|
What is the difference between an "SUV" and a "hatchback" ?
Do "Hatchbacks" still exist ?
|
|
An SUV is a hatchback on stilts, with worse handling, ride, fuel economy and a higher price tag to rub salt into the wound.
|
|
SUVs were originally Sport Utility Vehicles; 4wd vehicles that could carry stuff across most terrains. Like a Land Rover or Jeep Cherokee. Then Nissan released the Qashqai, a hatchback that looked like an SUV and so the 'crossover' was born. These days, the terms SUV and Crossover are mostly interchangeable. As above, they are just slightly worse hatchbacks and estates. They do benefit from a higher seating position and better view but that's only necessary because everyone is driving around in massive cars.
Normal hatchbacks are still available from most manufacturers, but the choice is diminishing.
|
SUVs were originally Sport Utility Vehicles; 4wd vehicles that could carry stuff across most terrains. Like a Land Rover or Jeep Cherokee. Then Nissan released the Qashqai, a hatchback that looked like an SUV and so the 'crossover' was born. These days, the terms SUV and Crossover are mostly interchangeable. As above, they are just slightly worse hatchbacks and estates. They do benefit from a higher seating position and better view but that's only necessary because everyone is driving around in massive cars.
Normal hatchbacks are still available from most manufacturers, but the choice is diminishing.
The Qashqai came a long time after the first "crossover" - the Subaru Outback beat it by a decade in 1994 - but even that is beaten by the 1979 AMC Eagle and 1977 Matra Rancho
|
|
Effectively a marketing trick by the manufacturers. Raise height of hatchbacks slightly and claim it as SUV and charge £££ for it.
I myself fell fell in this trap :o)
My Ceed could fit large water bottles in the door pocket. Same bottles don't fit in my larger Sportage.
I think best value for money car is an estate. More space than SUV with at a hatchback level price point.
Edited by movilogo on 13/12/2024 at 16:39
|
|
|
SUVs were originally Sport Utility Vehicles; 4wd vehicles that could carry stuff across most terrains. Like a Land Rover or Jeep Cherokee. Then Nissan released the Qashqai, a hatchback that looked like an SUV and so the 'crossover' was born. These days, the terms SUV and Crossover are mostly interchangeable. As above, they are just slightly worse hatchbacks and estates. They do benefit from a higher seating position and better view but that's only necessary because everyone is driving around in massive cars.
Normal hatchbacks are still available from most manufacturers, but the choice is diminishing.
The Qashqai came a long time after the first "crossover" - the Subaru Outback beat it by a decade in 1994 - but even that is beaten by the 1979 AMC Eagle and 1977 Matra Rancho
I did think about the Matra Rancho, which is often talked of as the first crossover, but kind of ignored it. It wasn't tremendously successful, but I think it actually did quite well considering it was a Matra. It does seem that people just didn't notice the desire for crossovers because it was masked by the lack of interest in Matras (or Talbots).
I wouldn't count the Outback or Eagle as crossovers because they were both 4wd and capable. A proper crossover is just a silly looking hatchback.
|
Do "Hatchbacks" still exist ?
Hope so, 2 on our drive.
I did think about the Matra Rancho, which is often talked of as the first crossover, but kind of ignored it. It wasn't tremendously successful, but I think it actually did quite well considering it was a Matra. It does seem that people just didn't notice the desire for crossovers because it was masked by the lack of interest in Matras (or Talbots).
It was a Horizon under the body panels, even in the late 70's/early 80's not a particularly desirable car.
|
Do "Hatchbacks" still exist ?
Hope so, 2 on our drive.
I did think about the Matra Rancho, which is often talked of as the first crossover, but kind of ignored it. It wasn't tremendously successful, but I think it actually did quite well considering it was a Matra. It does seem that people just didn't notice the desire for crossovers because it was masked by the lack of interest in Matras (or Talbots).
It was a Horizon under the body panels, even in the late 70's/early 80's not a particularly desirable car.
It was based on the pickup version of the Simca 1100 - the Horizon was an all-new replacement for the Simca 1100 and Hillman Avenger.
|
|
Could have been really successful if they made it 4x4 and fitted a better engine rather than the rattly thing they did.
|
Could have been really successful if they made it 4x4 and fitted a better engine rather than the rattly thing they did.
4wd was very basic in those days - few if any central differentials and relying on free-wheeling front hubs to prevent wind-up when used on-road.
|
Could have been really successful if they made it 4x4 and fitted a better engine rather than the rattly thing they did.
4wd was very basic in those days - few if any central differentials and relying on free-wheeling front hubs to prevent wind-up when used on-road.
I've had three different 4wd vehicles from 1992 and 93. All had freewheeling hubs and no centre diff, so it seems 'proper' 4wd is a recent arrival. No doubt Subaru and Audi would disagree
|
|
The terms "SUV" and "Crossover", (along with "MPV" and "people carrier") are entirely meaningless (with regards to what they are applied to) nonsense dreamed up by marketing types. I am absolutely baffled as to why these made up labels assume so much importance and mean so much to some people.
My advice would be to choose a car based on what you need and like. What label has been applied to it shouldn't be a factor.
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. I wanted to buy a family hatchback. However, it seems difficult to find one. The available options are now mainly SUVs or estates.
For some models, manufacturers are only producing saloon versions instead of offering a hatchback option.
Try getting that IKEA flatpack in a saloon or that large flat panel TV.
|
You are right. I wanted to buy a family hatchback. However, it seems difficult to find one. The available options are now mainly SUVs or estates.
You can't be looking very hard. Top Gear lists 70 hatchback reviews in 2024 and Carwow has 94 in its 2024 best hatchback list.
|
|
Benefits of a tall estate - more commonly known as an SUV:
- easier entry and exit for those with dodgy joints
- better visibility whilst driving
- more interior space - particularly in back where roofline is often limiting
- bigger boot
- height often allows greater suspension travel - more comfortable ride
Negatives:
- slightly less fuel efficient - 1-3mpg typically- not a deal breaker for most
- higher centre of gravity - possibly an issue if driven on the ragged edge
|
|
|
|
Yes. they list 70, but they are small or medium hatchbacks. The family hatchbacks have largely vanished.
|
Yes. they list 70, but they are small or medium hatchbacks. The family hatchbacks have largely vanished.
I think that the people who didn't prefer an SUV realised that they didn't need to spend the money on a big hatchback so buy the smaller ones.
Skoda Superb is (for now) the only big hatch I can think of!
|
|
|
|
|
|
