Your thoughts on "performance SUVs"

[The87Dodge]

Performance-oriented sport utility vehicles and crossovers are becoming increasingly popular as time goes on, and more manufacturers are producing them. 15 years ago, it was unheard of for a large, un-aerodynamic family-mover to have nearly 600 horsepower and be capable of reaching speeds of almost 200 mph. They can be big or small, from $35k all the way to $150k. But, these vehicles have received some controversy, mainly do to poor handling (due to lots of weight), overdone styling, and "soccer mom" image. There are also some supporters of them, because they combine space and functionality with high performance.

So, where do you stand? Do you think that performance SUVs and crossovers are useful vehicles? Do they have a point? Will they eventually rival sports cars? Be sure to share you're thoughts, and vote in the poll.

Here are a few examples of these vehicles:

BMW X5 M, producing 575 horsepower, weighing 2970 kg (6550 pounds)

Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8, producing 470 horsepower, weighing 3265 kg (7200 pounds)

Nissan Juke NISMO RS, producing 215 horsepower, weighing 1450 kg (3199 pounds)

Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, producing 560 horsepower, weighing 2215 kg (4890 lbs)

 

[bremics]

I'm mixed on them... The Juke is like a Fiesta on stilts or something, no room in the back in terms of leg room or storage btw.

 

[Slash]

It depends. I quite like the SRT Jeeps, but on a whole scale they aren't really needed. Although Trailblazers and Envoys with the 5.3 are kind of cool.

 

[Ettick]

Horrible.

The worst thing to happen to cars in recent years.

 

[McLaren]

I'm curious about which SUV was starting at $35K and considered a performance model unless it's the Juke mentioned. I think that's a bit of reach when everything else listed are high horsepower monsters.

The poor handling is as old a schtick for these types of vehciles as it was for the Veyron. Are they cornering like a Ferrari? Of course not. But, I've had passenger time in a Cayenne GTS on a track & that thing was not a slouch in the bends. Have to take into consideration that a lot of the manufacturers behind these beasts happen to be the same ones producing track burner cars as well, so it's unlikely they're not trying to engineer a 500hp+ SUV with some similar technology as the other cars. The real fun of having one of these is hurting the feelings of cocky owners of other cars who assume they can leave these in the dust; the big German 3 cars at their best run a squeak under 4 seconds to 60 with the rest such as the Range Rover SVR, SRT8, etc. maybe a half second behind. That's pretty quick for something of this size.

The other thing about these cars is that they're being built to cater to that growing SUV market like the Bentley, Jaguar, & Maserati that recently went on sale; you have people in that market with a lot of disposable income that want a SUV, but it has to be top-of-the-line. A basic X3 or Cayenne isn't going to cut it for them. That's what these all happen to help market towards. And as much as enthusiasts like or dislike them, the production figures seem to show that these help some of the manufacturers to keep building those other cars we all like seeing. Porsche relies heavily on Cayenne & Panamera production for a bulk of their sales last I remembered seeing.

I'm also not sure if quoting 15 years ago is fair. A couple manufacturers have definitely played in this area before the 2000s, most notably GMC with the Typhoon/Cyclone, & Ford's SVT Lightning. The RAM SRT-10 & Silverado SS come to mind as well. Trucks naturally, but the idea behind putting a lot of power into a bigger vehicle has been around for a while.

 

[LM7325]

On one hand I don't like them. But manufacturers are cranking them out because they can sell them. I do see the appeal, a vehicle that can do most anything. Why have an suv, and a muscle car when you can have (for the most part) both in a nagging wife approved candy wrapper? Eventually they will get insurance rated out of many driveways if they keep getting faster. Just a matter of time.

 

[RCKakashi14]

I'll make this simple:


I DON'T SEE THE POINT.


Even the Cayenne and Macan Turbo models. SUVs are meant for families and/or utilities, am I right? These cars spend most of their time in the city, anyway, doing some mundane rounds.

 

[NinjaDesignz]

As cool as it may seem to have an SUV with over 550 hp, it is incredibly pointless. You buy an SUV to haul your family and tow boats and other things. You don't buy an SUV to have a fun time on the track. Also, I'd be scared to push one of the performance SUVs to the limit because I feel like it would be topple over in the corner. Plus, they get horrible gas mileage.

 

[McLaren]

I'll make this simple:

I DON'T SEE THE POINT.

Even the Cayenne and Macan Turbo models. SUVs are meant for families and/or utilities, am I right? These cars spend most of their time in the city, anyway, doing some mundane rounds.

What exactly do you think a large majority of exotics are doing? The same thing, just being driven around.

As cool as it may seem to have an SUV with over 550 hp, it is incredibly pointless. You buy an SUV to haul your family and tow boats and other things. You don't buy an SUV to have a fun time on the track. Also, I'd be scared to push one of the performance SUVs to the limit because I feel like it would be topple over in the corner. Plus, they get horrible gas mileage.

People in the US don't even buy cheaper SUVs to do those things. They just buy them because they like them. It's the same with these vehicles; people with a lot of money use to luxuries buy these because they can.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't care for regular SUV's let alone the performance model. They're all big, clunky, and inefficient. That they are popular to the point where manufacturers will turn away from vehicles I find much more interesting is annoying.

As cool as it may seem to have an SUV with over 550 hp, it is incredibly pointless. You buy an SUV to haul your family and tow boats and other things. You don't buy an SUV to have a fun time on the track. Also, I'd be scared to push one of the performance SUVs to the limit because I feel like it would be topple over in the corner. Plus, they get horrible gas mileage.

Why can't you buy an SUV for the track? That's exactly what is being sold now. You can use your vehicle for whatever you want. Towing boats isn't mutually exclusive with track days. Lapping a track isn't even necessarily competitive, it's not like your vehicle needs to be the best at it, over even good. It just needs to be fun to drive.

 

[RCKakashi14]

What exactly do you think a large majority of exotics are doing? The same thing, just being driven around.

I expect that.

Well, my point is that since they are heavy and laden with technology for convenience sake, they aren't really sporty at all to be taken to the track. Being bulky isn't what you can call sporty.

As for exotics, yes they are mostly docile, but surely the owners, at some point, drive them like how these cars are truly meant to be driven.

 

[McLaren]

I expect that.

Well, my point is that since they are heavy and laden with technology for convenience sake, they aren't really sporty at all to be taken to the track. Being bulky isn't what you can call sporty.

Because you're letting the size of the car fool you. The Turbo S has a lap time on the 'Ring a second behind the 2016 BMW M2 (& on par with a '09 CTS-V as well), a hair under 8 minutes.

Take note that this started because of a pissing contest where Land Rover lapped Sport SVR in 8:14 and claimed it had the production SUV record (which was bested by the X6M by Autocar at 8:05). 8 minutes and under is definitely in a group of quick cars.

And just to avoid relying on the overhyped 'Ring record, there's a lap time of the Cayenne Turbo S at Willow Springs claiming 1:34.32, directly behind an Ariel Atom 3.0 & a 997 GT2, & ahead of a Gallardo Spyder & a Viper ACR. Directly behind that ACR is the Mercedes GLE AMG-S.... Autozeitung claims to have a lap time for the Turbo S at 1:40.20, within' a second of a few cars such as a V12 Vantage, E92 M3, F10 M5, & 997 Carrera S. Actually, those are probably a half second faster. There is a X5 M just under a second faster on that circuit at 1:39.4, not far off a BMW M4 clocked at 1:38.9.

There is also a track called the Contidrom that lists the Cayenne Turbo S & X5M within' a second of a AMG GT-S. But, the point is looks are deceiving with these SUVs. We are in an age where technology can completely mask a car's short comings on paper. Just look at what a 4,000lbs. GT-R can do.

As for exotics, yes they are mostly docile, but surely the owners, at some point, drive them like how these cars are truly meant to be driven.

And you don't think anyone who owns one of these performance SUVs hasn't done the same at some point to see how well it performs?

 

[NinjaDesignz]

Why can't you buy an SUV for the track? That's exactly what is being sold now. You can use your vehicle for whatever you want. Towing boats isn't mutually exclusive with track days. Lapping a track isn't even necessarily competitive, it's not like your vehicle needs to be the best at it, over even good. It just needs to be fun to drive.

I mean people can do whatever they want with their money; I just think there are much better cars than these high-performance SUVs that are top heavy and are built on a chassis to be driven on state roads rather than on the racetrack. Also, they are incredibly expensive. I would be more happy driving a BRZ than one of these SUVs but this is just my opinion.

 

[LM7325]

Look at them as a future engine swap donor vehicle. I view every Escalade that way now.

 

[niky]

Being bulky isn't what you can call sporty.

Define bulky.

Most so-called sports cars nowadays weigh between 1.4 to 1.7 tons.

-

As @McLaren says, they're catering to a market. So it's a market that values stupidly expensive, stupidly heavy, stupidly powerful cars. That's not much different from the market that buys exotics, big, heavy sports "coupes" or any number of market segments that buy cars that make no sense at all.

-

I don't ever see myself buying a performance SUV. I personally think they're pointless. But I can't deny that the ones I've driven have been mega-quick and more capable than most people expect them to be. Granted, you can't beat the laws of physics... they will never have the ultimate cornering potential of a well-sorted sports car. But a lot of expensive, powerful sedans and coupes share that same problem, anyway, so it's all a wash.

 

[Stotty]

Even more pointless than super saloons (M5/E63 etc). The diesel/hybrid versions are just as quick in day to day driving and are so much more efficient (MPG/range/overall costs to run).

If you want to go fast, buy a proper sports car.

 

[VXR]

What they do on a track now is nothing short of impressive, but I don't covet the way any of them look. An SVR with standard RRS bumpers would be much more pleasant, but then I'm only after a decent sound. Ultimate performance isn't my goal.

 

[SPhilli911]

Well I think they are mostly pointless and they sit in a market that I don't care about. BUT I can't say that I wouldn't want one to use as a tow vehicle when I strike it rich and need to get my race car to the track.

Not a top of the line performance SUV, but you get my point...

 

[Northstar]

I love them because the way I see it, if I have to drive an SUV, I at least want it to be fun to drive.

 

[Cale]

BTW your "curb weight" for the X5M and Jeep SRT is actually the towing capacity for both vehicles.

And I don't have a problem with them. The automakers aren't forcing them on us. They exist because there's a demand for them... this is actually a case where you can hate the players, and not the game

 

[FT-1]

I don't hate performance SUV and Crossovers, in fact, I do like some of them. One of my favourites is the Audi RS Q3 with that lovely 5-cylinder engine:

Most performance crossovers have astonishing performance figures and are almost as capable as their lower-riding counterparts. Although that is their main problem: Almost. The RS Q3 is almost as capable as an RS3, so I have no idea why I should compromise performance, fuel economy and pay a higher upfront cost for a car which is almost identical in every way apart from ride height, which isn't a big deal for me as I live on mostly flat surfaces. Given the choice, I would choose an RS3 over an RS Q3.

I would rather have car companies focusing their efforts on making conventional performance cars, but if these help with profit margins then I suppose it is justifiable.

 

[niky]

The diesel/hybrid versions are just as quick in day to day driving and are so much more efficient (MPG/range/overall costs to run).

I think this is the biggest problem with Mega SUVs. On real world roads, that extra second or two saved in the rush to 100 kmh means very little if you're shackled by the same speed and cornering limits. Having punted a diesel X6, a diesel Cayenne and a diesel Grand Cherokee around the track, they're already entertaining enough if all you want is something big and rapid.

But in the end, there will always be people who want more.

 

[Stotty]

I think this is the biggest problem with Mega SUVs. On real world roads, that extra second or two saved in the rush to 100 kmh means very little if you're shackles by the same speed and cornering limits. Having punted a diesel X6, a diesel Cayenne and a diesel Grand Cherokee around the track, they're already entertaining enough if all you want is something big and rapid.

But in the end, there will always be people who want more.

👍

Very little real world difference between a Cayenne Diesel S (or Hybrid) and the Cayenne Turbo... a second to 60 (100km/h) is irrelevant once the novelty wears off, and the main performance advantages are only clear once you get to 100mph+.

'But in the end, there will always be people who want to spend more.'

 

[LM7325]

Honestly I guess I actually like some of them. I have disliked many cars until I actually piloted one. I wear my heart on my driving gloves...

 

[Tornado]

Well, my point is that since they are heavy and laden with technology for convenience sake, they aren't really sporty at all to be taken to the track. Being bulky isn't what you can call sporty.

It's already been mentioned, but how much lighter do you think the sedan or wagon or whatever equivalents to the performance SUVs are?

 

[Danoff]

I'll make this simple:


I DON'T SEE THE POINT.


Even the Cayenne and Macan Turbo models. SUVs are meant for families and/or utilities, am I right? These cars spend most of their time in the city, anyway, doing some mundane rounds.

As cool as it may seem to have an SUV with over 550 hp, it is incredibly pointless. You buy an SUV to haul your family and tow boats and other things. You don't buy an SUV to have a fun time on the track. Also, I'd be scared to push one of the performance SUVs to the limit because I feel like it would be topple over in the corner. Plus, they get horrible gas mileage.

Even more pointless than super saloons (M5/E63 etc). The diesel/hybrid versions are just as quick in day to day driving and are so much more efficient (MPG/range/overall costs to run).

If you want to go fast, buy a proper sports car.

Here's the point, ready? Be prepared to have your mind blown.

People with families want to have a car that's fun to drive.

The porsche macan is damned-near a perfect vehicle. Insane straight-line acceleration, insane cornering capability, the ability to haul kids around, luxury, ride height (for dealing with snow), AWD (for not getting stuck in snow), real off-road capability (for dealing with snow), and I can throw my dogs in the back (they do have to go to the vet occasionally). Why would you not want the perfect vehicle to exist?

I'm sure right now someone is preparing a ridiculous "don't live near snow" or "dedicate a garage spot to a sports car that you're usually not driving because you have to drop kids off" or "make sure you buy a huge house with a 3-car garage" or "put your utility car outside so that you have to scrape ice off of it and hear your kids complaining about how cold they are on the way to school after you've slipped on your driveway".

I have to drop kids off every day. I do not have time to return home to get into my sports car. I don't want to drive a boring car for hours a day for over half the year just because the weather might turn. Why is it wrong to want a balance of utility and fun?

 

[Cowboy]

There are a few of these that I like, one of my favorites being the Saleen XP8.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

They're just as "pointless" as dedicated sports cars, if I'm looking at it from the perspective of how most are used.

I'm not exactly a fan of them, but I appreciate what they can accomplish. The Macan is possibly the one at the top of the pile in terms of which I'd ever consider owning, as it's a very good all-rounder. And I love the taillight design.

I really like what FCA has done with the latest Grand Cherokee. It's a handsome vehicle when stacked up against the eyesores from ex Mercedes.

Some are just too shouty though: I'd much rather have the "regular" 500hp supercharged Range Rover than the brute SVR. Oh, and the GLE Coupé is even uglier than the car it aims to mimic, the X6. Both look like big-wheeled rolling turds.

 

[Heldenzeit]

I don't have any problem with it. I borrowed a 1st gen Cayenne V6 for a few days and even that was a really nice drive. I can only imagine how nice a current one with more power is. Macan probably drives great too being lighter than the Cayenne.

Awful paint aside, I think these are pretty cool.

 

[Stotty]

Here's the point, ready? Be prepared to have your mind blown.

People with families want to have a car that's fun to drive.

The porsche macan is damned-near a perfect vehicle. Insane straight-line acceleration, insane cornering capability, the ability to haul kids around, luxury, ride height (for dealing with snow), AWD (for not getting stuck in snow), real off-road capability (for dealing with snow), and I can throw my dogs in the back (they do have to go to the vet occasionally). Why would you not want the perfect vehicle to exist?

I'm sure right now someone is preparing a ridiculous "don't live near snow" or "dedicate a garage spot to a sports car that you're usually not driving because you have to drop kids off" or "make sure you buy a huge house with a 3-car garage" or "put your utility car outside so that you have to scrape ice off of it and hear your kids complaining about how cold they are on the way to school after you've slipped on your driveway".

I have to drop kids off every day. I do not have time to return home to get into my sports car. I don't want to drive a boring car for hours a day for over half the year just because the weather might turn. Why is it wrong to want a balance of utility and fun?

I have no problems with SUV's... I like them, and would happily run a Diesel S Cayenne as a daily. But I would argue that the Diesel S is no less fun to drive than the Turbo S 99%+ of the time.