|
This is as so often a matter of horses for courses - and the truism that all human beings are different.
I don't agree that Alby is being grumpy and not liking the replies. If I remember right Alby, you once had a Westfield; and I know that you do 40,000 miles a year, so driving has got to be as much of a pleasure as possible. No doubt being closer to the ground than you would be in an SUV contributes to the satisfaction.
I think, as others have said, that the high-up driving position is what clinches it for so many in favour of sitty-uppy vehicles. Others go for them because they're in fashion - and as we all know, fashion and logic don't always go together.
But you can't alter the laws of physics: a tall vehicle won't handle quite as well as a lower-slung one. I was generally very impressed when I test-drove a BMW 220i Active Tourer, but it was no good expecting it to go round corners as well as my old 125i convertible.
The Nissan Qashqai - much admired by Mrs Alby - and the new Volvo XC40 are more softly sprung than others I've tried, but although I don't like too hard a ride, I found both these altogether too wallowy, making me feel too remote from the action.
For me the best compromises (and most car choices are compromises) of a highish driving position and enthusiastic handling are the Audi Q2 and its sister car the VW T-Roc. The SEAT and Skoda MPVs may be similar but I haven't tried them.
Good to see you back on here more often, Alby. People tend to speak their mind, but very rarely is it personal - and it gets moderated out if it's excessively so!
Edited by Avant on 21/04/2018 at 21:03
|
Hey thanks Avant, it's good to drop in here now and then, there's some good quality stuff here provided by some clearly very knowledgeable people.
And don't worry, I'm well aware that all Internet forums have the occasional chippy Herbert but they're easily dealt with, mainly by ignoring them. If you don't give them a platform for their need to be the centre of attention, they soon go off and find someone else to try to wind up. No worries on that score.
Anyway, it's Saturday night, "yay", I suppose...
;-)
Edited by Alby Back on 21/04/2018 at 22:30
|
|
IIRC the move to SUVs started in the USA where the ever more stringent "across the range average" fuel consumption regulations - whereby all manufacturers had to offer economy cars to offset the gas guzzlers (Aston Martin Cygnet - oops) - were neatly sidestepped by some devious lobbying and legal shenanigans. The final result was that these "cars" were re-classified as "light trucks" or "vans" and were not included in the headcount of naughty polluting vehicles, so behemoths like the Cadillac Escalade and Lincoln Navigator could get away with rubbish fuel economy, dreadful handling, large blindspots, etc.
And, as always, Europe meekly followed the fashion....
|
|
I'm more surprised by the sales of sporty German hatch backs and saloons on 19 and 20 inch wheels with ridiculous suspension, negligible rear seat leg room and excessive performance when most of the time we're constrained by speed limits, cameras and traffic.
Quite happy with my SUV style, 2 wheel drive petrol compared to that uncomfortable rubbish.
Do you sit 4 inches above the carpet in your lounge while watching TV? I thought not, as it's not that comfortable. Much better to sit a little higher with your legs in a more natural sitting position so why sit on the floor in your car unless you’re on a race track and it matters.
An SUV body gives much more leg room in a shorter body length, A more comfortable seating position, If I fold the rear seats down I have the space of a small van. My wife usually gets travel sick unless in the front of the car, however with the raised seating position in the rear she's fine even on a 250 mile journey.
My best economy so far was a few weeks ago when it recorded 60.1 mpg on a 25 mile drive in 30-50 limits and 56.7 on the return, not bad for an April day. Yes, I did say petrol. Even on a cold start in winter it's only a couple of mpg behind my last diesel saloon across a 5 mile congested commute as the engine is warm and the start stop active quickly unless there is frost on the ground.
I've yet to find a road where I need more cornering capability, and I enjoy my better view of the road, less dazzle from oncoming head lights, feeling of space in the cabin etc.
I really don’t see any downsides for a family car.
|
|
Decto, what car have you bought, I'm adding it to my list!
Speaking as someone who has been on both sides of the fence, I'm firmly in favour of SUVs. I have a Korando, with 4 wheel drive I hasten to add (does what I need it to do, appreciate not to everyone's taste), and it's vastly more family friendly than the 320 tourer we had before and far more comfortable!
Now my wife is 'borrowing' it at every opportunity so I'm often in her 308, and nice as it is I just don't get the same buzz driving it.
|
|
Having acquired a Mazda CX-5 petrol just under a year ago I have to say it is my favourite of all the cars I've driven. It handles well, is economical, is easy to load and unload, is comfortable to sit in, getting in and out is effortless. Long journeys are a doddle. In addition, it looks good in its Soul Red paint and has been totally reliable. If this is what SUVs are all about, I'm a convert.
|
|
|
|
Maybe they simply make more sense as a vehicle for an increasing number of people.
Car choices have changed and will change again, ceratin demographs of car user at one time wouldn't have been seen dead in anything other than the most menacing German saloon they could find, i regularly see the similar demograph riding round in cars at one time the preserve of the older buyer, people change and what they want to drive does.
I think lots of people secretly would have liked a Berlingo or other van or multi purpose car, but the image and looks of such vehicles put many off, and image is important to more people than they would admit, now they've made the sector more visually appealing to so many (not to me personally, i still prefer square traditional van or pick up or 4x4 types) all those people can now have cars much more useful for them, can only be a good thing.
I don't buy into the handling argument, unless you make progress through out-cornering and out-accelerating others on dual sections with roundabouts, we now have so many people in the country that we are in almost constant traffic so progress is often reduced to the slowest vehicle in front, overtaking has become less important because you only find another batch of vehicles stuck behind the even slower leader 30 seconds later, this can only get worse.
I too prefer sitting upright on a proper comfy seat with 6" of headroom above my bonce, excellent all round visibility (some fashion statement SUV's don't have this benefit), less sloping pillars with even less blind spots and huge unfashionable door mirrors that you can see everything in, and as MT pointed out you can see more than millions of lorry wheelnut pointers as you sail down the motorway at 55mph which is what all three lanes are increasingly travelling at.
Good SUVs usually have pliable long travel suspension, ok there are exceptions where up to idiotic 21" wheels are fitted but these are usually on the bling multi exhaust offerings, a sector few here would give you a thankyou for.
As for the 4WD argument, i'm a convert, there is nothing more sure footed on greasy pot holed roads than a vehicle with full time 4WD, yes they drink more fuel but if fuel economy was the only consideration we'd all be driving around in Yaris hybrids or similar.
Lastly, one of my colleagues and his wife are only alive because they were in a full size Disco 2, which was hit on the offside front by a souped up jobbie that left the opposite carriageway at a 3 figure speed and literally flew into the front of their car, the old bill told them they would almost certainly both have been killed (as was the errant driver of the airborn car) had they been in any normal car, as it was the crash took the front axle straight out of the Disco and rolled it over...there was no avoiding this crash by the way for the innocent victims no matter how nimble one might think their car is.
Edited by gordonbennet on 22/04/2018 at 10:38
|
|
My wife must be in a minority of one. She is quite short (about 5'2") and says that she would never want us to have an SUV as she would have to climb up into it. Suits me as I don't want one either. Not enough room in the boot of most of them unless you fold down the back seat. I like a big station wagon with a long boot and I don't need or use the height that an SUV would have.
|
|
I do get the whole SUV thing. Mrs 72 dudes has a Q3 and chose it (a) for the higher driving position so she gets a better view and (b) for the easier entry and egress, and she's only 5ft.
What I don't get is the normal cars which ride higher than usual and have a bit of 'cladding' added to make them look a bit 'county'!
Examples include the Cross Country versions of Volvo's V40/V60/V90, the Octavia Scout (no longer available) and Audi's All Road versions of the A4/A6 Avants.
Yes, I know that some of these combine 4WD but really?
But I guess they wouldn't make them if there was no demand.
|
|
I understand what Alby's on about but some are better than others. Making a car higher, might improve visibility but doesn't help anything else. SWMBO has had an Evoque for two years and I find that entry and egress is difficult. Frankly i don't like the car at all, although funnily enough, as a driver, it has pretty good handling and road holding. As a passenger its awful, with a dreadful rear ride. Its also very cramped inside for the external size.
Compare with cars which are in the same market, entry and egress is far easier, the ride is better, visibility is better, but are perhaps less involving to the driver.
I like cars to be a little higher, simply because it helps my back when getting in, but its not an imperitive when choosing a car, and my father's Daihatsu Sirion is simply superb in this regard, despite being low, entry and egress are a doddle. When the children were younger and I was manhandling them into car seats, boosters etc, I wanted a higher car and for many years drove Subaru Foresters and Outback, culminating in a Ford S-Max. All just that bit higher than regular cars but not so high as to offend driving characteristics.
So, horses for courses. I don't find the Qashqai to be overly problematic, but I think every who drives a 2WD SUV should also have a good look at an MPV. They offer far more space, are usually more comfortable, better driving position and are better drivers cars, all for less money. What they don't have is that 'je ne sais quoi' that an SUV has (the Evoque effect), but hopefully the regulars on here know to avoid such nonsense.
Of all the cars I have driven over 35 years, the one car I would own again above all others is the Ford S-Max. It secret was to do what it was designed to do very very well, and in doing so, it did everything else a car can do, also very well. And guess what, it isn't an SUV, it's an MPV.
|
|
I've been reading through this thread with some interest and some amusement in equal measure.
Firstly, for the record, i don't like the SUV as a breed, they really are not the best solution for most applications unless image is your thing. That said, i have absolutely no problem with those who drive them and like them in general. Well, apart from huge examples (step forward Audi Q7) clogging up city centres and particularly roads near schools twice a day being (usually dropping off or picking up one or two tiny children) driven by people who have no spatial awareness!. Apart from them, as has been said, each to their own, etc, etc.
Much has been made of buying an SUV because of better visibility due to the extra height and while this is true over a normal hatchback, it isn't the case when compared to an MPV. Most popular SUV's are not actually that tall, taller than a normal hatchback maybe, but no taller, and in some cases actually lower, than an MPV. A type of car which is likely to also have slimmer pillars (SUV's tend to have 'chunky' pillars to emphasise their toughness), and so have better visibility than an SUV.
Supposed space and versatality issues advantages of an SUV is also, at best, only partly true. Someone mentioned earlier about SUV's having a taller body and therefore more legroom within a given length. Well maybe a little, but only over a normal hatchback. The issue being that while SUV's do have a taller roof, they also have a taller floor, for their extra ground clearance. Now there may not be huge ground clearance on something like the Audi Q3, but the floor is definately a good chunk higher than an A3. So the Q3 is 18cm taller than the A3, but if you subtract the difference in the height of the floor from the ground, i'd wager the actual difference in body heights to be more like half that. Admittedly that is still a benefit for the SUV (though maybe not as big as you might think), but go back to the MPV's and again the tables are turned against the SUV. The floor on the Toyota Verso is going to be around the same height as the A3, but the roof is taller than the Q3, so much more interior space (if you look at the Q3's little brother the Q2, it is only 8mm taller than a Hyundai i10!).
It was also mentioned about someones wife getting car sick in the rear of a 'normal' car, but not in the SUV. With all respect, I really doubt that this has anything to do with whether or not it is an SUV. This is much more likely to do with the size and depth (in relation to seat height) of the windows (as well as spending too much time staring at your smartphone or tablet!). And while you do get SUV's with quite a large glass area, most of them these days don't. The most extreme examples being the evoque (particularly the 3 door), BMW X4 and X6, Merc GLC and GLE, but most modern SUV's have fairly shallow windows in relation to their height (apparently this makes the driver feel safer and more secure? ((who cares that the kids can't see out!)). But this is not going to be good for anyone, child or adult, sitting in the back, who suffers from travel sickness. Pretty much all MPV's are going to have much deeper side windows than a SUV so less likely to cause travel sickness.
Looking at another point though, someone mentioned not liking the feeling of being high up whilst cornering. This is something which does not bother me in the slightest, i've had plenty of entertaining drives on twisty roads in all sorts of tall and unlikely vehicles up to, and including buses!.
Edited by badbusdriver on 22/04/2018 at 21:33
|
|
Another one who has started with the answer and worked backwards, via the Evoque which is not an SUV but a handbag on wheels:)
Likewise you have chosen the BMW X4 (I can't really recall what they are like) and X6 (another expensive poncy ornament) rather than the X3 or X5. I assume you also refer to the 'coupe' versions of the Mercedes GLC and GLE that surely no-one would choose for practicality.
The "theatre" seating which is a feature of many more practical everyday SUVs (including the Outlander and the CRV of which I have have had two of each) makes a huge difference to the rear seat passenger experience.
I'm sure I could get used to,say, my daughter's A6 Avant but riding in the back affords very little forward visibility and is to just unpleasant by comparison - and that's a big car. (Incidentally, the front passenger seat in her car is almost unbearable for more than a few minutes as the backrest is so vertical, owing to the rear-facing child seat behind it - the Outlander accomodates it without this effect).
I take your point about MPVs; the aforementioned daughter is contemplating something like a Galaxy or possibly S-Max.
|
|
As it says clearly in my post, the SUV's mentioned such as the Evoque, X4 and X6 were extreme examples of SUV's with poor visibility, but I went on to say most SUV's have shallow side windows in relation to their height.
As for whether or not an Evoque is an SUV, yes, it clearly is, regardless of what you think or whether or not you like them.
|
|
And furthermore, I didn't 'choose' the X4 or X6, they were mentioned only in passing, the SUV I refered to most was the Audi Q3, which does not have a 'coupe' style roofline.
|
And furthermore, I didn't 'choose' the X4 or X6, they were mentioned only in passing, the SUV I refered to most was the Audi Q3, which does not have a 'coupe' style roofline.
I was a bit confused by your reference to the Audi Q3. You acknowledge that it has more space than the A3 but then you compare it unfavourably with a Toyota Verso as if that nullifies the point of the Q3. If the buyer wants AWD and slightly more ground clearance then he isn't going to substitute a Verso, is he? So what is your point?
There's really no value in picking away like that, people make different compromises, have different needs and motivators, and of course different amounts of money.
It would certainly be hard to 'justify', were it necessary, the concept of the SUV( if it can be defined) with reference to cars such as the Q7 and Range Rover. They are luxury goods.
Similarly it is irrelevant to drag in the destruction of green lanes for fun by vandals as Leif has done - does more than one in 10,000 SUV buyers follow this "hobby"?
|
The Evoque is to my eyes an abomination, the triumph of style/ugliness over practically. But as an SUV hater, I can see the point of something like the VW T-ROC, you get a Golf like interior and exterior size but a more sitty uppy stance, and a Golf like price.
But don’t ask me to like a Range Rovers and other trucks driven by people who do not need off road handling, or who go off road for fun and destroy green lanes.
|
|
I got into HOnda CRVs about 12 years ago. Mother-in-law had walking difficulties and found it hard to get in and out of our other car - an Avensis. So we got a Mk 1 CRV petrol auto - and liked it so much we later on bought a Mk 3, holding on tothe old Mk 1 as a run around. Later sold the Mk 1 which is still going at 182,000 miles! Bought a Mk 4 facelift (petrol auto) and love it.
Advantages - we live in the country, on a step hill that is last priority to clear // salt. The 4 wheel drive has never let us down - and on one occasion helped tow a slipping BMW X5 up the hill! I also like the smoothness of the ride. Fuel consumption is not an issue - I only do 8,000 miles a year, and don't drivie it hard anyway.
Negatives? The interior quality of the Mk 4 is not a patch on the Mk 1. the door sill coverings are badly scratched (i've done 20,000 now) whereas the Mk 1 still looks like new.
But on reliability, Honda means never getting to know your mechanics name ' cos you only take the car for servicing and MOT and rarely (very rarely) for repairs!. If only Range / Land Rovers were as reliable, I'd be inclicned to change marque, nut the only competitor seems to be VW Tiguan or Skoda Karoc / Kodiak
|
|
|
|
