RE: Prior Convictions: Life after the SUV
Discussion
Nanook said:
Salamura said:
SUVs also offer unique drawbacks relative to saloons and estates. And SUVs don't offer anything that estates or saloons don't offer interior-wise, apart from slightly raised ride height.
And more space. Nanook said:
And better towing capacity.
That is all down to weights. The heavier the car the more it can tow. My estate can tow 1800Kg for example. That's plenty for normal use (it actually won tow car of the year, only petrol winner 
) and beyond that you're into towing horses etc when a more off-road car becomes actually a benefit. chrispmartha said:
I just can't grasp why some people on here seem to display hatred because of what cars other people want to have. Fine you don't like the trend for SUVs, don't buy one them but to feel the need to throw insults about people who do want to buy them seems really rather odd.
I would hate to have one but as you say, "don't buy one", my issue with them is more the manufacturers have focused on them to the exclusion of everything else. Akin to diesels and autos, for many cars even when there was a decent engine option so few were purchased they are rocking horse poo and now for many makes are extinct. Now we're seeing the same kind of thing for the D segment, Ford has already dropped all non-SUV's in the US as an example. Now if only they'd bring a manual fusion sport (the AWD V6T) estate over here.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I've only got limited experience with SUVs, I've been in a qashqai and a RR sport and a few others but fail to see the problem. The Nissan is seemingly more practical than many estate cars with a very large boot opening. If you (and others) moan about SUV owners because they've chosen a car that's not the most efficiently practical, would those drivers be right to moan at those who own 2 door versions of 4 door cars (eg bmw 4 series), or they own high performance cars because they are pointless and waste excess fuel when we have speed limits so you can't utilise the performance?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I agree to an extent but see absolutely no problem with people buying crossovers/SUVs. They fit a family lifestyle when loading kids into back seats (primary advantage - secondary being perceived passive safety/visibility), and what school run mum gives two flying f
ks about 'chassis dynamics' 
I wouldn't be seen dead in an MPV, neighbours have C-Max, S-Max, Tourans etc. They look s
t. NO THANKS.When you say "SUVs are bought despite their drawbacks" I disagree as you are not comparing apples with apples. SUVs should only really be compared in this context to MPVs - which have exactly the same drawbacks, they just look like vans. You shouldn't be comparing SUVs with a nice estate.
Yours,
Mr V90 (ex Alltrack/E61) and Mrs CX-3
smilo996 said:
Spot on.
Problem is that those who like SUV's just cannot squeeze their oversized egos and sense of entitlement into a functional vehicle.
I don't get this - we have a Skoda SUV. It looks ridiculous in a faux by faux way. If our ego was that big it'd probably one of the worst possible car.Problem is that those who like SUV's just cannot squeeze their oversized egos and sense of entitlement into a functional vehicle.
On the other hand, it's by quite a margin the best family car we have owned functionally so should we not have chosen it because it looks so ridiculous and some buy for fashion reasons while others ridicule them on the internet ?
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 15th June 17:02
Salamura said:
SUVs also offer unique drawbacks relative to saloons and estates. And SUVs don't offer anything that estates or saloons don't offer interior-wise, apart from slightly raised ride height.
That's not my experience at all. For my needs there is nothing that an estate can give me that a SUV can't but plenty of stuff that the estate can't (we also have a 1.4 B9 A4 Avant):I can fit 2 large mountain bikes standing in the Karoq but not even one in the A4 (too shallow). So I have to remove the 4 wheels to fit two bikes in the A4 and then you have to stack the bikes and wheels - total mess.
The 1.5 Karoq is:
- shorter so easier in town
- lighter and more economical (both have 150hp)
- a bit quicker (not very important though)
- quite a lot better in terms of visibility, particularly for touring
- is equipped with smaller wheels with taller sidewalls, rides better and copes with potholes far better, what with the longer travel
- is as roomy inside if not roomier, far more practical
- able to cope with (mild) off road trails despite the road tyres, this is quite important for good access to nice cycling areas - the A4 grounds in the same environment.
- cheaper to own than the equivalent estate
The only downside of the Skoda is the higher COG which is of zero relevance for the intended use - for track days I don't use it, nor the A4.
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 15th June 17:25
Interesting that Kia and Peugeot see a niche here, whereas Alfa Romeo, who in my opinion have made some cool looking semi-practical estate cars in the past -156 and 159 sportwagons - have no plans for a Giulia Sportwagon, but have successfully entered the SUV market with the Stelvio, and plan a small and a large SUV in the near future.
The UK market is irrelevant as AR sales are minute here, but USA and Asia are Alfa Romeo's target markets, and the Stelvio is selling well in these new (to them) marketplaces.
Now, to me (I have two 156 Sportwagons, a 2.4 diesel and a 3.2 GTA), I hate the look of SUV's, Stelvio included. But from a business point of view, it is telling that Alfa have left the cool looking estate market, leaving it to Volvo, Audi and BMW etc.
Stelvio QV being no slouch in Nordschleife timing either.
The UK market is irrelevant as AR sales are minute here, but USA and Asia are Alfa Romeo's target markets, and the Stelvio is selling well in these new (to them) marketplaces.
Now, to me (I have two 156 Sportwagons, a 2.4 diesel and a 3.2 GTA), I hate the look of SUV's, Stelvio included. But from a business point of view, it is telling that Alfa have left the cool looking estate market, leaving it to Volvo, Audi and BMW etc.
Stelvio QV being no slouch in Nordschleife timing either.
I think the article is actually highlighting the fact that as emission thresholds get more stringent the car makers will struggle to meet them with SUV’s. A lower frontal area, closer to the ground and sleeker shape is more energy efficient, hence with an Estate car shape it would be easier to meet the new targets.
So they may be in fashion at the moment but legislation may steer the market away from SUV as we know them.
SUV only benefit is a higher ride height, everything else can be matched with an Estate, but that’s not very trendy.
So they may be in fashion at the moment but legislation may steer the market away from SUV as we know them.
SUV only benefit is a higher ride height, everything else can be matched with an Estate, but that’s not very trendy.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But for some people they are more practical. They are higher so they're much easier to get a kids seat in and out of without hurting your low back. A friend bought an x5 as he couldn't get 3 kid seats across a 5 series estate but could am x5. Another person with the qashqai can get 2 mountain bikes in the back (seats down) without taking any wheels off, and he tried in a few estate cars and it was far more tricky.So people can buy them for practicality reasons and not be talking bulls
t If you haven't done so recently go drive a KIA and I guarantee you it will exceed your expectation. High standard spec, great build quality and reliability.
No wonder its the biggest growing brand over the last 10 years
Quality redefined backed by a unrivalled 7 year manufacturers warranty
No wonder its the biggest growing brand over the last 10 years
Quality redefined backed by a unrivalled 7 year manufacturers warranty
E65Ross said:
So people can buy them for practicality reasons and not be talking bullst
Indeed. And quite frankly we can live with how stupid they look. We are certainly not image obsessed as if we were we wouldn't probably buy one.t Conversely I have no issues with people preferring estates, which don't require justification either, however inferior they are functionnaly IME.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No secondly? 
In the context of this discussion MPVs and SUVs have exactly the same drawbacks to which you are referring. High CofG, not driver focussed, white goods. They are bought by families to do school runs and transport kids. The owners don't care if they wallow in corners at eight tenths.
Equally, in this context SUVs should not be compared with estates simply due to the raised ride height enabling easy loading of kids. If that is a major decision in your car buying purchase an estate will never, ever be on your shortlist.
Leggy said:
SUV only benefit is a higher ride height, everything else can be matched with an Estate, but that’s not very trendy.
None of the benefits of our SUV can be matched by our estate (apart from style perhaps but that's subjective and not important to us) so I don't understand your point. Edited by nickfrog on Friday 15th June 20:27
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff