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.
I don't know if this has already been discussed but it seems like the SUVs (before they were converted/renamed to Crossovers) were easier to recognize their make and model just by looking at them from a short distance, for example the Jeep Cherokee, Toyota 4-Runner, Honda Pilot, Nissan Pathfinder, Ford Explorer, and others, were easily recognizable by their shape before many automakers decided to go with the Crossover platform on a lot of those SUVs. Nowadays, it's hard to recognize the make & model of those vehicles without looking at their brand/model emblems because they all look pretty much the same.. This of course excludes the Cadillac Escalade, which still retains its SUV shape.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,642 posts, read 81,351,757 times
Reputation: 57885
Also exempted is the Jeep Patriot, which looks like the 1980s Jeep Cherokees on a diet. Otherwise you are correct, all of the SUVs and CUVs, look much the same, with only subtle differences, but the same basic shapes. Not much we can do about it, however, because that's all they are making. It's like they just copy each other and try to add one more electronic bell or whistle than the other brand. In reality, they are all just station wagons with a different name.
To me, most of these crossovers range from silly to butt-ugly. That's not to say they're bad vehicles... they're pretty practical really. A station wagon with ground clearance... so not a bad configuration even if the theme is pretentious.
But look at this. It's like they're trying to make it ugly:
A lot of it has to do with convergence from an optimization standpoint. Would you radically change the shape of your shoe shaped vehicle when your wind tunnel testing shows your competitors’ shape returns the least drag / best fuel economy with the most practical or useful interior space? Is having something different looking worth falling short of fleet fuel economy targets and having the lowest mpg vehicle in the segment?
Obviously there’s more going on, but aerodynamics is a major factor.
In terms of Crossovers, some are clearly carbon copies of others shooting for the middle of the market. There are some which I do find more distinctive at a distance. There is no missing Volvo crossovers, particularly from behind, with their tail light treatments. The RDX and Blazer have sharper creases and lines than the soft flow of most crossovers and tend to stand out more.
The RWD/truck based SUV's I think seem a bit more distinctive in part because not everyone is making the same thing shooting for the same customer. I am thinking here 4Runner, Wrangler, etc.
It's mainly the car/sedan-based CUVs that are mostly different shades of bean-shaped blandness. Most of the truck-based body-on-frame SUVs are unique to an extent.
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.
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.
