Jump to content

Cars vs SUVs


Frantz

Recommended Posts

I'm a car guy, I hate SUVs compared to cars personally. However, I make a living at a Volvo dealership and SUVs are literally my bread and butter. I can't help but notice that early cars were really SUVs. Look at anything up until the 1930s and they were high upright sitting vehicles. So it seems the functional trend is towards SUVs but the market acts as thought it's an evolution of the car.... but really it's a regression. I never have heard this mentioned, though I'm sure I'm not the first to see it (especially some of you custodians of older machines). What do you think caused the trend towards driving over comfort and now back towards comfort? On a quick ponder for myself I think once we reached the reasonable on road driving capabilities we were able to make SUVs as performance oriented as your average driver was going to push their vehicle. But at first, a lower car meant far better handling and the performance was significantly improved to overtake utility and comfort as a prime motivator. But what made cars like Hudsons "step down" comfortable to people then but now folks feel more comfortable sliding right into a small crossover compared to sitting down in a sedan? Is it that sedans simply got TOO low and small? No modern sedans sit quite like my '54 Ford does. IDK, could make for an interesting conversation so I bring it before you all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often get the feeling that Soccer Mom's all really wanted to be bus drivers when they grew up. I use a truck when I need a truck, and as low a car as I can afford at all other times.

But I grew up driving MG's , Triumph's and in moments of prosperity a Lotus or two. I really don't get the whole "tall station wagon" thing. 

 

If I ever won the loto this would be my choice of vehicle. Or if the powerball perhaps the red one.

 

Greg in Canada

img_4738.jpg

untitledbreadvan.png

Edited by 1912Staver (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is that SUV's replaced the station wagon body style that was no longer available. Sure there were and are mini vans but mini vans gave support to the demise of a station wagon. Station wagons pre 1950 were pretty much the wood wagons that were used for work to bring people to the (train) station, or use for shopping where the extra room required for bags, boxes existed and weren't really easily placed in sedans . The SUV replaced the station wagon that went missing a few years before. Sport Utility Vehicle - the sport let people drive around in something that didn't remind them /put a label on them that they were a mirror of their parents and aunts and uncles of the "old school" era that used these , but the UTILITY was needed for them to move people, bags, boxes , kids, strollers etc just like the former station wagons did. Car manufacturers will design and build a vehicle that they know sells and serves a purpose. When the station wagon disappeared from the scene, the mini van didn't quite give the consumer the "car look" they preferred , everyone wants to " look good in other peoples eyes " ( except a few like me!) so something sporty has to be on offer to reflect who you are - or most likely think you are or wanna be. All the people who want to be independent and show their individual style and taste mimic each other because they want to be trendy  or popular or 'with it'.  "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" as the great jazz song went.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just upgraded my daily driver to a Mini Van made in this century. Ride and "handling" never meant a thing to me. Ripped the back seats out and it is loaded for the Sunday flea market. If a new vehicle can't make me money it is worthless. How about a chat about $80,000 pickup trucks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drive, from high to low, 2004 Dodge 2500 diesel PU, 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee, , and 1969 427 Corvette. They all are a compromise that do one thing best at the expense of everything else. I'm blessed that I have the resources to own/drive pretty much anything I want. Notice a "car" isn't in the mix.

If I were forced to have only one of the three I would keep the Jeep. If allowed two, the useless Vette would go.

In pure ease of driving, over all utility, and comfort the Jeep wins. In pure utility it's the Dodge. In pure go fast while being uncomfortable the Vette takes the prize.

If I were forced to live in a city and own a car they all would go and I would choose the cheapest most expendable POS that would suffice and buy a new one as soon as the guarantee expired. ..........Bob

 

 

Edited by Bhigdog (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interpretation is that cars got too small in the

1980's.  They were scaled down twice for fuel economy,

and that suited some users;  but some people wanted

the carrying capacity--people or cargo--of a big car

and so they turned to trucks and utility vehicles.

 

Along the way, people found that SUV's are great

with 4-wheel-drive, for snow or bad weather conditions.

They can carry a lawn mower, or hay bales, or give you

plenty of space when you help your friend move.

Their popularity led them into new sizes--small, medium,

and large--and into levels of comfort and luxury that

big cars used to have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the big attractions for the SUV's for my wife and many of her friends is the driver sits much higher in a SUV.  When we purchased her last SUV she sat in a sedan at the dealer and said "No Way, it's too low".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few reasons why the trend toward bigger vehicles.

 

The average American is getting larger and older,.... and as in my case, arthritic. Many of us can't fold ourselves up into those little things anymore.

 

After years of being able to spread out with toys, books, and sometimes bring a friend along in our 8 passenger Econoline 350, my kids complained about being squashed into their Mother's Subaru Outback when they were  still little skinny kids.  

 

Last year I was asked to drive my late BIL's 64-1/2 Mustang notch-back in his memorial service procession. I won't tell you how long it took me to fold myself into it..... but I had to roll out the door into a pushup position in the street to get out. And that was with the seat back as far as it would go.

 

Had a minivan for about ten years. Loved all the room for me, tools, and car parts. Then, Ford stopped making them so I bought one of the last American full sized station wagons - a 2008 Taurus-X. It's the smallest most economical thing I can fold myself into.

 

My brother has one of the newer Volvo wagons. He needs it to take gear back and forth to his sailboats. I have trouble getting in and out of that. Compared to my Taurus it's very cramped inside and it can't carry near as much as cargo as the Taurus.

 

Paul

Edited by PFitz (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Robert G. Smits said:

I think one of the big attractions for the SUV's for my wife and many of her friends is the driver sits much higher in a SUV.  When we purchased her last SUV she sat in a sedan at the dealer and said "No Way, it's too low".

 Same here. After the low ride of her VW Passat wagon, my wife only wanted a Ford Escape. Small-ish enough, but she sits up higher where she can see more than just the bumper of the car in front of her.

 

Paul

Edited by PFitz (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, PFitz said:

A few reasons why the trend toward bigger vehicles.

 

The average American is getting larger and older,.... and as in my case, arthritic. Many of us can't fold ourselves up into those little things anymore.

 

After years of being able to spread out with toys, books, and sometimes bring a friend along in our 8 passenger Econoline 350, my kids complained about being squashed into their Mother's Subaru Outback when they were  still little skinny kids.  

 

Last year I was asked to drive my late BIL's 64-1/2 Mustang notch-back in his memorial service procession. I won't tell you how long it took me to fold myself into it..... but I had to roll out the door into a pushup position in the street to get out. And that was with the seat back as far as it would go.

 

Had a minivan for about ten years. Loved all the room for me, tools, and car parts. Then, Ford stopped making them so I bought one of the last American full sized station wagons - a 2008 Taurus-X. It's the smallest most economical thing I can fold myself into.

 

My brother has one of the newer Volvo wagons. He needs it to take gear back and forth to his sailboats. I have trouble getting in and out of that. Compared to my Taurus it's very cramped inside and it can't carry near as much as cargo as the Taurus.

 

Paul

 

I have always thought of 1st. gen  Mustangs as cars you can play tennis inside.  If only they made them the same size as a Lotus Cortina Ford would have really had something.  A 289 powered Cortina is probably the best combination ever in a sedan, quite a few have been built over the years.  Liked the 1966 2 + 2 of my high school years a lot, if they were even close to affordable and less thirsty I might have one today. I am near 6 ft. 2 in and 230 lbs, and think of cars like my Lotus Europa or TVR 2500 as difficult to get in and out of. An early Mustang

seems like a Cadillac compared to those two.  But I am only in my early 60's and so far arthritis is at bay. My wife is 5 years younger and does not like my small cars anymore, as you say pain getting in and out.

 

Greg in Canada

Edited by 1912Staver (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a time when SUVs were out, back when they were the larger versions of Expeditions, Blazers, Grand Cherokee, etc.  Fuel economy killed them.  Then came the fuel miser little cars that filled the transportation needs until they became too small to fit our needs.  The next gen SUVs answered the fuel economy issues and added some styling to the mix along with some extra room.  When you drove your little car and found you couldn’t see anything when parked next to the new SUV, now you wanted a SUV too so you could again see the road and traffic plus the bigger size gave your a feeling of security.  As SUV sales increased there was a rush to revamp existing auto designs into SUV styling to sell them.  The Volvo S90 comes to mind as the car to SUV transformation.  Then pickups morphed into giants with four doors and even more “big is better attitude”.  As long as fuel says relatively cheap the bigger is better mentality will prevail.  In defense of the taller vehicles, they do offer better in and out egress as you don’t have to pull yourself up and roll out as with some auto designs.

 

Personally I still like autos over SUV designs.  The new Chevy Blazer doesn’t look too bad but if I were in the market I would be looking at cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the seventies and perhaps into the 80s SUVs were exempt from passenger car emissions and safety laws because they were built on truck chassis. This allowed them to install decent engines among other things. This is when the public began buying them in large numbers.

Then downsizing and progress killed the full size family car and station wagon, and minivans took over. An SUV is almost as good as a minivan without the stigma of low cost.

It is a mystery to me why cars keep getting smaller and more cramped on the inside, as people get bigger. Cars aren't any lighter than they used to be,  a Ford Taurus is heavier than a full size 1959 Ford sedan but has half the room inside.

Edited by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing factoring into today’s design is crash survival.  Autos by law have to provide occupant protection to a level the 1959 Ford did not have to meet.  Many of today’s cars look really bad after an accident but the occupants survive provided the were using seat belts properly.  My last car was a 2008 Dodge Caliber.  Not the most pretty looking of the lot but the areas beefed up for crash worthiness were apparent.  It had that SUV wannabe look to it that hurt its value for a while and then suddenly it was back in style.   If I am going to be in a crash, I would want to be in the Caliber rather than the 1959 Ford.  If I want to choose looks over function the 1959 Ford wins.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have two SUV's.  A Yukon for towing and a Saturn Vue (With Honda Engine & Transmission)  for gas mileage.  The Yukon is as comfortable as  the 94 Cadillac Fleetwood it replaced.  One thing I like about SUV's is that they make it easier to buy car covers for our 1930's cars, same profile.   Just keep parking your antique

next to SUV's of similar size and shape.  Then order that SUV car cover for your antique car.   They are the perfect height and shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frantz said:

So lots of good thoughts... but what do you think caused us to get away from this in the first place? A 1920 Chevy 4 door was closer to an SUV than a car.

 

The first cars were derivatives of enclosed wagons fitted with engines.

So it makes sense that cars would continue that look, especially in the late teens, early 20's.

It was in the early 30's that cars began to have lower roof lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really all made up labels. They are just tall cars...

 

We have a 1994 Grand Cherokee (family daily driver from 2003-15), a 2018 Ford Edge and a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt. While sitting in all of them is fine, it is difficult for me to get in and out of the Cobalt- sometimes I need physical help to get my legs in and out. Getting in and out of the Edge is mostly easy (the seat track can sometimes catch the back of my leg because I have it back all the way) because it's large enough to not have to worry about contortions, but low enough that it doesn't require stretching too far to get into it. Getting out is easy, as it was in the Jeep. Also, there is more head room. I've only hit my head on the Edge 2 times in a year and a half. Don't know how many times I've hit my head getting in and out of the Cobalt since we got it new. 

 

One thing I have thought about, is that back in the day it was a big deal when they were able to make solid metal roofs on cars. Now, our Edge has the panoramic sunroof so it basically just has a ring of metal around glass, instead of canvas. That's a much more interesting comparison to me. And it makes me wonder why they never thought to fill the roof hole with glass instead of canvas back in those pre-war days. You never even see it done in hot rods for some reason. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No laws of physics have been repealed.  A high center of gravity, well forward, is still bad for all vehicle dynamics.

 

Also , the steering is not connected to the brakes.  There is no need to slow your wallowing bus down even further to go around the corner.  Unless it's to avoid problems with your phone, coffee, and video.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother has a mercedes CLA AMG, and it's certainly no-where near as practical as a station wagon (*cough* shooting break) was back in the day - I doubt it really fits that much more practically than the sedan variants

 

I had a Volve XC90 as a rental in the UK, that was certainly an interesting experience taking it down small country lanes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it has been a matter of wanting/needing a tow car. In the '70s-80s it was a Pontiac Mid-size station wagon. In the 90s-00s it was a Pontiac TranSport, today I have a '12 Jeep Grand Cherokee with towing package. Interesting thing, when I bought the Jeep sales were poor and I got several discounts and rebates which made a new one less than a grand more than a used one. DOHC-6 and 5,000 lb towing capacity (minivans were at most 3,000 lbs). Is also a comfortable trip car that gets 24 mpg on the road. Driving position is similar to the TranSport and has pleanty of luggage space particularly with the second seat folded down.

 

That said it really is not that big and is easy to park (with rear camera) so while my other cars are relatively small two seaters (had the SLK out today) the GC is best when I need to do something beyond the other's capabilities.

 

BTW with a 50-50 weight distro, 4 wheel disks, front and rear sway bars, and IFS/IRS (Mercedes chassis) it is really quite comfortable to drive in the twisties and the slap stick works well in the mountains. Also the DOHC VVT 24 valve Pentastar engine is about as advanced as you can get for NA. So its a keeper.

 

 

onsite7.jpg

Edited by padgett (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the OP is getting to the point.  Cars started as tall and fairly uniform vehicles.  As time went on they got closer to the ground.  As more time went on, the marketplace said we needed both cars that started handling better, as well as work vehicles.  Now the cars closer to the ground are for those who desire performance, while the rest want the  practicality of easy entry and visibility.  It’s just been a fairly normal and predictable  marketplace.  With any product, the specificity increase over time.  Any and all vehicle type is now available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bucket seats, console shifter, heavy duty sway bars, four wheel disc brakes, and IRS suspension.  Back in the day, that would have described a high performance sports car, but that just describes my 2009 Ford Explorer.

 

Times, they do change.

 

Cheers,

Grog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true - but it's moved for what a performance car is too.  The physics of weight and moment of inertia still differentiate although the degree to which technology raises the base level changes.  Look at the 1930's shift to an ordinary car having downdraft carburetion, hydraulic brakes, independent front suspension at the end of the decade.  That doesn't mean that a 1940 Plymouth was considered a high performance vehicle when new, although a much more advanced car than a Model A. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suggest that the biggest changes were due to tire design. Further the tires of their time (and excluding racing tires which made a major jump around 1963), my Jeep would outhandle anything on stock tires before 1968. The explosion in engine and transmission technology was made possible by much better tires.

 

At the same time some cars have disappeared. Try to find an American Sports Coupe. At one time things like the Thunderbird, Javelin, GTO, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Eldorado were at the top of the food chain. Now, except for some retro pony cars (now 4000+ pounds) they have disappeared.

 

ps I always thought the Volvo P1800ES was a neat car and had an Astre 2-door station wagon. OTOH I stopped driving Fieros because SUV drivers often could not see it.

Edited by padgett (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GTO and Javelin were in a different class than the personal luxury coupe/GT bigger cars.  I agree that the new retro Challenger/Camaro/Mustang are big and heavy and really the new GT types more like the old TBird/Monte.  A number of the European makers still make coupes based on their sedans.  And Mercedes, a four door not shaped like a shoebox is still not a "4 door coupe."  The Japanese largely dropped cars like the Camry coupe Solara to use the capacity for sedans and CUV's that were in more demand.  Yup, it's very small segment . Perhaps the remnant is really the mostly Japanese smaller coupes like Civic.  I like the "hot hatch " segment for utility( but not towing) plus performance, but styling is pretty much killed by the two box shape.  At least convertibles have come back

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, padgett said:

I'd suggest that the biggest changes were due to tire design. Further the tires of their time (and excluding racing tires which made a major jump around 1963), my Jeep would outhandle anything on stock tires before 1968. The explosion in engine and transmission technology was made possible by much better tires.

 

I must admit that I agree whole-heartedly with Padgett about the advances in tire technology/design.  The tires on my Explorer are relatively low profile with a wide tread (M+S 255/50 R20) and "stick" very well, even with the M+S rating.  The Movie "Grand Prix", starring James Garner, et al, was produced in 1966, and showed the evolving tire design of the period.  Some scenes showed the F-1 cars with the old style "skinny" tires, whereas other scenes showed tires with wider more modern tread width,  but keeping a fairly high profile design.  The movie "Le Mans", starring Steve McQueen, et all, was shot just 5 years later (1971), and virtually all of the cars in that movie showed the more modern low profile wide tread type of tire.  Of course, today's race tires are even wider tread and lower profile than the racing tires of 1971.

 

Maintaining a Low Profile,

Grog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True but for a "full" sized GM sport coupe/personal luxury car, there is only one and I have it (though frankly am having to dump as much of the pseudo Track day bits as I can & need to find softer shocks. OTOH it usually takes me a year or two to get a car the way I want it.).

 

My goat is a 2-door and that is really what I was referring to. Back in the 60's, every mfr. had a two door, either hardtop or coupe, now they have almost gone away though my personal taste has not changed. Have to accept that my tow car must be multi-door (have never had a pick-up) but one is plenty.

 

If modern medicine had not made me a cripple for a year (have gotten better) probably would not have bought the Caddy but it suits for a daily driver even in hot weather. Am odd in that I do not consider cars "multi purpose" (aka MPV) and can afford more than one.

 

So the real reason for the Jeep is U-haul will rent me anything they have and that it is easy to park (is only an inch longer than the caddy) and a great road car is just a plus.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I was in the market for a new car { 2011} , I was very impressed with the Subaru BRZ / Scion FR -S. Nice as they are I just couldn't  justify the more than doubling of the price

compared to the Hyundai Accent I ultimately chose. That Accent has been a extremely good car.

I dismantled a 30 X 60 structural aluminum framed commercial greenhouse over the summer, took me 3 weeks and 90 % of it came home in the Accent. Including about 2 ton's  of glass panels .Just 1 load on my car trailer

of the 16 to 20 foot pieces. Lots of trips but it was only about 5 miles away from my place.

Access to the site was poor but I could get the Accent right up to the greenhouse , the closest I could get the Ranger and trailer was about 600 feet away so everything going on the trailer had to be carried a long distance.

A new storage shed on the cheap, just add sweat.

 

Greg in Canada

DSC_9785.JPG

DSC_9790.JPG

Edited by 1912Staver (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our last new car ended up being a Kia Soul.  My wife loved it(and still does) and it carries way more than you would expect it to.  Dead reliable(no warranty claims, a first for me with a new car) only one non wear related repair in 70,000 miles(camshaft sensor, an easy fix) and pretty good mileage as well. And a purchase price a couple of thousand dollars less than the other cars we looked at.  The funny thing is although I consider it a car it is titled as an SUV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMW ruined the latest iteration of the 1 series by going FWD, now it's just the same as everyone else but more expensive.... My 125i will do 0-60 in about 6 seconds and get 40 mpg highway - fantastic little car. Though I"m not sure that my wife will approve my next car being another hot hatch 🤐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. As mentioned I do not care for 4 cyl engines (have one with DOHC and 16 valves but was too cheap to pass up) Most of my cars get about the same road MPG  from 23 ('11 3.6 GM DI) to 27 ('88 3800). Dunno what the Judge gets. Probably the way I drive (lots on cruise). Think the best was 33 but was a '90 Bonne when the NMSL was in effect. Major difference seems to be the RPM at 70mpg in top - under 2000 is good, close to 2500 is bad.

 

Point I am making is my tow car is in the middle and thanks to a 26 gallon tank has the longest range. To me it is the latest in a 50 year history of tow cars and the best.

 

ps my coupe has the same 3.6 DI DOHC, 24 valves, VVT, 7,000 rpm redline AND a 3.73 posi rear gear. WOT in first with the traction control off can get exciting. It is quite an engine but I pay for that 3.73 at the pump (average is under 20).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and have a couple of very different vehicles. I own a 3/4T Dodge Cummins turbo diesel 4x4 truck. I don’t like compromising. Not do I like asking people for favors.  I can tow or haul whatever I need to. In any weather. I can trailer my vintage car if wanted. Tow my RV for summer holidays. Make dump runs. Pick up furniture. Pick up my old engine blocks at the machine shop. When needed 4x4 over a mountian pass in the winter....Whatever.  Sure it burns fuel, but it does all I ask of it and more. Some folks need a stepping stool to get in it. Ya gotta shut it off to order at a burger the drive thru. I love it. 

 

My wife drives a very efficient and small Honda Civic. It’s very low to the ground. So much so that I do struggle a little to see a curb out past the front fender. It sips fuel. I have experienced up to 50 mpg on hi-way trips thru the flat desert states. 1.5L turbo automatic. Cheap to operate. Plenty of pep on tap. Cheap travel costs when going on road trips.  We’re pretty fit and approaching the end of our 40’s. I can see that at 55 and up it might be a PITA to get in and out of. An SUV would probably be better suited for us in out senior years. The diesel truck may very well be an even bigger PITA to get in and out of. 

 

My son has a Toyota SUV. It seems easy to drive. Loading bulky items in the back is easy. 4 door convenience. I can see how an SUV fits many folks. It isn’t necessarily great at anything except versatility. It’s does a little bit of everything, sorta. Easy for Moms to get kids buckled up. Easy load height for groceries. Good visibility. AWD or 4x4 good for Canadian winters. 

 

I think I just talked myself into my wife’s next vehicle. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...