"PS9" (PS9)
09/03/2016 at 18:50 • Filed to: None
2
29|
"PS9" (PS9)
09/03/2016 at 18:50 • Filed to: None | 2
| 29 |
The Whole idea behind these things is being able to get car-like fuel economy out of something with SUV-like space inside. When you make them sub-compact, you kill all the SUV like space. Without that, It’s just a slightly larger and less convenient hatchback. Why are these things being made?
Batman the Horse
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 18:55 |
|
Hatchback that's lifted so it's easier for fat people to get into.
interstate366, now In The Industry
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 18:55 |
|
muh ride height
not for canada - australian in disguise
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 18:56 |
|
Winter.
If you live somewhere there isn’t really winter, it doesn’t really have a point.
Phyrxes once again has a wagon!
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 18:57 |
|
So you can sit up higher and see in the land of soccer mom mobiles and brotrucks. It is the only way people will buy hatchbacks apparently, which explains why I see so many of the BMW and Mercedes versions.
|
PS9
> not for canada - australian in disguise
09/03/2016 at 18:57 |
|
But a car with snow tires can do winter things just as well as a slightly worse lifted hatchback!
LongbowMkII
> not for canada - australian in disguise
09/03/2016 at 18:59 |
|
Do many of these even offer AWD?
Nibby
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 18:59 |
|
epeen
|
not for canada - australian in disguise
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:01 |
|
You’re missing the point. An AWD car with good ground clearance AND winter tires will do better than a FWD car that’s lower to the ground with winter tires. Of course if the AWD car doesn’t have winter tires the FWD car will do better if it has winter tires.
MultiplaOrgasms
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:01 |
|
Because a Fit/Note does everything better but it isn’t #lifestyle.
|
not for canada - australian in disguise
> LongbowMkII
09/03/2016 at 19:02 |
|
I can’t think of one that doesn’t.
|
LongbowMkII
> not for canada - australian in disguise
09/03/2016 at 19:04 |
|
If 10% of sub-compact crossovers have winter tires I’ll buy a hat and eat it.
CB
> LongbowMkII
09/03/2016 at 19:05 |
|
I’ll take that bet, but only if we use numbers from Quebec.
|
CB
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:07 |
|
I’m going to go with ride high and seating position being the benefit, and that they’re easier to get in and out of. Using the example of a crossover, my grandparents just bought a QX50 because my granddad is turning 97 and he was having a ton of difficulty lowering himself into the passenger seat.
Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:13 |
|
*More convenient.
Ease of access to the seats is better in a slightly higher vehicle, as is the loading area. Also, let’s face it, the average driver isn’t great. When not so great driver drives over shit, it’s less likely to do damage.
dogisbadob
> not for canada - australian in disguise
09/03/2016 at 19:14 |
|
just too bad most of them have no-profile tires and less ground clearance than my 20-yo sports car
wafflesnfalafel
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:17 |
|
Female buyers. With significantly increased involvement in the auto buying decision by women, automakers are much more actively catering to their preferences. Not sexist - just good business. I’ll bet the profit margin on a sub-compact SUV is better than on a compact hatch too.
Just anecdotally I work with several women who currently drive CRVs and RAV4s and comment that they love the awd, higher ride height, feeling of saftey/capability, etc, but that they just are a bit too big for them. Well - have you looked at HRV or Mazda CX-3?
Captain of the Enterprise
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:18 |
|
Because people want and will buy them
Probenja
> CB
09/03/2016 at 19:21 |
|
That was the whole idea of Mini MPV’s in Europe, sadly people don’t want to be practical and prefer to sacrifice headroom for style.
Goggles Pizzano
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:21 |
|
Mazda: “Let’s deny them the 2, and only offer a vehicle that’s just a little more costly to produce but much more expensive to buy.”
Consumer: “Okay” (see For Canada’s reply).
spanfucker retire bitch
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:33 |
|
Ride height and AWD. I can’t think of any sub-compact that offers AWD and the only compacts I think of right now (at least in the U.S.) that offer AWD are Subarus, the Golf R and the Focus RS. The last two are hardly the usual DD cars either.
|
spanfucker retire bitch
> LongbowMkII
09/03/2016 at 19:34 |
|
I’d easily believe 10%. Maybe even 20%.
No higher though.
wkiernan
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 19:35 |
|
I think it’s because they’re taller. The driver sits more upright, which some people find more comfortable, and being in a tall car means he can see a bit better past the view-obstructing tall car in front of him in traffic.
smobgirl
> wafflesnfalafel
09/03/2016 at 21:21 |
|
Yeah. Even those feel big to me, but in CO I’d love AWD/4WD with a slightly higher ride height for snow. I adored the Kia Soul AWD concept that apparently won’t happen.
Instead I have a 30-year-old subcompact 4WD wagon and an Abarth with snow tires.
Under_Score
> wafflesnfalafel
09/03/2016 at 21:47 |
|
I drive a RAV4. It doesn’t have AWD, but it’s a great size for me. The backseat is pretty small, but it’s there. There are four vehicles in my family: three are crossovers, and one is almost (Scion xB).
And it should be noted that my RAV4 was my mom’s and, at my school, I’m one of the only guys that has one. A ton of them are driven by girls.
|
Under_Score
> CB
09/03/2016 at 21:51 |
|
97, and an Infiniti! My grandparents in their 70's (at the time) going from early 90's GM cars to a 2001 RAV4 in 2008 was a HUGE step up.
|
CB
> Under_Score
09/03/2016 at 21:59 |
|
Well, my step-grandmother is a bit of a speed demon, so she loves the 3.7. In the last year, they sold an NA Miata, a 2007 Mazda 6 (with less than 65k kilometres on it), and some newer Lexus ES something.
ranwhenparked
> PS9
09/03/2016 at 22:16 |
|
People like to sit up high and drive things that look vaguely truckish, but still want something small and maneuverable.
Scott
> not for canada - australian in disguise
09/04/2016 at 15:22 |
|
That’s precisely why we got our crossover. And to be honest my truck has gotten stuck more often, and in less snow than the SUV. Although to be fair, I have good snow tires on our SUV, the truck uses mud+snow All seasons and weight in the bed. The 2 times the SUV has gotten stuck, was when the plows at work piled up snow to just below the hood. It took me about as much time to knock the pile of snow down enough to make it through with the diff lock on as it did to clear the snow off the car.
The second time we were out all day, and the guy that plows our driveway missed us. Came home to over a foot of fresh snow. Made it all the way to the gate, passed the steepest part of the drive way, but the corner at the gate got me. Took about 30min of shoveling to get the car out that time.
When we bought the SUV my partner wanted a car with ground clearance and AWD, so basically he was insisting on an SUV. I wanted something with good fuel economy, and something that did not make me feel like I was buying a commuting tool i.e. anything not Camry or Accord. We could not afford the Subaru Crosstrek we both liked, so we got a slightly used Rogue. While the mileage is not as good, I love the car more than I thought. My partner can't wait to get something else.
Bourbon&JellyBeans
> PS9
10/13/2016 at 10:09 |
|
They’re the fast food of automobiles. Don’t excel at any one thing, but offer enough variety and convenience to succeed.