Change is hard. Whether you like minivans, compact coupes or full-size, rear-wheel-drive sedans, or even just a humble compact or mid-size with a domestic nameplate on it, it’s an unavoidable reality that such products are less popular than ever and crossovers have firmly taken hold.
It seems almost a rite of passage now for enthusiasts to bemoan crossovers. And sure, a conventional wagon version of a passenger car might provide all the versatility without the decreasingly noticeable drop in fuel economy and dynamics. But that doesn’t mean all crossovers are ungainly gas hogs, anathema to enthusiasts. Nor does it mean that some crossovers can’t actually transcend what a humble wagon could offer.
Sometimes the lines are blurred as to what’s a crossover and what’s a SUV. Some define a crossover strictly as a tall vehicle using a passenger car platform while others extend the definition to all vehicles resembling SUVs but featuring unibody construction. To reduce confusion, I’ll be following the second definition. Here are 14 crossovers that have made me less of a crossover skeptic and forced me to realize that a world full of crossovers really isn’t so bad.
Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk
Trust Jeep to engineer a crossover that can actually go off-road. While almost every crossover has the option of all-wheel-drive, few have the ability to tackle anything more rugged than a light trail. The Cherokee Trailhawk, however, can tackle one big trail: the Rubicon.
2014-18
Unlike regular Cherokees, the trail-rated Trailhawk uses Jeep’s Active Drive II four-wheel-drive system with a low-range transfer case and a locking rear differential. A Wrangler will still best even this most hardcore of Cherokees but the Trailhawk will leave other compact crossovers in the dust at the trailhead while still comporting itself well back on bitumen. That’s impressive, multi-layered capability for a platform that underpinned the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart.
Lamborghini Urus
The NY Daily News called it an insult to Newtonian physics and they were spot on. This hulking, 5000-pound SUV – underpinned by the same platform as the Bentley Bentayga – can haul five people in comfort on city streets. It can then ford a stream. Then, once the kids are dropped off at school, you can let loose and hear the mighty bellow of its exhaust and that 640-horsepower, twin-turbocharged 4.0 V8 under the hood. It’s remarkable how this performance SUV can wear so many hats – sedate urban cruiser, family vehicle, canyon carver, trail blazer. It’s the Lamborghini of crossovers and yet, somehow, even better than that sounds.
Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango
Once again, Jeep lives up to its reputation and builds a crossover with far more off-road capability than most of its owners will ever need. When the WK2 series was launched in 2011, it dramatically elevated the Grand Cherokee in refinement and cabin presentation while ceding nothing in off-road ability. Though the Grand Cherokee had always used unibody construction, the WK2 also took Jeep’s flagship SUV to new heights of on-road refinement and dynamic ability.
Grand Cherokee Trackhawk
For those Grand Cherokee buyers who do actually go off-road, there’s the off-road focussed Trailhawk which, like the posh Overland and Summit models, uses Jeep’s Quadra-Lift height-adjustable air suspension. There’s also three other four-wheel-drive systems available, though the Grand Cherokee can also be had with regular rear-wheel-drive. And for those who have absolutely no pretenses of going off-road and just want a high-performance crossover, there are the wild SRT and wilder SRT Trackhawk models, the latter of which uses the same 6.2 supercharged Hemi as the Dodge Challenger and Charger SRT Hellcats.
Though Jeep has missed a trick in not offering a three-row version of the Grand Cherokee (at least not yet), FCA did introduce a three-row platform-mate which resurrected the briefly dormant Dodge Durango name. Alas, while there’s an SRT Durango, there’s no Hellcat/Trackhawk counterpart; the Durango’s off-road ability is also shadowed by the slightly smaller Jeep. All Durangos, however, have a spacious cabin with a habitable third-row; the option of a Hemi V8 also makes it stand out in its segment. With the hotly-anticipated new Explorer on the scene, however, FCA will really have to bring it with the next Durango.
Ford Flex
Not all crossovers need to have any pretenses of going off-road. It should come as no surprise that one of the most popular crossovers with enthusiasts is one that doesn’t even resemble a crossover. The Flex looks more like a latter-day LTD Country Squire, long, boxy and upright with a cavernous interior.
That’s where the comparisons to Ford’s old station wagons end. The Flex offers all-wheel-drive and Ford’s powerful 3.5 twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V6. There’s also many of the safety features and luxury niceties expected in this class and then some: adaptive cruise control, an automated parallel parking system and four (!) sunroofs. Other crossovers have come along with greater refinement and superior cabin presentation but the Flex remains a steady seller, particularly in California. Alas, it’ll soon be discontinued, Ford focusing on the much more successful Explorer.
Infiniti FX/QX70
The mere fact the Infiniti QX70 (nèe FX) used the same platform as a genuine sports car (the 350Z/370Z) is enough cause to celebrate its existence. That it offered – in both generations – standout styling and feisty performance makes the QX70 not just an exciting crossover but an exciting car, period.
first-generation FX
In both generations, Infiniti’s first crossover offered a choice of an award-winning V6 engine and a powerful V8; the second generation was also available with a diesel V6 in some markets. Unlike Infiniti’s staid, Pathfinder-derived JX/QX60, the QX70 wasn’t exceptionally practical – its swoopy roofline ate into headroom and its cargo capacity was mediocre. But Infiniti’s sports crossover was fun-to-drive and full of character. It’s all the more sad that it’s been discontinued and a conceptually similar replacement has yet to be announced.
Mazda CX-9
Maybe, just maybe, you want a mainstream three-row crossover that’s fun-to-drive. If that’s the case, the CX-9 is a superb option. It has a surprisingly upscale interior for its class, with top-line models featuring Nappa leather and real wood trim. Its build quality is exemplary and Mazda has a solid reliability record, while its turbocharged four-cylinder engine is flexible and grunty. Did I mention it’s actually enjoyable to drive, too?
Ok, so that third row isn’t the largest in its class. If you absolutely need to carry teenagers or adults in that last row, there are more spacious rivals like the Nissan Pathfinder. You won’t, however, find anything quite so enjoyable to drive in this class and there are precious few that are as nice to sit in.
Ford Territory
The first-generation CX-9 was much more enjoyable to drive than a Toyota Highlander but it met its match in Australia. Here, the locally-engineered Ford Territory revelled in critical acclaim. It wasn’t just a spacious interior and a competitive price that earned the Territory accolades like Wheels Car of the Year. Its well-balanced rear/all-wheel-drive platform invited myriad comparisons from automotive journalists to much more expensive German crossovers.
The Territory was actually sold concurrently with the wagon version of the Ford Falcon on which it was based. Even the most hardcore wagon fan (or crossover hater), however, had to concede the Territory was a vastly better car. The fleet queen Falcon wagon looked like a pallet of bricks, had an antediluvian leaf-spring rear suspension, and seemed to come from the factory with a taxi light on top.
With a smooth inline six and, later, a diesel V6 borrowed from Land Rover, the Territory had plenty of power to match its surprisingly able dynamics. Even as Falcon sales languished and despite fairly infrequent revisions, the Territory was generally the best-selling car in its segment. Sadly, Territory production ended when Ford closed its Australian factory.
Porsche Cayenne
As the Cayenne enters its third generation and the world embraces SUVs from Lamborghini, Maserati, Bentley and Rolls-Royce, it’s rather amusing to remember how much controversy Porsche generated when they launched the first Cayenne. Although it shared its platform with the Audi Q7 and Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche imbued the Cayenne with its sporty essence. This was no rebadged Volkswagen: the Cayenne was available with a twin-turbo V8 engine and a six-speed manual transmission. The flagship Cayenne Turbo was even pelted around the Nürburgring in the same time as a Boxster S.
first generation
Even the humble diesel and hybrid Cayennes boasted class-leading dynamics, while the Cayenne could also handily dispatch rugged terrain. Subsequent generations have built on the first-generation’s abilities, offering more powerful engines and improved cabins. The Cayenne isn’t just a good crossover, it’s a good Porsche.
BMW X5
The first-generation X5 was the original sports crossover, or as BMW called it, “sport activity vehicle”. It followed the inaugural Mercedes-Benz ML but eschewed its rival’s perimeter-frame for unibody construction. That allowed for dynamics befitting a BMW and, though it weighed over 4800 pounds, the X5 could be hustled through canyons with abandon.
Plans for a polarizing, Chris Bangle-penned second generation were scrapped and the 2006 X5 was instead a handsome evolution of the first X5’s design. Subsequent generations have been even more subtle evolutions, avoiding controversy. That means the third and new fourth generations of X5 are suitably conservative and upscale, inside and out, but remain enjoyable to drive as any BMW should. In some markets, you can still buy a 5-Series wagon. For Americans and Canadians where that option doesn’t exist, however, the X5 is no wooden spoon.
Mazda CX-5
If you needed any more proof that Mazda has crossovers down pat and that crossovers can be satisfying to drive, there’s the second-generation CX-5. It offers a remarkable blend of driving enjoyment, fuel economy, quality, reliability and versatility. The first CX-5 was already an impressive, class-leading crossover and the second generation has built on that, featuring one of Mazda’s classy, high-quality new interiors and introducing an optional turbocharged engine and a new flagship trim.
Mind you, those of us outside of North America have the option of a Mazda6 wagon. It has slightly better fuel economy and handling, slinkier styling and the same high level of interior design and quality. You can also option it with the CX-5’s optional turbo four though it can’t be had with all-wheel-drive.
Tesla Model X
You can scoff at its fanciful gull-wing doors or sneer at its bloated-Model S styling but you can’t deny the Model X is one impressive piece of engineering. It has all the strengths of the Model S but with the bonus of a relatively comfortable third row of seating. Like the Model S, it has a modern, elegant interior with a vast and intuitive touchscreen infotainment system. Like the Model S, too, it offers more than enough range for most owners’ needs – between 270 and 290. It also offers more than enough power – the Performance trim, in Ludicrous mode, can hit 60mph in under 3 seconds. That’s Lamborghini Aventador territory except an Aventador can’t seat six other people.
It’s the first three-row battery-electric crossover on the market. American Curbivores, you must surely be proud too that it’s designed and made right in the USA.
Jaguar I-Pace
Jaguar beat all its luxury rivals to the market (bar Tesla) with an electric crossover. The I-Pace (not to be confused with the ICE-powered E-Pace – how confusing!) was developed in just four years, a rapid turnaround for a company that had never before made an electric vehicle.
Launched 50 years after the first Jaguar XJ, the I-Pace heralds a new era at Jaguar. Designer Ian Callum used the position of the battery as the basis for an unconventional yet athletic body. It needn’t have been a crossover – and as the upcoming Porsche Taycan shows, an electric platform can make for a low and sleek silhouette – but Jaguar shrewdly developed the I-Pace as one. The Model X may narrowly best it in battery range (234 vs 238 miles) and pip it in power while also offering a third row of seats but the I-Pace has the edge in dynamic ability and, arguably, aesthetics.
Subaru Outback
If you have to be dragged into a crossover kicking and screaming and if you pine for the days where station wagons were found in every suburban driveway, you may find the Subaru Outback more palatable than most. First introduced in 1995 as a more rugged-looking version of the Legacy wagon, it’s now out-lived its progenitor yet its purpose in life hasn’t changed even as it enters its sixth generation.
Now exclusively powered by four-cylinder engines (a turbo four replaces the old six) and available only with a CVT, the Outback is a well-rounded family wagon. Just don’t call it a wagon or you’ll scare some buyers off!
The Range Rover Velar, perhaps the most attractive crossover ever.
Have I changed your mind on crossovers? Or were you already a fan, or at least somebody who begrudgingly accepted them? Are there other crossovers you like? Let us know your thoughts.
Yes, the line between “SUV” and “Crossover” has blurred considerably. The Jeep line is a great example. These (and the Durango) have always struck me more as “unibody SUV” than as crossover. But potayto-potahto.
I am less put off by crossovers than many. I have always liked wagons and wagon-ish vehicles, and I am reaching the age where easy ingress and egress is becoming a higher priority. The ones being put out by Mazda are particularly appealing if we are staying away from the truckishness of the brawnier Jeeps.
Finally, the Flex. It is really pretty amazing that it has remained all these years. It came out, when, 2007 or so? Other than some trim and powertrain changes, it has remained largely unchanged. I liked it when it came out and still do. I understand that it has always been a slow but steady seller, and used ones are expensive last I checked. These seem kind of like a bigger Honda Element – there is nothing else quite like it and those who like them really, really love them.
Jim actually I think the Flex is very reasonably priced on the used market these days, I didn’t even think to check them out during my van shopping, but 2 year old (ex fleet more often than not) SELs with sub-30k miles regularly sell for $18-19k. Not unreasonable at all. I had one as a rental about a month ago and came away satisfied if not totally impressed. Perfectly nice family hauler, but no real “wins” over a traditional minivan IMO aside from slightly lower center of gravity.
Here on the west coast used Flex bring top dollar. To get one for under $20k that has a clean title and it good condition you are looking at a 15 or maybe 14 with 50-60K or more on the clock.
Hmm must be a regional supply issue?
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/772179173/overview/
I think it is more of a regional demand issue rather than supply. Yes the Flex is very strong in CA and I heard it accounted for half or more of its volume at one point. CA is given as the reason to solder it on as long as they have despite the low volume. Those CA buyers also like them loaded and pay top dollar.
The other thing may be the model mix available. Very few SEs on cars.com around here and they are all much older. It is mainly SELs but there are a lot of Limiteds too. The other factor that applies vs your example is that the FWD versions aren’t that common up here in WA.
FWIU the Flex is much more popular in California than the rest of the country and that’s the secret to why it’s been around so long.
Fascinating. Surfers loving the long but low roof?
Our next-door neighbors have a Flex for their family of five. Their second car is a first-gen xB like Paul’s, which has more than a passing resemblance to the Flex. Maximum space utilization and a sharp look.
My wife drives a 2010 AWD Flex SEL – as does my mother – and we all love the cars. Definitely a regional speciality, the dealer tells me some parts of Canada sell zero every year. At 6’4″ (as is my Dad) I have to move the seat forward to reach the pedals, and can stretch my legs in the second row.
Amazing in the snow, comfortable for long drives and low enough my wife can put her 12′ paddle board on the roof easily. With three kids and until recently a dog, there was nothing better for us.
I’ll do a write up on it at some point. Probably my favorite car, from a guy who’s only owned trucks for myself.
A former student’s mother drives a Flex and it was all her choice as she felt they needed a minivan for their family of 5 for the ability to bring more than just the family. However she didn’t want a minivan or a SUV. She and her daughter call it what it is a Wagon, but then again the student referred to the CR-V she drove as “her Wagon”.
The Ford Flex is the only one that really stands out of this lot. I’m not familiar with these, but they seem interesting. Looks like a kei car, but with full-size proportions. Uncluttered styling, maximum visibility, lots of space.
Most of the others are still somewhat offensive to me, sorry to say. I saw Rolls launched their own crossover / SUV recently. Another sign of the coming Carpocalypse…
IMO Visibility is not quite as great as you might think, the pillars are VERY thick (safe car).
I would love an SRT Durango but they are pricey.
I like the Flex too, they are huge and I have a friend that has one with over 200K on it. I just wish it was RWD.
We just bought a Buick Regal TourX (Opel Insignia Country Tourer, also sold as the Holden ZB Commodore Calais Tourer), which, while Buick is marketing as an AWD crossover, is really more of an old-school station wagon. A slightly higher ride height is achieved through taller tires. It’s well composed unless you really start throwing it around, and it rides like a Buick – super quiet. It returned 34mpg on its first road trip last week.
Sales have been pitifully slow, and we found a new leftover 2018 (36 miles on odo) at a very steep discount.
I had to take my truck in for yet another recall repair recently, and got a new Grand Cherokee as a courtesy car. Didn’t care for it…
Wow, nice! It’s a proper long and sleek wagon with just a few dressy bits to get a few of the Outback intenders to hop over the fence (or the barbed wire in the country as it were). Looking forward to hearing more!
They’re very good lookers, for my pennysworth.
Mate, you’ve absolutely got to rebadge this as a Holden Commodore too. Even if it is as Aussie as lederhosenSchweinstrudel, and about as popular in these here parts.
Oh, I say Opel badging all the way!
I saw a TourX in a parking lot a week or so ago and found it really attractive. It was, of course, parked outside of a medical building. 🙂 Actually, I liked the look of it quite a lot.
Did the new Buick replace your Routan? If so, I would love to read a long-term wrapup article on it.
Congrats on the Regal! They’re very cool and I could see myself in one of them at some point in the future.
The TourX is currently discounted anywhere from 20-30% off MSRP. There will be a 2020 MY TourX, but it’s up in the air whether it will continue after that, given the sale of Opel to PSA and slow sales in the US market.
Yes, the X is the successor to the Routan. We hadn’t planned on replacing it for another 2-3 years, but the steep discounts were too much to pass over.
Rebadging research is underway! Holden lions are pretty easy as the grille badge is the same size. The Opel badge is a different shape, requiring a complete grille replacement.
And yes, this now makes two orphaned captive imports in our driveway! At least both have drivetrains that are very common (and have good reputations) in the USA market.
GM seems to be doing the same thing that they did with the SS. Practically ZERO advertising or marketing. The SS was a no-show at the Denver Auto Show I attended back when it was available and was hidden on top of a display on an invite only platform in Los Angeles at the same time. And this year in Denver Buick had a huge display with multiple Regal sedans and everything else they sell but not a single TourX in what has to be one of the prime theoretical markets for it. No wonder they can’t sell them if nobody is aware of them. I get that they likely have more profitable offerings in their respective stables since these are more or less outside purchases for GMNA but raising awareness and getting some demand going would surely beat discounts of 30%.
The SS had no (literally “zero”) advertising pretty much on purpose, as we only got it here to fulfill a GM contractual agreement in Australia.
It’s a different situation with the TourX, but other than seeing one at the Chicago Car Show when they were first introduced, I’ve not seen any advertising for them, either (but then, we don’t watch any network or cable TV, and I take no magazines, etc.). I’ve only seen one TourX in the wild before running across an article about how slow they’ve been selling. Pulled that thread, and now we own one!
A couple of weeks ago I was in Detroit and stayed at the Hotel in RenCenter, of course GM had a number of vehicles on display, one of which was a Tour X. It is a nice looking wagon and the only vehicle I took more than a passing glance at. Can’t say that I’d buy one at this point in life, but still nice that GM took the crazy risk of bringing to the US.
Congrats! I’ve actually been seeing quite a few Regal TourXs around lately I feel, maybe it’s just that they tend to catch my eye more than anything else from Buick right now.
I think it’s a solid entry as far as CUV/wagons go, and I’d be curious to check one out in person. My only main dislike about the design is how the chrome upper window surround crosses through the D-pillar. It’s undoubtedly what makes the car distinctive, but it gives it a weird, unfinished look.
So Peugeot has found a method of re-entering the US market and nobody even noticed
God I love your taste in cars, Ed. Great purchase!
Interestingly, your Regal TourX is 2.0 turbo only while our Calais Tourer, as it’s called here, is V6 only. I’m still trying to make sense of the ZB Commodore line-up; I believe we have one non-Tourer Commodore wagon as well. I can’t say I’ve seen too many of either, alas.
Great pic by the way.
CUV’s are fine and harmless and at this point there is literally something for everyone, even those who haven’t tried them yet. I used to think girls were icky too, but got over that by the fifth grade.
We have the Highlander, one of the more “boring” entries I suppose. Still, it does what it’s supposed to and just keeps on doing it. It’s quiet, the ride is excellent, it’s high enough up that it doesn’t scrape on the occasional crappy dirt road it’s subjected to and it goes over the pile of snow at the end of the driveway when it needs to. 99% of the time a Cayenne Turbo wouldn’t do much more than add a lot of poser value and a Grand Cherokee would just depreciate faster. On the want vs need chart it scores well, as have most of the other CUV’s (RAV, Outback etc) we’ve had over the years.
I do especially like the i-Pace though, of all the “new” designs Jaguar has penned over the last decade or so, it’s the one that properly catches the eye in a “what is THAT” kind of way for me. No, nothing traditional Jag about it but as it ushers in a new paradigm as an EV, it’s appropriate to be completely different as long as it’s still usable.
But I still maintain that the Urus looks a lot like a new RAV4. 🙂
I’m usually pretty ensconsed in ancient fartdom and meetings of the Luddite Society (no-one ever turns up to meetings, btw,I s’pose putting the ads on the net is not really ever going to work, but I’m digressing), but I have to ask a question: what exactly IS the big objection amongst cognoscenti to CUV’s/crossovers?
I’m not referring to styling – I have every old effluviate’s objection to the severe aggro uglification of mod’ren alleged “styling” – but the vehicles themselves. I know full well that I’d buy one if I was in the market. For most of driving, it so much nicer to sit up rather than down. It’s so much nicer to load. More ground clearance removes another concern.They drive as well as any sedan in real-world action. Some, like the iPace, the Macan, the Mazdas are very decent-looking machines, and most are at least styled of their time and aesthetically adequate in that way.
So what is it that causes the endless conniptions?
For some it’s that their Nurburgring lap time is down on their sedan equivalent although strangely the McDonald’s drive through lap time is exactly the same for a Honda CRV as compared to a BMW M5 (Honda’s F1 experiences paying off big!).
For others it’s that they are hard to see over or around when they are stuck in a traffic jam in their sports car while giving their Brembo brakes a proper working out stop and go-ing between 0 and 5mph.
And lastly, people don’t like others making supposedly foolish financial choices with those others’ own money when a lower vehicle can perhaps be had for less (of their presumably hard-earned) money. Altruism, the word of the week.
Jim, you’re on fire today. I agree 100% with what you’re saying.
I think that mainly (at least in my case) it’s due to the realization slowly taking hold that the “crossover” shape is the new “car” shape. In the very near future all mainstream passenger automobiles will be in this configuration. Is it bad? No, not really, it all makes sense – it’s just hard for those of us that have aged alongside large RWD sedans and hardtops, to let go –
Like the SUV, Minivan and Station Wagon before it, I think the tide will turn again as so many women out there aren’t going to want to drive a “mommy mobile” like their mother drove when they were young.
A month or two ago I overheard a couple of HS aged girl’s conversation. I didn’t catch all of it but the jist was that one of them was about to get her license and her first vehicle. Didn’t catch what it was but the second girl said “oh so like a crossover” and when the first girl confirmed that she followed it up with “boring” to which the soon to be newly minted driver said “yeah”. So chances are neither of those will be looking at crossovers when it comes time to get a vehicle to schlep thier offspring around.
My wife was very much in the camp of I don’t want a station wagon, that is a mommy mobile. She begrudgingly accepted a minivan when that time came, but it only took a couple of years and a week driving a rented Explorer for her to say she wanted a SUV for the family truckster. However she maintained her sedan love for her commuter car. It wasn’t until she was forced to drive an Escape (that I found a great deal on when her Fusion was totaled) for a year before she decided that she wasn’t going back to a sedan.
My soon to be college graduate daughter is all about the sedan, she loves her Crown Victoria and actually refused said Escape as a replacement. She would have accepted that as a supplement, but when we told her that we would only pay insurance for 3 vehicles for the 2 kids she said no thanks. Her friends also think her vehicle is way cooler than their hatchbacks and CUVs, though part of that is because it is a former police car that still has its spot lights.
Not if they crowd everything else out of the market first. Say what you will about GM’s ’90s/early ’00s policy of a quota of “innovative” products that led to the Aztek, it’s not good that the industry seems to be racing in the other direction and eliminating non-default choices that are selling in sustainable but not stellar numbers.
I blame it on unrealistic profit expectations from a Wall Street spoiled by “disruptive” “unicorn” tech startups.
“My soon to be college graduate daughter is all about the sedan, she loves her Crown Victoria”
My daughter is fine with her 98 Civic but really, really misses the cranberry Crown Victoria she drove all through high school. She was anguished when I finally sold it.
Well my daughter came home in the back seat of a Cranberry CV so yeah she was kind of born into it. She did like driving the Fusion we had and does like driving the C-Max. In fact she’ll come home, park her car and take the C-Max if she is going any distance since she likes using 1/2 the fuel. She also refused the last C-Max which we offered to her before giving it to my Mother In Law.
Luckily I was able to pick her’s up when it only had 60k on it and she’s only up to 110k now, so it should last her for several more years and miles.
Being 188 cm tall, I have no problem with accepting crossovers. In fact, I quite like a few of these cars.
I have no beef with crossovers, and would certainly consider owning one for my next car. I see 2 reasons for their popularity…
a] As we learned from the Scion xB and Kia Soul, as folks get older they want the ease of ingress/egress and higher hip point that crossovers provide. I get it; I’m getting older, too.
b] to riff on Jim Klein’s point above… as pickup truck become taller and also more popular as personal transportation, the view from a sedan (to say nothing of a sports car!) becomes increasingly claustrophobic. Crossovers alleviate this (to some extent).
I completely understand both points, and agree.
There are two different styles of SUVs: Pretentious and aggressive. Because people perceive a personal need to manifest one of those appearances, they spend thousands of dollars more than what prudence would otherwise mandate. Their stated rationale is that they need the extra space (which is rarely, if ever used), easier ingress/egress (for the elderly,ever try stretch exercises?), greater visibility or “4 wheel drive.” Some will also claim that the greater height makes driving easier.
It would be interesting to compile actual road test figures for gas mileage. Somehow the advocates believe that a vehicle that is more than one foot higher, hundreds of pounds heavier and with the mandatory blunt nose gets only “slightly” less gas mileage. My own limited research suggests about 30% less than a car with similar length and width.
I recently returned from a two week trip to England and Scotland. Yes, they have them over there too, but fortunately they have not become the great eyesore that they have become here.
If you actually have to do special exercises to get into your car, you bought the wrong car.
I don’t have to do special exercises to get into my car, but I do find that stretching enhances my ability to do all physical tasks, something that most Americans would benefit from and not just for getting in an out of cars. Based upon what I can do, I must be following the right course.
If you actually have to do special exercises to get into your car, you bought the wrong car.
Moving around once in a while? Yeesh. This movie really is accurate…
The same or similar types of arguments can be made about ANY car if one picks the right situation. Even a Corolla or a Prius drives around with three or four empty seats much of the time. I almost have to presume you drive a Corbin Sparrow to avoid anyone taking umbrage at your own “excessive” lifestyle. What do you consider to be the one car that every person should be driving all of the time to the exclusion of all others?
Some people just find CUV’s convenient for those times when they need to load lots of luggage, large items from the store, their family of five or six, or their dog. Or they simply like it for themselves. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and has nothing to do with pretense or aggression, nobody will ever level those two descriptors at a Honda CRV for example…
As an example of money better spent, see today’s “Car and Driver” wherein they sum up their 40,000 mile experience with a Honda Accord and ask yourself, could anyone reasonably need more? Although equipped to “near luxury” levels and with an optional engine that they intimate might be too powerful, it costs many thousands of dollars less than a comparably equipped Honda Pilot Fish. It also obtained about 50% better gas mileage than the latter with a 30 mpg average.
Comparing an accord with a Pilot is pretty silly. The Pilot sits on the same truck platform as the Honda Ridgeline and Odyssey, meaning a FWD truck platform. And the Pilot has three rows of seats, unless my memory is failing worse than I thought.
The CRV would be a better comparison.
On an actual needs basis, people very rarely need three seats and the “truck platform” is necessary to carry the extra weight. If one compares the passenger room for the two forward seats, the Accord has very nearly the same as the Pilot. The point is, all that bulk is superfluous on a daily basis except to meet emotional needs. Again, read the article in Car and Driver.
“The point is, all that bulk is superfluous on a daily basis except to meet emotional needs”
Ummmmmm – do you have a family? I am getting ready to help my daughter move a sofa in about a half hour. She will be moving other stuff in about a month. Another kid moved a month ago and dad + minivan were there for the job. When the kids were younger friends and the occasional grandparent came with us.
A single person who lives in a city apartment or a childless couple can make do with a sedan. Trust me, my 3 row Sedona meets more needs in my life than just emotional.
The truck platform is necessary to carry the additional bulk. While the Pilot has incrementally more shoulder room than the Accord, its comes as a result of additional width. The wheelbases are the same and the overall length is similar I cannot remember the last time I saw a three row vehicle of any configuration with the third seat occupied. Nevertheless. for some people, the possibility that it might some day be necessary is worth all the extra money.
On an actual needs basis and not to fulfill an emotional need, the Accord for much less money is vastly superior to the Pilot as well as the somewhat less expensive CRV and that extends to the products of other manufacturers as well. Again, read the Car and Driver article.
Yeah at this point we rarely put the 3rd row up in our Mountaineer, however when the kids were younger and still lived at home it was up fairly frequently between car pools, field trips, grand parents. Once they got older and started driving they occasionally would take it for that 3rd row and the fact that it could carry 6 or 7 people. So while it is rare that the 3rd row gets used now, in the first 10 years of its life it did get used fairly frequently.
Car and Driver, FWIW, has always had a significant anti-truck bias. That is quite obvious when reading them since the 80’s.
I recently drove several new Accords. I don’t have a Pilot but have been in those too recently. While a few measurements may be similar, there is no comparison regarding the feeling of spaciousness in the front of a Pilot vs Accord. The Pilot has significantly more room around the occupants even though the legroom and hip room measurement points may be similar, mainly due to the roof height above the seats and the windshield distance and angle. As a simile, most toilets are a similar height off the floor and the reach to the paper dispenser is about the same but the size of the bathroom around you can vary significantly even in the same house…
Plenty of people need three rows. I’m guessing you don’t have a family with at least 2-3 kids and several friends or in-laws that visit often. I’m also guessing you’ve never hefted a kid in a baby seat into a car repeatedly or crouched into one to buckle said children in, especially the one in the middle. That being said, the Pilot isn’t anywhere near the top-selling CUV. As Paul alluded, the CRV as well as the RAV4 (both are 2-row, 5 seat vehicles), both are frequently cross shopped against your Accord and other similar sedans and in fact the RAV4 is outselling the Camry and the Accord, actually EVERY mid-size sedan even though you likely consider it smaller.
Most of these CUV’s are available with AWD. The Accord is not. You perhaps live in a sunny climate, many don’t. And if you want to trot out the “put snow tires on it” canard, well, nothing is stopping anyone from adding snow tires to an AWD vehicle either and guess what, that works even better than a 2WD car with snow tires!
I don’t know, when you go to the store, do you fill your Accord with four other people every time? Most of the time? Much of the time? Probably rarely.
The country is filled with lots of people trying to impose their will on others. What does it matter or how does it really affect you in any significant way if someone wants to drive more vehicle than they may personally need?
Lastly, the one place and time where I and many others would MUCH rather be in or have my family in a Pilot than an Accord is when one crashes into the other, no matter who’s at fault. While both have extremely good safety scores, those scores are calculated against others in the SAME class, not as an absolute value.
“Imposing their will on others” or making others pay the consequences for the selfish choices that are made? This may be as minor as trying to back out of a parking place while one’s vision is obstructed by the oversize vehicle parked next to it, or being killed because of the negligence of the driver of the same vehicle hitting one’s own smaller car.
Obviously, in our society, the at-fault driver will never feel guilt because their selfish choice resulted in the death of another person.
And now at least a few of us know that our free choices have collateral consequences not only in our immediate world but throughout the planet. Are you aware of what is happening with the world’s climate and the cost that is imposing in human suffering and financial loss? Are one’s perceived but really marginal needs really worth all of the collateral consequences?
Oh, come on. You have no idea what I actually believe and you would likely be surprised if you did know. But to play along, your perfect C&D Accord is likely obstructing the view of the person parked next to you in a first generation Honda Insight that gets twice the gas mileage as you. Your Accord can just as easily kill or maim the guy on the bicycle with the bike trailer going to the supermarket to buy food without generating any emissions. Or even the same guy in the Insight. All of sudden who’s the wasteful glutton driving way more vehicle than they need to (at that time)?
I’m well aware of climate issues and potential solutions that lots of people embrace such as Mass Transit options, Carpooling, Alternative fuels (and have published long posts about all of them here on this site, perhaps you read them, if not you should, they were good), but there is ALWAYS a step that can be taken beyond what one actually does, no matter how altruistic they think they are being. You ever run A/C in your home? Buy clothing or weave your own? Buy any groceries that are industrially farmed? Maybe the Pilot driver has a husband, 3 kids and a mother in law at home and just traded in their Suburban for it after feeling guilty. Maybe the Minivan driver that looks like he is driving solo is actually a disabled veteran and will wheel themselves out the sliding door. They could just as easily take the bus, right? Or better yet, just wheel down the sidewalk, why drive a wasteful 6-cylinder 8-passenger minivan…
But seriously, I consider that to suggest a blanket statement such as there is zero need for anyone to ever need to drive anything beyond an Accord is just as narrow minded as those people driving a vastly wasteful vehicle without ever having an actual need for it. You were just in Europe, how many Accord size vehicles did you see? Far fewer than here is the answer, somehow they manage to make do with cars that are far smaller in general. Your equivalent in France would probably scoff at you for driving such a wasteful vehicle as an Accord, nobody really needs anything bigger than a VW Polo.
Don’t even bother with Zipster, he’s the same whiny holier-than-thou Prius driver over at TTAC. Drive what you want and what fits your families needs, leave Zipster to his lonesome self in his Prius saving the world.
I’m not a crossover fan, mostly because they often seem occupied by solo drivers or couples who don’t seem to need the form-factor and would probably be happy ina modern Pinto. Plus, though early CUV’s like the RAV4 offered some level of rugged AWD capability, which only the Outback and Jeeps still provide today, most are used as suburban runabouts. On the other hand, I would think their positioning as upright people movers should appeal to older car enthusiasts, as that form-factor was highly regarded by the automotive press back in the day. Think of a Ford Escape as the new Cortina wagon 😀
Good Lord no. There is nothing in common between an SUV and my old car (a FoMoCo product from the same age as the Cortina). The nearest you had to them were industrial-grade things like Suburbans, Carryalls and Travelalls, but I’m not into these.
And I would not ever consider replacing my Mazda 3 for the CX3. Worse handling, braking, performance and fuel consumption for the ability to sit upright? Nope, and I DO have a bad back.
I recently decided to just call CUVs what they are: cars.
Really, we should’ve been calling them “tall wagons” all along and at this point we could just drop the “tall” part and refer to the remaining sedan-height models as “low wagons”.
About the only one of these I would consider is the Lamborghini.
Ha ha ha, oh I do crack myself up sometimes 🙂
The last two times we bought minivans we considered a Flex, since my father in law does work at a Ford dealership. However we found them very pricey and not worth the premium over a regular ol Caravan.
Although these days I do find myself wondering about how robust & pleasant the transmissions are in the Flex?
I’ve had the same experience with the Flex. I like them, but when push came to shove (twice for us, since the Flex was introduced), we bought minivans instead because they offered more flexibility (sorry…) for less money.
But I still like the Flex and can see myself buying one someday.
I’m of the same mentality Doug. I sort of forgot the existed until I rented one, then looked up used prices and saw it would have been very comparable to our Town & Country. But for the same price, same fuel economy, very similar powered motors, unless you’re buying an AWD one, I see the Flex as a minivan with less utility.
We also considered a Flex during one of our replacement cycles, and still ended up with another Chrysler-platform minivan, much for the same reasons.
Even though the Durango has been around since 2011, I just love it’s design. It’s timeless and well proportioned. I like that FCA has been giving it and the JGC continual upgrades without having to redesign it every time. They are like an iPhone, same good design while the hardware is continuously tweaked.
Agreed. It’s a very good-looking truck. The same goes for the Grand Cherokee.
I’m a little bitter Dodge never did a RHD Durango. The Grand Cherokee has been a huge hit here in Australia (although sales have tapered off due to a spate of recalls) and I think the Durango would’ve done well here, too (albeit not as much as if it had the seven-slot grille).
I understand the appeal of the Crossover, but a I grew up in the “Longer, Lower, Wider” 60’s.
Every time I see a big crossover, I think “Suddenly it’s 1949! (again)”
Actually the 1949 Buick was only 63 inches tall. The new Toyota RAV4 is 65.4 inches tall, about the same as the 1940 Buick’s 66 inches. Cars are as tall now as they were 80 years ago.
Always thought crossovers represented a return to prewar packaging.
That was the standard packaging until the ‘longer, lower, wider’ mania took hold in the late 50s.
1940 Chevy
Length: 192.2
Width: 72.8
Height: 66.9
1955 Bel Air
Length: 195.6 in
Width: 73.0 in
Height: 59.0 in
1965 Bel Air
Length: 213.1 in
Width: 79.6 in
Height: 55.4 in
1976 Biscayne
Length: 222.9 in
Width: 79.5 in
Height: 54.4 in
1978 Impala
Length: 212.1 in
Width: 76 in
Height: 56 in
2019 Traverse
Length: 204.3 in
Width: 78.6 in
Height: 70.7 in
Crossovers are indeed the future of the automotive industry and the future certainly is now.
Great piece highlighting some noteworthy crossovers that either buck the trend of family hauler, or just happen to be very great family haulers.
I honestly like the idea of having a crossover and a non-crossover in my driveway, but we’ll see.
It was tempting to just look at various sports/luxury crossovers but there’s plenty of talent in the mainstream segments, too.
I should mention, I’m also a sucker for anything with a habitable third-row. One of my favourite activities when I go to an auto show (which is rare nowadays, alas) is to clamber into the back row of any three-row. The Durango seems pretty comfy, for example. A Chevy Traverse is probably huge.
This is a fitting post, because my upcoming COAL is one of the crossovers mentioned, and now I don’t have to apologize for it.
Minor quibble: I don’t think the Cherokee Trailhawk actually has a two-speed transfer case with a low-range gear. Instead, it uses a power transfer unit and a low-range gear in the transmission. It’s probably just first gear (normally the vehicle starts in second), but it may be a lower first gear than in other models. However, it does mechanically lock the rear axle. There’s also a neutral mode, so you can flat-tow a Cherokee Trailhawk behind an RV or whatever. This is the same system in the Renegade Trailhawk, by the way. However, the Grand Cherokee and of course Wrangler do offer two-speed transfer cases.
Kyree I was under the impression that Kl Cherokee got a true low-range gearset in the trans (by way of PTU?), and that the Renegade was the one where “Low” is just 1st gear.
You might be right.
I think your attempt to convince me otherwise actually entrenched my dislike for crossovers even more. Same thing happened when my parents tried everything to get me to like broccoli, and lest you think I eventually came around, nope, well into adulthood I still wince at the very sight of the vile weed. Crossovers are supplanting that, I’ll never be convinced they are good for me no matter what trickery is used to get me to turn me around on them…
If you told me the Lamborghini was a Kia I’d believe you.
You know what’s better in every way than a trackhawk? A Charger or Challenger.
The Model S is an impressive piece of engineering, the Model X is a sketchy eyesore of an addition plopped atop it.
The Infiniti FX looks exactly the same as it did 15 years ago when Jeremy Clarkson accurately described its styling as Jabba the Hutt.
The new X5 looks like it has buck teeth.
The Flex is still being made?
The only benefit I can personally find to a crossover over a proper car is being able to see over all the damn crossovers. I’m not succumbing to peer pressure!
The Urus appeared as a concept car in 2012, a full six years before the production model, which was plenty of time for its’ design cues to percolate through the entire industry.
True, my kids have had the Hot Wheels Urus for at least four years now…
I believe you missed the point. Although there are exceptions, most people who have SUVs and pickups have them to fulfill emotional needs and not actual needs. If they really needed the additional space, they would buy mini vans which offer considerable advantages over SUVs and pickups. The problem with mini vans is that they are lacking in the cool factor. You mention Europe? How do they get by with such small vehicles? Do they not have families? Do they ever move things? They must exist in deplorable conditions. But gas prices aside, maybe they are just more aware of what is going on.
I believe you’ve replied to the wrong comment.
I’m in the EU and we have crossovers aplenty but they I suppose are one side down from the US equivalents (Mazda hardly sold any CX9s here, the bulk are CX3s and 5s and so on).
That’s a good point, though it still doesn’t look very exotic. The LM002 from the 80s at least had that special street military vehicle look to it like the Mercedes G-wagon and original Humvee had.
I don’t know why these exotic cars blow their wads so early with the teasers, the NSX was another one everyone was familiar with 5 years before it made production. The Miura was concept to production practically overnight, and it was a far more radical and groundbreaking design than the Urus ever could dream of.
GOLD
Funny you mention broccoli, that is the vegetable I use as an example when explaining things to students and parents. “It’s just like broccoli, you won’t know if you like it or not unless you try it”
Yes the Flex is still being made, and is supposed to be made for 2020 too. The reason is it is quite popular in CA where the people are willing to pay top dollar for high trim units. Ford has also said they see it as a vehicle that has done well luring conquest buyers in that state.
Cheese sauce makes cooked broccoli better, while ranch dressing makes the raw version at least edible. By itself, I have grown to dislike it.
I take issue with the Lamborghini Urus. A Lamborghini SUV should cost 300K and have a V10 at the very least. 4.0L V8 are for Chinese market BMW’s, and have no business being in an exotic.
I like the RWD Infiniti FX, the brawny FCA stuff, Jaguar F-pace is in my opinion the best looking crossover, BMW’s new stuff is straight up butt ugly, and stuff like the Ford Territory or Subaru Crosstrek are blatant scams to raise the transaction price with taller springs and plastic cladding. Their not all bad, but most of them are.
The Urus sits on Volkswagen Group’s MLB platform, wherein the engine is placed way ahead of the front axle and the transmission is actually in line with the front wheels. A V10 likely wouldn’t fit.
I know everyone will be disappointed, but Dodge Durango won’t see another generation and I was disappointed at the news too ( internal news, of course ) Typical Chrysler fix is additional model years for the current one
That’s sad but not surprising. I think FCA would be wise to make a similarly-sized, stretched Grand Cherokee to slot between the two-row GC and the upcoming, body-on-frame Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer. I’ll bet a Jeep Durango would probably even sell better than the same car with Dodge badges.
Perhaps then there’d be a RHD version too!
They will, after they decided not to make another generation of Dodge Durango, a late decision was made for a three row Jeep Grand Cherokee ( same supplier source )
Sorry Will, I agree with Matt, I have no love for the hatchbacks on stilts that are in the Automotive landscape today. I still am someone who if I need something a crossover can have will just elect a full-size SUV. They may be bigger and less maneuverable and suck through gas like I go sugary soda, but at least there is something unapologetically honest about them. Most Crossovers are just beige, and the one’s you mentioned, I feel are pretentious attempts at making them seem more exciting then they are. (Hi Model X)
Are there some I like? Well, I will admit I do have a soft spot for the Flex, I also like the Grand Cherokee and the modern Durango, but those are the ones that seem closer to full-size SUV in general roots and design than built from the ground up as Crossovers. But 99% of the time, these just leave a visceral sour taste.
the Territory is the only one I’d consider and with the diesel V6 which is a PSA engine but with only one turbo instead of two which it has for installation in Citroens, Peugeots and Jaguars, Part of the diesel joint venture between Ford and PSA
Cars get taller every year so you can see over the other cars. Here is where this “race to the top” must lead…
These vehicles aren’t for everybody, but there’s a lot of people who do like them and can make use of their capabilities. But like most other vehicles you’ll mostly see them being driven to work. My own experience was with a Mazda Cx9 that I recently sold to my brother. This was a very nice vehicle, nice interior with good driving dynamics for a vehicle that size. Nowhere close to my BMW but it’s not supposed to be. They make use of its third row seats to keep their kids apart on long trips, or on family events with extended family. Plus it can pull a utility trailer or hang a bike rack on the back or access remote camp sites.
I guess the thing that turns me off crossovers the most–and this is in the context of them replacing other segments of vehicles, rather than supplementing them–is the loss of choice that has accompanied their rise, and particularly the accommodation of niche buyers’ preferences.
By way of comparison, let’s consider the Camry from the era of Peak Sedan. An XV10 buyer in the mid-’90s could choose from two doors or four, a V6 or a four-cylinder, a five-speed manual or an automatic, etc.
Fast forward to today, when the RAV4 has overtaken the Camry as Toyota’s top-selling car (and occupies the same price range, adjusted for inflation), and that RAV4 offers buyers none of the above choices. Its form factor, engine, and transmission are all one-size-fits-all–just pick FWD or AWD (bearing in mind that ‘AWD’, in the case of most crossovers, means ‘full-time-FWD’ until rear slip is detected and shunts some power to the back), and the level of luxury / infotainment accoutrements you’re willing to pay for.
Beyond that, while prices are of course dictated by what the market is willing to bear, it’s a bit galling to anyone who cares about cars to see how much prices are hiked for crossovers that offer comparable (or lesser) functionality to the car equivalents in their own manufacturers’ lineups. In the case of the Mazda3 vs CX-3, Elantra GT vs Kona, Impreza vs Crosstrek, Civic Sport vs HR-V, etc, people are paying thousands more for objectively less capability and utility–and while that is of course their perogative, it just sits uncomfortably when thinking about capitalizing on the emotional security blanket people attach to the sensations of sitting a little bit higher and believing their car is ‘all-terrain capable’ because it has some plastic cladding on the sides.
I have a young child and when we rent crossovers for the occasional trips to Ikea (which to me makes a lot more sense than buying one just to use it like a Corolla 99% of the time), the high hip point does of course make the whole child-seat routine a bit easier. But while they have gotten much better to drive lately (which affects safety as well as fun), so have cars, and crossovers will never measure up in that regard since the laws of physics cannot be denied. And more than that, I just hate to see people spending money they sometimes don’t have on capability that is often mostly imagined, while automakers rake in the profits from the efficiencies that come with standardizing platforms and reducing the choices they offer consumers.
Great point about the loss of choice. In the 1960s GM bragged they could make a million different Chevys, no two the same.
“the laws of physics cannot be denied…” At least electrics are much harder to tip over.
Hi Mike,
That’s an interesting fact. I watch those car crash videos on YouTube sometimes and SUVs often flip when a lower vehicle wouldn’t. Usually they hit wheel to wheel when that happens and the victim vehicle’s tire does the initial lifting of the SUV, and overcorrection does the rest.
Teslas are just badass, no two ways about it. Nice to see an American company leading the pack.
That’s all the weight of the skateboard chassis keeping the center of gravity very low, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Model X has a lower CG than many sedans.
“the context of them replacing other segments of vehicles, rather than supplementing them”
I agree, in my case I bemoan the loss of midsize BOF SUVs, all have gone to the FWD-based Cross-over side (Explorer, Pathfinder, new “Blazer”). Toyota was very smart in hindsight to roll out the Highlander but keeping the 4Runner around. They now sell almost 200k Highlanders annually, AND 130k 4Runners.
It’s a real shame there’s no more Camry wagon, my wife and I would snap one right up. And the Venza was a poor excuse. They ride like crap on needlessly huge wheels, just an awkward looking thing inside and out, overpriced on top of all of that.
Drove a Jeep Cherokee as a rental in Florida for a week. Was very impressed. Available in both 4 and 6 cylinder. Its # 1 or #2 on my list of replacement for my current ’12 Ford Escape.
My father-in-law and mother-in-law bought a RAV4 hybrid last year. They had been driving a Prius. My father-in-law has had both knees replaced over the years, he’s 88 years old, and just had a revision done of one of the knees (his patella had turned arthritic, and was replaced). It’s a heck of a lot easier for both of them to get into the RAV4 than the Prius. It drives well, rides decently (although I think the seats are too unyieldingly hard for my comfort), and has all the latest safety features. It works for them, and that’s the most important thing. My sister-in-law has also bought a similar RAV4 hybrid, and it’s terrific for her, because she has had a hip replacement and temperamental knees.
With all that, I’ll take our ’09 Camry hybrid for as long as we get good service from it. I think the seating is more comfortable, the ride is smoother, the sound system sounds better, and we just don’t need what a CUV offers yet. In any case, we have an ’00 Ford Ranger as our second car, and there are times when we do with it what can only be done in a pickup.
At this point my my life, something that smooths out the lousy maintenance on the highways and rides well while being reliable and returning at least 30 mpg on a trip would be in the prime spot of a purchase for me. I’m beyond caring if it’s a sedan, hatchback or wagon.
I’d still prefer my ’05 Chevy Astro (or my ’96 Ford Aerostar if I still had it) over any crossover, but to each their own. In a way, the Astro is sort of like an SUV disguised as a minivan: has more room than either, but sits on a (relatively) short wheelbase with plenty of ground clearance–think of it as the Jeep Wrangler of minivans. And as big as the current Dodge Durango looks, my Astro is taller (although probably shorter) than that vehicle as well (parked next to one at Wal-Mart). As far as fuel economy is concerned, the Astro has improved a bit over what it was getting before all the engine problems got fixed (initially 15.9, most recently 18.7 mpg), but stop-&-go city traffic absolutely KILLS it! Not surprisingly, my 4-cylinder Ranger with its lighter weight & much smaller engine is significantly better on fuel in most situations–it averaged 29.4 mpg last time I filled it up. This a crucial reason I still use the Ranger for regular commuting & save the Astro for weekends, holidays & other special occasions. Or for any time when certain loads exceed the Ranger’s carrying capacity–passengers especially.
John the Astros are indeed fantastic utilitarian rigs, I have casually window shopped them on craigslist many-a-time. There’s one in the neighborhood with a lift and all terrain tires, looks great. My family owned a pair of gen-1 MPVs since the mid 90s (still have the original ’89 in the family in fact) and also came to appreciate the combination of van roominess with increased ground clearance, and in the case of our ’98, 4wd.
I drive the compact Jetta around town, and “crossover” to the Titan pickup when I want to road trip or need to haul stuff.
I certainly don’t mind crossovers. It’s what they are doing to the rest of the automotive landscape that is very troubling. Choice and variety are the spice of life. That spice is slowly evaporating unless you want one of a million variety’s of truck or SUV in 50 shades of grey paint with a black interior, tacked on ipad to the dash and a tiny stressed 4 cylinder under the hood (CUV). As each year passes we keep losing more and more car based choices (Focus/Taurus/Fiesta, Cruze, Impala, Verano/LaCrosse/Cascada, Azera and soon the Cadenza and FCA 300. And with this we are losing 1-2 stick shift equipped vehicles each year, coupes are pretty much extinct, prices just keep climbing more and more out of reach for the average consumer and a good old V8 is pretty much restricted to sports cars and expensive high end luxury models. And it will only keep getting worse- another Malaise era is soon upon us