Maybe it’s just automotive Stockholm Syndrome, but after 15 years of testing vehicles, a huge percentage of which have been crossover SUVs, I’m ready to say it: Crossovers aren’t so bad.
Yeah, I know, you’re going to ask me to blink twice if I am OK, but hear me out.
First of all, I still remain a fan of rip-roaring sports cars, but let’s face it – even during boom times, sports cars are a small part of the market.
Second, I remain a steadfast sedan man. I am NOT, to be clear, suggesting I’ve abandoned that position. I still find that sedans, particularly mid-sizers, can get the job done for many drivers and their families.
Nor am I arguing here that crossovers are better than wagons (few of which remain), minivans, or body-on-frame SUVs. It would be a fool’s errand to try to argue what segment of vehicles is the “best”.
I am merely saying that for all the crap that we enthusiasts and auto journalists fling at crossovers, maybe only a small bit of it is actually justified?
Again, I get the arguments that wagons and minivans can do utility better than crossovers and that crossovers only exist because, for people of certain ages (particularly older Millennials and most, if not all, of Gen X), wagons and minivans get unfairly written off as deeply uncool. And you know what? I am not going to argue that crossovers are “better” when it comes to utility, driving dynamics, or even fuel economy. Generally speaking, they aren’t.
But I am starting to understand the appeal. Most crossovers DO look better than most minivans, and while some wagons are sexy AF (looking at you, Jaguar XF Sportbrake), most aren’t going to make me look at them the way Homer Simpson looks at a pork chop.
Fuel economy, or at least range if not mpg, is generally acceptable. I’ve given up hope when it comes to sporty driving – few crossovers do it well, and even fewer do it well without costing way too much – but most ride well enough. Most are comfortable, and most handle cargo just fine. I can see why people who have what marketers call “active lifestyles” and/or people who cart around a plethora of passengers and/or pets like them.
Crossovers just simply offer a jack-of-all-trades balance, and some manage to even look reasonably stylish. Minivans don’t often look cool (with apologies to our resident van fan, Matt P.), and while wagons can turn heads, too many don’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I mourn the dwindling of the mid-size sedan as much as anyone, and I believe that sedans can do more in terms of cargo and passenger hauling than most folks realize. I still believe mid-sizers have a place in the world, and unless practicality forces my hand, my next daily will almost certainly be a sporty sedan of the compact or mid-size class.
I still won’t argue that crossovers are the best choice for most buyers. But if we’re going to be stuck living in a crossover world, well, it could be far worse.
[Image: Lincoln]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
The answer is really very simple: Crossovers are today’s sedans, SUVs are today’s station wagons, pickup trucks are today’s luxury cars, and sedans are today’s sports cars. Two-door models are today’s roadsters.
Excellent summary.
I’d say that is a rather spot on comment.
Agree excellent summary. Nice to hear from you Vulpine.
NAILED IT!!!
Boomers like me (age 58) are looking for higher seat height, which eliminates most sedans. They are also moving out of the minivan stage (just traded our last one after 25 years of having one in the driveway), so a crossover makes sense if you don’t want a giant pickup with a giant price.
At 6’6″, I first look at the published legroom and headroom numbers, but nobody publishes seat height. I wish that could become part of the standard specs.
You’re only 58 and you’re a Boomer?
Who’s better, the Rolling Stones or Van Halen?
That answer will tell.
Led Zeppelin
@Mike: I have to go with the Stones, but “Hot For Teacher” is a classic.
The reason I ask is because I’m 54 and firmly Gen X- in fact, I’m 3 days older than Marty McFly.
But you’re the same age as Jeff Spicoli and the other seniors in “Fast Times”, which would seem to be Gen-X also, but perhaps not depending on your cultural experience.
It is true that Boomer culture lasted a lot longer than expected. Maybe my question should’ve been “Eagles or Jane’s Addiction”.
If he is actually a Boomer he’s just going to say the Beatles.
I know some twenty-somethings that would say the Beatles…
The Beatles ARE the greatest band in history.
The Beatles are way overrated. I’m 53 and not a hater by any means, but they sort between Steely Dan and Fleetwood Mac. The Stones sit with Led Zep and the Doors at the king’s table, how dare you?
20 somethings don’t know their sh!t from Shinola
When the Beatles and the Stones were 20 something’s they’d have likely answered with Howlin’ Wolf or Little Richard. I’m squarely gen X, (late) and would have Alice in Chains second to Bo Diddley. Honorable Mention to Buddy Holly and the Crickets.
Actually just asked my 17 and 21 year olds:
17 – Aerosmith
20 – George Thurogood and the Destroyers.
I can live with those
The question doesn’t really make sense. A better one would be Beatles vs Elvis, but how can anyone choose who’s “king”. I’m sure if you ask your kids in a week, you’ll get totally different answers.
Similarly who would choose if you were stranded on a deserted island, if you could only choose one? Of course it drive you insane after a day.
If I was stranded on a desert island I’d probably take Shania Twain.
I’ll bet you’d seriously consider swimming for it after a day of her.
Me: “Hey Shania, I got dinner, built a shelter and started a fire”
Shania “That don’t impress me much”
Funny it took a billionaire to much impress her, they married and he cheated on her with her best friend (girl).
Oops and her first clue should’ve been he goes by “Mutt” (Lange).
@Mike:
Fifty-eight puts one on the tail end of Boomerdom. That means me and SCE – who I had no idea was 58 as well as me – know what happens when you make it to the end of “Dragon’s Lair” (hint: most disappointing to a 19-year-old guy).
But, really, the “Stones or Van Halen” question doesn’t depend on your age to answer – sixty years of production, three or four of the greatest albums ever made, on and on…the winner is the Stones, and it isn’t even close.
I bet Eddie Van Halen would agree.
I go with the Stones as well. “I ain’t got no satisfaction”
I’m just surprised that a 58 yo puts himself in the Boomer range. Only 4 years older than me, but I’m Gen-X ground zero. When the John Hughes movies came out, I was the same age as the characters.
I’m starting to think that older Gen-X might be closer to Boomers and later Gen-X might be more millennial, more Nirvana, more RHCP, more Beastie Boys, less Metallica, less Motley Crue, less Iron Maiden.
It’s almost like these are arbitrary divisions that only roughly apply to populations and really don’t apply all that well to individuals.
Ed wasn’t a big Stones guy (more Eric Clapton and Allan Holdsworth). But, given his humility about his own “thing,” he would say Stones, more as a vote against himself than a vote for the Stones.
I vote for Van Halen. Sammy Hagar is an old boomer He was born in 1947!
Rolling Stones on other hand were probably born in 1930s.
If Sammy Hagar is singing then it ain’t Van Halen.
What you say about this: I can’t drive 55?
I’d say that’s Sammy before he joined Van Halen.
I like Sammy Hagar. I like Van Halen. But I didn’t like Van Halen with Sammy.
David Lee Roth’s first album following the split is more of a Van Halen album than anything Van Halen did after he left.
It’s an opinion though, take it for what it’s worth.
If Edward Van Halen is playing, then it IS Van Halen.
Eddie is in the discussion (and IMHO IS) the GOAT, but the band wasnt the same post David Lee Roth.
I always heard Patty Smyth was asked to join as the lead singer after Roth left. That would have been interesting.
“Who’s better, the Rolling Stones or Van Halen?”
A “Tail End” boomer would be more likely to be into 70’s and 80’s music. A preference for the Stones would tend to indicate some preference for blues. A preference for VH would be the domain of a hard rocker.
There’s some music from both I like but I was more into Canadian bands like BTO, Triumph, Trooper, Prism, April Wine, Rush and The Guess Who. I even liked Gordon Lightfoot, Anne Murray, and Stompin’ Tom Connors. Add to that Brian Adams.
Into the 80’s with Aldo Nova, Loverboy, Red Rider, Corey Hart, Alannah Myles, Lee Aaron, Honeymoon Suite, Doug and the Slugs and Glass Tiger.
I was a big fan of Def Leppard’s 2nd album High ‘n’ Dry. They became too commercialized after that. Scorpions were another favorite of the era.
Meat Loaf’s Bat Out Of Hell was another big favorite of that era.
A late Xer is just as likely to say Nirvana though.
A late Xer is just as likely to say Nirvana though. Smells Like Teen Spirit is the anthem of Gen X
Nirvana was quickly reduced to overplayed radio pap. Unless he’s an aging frat boy in the sweet spot of corporate radio’s new classic rock listener matrix, that would not be the answer of a Gen Xer.
Rush
One of the joys of my life was when my teenager got into Rush. Totally surprising, and through no effort of my own.
I don’t get the Rush thing. It must be just the teens and 20+, and they haven’t heard much else from the era. They’re just OK and sound like a ripoff of Super Tramp and Yes, which have faded into mediocrity.
(Heavy Metal) Blue Oyster Cult is one that’s severely underrated since only their soft tracks ever got spun on the radio. Who the hell decides? There’s many other bands and solos that would blow their minds, plus their better tracks that never got airplay.
@DenverMike – Rush is definitely NOT a SuperTramp rip off. I liked both.
If they’re big fans of Rush, geeze Styx will blow their minds. Bring a big mop.
They just don’t know what’s out there and somehow Rush exploded on Tik Tok Land, but it’s not just Styx (you should see them live though), it could be many bands/artists from the era. Just Super Tramp.
“Boomers like me (age 58) are looking for higher seat height, which eliminates most sedans.”
I’ll never forget my then 66-year-old mom getting into a gen 1 Scion XB. Her whole face lit up, and she bought it at that moment–because the seat height was wonderful.
At the same time, it was a small car. And fuel efficient. And simple…
I daresay the “crossovers” of today are heavier and significantly less fuel efficient, which is a problem.
I will say that the seat height on my Mk7 GTI is nice compared to cars of years past.
You can have seat height without having all the mass and frontal area that each contribute to higher fuel use per mile.
+1 Scion xB1 – I had the same reaction when I got my 05 at the ripe old age of 41. It was a great little car in so many ways.
It wasn’t pretty, and it wasn’t safe, but it’s near the top of my all-time favorite rides I’ve owned.
Fun story – we once had a slight emergency at home (downed power lines) that required all 7 of us (tall family) to jam into the “lunchbox” and drive to a friend’s house a few miles away. Good times.
A boomer? I’m only a few years behind you and I am firmly in the (early) Gen X camp. You are kinda in that mushy gray area. Depending on who you ask, the last boomers were born somewhere between 1959-1962 or so.
FWIW, I never had a minivan (on purpose, and Clifford the Big Red Avalanche did everything we would have needed of one, anyway). But there a big place in our garage for Benny the RAV4 as it is ideally suitable to what we need of that particular vehicle as I also have my fun ride and a truck. When the time comes, Benny will likely get upgraded to a Lexus RX or an Acura MDX.
And lastly, it’s Genesis (everything from Nursery Cryme to We Can’t Dance), Phil Collins, Duran Duran, Chic, Commodores and Kool & the Gang.
Baby boomers were born 1946 through 1964. There’s never been a gray area, and it’s not depending on who you ask–unless you ask ignorant people who make things up just so they have something to say.
My Tim Healey style stream of consciousness:
-Ride height, hip point, and AWD were not mentioned but these are almost certainly very high reasons for CUV popularity.
-Even if you aren’t driving at 9/10, the extra stiffness and lower COG is pretty noticeable in a sedan/coupe body style.
-Open cargo areas are great for cargo volume but not so great for NVH.
-Not being able to see around landscaping when you are in a lower vehicle is annoying.
-I think the Maverick/Santa Cruz are an even better form factor for most people.
-I’ll personally stick with cars until my body no longer allows it.
“-I think the Maverick/Santa Cruz are an even better form factor for most people.”
This might be true if they were electric and had frunks, but an open bed is a challenge in a lot of situations, especially when you usually have kids (or others) in the back seat. A brunk like the Santa Cruz and Ridgeline have addresses the problem a bit, but it’s still unwieldy to have to open a tailgate and then a brunklid.
I can flat-foot reach into the bed on the Maverick and I think that different cargo solutions will expand with the segment.
And a lot of vehicles are planning to go electric in the next 8 years.
“I’ll personally stick with cars until my body no longer allows it.”
That’s how I view dual sport and adventure bikes. Once I’m too decrepit for those bikes I’ll just buy a straight piped Harley and pretend I know how to ride! LOL
Not to mention that compared to an equivalent sedan, the S/CUV is probably going to get worse gas mileage assuming identical driving styles and environments.
I’m seeing a lot of “H-point” and “seating height” comments here. Personally, I can’t stand high-riding vehicles because of the seating position. To put it bluntly, the horizontal distance between my head and feet is far too small. This is because I’m sitting on a barstool, with my whole body tilted forward.
No thank you.
Curiously, the seat height on my 22 Santa Fe is the same as it was on my 09 Sedona, but the minivan looks lower because of its extra 16″ length.
I actually wanted something lower, but that was secondary to other factors for us.
Of all the vehicles I’ve own hatchbacks have been the most versatile. Take a hatchback, raise it a few inches so you can slide right in and bingo you have a CUV. As mentioned the MPG are acceptable so CUVs make the perfect average vehicle. Driving dynamics? nobody cares! They just want reliable transportation. Can it hold my kids/friends/co-workers? Check. Does the dog fit? Check. Can it carry items from Costco, Lowes or Best Buy? Check.
My parents have a Ford Escape and its the default vehicle for airport runs, picnics and carrying random things. A quick trip to the grocery store or a long distance vacation both tasks are handled easily. Is it boring and soul-less? Oh yeah. I can’t even describe its driving characteristics because its so generic. Its not fast, but thanks to the turbo it will merge onto a highway no problem. It does not corner on rails, yet at the same time its not tippy or feel top heavy. Its hard to find fault with it… other then the completely generic driving experience.
I certainly don’t want one but I already own a luxury coupe, a sports car and a pickup so I’ve got all my bases covered.
I am sedan person all the way, but I understand the appeal of CUVs thanks to my better half. I just wish there was more variety in the sub-$40K class where the most popular models have the same mediocre engine/CVT combination regardless of trim level.
As for what’s next after the next generation decides CUVs are no longer cool? I’m expecting declining birth rates and a continuing thirst for utility and high ride height to lead to more 3-door CUV and CUV coupe body styles like the Range Rover Evoque
I have a 2021 Mazda CX-5 Turbo. My previous car was a GTI. Frankly, the Mazda handles about as well as the GTI overall, rides well and has a nice interior. But it feels like I’m in a truck. It’s too big. I’d prefer a nice wagon about the size of a Golf, but with more high-end qualities. There seems to be no such thing available. Audi had an A-3 wagon at one point, no? Actually, my ideal would be a GTI wagon. BTW, the GTI seats are much better than the Mazda’s. And the lousy interface of the newest GTI rules that out. Is there some vehicle I should be thinking of but haven’t? Suggestions?
Jeff, I guess your choices are limited in this day and age. You might want to take a look at the Mazda CX-30 and/or the Mazda 3 hatchback. Smaller than the CX-5, which lost a lot of its playfulness as it grew up and grew heavier.
I doubt you would want a Mini Clubman or Subaru Crosstrek, but those are options that exist.
There’s also the Volvo V60 and V90 (at least if you look at recent used cars), though I don’t know if they will be sporty enough for you.
Or (and maybe I shouldn’t say this, lest I become an “enabler”) there is the Alfa Romeo Stelvio.
Hating on Crossovers is up there with hating on Prius Drivers or PT Cruisers as “I don’t know much about cars so I’m gonna reheat the old low-hanging trope.”
In an era where a Rav4 Hybrid gets 44mpg all day without trying (*double* that of a Subaru Wagon 10 years ago!) , it’s hard to argue with that formula. They drive decently enough (as well as any Camry did), are drivable year round, fit 4 full-size people and luggage comfortably, even can do some light trails that would trip up your average Chevy Malibu- in a pretty compact footprint.
There’s still some room to hate though. The Mercedes GLA is bar none the worst vehicle sold in the US today (oh goodie, my Uber-to-the-airport-can’t-fit-a-damn-suitcase) and the Honda HR-V is downright pathetic. But I think that’s more reflective of the crapulence of each of those brands more than anything.
are you saying a Camry *isn’t* drivable year round?????
We’ve had minivans for 21 years. FWD only. Never a problem in these northern climes.
“cain’t drahv it if it ain’t 4wd and there’s any snow!” is the old trope.
If you can only afford one vehicle, it just makes sense to get a crossover, sorry to say. And now that it’s possible to get hybrid crossovers so you can get 30+ mpg, the case for a sedan gets smaller. It doesn’t help that today’s sedans have all been turned into pseudo sports cars with low roofs and compromised trunks, so their utility as family haulers has suffered.
dw,
I agree.
My wife’s CX9 is in the shop due to a low speed crunch, and we’re renting a base MINI Countryman for the next couple of weeks.
The rental has kind of won me over. Much better mileage than the bigger, heavier, AWD CX9, and it’s better than my old 3er wagon. I love that it’s tall inside, so us long torso people fit nicely, and even the base MINI seats are decent. Not great, but decent.
It’s a little fun to drive, it’s not very quick or quiet, but everyone in the family loves the damn thing. It’s like a bigger, slower, less fun but still fun GTI.
So much happier with this than we would have been with a Camry they were wanting to foist upon us. Makes me want to explore the JCW and electrified versions when it’s time to shop.
The only people who don’t think minivans are cool are people who’ve never driven or lived with one. Their awesome versatility wins people over fast. I do think most of them aren’t “mini” enough anymore though.
American-style minivans are great family haulers but folks going for compact and subcompact CUV likely aren’t needing that degree of volume (or pricing).
This weekend I was a passenger in both my wife’s 2022 MDX, and our good friends’ 2020 Odyssey Elite. These are priced within about $5k of each other. The Odyssey is better at three things: sliding doors for parking lots, fitting people comfortably in the third row, and hauling vast amounts of stuff, both with and without passengers. For us, a family of 4, we never haul more than 4 people long distances with lots of stuff. We use the third row for bringing extra kids home from school or taking the grandparents to dinner. I don’t care that I can’t bring a family of 6 + luggage on a road trip. If you need to do that, agree, a minivan is best. If my kids or someone else’s are uncomfortable in the third row for 15 minutes, I’m fine with that.
If you don’t need to do that, the MDX looks better, has a more luxurious interior including things like a high end stereo that will blow your socks off, looks nice ish instead of dowdy outside, has much better handling (SH-AWD) and poor weather traction, isn’t an open-diff FWD vehicle, has a bit of style/snob appeal, and with that, makes my wife not feel like she’s driving a giant penalty box or blimp hanger. They simply haven’t worked out how to make an aspirational minivan, something people want rather than resign themselves to. If there was an Acura or Lexus minivan we’d consider it, assuming it had style and interior finishes and features comparable to those carmakers’ CUVs.
Wagons are just sedans wearing backpacks, with no appreciable increase in back seat room. If you never plan to carry adults in the back I guess they’re fine, but that’s where they fall apart versus CUVs for me.
“If you never plan to carry adults in the back”
I know most of you guys and your families are straight out of Brobdingnag but there are a lot of adults in the world under 6’2 that fit fine in modern sedans or wagons.
We had, for instance, a 2G TSX sedan and a 2G RDX concurrently. The RDX was shorter but had a much more hospitable back seat. Even if my TSX had been the wagon it wouldn’t have made any difference, the RDX was much preferred for any hauling of adults (or kids in large car seats) in the back, by a large margin.
“More hospitable” isn’t the same as “never plan to carry adults”.
There’s a segment of very wealthy people here in town who buy new Siennas every three or four years like clockwork. Somehow among that group they’ve become status symbols, probably because they make everyone feel good about their financial and ecological (now with the hybrid) responsibility.
Among all the rest… yep, hated. We had a brief insurgency of Pacifica Hybrids in 2017 when they came out but all those seem to have been traded for something else. Despite being on the same platforms with largely the same powertrains, the large CUVs are seen as vastly more prestigious and better-looking. I don’t get it, but it’s the prevailing opinion, and my wife’s agreement with it is why I own a Highlander Hybrid.
I don’t have a problem with CUVs per se. But they’re overpriced. And if you don’t want one that slogs its’ CVT-saddled a** around town like a RAV4, they’re REALLY overpriced.
That wouldn’t be a problem if there was a plentiful supply of non-CUV performance sedans around, but as we all know, those days are drawing to an end.
Thus, the resentment from enthusiasts. Something like an Explorer ST would work just fine for me, but it’s sixty grand.
For the record, I’m not a CUV fan. Give me a proper truck, or a car….but clearly I’m wrong here.
A crossover trades highway skill for survival on potholed roadways. For many of us, the second is way more useful.
Old folks can get in and out easier.
They are trucks for CAFE, so thats why we get so many of them, and classic Wagons are unobtanium.
Most importantly, a crossover breaks the money = size rule. Detroit always taught small is cheap and big is good. This rule took a hit when Honda and BMW showed up with small good cars, but for the masses, the real shift was when the CUV appeared.
Suddenly, that small car budget, even though you still got small car engine and base in car gadgetry, got you a car you could put five people in. Toss in the overall inflation of car prices and you end up with….a bigger vehicle, all other things being equal.
Most crossover/CUV cars are still crap, but it’s supersized crap.
Minivans are way too practical-and a CUV says you are a rugged individualist-or play one at the Mountain House or Shore. (gag)
Does a CUV really say that to some people? Maybe some of the Jeep variants but not a crv or murano for example. Heck, to me cuv says “middle aged lady”
I have two children still in booster seats, a medium sized dog, a relatively small garage (height and width especially), and hate spending money on gas. The perfect car for me is a stationwagon based on a mid-size sedan. The Mazda6 Stationwagon from other markets would be perfect. The golf stationwagon, no longer sold, was a bit too tight in the back given I have long legs. The previous outback (2000s) was good, though a little tight in the back. Because we don’t have those vehicles my next vehicle is probably going to be a CRV or a RAV4, particularly because I might be able to get the hybrid. I can’t afford the perfect car, a Volvo V60 Cross Country. So I’ll settle for “fine”. Sedans don’t work well for families with dogs. Hatchbacks do, but very few bigger hatchbacks. All the minivans are huge – I used to own a Mazda5 which was brilliant. So a crossover will be tolerable, but it’s not what I want. By removing choice from the market we’re all buying the same bloody cars with poor visibility, large hoods, “aggressive styling”, and all we need is a god damn stationwagon or minivan that’s under 5m long.
Hell yeah they’re awesome. In a Perfect World I’d have a vehicle from every, OK multiple segments, except pickups wear the most hats were my needs, misadventures are concerned.
Ditto
The average CUV puts the driver, particularly a shorter driver, at close to standing height. In a sedan the driver is well below standing height. People prefer being taller, up to some point below lifted pickup height. I think that’s really why the CUV is now the default car.
When they have low floors, they can be pretty well packaged, too. A lot of the criticism of CUVs that ricochets around car sites is out of date these days, mostly because it assumes high floors. The CUVs with high floors (which tend to be the ones with more serious off-road pretensions, like Jeeps and the more expensive luxury models) tend to have much less room inside than the rest for a given amount of exterior size and weight.
The minivan is better packaged still, but (1) it has a severe image problem and (2) it’s now only available in XL size in the US market.
The getting in and out, plus general seating position is desirable for most people. You don’t have to climb up or try to sink in. I think even on a subconscious level this sells CUVs. People immediately feel comfortable with them. You can’t overlook this comfort level in terms of giving the driver what they want. Same with hatch, upon opening it everything is visible and within easy reach. Many sedans actually have more storage space but you have to bend over and reach way in, but not so with a CUV due to nice big lift gate many of which open and close automatically.
Crossovers, especially luxury ones with decent power, are the epitome of what a GT car was intended to provide: speed, comfort, and room for luggage as you embark on your grand tour.
Took our XC60 on a 5k mile road trip and it performed like a champ. Enough room for luggage, outdoor gear, etc. Solid as a rock cruising at speed, while also being able to handle unimproved roads in Montana, and at the end of the day you didn’t feel beaten up by the journey.
Crossovers are.todays wagons. “Enthusiasts” hated wagons and minivans back in the day too just like they hate on crossovers today.
I’ve given up worrying about crossovers, they are just “cars” now. The people have spoken, and this is what they want.
Personally, my wife and I, both in the vicinity of age 70, still enjoy our 2-door coupes. I don’t get this high seating thing; whenever I get into a crossover the seating position feels awkward, like one is on the car instead of in it. Center of gravity thing, I guess.
I find that CUVs sit too upright and are exhausting on long drives. I sit “in” my Cadillac sedan, low cog, lower seating position, legs stretched out ahead and more relaxed driving position which relieves pressure on my back. I also carry 4 adults in great comfort, all four corners with their own thermostat, heated, cooled and massaging seats. 400 hp, 400 lb ft of torque and ~27 mpg on open road. Add in SuperCruise for the boring sections and there is zero case for a CUV.
Crossovers fix two things wrong with most sedans and wagons.
Sedans due to aero dynamics and style considerations have long sloping roofs. The sloping roof impedes rear seat access, especially for adults. That roofline now also extends farther back into the trunk reducing the aperture maakingn it difficult to put objects in/out of the trunk.
Crossovers also typically have softer suspensions with higher profile tires for a smoother ride. Most sedans and wagons seem to want to be “ultimate” driving machines. The seat heigh also makes a crossover more accessible than a sedan or wagon.
Crossovers are mainstream because they have the broadest appeal and so many things we’ll.
One ride in a Macan GTS will change anyone’s mind…
A bad crossover is a bad car.
Our CX-5 is 95 percent of my Mazda 6. Our roads are getting so bad, and the 19 inch wheels on my Mazda 6, then it’s a no brainer that I’d move to a CX-5 or something similar.
I’m not a fan of crossovers, but they do everything that most people need them to do. Whether it’s the doing daily commute, handling foul weather, doing a family vacation, shopping at the big box store, or hauling toys; a crossover can do it reasonably well. They accelerate, corner, and brake as well as a normal driver can handle. The fuel economy is acceptable. Plus – and this is a big one – they’re tall enough that you get good visibility in traffic.
First you folks give us “Escape to the Country” then this…Cracking good Alistar, cracking good! And do carry on, please!
You just mentioned one of my current favourite TV shows.
Crossovers not sucking, is a symptom of speed limits being too low. Nothing more, nothing less.
Lower speed limits even further; and stepvans, then canal boats starts making sense as well. After all why not? If you’re not moving at all, you can get more space, and a better view for cheaper, by simply no longer focusing on driving dynamics AT ALL.
In proper cars from the past 30 years, on proper modern tires, 155 is perfectly safe and fine on divided freeways. Perhaps not so much in a dually stepvan or a “crossover.”
Safety, and mileage requirements and current styling have rendered most sedans practically useless for a significant segment. Too low for easy access/egress, so low that they get covered in spray during the winter/rain, road clearance that is too low causing scraping on inclines/declines and creating problems driving in heavy snow, rooflines that render the backseat into torture chamber.
So why would someone purchase one? If you want ‘driving dynamics’ get a sports car/vehicle or a coupe.
As for wagons, minivans rendered them obsolete. However minivans are now too large and far too expensive.
An SUV offers better visibility, more road clearance, and with folding rear seats comparable cargo capacity to a wagon.
In short an SUV is a more practical vehicle than a sedan, coupe or wagon.
“So why would someone purchase one? If you want ‘driving dynamics’ get a sports car/vehicle or a coupe.”
I don’t carry backseat passengers often enough to make it a major buying priority but I do carry backseat passengers often enough that a modern 2-door (or 2-seat) vehicle would be a lifestyle problem. For balancing “driving dynamics” with my budget and a desire to occasionally take my average height friends and family members across town to Olive Garden or a movie theater, a sedan works best IMO.
@Arthur:
“ Safety, and mileage requirements and current styling have rendered most sedans practically useless for a significant segment. Too low for easy access/egress, so low that they get covered in spray during the winter/rain, road clearance that is too low causing scraping on inclines/declines and creating problems driving in heavy snow, rooflines that render the backseat into torture chamber.”
Sorry to disappoint, but the sedan I drive is zero for four on that complaint list…and it’s a lot cheaper and a lot more rewarding to drive than any CUV that doesn’t go for $50,000 or up.
I suppose something that’s better in snow would be nice, but mine’s good to a foot or so of snow, and if it’s deeper than that, I just say the heck home.
I bet that the majority of CUV buyers would do just fine with a sedan. But sedans aren’t in fashion.
Nirvana was quickly reduced to overplayed radio pap. Unless he’s an aging frat boy in the sweet spot of corporate radio’s new classic rock listener matrix, that would not be the answer of a Gen Xer.
Crossovers are dull, dreary and a statement that “I give up even trying to appear interesting.” The fact that the bulk of the comments in the thread are not about a vehicle, speaks how much people think about crossovers.
“and most, if not all, of Gen X”
Speak for yourself sir, we may be old now but we’re not lame…
Hatchbacks are nice in a pinch, but they are fundamentally small unpretentious wagons. A coupe or reasonable sized sedan is nice for people hauling and the driving experience. An SUV should be the big stonkin’ truck people won’t be able to afford to drive soon, but it has a place. The crossover has no place, it is an aberration which has no real point to exist.
Crossovers are the ideal vehicle. Anything else is crippled one way or another. If you are an auto journalist, all you care about is how fast it goes, but nobody else cares about that.