Stop Calling Crossovers SUV's

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 06/04/2018 at 15:16 • Filed to: None

13

36

So I’m not one typically for hard and fast rules for vehicle classifications. I, for example, don’t subscribe to the notion that a truck needs to have a ladder frame and a solid axle and low range to be a “truck” or any of that nonsense. That being said I think there are distinctions that exists and are worth differentiating if not by a technical means at least by use and intent.

This is why the use of “SUV” bothers me a little. Without going deep into the history of the SUV lets just say that what the Sports Utility Vehicle was during its hay day is not the same animals that are so popular now and often miscategorized under the same banner.

Technology marches on and as cars advanced people grew weary of the tradeoffs of this hybrid marriage between wagon and truck and car makers adapted to demands of comfort, efficiency, step in, handling and other demands that would have not be feasible at the dawn of the SUV.

Consumers and manufactures figured out around the same rate that the traits that made SUV’s appealing weren’t its ruggedness, its off road ability, its capacity for hard work and payloads. They wanted the surefootness of all wheel traction, the higher driving position, the greater cargo flexibility of a wagon without the unfortunate stigma of a wagon and they could leave rest on the table...and the market responded. The end result is a hybrid again of the SUV and a passenger vehicle. It would be fair to say that the SUV is the progenitor of the crossover and even fair to call it a replacement, only the SUV didn’t die completely. The market for SUV’s never really went away and they are still being made today, either as capability focused like a suburban or Sportsman focused like a wrangler or 4runner they still exist. Which brings me back to the top - SUV’s and Crossovers have diverged and are no longer the same thing. Yes the distinction includes some gray area but thats why I avoid hard and fast rules in the first place, there are always blends.

Lets use an example to illustrate.

SUV, obviously right? Even Mercedes says so on their website. Even though its smaller in every dimension than this non-SUV wagon (yes, including height)

Both are unibody, transverse engine and AWD. Granted thats the lowered speed version versus the everyday version but at 60 inches high in standard form the GLA is never far from car territory, for example a Ford Taurus is 60.7 inches tall.

This rant is getting longer than I wanted to I’ll cut to the chase.

These are the top 20 best selling “SUV’s” according to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Lets see how many of those are just cars masquerading as SUV’s by excluding anything resembling what was considered an SUV in the height of their popularity.

Jeep Wrangler

Toyota 4Runner

I would also accept the Grand and regular Cherokee on account of their mission still catering to a more sportsman bent.

The truth is, these “SUV’s” have far more in common with passenger cars than they do with their SUV forebears. Even the flimsy pretense that allows them to be classified as “Light trucks” by the EPA is hard to defend for most of these

“Federal regulations define a light-duty truck to be any motor vehicle having a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! plus !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ) of no more than 8,500 pounds (3,855.5 kg) which is “(1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or (2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons , or (3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use.” !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ”

1. This says “is this thing made first for utility purposes or based on something that was?” Hard to claim that for a crosstrek

2. No vehicle here holds more than 12 people...this is for vans

3. This is where they all sneak in, but this is hilariously vague and grossly misrepresentative of the types of AWD system available in the market.

Just a couple of “SUV’s”, hanging out. Both vehicles are classified as light trucks, somehow.

Is a Nissan Rouge REALLY enabled for off-street or off-highway use? Anymore so than a Subaru Legacy? What about a CHR?

Again, I should point out that Im not the type thats all “real suv’s have this and this and this” but I think we all know what we mean when someone says crossover and SUV and they aren’t, or shouldn’t, be interchangeable.

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 15:35

0

IMO here’s a few requirements for a SUV, based on the tenets of sport utility vehicle:

- Proper off-road chops. This means either an extremely competent AWD or dedicated 4WD system, mixed with suspension designed to handle a rough trail,

- The capacity to actually be useful as a utility vehicle. 2-door Wranglers push it, but 4-doors actually make sense as more of a utility vehicle, due to the extra cargo space.

Most crossovers nowadays are just tarted up hatchbacks. Drop the suspension and oversized tires and it’s no longer a “SUV”.

CobraJoe > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 15:37

2

While I agree with you... You’re not going to convince the lesser informed buying public at all.

And overall, it doesn’t really matter. Names eventually change meaning, classifications expand or contract, new things are created that don’t properly fit old classifications....

Personally, I’m far too annoyed with Ford wanting to use the “Mach 1" name on a non-Mustang electric people hauler to care about crossovers being called SUVs.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 15:41

3

I am with you, but it’s a losing battle. SUV is used very broadly, colloquially by almost everyone including people on Automotive sites and the manufacturers themselves. If you think this trend is bad, I am eagerly awaiting for your rant on 4 door “Coupes” LOL

jkm7680 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 15:44

1

YES. Kinja doesn’t like me so it multiplies all of my images, but an SUV should be something that can hold it’s own offroad and has enough utility to be used. 4runner=SUV. Nissan Rouge= Hatchback with AWD, or even without that.

HammerheadFistpunch > winterlegacy, here 'till the end 06/04/2018 at 15:45

1

I think the extremely lax federal standards should apply.

1. is it meant to do work, or derived from a vehicle that was?

or

2. Is it meant to haul a LOT of people

or (and this is where the language needs cleaning up)

3. Is it designed to provide off-highway utility above and beyond the reasonable expectations of a standard passenger vehicle

HammerheadFistpunch > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 06/04/2018 at 15:46

2

WORDS MEAN THINGS! coupes don’t have 4 doors!

HammerheadFistpunch > jkm7680 06/04/2018 at 15:50

0

I just can’t understand how these are even sneaking under the radar into the light truck class. I mean the rouge isn’t made for work, its a straight car platform...

Its that last one, “oh yeah, this is an off roader!”

really?

“yeah its got AWD and everything.”

HammerheadFistpunch > CobraJoe 06/04/2018 at 15:51

2

Im okay with the general public...they do whatever anyway...but I DO expect more from people who profess to be passionate about cars.

jkm7680 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 15:54

1

Like, make the body on frame thing comes into play with determining whether something is an SUV or not. Like my friend keeps trying to convince me that his Forester is a full fledged SUV and that he can control the 4wd with a switch on it. HmmmmMMMMMM.

CobraJoe > jkm7680 06/04/2018 at 15:55

0

but an SUV should be something that can hold it’s own offroad and has enough utility to be used.

Honestly, unless you’re searching for rocky trails or mud holes to play around in, a CUV with decent tires and a decent AWD system will do 99% of what an unmodified SUV will do. Heck, a 2wd sedan with a good driver will do 95% of what an unmodified SUV will do.

Crossovers are more capable than you’d expect, a little extra ground clearance and chunkier tires than an “on-road” sedan go a long ways to helping out.

HammerheadFistpunch > jkm7680 06/04/2018 at 15:58

4

Unibodies are fine, I don’t care about how its engineered, its the job that matters. does it do the JOB of a light truck. Ridgeline? Sure, its got great payload and it was designed to haul things. Doesn’t matter if its no good offroad, its a light truck.

Kia Soul?

I mean, you can put stuff in it, so long its not too big. It has decent payload but it was never meant to be used as anything but personal transport.

Nothing > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 15:59

1

It’s such a marketing term that even if Federal standards were modified, they would still be marketed as such. Add a minimum tow rating to an SUV and that knocks out a ton of pretenders. Granted, it’d also eliminate the Wrangler, but I doubt Wrangler folks would be too up in arms about not being a SUV.

CobraJoe > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 16:00

0

Eh, we all have different passions. Some love overland trips, some love track days, some love parking in a car show and answering questions.

HammerheadFistpunch > Nothing 06/04/2018 at 16:02

1

call it 3500 lbs and the wrangler is still in the hunt, but it knocks out the entire cute ute class, which is where the most carification is happening anyway.

beautimouse > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 16:03

2

HammerheadFistpunch > CobraJoe 06/04/2018 at 16:03

2

I get that. And Im totally okay if you hate SUV’s and crossovers alike, but I think it speaks volumes about your car knowledge as a journalist to lump them together even if you don’t care about them...you should know the difference.

Tristan > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 16:05

4

I agree with you wholeheartedly. While Oppo and Jellopicnic groan and moan about Ferd axing unprofitable sedans and hatchbacks in favor of cash cow SUVs, the SUVs they’re building are no more than tall hatchbacks. The term “SUV” was demonized during the early to mid aughts when the Hummer brand was still a thing. Modern SUVs can’t compare to the DGAF-about-the-planet excess of those monstrosities. They’re small, well thought out, practical and fuel efficient.

BUT... if you start marketing CUVs as CUVs, people with #activelifestyle images to protect won’t buy them. If you apply the term SUV to an XV Crosstrek, people will buy them. If you call it a compact hatchback, they’ll assume it’s a wussy girly car unworthy of #hikingtrailselfies and #montainbikeracks.

Chariotoflove > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 16:10

4

Can I just call crossovers lifted wagons?

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 16:12

1

The PT Cruiser is a light truck.

I would argue that an SUV is a light truck that isn’t a van and has had accommodations for passenger use, and not the other way around. This puts Jeeps and other off-road capable vehicles back in under rule 3, in that the vehicle was designed to leave the street and then made more comfortable for passengers, and it eliminates crossovers like the Crosstrek that are designed as street vehicles and then adapted to give them better performance in reduced-traction situations.

The current Cherokee is on tenuous ground there, although the platform adaptation was primarily done in a way to retain off-road capability expected of it.

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Chariotoflove 06/04/2018 at 16:13

0

Just don’t call a wagon a Shooting Brake.

HammerheadFistpunch > Tristan 06/04/2018 at 16:14

1

I kind of think its a full circle thing at this point. Where manufactures have profited so heavily from the light truck standard that they feel they need to defend their vehicles SUV cred so as to defend it against questions into its legitimacy as they creep closer and closer to passenger cars.

It reminds me of brand use. If you own a trademark you have to prove use, so many companies spend money to put their trademark out there just to defend it against becoming public domain, even if they have no intent to use it.

I feel like SUV life is a defense of a loophole more than a lifestyle but people are buying it, which gives credibility against the law makers.

HammerheadFistpunch > Chariotoflove 06/04/2018 at 16:15

0

I call them fat hatches. Lifted wagons is also acceptable.

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 16:15

0

That’s exactly it. If it isn’t actually designed to be a utility vehicle, the lax standards should not apply to it.

As it stands, though, having any sort of lawmaking levelled against crossover’s usage of that loophole is essentially nil.

HammerheadFistpunch > winterlegacy, here 'till the end 06/04/2018 at 16:17

0

its akin to voting on term limits or salary caps.

HammerheadFistpunch > gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee 06/04/2018 at 16:18

2

The PT cruiser is another gross example of this rule run amok.

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > jkm7680 06/04/2018 at 16:18

0

if his “switch” is pulling out and inserting a fuse designed to disable and enable the rear driveshaft lockout

Chariotoflove > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 06/04/2018 at 16:18

0

I can if I shoot from it, right?

Chariotoflove > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 16:19

1

I feel validated now. My day is a success!

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 06/04/2018 at 16:36

0

Check out my shooting brake.

Wait, you mean this one?

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > winterlegacy, here 'till the end 06/04/2018 at 16:37

0

That looks Photoshopped. I can tell by the pixels

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 06/04/2018 at 16:38

0

It’s just the economy package, don’t worry. It’s unrealistically cheap

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 17:00

0

“I would also accept the Grand and regular Cherokee on account of their mission still catering to a more sportsman bent.”

I think if you’re really going to draw a hard line, it has to be on a truck chassis or GTFAC.

And that’s coming from someone with an ‘03 Pathfinder (unibody)...

HammerheadFistpunch > CobraJoe 06/04/2018 at 18:38

0

eh. It depends. There is a little hill near a lake I go to that has GREAT views.

To get to the top of the hill you need to go up a semi steep slope that doesn’t have mud or ruts but traction isn’t great (small rocks). I tried it the Jetta sportwagen...no dice. I tried in my moms CX-5 AWD. Also no dice. The Lexus and Cruiser shoot right up without complaint. That being said a Honda pilot followed me up there with a little work.

There are plenty of places you can’t take a these light duty crossovers, let alone places you wouldn’t want to take them. The AWD system in many of them are tuned to be more a temporary traction adder than any kind of meaningful off road aid.

Another interesting anecdote, my brother was trying to back our boat into its storage garage this weekend with his enclave AWD on the gravel driveway...he couldn’t. Trying to back in the front wheels just slipped and the rears couldn’t provide enough usable torque, he had to park it outside.

coqui70 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 20:11

0

That Scout ad is a little Brokeback Mountain.

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > HammerheadFistpunch 06/04/2018 at 20:24

0

Here’s how Australian motoring organisations are doing it:

http://australiasbestcars.com.au/winners

Basically, they are all SUVs. There is a category for small 2wd SUV under $35k then after that they are all AWD SUV (in three price categories).

If it’s not AWD or 4wd, even if its maker classifies as an SUV...it goes in the family wagon category. Hence you’ll find the Mazda Cx-9 2wd lumped against the Honda Odyssey.

CobraJoe > HammerheadFistpunch 06/05/2018 at 09:40

0

Not all AWD systems are created equal. I’m pretty sure our Outback would climb that hill with no problems. I’m unsure about our previous Edge though, it felt pretty grippy in slippery conditions, but Ford has a history of incomplete lockup in AWD setups.

I wonder how well a good AWD system would compare to a stock 4x4 system, but I’m betting it would be a pretty close comparison.

As for a poor AWD setup, I’m not sure it’s better than a true FWD design. At least an FWD vehicle has less weight over the non-driven wheels.