Why are Subcompact Crossovers so popular?

[LoneRanger]

We looked at subcompact suv's before moving a notch up and looking at compact suv's. The sub's were just too much compromise without enough benefit. In the end the GMC was best for her needs. She'd had a rav4 before and so she stayed in the compact suv class with the terrain. She currently has it on a trip out east to see her new grand son. Reports 30mpg w/ cruise set @ 80, 650 mile trip. If the numbers on the sub compact suv's are accurate, highway mpg wouldn't have been appreciably higher and she reports the GMC felt rock solid composed and effortless for the trip, perhaps the sub compacts would've too, but they'd have still less space inside. It's her and her mom and all the stuff two ladies take along for a week plus new baby gifts and some stuff for her two yr old grand son as well.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Cujet

This thing is almost as ugly as the new Civics...

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
We looked at subcompact suv's before moving a notch up and looking at compact suv's. The sub's were just too much compromise without enough benefit. In the end the GMC was best for her needs. She'd had a rav4 before and so she stayed in the compact suv class with the terrain. She currently has it on a trip out east to see her new grand son. Reports 30mpg w/ cruise set @ 80, 650 mile trip. If the numbers on the sub compact suv's are accurate, highway mpg wouldn't have been appreciably higher and she reports the GMC felt rock solid composed and effortless for the trip, perhaps the sub compacts would've too, but they'd have still less space inside. It's her and her mom and all the stuff two ladies take along for a week plus new baby gifts and some stuff for her two yr old grand son as well.


When I was younger I did nothing but sedans/compacts.. 2dr, 4drs, hatchbacks.. you name it. At one time or another I've had em. Now that I'm 50, fatter, got a bad back and a son built like an offensive tackle..I need a big ride. I've got the van now and an old Ranger for dump runs. Much easier to get in and out of the larger rigs and just throw whatever crape' I got into the back than these compacts/sedans.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by ediamiam
I'm considering going back to a passenger car like the Honda accord for driving dynamics. Lower center of gravity, better handling and balance, and mileage. The kia Sorento i have is ok, good cruiser, but miss better handling and performance in the twisties and cornering


Yeah, it's why I prefer a mid sized car. Usually better braking also as they're not as heavy. AWD in the E-350 is pretty decent. Mid sized gets slightly worse gas mileage, but that's the penalty to pay if you want to survive the car wars, larger cars are more survivable than smaller ones which is really the point of the arms race in car sizes.

 

[Al]

I love both my '18Forester and '19 Crosstrek. Both have 8.7" ground clearance.
Forester sits higher than the Crosstrek and is a better highway car.

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by ediamiam
I'm considering going back to a passenger car like the Honda accord for driving dynamics. Lower center of gravity, better handling and balance, and mileage. The kia Sorento i have is ok, good cruiser, but miss better handling and performance in the twisties and cornering


Yeah, it's why I prefer a mid sized car. Usually better braking also as they're not as heavy. AWD in the E-350 is pretty decent. Mid sized gets slightly worse gas mileage, but that's the penalty to pay if you want to survive the car wars, larger cars are more survivable than smaller ones which is really the point of the arms race in car sizes.

I have to drive a Ford Fusion for work and at 6'2" 220lbs all I can say is ingress/egress is a step-by-step process. It sits so low and the low roofline. Ingress after door full open I have to blade my entire stance to the left so my backside is to the car, fold back and plant my rear on the seat while ducking my head under the roof pillar, then swing 90 degrees to front, close door. Egress is essentially the same process in reverse. Part of it is admittedly my 56 yr old knees (still original) protesting certain vehicular entry/exit techniques, so not all the car's fault.

One thing that annoys me slightly is at work some smaller built folks are assigned pickup trucks and suv's that they have to step up into and elevate the seat to see up over the hood well. I yearn for vehicular assignment justice ...

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by ediamiam
I'm considering going back to a passenger car like the Honda accord for driving dynamics. Lower center of gravity, better handling and balance, and mileage. The kia Sorento i have is ok, good cruiser, but miss better handling and performance in the twisties and cornering


Yeah, it's why I prefer a mid sized car. Usually better braking also as they're not as heavy. AWD in the E-350 is pretty decent. Mid sized gets slightly worse gas mileage, but that's the penalty to pay if you want to survive the car wars, larger cars are more survivable than smaller ones which is really the point of the arms race in car sizes.

I have to drive a Ford Fusion for work and at 6'2" 220lbs all I can say is ingress/egress is a step-by-step process. It sits so low and the low roofline. Ingress after door full open I have to blade my entire stance to the left so my backside is to the car, fold back and plant my rear on the seat while ducking my head under the roof pillar, then swing 90 degrees to front, close door. Egress is essentially the same process in reverse. Part of it is admittedly my 56 yr old knees (still original) protesting certain vehicular entry/exit techniques, so not all the car's fault.

One thing that annoys me slightly is at work some smaller built folks are assigned pickup trucks and suv's that they have to step up into and elevate the seat to see up over the hood well. I yearn for vehicular assignment justice ...


Oh yeah, I guess I'm average sized, so no issues with the roof line. I just get in and go. Mine is the sports model too which has a one inch lower suspension. I suppose the luxury model might have been even easier to get in if it was an inch higher. The weird thing is that all the cars that have options all came with the sports model and the luxury models were all strippers so I ended up with a sports model.

I suspect the other reason that they're popular is because over half of Americans are overweight and I can't imagine some of them fitting into a regular sedan. I've seen some overweight people in the 300-400 pound range get into a car and you can see the whole suspension sink and you think that it doesn't really look safe to drive as the car seems to be too low.

 

[CourierDriver]

Originally Posted by c502cid
I don't see why people pay extra for 6.2 motors when a 5.3 motor has more than enough power to handle everyday driving and towing needs, plus gets better gas mileage. I mean what are they thinking? How could they even want such a thing? What is coming next... bigger motors that people don't need? sarcasm off.

male egos

 

[CT8]

Where I worked had E350 service vans with tools, parts. fluids and compressor they were heavy almost 9,000 lbs . The big blocks 460 s and V10s and small blocks 351s and 5.4s and would get the same mpgs but the big blocks would cruise up hills at 70 mph with ease and the small blocks would be winding out at 55 MPH trying to keep up with traffic.

 

[dareo]

Originally Posted by c502cid
I don't see why people pay extra for 6.2 motors when a 5.3 motor has more than enough power to handle everyday driving and towing needs, plus gets better gas mileage. I mean what are they thinking? How could they even want such a thing? What is coming next... bigger motors that people don't need? sarcasm off.

Bad argument for 3 reasons. 1. 6.2 or 5.3 the vehicle size stays the same, its not like one comes with a smaller or larger truck. 2. Take Rates for 6.2 are about 1 in 20 or less so very few are actually buying a 6.2. Take rates for, lets say Honda HRV 7124 per month vs CR-V 31.5k per month or about 1 in 5 Honda small SUV shoppers takes the HR-V. 3. Choosing a 6.2 over a 5.3 does create more utility and capability. Choosing the HR-V over a CR-V takes away utility.

I'm just saying people buying the micro suv for 20k+ brand new are making a mistake in not spending a tiny bit more for a much more useful and powerful size. Literally everything measurable is better in a CR-V than HR-V. The only reasons i can think of are style and marketing to go into these micro utes. Sell the HR-V, customer enjoys it for a few years, then decides they have to have more space and boom they are back at Honda trading into a CR-V. They could have the CR-V the whole time.

 

[SZR48207]

Originally Posted by dareo
Originally Posted by c502cid
I don't see why people pay extra for 6.2 motors when a 5.3 motor has more than enough power to handle everyday driving and towing needs, plus gets better gas mileage. I mean what are they thinking? How could they even want such a thing? What is coming next... bigger motors that people don't need? sarcasm off.

Bad argument for 3 reasons. 1. 6.2 or 5.3 the vehicle size stays the same, its not like one comes with a smaller or larger truck. 2. Take Rates for 6.2 are about 1 in 20 or less so very few are actually buying a 6.2. Take rates for, lets say Honda HRV 7124 per month vs CR-V 31.5k per month or about 1 in 5 Honda small SUV shoppers takes the HR-V. 3. Choosing a 6.2 over a 5.3 does create more utility and capability. Choosing the HR-V over a CR-V takes away utility.

I'm just saying people buying the micro suv for 20k+ brand new are making a mistake in not spending a tiny bit more for a much more useful and powerful size. Literally everything measurable is better in a CR-V than HR-V. The only reasons i can think of are style and marketing to go into these micro utes. Sell the HR-V, customer enjoys it for a few years, then decides they have to have more space and boom they are back at Honda trading into a CR-V. They could have the CR-V the whole time.


They're not making a mistake because it's not your money being spent. People will do what they want to do, even if it goes against every grain of your being.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
I laughed when suckers were scooping up the H-RV , a Jacked up, Mexican assembled, Honda Fit for 22+ grand.

23K will buy a Forester which is so much better at everything .

The Nissan Rogue Sport is yet another a much better vehicle choice in the sCUV segment

If the price structure was more reasonable I would understand.

The H-RV is a sub 20K vehicle in mid level trim with AWD.


Wife used to buy Suzuki Trackers and Vitara AWD they were going around $14K. new discounted.
Very truck like full frame solid axle but tough and reasonably economical.
GM helped make the second generation fat and slow for the US/Canadian market and then dumped them.

So .... Suckers. Dealers love 'em.

You don't expect an educated consumer these days do you?



I've sat in both, the HRV interior is miles better than both the Forester's and Rogue's. While the forester has the "off-road" pedigree that subarus assumingly come with, the rogue sport isn't anything special.


What did you appreciate that made the Honda Interior "Miles Better" than the Subaru or the NIssan?

I would say the part finish quality in our subaru is much higher than most other vehicles. And the windows work smooth and fast.

Then Nissan seems to have best ergonomics and seat size and quality,

the three dashboards:

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
I laughed when suckers were scooping up the H-RV , a Jacked up, Mexican assembled, Honda Fit for 22+ grand.

23K will buy a Forester which is so much better at everything .

The Nissan Rogue Sport is yet another a much better vehicle choice in the sCUV segment

If the price structure was more reasonable I would understand.

The H-RV is a sub 20K vehicle in mid level trim with AWD.


Wife used to buy Suzuki Trackers and Vitara AWD they were going around $14K. new discounted.
Very truck like full frame solid axle but tough and reasonably economical.
GM helped make the second generation fat and slow for the US/Canadian market and then dumped them.

So .... Suckers. Dealers love 'em.

You don't expect an educated consumer these days do you?



I've sat in both, the HRV interior is miles better than both the Forester's and Rogue's. While the forester has the "off-road" pedigree that subarus assumingly come with, the rogue sport isn't anything special.


What did you appreciate that made the Honda Interior "Miles Better" than the Subaru or the NIssan?

I would say the part finish quality in our subaru is much higher than most other vehicles. And the windows work smooth and fast.

Then Nissan seems to have best ergonomics and seat size and quality,

the three dashboards:

Nissan's ergonomics are the best in the business! My 300ZX was more comfortable than any luxury car I've ever sat it.

 

[atikovi]

Originally Posted by dareo
I'm just saying people buying the micro suv for 20k+ brand new are making a mistake in not spending a tiny bit more for a much more useful and powerful size. Literally everything measurable is better in a CR-V than HR-V.


Seems like half the posts on this forum are people telling others what to buy based on preconceived notions about what they think is best in a car for somebody they don't even know. If somebody bought the smaller SUV we should be thanking them, not criticizing them.

 

[Pew]

Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite

What did you appreciate that made the Honda Interior "Miles Better" than the Subaru or the NIssan?

I would say the part finish quality in our subaru is much higher than most other vehicles. And the windows work smooth and fast.

Then Nissan seems to have best ergonomics and seat size and quality,



The picture doesn't do the HRV justice. The HRV (at least my sister's HRV) had two touchscreen panels, one for the infotainment and a second for the climate controls/everything else. Plus the center console where the shifter is located is open in the middle. The rogue's interior seemed like it would have been great in 2014 but nothing worth taking note of in 2019. The forester's seemed like they were trying to go minimalistic, which isn't a bad idea but for some reason they don't seem to have "minimalistic" down like an art like Mazda does.

The picture below is what my sister's HRV had.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by Reddy45

They're not making a mistake because it's not your money being spent. People will do what they want to do, even if it goes against every grain of your being.

Agreed.. some people want to spend their money on a small ute', so what. It's no different than someone blowing their cash on booze, lottery tickets or tobacco or unnecessary expensive boutique oil. (who on this thread has 100% clean hands, I know I don't)..It doesn't effect the price of tea in my house so [censored] do I care? I say do whatever makes you happy... life's too short to go around worrying what others think.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite

What did you appreciate that made the Honda Interior "Miles Better" than the Subaru or the NIssan?

I would say the part finish quality in our subaru is much higher than most other vehicles. And the windows work smooth and fast.

Then Nissan seems to have best ergonomics and seat size and quality,



The picture doesn't do the HRV justice. The HRV (at least my sister's HRV) had two touchscreen panels, one for the infotainment and a second for the climate controls/everything else. Plus the center console where the shifter is located is open in the middle. The rogue's interior seemed like it would have been great in 2014 but nothing worth taking note of in 2019. The forester's seemed like they were trying to go minimalistic, which isn't a bad idea but for some reason they don't seem to have "minimalistic" down like an art like Mazda does


I do like controls anged towards the driver, I do not like wide center consoles if they are intrusive, and, I do like storage cubbies below the heater or radio (TS) controls.. I do not like most touchscreens for basic HV controls - its OK for radio/multimedia/navigation.
Also the door pocket must accept a litre water bottle.

So I agree there.

I really like the VW interior design it works well ( with the exception of fiddly and confusing dash level vent operation) If the seats were just a tad better/larger it would be fantastic.

Too bad the exterior of the VW is really derivative (of past midized sedans) and ugly to an extreme.

But the new VW is pretty much a re-badged Å koda Octavia of the Czech Republic - not the Jetta of yore.

 

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by c502cid
I don't see why people pay extra for 6.2 motors when a 5.3 motor has more than enough power to handle everyday driving and towing needs, plus gets better gas mileage. I mean what are they thinking? How could they even want such a thing? What is coming next... bigger motors that people don't need? sarcasm off.


My 6.2 diesel gets excellent fuel economy