Comment by gexla | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gexla | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't know if "looks cool" is the same thing as status (probably not) but station wagons in the US have a history of being the ugliest thing on the road. Maybe the only competitor for worst on the list of cool factor is the mini van.

Much of the US is a truck culture. You can drive more places and carry more cargo than anything else. In this case, status becomes proudly declaring yourself as blue collar as opposed to being high status. And have you ever seen a station wagon with a gun rack? SUV's are simply trucks for which the cargo is the family rather than a lawnmower.

What are the manufacturers going to do when trucks and SUV's are so popular and have a higher profit margin? Make more SUV's. Maybe car manufacturers even make ridiculous looking compacts as sacrificial models to sell more SUV's. You can have this ridiculous looking golf cart, or you can drive this magnificent tank.

Outside the US, SUV's are even popular in SE Asia. Which again I think is part culture (maybe US car culture transmitted through Hollywood) and manufacturer incentive. One of the few dealerships in the fast growing city I live in (Philippines) is loaded with SUV's. If that's all you see on the floor and everyone else is driving one, then that's probably what you are going to drive also.

> SUV's are simply trucks for which the cargo is the family rather than a lawnmower.

In this discussion something should be pointed out: in the US there is a whole segment of SUV that is basically a truch chassis with a passenger compartment. This whole segment of car is more or less unknown outside the US. In the rest of the world the big SUV is the X5/Q7 segment, and below that there are smaller types of SUVs and crossovers. Some americans even argue that the term "SUV" should be reserved for that segment (truck SUV's) while regular "car SUV's" like an X5 are in fact crossovers. I'm from europe and think an SUV is any car similar to the X5 because using the term SUV for a segment that doesn't exist here makes no sense.

> What are the manufacturers going to do when trucks and SUV's are so popular and have a higher profit margin? Make more SUV's

I realize manufacturers can sell more expensive cars with higher margins if they sell SUV's, but as a consumer I seriously don't understand why I'd want to pay a large premium for an SUV over a good 4WD station wagon.

E.g. why would I pay a hefty premium for the Volvo XC60 (suv/crossover) over the V60XC? They aren't that different, but one is called a SUV/Crossover, and the other is a jacked up station wagon. I think the latter is actually better looking! https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a26135531/2020-volvo-v6...

Body-on-frame SUVs are also big in Australia. Most of the major companies there make one: Ford Everest, Holden TrailBlazer, Toyota Fortuner, etc.

Oddly enough, in the US body-on-frame SUVs are basically dying. They're only viable in the full-size segment, which is nonexistent in Europe. And we only have four companies that make them in that segment. We have the GM triplets (Chevy Tahoe/Suburban, GMC Yukon family, Cadillac Escalade family), the Ford twins (Ford Expedition/Lincoln Navigator), the Nissan twins (Nissan Armada/Infiniti QX80), and some offerings from Toyota (the Toyota Sequoia and the Toyota Land Cruiser/Lexus LX twins). And the only reason these still exist is because there are some upper-middle-class people who want to tow a boat or an RV trailer while hauling the whole family, and that's hard to do with a unibody (tho I'd love to see how the new Ford Explorer handles that, being RWD and all).

Smaller body-on-frame SUVs died here a long time ago, with the remaining stragglers being the Jeep Wrangler and Toyota 4Runner/Lexus GX twins... and both of those are also sold in Europe (with the latter being called the Toyota Land Cruiser in Europe, while Toyota in the US uses the Land Cruiser name for a larger SUV).

Honestly, I'm expecting full-size body-on-frame SUVs to eventually start dying off here as crossovers get larger and more powerful. Big crossovers like the Chevy Traverse can replace the Tahoe for most purposes that don't involve towing. And I'm definitely expecting the new Ford Explorer to cannibalize Expedition sales... it's almost as big now, and it's actually RWD. If Ford ever decides to make a second-generation Flex on a stretched Explorer platform, that could put the Expedition in a world of hurt (and I'm convinced the reason Ford has let the Flex die on the vine on purpose to keep it from torpedoing the Expedition). I don't think the big ones will go away entirely, because... well, because boats, but it's definitely going to become a much more niche segment.

Perhaps there is an economic factor too, i.e. that the truck SUVs like Ford Expedition (9000lbs capcity) are a much cheaper way to reach a big enough towing capacity than buying a european large unibody SUV like the Q7/Q8 (7700lbs capacity) which is effectively also very much a luxury car? If the towing requirement is between 7700 and 9000 lbs then of course they don't compete.

Anyway: the point was: some US consumers would call the X5/Q7 family "crossovers" because of their body style, whereas I'd call that "full size SUV", and that sometimes leads to confusion in the discussion.

In Europe, SUVs and crossovers are bought by people with children, back problems or those who think that it will make them look interesting. None of those are “cool”. Unless you like to holler at single moms at the playground boosting about the triple ISO fix childseat attachment.

Marketing does a great job into making you think that SUVs are for hip young people with active urban lifestyles but in reality it’s mainly old folks and parents who buy them.

Being in the market for such a car I realized that a Mercedes E-class or Skoda Superb (the combi/estate versions) have only slightly less cargo space than an Audi Q7 when the seats are up, and just about as much space with the seats folded.

From what I can tell most people who go for the SUV for practical reasons do it for the safety or the assumption that a bulkier car will have more room. A factor rarely considered is that big wheels and bulkier axles will eat some of the interior space. This being said most of the people I know (or know of) more or less drive those SUVs alone every day. I guess they get 2 birds with one stone: practical car that's also a status symbol, with the popular interpretation that bigger is better.

europe has also a radically different road network. i.e. urban-suv are doing better here than regular suv because of the difficulties in navigating cities on larger cars and are eating up station wagons too because they get a comparable load volume but none of the parking difficulties. (and they also cost less than full sized suvs and europe has been in a two decade recession, so there's that going for them too)

Most CUVs (or urban SUVs) don't really have as much cargo space as a combi. They are based on the platform of the "regular" sibling (sedan) but with the bigger wheels and axles taking up some of the interior space. The higher driving position comes at a price.

To put it in context, a VW Golf Combi or Peugeot 308 SW have 10+% more cargo space in a package that's slightly longer and narrower than equivalent CUVs like Skoda Karoq or Peugeot 3008 (2 of the roomiest CUVs out there). Whether you find width to be a bigger problem than length when navigating depends on where you live and how you drive. But the choice combi vs. CUV mostly comes mostly to image.

Skoda Karoq however can come with very easy (independent) removable backseats which creates a massive amount of cargo space.

With most cars you get the option to fold the backseat. In the examples above the 308 SW has 660/1775 liters, the Karoq has 521/1810 liters.

As you can see the Karoq offers marginally more space only with the seats folded. But that to me feels like an exceptional usage scenario rather than the rule. With the seats up the difference is pretty massive (the SW has ~30% more cargo space) and I think this is the more useful number if you're interested in cargo space. If you want a higher driving position, or better ground clearance, etc. a SW won't really do it.

> but station wagons in the US have a history of being the ugliest thing on the road

This applies to practically every American designed car before ~2010

This is unfair.

The US had a long history of very nice looking cars up until the 1980s through 2010s...

True. And Europe is the origin on the Fiat Multipla, which even beats the Pontiac Aztek by a mile when it comes to ugliness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com