Jeremy Clarkson’s view on off-road cars, 4×4s and the school run - Clarkson’s Car Years - BBC worldwide

April 29th, 2009 | by cars |
BBCWorldwide asked:


Jeremy Clarkson has his say about 4×4s and his novel take on the school run. Free video clip from the BBC.

SHANE

Cars - Bookmark and Share Your Favorites... These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ask
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Live-MSN
  • MySpace
  • Netscape
  • Squidoo
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • YahooMyWeb

  1. 24 Responses to “Jeremy Clarkson’s view on off-road cars, 4×4s and the school run - Clarkson’s Car Years - BBC worldwide”

  2. By corvettefan96 on May 1, 2009 | Reply

    he hates them, yet in his review of the hummer h2 he says “it reminds you why you like cars”

  3. By mip0larity on May 2, 2009 | Reply

    The reason the front of his car was so much more damaged than the back of yours is a safety design called the crumple zone. The crumple zone absorbs energy in head on crashses.

  4. By captbobalou on May 3, 2009 | Reply

    Generalities are sometimes useful, often not. I can easily load 12 4ftx8ft panels of plywood into my Suburban, and still carry 4 passengers (have an older model with bench front seats). I was rear-ended on a rural highway two weeks ago (with two kids and a dog in the back seat). I was turning, the truck that hit me was going around 60. The other driver mashed his front end in and had to be towed. I have to replace a bumper and one back door. Had we had our Subaru, we’d have been seriously hurt.

  5. By ed200007 on May 6, 2009 | Reply

    lt’s actually about 4.81USD per gallon, kinda far from 2.13 here in near-Chicago. lt did get to be about 4.90 some 6 months ago.

  6. By LANDYMAN090 on May 6, 2009 | Reply

    89p per L about $1.24 gallon

  7. By vosogo on May 8, 2009 | Reply

    Daft, antisocial and idiotic: every SUV and its driver, writ large. Couldn’t think of a better description if I tried…

  8. By SuperleggeraVW on May 10, 2009 | Reply

    why not…. most SUV are just sedans with slightly more ground clearence and some extra metal, only a few SUV’s are actually designed to go offroad.

    And what about rally cars…

  9. By ed200007 on May 10, 2009 | Reply

    What’s the price of gas in Oxfordshire today?

  10. By msw191 on May 11, 2009 | Reply

    yeah, he did, but when he arrived, the other one got out on the other side.. :P

  11. By jnessley on May 12, 2009 | Reply

    Lets recap. Generally you are safer in an accident with a large SUV, but you might be more likely to get into one. Nine miles per gallon. Off road prowess. Great view, bad handeling. Pros and cons just like everything else.

  12. By jonnda on May 14, 2009 | Reply

    Having lived in northern Kenya for a month, i can see why they were created. The beat to heck 1956 land rover, and the 80’s landcruser were handy for getting around without walking. Lets leave the suvs in places without emmaculate developed road systems.

  13. By stumpyrainbow on May 15, 2009 | Reply

    So if a 4×4 is better in a impact, what damage would it cores to a normal car who got hit by the 4×4?
    It would be a right off and the people would stand less of a chance of walking away.
    Id rather lose my life then take someones elses and have to live with it

  14. By phil1crew on May 18, 2009 | Reply

    omg well ur not going to take a sedan off road

  15. By blod5 on May 21, 2009 | Reply

    haha 1:58 ” this is mine”!

  16. By ed200007 on May 21, 2009 | Reply

    Didn’t he have two kids in the car when he headed for school?

  17. By Ahya728 on May 23, 2009 | Reply

    now i see…

  18. By 777Martinos777 on May 25, 2009 | Reply

    subaru is piece of shit

  19. By EddyWillyJimmy on May 26, 2009 | Reply

    haha go **** a obama

  20. By FARISM13 on May 29, 2009 | Reply

    if we all drove smaller cars then the cars hitting us wouldn’t be doing as much dmg… but the commercial vehicles (semis, box vans and vans) still would.

    What I see from this is: If you’re a crappy driver who won’t be able to avoid an accident anyway, you should get an SUV, and you’ll have to pay the price of initial purchase and fuel.

    If you’re a decent driver who can maneuver out of an accident you have the best chance in a regular car.

  21. By v12stuart on Jun 2, 2009 | Reply

    pfffffft you better be a troll

  22. By Turismo87 on Jun 2, 2009 | Reply

    if u want to get a car with all wheel drive…
    get a subaru

  23. By coolerdude44 on Jun 5, 2009 | Reply

    i know the range rover is better. the jeep’s leather feels like vinyl. as a luxury item, the range rover obviously beats it. but lets not forget what they were purpose built to do. i think land rovers are better in the mud, while jeeps are better at going over boulders, and climbing mountains. i know the range rover is much more advanced, and if money were no object, nobody would pick the jeep over it.

    but since money is an object, the jeep is a good car for what its built for.

  24. By viktord1 on Jun 7, 2009 | Reply

    This is kind of idiotic. If we all drove vehicles of the same size it wouldn’t matter whether they are honda civics or range rover discoveries.

  25. By viktord1 on Jun 8, 2009 | Reply

    In a way you are correct, but I reckon the range rover is still better just because of all the engineering that has gone into it.

Post a Comment