For the past several years, enthusiasts have worried that the decreasing influence of sedans and hatchbacks will lead to an automotive apocalypse, where the only vehicles available to buyers are crossovers. Their vision of the future is a dystopian nightmare, where the streets are filled with anonymous blobs solely designed to shuttle people from home to work and back, with no attention paid to driving dynamics whatsoever. In reality, this premonition has already come to pass. The good news is that the crossover boogeyman is hardly a threat to enthusiasts, as plenty of newer entries are engineered to deliver a lively driving experience. Unfortunately, very few car people got the memo. So what’s it gonna take for them (and possibly you) to stop labeling crossovers as nothing more than soulless appliances?
Ferris Bueller famously opined that life could pass you by if don’t stop to take a look around every now and then. I’d argue that automotive life moves at an even quicker pace. Just think about the changes to the US car market over the last thirty years. Wagons and rear wheel drive sedans faded as front wheel drive sedans and sport utility vehicles supplanted them in the 1990’s. The 2000’s introduced hybrids and crossovers to the mix, but for the most part largely mirrored the previous decade until high gas prices and the recession prompted car shoppers to downsize, seek more fuel efficient vehicles, or both. Our current decade began with a small car renaissance and the early adoption of alternative energy vehicles. Models like the Ford Escape and Toyota RAV4 improved their NVH substantially with their redesigns. And when gas prices fell in early 2015, the new paradigm we now find ourselves in arrived.
The rise of crossovers understandably ruffled the feathers of car people. And lamenting the death of a long running model is justified, to a point. The problem lies in enthusiasts painting an extremely broad brush when declaring faux-SUV’s as inherently boring. Hence the stages of grief I’ve outlined above. Since changes in automotive trends are now moving at lightspeed, I’m confident car aficionados are experiencing the middle three stages simultaneously.
My evidence stems from this January 2018 piece about the debut of the 2019 Ford Edge ST. Jalopnik does a lot of things right: they produce high quality long-form articles when the situation calls for it, develop great content on car buying, and create a lot of stuff for gearheads. Unfortunately, their general coverage of crossovers leaves a lot to be desired:
For those of you who might have forgotten about the Edge, I’ll forgive you. And remind you that the Ford Edge is a five-passenger four-door fat hatchback with a decent amount of ground clearance and cargo space. You know, like every other crossover.
This is the basic tone a lot of enthusiast communities employ when talking about crossovers. All vehicles in this particular segment are boring because they’re primarily designed to haul people.
As far as I can tell, enthusiasts aren’t too enamored with the Explorer ST or Edge ST for several reasons:
1: They’re crossovers.
2: They’re equipped with automatic transmissions.
3: They dilute the “ST” brand.
None of the aforementioned reasons have merit. The Golf GTI and R offer an optional dual clutch automatic transmission and the Si used to offer an automatic gearbox too. I don’t recall either performance brand being diluted because of that. And the ST brand has only existed in America for a little over five years, so I’m not sure why car people are decrying the loss of the performance moniker’s supposed heritage. Actually I do know: these new models are arriving at a time when vehicles like the Fiesta ST possibly face extinction in the United States due to the increasing popularity of crossovers, therefore these new products are worthy of their scorn, or something like that.
When analyzing the demographics of Focus ST buyers in 2013, Ford discovered their customers were primarily men in their mid 20’s with salaries slightly above the six figure mark. Five years later, what do you think they’re doing? Getting married and starting families. The Fiesta ST and Focus ST are versatile hatchbacks, but they have their limits. And maybe that new father is tired of driving a manual in all that stop-and-go traffic. Perhaps a vehicle that can haul everything a family needs for a road trip could work? One that the significant other could also drive. And they could both appreciate it’s acceleration and handling capabilities while driving the kids to Pre-K. Now you know why Ford is building ST versions of the Edge and Explorer.
And what is a sporty car anyway? Easy: an OEM modified variant of a pre-existing nameplate. Unless you’re talking about a Mustang, Camaro, Corvette, or Challenger, very few models are actually 100 percent dedicated to performance. That GTI? It’s a Golf with a different powertrain and suspension. Enthusiasts love to slam crossovers for being nothing more than basic people movers even though the vehicles they covet are…basic people movers. A run of the mill Civic that is primarily designed for twenty-somethings isn’t inherently cooler than an average crossover marketed toward new parents.
The more established auto publications never really hated crossovers, they just preferred sedans. That’s changed. Car And Driver thinks very highly of the new X3, and I’m guessing it’s not just due to the work BMW put into making the new model a dynamically capable vehicle. The magazine’s editors have fully warmed up to the crossover.
When will enthusiasts do the same? Hard to say, but there is precedent. The “if you don’t drive a rear wheel drive coupe or sedan you’re not a true car person” argument faded as automakers developed front wheel drive cars with better driving dynamics. And the same thing will happen once car people actually get to experience these vehicles for themselves.
What’s currently happening with the car community isn’t terribly unique. Hardcore Star Trek fans flipped out when J.J. Abrams rebooted the series in 2009. Diehard Star Wars fans similarly directed their vitriol towards Abrams for not taking “their” series in a new and interesting direction with The Force Awakens. And Star Wars adherents now lambast Rian Johnson for…taking the franchise in a new and interesting direction. The bottom line is this: no matter the medium, extremely passionate fans will always be resistant to change, at least initially. Give them enough time and they’ll eventually come around.
Maybe the fact that except for a very few……………..they all look the same? they cannot handle as good as a car. and well………………………they all look the same! i do like the new cadillac xt4.
I’m a slave to styling and in my opinion most of them are just so boring to look at. Just this morning I was looking at a Porsche Cayenne in traffic and thinking that it just has that same monotonous crossover shape which doesn’t really look upscale or exciting.
I can’t think of a single crossover that I’d turn to look back at while walking away after parking it.
My wife has a crossover and it’ a great vehicle, but I feel kind of “blah” while driving it (as opposed to my Jag XKR).
I agree about styling, and this is coming from a man who daily’s an 87 Plymouth Fury. The world’s boxiest sedan! Crossovers are built for a non enthusiast market who want a car that does everything, and in doing so… excel at nothing. Plus, when you see them everywhere, being driven by people who wouldn’t know a Ford from a potato.
Boxy is good…I like a boxy car or SUV.
And I drive a ’12 Ford Escape which is a brick in the wind!!!!
You said it!
I´m with you relating to boxy mopars.
There are only so many ways to make a hatchback look different, and the most distinctive ways sacrifice the inherent practicality. There are SUVs I love, but they either are market flops or long extinct.
After about 20 years being against SUVs and crossovers I find a small crossover parked out front. Why? I like the way it looks, it’s easy to step in and out of, the interior is nicely appointed and comfortable, the seating height isn’t disconcertingly high and you still have a ton of headroom KT Keller style, and it drives similarly to a comparable sedan. It’s not too exciting in a straight line, but where I live if you get to 40mph you’re lucky. As long as it remains reliable, I’m happy with the purchase.
Probably when not enough of them have driven anything else to realize how inherently poor the handling and fuel economy of jacked-up, tarted-up minivans are in comparison to cars.
And I say this as the owner of a Ford Escape. They have their uses, but driving fun ain’t one of ’em.
Handling! When I put the pedal down on my Ford Escape it feels like the front end is going to take off, especially at speed. I don’t know what the weight distribution is on it, but the front feels particularly light to me. I remember rwhen Motor Trend did a crossover ute review of all the models and they showed a photo of an Escape with all 4 wheels airborne, as if it was something to be thrown around and thrashed offroad. Hardly..
What generation of Ford Escape are the both of you talking about? Because the 2013-present models have great handling and don’t exhibit any type of abnormal behavior on the road.
Mine is a 2017. As you say, it doesn’t have any bad habits, but that’s not the same as being fun to drive. My ’12 Focus was much more connected to the road. I won’t count the ’04 WRX, but the ’01 Civic, ’91 and ’95 Ford Escorts, and the clapped out ’82 Audi GT all stand to say that cars are the hsndlers compared to any form of tall wagon.
The 2013+ Escapes have a great (Focus-based) chassis for cornering and freeway tracking, but the aspects of ‘handling’ they’re describing are wheel hop and torque steer off the line. Unlike hatchbacks, crossovers are heavy boxes compared to the sedans they’re based on, so they need more power to perform similarly (up to 245hp in 2.0T trim, in the Escape’s case). But, also like the cars they’re based on, they’re still front-drivers; even with optional AWD, these systems usually drive only the fronts until the system detects slip and sends power to the back. So you get loose, wiggly starts when you goose it. I had a rental ’17 Escape for a trip upstate last year, and it was a nice car, but no exception to the above. There’s just no denying the laws of physics.
The first generation of CUVs were based on existing car platforms (Ford Escape based on Mazda 626; Toyota RAV & Corolla, etc). You could not make them too radical for fear of alienating the middle class buyer who cut his teeth on Ford Explorers and Toyota 4Runners.
Now, the premium brands (Alfa, Bentley, & Jaguar) are jumping on the bandwagon big time which is a little ironic considering they would not broach the topic just several years ago.
I have to agree with my above brethren that the current crop of CUV are only distinguished by the front grill. They all look the same past the A pillar.
I get the “hate” from an image perspective; CUV’s are the aughts and beyond minivan for Gen X, and a lesser extent, older Millenials. That said, people need to really really get over their adversion to how they really can be the jack of all trades. There is a 2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring in our family fleet. Not AWD because Arizona. It fits everyone comfortably. Cargo? No problem. Fast? Plenty with a 2.5 four, like nearly every Accord or Camry. Handling? Believe it or not, with the 18 inch wheels and G-vectoring (Mazda speak), it’s on par with our old Acura TL. Gas mileage averages 34 mpg. Ohh, it also has a white leather interior at a $34,000 price point. I’m down.
I’ve never been a fan of the SUV or CUV, but that Mazda CX-5 is a nice looking vehicle. My wife wants a Honda CR-V, and while I am happy with my Civic, I’m trying to talk her into the CX-5 because it has style. A woman around the corner from me has a very dark blue one with those 18” rims and it’s – dare I say – gorgeous.
I used to say NEVER… but to use another Star Trek reference like the author did towards the end of the piece, “Resistance is Futile”. Eventually we’ll probably all have an SUV or CUV.
Make sure you try the CX-5, at the very least. For us, it was either the CR-V Touring, or CX-5 Grand Touring before we hit the dealer lots. Coming out of an Acura TL, the Honda was the expected default winner. It was highly appealing during the test drive. Then we went over to the Mazda lot. No comparison. Fit and finish / material quality was clearly a step above. Much quieter thanks to double laminated front windows and windshield. Equal performance, except the Mazda still uses a smooth, predicable 6/AT, not a comparatively vague and droning CVT. Only in rear seat space and cargo capacity did the Honda appear to have a clear advantage, in our opinion. The Mazda was about 2K cheaper, as well. Sold. Ours is Snowflake White Pearl Mica, with the “Parchment” (read white) interior.
I think my wife was looking at the cargo space being better on the CR-V than the CX-5. But she actually likes the new design language on the CR-V. Me not so much.
Similarly I was torn between the Civic and Mazda 3 when I was hunting for my commuter car in 2016. Like you, I was not a CVT fan after years of driving my wife’s 2009 Lancer (which she’s going to replace with a CUV eventually). But that Civic does not feel like I am driving a rubber band powered car. And there’s virtually no turbo lag, so Honda got it right.
But I wonder if that little 1.5L Turbo coupled with the CVT that powers my Civic Coupe so perfectly can handle powering the much larger CR-V.
And again, there’s the style… I really like the CX-5.
But then that picture of the upcoming 2019 Ford Edge SVT in the article… wow… that thing is stunning. It almost looks like it’s taken a few Mustang design cues.
Me likey ?
Never.
Crossovers are station wagons. Like a big, tall sedan but with a long roof, which can carry lots of people and their stuff when needed, for the soccer team or the occasional family road trip. That’s OK, but it’s nothing to get enthusiastic about. They’re just station wagons.
PS: The 2018 Ford Flex and the 1948 Ford Station Wagon are both 69 inches tall, within 5 inches in length and 3 inches in width.
Thank you Edward, you’re spot on.
I participated in some of the crossover criticism over the years because there used to be such a chasm in fuel economy, handling and performance between crossovers and sedans.
Now that’s narrowed quite a bit and, along the way, there have been some truly exciting crossovers such as the Infiniti QX70/FX and the Porsche Cayenne. I also came to realise that, yes, crossovers today are much closer to being station wagons than SUVs (many have even dropped the pretence of even light off-road ability) and therefore are much more practical than sedans. Don’t forget the higher ride height, which older people in particular appreciate. And as much of a sedan man as I am, I would sure appreciate a cavernous load bay.
Previously, you would have had to find a coachbuilder to get a Bentley wagon. Now, you can buy one from a Bentley showroom. If you wanted to transport your family in your Porsche, you couldn’t. Now you can, and the Cayenne handles and performs as a Porsche should. Mainstream automakers are offering fun subcompact SUVs (e.g. C-HR, Juke) that have more flair than their corresponding car offerings.
I think crossover fear is overblown. Yeah, they’re going to continue taking over but at the end of the day, they’re adding more variety and, as Paul has often said, it’s really a return to design principles from decades ago. I should add, too, that it may well be harder to make a crossover look different from another but it’s no harder than it would be for a hatchback or wagon, which is what enthusiasts often profess to prefer.
When they stop looking so ugh. That Toyota picture looks like the vehicle was beaten severely with an ugly stick.
I like anything with engine and wheels.
Oh, gosh…I donno…hen are auto marketers going to stop pretending “crossover” means something?
*when
“Crossover” made sense when it was a newly-established segment combining traits of two long-established vehicle types (the sedan-height wagon and the pickup-with-a-wagon-body SUV). Much less so now that they’re becoming the default car.
Manufacturers’ marketers were VERY INSISTENT that the press not call them “tall wagons” as they had with the Colt Vista and Nissan Stanza Wagon in the ’80s that were similar but lacked off-road pretensions.
In retrospect that’s a shame. since we could now drop the “tall” part and just call them “wagons”, and the remaining sedan-height models “low wagons”.
Just call them wagons cuz that is what they are! Just because you order escargot doesn’t mean that you don’t have to eat snails.
⬆︎This, exactly this.⬆︎
Eh, I’m pretty much agnostic on the whole topic. My second generation Explorer was one of my favorite cars, my Sport Track was even better, I bought a FWD Santa Fe that lasted through three drivers and provide plenty of chunky oddly styled Korean goodness. My current 6MT Subaru Forester is the best new car I’ve ever bought.
On the other hand, even though it never right for more than a couple of days at a time, my Triumph GT6 was an awesome little car. I still have fond memories of smokey burnouts on junkyard tires in my 302 Comet. And the almost homicidally unreliable Audi 5000 was an amazingly good sporting sedan – when it ran. Oh, and my 69 VW is the one old car I wish I’d never sold.
The CUV/SUVs have been useful and the fun cars have been fun. Guess I never expected any of them to be both at the same time. Though I have been fantasizing about what ways the Forester could be made more fun – after the warranty expires…
For the folks criticizing CUV/SUVs for not being as useful as a van – they are most certainly correct. As much as I liked my Explorer Sport Trac for the rare occasions I needed to haul something “messy” – mulch, gravel, etc (that tiny bed, with the cover off, easily handled a cubic yard of mulch) – the Aerostar minivan was the most useful vehicle I’ve owned. Pulled the pop up camper, hauled motorcycles, room for seven, room for four plus camping gear…not much fun to drive and the lack of a LSD made winter driving a little interesting at times but great family hauler. Better all around than the Explorers or Santa Fe but those were much easier to live with during our lousy northern Ohio winters.
Back in January, with winter raging I thought maybe I should trade my daily driver (EB Mustang) in on something more “practical”
I looked at an Equinox. It just didn’t do it for me. I drove my granddaughter to hockey practice with her Moms Grand Cherokee .. The Jeep is “fairly” good looking, but has a wicked price tag. I took a used Tahoe (former daily rental) out for a ride. The big Chevy was nice to drive on the highway. . Wheeling it around town, and watching the gas gauge drop , reminded me that this is indeed a truck. I found nothing that sparked my interest.
I’m 64 years old. My wife is in Long Term Care now. I live alone. If I need to ferry my Grand children around the Mustangs do the job. If not, I use one of their parents vehicles. I’m not going to talk myself into liking something, when truth be known I just can’t get my head around CUV’s / SUV’s.
I do understand why they’re so popular. Certainly the CUV’s are very practical. I just don’t need practical .
Sorry to hear about Mrs. Mikey. I am in the opposite place. Versatility and utility count for a lot in my life. But then I have always liked station wagons too. And if we move from a minivan to a CUV it will feel like a sports car. 🙂
You guys are complaining that they all look the same. Isn’t that the exact same complaint that you have about sedans? You can’t tell an Altima from an Accord from a Camry from a Fusion from a Sonata without closely looking at the front grille, at least that’s what the comments are when one of those is featured for whatever reason. Now the same thing with crossovers…But then when one actually looks different you end up bitching about that as well, such as the Toyota above. There’s just no pleasing some people, I suppose. I don’t think it’s difficult at all to tell a RAV4 from a CR-V from a Compass from a Santa Fe from an Explorer from an Atlas, front grille be damned. Then again, I can’t readily tell a 1956 Buick from a Chrysler from a Ford without some heavy thought or Googling, so there’s that, I suppose.
Crossovers are fine, they are easy to get in and out of, can generally handle more or bulkier shaped cargo than a sedan, many of them are way faster than you would think (at one point the V6 RAV4 was the quickest vehicle in Toyota’s lineup) and as far as handling goes, most people out there don’t need or want their cars to “handle” anything curvier than the McDonald’s drive-thru.
However, if one does frequent the twisties, a modern Crossover is likely to handle just fine and probably better than a regular sedan or coupe from a decade or two ago. It’s also likely to get better gas mileage, go further before requiring maintenance or repairs, and much more likely to protect the occupants in the case of an accident if it doesn’t help to avoid it in the first place. More likely is the opportunity to make a car “handle” comes up maybe 1% at most of the time in regular driving. Maybe 150 miles of the average 15,000 driven miles per year and that’s probably generous. Just like with “sports cars” – Crossovers with performance packages rarely get any reason to use them besides looking “better” in the parking lot. It’s not like almost ANY manufacturer actually makes their “performance package” more lightweight than their regular package, in fact often they end up heavier, weight being the one thing that blunts every possibly aspect of performance (Porsche possibly being pretty much the only exception in this aspect among volume automakers)
My personal favorite form factor is a real station wagon, however I freely admit that in terms of getting in and out of them, a raised up Crossover is generally loads better than a wagon. The same goes for strapping kids in their car seats.
Besides, in the words of Jeremy Clarkson, “you can’t be a true petrolhead until you’ve owned an Alfa Romeo” 🙂 Most of us probably aren’t really enthusiasts as much as we are curmudgeons, really. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but still, what’s with the hate? Crossovers are useful and make people’s lives easier. People vote with their wallets.
Oh Jim, you’ve expressed the very sentiment I was feeling but was too timid to say. I can’t find a single thing you said in your comment that I disagree with. Especially the part about people complaining crossovers look the same when they also complain new sedans look the same. Some of those more vocal critics just seem to have a problem with new cars in general and they’ll never be happy. But those same critics also never seem to be in the market for a new car anyway and always buy used, and if they do profess an interest in a new car, they want some combination that virtually nobody else in the market wants (stripped down, manual transmission, etc).
“But then when one actually looks different you end up bitching about that as well, such as the Toyota above.”
That’s because the Toyota is ugly.
Eye of the beholder and all that…to some plain is ugly, to some exaggerated features is ugly. But there’s something out there for everyone, and not everyone will have the same opinion of it. The Toyota is selling, and is selling worldwide, so clearly it’s not repugnant to everyone.
That is true.
I honestly feel there’s no middle ground, like so much else today car styling is done to opposite extremes. There are no understated beauties out there, not in crossovers, not in sedans, not in sports cars, nothing.
When will I like a crossover? When they drop them 3-4″ on the suspension, give the same gas mileage as the sedan it was developed from, quit trying to play on a non-existent image of rugged outdoors-ness, actually have the kind of load carrying capacity that the station wagons of my childhood had, adds a manual transmission to any drivetrain, and becomes the kind of car that inspires me to back road silliness every so often.
As to my real feelings towards crossovers, my two cars are a Fiat 500c Abarth and a Kia Sedona. I love them both. Anything in between is useless. Under no conditions would I consider trading either on a crossover.
For that matter, I wouldn’t have considered trading our 193k, 2001 Chevrolet Cavalier base, ex-Henrico County motor pool cars that was kept as a winter beater on a crossover.
Word.
Something like this?
Damn…still too much “non-existent image of rugged outdoors-ness” I guess, and no manual either, I assume.
Still a sharp looking car despite the gratuitous black plastic cladding. I guess the only way wagons sell if they fool people into thinking they are crossovers.
Yep. They had to make it a Buick Outback. Drop the silly fender cladding and drop the ride height and you’d have a winner.
(This is not to say I wouldn’t consider buying one, because other non-tall wagon choices are few and far between at that price point. But it’d be somewhat reluctantly.)
I don’t HATE crossovers and SUVs, what I hate is the silliness used to get people to buy them and the way folks rationalise the purchase.
I see crossovers as an attempt to make a vehicle sporty, whether it’s really a minivan or a hatchback, when most of the car buying public doesn’t really care how they drive…just how they look. And the marketing shows the folks who buy crossovers and/or SUVs doing endless outdoorsy type activities that most will never do.
After reading the comments, I have to admit nearly everyone has presented valid points. But here are a few to think about:
For how it is used, couldn’t most folks be better served with a minivan instead of a crossover?
If you wanted a car (sedan?) but with a larger load space, why didn’t you buy a station wagon, even one with available AWD?
VW is now a large conglomerate with several brands that overlap, yet they allowed Porsche to prostitute it’s well earned image so that it could capitalize on a respected brand. (Actually, 2 brands if you include Bentley.) Porsche might have needed the monetary infusion the crossovers/SUVs brought to the brand, but did they really need to stick so close to the design cues of the cars? Why not a sort of sub-brand?
Sum up? I consider crossovers and to a lesser extent SUVs to be “fake” sporty vehicles.
Bingo! That is almost exactly my issue.Marketing something that it really is not to someone who does not understand, all so they can have a fantasy that they will never come close to experiencing.
While I should serve some dressing to go with that word salad, it all boils down to suckers buying something they THINK will alter their lifestyle and image. If SUVs or sedans or whatever actually had some unique style or function, it would be different. Wagons evolved into Minivans and now CUV/SUVs, pickup trucks went from work vehicles to luxury liners, and functionality never changed a bit on any of them. Are some SUV/CUV features useful? Yes. But we all know that 90% of AWD SUVs never will set a tire off a paved road. Sure, they work great in snow, but I live in Florida and they are still heavily sold here, too. I don’t see Lowe’s stocking snowblowers in south Florida, but they sure as hell sell a lot of SUVs at the dealerships.
I don’t care what other people drive or what trends are. If it’s interesting to me, I’ll give a second glance. If not, not.
The only reason I’m in favor of the crossover trend is that I hate trunks. I think they are poor space utilization. Since crossovers are pushing sedans out of the market, I’m a fan in that regard.
As others have mentioned, the issue with crossovers is that they exist due to fashion, not for practical reasons. If you like the way they look and want to drive one, great.
I tend to prefer sedans, but would happily consider a minivan or a pickup or whatever if I thought I needed one. The problem now, particularly in the US, is that options for non crossovers fans are reducing, due to dangerously high levels of bullshit and not much else.
Sedans only came into vogue due to fashion themselves. There is no argument to be made that a sedan is more “practical” than a crossover. But there are and will remain plenty to choose from. We bitch and complain that sedans all look the same and are indistinguishable from each other but when one gets cancelled all of a sudden it was the best thing since sliced bread and how dare they remove our choices…
The options are decreasing due to people not buying those options (as new vehicles). I love me some Audi S6 Avant with a manual gearbox but I didn’t and wouldn’t buy a new one, I waited for one of the 400 that were ever sold here to depreciate and then bought it used. Hard for me to complain that they stopped offering that combination here in 1996.
What options are being so limited by crossovers? Maybe a few particular models are going away but surely there is a more or less equivalent item available elsewhere. If you think you might want a new Fusion after they stop making them, take a look at a Malibu, Sonata, Accord, Camry, Optima, Passat, Mazda6 or Altima, or for even more choices look one size class up or down and then repeat for the near-lux offerings and then the full-lux offerings. Frankly they could kill off half or more of the current sedan models and it wouldn’t really affect anyone. It’s hardly the Eastern Bloc in the 70’s…
I don’t dispute your initial point about fashion, but I didn’t say anything positive about sedans except that I tend to prefer them. I haven’t owned a sedan since 2010, for practical reasons. I haven’t owned a crossover either, for practical reasons.
My point was that crossovers are designed to look practical and off-road capable, but are really about projecting an image. That is not to deny that higher ride height etc are invaluable to some people. And yes, there are many sedans on the market and many of those models are available as hatchbacks or wagons – outside the US, where the dealer will have to point you to a CUV/SUV/pickup if you ever carry bulky items.
We bought our first crossover long before they were cool- a ’81 Subaru GL 4WD Wagon (the first of three). Perfect vehicles for a young, active couple. Also the only game in town if you wanted 4WD in a reasonably sized and priced package. In ’86 I upgraded the wife to a Volvo GL Wagon, in anticipation of our family growing. When we discovered our third child was on the way, we upgraded to a Chevy Astro AWD Van. That lasted a little over a year, when we went with the first of six Suburbans. Those Suburbans took the family through a variety of travel and activities, and by ’03 we downsized to the first of three Ford Expeditions.
Today, there’s a Camry and a Charger in the garage. The kids are raised, no grandkids yet, and we’re down to one dog (we peaked at three years ago). The point of all this is we, like many families, bought what made sense at the time. Mrs. Bear hasn’t indicated much of a desire for a crossover, but if she does, I’m sure there’s one of these waiting in a showroom somewhere for her. Who says SUV’s have to be boring?
I would be fine with a crossover if any of the better ones offered a manual transmission
My biggest beef with them isn’t the way they drive but the relatively poor space utilization vs. a wagon, hatchback, or especially a minivan. I also don’t like what the relatively high floor does for ingress/egress (I don’t need the ground clearance where I live), but do like the high roof.
but *rather*
“Best-handling crossover” doesn’t mean much as a bragging point for a manufacturer as long as it still has that government-mandated rollover warning on the sun visor.
Which makes me wonder, what would they need to do to get rid of that (from an engineering approach, that is, not a lobbying one)?
The majority of cars buyers aren’t buying transportation: they are buying dreams. They are attempting to project an image of some sort. That’s why short little guys drive lifted pick up trucks with diesel engines to work.
It’s the same for SUVs and CUV’s. The first SUVs had too many comfort and handling deficiencies to gain a mass market, so presto, the CUV was born.
Car companies know all about buyer psychology.
I respectfully disagree.
The majority of new car buyers are buying transportation, because their last car died or was getting too old. That’s why CRVs, Accords, Camrys and the like all sell so well.
Women like SUVs – they like being up high, like the hatch/room, the perceived premium status, and don’t like mini-vans. Old people like them too because of ingress/egress.
The VAST majority of men without children would not buy an CUV.
Personally, I think SUVs/CUVs make ok family vehicles. Entry/exit and snapping together babyseats is easier on the back with the higher seats, and the rest of the benefits are those shared by station wagons, which have always been the family hauler of choice. I feel the same about minivans.
If people were just buying transportation, wouldn’t Hyundai sell better? Wouldn’t manufacturers stop pouring money into motorsports?
Wouldn’t their TV ads describe how practical, reliable, safe their cars were rather than just showing people with blindingly white teeth and well behaved kids loving life in their huge house and never going to work?
More people buy transportation appliances rather then dreams. The Camry is a huge sales success despite having a reputation of being boring among auto enthusiasts.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20161212/silvio-calabi-toyotas-camry-is-still-boring—in-good-way
The new Macan can outhandle/outrun an old 911 on road or track. What’s not to like? Tis the question I ask those who like function over form.
Ed, I imagine you wrote this post to ruffle a few feathers, and well done; I’m sure some will be! Speaking for myself, I’m not going to change my mind about crossovers anytime soon. I’ve driven hundreds of cars over the last two decades, several dozen of them new crossovers, and it’s not just the looks or the image that grates.
Here’s one fundamental problem vs sedans: while crossovers are marketed like SUVs, they are product-planned, engineered, and packaged for sale like the minivans they replaced. You can choose between FWD and AWD, and often an ‘up-option’ engine, but otherwise your choices are usually a question of how many luxury gewgaws you’d like to pay for. Cars like the Ford ST crossovers are the exception, not the rule. By contrast, family sedans have traditionally offered ‘sports sedan’ options for the 5% of family folks on a budget who are willing to pay a modest premium for more power, a stiffer suspension, and a stick (the Accord, for example, still lets you order a 2.0T and 6MT). Crossover lineups tend to be far more homogenized.
That stick is a particular sticking point. For some (admittedly fewer and fewer) of us, the availability of a manual transmission is not just a branding exercise. It is the only way we will buy a car. And aside from a couple of Jeeps, Subarus, and the FWD-only versions of the HR-V and CX-3, you can’t get one in a crossover. There’s simply no way you’ll feel as involved in driving when your left leg and right arm are barred from the action. (In fact I’d argue without something to do, that forlorn right hand is likely to get itchy to check its phone). Even better, three-pedal involvement applies when you’re driving like a sane person; you don’t have to drive like a maniac to have fun, as in a high-powered automatic. Nearly all of my cars up to now have been manuals, and even though I’m a dad now, my next one will be too.
Further sticking points are height, weight, and price. Height first. When you sit further from the road, you feel further from the road. Especially because most crossovers assume you’d rather sit bar-stool upright than in a traditional sit-down car posture. Even in responsive-handling crossovers like the Ford Escape, you feel like you’re driving from your second-floor balcony compared to the nimble Focus that shares its platform. Second, weight. Mass dulls all vehicle dynamics, and crossovers tend to weigh a quarter-ton or so more than the cars they’re based on. And that means you need to use more power, fuel, and contact patch to achieve the same dynamic results. Lastly, price. Many crossovers don’t even offer meaningfully more passenger or cargo volume than like-priced (or cheaper!) cars in the manufacturer’s lineup (see Mazda 3 hatch vs CX-3, Honda Civic hatch vs HR-V, etc), and most are sold without AWD, so why pay more to put up with the above compromises?
I’m not categorically opposed to any automotive segment (my daily drivers have ranged from a ’73 Sedan DeVille to an autocross-prepped Miata), and Subaru’s Crosstrek is one example of a crossover done right. It’s an Impreza hatch, with the same ride and handling prowess, arms-out/legs-out driving position, and standard 6MT, plus a suspension lift, plastic cladding, and a price calibrated to be acceptable to those who think the latter two items mean something. I hope that’s where the market is going. And it may be, because Subaru is selling all the Crosstreks it can build.
In my case about 2 months ago…. I just bought a used Kia Soul.
It’s got a 1.6 L engine with a 6 speed manual. The closest I could get to a station wagon.
It’s roomy economical and actually fun to drive. Not really what I was looking for but… the Nissan Rouge I looked at had a horrible blind spot.
I gave up a base model Ford Focus Coupe because I needed more space.
I don’t regret it I’ve got everything I need with minimal compromise.
And even though this is an “SUV” it handles like a go kart.
I understand that the Soul is marketed as a crossover, but its small size and low(er) stance say more compact wagon than SUV to me.
Might be why I like it…. aside from winding up the little motor it really starts to sprint up to speed after 2500 rpm. Plus it corners well for a (semi) tall box
The main reason I don’t like them is that they’re pushing (and have pushed) the more practical vehicles out of the market. And the reason they can do that mostly has to do with price, and that’s because CUVs are built to be classified as “light trucks”, and the only reason to do that is so they can compete under different, less restrictive rules than actual cars like sedans and the nearly extinct station wagon and hatchback.
If it wasn’t for this distinction, there would be no reason to have CUVs be so jacked up, tire sizes would come down, gas mileage would be better, and handling would improve. We’d have a better selection of actual wagons, hatchbacks, and smaller mini-vans to choose from, which would actually be a better, more practical vehicle than a CUV for most families. But instead we’ve got the modern CUV, which is basically just a car now but made just truck-like enough to not actually be a car.
When will they stopped being called boring? Probably when the the laws of physics are changed so that heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles with a higher center of gravity out perform lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles with a lower center of gravity.
As far as perception goes, people generally reject trends and fads that become too popular after a while. The market has gone from wagons to minivans to SUVs and now CUVs. As many other have pointed out, SUVs/CUVs are slowly becoming wagons. Eventually they might become minivans.
If this article was written in 1977, the title would have read:
QOTD: When Are Enthusiasts Going To Stop Calling Brougham Boring?
That’s because it’s killing everything else. The 2-door hatch is nearing its end. Sedan sales are falling off a cliff. Wagons are popular around here but in the US they have to be covered in black plastic and jacked up to sell.
I drive a 2008 Volvo XC70 which is a (slightly) jacked up V70 wagon. It replaced a 2009 Holden Commodore Sportswagon and has a little more ground clearance than the car it was based on. There are a number of videos on YouTube which shows it is quite capable off-road. I consider it a semi SUV in that it has AWD. It certainly handles better than the SUV’s I have driven, which always feel a bit tippy toed going around corners. I can appreciate how appealing they are to new car buyers. Here in Oz SUV’s and CUV’s have been out-selling traditional sedans and wagons for some time now.
I’ve never called crossovers boring; I would call them “narrowly focused and yet forced into an uncomfortable ubiquity.” I get the appeal of a tall wagon — more cargo-carrying flexibility, easier entry and exit for older people with bad knees, the ability to handle bulky items, better ground clearance for those as need it. However, they have intrinsically poorer gas mileage and poorer handling than a comparable sedan or coupe*, the aesthetic does nothing for me (there are only a handful that have any visual charm at all), and the pseudo-outdoorsy thing is beyond tiresome.
So, I don’t question their right to exist, but I don’t need one — cargo-hauling is a low priority for me and in Southern California I need AWD about as much as I need snow shoes — and would find their limitations exasperating. Combined with their dubious aesthetics, I can’t see ever wanting to buy one. The idea of their being the sole choice on the market is pretty dreary.
* This isn’t to say that every sedan or coupe handles better or better gas mileage than every crossover, which obviously isn’t true. However, all else being equal, the crossover will pay for its higher center of gravity and greater frontal area, and there’s no way around that.
my only practical beef with this trend (and proliferation of pick up trucks) is this 2 door MT hatchback drivers forward view being obscured in denser urban traffic when usually being in position behind their tall and darkly tinted window mass and, in another increasingly common situation, the extra danger of having to blindingly exit a perpendicular parking spot from between them.
hopefully these penny farthings like other silly fashions will pass within my driving lifetime.
There are many different factors that enter into the vehicle purchasing decision…price, design,brand and model name,passenger space, cargo space, performance and handling and untold others. I am of the opinion that for people who purchase SUVs/CUVs, design is not at the top of the totem pole. I guess that can be said of many of today’s sedans as well. Though many sedans are nicely designed, fewer and fewer are distinctively designed. If I had to pick the best designed CUV it would be the Acura RDX.
my only practical beef with this trend (and proliferation of pick up trucks) is this 2 door MT hatchback drivers forward view being obscured in denser urban traffic when usually being in position behind their tall and darkly tinted window mass and, in another increasingly common situation, the extra danger of having to blindingly exit a perpendicular parking spot from between them.
hopefully these penny farthings, like other silly fashions will pass within my driving lifespan.
I agree that CUVs can be sporty and I get it. It’s the “track focused” variety I don’t get. A crossover as a track day weapon is an oxymoron. But that’s such an ultra-narrow slice of the market, so who cares?
The problem with these sporty crossovers, or any SUV or crossover sporting large diameters wheels, is the ride. It sucks, thanks to the ultra-low profile tires that come with the 19″, 20″, or 22″ diameter wheels on most of these sporty crossovers, and a lot of SUVs.
You trade sharper handling for a noisy, harsh ride. From personal experience it gets old real quick and obviates one of the main reasons you buy a crossover (or SUV) in the first place: as a comfortable, roomy, practical every-day family hauler.
Interesting article. I went from a minivan to a CUV. My reason was better towing capacity for our camper. Most minivans with a trailer towing package tow up to 3500, 3800 lbs. Most 3 row crossovers with a trailer package can tow up to 5000lbs.
Other than that? Well….ride comfort is about the same in a CUV as a minivan. Passenger space in the 1st 2 rows is comparable. 3rd row no. And cargo space not so much either. I got a Honda Pilot, so handling may be better than many CUV’s, but none of them are sports cars. And the Ford ST CUV’s I will bet will be quite expensive.
If it weren’t for towing capacity I’d would have gotten another minivan. I’m guessing my reasoning was not the norm?
Bob
My only current beef with SUVs/crossovers is the misconception that someohow they “read” as less of a concession than minivans. To me, if you’ve got an SUV you’re a wannabe, 99.9% of the time. If you want to look fun and adventurious get a van. Period. Van people go interesting places. SUVs go to Sears. Van people can haul ANYTHING. SUVs seldom have good storage. Van people can haul a party of seven or “sleep” two for some REAL fun. SUVs are funky at hauling extra people. I just don’t get it. Get a van and have legit fun. Or get an SUV because you’re self-concious.
They’re a terrible compromise for what isn’t actually a problem, spurred on by an effort from automakers to duck under CAFE regulations. By classifying them as trucks it’s a lot easier to justify them in the lineup. By telling customers they’re “rugged” and “off-road capable” it gives them a reason to buy them. Marketing has done wonders to sell these crippled mutations that are far worse than the things they were based on. Most people have absolutely no use for any trucks, SUVs, or CUVs, but to save the company’s hides and still keep a good turnover on returns versus platform development they’re pushing all three. Many never see their intended use, or even get close to the buyer’s often ridiculous and exaggerated initial purchasing expectations of them. The amount of times I’ve seen them with a single person driving them without anything else inside, be it passengers or cargo, puts it into perspective. Many are too large on the outside, too small on the inside, have terrible handling characteristics, terrible line of sight, and are killing off actual useful segments with products that fit their niche like minivans and hatchbacks. If I need a hatchet to cut down a sapling and you hand me a multitool knife I’m going to look at you like you’re an idiot and then go find a hatchet. But many people don’t care and settle for promised potential rather than actual utility. Only days later finding out that $32,000 promise was broken and saying it wasn’t that big of a deal to begin with. The newest Buick Envision and Regal TourX are perfect examples of this attitude, being a hatchback and wagon respectively, only lifted up a few inches and with plastic fender flares and bumper lips to give them a different appearance and classification. The worst part is that buyers would not purchase the TourX otherwise, with the normalization of extremely tall vehicles and the stigmatization around wagons.
Whatever. As stated previously, if they didn’t sell they would not be built, regulations or not. For example, another oft cited deficiency is the lack of manual transmissions. Care to guess why they are nearly impossible to get anymore?
Care to guess why they are nearly impossible to get anymore?
Atrocious drivers ed training programs and table d’hôte option packages?
CAFE regulation and money once again. Automakers would much rather prefer the buggy and unresponsive CVTs and dual-clutch automatics with nine gears that deliver better fuel economy than manual transmissions, which force a wider margin of error and added development costs. People in America buy crossovers because they’re fooled into thinking they’re more capable than any type of vehicle, and they buy automatic and CVT transmissions because they’re more convenient to the regular driver. Either way it works for the automakers because it lets them meet their goals easier, regardless of how much damage it’s doing to the automotive landscape long-term by killing segments and options that aren’t currently “trendy” and therefor disproportionately profitable.
Honestly, I’m not the biggest crossover fan, but the circlejerk is getting tiring.
I apologize for the duplicate post; the commenting system keep giving me time-out errors on my iPhone.
We’ve come full-circle
Crossovers are high ground clearance hatchbacks with an elevated center of gravity. There is nothing they can do what their hatchbacks or wagon counterparts can’t do better for less money and weight. With the notable exception of sitting higher off the ground for greater visibility on roads mainly populated by crossovers, an issue that could be fixed by installing a high def camera on top of your wagon an hooking that up to your virtual reality glasses. Until that becomes legal, consumers will keep spending more money on an inherently inferior product – which is synonymous with “successful marketing” .
So in a world guided by reason your answer would be “never”. Meanwhile, in the real world, I’m searching craigslist for RAV4s. I’m not enthusiastic about that, but I can’t have those other crossovers blocking the view out from my station wagon any longer.
And hey, didn’t Toyota offer the RAV4 briefly with the 3S-GTE in Europe?
There isn’t a lot I can say that hasn’t already been said, and I agree that current sedans are just as boring until you get to the fringes of the market. But I think part of it is the utter ubiquity of the things–they’re *everywhere* and that automatically makes them tiresome to a lot of people. Myself included.
And, yet, there is a mid to high probability that a year from now, our current mid-size sedan and compact coupe will be replaced by a brace of small to mid-size CUVs. Having a child makes you realize the limitations of your vehicles pretty soon, and therefore the coupe is going away quite soon. I’d love to replace it with a wagon, but buying used and on a tight budget, there’s a very high probability that I won’t be able to find a good one. With our other car being a sedan, I don’t want to get another one of those, as having the ability to haul a full complement of “baby baggage” on long trips would be ideal. Or, you know, the ability to swallow a large box, even. Most modern sedans can’t do that with their small, oddly-shaped trunk openings. It feels pointless and space inefficient to get a minivan for one child, plus they’re a chore to drive and are even less stylish than most CUVs. So I may be “painted into a corner” and end up with exactly what I don’t want. Maybe I can find something vaguely interesting like a turbo CX-7. And the sedan will be replaced by a (hopefully) new CUV, because that’s what the wife wants. It’s her car, so that’s what she gets.
If there weren’t so gosh-darn many CUVs out there, enough to have mostly murdered the wagon segment, my used hunt would probably end much differently. Among other things. But manufacturers don’t give a flying f**k about the used market, as they shouldn’t. We don’t count.