I was on my nightly walk with my canine companions when I turned the corner and observed this wondrous sight.
There are usually no vehicles parked on this part of the road. So to see a row of vehicles, not one but many, and all of them “Compact SUV”s, (or crossovers if you will) was surely a sight. Many different makes and models, in all sorts of colours. Nissans, Hondas, BMWs, Jeeps, Kias, Dodges all filled the viewscape. The rooflines all flowed from one to another as if in a symphony.
Had someone been sleeping under a rock for the last 25 years, and woke up to this view, they may have wondered where all the cars went. Or what happened to vertically stretch and horizontally shorten the cars. To wit, “Where did all the overhang go?” It would be like Back to the Future in reverse.
Hey, I am not here to disparage SUVs, even if I conspire and connive to despise that moniker. They are quite useful little trucks. However, unless they are really designed to be sporty, eg. a Jeep, most SUVs will never be used off road. The “S” in SUV is really a misnomer. The earliest of their kind were more intended to be pushed and throttled. So they are not really sporty, just boxes on wheels. There are warning signs all over my Escape – “Don’’t drive too fast!”, “Don’t brake hard”, “Rollover hazard!”, “No sudden manoeuvres!”.
A Car and Driver review had this to say about an early 4WD Ford Escape:
Off-road, the Escape is a bit challenged. Essentially a front-wheel-drive vehicle with part-time rear-drive, the Escape has no low-range gearing and can’t be locked into four-wheel drive. That doesn’t mean it’s unable to handle the vast majority of off-roading most casual SUV owners require (which, in many cases, is none).
A tight turning circle and reasonably generous ground clearance–not to mention the down-low guts of the torquey V-6–will let Escape owners go cow-trailing and dirt-roading to their hearts’ content, but if you do much rock climbing and mudhole driving, there are better choices.
Low down guts of the V-6? If you put your foot into it, you get more tire chirps up front than actual motivation. If I push the thing to pull out and pass at 80 km/hour or above, it feels as if the front end is going to wheelie on me.
Compact SUVs are utility, yes, but they don’t do utility anywhere near as well as minivans do. Compare 63 cu. feet, and less than 4 feet width, against a 2019 Dodge Grand Caravan with 158.6 cu. feet storage. Four feet width is very useful too for those trips to Hardware Depot.
“Vehicle” is just a bland non descriptive term that someone came up with because they couldn’t decide if they were a car or a truck, or somewhere in between. So it’s really the name that puts me off. As long as we understand what we are buying, (and we all do buy them), there will be no misunderstanding.
I am more in favour of a more correct acronym, maybe Compact Light Truck (CLT), or Small Conveyance Truck, or even Compact Utility Truck (CUT). However the term, SUV has stuck by this point, no matter small, like an Escape, or larger such as an Explorer, or even larger if there is such a thing.
OK, so I have an older Escape, I am sure there exists better technology on these vehicles today. However most driving review shows that I watch echo my sentiment, 99% of buyers will never take one of these offroading.
As Paul has said before, SUVs are a return to what cars used to be, taller for better ease of entry, better storage area, and the ability to tow light loads without the need for a huge clamshell station wagon of bygone days. To be sure, when my Escape comes due for replacement, my wife has made it clear she likes sitting up higher in a CLT (Oops, sorry) as opposed to a small car.
Minivans certainly had their day, but they never became as ubiquitous as what our SUVs have become today. I do feel strongly that in 25 years time we won’t be seeing many curbside classic SUVs around our neighbourhoods.
In any event, I found this sight and the immediate surroundings kind of eye opening. No, the presence of a bunch of SUV crossovers is not news to anyone, certainly on CC. The future is now for these small trucks.
This graph shows that SUV global sales, while continuing to increase, are nearing peak. The days of 25% year over year sales increases haven’t happened since 2015. Growth may slip into the single digits this year. SUV makers can easily harvest global markets for years to come while they develop the next big thing.
I congratulate those who have purchased these and parked on this street in a nice line. Some may serve as kid shuttles, or have on board child seats. Some, or many, likely serve as daily drivers and grocery getters. Some of these cost much more than a compact sedan.
Contrast these views with a parking lots of a bygone era. Who here doesn’t long for something as snazzy as this collection?
As with all trends, this one may run its course one day, and carmakers will be convincing us we need something larger, or smaller, or shorter, or something. Like bellbottoms, disco music, Six Sigma, Astroturf, something else – the next ‘thing’ – is I’m sure already being conceptualized.
Ooof – so many thoughts come to mind, but most of them are negative, so I’ll spare typing the same thing over again and again.
I will say that seeing 5 (or even 10) CUVs in a row like this – both in traffic or in a parking lot is CRAZY frequent now… creepy, almost, when you think about it mathematically.
Considering that 30% of vehicles sold still are regular passenger cars (and only five years ago it was 50%, keeping in mind the average age of cars on the road is about 11-12 years) shouldn’t AT LEAST every third car be a sedan/hatchback if not more?
I’ve come to the conclusion that CUVs have simply taken over certain geographical areas en masse, specifically the suburbs, and their frequency depends on the part of town you’re in. When I’m in the inner city and/or lower income areas there’s still a lot of sedans around, both newer and used. Your photos in this middle class residential area confirm my theory.
I’ve been watching this years’ sales numbers each month and I think we are reaching peak CUV. Sedan sales have begun to level off and crossover growth has been very modest for most of the year, compared to 2015 through 2018 when sedan sales were plummeting like a rock each month in favor of CUVs. The slow-selling domestic models have been culled and the key players have their positions established. Who knows if people will “switch back”, but I do think that regular cars still have their place in the market, and while crossovers aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, the do reek of “fad” in the same way 2-door personal luxury cars took over for a time in the 1970s. Was it pretty common to see five two-door land barges with vinyl roofs parked in a row in 1976 just like these crossovers are parked here in 2019? Wasn’t there, but from vintage pictures of that era, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see a Monte Carlo, Cordoba, Grand Prix, Impala coupe, and Volare coupe parked on the street where a CR-V, Sorento, RAV4, Trax, and Escape would be parked today.
It will be interesting to see how things will pan out in the next five to ten years. The new 2020 Escape looks so weirdly low-slung and car-like that the evolution of the CUV almost seems to be inverting itself back into a regular old sedan – only with a hatchback and AWD now.
Good points.
I agree, the math on this is highly unlikely. That probably is what attracted my attention on this.
The Honda CR-V morphing into the birth of the HRV, Ford’s new whateveritscalled smaller CUV, and smaller offerings from other makes, is a new trend to follow.
SUV/Crossovers/Compact SUVs are more widespread on the road than minivans ever were in the 80s and 90s, but I agree that in city centre areas, it seems sedans are still more prevalent. Millennials also seem to steer away from SUVs, at least as long as possible.
Many may long for the parking lots of the 50s or 60s, I’d be happy with a parking long circa 2007, when sedans and body on frame SUVs mixed with convertibles and coupes and small and large minivans from most makes. Today, its just view-blocking crossover trash that all looks the same. Your Infiniti Rogue 2.0t has Mazda wheels, Ford windows, a BMW roofline, and a Kia hatch, with the only differentiator being an equally ugly but slightly differently shaped grille made of cheap plastichrome.
I saw a Toyota Highlander the other day, from a distance, and it looked like it had been sideswiped. Only on closer inspection did I realize that was the design of the driver’s door – a great big swoop. Wait till that needs some bodywork and see what the bill will be.
In the 70’s we had broughams. Forty years later, we have crossovers.
I have a difficult time seeing the difference: Fourth-rate motor vehicles pushing a dishonest image of the owner/driver, and the vehicle’s capabilities. Bottom feeding crap.
I look forward to the day when crossovers go just as out of style as did broughams.
The only commonality I see between a Broughamed out 70’s vehicle and the modern crossover is that you don’t like either.
From an aesthetics POV, the consistent look and shape of SUVs lined up doesn’t appear much different than the anonymous, cookie cutter suburban houses visible in these same photos.
Not especially visually stimulating, whatever era we are in. Whether the 1940s or today. 🙂
Very true, and from that aspect I find the SUV/CUV/CLT fad no different from other fads… or for that matter from 1950s parking lot scenes where most of the cars also have similar dimensions due to the design trends of the day.
What irritates me about the current crop of SUVs is that they’re seemingly identical worldwide. SUVs/CUVs from Asia are nearly identical to those from North America, which are again identical to those from Europe. Regional variation (the thing that makes cars, or any other consumer product, so interesting) is gone. And without that variation, regardless of how good the cars actually are from a driving standpoint, cars become about as dull as, say, toaster ovens. They’re appliances, with very little character.
I agree that the SUV trend will run its course eventually, but I hope it’s replaced by… not one replacement, but several replacements.
I believe it comes down to aerodynamics and coefficient of drag. The ultimate aerodynamic shape being a variation on an egg-shaped teardrop. So, it’s no surprise that many shapes are evolving towards similar streamlined designs, as defining body styling elements become more homogenized.
No different than sedans. All 2019 sedan models look superficially similar around the world, exactly for the reasons you mention. Objectively speaking, no buyer wants the one car within a class of similars that is worse than the others, fuel economy being one of those criteria being measured.
Agreed. Diversity provides more choice, however increases costs to manufacturers. I’d love to have more choices available.
Your first pic reminds me of a TV commercial or music video, that is deliberately parodying suburban living with the similar home colours and styles, and matching vehicle types.
I know Mattamy Homes is big in Toronto. In Ottawa, Mattamy communities at least seem to have more interesting exterior designs than Minto, the dominant home builder in the capital.
Mattamy was down the street from this photo. These were Royal Park. They must have only had access to a few brick colours.
As a big believer in letting each do their own, SUV/CUVs don’t bother me. They do possess a more comfortable and natural ride height (sitting at chair height isn’t a bad thing, remember people like pickups also which sit similarly) but, for me at least, these have a false sense of utility and a general lack of roominess which greatly diminishes any appeal.
Try hauling a harp and three people in any of the current crop of less than full-size SUVs. It’s not happening.
I’ve put 30,000 miles on an all-wheel drive Escape. Rough riding, loud, and a smidgeon too small are the best descriptors. To be fair, they’ve improved immensely the last several years.
If there is a need to go off-road, I’ve got a four-wheel drive pickup. It’s also pulled and hauled more heavy and bulky loads than most of these CUV/SUVs could imagine.
Recently, I spent two weeks driving a Dodge Grand Caravan. Okay, so minivans aren’t “cool” but that thing drove just as well as some CUVs, was just as comfortable, and has more utility.
Whether SUV/CUVs are a fad or not remains to be seen; perhaps the declining rate of growth is more a reflection of market saturation. However, if it is a fad, let people enjoy it. Life is short.
I have shared your finding that most “popularly sized” SUVs are quite small inside, which does not really fit my definition of “utility”. I remember first having this feeling when I sat in my sister’s XJ Cherokee, thinking that it was basically a taller version of a Fairmont wagon.
But as you say, there’s something for everyone.
Agreed on all points but one nitpick:
However, if it is a fad, let people enjoy it. Life is short.
These are impeding the ability to enjoy mine. I used to enjoy scenic drives on the weekends. Now I can’t go one mile without coming up on a tall tinted window wall of crossover blocking the field of vision from my “low” car from the front or sides. Traffic now is utterly claustrophobic.
Simply to play Devil’s Advocate, others modifying their behavior to suit your preferences is not allowing them to enjoy their preferences, is it not? 🙂
It seems like nothing in life is ever straightforward.
Hey, I never said I wasn’t selfish like everyone else. 🙂
I’ll argue the opposite. The sales leaders among the current compact crossovers (rav4, Rogue, CRV) actually have quite impressive packaging and interior room for both passengers and cargo relative to their overall exterior dimensions. Of course this has been achieved by way of lowering the floor and reducing ground clearance to the point where they are barely different than regular cars of the 1980s and earlier eras. Can’t haul a harp and three people? What non-fullsize SUV/minivan CAN do that?
I’ll be the contrarian in the room and point out what I see.
There is at least one vehicle right in the middle of the lineup that for sure will be a CC in a few years, at least here in the US, that being the Kia Rondo. I realize it was sold for longer in Canada, but in the US it was only available for a couple of years. Already quite rare on our roads.
Not a single one of these sells as many in a year as many of the 60’s and 70’s vehicles that some of us here fetishize, and yet, every single one of those 60’s and 70’s vehicles are CC’s and celebrated when one pops up somewhere. The same thing will happen with all of these. Our youngest readers (and contributors) weren’t even or were barely born when the first generation of several of these hit the roads.
What’s also remarkable is the diversity here, the ONLY vehicle I readily see duplicated in all of these pictures is the Jeep Cherokee, there’s one in pic 3 and a different one in pic 4. Every other vehicle is unique. As well, there are vehicles from the US, Germany, Japan, Korea. I’m not seeing any of that variety at the train station.
There is also a variety of colors. Or at least shades in the spectrum. The “ideal” pic of the 60’s parking lot has a lot of white, a couple of blue and one half-red example. Maybe one black? That’s it. So much for the diversity of yesteryear. They also are mainly early 60’s and a smattering of 50’s – the 60’s all look alike, as do the 50’s (within their group)
To some people, these look superficially alike. Yet as soon as someone decides to go in a slightly different “daring, bold” direction there are howls decrying the ugliness and offensiveness of the one trying to look a little different. Nissan Juke, Toyota C-HR, are but two easy examples of this.
Some of us may not prefer these for whatever reason but there is no denying that they work, and work well for many, if not most. I do believe that many haven’t even tried more than one for an extended period, as actually looking at the market objectively does reveal plenty of different capabilities, power levels, drive train options, trim levels, etc. It has to, every one of these makers has to compete with the others, nobody is laying down and just issuing forth bland-mobiles across their range, every one is trying to make theirs unique.
In fact the most unique thing about the “ideal” picture at the end is the sight of the bus and the train, which are the two things that have been abjectly rejected by users in North America and better service and availability of which should have been demanded long ago, as in other places rather than this little bubble of the world.
I noticed the Rondo as well. I drove quite a few, as they were dumped into rental fleets in large numbers at the time (along with the Mazda5). I was always impressed with the utility of the 7 passenger Rondo and the 6 passenger 5. Really neat vehicles. A popular vehicle shape in other parts of the world, but never popular in the US.
My Escape works for me, for the most part. I bought it to replace my Dodge Caravan. I didn’t think I needed as much room any longer, as the Caravan had provided, but on many occasions I have missed the carrying room. For hauling loads of stuff inside, you can’t beat a minivan. Having to jerry rig ropes to tie the back door down on the Escape is like a Houdini exercise. They make it impossible, because you’re not supposed to drive with the back door open due to exhaust fumes being drawn into the cabin. So do they think I’m going to put some 2X4s up on the roof rack? Are they out of their mind?
Going out for a family dinner last night required 2 cars, because we needed room for 6.
So like I said, it works, but not as well as the minivan.
I’ll point out that for example our Highlander, which is a size class up A) would easily seat 6 and B) the rear glass can open separate from the tailgate so long lumber is no problem. This is a huge advantage if that’s a use case even semi-frequently. I once drove from Cheyenne to Laramie with a 12foot countertop mostly inside the vehicle and a few feet outside through the glass opening. The man at Lowe’s helping me load it suggested I needed a pickup like his and pointed to a crewcab with a 5.5 foot bed – I had to point out to him that he’d be foolish to have more of the counter stick out over the tailgate than be inside the bed. He then got quiet.
I hate SUVs, although I understand why other people like them: they are easier to get in and out of and people like sitting higher. But they don’t ride as well, feel like they are going to tip over, and are noisier. They also get much worse gas mileage. Maybe cars have gone overboard in trying to be aerodynamic (so that they are hard to get into and out of and hard to see out of). We’ve thrown away all of the fuel efficiency gains by going to SUVs. It’s impossible to get a normal car at a rental outlet these days.
Interestingly, the SUV craze is much less pronounced in Europe. Parking issues and high gas prices?
SUV desirability in Europe is quickly increasing. Note that the most common replacement (over here) for a Camry is a RAV4 and for an Accord is a CRV, i.e. one “class” smaller. That reduction in exterior size pays dividends in parking and minimizes the economy difference as a factor. I assume in Europe people are ditching Passats for Tiguans and 3-series for X2 etc.
You should perhaps try a few more SUV’s. We have a Highlander (as an example) and a sedan. The Highlander rides as well if not better than the sedan and has never felt even slightly “tippy”. Of course if you mean an 80’s Bronco then yes I would agree.
And even going one size smaller, the guy who trades an Accord for a CRV can get more stuff in it. Modern sedans suffer from small trunk openings and small door openings from the sloping roofs. The CRV has larger, better shaped openings in which to put the stuff we need to move from here to there.
It is the modern example of the time my mother and I drove to a store to buy a 5 foot folding table. It simply would not fit in her Crown Victoria. At least not without ropes and open doors or lids. We went home and got my one-size-smaller Fox body Marquis wagon and had no problem at all.
Our neighbor, in her early 60’s, no kids but with two dogs, just traded her late model CRV for a new Sienna minivan. For the utility, not because the CRV was getting old.
I laugh when I see people buying their 75 inch TVs at Costcoland, and trying to fit them in any compact vehicle, but especially small cars. Your wagon fit the bill nicely that day.
Then there was the time a fellow bought a whole load of garden stones as loaded them up in every possible nook and cranny of his Corolla. I don’t know how he drove it, I’m certain the tires were rubbing on the inner fenders the whole way. That’s if he didn’t break the springs. It was a load that called for a pickup truck of some heft.
Well put Jim, my thoughts exactly.
Count me among those that don’t care. Regardless of label, they are just tall hatchbacks. Hatchbacks are good, and height has become necessary to see and be seen in a sea of pickup trucks, etc. I’m fine with that.
As for minivans, they’re not so “mini” anymore. My 2G, SWB Voyager was a fine minivan in terms of size, for me.
I’m seriously considering a Transit Connect for my next vehicle, but I’d rather not buy a Ford. I’m hoping one of the Asian brands (aside from Nissan, ick) decides to build (or export to the US) a small van before I need a new vehicle.
Agree completely
The way I see it the sedan era–fifties through nineties–was the aberration. That is when style and power trumped (pun intended) honest usefulness and we strutted our stuff before an otherwise constrained world.
I see CUVs as improvements.
I see compact vans as the the most useful of all and encourage the Asians to make more of them available to us.
I kind of see the opposite for some of that time, such as the 80’s. People like to bash GM for their boxy designs with the formal/vertical rear window, but those designs are actually very practical and give a very roomy interior for a vehicle of their size. Cars today have gotten quite bloated, which is obvious when you see a 2010’s model parked next to a 1980’s model, but the useful amount of space in their interiors hasn’t grown.
The same thing actually applies when you compare some of the pro-CUVs from the 1980’s like the Tercel 4WD and the Stanza Wagon vs. a modern CUV. The boxy 1980’s design is a lot more practical, has better space utilization, and better visibility than the modern CUV. Ditto for the original Mopar vans, which have an amazing amount of interior space, given their total length and wheelbase.
I’d actually argue that today style and power is trumping utility, with family vehicles posting numbers comparable to 1970’s exotics, and a whole crop of CUVs that are more about style than function, and only are popular because they provide a bit more utility than the current crop of sedans.
Small vans were the real aberrations, and really even after a few design cycles the mini was pretty much gone from most minivans. People will always sacrifice usefulness for style and power, doesn’t matter if it’s low or tall. Even the most milquetoast crossover(double negative) looks tougher than a minivan.
I saw one of those SWB 1990s Caravan/Voyager in traffic the other day. Still looking just right to me.
I want to see where I am going so my next vehicle will be a taller truck or SUV. I have owned Jeeps in the past but that was for off road use. The newer Jeeps are a real compormise but they CAN go off road and they are “calm” enough to use as a daily driver.
Hey, I just think I talked myself into buying a Jeep! (Of course I still hope the current fad, especially those hideous four door pick up behemoths fades soon)
My Mrs. is one of those ladies who likes to sit up high. As we get older we also appreciate the higher seat that is easier to get in and out of. When we get another car I do not doubt that an SUV will be on the short list.
I do not mind them. I have always liked station wagons and I see the SUV as a tall wagon, usually with all wheel drive. My gripe with them is that they all seem to cost a lot of money for what you are getting, but then that is usually the case when something is really popular.
A few observations on why the rush to CUV/SUVs:
a) When was the last time anyone has ridden in the back seat of a contemporary sedan with a fast back roof line. Its claustrophobia back there. Like squatting in a bucket in a maximum security cell with minimal windows.
b) Last time a rented a sedan, I hit my head on the A pillar each time getting in or out of the car. I now appreciate the Japanese art of ORIGAMI. It was sheer pain to fold myself to accommodate the ever lower roof line with an A pillar that swept all the way back to the B pillar.
c) If you don’t understand a) or b), just look it the last photo of ’50s or ’60s sedans or wagon. In the words of the family man: “There’s headroom I tell you!! There’s headroom in there, them cars!!”
d) Lido hit the ball out of the park with the original Plymouth Voyager. However, this too has passed. Part of the reason for the demise of the minivan is its no longer a “minivan”. In the words of the original marketing program, it has lost it “garageable” feature.
For the last 15 years, I have been driving the 1st and 2nd gen Ford Escape (the boxy ones). Plenty of headroom and leg room for both driver and passengers. Adequate space for the jaunts to the Warehouse Depot. Reasonable fuel economy. Try doing that in a contemporary Impala without a fist fight breaking out in the cramped back seat halfway to Disney World.
As alluded to above, each style of car will come and go. We moved from sedans to wagons (mainstay of the early baby boomer generation) to pickups to minivans to SUVs to CUVs. If feel the next phase is the EV. Something like TESLA with the bat wings. No matter what style or phase, the soccer Mom/Dad still needs to the make the school run each morning and space is still an important consideration.
Having ridden in the backseat of both an Escape and an Impala, there is much more legroom in the Impala (current, not W-body). Ingress/egress is easier in the Escape but the quarters are much more diminutive.
Escape owner here–2nd gen (2009) and Kuga/3rd (2018). In 2009 the Mrs. wanting to sit higher was a big consideration; the 3rd is even more carlike, and fine with me. Has anyone compared its dimensions to, say, a 1955 Chevy?
There are times we could use more cargo room, but not often enough to push us into Explorer or Edge or minivan territory, I guess…….
A relative lives in a bucolic 50s housing development limited by covenants to one-story houses (ranches), and it’s a throwback to visit after time in today’s world of tall houses and steep-pitched roofs…
Looking at the top picture, I see the lineup of cookie-cutter suvs/cuvs on the right…..and a matching lineup of houses on the left.
So I have capitulated to the whims of fashion and we now own two CUVs. My wife’s 2016 Tiguan is comfortable and sits high enough to suit her, while still providing excellent ride and handling characteristics. Problem is the very limited cargo capacity when the rear seat is up: a Golf TDI we rented in Scotland had far more space under its folding cargo cover. We replaced my Fusion with a Honda Passport in order to have enough space for 4-5 persons and a 60 lb. Labradoodle with separation anxiety. If Ford offered the Mondeo wagon as part of the Fusion lineup over here, I would have gone that direction. As it is, the Honda is very comfortable, is quiet and rides well, though handling is not as sharp as an Accord. In the end, these vehicles may indeed be faddish, but for us, they have proven practical and capable solutions to our transportation needs.
The 1954 Chrysler was 62″ high. That is considerably below the height of almost all SUVs, but probably is about ideal for ingress/egress. The current Honda Civic is 60″ tall and from personal experience I find it to be very convenient. Mr.Campbell, who also owns a Civic might want to share his experiences in that regard.
The reasons people give for spending all the additional money relative to a car, and that includes considerably more gasoline consumption as well as the purchase price, confirms that their decisions are based on the what’s cool criteria and not on objective reasoning.
The current Honda Civic is 55.7 inches tall, not 60 inches. A Honda CR-V is 66.5 inches tall.
I’m going to have to disagree that today’s crop of Utility vehicles aren’t packed with utility. Just because a minivan has more interior space doesn’t diminish the utility of something like a RAV-4. You might as well say that minivans don’t have much utility because they can’t carry 12 or 15 passengers or the fact that you can’t put a 12′ roll of carpet in one. Because you can in a full size van.
Yes they could be considered a tall hatchback/wagon, the key being the tall part. No I’m not talking about the ground clearance, but the distance from the floor to the ceiling and height of the door openings.
The fuel economy penalty is also exaggerated, as mentioned the Camry driver is likely to go with a RAV-4. Looking at the official numbers at fueleconomy.gov shows the 2019 Camry has a combined rating of 34mpg and an annual fuel cost of $1100 while the RAV-4 has a rating of 30mpg and an annual fuel cost of $1300. (base vehicles in both cases) So under $20 per month extra in fuel “*Based on 45% highway, 55% city driving, 15,000 annual miles and current fuel prices. ”
This https://www.truedelta.com/Toyota-RAV4-vs-Toyota-Camry-specs-comparison,273-264 shows that for most passenger dimensions it is a wash. THe average person, thanks to the more upright seating and headroom, will probably tell you the RAV-4 feels bigger inside despite what the dimensions say. However the RAV-4 has twice the cargo capacity, seats up vs trunk, and does it all in a package that is near a foot shorter which brings significant improvement in ease of parking.
I experienced one of the greatest moments of automotive schadenfreude a few months ago where I witnessed a man slowly and bitterly come to realize the oversized oversized BBQ grill he bought from Home Depot wouldn’t fit through the tailgate opening of his oversized crossover. I’m certain there was an expectation of infinite utility in his Infiniti utility vehicle when he jumped on the bandwagon, but in the end he left and the grill remained, presumably to be delivered the way any sedan owner would immediately know to have done in the first place. How convenient!
That’s the most I’ll say about these vision obstructing blobs.
This is veering dangerously close to /r/thathappened territory.
AAACK! My worst automotive nightmare has come true! I loathe these vehicles. They are such a generic compromise of a car; not a very good passenger car and not a very good SUV. They remind me of some wimpy Beta male sporting a fanny pack and khaki pants, trying to please everyone and be all things to all people, with no real concrete identity. These things are for “sheeple”–people with no mind of their own and a fear of being different. My mother forced me to buy her a 2017 Buick Encore. Oh, how I HATED that pathetic lump! Cramped interior quarters, no cargo room unless you folded down the rear seat, poor ride and grossly under-powered.
The 2005 Malibu LS we traded for that slug had more room, more power, better ride and interior comfort, and more storage space. It felt like a more substantial vehicle by a wide margin. Every time I see an Encore, or its equally ugly, lame twin, the Trax, I just want to vomit.
These geeky vehicles do have one redeeming quality, though. They make my Panther look downright sleek and low-slung. I can’t believe we inhabit a world where we can now use those terms to describe a Panther! Who knew? I guarantee you this; not one of those SUVs or CUVs in that Orwellian nightmare of a picture will ever be a future CC.
I submit for your approval….
While you won’t find a bigger Panther fan than me that doesn’t mean I loathe the modern CUV which are very practical vehicles. I liked our 2010 Escape Hybrid and for a while used it as my daily driver for the time of year I go into the city on a daily basis. Much easier to parallel park, or park in modern parking lots, lower fuel cost, good front seat room and with the back seat down more cargo room.
So while I’ll never be w/o a Panther, that doesn’t mean I hate CUVs and won’t have them in the fleet.
Not exactly sure what year your CV is but how does it make you feel that a 2017 Buick Encore has a 0-60mph time that is faster than the 2005 CV? (7.8 vs 7.9). In the quarter mile the Encore only gives up 0.2 seconds. (16.2 vs 16.0)
So much for that vaunted V8 Power…
I don’t think anyone buys Panthers for speed. And even as a person who does like going fast, there’s more to enjoying a car than 0-60 and other stat sheet data
I don’t disagree beyond the commenter complaining that the Encore was underpowered. It really isn’t compared to the CV.
I’m not blind to the stats–I know on paper and real world the CV is no speed demon. However, there are cheap and effective ways to remedy this situation, which I have done to my gorgeous 54K mile 2002 CV P73. It has been converted to dual exhausts using very mellow performance mufflers, and I installed a JLT cold air intake. The difference in the car’s acceleration and performance is dramatic. Picture staid, plain Sandy from the movie “Grease”, and then visualize the tight, leather pants hottie Sandy at the end–that level of dramatic.
The only way to improve the Encore’s acceleration is to drop it off a very steep cliff.
You’re incorrect. The Encore is a mere piece of software away from being significantly more capable than it currently is. A freer flowing exhaust also adds significantly more power to a turbocharged car than it does to a naturally aspirated one of one chose to do so. Cold air intakes generally add more induction noise and very little (if any) power. But in any case, adding more colder, denser air to the Encore would once again pay greater dividends.
I get it, you like your car and resent the new little roller skates, that’s fine, but let’s remain objective about the whole thing.
Spend wisely, 4.6s really don’t respond to bolt-ons like this, least of which the intake as the factory airbox fed from the fender and plastic airtube is a far superior cold air intake to metal pipes and a open cone filter mounted in the engine compartment. I’m sure it sounds faster, but actually being faster, no.
But what a sound. The Buick could be full seconds faster but the accompanying buzzy V6 noise doesn’t exactly encourage it the way a V8 does
To Jim’s point however, both the CV and rendezvous are naturally aspirated and both can be tuned for improved performance via software. Being NA means neither is going to be completely night and day, but there are inherently going to be more reputable tuners who can optimize the ubiquitous 4.6/4R70w powertrain for performance than a Buick crossover. Not to mention aftermarket parts support
It’s an Encore with a turbo 4, not a Rendezvous. I have no particular love for the Encore but even less so for the Rendezvous. I probably wouldn’t defend the Rondy… 🙂
However the fact that the Encore is extremely popular among the generation that used to buy the big Buicks and far exceeded anyone’s expecrations at GM does make one wonder if those formerly purchasing big Buicks have decided they weren’t that great after all. Buick does still offer a large sedan and nobody buys it, especially those they used to buy them by the truckload.
And you are correct, I am not disputing that a 4.6 V8 sounds better than anything in the Buick lineup.
Doh! These things really do blend together in my head lol
Yes, in that case a good tune would theoretically unlock some untapped power, if one were inclined, and willing to likely void the warranty.
Well the OP did say the Encore was “grossly under-powered” while implying that Panthers aren’t, yet in acceleration (which is a real world test of relative power) they aren’t very far apart.
I guess I’m blessed because this Panther chose me. It used to belong to my elderly next door neighbor who passed in January, 2018. Her family, who knew at the time I had no car and was saving for one at that juncture, offered to sell this one to me for virtually nothing. So my Panther is more than a vehicle; it’s a blessing that got me off 2-wheel pedal power and into the quiet, air conditioned bliss that she offers.
You are indeed blessed. But be honest, if instead of the CV they had gifted you a Buick Encore would you have told them to take their car and shove it? Likely not.
“sporting a fanny pack and khaki pants”
Funny, that’s who I envision climbing out of your beige Crown Vic.
Exactly.
Oooh–that stings so good! LOL!
Approval denied, panther fan.
Maybe if you were putting forth the mechanical simplicity, durability, and nostalgic V8 burble of the Crown Vic I’d approve, but instead you are presenting a slow, thirsty, sloppy, ubiquitous and anonymous transportation appliance for the geriatric set as the cool bandit’s alternative to the modern day version of it. Not buying it. These cars were popular among the sheeple (whatever that means) twenty years ago, and in twenty years I wouldn’t be surprised to see a contingent of folks who think that circa-2018 CUVs are far cooler than whatever is popular then.
Future CC Alley…I Don’t Think So…
It is very hard for people living in a certain time period to understand what artifacts of the present time will be considered collectible, nostalgic, and quaint to those who come after us. The people at the Stone Mountain Scenic Railroad would never consider their own cars fascinating to future generations and worthy of costly restoration.
I just see SUVs/CUVs as modern versions of family cars of old, just with different proportions, and more like cars of the late 30s/40s which were much more practical in terms of roominess, ease of entry, etc. The whole ’50s “longer, lower, wider” concept was a Harley Earl styling fad, which made cars look sleeker but harder to get in and out of and carry big things in.
The problem is–We don’t know what’s coming! I think in the future, ANY car (or “vehicle”) with a steering wheel and pedals (not self-driving and connected to a government controlled matrix) and burning gasoline will be archaic and banned from the road. Maybe there will be “driving parks” where people will drive “old” (present day) cars on a closed course with “authentic” gas stations and strip malls along the way. And they will lament about “The Good Old Days!”
So the idea that the “vehicles” in the first picture will never be prized and admired by future collectors is extremely short-sighted (but understandable).
In my view, the current crop of SUV offerings is just not emotionally inspiring or very attractive to have value as future CCs. I just don’t see someone 40 years hence, gong to a car show (if they still exist), and saying, “ooh there’s a 2011 Honda CR-V! And there’s a Dodge Journey! My Uncle had one of those!” in 2059, I think these vehicles will be consigned to a portion of history of some of Autodom’s least interesting vehicles. Sure, there were variations in engines, in headlights, what the wheels looked like, but they were just commodities to be used and then disposed of.
Don’t we get excited over seeing “regular cars” from 30-40 years ago still on the roads now, though? That’s what the CR-V, Journey, et al. will all be in 2059.
Yeah, the collective WE might not personally (although I’m pretty sure I would) but perhaps our children or grandchildren that perhaps learned to drive on a 2011 RAV4 will be excited about seeing one in 2050. I’d be thrilled to see a 1979 Mazda 626 again, even though it was a fairly common vehicle back in its day.
If by excitement you mean one person sees the 40 year old car and goes “wow, I love those, I had one when I was 18” followed by someone else who says, “yuck, I never bought another *insert brand* again after my experience with that deadly sin”.
I think we’d all agree a 40 year old car is exciting to dwell on and discuss but that’s mutually exclusive to actually liking whatever it is as a car. In 2059 future CCers will be using a curbside RAV4 with patina and fungus growing on it to write up the Great Crossover Epoch.
God I hope I’m dead by then, but alas that bleak dystopian pod society seems to be getting fast tracked more each year.
But also, how many 1950s- 1960s 4-door sedans and wagons are really all that collectible now? While the various muscle cars, sports cars and other rare or historically significant outliers from that time are prized collectibles, the common regular family people movers of the time really are either mostly extinct or command any value only based on being parts cars for the prized examples based on them. Crossovers are those in a different shape, with even less variety.
Collectors often embrace the minutia what they collect too, be it the brand specific approaches of mechanical items, colors, styling etc. What separates any given modern car in these respects from each other besides quality? Suspensions, engines, transmissions and frame have all largely become homogeneous, styling is 90% dictated by aerodynamics, 10% lights/grille/badges, and I won’t even mention colors… there very well will be collected cars from today, but the SUVs collected will likely be the Trackhawk and the Tesla Model X. Not RAV4s and Equinoxes
It’s not exactly fair to compare the cubic feet of cargo space in a mid-compact SUV (Honda CR-V, Nissan Rogue, etc.) with a Sienna/Pacifica van. They are waaay huger. A crossover of this ilk has about the cubic feet of cargo space of a 1960 Ford Falcon station wagon. My Forester gets about 10 mpg more than a Pacifica and has a way smaller turning circle and is far shorter and narrower and far handier around town and parking lots. It’s also nice to not worry about driving over a curb or anything.
I would actually prefer a mini-minivan like the Ford C Max stretch or similar available in Europe. Not on offer here. But even the European MPV’s are turning more SUV-like these days.
The more stupid SUV’s are the big three row ones, particularly remaining body on frame ones if you don’t need their towing etc. capabilities but also the rest like a Traverse. A FWD van (Pacifica, Sienna) gets better mpg, has better cargo access, and twenty or thirty more cubic feet inside.
The original Dodge minivan, or the LWB version, or the TransSport I had were all much smaller than the current mini(?) van crop and less like driving a house around, although relatively cumbersome compared to something like the Forester.
I think the comparison is fair, especially when you can get a Grand Caravan for less cash than a much smaller crossover.
The future is difficult to predict.
When I look at a CUV, I mostly see a collection of safety equipment attached to a manfacturing-efficient generic ovoid shape. People draw the little scoops and dips, or perhaps large scoops and dips, onto it.
In the future, these little human-drawn details could mean everything.
Also, we may hear people say things like “Remember when you could go faster than a posted speed limit? These old cars would let you do it! And, look, it has rubber tires and an actual steering wheel.”
If CUVs elicit passion from their owners, then there will surely be some as future CCs.
The reality is that yeah these will be future CCs as there will always be a few people who keep their vehicles for a long time and as such keep them in better condition than many. So some will survive far past the time when the majority have been used up and recycled. And that kid that just learned to walk today will be getting grandma’s low mile, well maintained CUV as their car to take to college and leave street parked in front of an old rental house.
Will those of us that read CC now look at them fondly as a reminder of the “good old days”? Probably not, but there are people who will, once they and this era of vehicles get a little older.
If the world got to the point you described in the latter half of your comment, would not literally ANY car/truck/van/crossover/SUV do? I mean if CUVs are all that were left to find I suppose, but that isn’t an attribute of their segment.
I’m only basing my prediction on historical precedent, 70s PLCs elicited similar passion if sales alone is an accurate measure of that, but people en masse dropped them like a hot potato when the next trend arrived, and to this day aren’t collected beyond the fringes. Already in 2019 there is an absolute glut of the things, and while I agree that *some* might be collectible, do you think any in these pictures will?
What does collectable have to do with it? In fact it is the non collectablilty that is the essence of CCs in my opinion. To me a CC is a car that is still doing what it was meant to do, long past the time that majority of its siblings had been used up and thrown away.
To me this is the essence of CC https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/cohort-capsule-1977-78-plymouth-fury-raw-determination/ zero collectablity from day one, but a great amazing find 40 years later.
If someone holds onto a car for 30+ years it’s a collectors item to that owner. Regular cars like that fury and many cars found on the curb here survive as long because the original owner found they got a “good one” or bought it after retirement and only used it for minor commutes, negating the need for replacement. It’s not collecting in the hagerty sense, but I don’t know what else to call owning a car 40 years, passionate or not.
A college student that inherited that car as a freebie commuter will use it up and throw it away by the time the graduate. A CC is a fleeting aberration.
No just because someone keeps a car for 20, 30 or 40 doesn’t mean that it is a collector’s item to them, or that they are passionate about it. It is most likely just a car that is still doing what they need it to do so no need to replace it.
So if someone held onto their 60s muscle car through the 70s-80s-90s because it still could do what they need it to do so no need to replace it, e.g. look better to them and go faster than most malaise era products during the bulk of the time, is it that much different than keeping a new RAV4 for 30 years because it’s a dependable Toyota and no vehicles in the future interim make a compelling case to trade up?
I did say passionate or not, but keeping a car that long takes some level of attachment and/or justification from the longest term owner one way or another, it’s not a normal thing to do.
This is, without a shred of doubt, somewhere in the GTA. Ajax?
Mississauga
I recall reading in Car and Driver back in the ’90s at the launch of either the original CR-V or four-door RAV4 that the marketing team pushed “crossover vehicle” because they did not, *not*, NOT! want the press to refer to them as “tall wagons”. Makes me wonder if that would indeed have been the kiss of death they feared it would be.
I’m neither a fan of masses of CUVs or generic Toronto suburban architecture.
However they both serve their purpose, and if that’s what everyone wants then great, that leaves more interesting stuff for me.
From the Escape review:
“[T]he Escape has no low-range gearing and can’t be locked into four-wheel drive.”
I’m not saying C&D is a liar, but on the first-gen, pre-facelift Escapes, there was a knob right on the dash that toggled AWD from “Auto” (the AWD engages and disengages when slip is detected) to “On.” From the owner’s manual:
“The 4×4 ON mode provides four-wheel drive with full power to both axles at all times [emphasis mine].”
The Tribute accomplished the same thing with a button rather than a knob. The 2005 facelift removed this full-time capability.
Yup put it in 4wd and it is locked in 4wd on those early models. That didn’t last long as they changed from a slip then grip/on demand to a gas and go system that can’t be locked in 4wd.
I should know; I punched that button many times in my Tribute over the years.
I don’t particularly like the modern CUV, but I have to admit some manufacturers have pretty much nailed the formula at this point and my opinion has shifted from reflexive disdain to grudging appreciation for how well engineered they are to their intended task.
The good ones are very easy to live with and require few compromises. Piece of cake to slide into and out of, lots of passenger space given the footprint, same with cargo, and the fuel economy is improving. The bad ones, though, remain overweight and cramped relative to their footprint and I think that’s just a failure everywhere except marketing.
Very succinct, and I’m on the same brainwave these days. I’ve gotten Edge Titanium 2.0T rentals a number of times as free upgrades from Avis and appreciate just how user-friendly and comfortable they are to use for long drives, driving through an unfamiliar city, through winding mountain roads, they’re just a solid “goldilocks” car. Would I spend my own money on one over a cheaper midsize sedan for me to commute in? Probably not. But I could see my wife really enjoying one and I’d see nothing wrong with buying one for her.