My Favorite SUVs are just tall Hatchbacks!

"carwitter" (carwitter) 11/27/2013 at 16:26 • Filed to: hatchbacks, suvs, Mazda RXZ, Mazda RDX

2

14

As far as I'm concerned, sport utility vehicles have taken over the United States. It's been like that for awhile, but none of them feel very sporty. Soccer moms drive them to stay away from minivans. Soccer dads drive them and rarely off-road them.

Don't get me wrong, there are people out there that take advantage of the capabilities as an off-roader or towing trailers, but the ones that sell the most are built for the road. My 16 mile drive to work is filled with Ford Explorers, Ford Expeditions, Toyota Highlanders, BMW X5s, Mercedes MLs, Mercedes GLs, Mercedes GLKs, Nissan Pathfinders, Mazda Cx7s, etc.

It's obvious that they never go off-road, they're far too clean! They're often filled with loads of cargo. Once in awhile I'll see a Jeep Wrangler with proper rock sliders, a Toyota Land Cruiser with mud tires, or lifted Toyota 4Runners, but off-roading is just not my thing.

What does that leave for a driver with an addiction for driving canyons?

A friend of mine asked what I thought of a Mazda Cx-5. I told him, it's a Mazda 3, but taller. The ride height is elevated, but the vehicle feels surprisingly car-like. The automatic shifter isn't a stalk on the column, but between the front seats. The size of the vehicle gives a sense of confidence on the road, tightly wrapped around five passenger seats.

More importantly, it drives easy. The steering isn't lazy, it's more deliberate. The throttle response doesn't give a torque thrusting shove, but an easy, linear push. It's a lot easier to push that vehicle on curvy roads than another lumbering SUV with no sense of proper road manners.

While I do love the Cx-5 and the concept of what it's about, I can't help but think that Acura makes the best sporty SUVs. I know, Acura doesn't exist in the UK, and honestly, I don't even know if a Honda RDX or Honda ZDX exist, but in the U.S they're under the name of Acura, and rightfully so.

Acura in the U.S is no different from Lexus to Toyota. Acura vehicles carry extra cache, an extra level of luxury, refinement, and quality. The Acura RDX from 2007 and later, is a refined, all-wheel drive, Mazdaspeed3 AKA the Mazda 3 MPS. Hear me out.

The Mazdaspeed3 is the best representative of a hot hatch in the U.S. Ridiculous horsepower, 263 to be exact, coming out of a 2.3l turbo 4 cylinder. It has ridiculous torque steer issues, a stiff suspension, a shifter that I haven't said the nicest things about, and high grip levels. If there's a hot hatch to hoon in the U.S, that is the one.

The Acura RDX adds refinement to all of the flaws. Yes, it has a higher center of gravity, but still has a well managed 240hp to an all-wheel drive system with nearly imperceptible turbo lag. Acceleration is smooth, the grip levels feel high, and the interior in comparison to the Mazdaspeed3 is on another level altogether.

The seating position is perfectly comfortable. The ride is comfortable. Body lean is minimal compared to other SUVs. Visibility is excellent. It may feel like a starship with the push-button filled interior, and that's perfectly fine by me.

I want warp speed when I want to pass, and the turbo-filled shove is perfect at freeway speeds. I admit, most think it isn't the most attractive SUV on the road, but I never did mind it much. I consider it more interesting than other SUVs, but then again, I like the Nissan Juke...

The Acura ZDX takes any remaining rawness of the RDX and smooths them out. Instead of a turbo-4, there's a naturally-aspirated v6 with 300hp. There are no blunt lines to round out the shape. Design-wise, it sports a hatch resembling the Porsche Panamera, with a decreasing slope towards the back.

Rear ingress is laughable. Anyone over 5'7" needs to duck their head to get into the back seat. Rear visibility is more limited, but every time I see that roofline, I can't help but think, it's a designer's car. It's simply less practical, and doesn't truly fit the SUV label. The interior is still straight out of a starship, similar to the RDX. While it is larger and heavier than an RDX, it provides similar road feel and body control on twisting curves and road undulations.

None of these vehicles will see the time of day off-road. They're not built for that purpose. Other SUVs may score more points in terms of practicality with more room, more seats, and more height, but I see them differently. Those SUVs just carry more bulk.

Most respective owners will never reach their respective capabilities in terms of going off-road, towing trailers, or carrying a full load of passengers consistently. At least with the Cx-5, RDX, and ZDX, a driver would get sporting intentions with actual road driving. The vehicles are purpose built for those intentions and the limits are more easily attainable.

Finally there are SUVs that are fun to drive. They put the Sport in Utility Vehicles.

Article by: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Full article from our main site here.

Manuél Ferrari > carwitter 11/27/2013 at 16:39

1

Especially THIS one:

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/me…

I saw it last night at the LA Auto show. It wasn't tall at all. It looked way more like a tall hatchback than an SUV.

I also liked the BMW X1. It was also just a tall hatchback. And it only weighs about 3300 lbs

HammerheadFistpunch > carwitter 11/27/2013 at 16:44

1

Its a well thought out argument for sure. The truth is, the reason these cars (they are just cars at this point) are so much like hatches is because they are literally just hatches. Manufactures have figured out that you can't sell a lot of hatches to Americans, but you can sell them taller ones and call them SUV's, even if they are no different mechanically and offer no benefits. I say screw that; If you want a canyon carver, buy one. If you want an SUV, buy one. These "crossovers" only tell the world - I'm not sure I really know what I want in a vehicle. I was there, 2005 Forester XT 5 speed. Now I drive this.

and am planning on an MX5 for summer duties. Less money combined that any one of these tall hatchbacks.

The idea of the sporty crossover is the idea that you can have it all in one car, and its a myth.

carwitter > Manuél Ferrari 11/27/2013 at 17:06

1

The AMG GLA will be a bit of a beast!

Manuél Ferrari > carwitter 11/27/2013 at 17:33

0

I liked it! Seemed like the perfect one car to do everything.

Joe_Limon > carwitter 11/27/2013 at 17:33

1

Is the Subaru Impreza XV a suv? It is a tall hatchback.

davedave1111 > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 17:58

0

It's not just Americans they sell them to, for once. And to be honest, it makes a lot of sense. If you value handling highly, it's possibly a compromise too far, but apart from the higher centre of gravity the only downside is slightly more wind resistance. To offset that, you have a higher driving position, more comfortable ride, better visibility and increased crash survivability.

HammerheadFistpunch > davedave1111 11/27/2013 at 18:09

2

But the driving position is only marginally higher (maybe a few inches), the ride isn't more comfortable (without a huge loss of performance), and with today's designs, the visibility isn't really much better (as a whole). As far as crash survivability, well there is a correlation to mass and survivability, but not height. at least not outside of rare circumstances and especially considering how little height difference there really is. The cars the author is talking about are so close dimensionally to their hatch counterparts that most of the arguments for SUV's aren't really applicable...so why not get the cheaper hatch?

davedave1111 > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 18:18

0

There's not too much in it, either in height or in price, so it doesn't take too much to push people one way or the other. Still, the height difference is more significant than you make out - a few inches is maybe 10% of the total in a smaller car - and the handling just isn't an issue for most people: even the worst handling new CUVs and small SUVs handle better than even pretty good cars from thirty years ago, so most drivers never begin to approach their limits.

As far as I know, there are two dimensions that are important in crashes: height and weight, where taller and heavier is better. Again, though, it's not a huge difference we're talking about.

HammerheadFistpunch > davedave1111 11/27/2013 at 18:23

0

I guess thats the problem, an inch difference in CG means a lot more work for the suspension to sort out than an inch taller will net you in safety. It seems like these tall hatch crossovers sit in a lull in the graph where they are too short to be a real asset in a crash and too tall to be really sporty. For reference the height difference between a CX5 and Mazda 3 is 8 inches. The other part of the problem is that if taller is safer because your head is above the area of damage....well that only works if you hit a smaller car, but we all drive tall cars, so its moot.

davedave1111 > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 18:32

0

You asked why people buy them, and I was trying to explain. I didn't say they're completely right, and it's certainly true that people are influenced by a perception of safety that's down to styling. But I don't suppose the safety thing is the major reason, just part of it.

At the end of the day, people on the whole aren't completely mad. If they're buying these things in such numbers, it's because the cars offer more value to them than the couple of thousand dollar price difference. All we can do is look at the differences and try and work out what it is people like about them.

Seems to me that what jumps out a mile is that they're nice comfortable cars to drive, as long as you're not hustling - and a lot of people never push on a bit.

HammerheadFistpunch > davedave1111 11/27/2013 at 18:38

0

Ah, but people ARE completely mad. Seriously though, its a trend that has dominated the market and pushed out any reasonably room cargo or people carrying design. They buy them because if you have to transport people or stuff...you don't have a choice.

davedave1111 > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 18:50

0

We'd like to think that as enthusiasts, but the reality is, like you said, they do have the choice: they could have hatchback versions instead. They buy what they like; they just like the wrong stuff.

d3v > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 01:59

0

You should move to South East Asia where compact truck based SUVs like this.

are outselling tall hatchbacks by a good margin.

Shawn > carwitter 11/30/2013 at 01:02

1

I used to hate the shifters on the steering column also because I thought it was for cars from the 80's until I bought my first full sized SUV. For this type of car it works. My center compartment could probably hold the contents of the glove boxes from my other three cars with room to spare. The area where the shifter would have been can hold a pair of very large sodas, and a dozen smartphones also. :)

I bought the car for road trips and outings. It is perfect for that.