RE: PH Footnote: Crossed out

[unsprung]

Sheepshanks said:

We just got back from Florida and the US version is called Rogue. That was unbelievable - it sometimes felt like 50% of the cars on the road were Rogues!

And that feeling of 50 percent may have been accurate... in parts of Florida that attract tourists. The hire car companies will fill their Florida fleets with popular crossovers such as the Nissan Rogue.

Although Nissan sells some 30,000 Rogues per month (about the same volume as the Toyota Camry), the Rogue accounts for only two percent of total sales of light duty passenger vehicles in the US.

PhilboSE said:

The evo review of the Ateca talked about it's deficiencies for heel-and-toe, which is one of the biggest reviewer conceits I've ever read.

How obnoxious.

I like your argument as well as the crisp manner in which it is written. I generally agree.

[PhilboSE]

Andy20vt said:

PhilboSE said:

People getting all sniffy about the fact that other people might buy practical vehicular appliances, while pretending to themselves that their vehicle of choice is somehow a "sports cars" (when in most cases it is nothing of the sort), need to take a long hard look at themselves IMO.

Unfortunately this superior attitude seems to be prevalent amongst this website content and editorial team, quite frankly it shows a lack of maturity.

Errrrr I don't think people on their high horse. Most folks on here appreciate all sorts of different cars, from sports cars to more mundane stuff. Being a day to day car doesn't mean that a car has to be mundane or unexciting. The Citroen Cactus looks ace and is far from mundane (yet divides opinion). The Fiat Panda is basic and cheap yet funky. The Skoda Yeti is interesting, practical and looks a little bit different. I could go on.

But the Seat Ateca? It's an okay car sure but there's nothing of any particular merit about it to distinguish it from any of it's jelly mould cousins. I think that's the issue that folk have with it, not the fact that it's not a sports car.

I'll agree that the Seat Ateca, Qashqai and Ford Kuga are all so similar even I struggle to tell them apart. As for nothing of merit about it, have you driven one? It pretty much wins every single group test it is selected for. It's a genuinely good car - for what it is.

However, it's the same for all hatchbacks, mid size family cars etc. You have to look at the badges to tell them apart. Yes there's a few cars that have challenging looks like the ones you mention - but that's the thing - their looks are challenging rather than appealing. The jelly moulds have come about because they have the most appealing general "look".

They're ALL jelly mould appliance-mobiles. Why pick on crossovers rather than the whole market? I was given a VW Passat as a courtesy car a while ago: now THAT was something to be derided for its mundanity. The whole driving experience was "sloppy". By contrast my Ateca feels like a whole different class.

[Pica-Pica]

Nick Young said:

I read that wrong, thought you were comparing a Qashqai to a stool and wondered, what sort - one with 4 legs, or the other sort...

I was about to download the Bristol Stool Chart too.

[RenesisEvo]

PhilboSE said:

You get extra internal space for no penalty except maybe a teeny-tiny reduced dynamic ability. But then the 1.4 Seat Leon (the hatch equivalent of the Ateca) wouldn't exactly be my first choice for ultimate dynamics anyway.

A valid point. I would add that you also have higher running costs to contend with (more drag/more weight uses more fuel; invariably bigger tyres dealing with more mass means bigger tyre bills).And it's not just 'dynamics' - the ride suffers too. The modern obsession with cars that 'corner flat' (because humans are appalling at estimating roll angles) means the body control required to deliver low roll rates forces stiff springs; combined with heavy wheels/tyres/brakes (for a heavier body) giving poor unsprung ratios and you end up with poor ride. I'll admit this affects other areas of the market, but SUVs and cross-overs in particular.

I think one of my biggest issues with the breed is that there are too many pretending to be something they're not (look it can off-road! What, a 2WD on summer tyres? etc), and that sort of 'false advertising' (style over substance) really grates with me. There are others, but I struggle to think of another segment that so routinely, widely promises what it can't deliver.

[RenesisEvo]

unsprung said:

Sheepshanks said:

We just got back from Florida and the US version is called Rogue. That was unbelievable - it sometimes felt like 50% of the cars on the road were Rogues!

And that feeling of 50 percent may have been accurate... in parts of Florida that attract tourists. The hire car companies will fill their Florida fleets with popular crossovers such as the Nissan Rogue.

Although Nissan sells some 30,000 Rogues per month (about the same volume as the Toyota Camry), the Rogue accounts for only two percent of total sales of light duty passenger vehicles in the US.

Blimey, the Ford F-series pick-up's sales dominance is frightening! We might complain about cross-overs, but imagine the debates if the UK top sellers were the same.

[Sheepshanks]

RenesisEvo said:

What, a 2WD on summer tyres? etc),

I must admit that to avoid the potential embarrassment of not being able to get off the drive on a frosty morning I felt compelled the order the 4Motion version of ours and when an unused set of winter wheels and tyres popped up on eBay at a bargain price I grabbed them!

[unsprung]

RenesisEvo said:

Blimey, the Ford F-series pick-up's sales dominance is frightening! We might complain about cross-overs, but imagine the debates if the UK top sellers were the same.

Come on over for a couple of years. Pick up a new Corvette for the equivalent of £40,000. Or opt for an AWD sport sedan from Acura for much less. Prefer the traditional German? No problem; sometimes they cost less here than in EU land.

You'll have to bring your own irony, though. We don't have a lot of that (I've been stockpiling mine beneath the garden for ages now).

[PhilboSE]

RenesisEvo said:

PhilboSE said:

You get extra internal space for no penalty except maybe a teeny-tiny reduced dynamic ability. But then the 1.4 Seat Leon (the hatch equivalent of the Ateca) wouldn't exactly be my first choice for ultimate dynamics anyway.

A valid point. I would add that you also have higher running costs to contend with (more drag/more weight uses more fuel; invariably bigger tyres dealing with more mass means bigger tyre bills).And it's not just 'dynamics' - the ride suffers too. The modern obsession with cars that 'corner flat' (because humans are appalling at estimating roll angles) means the body control required to deliver low roll rates forces stiff springs; combined with heavy wheels/tyres/brakes (for a heavier body) giving poor unsprung ratios and you end up with poor ride. I'll admit this affects other areas of the market, but SUVs and cross-overs in particular.

Sure, there's a penalty. But is it significant? I think this is really overplayed. Wheels and brakes are shared with the hatchback equivalent. The official Urban fuel consumption has the Leon 3.2% more efficient than the Ateca. I'll take that for the extra interior space. But the Leon is group 20 insurance whereas the Ateca is group 18, so the running costs will be about the same. As for dynamics I have read that crossovers can have a softer ride than a hatch due to higher ride height allowing for more travel. I can certainly say that the ride comfort in the Ateca is better than my 911 and the Mini. Driving dynamics won't be as good but that's not what I'm after when I take the Ateca.

RenesisEvo said:

I think one of my biggest issues with the breed is that there are too many pretending to be something they're not (look it can off-road! What, a 2WD on summer tyres? etc), and that sort of 'false advertising' (style over substance) really grates with me. There are others, but I struggle to think of another segment that so routinely, widely promises what it can't deliver.

Can you specify exactly how they are "pretending to be something they're not"? The advertising & marketing materials for the Ateca really didn't play up that angle. It's all about the practicality. Promises that can't be delivered, surely that must relate to any performance car on Britain's congested speed-controlled roads?

[Hitch]

These are just the modern family hatchback aren't they? Why would you even expect them to be a dynamic proposition?

That said I'd imagine that a Q2RS (cute arse?!) or T-ROC R would be quite the thing if done properly.

[swisstoni]

People like em. What more is there to say?
Most people tootle around. Handling is just a thing car nerds say.
I was trying to think of a HiFi analogy but jeez, a lot of people doing even listen to stereo audio any more.

[RenesisEvo]

PhilboSE said:

RenesisEvo said:

PhilboSE said:

You get extra internal space for no penalty except maybe a teeny-tiny reduced dynamic ability. But then the 1.4 Seat Leon (the hatch equivalent of the Ateca) wouldn't exactly be my first choice for ultimate dynamics anyway.

A valid point. I would add that you also have higher running costs to contend with (more drag/more weight uses more fuel; invariably bigger tyres dealing with more mass means bigger tyre bills).And it's not just 'dynamics' - the ride suffers too. The modern obsession with cars that 'corner flat' (because humans are appalling at estimating roll angles) means the body control required to deliver low roll rates forces stiff springs; combined with heavy wheels/tyres/brakes (for a heavier body) giving poor unsprung ratios and you end up with poor ride. I'll admit this affects other areas of the market, but SUVs and cross-overs in particular.

Sure, there's a penalty. But is it significant? I think this is really overplayed. Wheels and brakes are shared with the hatchback equivalent. The official Urban fuel consumption has the Leon 3.2% more efficient than the Ateca. I'll take that for the extra interior space. But the Leon is group 20 insurance whereas the Ateca is group 18, so the running costs will be about the same. As for dynamics I have read that crossovers can have a softer ride than a hatch due to higher ride height allowing for more travel. I can certainly say that the ride comfort in the Ateca is better than my 911 and the Mini. Driving dynamics won't be as good but that's not what I'm after when I take the Ateca.

RenesisEvo said:

I think one of my biggest issues with the breed is that there are too many pretending to be something they're not (look it can off-road! What, a 2WD on summer tyres? etc), and that sort of 'false advertising' (style over substance) really grates with me. There are others, but I struggle to think of another segment that so routinely, widely promises what it can't deliver.

Can you specify exactly how they are "pretending to be something they're not"? The advertising & marketing materials for the Ateca really didn't play up that angle. It's all about the practicality. Promises that can't be delivered, surely that must relate to any performance car on Britain's congested speed-controlled roads?

Comparing the rid of an Ateca to a supermini and a true sportscar isn't really a fair comparison. There's too many factors going on, sidewalls stiffness (varies by tyre make and brand), spring and damper tuning, the manufacturer's preferred attribute bias. A higher ride height may permit more wheel travel, but if you made use of it, everyone would complain about excessive wallow, pitch and squat. You are right, it is probably overplayed [for the MQB crowd], the biggest differentiator these days is likely the list price. That's why manufacturers love them - costs the same as a hatch, but sells for more. Bigger margin = happy shareholders.

The pretending to be something they're not - it's hard to be 'exact' when I'm being a bit fast and loose with a sweeping generalisation (I hope I can be forgiven). I'm not saying every advert for every cross-over is selling them as something they aren't - I've just watched this nauseating advert for the Ateca and wondered if at any point a hatchback couldn't have done just as well, but they do avoid any outright statement of additional capability. It's just my opinion, but to me the genre appears to be based on the notion, even if they don't explicitly state it anymore, that these vehicles offer more off-road capability, more 'adventure' and 'lifestyle' nonsense than the average hatch. 'More'. The moulded black plastics are mercifully disappearing (appearing instead on estates - interesting that), so now the majority are just awkwardly-tall hatchbacks, but there are still too many pretend bashplates and faux diffusers and off-road drive modes copied from a Range Rover. And if it's not off-road, it's 'sportiness', which is completely absent in any meaningful way. If anyone mentions the GLA45 AMG I will happily present a lengthy diatribe; yes I've driven one.

I know the reality is people prefer the higher viewpoint (when everyone else in the queue has one, that quickly becomes moot) and the easier entry/egress that comes from higher seats, the whole child seat situation, and, let's be honest, for some people it's purely for the 'I'm bigger than you, out of my way' factor. There are some genuine benefits.

A look around my housing estate reveals a glut of cross-overs that have, in several years, never had an inch of mud on them, and have only ever been seen with one, maximum two people in the car, across a broad demographic. No bikes, no surfboards or trailers, no child seats. They are being used exactly as a hatchback would be as far as I can determine, so what's the reason for paying more? It's either for the things I've just mentioned, and/or the status symbol, watered down from the full-on giant 4x4 (a term that has been all too lost under the SUV banner).

</rant>

[RenesisEvo]

Sheepshanks said:

RenesisEvo said:

What, a 2WD on summer tyres? etc),

I must admit that to avoid the potential embarrassment of not being able to get off the drive on a frosty morning I felt compelled the order the 4Motion version of ours and when an unused set of winter wheels and tyres popped up on eBay at a bargain price I grabbed them!

I applaud your honesty!

I volunteered marshalling at an event where I had to direct some cars to park in a muddy field if they were capable (there were some hard-standing spaces for the rest). It was surprising how many drivers sheepishly informed me that their '4x4' was anything but and didn't fancy their chances of getting out without help.

Edited by RenesisEvo on Friday 20th October 18:33

[RoverP6B]

Tube-monkey said:

The average Pistonheads reader...

3 posts, 100 months? Top lurking, sir!

Personally, I simply could not give a rats' arse about any of these blandmobiles.

Need an SUV? Buy a full-fat Range Rover. It's the only proper SUV. If you can't justify the Range Rover because you don't off-road, buy a bloody estate.

I could make an exception for the Subaru Outback, Forester etc because they're proper workmanlike vehicles used by real country folk for country work.

I'm 60, need something practical, automatic (due to buggered knees) and capacious... so I've just bought a cheap old E39 540i Touring. It does the job far better than any of these lumps of moronic mid-sized mediocrity. It's loaded with kit, goes like stink (OK, not 911 quick, but enough to surprise a few hot hatches), will swallow a lot of crap (I've had my other E39 Touring four-up with a tumble dryer in the boot at one time, and two-up with a fridge in the back), the 540i's just transported two single mattresses (one home from the shop, one to the dump) with space to spare, oh, and I can get my big old 80s touring bike (now in my son's hands) across the back without dropping both parts of the split fold rear bench, so it can still be 3 or even 4 up at a push with the bike in the back. Couldn't do that with any of the medium-size SUVs I've seen (or indeed with a modern 5-series Touring, but that's another argument!).

Extrapolating all this out to a point of relevance to the newer-car buyer - does the Quaalude, at around 25 grand new, actually do anything that (glancing at the classifieds) a year-old Golf R Estate, or a similar-vintage 2.0 or even 3.0 TDI Audi A6 Avant, or Subaru Outback, or a 3-year-old E350 petrol estate, won't do at least as well, if not better?

The laws of physics still pertain. A low-slung estate will handle better, go better, stop better and burn less fuel than a comparably-sized SUV.

The only exception to all of this is Subaru, thanks to their clever packaging, sensible ground clearance and low centre of gravity (thanks to their boxer engines). Extra points for full-time 4WD, not some stupid part-time Haldex AWD nonsense - or, worse, just 2WD (in an SUV!).

[billzeebub]

Regards SUV/4x4. I'm not a fan. Aside from LR products, the only one I would/could consider would be the proper ones ie Subaru Forester, GWagen or Toyota LandCruiser. The Volvo XCs are also pretty good. The rest are just so dull/vanilla..only successful because of cheap finance/rent deals. My Dads just got a Skoda Yeti, it looks chunky and he seems pleased. It's the best of the rest. However, if I never see another Kajdor, Squashki, Cougar, Joke or Entrails it would be fab

Edited by billzeebub on Friday 20th October 21:50

[Mr Tidy]

RenesisEvo said:

Blimey, the Ford F-series pick-up's sales dominance is frightening! We might complain about cross-overs, but imagine the debates if the UK top sellers were the same.

If only the UK top sellers were proper pick-ups - I'd consider having one of those, whereas I wouldn't entertain having a cross-over!

[dunnoreally]

These are cars for people who don't really care about cars, of course they're boring. If the drivers weren't in crossovers, they'd be in something else equally unremarkable. Even if it was still estates they'd be more Peugeot 308SW 1.2 than Leon Cupra. Would that really be any better?

[Bill]

RoverP6B said:

I could make an exception for the Subaru Outback, Forester etc because they're proper workmanlike vehicles used by real country folk for country work.

...

The only exception to all of this is Subaru, thanks to their clever packaging, sensible ground clearance and low centre of gravity (thanks to their boxer engines). Extra points for full-time 4WD, not some stupid part-time Haldex AWD nonsense - or, worse, just 2WD (in an SUV!).

Just picking up on two points... (And ignoring your silliness about FF RRs...)

One of my neighbours is a semi-retired farmer who runs 50 acres or so. He has tractors and a quad for the actual work but drives a Vauxhall Mocca.

And I have a Subaru Tribeca (basically a 7 seat Outback) and it does roll a fair bit, more in fact than my previous ACE equipped Disco2. It is much quicker though.

I know a few people with Qashqais and none of them care about (or probably notice) a bit more body roll and a small decrease in MPG. They like the look and practicality (and one would put kayaks on the roof but he got one with a panoramic roof... ). And I know an estate has more room, but the Qashqai is shorter and feels bigger, and the +2 gives you 7 seats without being an MPV.

[Emeye]

The author has completely missed the point that all car design across all “affordable” sectors has become boring with “me too” styling thanks to safety etc regulations and squidgy driving dynamics. Most regular hatchbacks look a big fat bloated mess. These crossovers have better proportions. Add to that being easier to get into, higher view and better clearance for bouncing up kerbs and through potholes and they become a no brainer for families and older drivers fighting for space on Britain’s congested and crumbling road network.

[nickfrog]

RoverP6B said:

The laws of physics still pertain. A low-slung estate will handle better, go better, stop better and burn less fuel than a comparably-sized SUV.

Utterly irrelevant for the purpose of a family small SUV. I tell you what, every time I drive the Tiguan I am gob smacked at how car like it is in terms of handling, lateral grip, damping, traction etc... The effect of a higher COG has zero detriment when I drive it at road speed/pace and occasionally beyond.

I am not convinced that an old, high mileage 540i estate would be that much better. Ask me how I know!

I also know how frugal a 540i estate is. Not very.

Each to their own, but that works both ways.

[PhilboSE]

Let's analyse this quote for all it's mind numbing stupid groupthink.

RoverP6B said:

Need an SUV? Buy a full-fat Range Rover. It's the only proper SUV. If you can't justify the Range Rover because you don't off-road, buy a bloody estate.

You've made the first crass mistake here. Crossovers aren't SUVs. They are not sold as such. They are taller versions of the hatchbacks on which they are based. They have the same drivetrains, same interiors, basically it's the identical experience to the hatchback except you have more interior space for a tiny reduction in fuel economy.

RoverP6B said:

I could make an exception for the Subaru Outback, Forester etc because they're proper workmanlike vehicles used by real country folk for country work.

Which is a completely different sector. Permanent 4WD estates vs 2WD crossovers, so another facile observation. But let's stick with it. Have you compared the price and fuel economy of these cars vs the crossovers? Why do you think crossovers outsell them 1000 to 1?

RoverP6B said:

I'm 60, need something practical, automatic (due to buggered knees) and capacious... so I've just bought a cheap old E39 540i Touring. It does the job far better than any of these lumps of moronic mid-sized mediocrity. It's loaded with kit, goes like stink (OK, not 911 quick, but enough to surprise a few hot hatches), will swallow a lot of crap (I've had my other E39 Touring four-up with a tumble dryer in the boot at one time, and two-up with a fridge in the back), the 540i's just transported two single mattresses (one home from the shop, one to the dump) with space to spare, oh, and I can get my big old 80s touring bike (now in my son's hands) across the back without dropping both parts of the split fold rear bench, so it can still be 3 or even 4 up at a push with the bike in the back. Couldn't do that with any of the medium-size SUVs I've seen (or indeed with a modern 5-series Touring, but that's another argument!).

What the juddering f**k is your point here? That everyone who buys a crossover should buy a 10 year old large executive estate? Really? How many such 540i estates do you think are available on the second hand market? Again, compare the running costs of your car with a new crossover (my Ateca is averaging 45mpg, what's your 540i averaging? 22mpg tops). You're comparing a much bigger car with a smaller one and are impressed that the bigger one can carry more stuff. You're probably also the kind of person who can't see the point of a large SUV, I mean who needs 7 seats and all that space anyway?

RoverP6B said:

Extrapolating all this out to a point of relevance to the newer-car buyer - does the Quaalude, at around 25 grand new, actually do anything that (glancing at the classifieds) a year-old Golf R Estate, or a similar-vintage 2.0 or even 3.0 TDI Audi A6 Avant, or Subaru Outback, or a 3-year-old E350 petrol estate, won't do at least as well, if not better?

A new car comes with a warranty, the crossovers will all do better economy than your examples, be cheaper to run and insure. Why didn't you buy a 20 year old Merc E class estate? After all, it would have been cheaper and more reliable than your 540i...

Just analyse your own buying decisions and then engage your brain to wonder why some people make different decisions, with different factors to consider.

RoverP6B said:

The laws of physics still pertain. A low-slung estate will handle better, go better, stop better and burn less fuel than a comparably-sized SUV.

Again, these aren't SUVs. Your estates are bigger cars. These crossovers are basically tall hatchbacks. All this better handling, going/stopping and particularly fuel is just utter guff. You go on about fuel but that obviously wasn't a consideration when you bought the 540i. I've had that engine in one of my cars. You could practically watch the fuel gauge move.

The main thing is, FOR THE JOBS THEY ARE BUILT/SOLD FOR, which is urban shuttling and mixed family duties, these crossovers are simply going to be a much better choice than your 540i. You may have different requirements, which is why manufacturers make different sorts of cars. It takes a special sort of throbber to be unable to realise the benefits of a small but roomy car for families in an urban/semi-urban environment.

RoverP6B said:

The only exception to all of this is Subaru, thanks to their clever packaging, sensible ground clearance and low centre of gravity (thanks to their boxer engines). Extra points for full-time 4WD, not some stupid part-time Haldex AWD nonsense - or, worse, just 2WD (in an SUV!).

Hang on, you criticise crossovers for their 3% fuel economy penalty over the equivalent hatchback, and yet your solution is permanent 4WD and a boxer engine, both of which are renowned for their lack of fuel economy? Have you seen the sales figures for Subaru vs crossovers? Do you really maintain that the Subaru is the answer?

Crossovers are tall hatchbacks, end of. It's exactly the same buying decision to buy a crossover vs the hatch on which it is based as it is to buy the estate version. Want more space in a longer car? Buy the estate. Want more space in a car the same length? Buy the crossover. As for styling, yes crossovers all look the same in EXACTLY the same way that hatchbacks and estates and saloons look the same.