Forum menu
As per various car threads recently, I'm looking to buy one and there are a lot of SUV's (Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tuscan, Toyota Rav4, Nissan Quasquai, etc.) around.
My instinct is to avoid them as to me an estate or a roomy hatchback is better in every way. More space, better fuel economy, easier to get into as it's lower.
But I'm also aware I must be missing something as they're so popular.
So, what am I missing?
You're clearly not an alpha male if you have to ask that question.
People like being higher up.
And some prefer the look of them.
So, what am I missing?
You're missing the ability to be drawn in by marketing bullshit.
Stay strong king. Resist at all costs.
Had one, went back to an estate. The estate is better in almost every way, apart from seeing over hedges or other cars.
No - they make no sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities
my last car was an estate, current car is an SUV, next one, which is on order, will be an EV hatch. The SUV is easier to get in and out of (for a mid 50's me 🙂 )and visibility is better than the estate was. It has good cabin space, and good headroom compared to previous estate (Q5 vs A6 Avant), but less useful boot space by far.. Bikes go on towbar or in the back so similar. Economy similar - same engine.
I dont think just because a car is lower makes it easier to get into, for me I find it easier to get into an suv type car than a saloon/estate - YMMV.
Other reasons - The higher driving position is pretty comfortable, and gives a better view of the road ahead compared to normal car.
Aside from that - you're mostly right that an estate/hatch (all other things being equal) should be just as practical, have better fuel economy.
There's no rights or wrongs with this, just buy what you prefer .
A lot of people seem to like SUVs, it could be for the style, or there could be a 'valid' reason - it doesnt matter, its their money.
There is a dearth of 4x4 cars that aren't SUVs. For some folk, that makes them difficult to avoid.
I have a Hyundai Santa Fe because when I got it I had reason to drive light offroad on a very regular basis, it was justified for the increased ground clearance. I no longer have that requirement but I cannot make the sums justify replacing it. It is comfortable, does 48mpg on a long run and is super reliable. An estate would work better for me in every respect but I can't justify spending money to end up with a car of similar age, mileage and spec.
When my bad back plays up, it is the only car I can drive, no chance of me being able to get in and out of my wifes A Class merc. Not suggesting this is reason enough to own an SUV. It is the reason why my elderly dad drives a Kuga though,.
We've had quite a few as company cars (Kia Sportage) mainly as that's all they had on the list. They are really nice to drive and there is something nice about being higher up. I probably wouldn't buy one with my own money, just as they cost a fair bit more than other sized cars.
The Sportage is Kia's best selling model in the UK....
NB I'm fairly car model indifferent, we get a new company car every few months (wife works for Kia) and quite I don't even know what variant it is or the exact model (eg there are loads of Ce'ed variants). Drive it for the allotted period, then get a new one and repeat.
I much prefer the small SUV form factor to an estate. I prefer a shorter car and they also are easier with my bike which I can fit standing up and hook it up with the dropper.
The taller tyre sidewalls and longer travel help too particularly on potholes.
The (very limited) off road ability and better clearance massively help getting to places and park before getting the bike out.
Not buying one because of the marketing is as stupid as buying one because of the marketing IMO.
They are just cars of a slightly different shape.
They're nice to drive for people who don't care about DRIVING
Our "new' car is a Volvo SUV type. Similar MPG to the older estate it replaced, the high profile tyres and extra suspension make it far and away more comfortable to drive on the terrible roads than the previous estate and it has an enormous boot too.
It also allows me to look down on all the proles in their wee hatchbacks too 😉
who don’t care about DRIVING
All I really care about now is adaptive cruise control. Start car, switch that on and turn it off when I arrive at the destination a few hours later.
Just amazing invention - driving is just so much more relaxed.
Like driving a jelly but without the stability. Much prefer my estate.
Yea adaptive cruise control is great.
My instinct is to avoid them as to me an estate or a roomy hatchback is better in every way. More space, better fuel economy, easier to get into as it’s lower.
Easy to get in to...
This "instinct" of yours, it's wrong often isn't it?
Just current fashion.
There will be a 'new thing' along soon.
It wasn't long ago people carriers where the thing to have - barely anyone buys them now.
I got one simply because it was the only practical alternative for me to use instead of a proper 4x4 for the dirt roads in Australia. Saves heaps of fuel compared to any of the past 4x4s and still has a safe towball limit for bikes on the back and fits the kids and all our camping gear.
And it’s a great drive too.
They’re nice to drive for people who don’t care about DRIVING
One of the main reasons we live in a car-centric society is that too many people care about, or have been persuaded by years of marketing that they care about, DRIVING.
Hateful things. Sooner VED or congestion charges are changed to properly deincentivise ownership of them the better. There is nothing a SUV does better than a good estate or hatch. The ease of entry is more down to the seating position design than how high a particular vehicle is (though admittedly lower cars are more likely to have a reclined position).
Easy access for infirm/inflexible/old folk. Wannabe van/tonka/baja truck drivers.
Sooner VED or congestion charges are changed to properly deincentivise ownership of them the better.
Doesn't it already penalise less efficient cars - isn't it based on emissions currently?
They're not actually that bad compared to normal cars eg we often swap between a Ce'ed and Sportage and the fuel efficiency difference is only a few mpg, certainly not enough to bother us.
sharkattack
They’re nice to drive for people who don’t care about DRIVING
A lot to be said for that I think.
.. and this
franksinatra
When my bad back plays up, it is the only car I can drive,
My instinct is to avoid them as to me an estate or a roomy hatchback is better in every way.
More space, better fuel economy, easier to get into as it’s lower.
Different shaped space, fuel economy more HOW you drive it and tyres and probably better than a small hatchback with a bike rack on the roof ? but ultimately go with your instinct.
There is nothing a SUV does better than a good estate or hatch. The ease of entry is more down to the seating position design than how high a particular vehicle is (though admittedly lower cars are more likely to have a reclined position).
That is not true though.
They are better when high ground clearance is required.
Height of seat is directly relevant to someone with limited mobility or a condition impacting movement such as sciatica.
For some people higher ride height / improved visibility is way better than a lower car.
I'm not suggesting these are a reason for everyone to buy one but don't go making sweeping statements that are not accurate.
I've said it before but if everyone* had smaller cars it would solve a whole host of problems, yet with SUVs and mahoosive EVs we seem to be going in completely the wrong direction.
* we have a Mazda 3 & Volvo V40 so not big cars but could still manage with smaller, so just as guilty as others ☹️
But I’m also aware I must be missing something as they’re so popular
A lot of 'SUVs' are SUVs in appearance only - styling cues from SUV's wrapped around what is basically a hatch/estate or an MPV.
Take the Peugeot 5008 for instance
MK1 - a 7 seat Zafira Clone
MK2
A 7 seat Discovery Clone
Essentially the same economical FWD family car underneath
4X4s have become more an more car like in their styling, cars have become more and more 4X4 like in their styling and what we have is a lot of cars that look very similar - some are 4x4 , some have 4x4 as an option (and in either case they're actually actually 2WD in most instances), and some don't come in 4x4 at all.
Theres not really any penalty to the lookalikes - they're economical, comfortable (probably more so that conventional hatchbacks and saloons) the only really downside of the styling is it can restrict the size / shape of the boot opening compared to a similar MPV
If you want a conventional hatch back - there are plenty available, most of them look a bit like and SUV and are probably better for it functionally speaking
If you want a large estate most of them look a bit like and SUV and are probably better for it too
if you an MPV - most look like a SUV and for the most part just as useful
If you want an SUV - you can buy one, most people won't think its really and SUV. All it is - is a car that looks like other cars but will less boot space because theres some gubbins that never gets used under there.
They're bloody annoying at T-Juntions or roundabouts with multiple approach lanes where they completely block your view of oncoming traffic. Seems like an arms race...
- Hmm I can't see past that Kuga, Sportage in my Focus I'll get one.
- Hmm I can't see past that Land Rover/ Range Rover in my Kuga, I'll get one.
- Hmm I can't see past that Humvee in my Land Rover I'll get one
- Hmm I can't see past that lorry in my Humvee, better go full Eubank and get one.
Also I'd expect for pedestrian/cyclist safety they are not as good, being higher up there would be less chance of going over the bonnet as opposed to under it.
It wasn’t long ago people carriers where the thing to have – barely anyone buys them now.
Were they, though? Really? They were an appliance, a neccessity for many, there was nothing aspirational about them. nobody really wanted one.
SUVs are there because, to many, they ARE aspirational. The high driving position, the sense of comfort, maybe, possibly, the sense of it being just a little wasteful, but not caring....They're placed above a hatch/small estate in a manufacturers lineup and you get the sense that more is invested in their development because they're placed where they are.
These days, what do all celebrities, politicians, etc get moved around in? Range Rover? Jag F-Pace? BMW X5, G-Wagon, etc.
I’ve said it before but if everyone* had smaller cars it would solve a whole host of problems, yet with SUVs and mahoosive EVs we seem to be going in completely the wrong direction.
Totally agree. Even little cars (like Polos, Fiestas etc) aren't little anymore. Meanwhile, 'big' cars, like the Volvo XCwhatevers and Audi Qblahblah are enormous
Estate. Drives better, and the space is huge, and probably more usable too.
I've never thought I need a better view of the road - it's never a problem.
Never a problem getting out either! If I'm stuggling with getting in/out my car there's bigger things to worry about/work on.
Each to their own.
We've got a Qashqai alonside the van. Mrs a11y's choice not mine, but to be fair it's not a bad car - an equivalent-sized non-SUV would be better though. By better I mean: lighter, more efficient, quicker, better ride (less suspended mass), etc. Main reason for her was ease of access for elderly parents and I can't argue it's not better at that.
The point about elevated driving position is fine until everyone has an SUV - when everyone's in a higher-up SUV, nobody will be higher than anyone else...
We had a Kia Sportage on hire for a few weeks whilst our Ioniq was being fixed. I'm not sure about the visibility aspect. You can see around you, but you can't see the corners and edges of the car as well. My wife found it a lot harder to manoeuvre and park.
SUVs might be based on regular cars but they are higher, and that simple fact makes them less aerodynamic than the car version. So however economical an SUV is the same tech in a lower car will be more efficient. You are ALWAYS wasting fuel by getting an SUV.
fuel economy more HOW you drive it and tyres and probably better than a small hatchback with a bike rack on the roof
Daft comparison.
They are not my car of choice.
They are the car of choice for others.
HTH.
SUVs are there because, to many, they ARE aspirational.
And this makes my heart sad, that as a society we have deemed the thing that you drive around in to be such a marker of success/class/social position. It's so f___ing pathetic.
They were an appliance, a neccessity for many, there was nothing aspirational about them. nobody really wanted one.
This is how I view cars (with obvious room for hypocrisy, granted), we'd be in a better place generally if it was the general consensus.
My last car was a Tucson. Bought ex demo and owned for 10 years.
a lot of body roll.
a lot of trips to the garage to get fixed.
a reasonable amount of fuel. not as bad as a navara, but not as good as a normal car.
AWD was a wonder in the winter.
driving height was nice
driving position was crap after a couple of hours.
tyres are expensive.
had plenty of grunt to overtake safely.
Moved on to our second car, a supposedly temp car to tide us over for a bit, a toyota corolla. Felt like a sports car in comparison.
Now have a 10 year old Peugeot partner.
drives OK
fuel consumption is OK.
drive height is good
it's van a like, so comfy driving position for hours.
seems reasonably cheap to run, not too many trips to the garage.
plenty of grunt to overtake safely.
only thing I miss is the AWD.
Totally agree. Even little cars (like Polos, Fiestas etc) aren’t little anymore. Meanwhile, ‘big’ cars, like the Volvo XCwhatevers and Audi Qblahblah are enormous
Safety regs have a lot to do with that. No one would now accept the level of protection you got in a 1980s Fiesta.
Easy to get in to…
This “instinct” of yours, it’s wrong often isn’t it?
I had a rental Mokka a few years back (the first gen) - SUV but not a massive thing. Even as a leggy 6'1" I had to scoot myself off the seat and drop down to the floor. Uncomfortable getting out, and getting in the sliding/twisting across the seat meant rearranging your trousers and family jewels.
whereas being fairly young and flexible I have no bother getting in or out of a low car.
Partly what you are used to I guess.
Doesn’t it already penalise less efficient cars – isn’t it based on emissions currently?
They’re not actually that bad compared to normal cars eg we often swap between a Ce’ed and Sportage and the fuel efficiency difference is only a few mpg, certainly not enough to bother us.
Since 2017 (cars registered since then), only for the first year. and who actually pays for a new car, that fee will get hidden in the payment plan. Flat rate (+"luxury tax") beyond that point.
They’re placed above a hatch/small estate in a manufacturers lineup and you get the sense that more is invested in their development because they’re placed where they are.
SUV's - in the real sense, rather than look alikes- are poor value for buyers - manufacturers take a much higher margin on them - buyers pay more for the idea of all the extra gizmos than they are actually worth.
Problem is these days that the term SUV covers so many different sized cars, in most of the segments to the point where most arguments are redundant.
FWIW, having owned most of the typical vehicle shapes the main pro's to an SUV are the raised driving position, the feeling of more space (even if there isn't) due to higher roof and more glass, stability in poor weather and general comfort. They are usually easier to get in and out of too, especially with young children.
IMO plenty of the cons above are clearly from people with limited experience of driving modern SUV's.
All that being said, I'm about to change my car and I want an estate, although my favourite car owned was the Discovery Sport.... My wife would prefer another SUV for the reasons I listed. Ultimately you need to put your prejudices aside and go for a few test drives. You'll either like them or you won't!
Main reason for her was ease of access for elderly parents and I can’t argue it’s not better at that.
Citroen with the hydropneumatic suspension was a goodsend when my grandparents were still of this world, so yes totally agree on that one.
Oh and also this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/28/carbon-emissions-global-suv-sport-utility-vehicles-oil-climate
Now it may just be a case that there are more SUV's around nowadays, and 10 years ago the headline could have read "Carbon emissions from global SUV car fleet outweighs that of most countries""
You are ALWAYS wasting fuel by getting an SUV.
That's true of any car other than the absolute smallest eg Picanto size thing...
Which you could squeeze a family in if you actually had to....
Just people choose not to.
Uncomfortable getting out, and getting in the sliding/twisting across the seat meant rearranging your trousers and family jewels.
Vauxhall make some awful seats 🙂 They ruin some pretty good cars with terrible seats.
The point about elevated driving position is fine until everyone has an SUV – when everyone’s in a higher-up SUV, nobody will be higher than anyone else…
Unless hedges and walls get higher that's not totally the case.
Most of my driving (certainly by time) is on narrow country roads and the H2 Master is much "nicer" than the old BMW if you aren't in any rush (which I'm not)