In message , at
09:11:19 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I picked the one which is most common, the 89-98 model.

OK, so let's use the contemporary Mondeo and E-class for comparison.
Mondeo 14'11" x 5'8"

My Parkers says "2000-" model, 15'5" x 5'11"

E-class 15'9" x 5'10"

ditto "2002-" model 15'9" x 6'5"

Have both of these been superseded since last August (the date of my
Parkers).

Unfortunately my "Parkers Guide" only lists the latest one's width
*including* wing mirrors, which isn't a fair comparison.

That's OK, I've taken all the measurements I've given from Parkers, so
they're a reasonably fair comparison.

On what planet does such a vehicle take up "far more space"?

I don't believe I said it did.

No, Wolmar did, and it was his analysis that I was critiquing.

That's an easily disproved claim. It's also a silly one in a world where
there's recommended two second gaps between all vehicles in motion, and
where parking spaces are usually of a fixed size. However, it's a claim
that has been made, and if you're going to disprove it credibly, you
need to keep some academic honesty involved.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim. Not sure what's lacking in the
academic honesty.

All modern cars are large - too large. Compare the size of a Mk 1 Golf
with the current VW range

All cars seem to get bigger over the years, and smaller models are
introduced at the bottom. I used to have a Matiz, about as small as they
come. Very useful in towns. However, it's not the sort of thing you can
use to take the family on holiday, so the appeal is limited for the
average family motorist.

As I've said before, I used to own a Range Rover (quite an old one) and
it was chosen because of the space inside, not the 4WD (although I was
living in the country and it was useful from time to time). If
people-carriers had been invented (the only one at the time was the
Espace) I'd probably have got one of them instead. 2WD, of course

- and, at up to 2.7tons, one whole ton heavier than
an E-class.

Irrelevant. The proposition was *space*.

One proposition was space. Weight is a claim that is less easily
disproved, and leads directly to vastly increased emissions - which I
noticed you snipped. I repeat - the current Disco's CO2 g/km emissions
are only slightly short of those of a Mondeo PLUS an Astra combined.

You've extended the criteria to include weight and emissions (is a
diesel Disco really as bad as you describe, please give the numbers). I
was only commenting on Wolmar's rather misleading remarks.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I picked the one which is most common, the 89-98 model.

OK, so let's use the contemporary Mondeo and E-class for comparison.
Mondeo 14'11" x 5'8"

My Parkers says "2000-" model, 15'5" x 5'11"

I'm giving the previous model dimensions here.

E-class 15'9" x 5'10"

ditto "2002-" model 15'9" x 6'5"

Likewise - previous model.

Have both of these been superseded since last August (the date of my
Parkers).

The E-class and Mondeo, no. The Disco, yes.

If you're comparing discontinued models, then compare them evenly.
If you're comparing current models, then compare them evenly.

However, this is largely a minor point, as we are agreed that road
surface area is irrelevant, as a few inches here-or-there makes no real
difference in use.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim.

It certainly clouds the whole debate - and, as a result, it's a very
poor point to use.

Not sure what's lacking in the academic honesty.

"Cheating" by frigging your figures to prove your point. Comparing older
smaller 4x4 models with newer larger "car" ones to make your comparison
look better. Disco 3s are proliferating rapidly, and - given the poor
reputation that the old model had for many things - they will very soon
"feel" more numerous, especially in the centre of London.

One proposition was space. Weight is a claim that is less easily
disproved, and leads directly to vastly increased emissions - which I
noticed you snipped. I repeat - the current Disco's CO2 g/km emissions
are only slightly short of those of a Mondeo PLUS an Astra combined.

You've extended the criteria to include weight and emissions (is a
diesel Disco really as bad as you describe, please give the numbers).

Yes. They are. There is no question about this.

Disco TD - 275g/km (249g/km manual, but the vast majority will be auto)

Mondeo TDCi - 151g/km (196g/km auto, but the vast majority will be
manual)
Astra CDTI - 118g/km (not available with autobox)

118+151 = 269 - so in typical configuration, I actually underestimated.
My apologies.

Merc E220CDi auto - 168-188g/km (manual 162-174, but the vast majority
will be auto) depending on tyre size

Still - could be worse. Disco v8 auto (no manual available) - 354g/km.
Oh, and in the interests of fairness - E55 AMG - 310g/km and Mondeo
ST220 - 249g/km.

Just to show that it's not down to different engine technologys - the
same v6 diesel used in the Disco TD when placed into the Jag S-type
(again, auto) manages 208g/km, and an automatic 545i (same engine as the
petrol Disco, X5 4.4 and Range-Rover) is 257g/km vs 317 in the X5 and
389g/km in the Rangie. The diesel X5 and Rangie share the 3.0 TD with
the 5-series, giving 250 (X5 3.0d) 299 (Rangie D6), 208 (530d) - all
paired to autoboxes, as they would be in the majority of vehicles
ordered.

One interesting point worth noting - The disparity in the Mondeo's
diesel/auto vs the diesel/manual figures suggest that that autobox
pairing is a very poor one - many of the larger cars get better CO2
figures with an autobox than as a manual. This is directly opposite
"folk-wisdom" which suggests that manuals are more efficient than autos.

(from www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk - part of the Dept of Transport)

In message , at
12:19:53 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I picked the one which is most common, the 89-98 model.

OK, so let's use the contemporary Mondeo and E-class for comparison.
Mondeo 14'11" x 5'8"

My Parkers says "2000-" model, 15'5" x 5'11"

I'm giving the previous model dimensions here.

Ah, "contemporary" with the old Disco, not with today.

E-class 15'9" x 5'10"

ditto "2002-" model 15'9" x 6'5"

Likewise - previous model.

Have both of these been superseded since last August (the date of my
Parkers).

The E-class and Mondeo, no. The Disco, yes.

Yes, I already said the Disco was the old model, as Parkers has the new
model's width including wing mirrors (?why?) which makes comparisons
invalid.

If you're comparing discontinued models, then compare them evenly.
If you're comparing current models, then compare them evenly.

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

However, this is largely a minor point, as we are agreed that road
surface area is irrelevant, as a few inches here-or-there makes no real
difference in use.

Good. That settles the debate once and for all.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim.

It certainly clouds the whole debate - and, as a result, it's a very
poor point to use.

Good, we agree.

Not sure what's lacking in the academic honesty.

"Cheating" by frigging your figures to prove your point. Comparing older
smaller 4x4 models with newer larger "car" ones to make your comparison
look better. Disco 3s are proliferating rapidly, and - given the poor
reputation that the old model had for many things - they will very soon
"feel" more numerous, especially in the centre of London.

I'd happily use their current size if it was in Parkers. All a bit moot
as the claim was they were "far larger".

One proposition was space. Weight is a claim that is less easily
disproved, and leads directly to vastly increased emissions - which I
noticed you snipped. I repeat - the current Disco's CO2 g/km emissions
are only slightly short of those of a Mondeo PLUS an Astra combined.

You've extended the criteria to include weight and emissions (is a
diesel Disco really as bad as you describe, please give the numbers).

Yes. They are. There is no question about this.

Disco TD - 275g/km (249g/km manual, but the vast majority will be auto)

Mondeo TDCi - 151g/km (196g/km auto, but the vast majority will be
manual)
Astra CDTI - 118g/km (not available with autobox)

118+151 = 269 - so in typical configuration, I actually underestimated.
My apologies.

Merc E220CDi auto - 168-188g/km (manual 162-174, but the vast majority
will be auto) depending on tyre size

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned. (I'm not sure why, the E300D drives
just like a petrol car, but does over 40mpg).

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

So stop waving it about.

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned.

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the petrol
versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs 27 for the TD
and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal" cars
are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during 2004, and
40% of Mondeos.

In message , at
13:42:23 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

So stop waving it about.

I'm trying to disperse it.

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned.

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the petrol
versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs 27 for the TD
and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

So Parkers is wrong when it says the diesel disco is 25-34 (the previous
model being 30-40). This is the smoke of which we spake.

[Although from what I'm hearing, the new Disco seems to have somewhat
crossed the line from "family man's Land Rover" to "poor man's Range
Rover", to its detriment.]

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal" cars
are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during 2004, and
40% of Mondeos.

That's good news then (apart from asthma suffers, apparently).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the
petrol versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs
27 for the TD and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

So Parkers is wrong when it says the diesel disco is 25-34 (the
previous model being 30-40). This is the smoke of which we spake.

The figures I gave are from Parkers website.

[Although from what I'm hearing, the new Disco seems to have somewhat
crossed the line from "family man's Land Rover" to "poor man's Range
Rover", to its detriment.]

I think you may have your system clock set wrongly - that started about
five years ago.

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal"
cars are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during
2004, and 40% of Mondeos.

That's good news then (apart from asthma suffers, apparently).

Indeed.