SUVs - Whats the point?
Discussion
Ares said:
Willy Nilly said:
But I suspect that SUV's are all about status, nobody in their right mind would buy such a compromised vehicle for a premum when better options are available for less money.
What better options, available for less money, would the right mind buy if you wanted to load your kids in at waist height, and have a larger/higher load area and wanted an elevated seating position?It probably doesn't have the driving dynamics of the Mondeo it's based on, but I suspect will be a better steer than any SUV. Even if it's not, you're transporting people about in this, not doing track days. Manuacturers put crazy power engines in SUVs, and I don't doubt Ford know their market, but they could but 300hp under the bonnet to satisfy the power hungry. Besides, if the Cayenne is the sort of bench mark drivers SUV, all of the other must be even worse than I imagined, because having driven a current model Cayenne back to back with my Jazz, my car felt like a precision track day scalple. It was certainly a comfy, effortless curiser, but it isn't a drivers car by a long stretch.
Ares said:
Nanook said:
Ares said:
What better options, available for less money, would the right mind buy if you wanted to load your kids in at waist height, and have a larger/higher load area and wanted an elevated seating position?
He'll tell you that you need a Honda Jazz, unless you need to tow, in which case you should buy a tractor, as all 4x4's are crap at towing in his mind.I do wonder if he's ever driven anything else.
t. Put a trailer on the bumper, like you would with an SUV and all of the same problems rear their head, in that the trailer is in charge, the tail wags the dog. For the record, I had a Class A CDL and pulled oversized loads up and down the mid west USA and have Cat C with all my CPC's here.
You can chuck all of the electronics at a tall, heavy car you like, you still have a tall, heavy car.
Edited by Willy Nilly on Thursday 22 June 19:50
Willy Nilly said:
Ares said:
Willy Nilly said:
But I suspect that SUV's are all about status, nobody in their right mind would buy such a compromised vehicle for a premum when better options are available for less money.
What better options, available for less money, would the right mind buy if you wanted to load your kids in at waist height, and have a larger/higher load area and wanted an elevated seating position?It probably doesn't have the driving dynamics of the Mondeo it's based on, but I suspect will be a better steer than any SUV. Even if it's not, you're transporting people about in this, not doing track days. Manuacturers put crazy power engines in SUVs, and I don't doubt Ford know their market, but they could but 300hp under the bonnet to satisfy the power hungry. Besides, if the Cayenne is the sort of bench mark drivers SUV, all of the other must be even worse than I imagined, because having driven a current model Cayenne back to back with my Jazz, my car felt like a precision track day scalple. It was certainly a comfy, effortless curiser, but it isn't a drivers car by a long stretch.
You keep talking about "what you suspect" - while ignoring comments from those with lots of experience of the cars you're talking about.
You keep talking about ultimately miserable drivers cars (which are designed for other purposes) as if they're sharp, mid engined light weights. If an s-max or a Jazz are sufficiently thrilling for you, brilliant, lucky you. They're certainly not enjoyable enough for me to have as my fun car, or pleasant enough as my commuting car.... but you won't listen so carry on tellingly us all we know nothing and you know the "right" and "wrong" cars.... f
k sakeGuvernator said:
4. SUV - Pro's for full size one's are that you have the increased boot space, leg room, headroom plus ease of access. The ride comfort is usually decent too which means the family points are all ticked without having to drive an awful MPV. The bad points are of course that they are usually big and heavy plus the high CoG means they are usually compromised in terms of driving enjoyment but then they aren't really for that purpose anyway. I find the current obsession with trying to make SUV's drive like cars very strange, really why bother when that isn't their intended purpose?? Image wise some people love them and some people think they are the devils spawn.
Small SUV\Crossovers I don't really get though, most of the compromises of an SUV with none of the benefits but I guess they appeal to people who wantthe SUV looks in a smaller package. They are like the modern equivalent of the hatchback and seem to have become the new default choice that hatchbacks were in the 90's.
Yeah, interesting but wrong.Small SUV\Crossovers I don't really get though, most of the compromises of an SUV with none of the benefits but I guess they appeal to people who wantthe SUV looks in a smaller package. They are like the modern equivalent of the hatchback and seem to have become the new default choice that hatchbacks were in the 90's.
Why do car makers make SUVs more like cars... Just maybe they try to deliver some of the attributes people like in a car, and some of the attributes people like in a 4x4. Which was very much what the original Range Rover did. How stupid is it to think they should stay unrefined and wallowy - you all complain about them not being used for their design purpose, and when the design purpose is more in line with how people like to use them you complain about that too..... hahahahahaha.
TwistingMyMelon said:
People want them, maybe people just like how they look? Who cares their choice
Whats the point of a convertable in the UK?
Whats the point of any car that goes above 70mph?
Whats the point of a rolex when a £5 casio does the job?
Whats the point of cars in town centres? Walk and cycle
what the point of anything in life?
So an old Land Rover with hard top then and a bike in the back Whats the point of a convertable in the UK?
Whats the point of any car that goes above 70mph?
Whats the point of a rolex when a £5 casio does the job?
Whats the point of cars in town centres? Walk and cycle
what the point of anything in life?
Hungrymc said:
Yeah, interesting but wrong.
Why do car makers make SUVs more like cars... Just maybe they try to deliver some of the attributes people like in a car, and some of the attributes people like in a 4x4. Which was very much what the original Range Rover did. How stupid is it to think they should stay unrefined and wallowy - you all complain about them not being used for their design purpose, and when the design purpose is more in line with how people like to use them you complain about that too..... hahahahahaha.
Yet most other high-driving position cars get called' spaz-mobils'Why do car makers make SUVs more like cars... Just maybe they try to deliver some of the attributes people like in a car, and some of the attributes people like in a 4x4. Which was very much what the original Range Rover did. How stupid is it to think they should stay unrefined and wallowy - you all complain about them not being used for their design purpose, and when the design purpose is more in line with how people like to use them you complain about that too..... hahahahahaha.
Hungrymc said:
What a daft comment..... you won't listen to any arguments that prove how stupid your point is.
You keep talking about "what you suspect" - while ignoring comments from those with lots of experience of the cars you're talking about.
You keep talking about ultimately miserable drivers cars (which are designed for other purposes) as if they're sharp, mid engined light weights. If an s-max or a Jazz are sufficiently thrilling for you, brilliant, lucky you. They're certainly not enjoyable enough for me to have as my fun car, or pleasant enough as my commuting car.... but you won't listen so carry on tellingly us all we know nothing and you know the "right" and "wrong" cars.... fk sake
I always try to imagine what car I or others (maybe stereo typical badge snobs) would buy if we lived out in the desert (with a variety of asphalt roads needed to do some chores) BUT nobody would ever set eyes on us. You keep talking about "what you suspect" - while ignoring comments from those with lots of experience of the cars you're talking about.
You keep talking about ultimately miserable drivers cars (which are designed for other purposes) as if they're sharp, mid engined light weights. If an s-max or a Jazz are sufficiently thrilling for you, brilliant, lucky you. They're certainly not enjoyable enough for me to have as my fun car, or pleasant enough as my commuting car.... but you won't listen so carry on tellingly us all we know nothing and you know the "right" and "wrong" cars.... f
k sakeImage does play a massive part in public (you can see this as people age. ) obviosuly the marketing people play on it and seem to up their game as time goes by fueling the rise of Narcissism it seems to me.
Hungrymc said:
Why do car makers make SUVs more like cars...
Because they know people really want cars and SUVs are a fad that in the near future will just be normal cars anyway but with SUV like names to fool the gullible. Most SUVs don't even fill the conditions of being sporty or providing utility. but while mugs will fork out for them the bland boxes will keep being churned out. Really an SUV is a jack of all trades and master of none, but if that floats your boat and you don't mind people taking the mickey... .Edited by popeyewhite on Thursday 22 June 23:43
popeyewhite said:
Because they know people really want cars and SUVs are a fad that in the near future will just be normal cars anyway but with SUV like names to fool the gullible. Most SUVs don't even fill the conditions of being sporty or providing utility. but while mugs will fork out for them the bland boxes will keep being churned out. Really an SUV is a jack of all trades and master of none, but if that floats your boat and you don't mind people taking the mickey... .
Partial quote to miss the entire point and try and rescue your lost argument....Edited by popeyewhite on Thursday 22 June 23:43
Having the mickey taken by an idiot is really no issue. Yet at the same time it's all about image isn't it (eta that was sarcasm)
oilspill said:
I always try to imagine what car I or others (maybe stereo typical badge snobs) would buy if we lived out in the desert (with a variety of asphalt roads needed to do some chores) BUT nobody would ever set eyes on us.
Image does play a massive part in public (you can see this as people age. ) obviosuly the marketing people play on it and seem to up their game as time goes by fueling the rise of Narcissism it seems to me.
Pathetic attempt to sound intelligent. With a completely irrelevant load of nonesence.Image does play a massive part in public (you can see this as people age. ) obviosuly the marketing people play on it and seem to up their game as time goes by fueling the rise of Narcissism it seems to me.
I am not criticizing the cars I mentioned. I'm pointing out that as drivers cars they don't appeal any more than many SUVs. When you jump to really good and focused drivers cars, generally they do offer enough engagment to be really fun.
It's funny how you all talk about SUVs as an image thing. Narcissistic even. Yet they clearly have a terrible image (read the thread). You're argument is illogical. Time for the other strawman about estates, tractors and winter tyres......
But, beyond all.that, you're an offensive twerp for your "spaz" comment.
The question that keeps coming up - why are SUVs becoming more car like.
It's been answered several times. They are a blend of attributes from cars and 4x4s that people like. The Range Rover was the first. Off course they are compromised, they're not the deffinative answer to any focused argument. What they are is a package that works,for many people.
The question could equally be asked about sports saloons - why do car manufactures keep making cars that they market like sports cars. The answer is the same. Some people want a sporty car that works well as a normal car. To take the ridiculous argument being used about SUVs, you'd say anyone buying an M3 or an RS6 is a fool and they should buy a dedicated sports car or a standard car because their cars are a compromise and a marketing exercise to con fools.
They certainly are a compromise. 95% of cars are. But they are not just a marketing exercise. They give people a blend of attributes and compromises that work for people who chose them.
It's been answered several times. They are a blend of attributes from cars and 4x4s that people like. The Range Rover was the first. Off course they are compromised, they're not the deffinative answer to any focused argument. What they are is a package that works,for many people.
The question could equally be asked about sports saloons - why do car manufactures keep making cars that they market like sports cars. The answer is the same. Some people want a sporty car that works well as a normal car. To take the ridiculous argument being used about SUVs, you'd say anyone buying an M3 or an RS6 is a fool and they should buy a dedicated sports car or a standard car because their cars are a compromise and a marketing exercise to con fools.
They certainly are a compromise. 95% of cars are. But they are not just a marketing exercise. They give people a blend of attributes and compromises that work for people who chose them.
Precisely, yet posters continually come along with a position and opinion on what's right for their individual needs, circumstances and desires. That's completely ok.
What is not ok is that some then go onto argue that their decision us the only correct one that applies universally to everyone, and that anyone who chooses differently is <insert derogatory insult of choice> backed up by some ridiculous argument. Then, later, when that ridiculous argument has been comprehensively destroyed come back several days later repeating the same irrelevant point.
The only reason to keep the thread running now is to allow idiots to expose themselves.
What is not ok is that some then go onto argue that their decision us the only correct one that applies universally to everyone, and that anyone who chooses differently is <insert derogatory insult of choice> backed up by some ridiculous argument. Then, later, when that ridiculous argument has been comprehensively destroyed come back several days later repeating the same irrelevant point.
The only reason to keep the thread running now is to allow idiots to expose themselves.
300bhp/ton said:
And yep, this comes from first hand experience.
The HR-V was stock, but riding on slightly taller AT tyres. It would be a huge stretch of the imagination to call it an off roader, but in the snow it was frankly brilliant. As was the Cherokee. Which latter this day was used to mount a 3 hour rescue mission to retrieve a stranded family member.
This was hugely capable in the snow. Did a 160 miles this day in conditions like this, plus a few detours for some photos.
This was completely unstoppable in the snow, even when driving through snow this deep. Something I truly doubt a 2wd car on winter tyres could have managed. And these photos aren't even the deepest bits of snow, some where as high as the bonnet.
Both of these were no bother in the snow, the p38a being on road biased tyres too.
My Impreza was pretty ok in the snow. It went everywhere you wanted it too, even on regular all season tyres. And the AWD system played a huge huge huge part in how it cornered, braked and drove in these conditions. That said, it was not as good as any of the 4x4's above. Some decent winter tyres would have improved it no end. But it did lack the ground clearance for such conditions.
All things considered, this went relatively quite well in the snow. RWD with an LSD and skinny'ish tyres. But it is leagues behind the 4x4/AWD's in these conditions and moving off the line without the back going sideways is always a challenge.
Excellent photos, 300bhp/ton, especially the HRV/Cherokee one at the top!The HR-V was stock, but riding on slightly taller AT tyres. It would be a huge stretch of the imagination to call it an off roader, but in the snow it was frankly brilliant. As was the Cherokee. Which latter this day was used to mount a 3 hour rescue mission to retrieve a stranded family member.
This was hugely capable in the snow. Did a 160 miles this day in conditions like this, plus a few detours for some photos.
This was completely unstoppable in the snow, even when driving through snow this deep. Something I truly doubt a 2wd car on winter tyres could have managed. And these photos aren't even the deepest bits of snow, some where as high as the bonnet.
Both of these were no bother in the snow, the p38a being on road biased tyres too.
My Impreza was pretty ok in the snow. It went everywhere you wanted it too, even on regular all season tyres. And the AWD system played a huge huge huge part in how it cornered, braked and drove in these conditions. That said, it was not as good as any of the 4x4's above. Some decent winter tyres would have improved it no end. But it did lack the ground clearance for such conditions.
All things considered, this went relatively quite well in the snow. RWD with an LSD and skinny'ish tyres. But it is leagues behind the 4x4/AWD's in these conditions and moving off the line without the back going sideways is always a challenge.
Willy Nilly said:
Ares said:
Willy Nilly said:
But I suspect that SUV's are all about status, nobody in their right mind would buy such a compromised vehicle for a premum when better options are available for less money.
What better options, available for less money, would the right mind buy if you wanted to load your kids in at waist height, and have a larger/higher load area and wanted an elevated seating position?It probably doesn't have the driving dynamics of the Mondeo it's based on, but I suspect will be a better steer than any SUV. Even if it's not, you're transporting people about in this, not doing track days. Manuacturers put crazy power engines in SUVs, and I don't doubt Ford know their market, but they could but 300hp under the bonnet to satisfy the power hungry. Besides, if the Cayenne is the sort of bench mark drivers SUV, all of the other must be even worse than I imagined, because having driven a current model Cayenne back to back with my Jazz, my car felt like a precision track day scalple. It was certainly a comfy, effortless curiser, but it isn't a drivers car by a long stretch.
MPVs are the boring choice. MPVs top out about 200/250bhp, just where large SUVs get started.
I'm glad your Jazz felt like a precision tool next to an 2.5 tonne SUV, Jazz's are known for their motorsport credentials. I can't understand why Honda don't release the Nurburgring times for the mighty Jazz, it's rumoured to be sub-7mins.....but then people don't by SUVs to be precision tools
"If you judge a fish on it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's life thinking it is stupid..." etc
Out of interest, I tested your hedge theory when out on my bike on Wednesday. I could see over around 3/4 of all the hedges around the Cheshire lanes in into the peak district, only just though. When on my bike, my head is further off the ground that in my car by a long way, but a long way short of where it is in an X5/SUV.
Even using you mystical 1.2m 'law' about the correct height for a hedge, 1.2 metres is higher than most car drivers' heads, but lower than most SUV drivers' heads. It's almost like it proves the SUV/Hedge theory
Willy Nilly said:
Ever driven an F350 Super Duty, dooley, crew cab with the long bed and Powerstroke? I've driven 6 and worked them hard. They're OK for towing with a 5th wheel trailer, trouble is, the fuel tanks are too small, there's just and I mean just enough cooling capacity and the brakes are st. Put a trailer on the bumper, like you would with an SUV and all of the same problems rear their head, in that the trailer is in charge, the tail wags the dog.
For the record, I had a Class A CDL and pulled oversized loads up and down the mid west USA and have Cat C with all my CPC's here.
You can chuck all of the electronics at a tall, heavy car you like, you still have a tall, heavy car.
I've not. I have driven a F350 Dually though, my brother's neighbour has one. I'll admit, not to tow though. But correct me if I'm wrong, few people try and tow more than 2-tonnes with an SUV. The F350 can tow 5-6 times that?t. Put a trailer on the bumper, like you would with an SUV and all of the same problems rear their head, in that the trailer is in charge, the tail wags the dog. For the record, I had a Class A CDL and pulled oversized loads up and down the mid west USA and have Cat C with all my CPC's here.
You can chuck all of the electronics at a tall, heavy car you like, you still have a tall, heavy car.
Edited by Willy Nilly on Thursday 22 June 19:50
But you can't compare a F350 Dually with a Range Rover. It's like comparing your Jazz with a 911.
popeyewhite said:
Hungrymc said:
Why do car makers make SUVs more like cars...
Because they know people really want cars and SUVs are a fad that in the near future will just be normal cars anyway but with SUV like names to fool the gullible. Most SUVs don't even fill the conditions of being sporty or providing utility. but while mugs will fork out for them the bland boxes will keep being churned out. Really an SUV is a jack of all trades and master of none, but if that floats your boat and you don't mind people taking the mickey... .Edited by popeyewhite on Thursday 22 June 23:43
Only idiots decry an SUV because it isn't sporty?? As for Jack of all Trades - that is the perfect position for the bulk of family cars. Something that can do everything to a good level. As soon as it becomes a master at one field, it becomes heavily compromised in others.
Hungrymc said:
The question that keeps coming up - why are SUVs becoming more car like.
It's been answered several times. They are a blend of attributes from cars and 4x4s that people like. The Range Rover was the first. Off course they are compromised, they're not the deffinative answer to any focused argument. What they are is a package that works,for many people.
The question could equally be asked about sports saloons - why do car manufactures keep making cars that they market like sports cars. The answer is the same. Some people want a sporty car that works well as a normal car. To take the ridiculous argument being used about SUVs, you'd say anyone buying an M3 or an RS6 is a fool and they should buy a dedicated sports car or a standard car because their cars are a compromise and a marketing exercise to con fools.
They certainly are a compromise. 95% of cars are. But they are not just a marketing exercise. They give people a blend of attributes and compromises that work for people who chose them.
I think the actual reason for this thread is that most people don't know what they want from a car, so just buy an SUV as it's the current default choice. Then grumble that it's not a car/4x4/whatever they really wanted but didn't take the time to work out. Then marketing jump on the bandwagon and try to make cars that are everything to everyone. The result is the current range of crossovers that are nothing to anyone.It's been answered several times. They are a blend of attributes from cars and 4x4s that people like. The Range Rover was the first. Off course they are compromised, they're not the deffinative answer to any focused argument. What they are is a package that works,for many people.
The question could equally be asked about sports saloons - why do car manufactures keep making cars that they market like sports cars. The answer is the same. Some people want a sporty car that works well as a normal car. To take the ridiculous argument being used about SUVs, you'd say anyone buying an M3 or an RS6 is a fool and they should buy a dedicated sports car or a standard car because their cars are a compromise and a marketing exercise to con fools.
They certainly are a compromise. 95% of cars are. But they are not just a marketing exercise. They give people a blend of attributes and compromises that work for people who chose them.
Ares said:
Out of interest, I tested your hedge theory when out on my bike on Wednesday. I could see over around 3/4 of all the hedges around the Cheshire lanes in into the peak district, only just though. When on my bike, my head is further off the ground that in my car by a long way, but a long way short of where it is in an X5/SUV.
Even using you mystical 1.2m 'law' about the correct height for a hedge, 1.2 metres is higher than most car drivers' heads, but lower than most SUV drivers' heads. It's almost like it proves the SUV/Hedge theory
What's the perceived advantage of seeing over hedges? Given you can't really see over them properly; you can see over the near hedge into the fields, but you can't see if a low vehicle is behind the far hedge so you can't really use that extra visibility for anything. I don't find the lack of height to be an impediment to safe driving in my car, and it's definitely under 1.2m at the eyeline (the roof is only 1.28m).Even using you mystical 1.2m 'law' about the correct height for a hedge, 1.2 metres is higher than most car drivers' heads, but lower than most SUV drivers' heads. It's almost like it proves the SUV/Hedge theory
Also the average hatchback / saloon is about 1.4-1.5m high (vs around 1.75m for an X5), so 1.2m would be roughly the eyeline (or just below) of a typical driver. So it's not over their heads' but you're correct that they can't see over it, since you need a fair height advantage to see over a hedge.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff