It was a reasonable question: if you have the hard horsepower limit for SUVs (for "reasons"), other cars must have similar ceilings:
You're plucking numbers out of thin air. If your concern is road safety, no vehicle would have 400hp; that's far more than necessary for safe road speeds. In terms of rollover, a Mercedes A-Class in the 90s famously flipped doing a whopping... 60km/h. That had significantly less than 200hp.
Technology always marches forward, and the upper limits of performance move alongside. At the turn of the century, the general line of thinking about hot hatches was 200hp was pretty much the limit. Now, front-drive cars with 300hp have less of a problem with torque-steer than cars with half that from 30 years ago. They're clicking off sub 7:50 laps at the 'Ring.
A 670hp SUV is "pointless" in the same way the car in your avatar is. But we wouldn't begrudge someone proclaiming their affinity for a GT-R. This all comes off as you simply not liking a type of vehicle — which is perfectly acceptable, everyone has preferences — but trying to rationalize it with "logic".
I haven't driven any of the modern batch of performance crossovers yet, but I have had a pro driver sling me around a race track in the back of a Panamera. The arguments against crossovers can largely be applied to that car too — it's two tons, after all, and surely more car than what most people "need" — but I couldn't even hold a camera steady because I was too busy laughing. It's incredible, and fun in its own "unpure" way, that technology has evolved to a level that a car that big and seemingly unwieldy can hustle at such a level.
