Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT (OFF Topic) Forums' started by Benzmanc, Aug 26, 2019.
... I wouldn't. Looks like a golf on stilts
Volkswagen T-Roc Cabriolet Review (2019) | Parkers
It's a no from me too!
That is ugly, it is a definite no from me.
Better than the evoque. But then that’s like saying that flu is better than pneumonia!
It’s still a minger. It’s a no from me.
Not for me but my sister would probably like it, must be a market for them!
Another no, for all the reasons above.
You can fit a crate of beer in the boot, what's not to like??
It’s all becoming a bit nonsensical.
Another no from me.
I am not looking for open-top motoring so wouldn't buy one.
Said that, why would this one be any different to the Evoke or to the smaller Mini etc?
(Not that I would buy an open-top Evoke or Mini).
So what in your opinion makes this car stand out as a car you wouldn't want to own?
Evolution Of The Convertible SUV
I am partial to the International Harvester Scout II... I did drive one on the seventies.
If I was in the market for that sort of thing ?
Cue MB filling that segment with GLC cabrio ?
I can sort of see the point of such a car.
What a car looks like is the first consideration for most it seems, but as an engineer, just not for me.
We have an old Defender for goodness sake! (Why have you got a farmers car? asked one of my wife's friends!)
It's a family pet really, but actually rather good at all weathers and the terrain of the peak district, where my wife works.
We added a convertible MX-5 to the fleet recently. Great little fun car, much more civilised than the Defender, but much harder to see out of at the hilly and high hedged rural junctions.
Now I wonder if they make a convertible with a higher seating position.....
One thing that was barely touched on in the otherwise excellent historical review linked by Markjay was the construction of the early SUVs being "Body on Chassis" whereby a non load bearing body was grafted onto a separate ladder type chassis which gave it structural rigidity. This meant that sawing off the roof had very little effect compared to doing the same thing in a monocoque car which relies on the roof plus pillars to complete the rigid box from which it derives its main strength. With few exceptions most modern SUV;s are monocoque construction meaning chopping off the roof means lots more floorpan/bulkhead metal re-inforcement to maintain rigidity and resist the dreaded chassis flex. Lower safety and crash resistance is a given and not just from roll over. Passenger occupancy space intrusion is inevitably compromised perhaps typified by the question- " where are the curtain airbags then?" and re-inforced by the fact that anyone doing serious offroading in one of these adds a substantial roll cage from the off. Those big body on chassis 4x4 American trucks looked butch but tended to fold like a pack of cards in any serious collision and the concept of crumple zones was a tad namby pamby .
Well , you can always unbolt the roof off your Landy in the summer months .
It's not quite the 10sec 'roof rescue' of the MX-5, a feature much used here, even in the alleged summer months!
For me it's a pointless and stupid concept a convertible SUV. To make this work it's has to go beyond pointless and stupid, it had to be completely batshit stupid, laughable lunatic of an idea. A full size SUV a proper off roader convertable but with a 500+bhp NASCAR snarling V8 under the bonnet. Now there's a proper off the scales stupid idea. Convertable G63 AMG anybody?