross country blast? then got in a 730d; and I will tell you what it was the 730d that gave a far better account of itself for me.
I see and understand all of the points you make. Where it all went from bad to worse for me was when i sat in it. Sitting behind someone else there i sno space in the back and the head room is attrocious. (i am 5'7). The boot is also a complete nonsense. I just can't see what it gives abouve an x5; and if one is that bothered about the driving xperience, why not have a car! Personally if I was having a 4x4 I would have a proper Range Rover (not a sport) diesel and forget about all pretence of sporting dynamics...
I knew the X6 was not particularly roomy, but thought it could still accommodate 4 people fairly comfortably. But based on your experience it looks as if (lack of) rear space is a glaring shortcoming.
I also take and agree with the point that if you want a better drive, you should go for a normal car. And that is why, personally, I prefer normal cars to SUVs. I was trying to put forth the case for someone who must (for whatever eason) drive an SUV, but wants one with good dynamics. Of course, the X5 is already a pretty good drive (and much more practical/roomy too), but from BMW is saying, driving wise, the X6 is going to be in a different league, possibly even better than the more expensive Caynne.
Anyway, I hope BMW can back up their claim on the X6, because if not, this car might turn out to be one gamble too many.
So ? The weight for the 4x4 system is negligible and there are now plenty of 4x4s that handle. I've been round the Land Rover factory handling track at Gaydon in a Supercharged Range Rover Sport. I tell you, it was incredibly impressive and very, very rapid. Of even more interest, the Land Rover handling track isn't like an ordinary high speed handling track. Sure, it has tight corners and rapid changes of direction from left to right and so on but the track itself is made up of raised manhole covers, deliberately poor road surfaces, water, changes of surface and anything to try to unsettle the car - the worst of all UK road surfaces in one place. I tell that you a Porsche would not have kept up. The 4x4 was actually saving us. The X6 might have a place there.
James, that 90% remark wasn't meant as an attack/criticism on the use of SUVs in the UK. On the contrary, I used it to make the case for those SUVs, like the X6, that have been specifically designed for road use, since they are hardly ever used off-road.
James, I do kind of feel for you in your role as unofficial forum defender of 4x4s. I suspect it is a thankless task and it gives me little pleasure to pick you up when you get a bit overenthusiastic. But the weight of four wheel drive on a car is not generally negligent. Even on something like a Qashqai which doesn't have the kind of transfer boxes, etc., seen on proper 4x4s, it adds around 70kg. Or like permanently carrying an extra passenger. On any Land Rover product, I'd bet the farm on the additional weight of the 4x4 gear being at least 100kg.
James, have you driven a Cayenne Turbo? a RR sport supercharger wouldn't see it for dust! Don't get me wrong, I like Range Rovers but even a sport superchrger is a bit of a joke as a sports car!
Just re read your post James, still, i am not having too much of a go a 4x4s as a whole just that the x6 has gone a step too far for me. Style over substance has gone too far in this case. And afterall you can have 4x4 on saloon/estate cars.
Hi mate. Yes, I have and I agree. Super car, the Cayenne. Mind you, there is a 500bhp RR and RR Sport coming in '09.
No ! That's not me. I just hate all this bigotry about SUV hating and like to explore what drives people to think that way. Personally, I think my SUV days are numbered and I'll end up in a BMW estate or X5. Wouldn't be the end of the world but it irritates me that its done in the snide way its done by green enthusiasts. They just pick on SUVs and nothing else.
70 - 100kgs ? Still a pretty small percentage of the overall weight of the car. You take it off then so what ? Might help a little bit to save diesel, I suppose, but its hardly a great big deal or a real argument against 4x4s. Its really the only argument people have against 4x4s i.e. that they are allegedly wasteful. Its rapidly becoming not the case. The X5 is a good example as far as CO2 is concerned. Pretty low but it still gets bad press. Ill informed nonsense.
Well, not that harsh is it? I haven't spewed hatred or vitriol. I just don't understand why people want something so vulgar. A bit like I can't understand what it is that people find so attractive about hiring limousines. Still, what I think doesn't amount to a hill of beans; we all want different things, I'm not about to lobby parliament or anything...
Everyones making a fuss over the X6, but I have just found a similar car that's already in production and sale in other parts of the world....
Didn't know this thing existed. Apparently its a Ssangyong! BMW have been beaten to it again!
It's all about the twisties........
I've just been sick. Jesus Hoovering Christ, that's awful. It is actually better looking than the X6 though !
hahahahaha. James, you give me jokes. true, i never knew something like that ever exhisted. it looks pretty much like and x6 in cheap suit. :-)
James, I've been on the wrong forum to find 4x4 knockers, they are all on here. But JJ seems to have either abandoned you or has not found this thread.
It seems I am not the only one who feels the Range Rover set et al are over engineered and over weight for the task the majority perform on a daily basis.
If BMW have any sense, they will throw the towel in now.
Some brands are making a contest.
"How stupid can be our customers?"
This car is the equivialent of a money grabbing ugly whore, or Heather Jade Mills-Goody.
...If BMW have any sense, they will throw the towel in now.
BMW (usually) have plenty of sense and I hazard a guess they will make a lot of money out of the X6, despite the sneering put downs from much of the UK motoring press regarding the X6.
It wasn't that long ago when the same critics were predicting doom and gloom for BMW's sales and heaping ridicule on the mark when Bangle's 7-series, followed by 5, Z4 etc hit the road. And we know who had the last laugh there, don't we?
Just saw this post, Jon. I don't need JJ to hold a debate, thanks very much !
No. I'm sure you're not the only one that doesn't like 4x4s. It also doesn't mean that you are right either. Your point on this thread and the other one is that they are over-engineered, overweight and too big. I have to say : so what ?
Having already declared yourself as someone who doesn't come at it from a CO2 angle, why do these characteristics offend you ? What is it about 4x4s that do anything to affect your life in a negative way ? They fit in parking spaces perfectly well. Are you suggesting that they should be taxed on their size ? That would be utterly ridiculous. Over-engineered is a good thing isn't it ? Big cars needed to carry 5 people are going to be heavy, I am afraid.
It rather seems to me, as it does with other some other people I have had this debate with in here, that you don't like them for image or class reasons and that you are attempting to make up some reasons which mask this. You have been inconsistent in your argument on the other thread (one minute SUVs are driven by one person, the next minute they're full of kids) and then you tell me (not ask, tell) that a smaller MPV or estate car will do me just as well as an SUV ! You also say that you " wouldn't be seen dead" in a Range Rover or Cayenne. Can't think why not, unless image or class is at the forefront of your mind.
Can't think why not, unless image or class is at the forefront of your mind.
Actually, your "so what" response to accusations that the car is too big for
crowded British roads sums up what people don't like about them. Well
And given that you can be behind the wheel of an X5 for Renault Clio money, class is a red herring. It was a red herring when I was last on these forums some months ago, and I see you're still pursuing it in a condescending tone that suggests we're maladjusted activists. I'd wager that we just have different - but perfectly valid - views about modern motoring, but I could be wrong...
Anyone fancy joining me in a protest outside the local Mercedes dealership? ;)
Hang on ! Don't jump to too many conclusions. I'm just trying to explore why Jon doesn't like them. I'm not being condescending but it may be that Jon (and you) have views that are based on class or petty prejudice. He's already said that he doesn't object to them on environmental grounds, so I have to ask why should Jon or anyone else ask me to pay more tax just because I'm driving a perfectly legal car which does not use any more space than is legally provided for it ? That's a reasonable question isn't it ? Are you suggesting that tax is calculated on a price per foot basis ? If so, why !!?? What does "too big for crowded British roads" mean ?
James, take it or not I believe they are too big for modern over crowded roads. In addition the image they portray just gets my goat. The go anywhere image, well why don't you lot actually go where they are designed to go and give the roads a break? otherwise whats the point of all that ground clearance and 4x4 off road ability?
Pointless for a road going vehicle, therefore, back to an earlier point, you can have the space and image you desire but drop the all wheel drive and go anywhere image, as you lot don't actually go everywhere in them.
Talking of size, anyone know if the actual footprint of something like the X6 is bigger than say the Mondeo or the Bentley GT (which is also nearly as heavy)?
It's a tricky one this - hard to separate opinion and fact. However, for me the crucial thing is this: a Range Rover Sport V8S weighs 2.5 tons, and will transport 5 people and their luggage. There is no reason a vehicle weighing a ton or more less cannot do the same. It's not over-engineering, it's bad engineering, simply unneccessary. If you demand luxury, an Audi A8 2.8 petrol weighing 1700kg will do the job very nicely, as quickly and with almost half the CO2 emissions/fuel consumption.
As a method of getting around on the road, I don't see any objective way you can justify the SUV in this case. Pick a smaller SUV, I'm sure there'll be an equivalently spacious 'normal' car in the same sort of price bracket, which, without the burden of frontal area, bluff styling and plus-size bodywork will do the same job for less energy input. A Freelander weighs 2 tons, if you want to drive on the road, does it really do anything a BMW 520d touring can't do at 400kg less?
Unfortunately, SUVs are an easy target for anti-car types, and personally I don't think they do the cause any good at all. I'm personally concerned about losing the freedom and flexibility of personal transport, not to mention the enjoyment of driving. Cars like the X6 strike me as a step in the wrong direction - I'd far rather see car companies putting effort into making cars which are good to drive and quick because they're lighter and more efficient, instead of putting huge amount of engineeing effort into making two-ton plus SUVs handle. This applies equally to all cars, across the entire spectrum - just look at the weight of 'small' hatchbacks recently!
Yes, the diesel X6's fuel consumption isn't that bad, but put that same engine in a lighter car and I guess you've got a 535d and 40mpg. As for the Mondeo Estate, it weighs 600kg less in typical trim!
Got to agree with Niel in a lot of ways. While I would hate it if the government told us we couldn't have these things I do think that they send out the wrong message to the car haters and would personally get more pleasure from a lighter mor efficeint car.
Why stop at SUVs? You could also extend this "you can do the same job with a smaller/lighter vehicle" to other car sectors. For example you could argue that there is really no justification for driving Ferraris or Lamborghinis since on today's congested roads you drive cars that are just as quick and enjoyable, in day to day real life motoring, and produce less CO2, like Nissan 350ZX, BMW 330, Audi TT V6 etc. The you could go further and say well Golf GTI and Renault Megane Trophy are just as quick in day to day motoring with less CO2, so there is no justification for driving Nissan 300ZX and Audi TT V6 etc.
Thenyou could target Rolls Royce, Bentley, S-Class, 7 Series, A8 etc and make a perfectly valid case that, in real life motoring, a Ford Mondeo 2.5T provides nearly all the space, performance, comfort of those expensive luxury saloon with far lower CO2 emissions.
So where are we going to draw to line? Or are we going to the line at at all?
fully agree with you Overdrive.
hell why stop with cars? we should all live in 2 bed flats, wearing basic clothing, with medium TVs, basic digital watches, etc. etc.
I've just thrown out all my underpants. A nasty, selfish, anti-social waste of cloth. I'd like to apologise for wearing underpants. I will let my trousers take the strain from now on. Hang on. I'll get rid of them too.
I'm with Overdrive. Its nonsense to say that it is morally incorrect for a car to weigh too much or take up too much space. Sure, it might make it not drive very well but that's no reason to tax it. If you don't like something (yes, Jon and Thwarted Efforts, this means you) then fine but don't preach your smug, sanctimonious left wing bleeding heart crap to everyone else.
Rant over. Sorry. I'm tired and probably shouldn't be typing.
I never said it was morally incorrect, just a waste of engineering effort. To the contrary, I would defend the right to buy and drive such a car totally. I just don't think you can justify it on any objective basis, and that there are other things I'd rather see car manufacturers put effort into developing. The X6 looks like a poor solution to whatever 'problem' you seek to solve with it - there are better ways of doing anything it does, in ten years time will it have made a useful contribution to the future of the car? I think not.
If anything, more effort needs to be made in the volume end of the market since those are the cars most people actually buy and drive - if Lamborghini, Ferrari, Rolls Royce etc stopped producing cars tomorrow the net effect (I'm not getting into the CO2/global warming debate as I don't know who to believe - but you can't deny that at some point the oil will run out) would be immesurable. I think the world would be a poorer place for it too, don't get me wrong.
Put it this way though - I'd far rather drive a "diesel electric baked bean can" than take a bus.
Just one other thing. If you're going to burn a shedload of fuel and be reamed by the government on tax, why not have a good time going really f*cking quickly, instead of hauling a load of unneccessary metal around?
Obviously their are two camps on this, and if you did not already know I'm in there with Niall and Thwarted.
James, thanks for telling me I'm left wing and god knows what other bo**ocks you sprout.
.....I just don't think you can justify it on any objective basis, and that there are other things I'd rather see car manufacturers put effort into developing. The X6 looks like a poor solution to whatever 'problem' you seek to solve with it - there are better ways of doing anything it does, in ten years time will it have made a useful contribution to the future of the car? I think not..
It's probably true to say that it very difficult to justify the X6 on an objective basis, but part of my point was you would also find it hard to justify on an objective basis maybe half (if not more) of the various makes and models of cars on sale today. So why single out the X6?
Also I'm not sure if it is fair to generalize and say that car like the X6 is "a waste of engineering effort". Car makers learn more about engineering and producing cars almost on every new model. The X6 for example (to quote Autocar): "..acts as a platform for the introduction of some of BMW’s most interesting mechanical developments in years – including a new traction enhancing torque vectoring system that’s set to appear in all of BMW’s four-wheel drive mode..".
I'll be honest, generally I'm not a fan of SUVs (for many reasons already mentioned here) and won't buy an X6 even if I could afford it, but I'm beginning to see the case for vehicles with high ground clearance, which are also becoming far more accomplished dynamically, like the X6, that can be very useful for a countries full of poorly surfaced roads, ever increasing speed humps etc like Britain .
Besides, surely it's not ALL about objective reasons. I would think most people who buys cars do so at least with a degree of subjectivity, in terms of the looks, feel of the car's quality and how the car appeals to their senses etc. Or am I missing the picture?
Its my pleasure. Its what you get for calling for SUV drivers to pay more tax without giving one single reason that has any validity other than "it would make me sick to drive a 4x4" and "all SUV drivers are egotistical ego trippers". Your bigotry and arrogance knows no bounds. What would you feel like if someone said to you that all Alfa drivers are awful social climbers and should pay more tax ?
Just to remind you that you have also said that SUVs are "too big for Britains overcrowded roads". What does this mean ? Really, what does it mean ? You also say that I should not drive my 4x4 as I should "give the roads a rest". Again, what on earth are you talking about ? Aren't the roads for driving on ? Don't we all pay enough tax as motorists to entitle us to use the roads ?
Jon, you are guilty of shoddy thinking and ineloquence at best and arrogance and bigotry at worst. Your hatred of SUV drivers actually says more about you than it does SUVs. I can not seem to get to the bottom of why you think this way. I can only think that it is as a result of your personal circumstances - maybe you are left wing, maybe you don't like people who can afford expensive cars, I really don't know and I don't think I ever will.
Niall, I think you try to make your points in a reasonable way and I think this is a reasonable point. The problem I have with it though is that I do not assume that there is nothing I can do to avoid paying the tax in the first place. If we are all complacent and let the government do it to us then they will. Further, if we all allow people like Jon Hardcastle to get away with their rubbish (no objection to SUVs on environmental grounds just hates the image and the drivers) then the government will again jump on the bandwagon and tax us all. That's tax us all not just SUVs. This kind of crap should be challenged every time.
Let's consider all these issues very carefully and allow our thinking on the environment, tax and SUVs to be challenged because we have a government that sees all motorists as cash cows. Of course, you can just believe what you see and hear others saying, including the press who are also on the bandwagon. When did you last watch the evening news and not see a report about climate change. Sorry but I can not detect a change in the climate that is worth reporting on every single night or one than is more important than improving law and order and the health service. Its all far too much bullshit in my view.
Thats the beauty of free speech!
Get over it.
Aha, my little judgmental friend. I'm over you. It was hard but I've managed it. Off you go now. Run along and bash some other people you've never met but unaccountably hate.
James, are you hard of reading? I have said I do not hate anybody. That includes you.
However, I have already run along.
I take it I'm not teachers pet?
Jon - none of this is personal. You do realise that ? That said, you can't go around saying that all SUV drivers are the same without expecting some shit back. I'll have an apple, please.
James - I agree with you re: taxation. It's clear that the Government are going to absolutely cream the motorist. The problem is, if you were serious about reducing the number of a particular type of vehicle sold or driven (high emissions/poor fuel consumption/blue paint - whatever), and that vehicle has a high purchase price, the amount of tax you'd have to charge to actually put people off would be huge. As it stands, putting even £1000/year road tax on a car costing £50k will make very little difference, but the government will make a shedload of money. I'm not looking forwards to paying over £200 a year on a 1.6l car, which cost me £125 to tax 2 years ago! Annoyingly the residual values of all sorts of tasty metal is likely to plummet, but normal people like me wont' be able to afford to run them!
I don't know who to believe on climate change. At the moment it strikes me that both sides are desparately scrabbling to prove the other wrong, and both have already decided what the answer is. This seems more like religion than science to me! If it was decisively proven (how I don't know, but bear with me), would 'climate change deniers' like yourself accept the conclusion, or would you bury your heads in the sand and pretend it wasn't true? Whatever the outcome, I'm not very keen on the way something which still seems to be the subject of scientific debate is being used as the basis of a taxation scheme!
If, and only if, it could be shown that this money was being put to some good use - for example funding research into efficient and sustainable personal motorised transport, or even sustainable* power generation - I might consider it to have some merit. As it is, I strongly suspect it will be left to the motor industry and consumers to fund progress, and the 'environmental' tax will simply go into central funds, just like VED.
Overdrive - I guess what I'm getting at is that BMW are doing 'the same with more'. Doing 'more with less' or even 'lots more with a bit more' could more easily be seen as progress. I'm sure some of the tech they're introducing will be very useful, and I agree, choosing a car is very much a subjective process and I wouldn't want to deny anyone the right to choose whatever vehicle they want, however tasteless/brash/inefficient/ugly/whatever it may be ;)
* While I don't want to get into the climate change discussion, resources are undeniably finite and finding better ways to make use of them seems like a good idea to me.
Yes, yes, YES, YEEES ! YEEEESSSS ! I knew it would happen once.
Yes I honestly would.
That's the point. Exactly so.
Loving your work, Niall. Yes. The motorist is the most taxed element of society and gets the least value for money.
I was thinking you did'nt.
Where's the imagination?
Afraid i cannot help. This is probably the most pointless model on sale right now. It is truly the ugliest of a questionable range and makes me more determined than ever that I would never buy a current BMW. Such a pity that so many people continue to buy these cars as a status symbol, until sales really drop disasterously I guess that BMW will not change this perverse styling trend.
BMW X6. Big. Pointless. Ugly. I'm sure it'll sell in the truckload to people daft enough to buy BIg Pointless Ugly 'cars'. I was going to say 'road-cars', but these Big, Ugly, Pointless 'cars' are driven on the 'road' precisely because...? Hmmm, best argument I've ever heard is so that mum's don't have to bend over so much to get their kids in and out. The rest? Plain egotistical rubbish. As for the fact that those of us who object to them are left wing, or jealous of people who buy expensive cars, it's the kind of stupid argument I expect from people who buy big, pointless, ugly 'cars'. I happen to like certain expensive cars: from Porsches to Ferraris, some of which, I would also like to add, are a bit pointless on the road too, but at least aren't big and ugly.
Beowolf - put the new X6 next to an X5 and according to a magazine the X6 wins hands down on looks. Put an X6 next to an Audi Q7 and it's even less of a contest. I like the Range Rover Sport and Discovery even though SUV's usually leave me cold. But the X6 is the first SUV I'd consider with a couple of kids because it's chunky and funky.
"Pointless" you say?!! You may have forgotten the point is to go A to B to C to Z.
And the X6 can certainly do that rather well. In fact it drives and handles better than all of the breed with a coupe-like interior and excellent seats. The boot too is apparently very large and the rear seats more than adequate for adults (ie. useful/practical).
Regards green concerns posted by others and the X6 carrying excess weigth or squashed rear headroom has anyone seen empty buses (and bus lanes), trains (and empty track) and empty tubes with dozens of empty seats?
Now that Commie eco-fraud Ken Livingstone has gone we may see less empty buses subsidised by motorists and more X6's and other Chelsea Tractors deciding with their own money how many seats to run around free with. In short your pointless is another mans point and it's a democracy until further notice. Vive Le Difference.
JJ, 'Vive Le Difference' for sure.
Sticking to the car-related issues. Agreed, '...the point is to go A to B to C to Z...', which isn't forgotten but uppermost in my mind, for I would say, '...to go from A to B to Z effieciently and effectively as possible.
Were you never a fan of LJK Setright? Technical efficiency and effectiveness: with their higher centres of gravity and unnecessary mass, these overweight, indeed obese monsters start off highly compromised, and only excellent technical prowess by the likes of BMW and Porsche have made them 'decent drives'. But so? The X6/X5 may well be the best SUV/4X4 on the road in competitive tests with other overweight duffers. I thought the X5
was terrific when I sat in one, but I'd have a decent estate any time.
These monsters, unless utlised for a highly specific use - e.g. load-lugging off-road, are indeed compromised and 'pointless' on the road, PARTICULARLY in built-up areas.
In London, where I live and so admit most of my arguments are based on city driving, the average commuter is ONE person at a time travelling from A to B etc. You'd lose your credibility if you tried to argue a Range Rover is a better vehicle to commute in town with compared to say a motorbike! It is HUGELY inefficient to use a BIG, HEAVY vehicle for one person to commute with, when a thousand 'lesser' vehicles can do the job far more effectively.
I'd also admit, for many, a motorbike is compromised for other reasons - try taking more than one kid to school on a motorbike on a rain-lashed day i.e. impossible. So yes, I promote the best, most efficient, effective vehicle FOR THE JOB. All that extra mass and higher centre's of gravity ARE pointless when carrying 'ordinary' people about, i.e. of average height and weight.
JJ, this argument could go on, but I simply stepped in to point out to have an intelligent reason for disliking large, pointless SUVs and 4x4s does not make people like me jealous or lefties. You're free to think that, just as I'm entitled to think that people who buy these daft creations are vain and egotistical. But then, people are, aren't we? Vive Le Difference!
p.s. In my family there is an Audi Q7 (simply the worst of the lot), Bently GT, Merc ML, Jeep Cherokee, Lexus RX, several E-classes, and thankfully a Honda Civic, Peugeot 206 and 107. Commuting in town, I'd have my 107 over the rest any day. It 's absolutely not the best for mototrways. And I'd NEVER want any of the 4x4s.... unless going 'home', which is poor rural roads and a village.