Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The value of SUVs and trucks didn't sink because people wanted small cars, it sank because the gas prices were $4/gallon. American automakers were stuck with loads of big-a** trucks and Yukons and Expeditions that weren't selling and the automakers had to be bailed out (2008). At the time, I thought people would learn their lesson and start driving smaller vehicles, like the Europeans have been doing for years, but no. As soon as gas prices went down and the economy started recovering, SUVs/trucks started selling again like hotcakes. I really don't see that changing, though I think the popularity of the mega-SUVs like the Denalis and Expeditions has waned in favor of smaller SUVs. (I have no data to support this, just what I see on the road.) I myself drive an Acura RDX (6-cylinder) because I can no longer get in and out of regular cars.
Yes, it was gas prices and an overall sluggish economy that had automakers scrambling to offer smaller and cheaper cars that were good on gas. I think that scenario will happen again. The same could be said for the housing market which is many areas is at or beyond peak levels. I have a friend that cleaned up during the bad times by buying a bunch of homes for less than 50% of what they’re priced at now...but he lived frugally even in the best of times. Those that can avoid “lifestyle creep” in good times will be the ones sitting pretty when things aren’t so rosy.
I see you’ve elected to miss the point of the post quoted. No surprise.
FWIW what you’re describing is what is referred to as branding. It doesn’t matter who calls it what though. The design and mechanical function of SUVs vs crossovers is a difference as distinct as night and day. Crossovers are branded as SUVs because automakers know SUVs sell.
Words are often defined by a commonly accepted meaning...the average person will instantly recognize a vehicle the looks a certain way as an SUV or car. They don’t care about body on frame or tow rating...something like a CRV is simply an SUV that doesn’t tow as much as say an Expedition.
Words are often defined by a commonly accepted meaning...the average person will instantly recognize a vehicle the looks a certain way as an SUV or car. They don’t care about body on frame or tow rating...something like a CRV is simply an SUV that doesn’t tow as much as say an Expedition.
I’m aware of this. Which is why I’ve not insisted you distinguish one type of vehicle from the other, even though they are very different vehicle types.
But you’re trying to have it both ways. you say most SUVs can’t even tow more than 1500 pounds. Aside from this being shown to be untrue, you ignore that if you’re going to count these vehicles with the lower capacity for towing as SUVs then you’ve undermined your own argument about fuel economy because the vehicles in this class get MPG that’ll rival the smaller compact sedans.
you’d be better off just saying you don’t like SUVs and no amount of reasoning is going to convince you they have a legit place in the auto market.
I’m aware of this. Which is why I’ve not insisted you distinguish one type of vehicle from the other, even though they are very different vehicle types.
But you’re trying to have it both ways. you say most SUVs can’t even tow more than 1500 pounds. Aside from this being shown to be untrue, you ignore that if you’re going to count these vehicles with the lower capacity for towing as SUVs then you’ve undermined your own argument about fuel economy because the vehicles in this class get MPG that’ll rival the smaller compact sedans.
you’d be better off just saying you don’t like SUVs and no amount of reasoning is going to convince you they have a legit place in the auto market.
Most CUV’s can’t tow more than 1500 lbs a SUV can tow up to 8,500 lbs. because it’s got a frame hitch that’s the difference.
There’s a lot of good info on this thread, ranging from descriptions of how these vehicles function and why they’re different to sales and capacity figures. The info is here. Some people just don’t care.
The value of SUVs and trucks didn't sink because people wanted small cars, it sank because the gas prices were $4/gallon. American automakers were stuck with loads of big-a** trucks and Yukons and Expeditions that weren't selling and the automakers had to be bailed out (2008). At the time, I thought people would learn their lesson and start driving smaller vehicles, like the Europeans have been doing for years, but no. As soon as gas prices went down and the economy started recovering, SUVs/trucks started selling again like hotcakes. I really don't see that changing, though I think the popularity of the mega-SUVs like the Denalis and Expeditions has waned in favor of smaller SUVs. (I have no data to support this, just what I see on the road.) I myself drive an Acura RDX (6-cylinder) because I can no longer get in and out of regular cars.
So, you had hoped people would've "learned their lessons" and started driving smaller cars, then you say, you, yourself drive an Acura RDX. So, do as I say, not as I do sort of thing?
Have you checked the rear dimensions of the CRV and 2016+ Civic?
I used latest models for comparisons, so yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
The CRV’s interior isn’t much bigger than the HRV which is based off the Fit.
What does the HRV have to do with anything? It just proves my point that consumers are demanding in increasing numbers the comfort and added space of the SUV/CUV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
The Civic also comes in a hatchback. The CRV’s cargo area is larger but only because the cargo area is taller.
So what? If that means you can stack an extra six bags of mulch, who cares? Most people don't need it to transport their one piece Fly Rod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
Comfort is very subjective.
Sort of. Things like leg room, head room, but much more importantly, seating position, aren't. Ride comfort or road noise? Yeah, more subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
The CRV sits higher but you also makes sacrifices like less acceleration,
Not that big of a deal. It gets to 60 in 7.6 seconds. That's competitive with vintage muscle cars with small block V8's. Hardly difficult to merge onto a highway or pull out in traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
inferior handling,
Sort of, most people don't care. Enthusiasts are relatively rare. Again, its adequate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
more expensive purchase price, inferior gas mileage, etc.
A CRV gets 30 MPG. The Pilot averages 24 or thereabouts. That's a long haul from the Suburban that 90's Mom drove. Double, probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
I really can’t see someone complaining about how a newer Civic rides.
I haven't driven the 2018 but the last three generations I've ridden in and they're all "ok" at best. Loud, and the short wheelbase is noticeable. Also, this can be a positive or negative, Honda's have always had responsive suspensions, usually double wishbone designs, but some find it too bumpy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
And crossovers don’t handle differently than cars?
Thats just marketing.
That's the point. People drive them and think, Jeez, it really drives like a car. They don't have to make the tradeoff of garbage fuel economy, and harsh, loud rides that they did in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
Yes, it was gas prices and an overall sluggish economy that had automakers scrambling to offer smaller and cheaper cars that were good on gas. I think that scenario will happen again. The same could be said for the housing market which is many areas is at or beyond peak levels. I have a friend that cleaned up during the bad times by buying a bunch of homes for less than 50% of what they’re priced at now...but he lived frugally even in the best of times. Those that can avoid “lifestyle creep” in good times will be the ones sitting pretty when things aren’t so rosy.
Undoubtedly they will. I'm not arguing that people won't change their buying habits based on their confidence, gas prices etc...
But I don't think that GM will sell Suburbans like it 15-20 years ago, again. For reasons you've elucidated, the automakers have found better ways of providing the benefits of the big SUV's without the drawbacks...And have realized that, like you've stated before, they don't need to tow a box trailer, or go in low range to drive up a forestry road, and have made cars that deliver the seating position, ride height, and space without compromising fuel economy or ride quality.
You’re arguing semantics. Toyota, Honda and every other automaker refer to vehicles like the RAV4 and CRV as SUVs. You may not like that or agree with it, but it is what it is. Hell, Motor Trend selected the CRV as ***SUV*** of the year. It seems like some larger SUV owners can get a little defensive when the cute SUVs are lumped in with their larger SUVs. “I have a REAL SUV sir”
Now, back to business - the sales figures I’m looking at show the CRV, RAV4 and Rogue at about 1.2 MILLION units. Just those 3 SUVs. Care to redo your figures?
It isn't what I like or agree with. It is the definition of what the vehicle is. Automakers may use the term SUV in some of their marketing to appeal to a broader audience but the Rav4 and CRV are not SUVs.
My numbers are right. I'm not defensive as I don't care what you choose to drive. But I do care when you try to artificially skew numbers to your benefit. If you don't like SUVs don't buy them. But no amount of arguing your opinion of what should be is going to change what actually is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.