Why the hate for SUV convertibles?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
...People who call others idiots for liking different cars to them fail to understand that if everyone liked what they liked, it would probably be a lot more expensive. draggers. ..
No they wouldn't. If manufacturers only needed to make a few models in a specific spec, it would be much cheaper to build and to buy (see Tesla or iPhone profit margin).
The more models and more options and variations increases the complexity.
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 17th February 09:31
cayman-black said:
To be honest i dislike any soft-top car.
My missus is the same as you, and she isn't a fan of them. She had a Mk1 Audi TT Roadster years ago(back when they first came out) and she said she'd never have another one. I've had my 370Z Roadster for 3 years next month and she's never been in it(as a driver or a passenger). She much prefers Coupes to Roadsters. hyphen said:
No they wouldn't.
If manufacturers only needed to make a few models in a specific spec, it would be much cheaper to build and to buy (see Tesla or iPhone profit margin).
The more models and more options and variations increases the complexity.
Ah yes, that explains why iphones are the cheapest smart phones to buy.If manufacturers only needed to make a few models in a specific spec, it would be much cheaper to build and to buy (see Tesla or iPhone profit margin).
The more models and more options and variations increases the complexity.
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 17th February 09:31
Wait...
thewarlock said:
Ah yes, that explains why iphones are the cheapest smart phones to buy.
Wait...
If buying outright and keeping the handset for the full lifecycle of its security updates, they are actually lower cost per month than the equivalent Android phones, as the cost can be amortised over 6-7 years rather than 3-4 (or as few as 2 in extremely poor cases).Wait...
(But yes, they are expensive upfront
)McAndy said:
If buying outright and keeping the handset for the full lifecycle of its security updates, they are actually lower cost per month than the equivalent Android phones, as the cost can be amortised over 6-7 years rather than 3-4 (or as few as 2 in extremely poor cases).
(But yes, they are expensive upfront)
Yet my 3 year old Honor 8X at £167 new (don't laugh) is still going strong and has outlived my kids £800 iPhones, although it's probably not typical of iPhones I guess, but still, Android much cheaper in the long run IME. (But yes, they are expensive upfront
)nickfrog said:
McAndy said:
If buying outright and keeping the handset for the full lifecycle of its security updates, they are actually lower cost per month than the equivalent Android phones, as the cost can be amortised over 6-7 years rather than 3-4 (or as few as 2 in extremely poor cases).
(But yes, they are expensive upfront)
Yet my 3 year old Honor 8X at £167 new (don't laugh) is still going strong and has outlived my kids £800 iPhones, although it's probably not typical of iPhones I guess, but still, Android much cheaper in the long run IME. (But yes, they are expensive upfront
)
McAndy said:
nickfrog said:
McAndy said:
If buying outright and keeping the handset for the full lifecycle of its security updates, they are actually lower cost per month than the equivalent Android phones, as the cost can be amortised over 6-7 years rather than 3-4 (or as few as 2 in extremely poor cases).
(But yes, they are expensive upfront)
Yet my 3 year old Honor 8X at £167 new (don't laugh) is still going strong and has outlived my kids £800 iPhones, although it's probably not typical of iPhones I guess, but still, Android much cheaper in the long run IME. (But yes, they are expensive upfront
)nickfrog said:
Fair enough but surely £167/4 is less than £800/7, not that I know that the Honor will be obsolete next year in terms of security. As for specs equivalence, the cheapo Honor is at least as good as the 3 year old iPhone and has proven far more reliable. It has a SD card slot for starters.
And there are also cheaper iPhones than £800. Please stop contorting data for convenience of argument. I haven't checked, but I also challenge whether Google and Honor provide updates past three years, given how much of a hoo-ha there was a few months back at Google finally supporting Pixels for 4 years. But anyway, we are well off topic.
I don't like convertible SUVs in their current "leisure vehicle" form. However, where functionality dictates (e.g. Jeeps, Broncos, and proper old Defenders), no issue.
McAndy said:
And there are also cheaper iPhones than £800. Please stop contorting data for convenience of argument. I haven't checked, but I also challenge
I am not contorting anything. The maths still don't add up even at 3 years. There are cheaper iphones than £800 indeed but remember about the spec equivalence, particularly in terms of screen size. 
I agree it is off topic though.
nickfrog said:
McAndy said:
And there are also cheaper iPhones than £800. Please stop contorting data for convenience of argument. I haven't checked, but I also challenge
I am not contorting anything. The maths still don't add up even at 3 years. There are cheaper iphones than £800 indeed but remember about the spec equivalence, particularly in terms of screen size. I agree it is off topic though.
Well this has gone off topic a bit! 
Convertible SUVs are not my bag, but the manufacturers must have done their research to see if there is a market before producing them.
If people want to buy one that’s fine. It’s their choice. Those same people probably would like my taste in cars.
I think you will see them in cities in the more affluent areas rather than out in the countryside (unless they are visiting of course).
Convertible SUVs are not my bag, but the manufacturers must have done their research to see if there is a market before producing them.
If people want to buy one that’s fine. It’s their choice. Those same people probably would like my taste in cars.
I think you will see them in cities in the more affluent areas rather than out in the countryside (unless they are visiting of course).
PH User said:
I don't have an iPhone or whatever it is that you have, but I would bet that the £800 iPhone has a lot more features than your £150 phone.
You would hope so really. Sadly it's not even the case. The iPhone feels much more expensive to hold indeed but that sadly doesn't translate into reliability nor features in terms of battery life, screen size, memory, expansion capacity etc... 
DonkeyApple said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I've always been a bit like that with diesel convertibles. The whole idea of a convertible is to hear the engine/exhaust far more(from a nice sounding petrol engine)for me, so a clattery diesel engine and its exhaust wouldn't be something that I would want to hear even more.
As you say it just boils down to different choices and tastes, and I will admit to test driving a E93 330d convertible years ago, but I didn't go through with it because the car sold while I was making my mind up about it!
Actuaries, accountants and health and safety personal have the right to drive convertibles if they wish. It's prejudice to think they're only for happy people who want fun. As you say it just boils down to different choices and tastes, and I will admit to test driving a E93 330d convertible years ago, but I didn't go through with it because the car sold while I was making my mind up about it!
Convertible SUVs are brilliant, if only because they p
s off so many of the miserable, holier-than-thou tosspots on here who think everyone who needs a bit of bootspace should have a Volvo V fking 70. I'd like a convertible X6M. It would be an excellent, fun family car.
Not sure if it's been covered in the 26 odd pages, but the answer, imo:
because they look fking ugly
Make your mind up what car you want.
A 4x4 that can't go off road
a sports car that's too tall and has the centre of gravity like an upside down pyramid
a softtop van.
does 25mpg, £300 a year to tax but can't crack 0-60 in under 9 seconds
because they look f
king uglyMake your mind up what car you want.
A 4x4 that can't go off road
a sports car that's too tall and has the centre of gravity like an upside down pyramid
a softtop van.
does 25mpg, £300 a year to tax but can't crack 0-60 in under 9 seconds
Pixelpeep 135 said:
Not sure if it's been covered in the 26 odd pages, but the answer, imo:
because they look fking ugly
Make your mind up what car you want.
A 4x4 that can't go off road
a sports car that's too tall and has the centre of gravity like an upside down pyramid
a softtop van.
does 25mpg, £300 a year to tax but can't crack 0-60 in under 9 seconds
None of that matters if enough people like them. because they look f
king uglyMake your mind up what car you want.
A 4x4 that can't go off road
a sports car that's too tall and has the centre of gravity like an upside down pyramid
a softtop van.
does 25mpg, £300 a year to tax but can't crack 0-60 in under 9 seconds
PH User said:
DodgyGeezer said:
Just in case it hasn't been asked before... could part of the (apparent) dislike be because most modern convertibles are only 2 door and as such familiarity make us see 4 door soft-top as being awkward?
A 4 door soft top?! 
somehow I'd got in my mind that most SUVs are 4 door and soooooo..... it's been a stty day at a stty place of work.DodgyGeezer said:
PH User said:
DodgyGeezer said:
Just in case it hasn't been asked before... could part of the (apparent) dislike be because most modern convertibles are only 2 door and as such familiarity make us see 4 door soft-top as being awkward?
A 4 door soft top?! somehow I'd got in my mind that most SUVs are 4 door and soooooo..... it's been a stty day at a stty place of work.Not great about having a bad day at work though!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff