Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

SUVs existed 30 years ago?

My family has one vehicle, an SUV. I'm a newish dad and I don't understand how you do parent stuff without an SUV. I would have to have multiple vehicles if I had a sedan.

View on HN

I'm also a newish dad. Our only car is a Honda Fit and we're doing fine, I don't recall ever running out of space. I'm not sure what we'd need a SUV for as long as we don't go off-road.

Of course that'll change if we have a second child, but even then a minivan seems much more practical than a SUV.

A Honda Fit is like a Tardis - it seems larger on the inside than the outside and you can fit in an insane amount of stuff due to the flat floor plan. I used to own one (a Honda Jazz) and used it to shift fridges and other items you'd normally need a ute for. Super reliable as well.

SUVs have been around since the 70s. Maybe earlier.

Here in Europe many, probably most, parents do parent stuff without an SUV just fine. If you have more than average number of kids an estate (stationwagon), or people carrier (minivan, I think) seems to work perfectly well.

An estate drives just as nicely as any car, SUVs and people carriers often don't.

Most SUVs in the US are unibody construction now. The difference between them and minivans is mostly cosmetic.

Have you ever heard of a "station wagon" or "minivan"? Also the Chevy Suburban has existed for a long, long time.

This. An SUV is just a station wagon or minivan with more cosmetic appeal.

Not a bad thing. Kind of clever really. Car manufacturers figured out how to deliver a vehicle that has the benefits of a minivan with an external appearance free of the "I just traded my cool car for a minivan, my life is over" negative association.

It's hard getting a minivan with AWD, but every crossover/SUV has it available as an option. Wagons just aren't commonly offered in the US. The higher ground clearance a crossover typically has compared to a minivan is also quite nice for both increased visibility and less scraping against curbs and driveways.

It's not clever marketing, it's just a better product for most people.

Those old heavy front-wheel drive minivans drove like tanks in snow. Especially with a cheap set of studded snow tires, there was very little need for AWD.

Even a Miata can handle snow with modern snow tires until it's ground clearance isn't high enough anymore.

Most people don't like maintaining two sets of wheels for summer and winter, nor do they get enough snow to justify having a full set of winter tires. For light snow and plowed roads, AWD and all season tires work well enough.

Yes, people are lazy and don't want to shell out $500 for a second set of tires and $100 a year to swap them on and off. They'd rather be out in the puckerbrush off the road because they try driving in snow and slush on "all-weather" tires...

The first snow storm of the year is a great day for the wrecker companies.

That's assuming you're willing to run winter tires on your summer wheels, which you probably aren't given the trend of big wheels, narrow sidewalls. You're probably going to want a set of smaller steel wheels for the winter.

AWD is usually a <$1500 option which makes it really competitive against a second set of wheels and tires.

If you need AWD to get moving, that's kind of dangerous, since it doesn't increase your ability to stop.

I think most people just want the AWD to get in/out of their driveway, then you're on plowed roads and the AWD doesn't really make a difference anymore.

Plus, AWD+snow tires is still better than FWD/RWD+snow tires. It's not always an either-or situation.

I suppose but I find that AWD is generally a crutch that most people don't need at all, and those that think they do just don't want to use proper winter tires and endanger others on the road as a result.

The amount of people who actually need AWD in addition to proper equipment, is probably a minuscule fraction of the people who think they need it.

I specify winter tires instead of snow tires because it's not just about snow, it's about temperature as well. All-season tires are generally pretty good about this, compared to summer tires, but once you get to 10F or less, most all-season tires (maybe all of them?) are about as good as driving on rocks.

But they make some terrible compromises. The crossover-type have less boot space than my old UK Ford Focus hatchback, same with the rear seats down. A real station wagon has gallons of space. It's all cosmetic style without a huge amount of substance, and you pay a premium for it as well!

I'll grant that they have good riding position and front visibility. But rear visibility is truly dire. The Qashqai I test drove had a rear camera (actually 360°) with front display just so you could reverse without hitting something due to the poor visibility.

Ride quality is reasonable. Fuel economy as well, though still not as good as a lower, smaller body.

But in no way does it compete with a minivan. I'd go for a Ford Transit Connect or VW Caddy if I actually wanted some space. And the dimensions aren't much different to the SUV!

I have two teenage children.

I still drive a Mazda 5, even though they've been out of production for several years. Seats 6 (if two are small children) on the wheel base and drive train of a Mazda 3 hatchback. It was our only family car for several years with pets and kids and sports and all the normal family bullshit people do.

Our other family car is a Subaru Outback. It has much better ground clearance than the Mazda and seats 5 adults. You can lay the seats down and put a lot of crap in there if you need to move a bunch of shit around.

Neither of these are SUVs. We never came close to needing an SUV for everyday driving.

Depends on which generation Outback, based on your description of better ground clearance, I think it's 4th of 5th generation which is marketed as and considered an "SUV". That's the exact vehicle type that is replacing cars.

Even real SUVs (Tahoe/Expedition/4runner) are becoming replaced by CUVs.

Subaru Outback.

Isn't the Outback an SUV?

This. Same boat. Have a Mazda CX-5. No clue how one functions without an SUV. That said, my wife has a Honda Accord - she is always driving my SUV and is actively looking to trading into some sort of SUV especially as we start thinking second kid.

I'll also just wrap that whole thing up and say Tesla seems to be selling sedans just fine. Let's not forget that GM is the company that willfully killed people to save money on a $0.25 ignition switch.

What can an SUV do that something like a Volvo V60/V90, Audi A4/A6 or similar cant? Do you really need the extra ground clearance because you have a kid in the car? A Honda Accord should work just fine for three kids, at least the estate version.

I live in Chicago. We had a foot of snow land on us this morning. Our 300-foot driveway was not cleared this morning, so my wife took the 2007 Mercury Mariner (Ford Escape). She made it to the road without any issues. It took me two hours in a 1994 BMW 525 to get to the end of the driveway; go two feet, shovel, backup, shovel, then just shovel a path the whole way.

We have three kids in car seats. Getting a baby carrier out from the middle of the BMW is a mess. It's simple in the Mariner.

I frequently need building materials for things around the property. Where do I load a car with shovels, 2x4s, plywood, and hardware cloth?

Shovels go in the trunk or back seat. Plywood gets strapped to the roof. Just like millions of people did for the nearly hundred years before SUV’s existed.

I don’t know what hardware cloth is, though.

I live in Sweden, we get some snow from time to time as well. What we do is put winter tires on all cars (it's mandatory in winter conditions and after December 1).

I'm pretty sure getting car seats in and out of cars have improved in the last 24 years. A baby carrier is probably more convenient in the front passenger seat, don't forget to turn off the airbag.

Most people around here just put a trailer behind the car if the stuff doesn't fit in the back with the back seats folded.

I'd also like to point out that of course some people need 4x4 with higher ground clearance. But do the majority need it?

I live in Canada and I will take a 2WD car with good winter tires on it over an AWD 'crossover SUV' with crappy tires any day.

True 4WD with high clearance is needed for some unpaved mountain roads, but only a vanishingly small number of people need that.

Many states in the U.S. require car or booster seats to be placed in the rear seat, as well as seating any child 8 years or under in the back seat. Even where it might not be required, it's considered irresponsible to do otherwise and there's a lot of cultural pressure to conform.

V60/90 is considered an "SUV" since the term has become synonymous with crossover. A6 isn't offered in wagon form in the US, nor is the Honda Accord. The Accord also can't be optioned with AWD.

Limited practical options in the US definitely helped push the move to CUVs.

edit: whoops, was looking at the "Cross Country" variant of the V60/90, which is a raised wagon. The normal V60/90 wagon I'll concede to be sufficient for most people's needs, but it's only been available in the US market since 2014.

V60 and V90 are station wagons, you're thinking of XC60 and XC90. The reason wagons aren't offered in the US is because the consumers didn't buy them, which is my point. When given the choice, they chose the bigger, heavier option because the extra cost of using more resources weren't high enough.

I actually believe hatchbacks are making a comeback. Toyota just introduced the Corolla hatchback in response to the new Civic hatchback. Jaguar has a new XF wagon. Porsche made the Panamera Wagon.

I'd like to believe all these automakers aren't going through the trouble of safety testing and certifying wagons without demand being there. The hatchback version of the Golf/Mazda3/Impreza seem to be selling well enough.

Honda tried valiantly to sell the Crosstour but couldn't give it away and finally gave up on it. Looked like a raised Accord wagon. I've been searching for a used one but so few were sold I've about given up.

The Crosstour was such a dorky thing. It had a fastback instead of a proper hatchback which really limited it's utility. For comparison, Honda's CRV had the same engine, more cargo room, and better fuel economy for $5k less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com