Where will SUV's place in AACA as time passes?

[Gunsmoke]

In several topics recently, the ubiquitious SUV has raised the ire of more than one poster. Is it a car, is it a truck, is it a good idea, poor idea, is it really at all sporty, is it utility focused, just what the hell are they really? I've personally always viewed them for the most part as a poor compromise between a decent hatchback car and a small club-cab truck. Recently drove in a friends 2012 Porsche Cayenne and my sons 2016 Toyota 4Runner. The Cayenne was not at all up to Porsche's reputation, pretty blah, while the 4Runner was a great ride, posh, well mannered, and economical. 

 

Here's Wikipedia's latest dissertation (remember it is drafted by volunteer writers) on the subject. Where do we see this type vehicle being sectioned off in the AACA car shows of the future, like it or not! (edit- Steve M indicates their is already an AACA category, never knew! wil leave post anyway, food for thought).

 

A sport utility vehicle or SUV is a car classification that combines elements of road-going passenger cars with features from off-road vehicles, such as raised ground clearance and four-wheel drive. (sounds about right -editor)

There is no commonly agreed-upon definition of an SUV and usage of the term varies between countries. Thus, it is "a loose term that traditionally covers a broad range of vehicles with four-wheel drive." Some definitions claim that an SUV must be built on a light truck chassis; however, broader definitions consider any vehicle with off-road design features to be an SUV. A crossover SUV is often defined as an SUV built with unibody construction (as with passenger cars), however, in many cases, crossovers are simply referred to as SUVs.

The predecessors to SUVs date back to military and low-volume UV models from the late 1930s, and the four-wheel drive station wagons and carryalls that began to be introduced in 1949. The 1984 Jeep Cherokee (XJ) is considered to be the first SUV in the modern style. Some SUVs produced today use unibody construction; however, in the past, more SUVs used body-on-frame construction. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the popularity of SUVs greatly increased, often at the expense of the popularity of large sedans and station wagons.

More recently, smaller SUVs, mid-size, and crossovers have become increasingly popular. SUVs are currently the world's largest automotive segment and accounted for 45.9% of the world's passenger car market in 2021.^[2]

SUVs have been criticized for a variety of environmental and safety-related reasons. They generally have poorer fuel efficiency and require more resources to manufacture than smaller vehicles, thus contributing more to climate change and environmental degradation.^[3] Their higher center of gravity increases their risk of rollovers. Their larger mass increases their braking radius, reduces visibility, and increases damage to other road users in collisions. Their higher front-end profile makes them at least twice as likely to kill pedestrians they hit.^[4] Additionally, the psychological sense of security they provide influences drivers to drive less cautiously.^[5]

Edited April 29, 2022 by Gunsmoke (see edit history)

[Billy Kingsley]

They are just station wagons with a taller roof. 

[1912Staver]

If you call a 1960's Land Rover 88 station Wagon a SUV then I really liked the one I owned years ago. Poor fuel economy led me to sell it, but looking at todays prices I sure should have hung on to it. 

 But otherwise I really don't care for them much. A 4 Runner or similar perhaps. But more to haul my Formula Ford { small } trailer and tools etc. than regular use. 2 WD version would work fine for me. I currently use a 2009 Ranger 2 WD, but a secure rear compartment might be handy.

 I actually wouldn't mind having my fathers old 1972 Suburban back. 292 , 6 , 4 speed, 2 WD. A Forrest Co. crew truck trade in at the GMC dealership he worked at. Very versatile. Not 100% sure it would be considered a Sport UV , but definitely utility vehicle.

Edited April 29, 2022 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[ply33]

9 minutes ago, Billy Kingsley said:

They are just station wagons with a taller roof. 

The registration/title information for the 1991 Jeep Cherokee I once had showed it as a station wagon.

 

I think you have a pretty good definition there but I’d add that they are probably a bit more prone to roll over in accidents than an old station wagon.

[Billy Kingsley]

My 94 Grand Cherokee and 2018 Edge do as well. We had multiple wagons when I was growing up, with a 74 Torino providing the best memories. 

[Steve Moskowitz]

AACA already has a class for SUV's from 1966-1997.  The description of the class can be found in the judges manual on page 4-25 (it is online on this website).

[Oldsmobile 83]

1 hour ago, Steve Moskowitz said:

AACA already has a class for SUV's from 1966-1997.  The description of the class can be found in the judges manual on page 4-25 (it is online on this website).

Thanks Steve, I was thinking there was a class for SUV'S.  Here is the description:

 

       

 

Tim

[Pfeil]

so I guess these would qualify.

[39BuickEight]

Marketing is funny.  My 1939 Buick has greater ground clearance and more space than either my wife’s Acura MDX or my company car Chevrolet Traverse.  

[hidden_hunter]

No different to any other body style that was maligned at the time

 

 Funnily enough my 22 Cadillac 5 passenger coupe has an almost identical profile to a 2018 BMW X5 (albeit squared off)

[Bhigdog]

Love em, hate em, praise or disparage em but I'll never own another "car" again. They ride great, lots-0-room, go in snow, sit high, better crash protection and better styling than the typical "car". Whats not to like? On the rare occasions I'm in a car these days I feel like I'm sitting in a shoe...Bob

[alsancle]

The SUV is the greatest invention of all time.   You want to know why?   I was able to have 3 kids and never have own a mini-van!   

[edinmass]

What about the full sized wagon!😎

[edinmass]

GVW is the determining criteria for a car or truck. Unless you drive a V-16 Caddy or V-12 Packard. They are half car and half truck.

[plymouthcranbrook]

Illinois lists my wife’s Kia Soul as an SUV.

[alsancle]

30 minutes ago, edinmass said:

What about the full sized wagon!😎

This?

 

 

[TAKerry]

1 hour ago, alsancle said:

The SUV is the greatest invention of all time.   You want to know why?   I was able to have 3 kids and never have own a mini-van!   

My wife REFUSED to have a mini van. My brother had a second gen caravan and it was actually a great car. Lots of room and comfort. We ended up with a Grand Cherokee and a couple of Expeditions. I prefer the styling of those over the mini vans but to this day would no mind having one. 

And isnt SUV a modern term? I suppose it is retro actively acceptable but seems kind of odd that AACA would have a category named for them.

[edinmass]

58 minutes ago, alsancle said:

This?

 

 

 

My other car is a Pierce Arrow…….you gotta buy me a new bumper sticker.

[nzcarnerd]

Most modern SUVs are just 'cars, or 'station wagons' as Billy Kingsley noted above. 

 

This 2013 Nissan Rogue (4 cylinder, CVT trans, front wheel drive) was our rental during the week we were in the north east in 2015. Photo taken in the Mt Washington summit car park, which it certainly climbed up to with no drama. It was the fog that came and went and at times meant you could not see past the front of the car that freaked my partner.   Like most modern cars it was a roomy, smooth, quiet and unobtrusive mean of getting from A to B and caused no issues. I think it got better than 30mpg. 

 

Whether it will be considered collectible in 25 years I guess our generation would doubt, but you never know. 

 

 

 

 

[Gunsmoke]

I guess the buying public cannot be wrong, if SUV sales are near 50% of all vehicles nowadays. Carry-All seemed like a good generic title! Eventually I suppose the AACA 38 Category will be refined from it's Blazer/Bronco type thinking to having a good look at the whole array of modern variations. I can see 2 categories, "car based", and "truck based" , or light duty and heavy duty. I don't personally feel strongly one way or the other about them(I have 4 sons, they drive a 4Runner, VW Atlas and Nissan Rogue, Honda CRV, and Subaru Crosstrek, so I need to mind my manners. Other than some of the short comings mentioned in the Wiki article, at their current popularity, combined with the current pressure for more EV or other fuel reduction strategies, it will be interesting to see where vehicle design goes in next 5 years. EV effectiveness presses for reduced weight. 4WD should be easy with electric powered vehicles, no need for complex transfer cases etc, and easy to switch in and out of AWD. So I guess we will all have to stand by and see where it all goes. 

[61polara]

4 hours ago, Pfeil said:

so I guess these would qualify.

The Volkswagon would still be in Class 4c as it is for all Volkswagons through 1992.  As far as how vehicles less than 25 years old will be classified in the future, AACA is very fluid in adapting classes to cars meeting the 25 year rule.  Not only do we have an SUV Class but also a RV Class.  

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, 61polara said:

The Volkswagon would still be in Class 4c as it is for all Volkswagons through 1992.  As far as how vehicles less than 25 years old will be classified in the future, AACA is very fluid in adapting classes to cars meeting the 25 year rule.  Not only do we have an SUV Class but also a RV Class.  

Seems odd, VW makes cars, vans, campers, pick-ups, SUV's, police cars, fire trucks, utility vehicles, ambulances, military vehicles all well before 1992. So does most other manufacturers like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, Mercedes, etc.etc. I expect they are all treated the same???  

[61polara]

In many cases, a car could be classified in one or more classes.  In that case, the correct class is the most specific one for that vehicle.  The VW Thing pictured above, could go in one of the general production classes (Class 27), but since there is a specific VW Class, that is where it should be judged.  If the VW Thing was a true military version, it would be placed in the Military Class.  If it was a police vehicle it could go into the professional car Class.  Volkswagon is the only make specific class in AACA other than in the High Performance Classes.  AACA is very responsive to creating new classes as they are needed.

[MotiveLensPhoto]

They are certainly ubiquitous. I am on my second (2016 and 2021 enclave). My wife and one daughter have smaller ones. My other daughter has a Mini Countryman, which kind of is an suv as well. I like mine except for the real trunk. I'm probably going to a sedan or large coupe/convertible if I can find one when the time comes. I need room for my clubs.

[Pfeil]

6 hours ago, 61polara said:

In many cases, a car could be classified in one or more classes.  In that case, the correct class is the most specific one for that vehicle.  The VW Thing pictured above, could go in one of the general production classes (Class 27), but since there is a specific VW Class, that is where it should be judged.  If the VW Thing was a true military version, it would be placed in the Military Class.  If it was a police vehicle it could go into the professional car Class.  Volkswagon is the only make specific class in AACA other than in the High Performance Classes.  AACA is very responsive to creating new classes as they are needed.

The Thing or type 181 was a true post war German military vehicle, and a German police vehicle.

[Frank DuVal]

On 4/29/2022 at 3:36 PM, Oldsmobile 83 said:

 

       

So this class also includes Subaru Foresters and Toyota RAV4s? Where is the line drawn in the SUV category for class? In case you were wondering, both of these cars are AACA eligible in years, so it is not a theoretical question.

[61polara]

11 hours ago, Frank DuVal said:

So this class also includes Subaru Foresters and Toyota RAV4s? Where is the line drawn in the SUV category for class? In case you were wondering, both of these cars are AACA eligible in years, so it is not a theoretical question.

I would say yes, they fit the description of vehicles designated by AACA for the SUV class.  The other option would be the general production class (Class 27), but I believe that the SUV class is a better fit.

[61polara]

12 hours ago, Pfeil said:

The Thing or type 181 was a true post war German military vehicle, and a German police vehicle.

That's true.  The judging classification would be determined based on if it is restored and presented as a military vehicle or a police vehicle, in which case it would be in the Military class (Class 22i) or for a police vehicle in the Professional Car class.  If it is show as a production vehicle it would be placed in the Volkswagon Class (Class 4c).  We have the same situation with two Checkers owned by an AACA member.  The Checker Marathon is shown in the Production Class (Class 27) but his restored Checker Cab is shown in the Professional Class (Class 37).

Edited May 1, 2022 by 61polara (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

2 hours ago, 61polara said:

That's true.  The judging classification would be determined based on if it is restored and presented as a military vehicle or a police vehicle, in which case it would be in the Military class (Class 22i) or for a police vehicle in the Professional Car class.  If it is show as a production vehicle it would be placed in the Volkswagon Class (Class 4c).  We have the same situation with two Checkers owned by an AACA member.  The Checker Marathon is shown in the Production Class (Class 27) but his restored Checker Cab is shown in the Professional Class (Class 37).

That brings to mind another car/taxi that was all over Germany in 50's-60's.

[Graham Man]

Remember this one?  1990 LM002 first Lamborghini SUV sold for $467K in 2019 auction... so I guess yes, they will have a following.