Your thoughts on "performance SUVs"

  • Thread starter The87Dodge
  • 160 comments
  • 7,508 views

Are you in favor of performance oriented SUVs and crossovers?


  • Total voters
    85
Saw plenty of them last few years, not the extreme power, but the lower price range ones. Personally, I have no issue with them, but I won't spend my money for one, I'd rather buy some old school off road like Land Cruiser, drop in 2JZ or 1UZ-FE with single turbo, upgraded suspension and diff, 500-700HP all terrain monster.
 
I did see an X6M on track once actually.
11050238_10208077945934713_2187616897315853749_n.jpg
 
I saw a Lingenfelter Tahoe at one of the shops my job allows me to visit last year.
It was a 1997, 383 stroker with LPE intake and other tweaks. It was more of an oh, than a wow moment.

That would be roughly the Stone Age of hot SUVs. Mention of the Saleen Just jogged my memory of that one.
 
I don't see any point in them, but that's simply because they don't suit my needs. I'd much rather a hot wagon.

But I do understand why these exist.
 
Never really seen the point of them. Those manufacturers that have made them for a while now have by all accounts managed to over come their inherent shortcomings to the point where they actually handle pretty well. The question is, why bother?

An X5 does everything an X5 M does but for literally half the price. That £45,000 saving buys an awful lot of dedicated track or general performance car. The only real reason to get an X5M over an X5 30d is willy-waving one-upmanship.
 
Never really seen the point of them. Those manufacturers that have made them for a while now have by all accounts managed to over come their inherent shortcomings to the point where they actually handle pretty well. The question is, why bother?

An X5 does everything an X5 M does but for literally half the price. That £45,000 saving buys an awful lot of dedicated track or general performance car. The only real reason to get an X5M over an X5 30d is willy-waving one-upmanship.

I already responded to this in this thread. You buy the X5M over the X5 3.0 d because you want to hit 60 mph hella faster and be able to corner. I'd think car guys would be the first people to understand that.

Edit:

Why buy a track car when you're not going to the track and it's not the car you have to drive every day?
 
In real life, at least in Europe, there's no difference between the Range Rover Supercharged and the diesel V8 or even the V6, except the engine sound perhaps. There's no need to get to 40, 60, 100, or 120 km/h depending on the speed limit/traffic speed than the already rather quickly accelerating lesser models.

I kind of like some of them though. Sure they're a bit pointless, but it's the same reasons a large number of other sports and performance cars are just as pointless, maybe even more so considering that these other performance cars are less practical when it comes to other things such as seating more people, or getting things in the boot, or towing your dedicated club racing car to the track. It's not any less rational choice to put 80,000€ on a V8 Mustang when a Fiesta Ecoboost can can get you from A to B in a city just as well.
 
I like fast SUVs, but I find them utterly pointless, especially in Britain with super expensive petrol prices. The regular diesel models will do pretty much everything these performance variants can do without the need for silly power.

If I wanted performance and practicality I'd buy an S6 Avant over an SQ7.
 
Would I want one? Probably not. A lot of them look a bit too fat and chintzy. Can I see why someone would buy one? Absolutely. An SUV/large crossover coupe is more imposing than a saloon or estate. A performance orientated version isn't really about ultimate driving performance, it's just a far more exclusive trim level. They combine performance figures, exclusivity, usability and the ultimate in brashness.
Those manufacturers that have made them for a while now have by all accounts managed to over come their inherent shortcomings to the point where they actually handle pretty well. The question is, why bother?
Your average footballer type won't really care about it not being the ultimate performance car. They could buy a hardcore supercar, but stripped out interiors, winglets and zero visibility aren't exactly great for everyday use. It's the blend of supercar-like performace with the ultimate in luxury and comfort that makes these things sell by the dozen.
 
2016-BMW-X5M-X6M-10.jpg


I am quite a fan of the X5M but still reside on the fact that their isn't really a point in performance SUV as most or yet nearly all of them don't use their full performance but really just picking up the kids from school.
 
I already responded to this in this thread. You buy the X5M over the X5 3.0 d because you want to hit 60 mph hella faster and be able to corner. I'd think car guys would be the first people to understand that.

Then you buy an M5 with better performance and save yourself £18k. Or if you really need the extra practicality and four wheel drive, then a 550i Touring Xdrive with the sport package and save even more.
 
Then you buy an M5 with better performance and save yourself £18k. Or if you really need the extra practicality and four wheel drive, then a 550i Touring Xdrive with the sport package and save even more.

Ground clearance is great for snow. Four wheel drive is great for snow.

Edit:

It's a swiss army knife. Sure it's not the best knife you could have in any situation, it's just the best knife you can have in every situation.

It is a car for someone who wants a car that excels at everything. I do not understand the resistance to this concept among the car community. You guys act as though the only thing a car is supposed to do is go fast around a track. It's not, in fact most cars never get taken to the track. If you want to talk about a car that's useless, let's talk about every car that's designed for track use ever. That's almost zero use. If you're an enthusiast you'll spend, what... a week? two weeks? at the track all year. You need an entire car for that? Only if you're very serious does that make sense, and even then, unless you're very rich, make that car a cheap one because insurance won't cover your off-track experience. The notion that we should impose that kind of need on others is ridiculous.

So why is it that once you've made a compromise in track performance now suddenly you have to buy something that offers no performance at all?

We all make compromises for everyday utility. My car doesn't shake my fillings out of my teeth because I want it to be nice to drive on the road. This doesn't help the track performance one bit, but I like it better that way. But if someone wants a car to be good in the snow, or to be able to go off-road, or to be tall enough to prevent them from having to squat to get in it, or big enough to haul kids, suddenly we can't have a car that has bonkers performance because that's pointless.

And then people come in here saying it's pointless to have a fast SUV because of speed limits. Ok well then it's pointless to have any car that can go over the speed limit. I guess I should run my BMW off a cliff and take my NSX to the junk yard. Because those are some super pointless cars aren't they?

If you need your car to be able to cover snow (and I did when I was in LA because I went skiing in the mountains), then you want ground clearance and AWD (or 4 wheel drive). If you need your car to haul kids, then you want space for carseats. If you have dogs, you probably want a hatch in the back. If you ALSO love driving your options are limited. You folks might think this is a limited number of people but it actually describes a lot of individuals.

I see a hell of a lot more point in an X5M than I do in most cars.
 
Last edited:
I am the type that thinks the Iowa class ships would make for fine private yachts.

Big, fast, safe, and powerful. Not practical, but it's my rock and roll fantasy.

How does that pertain to an Uber Suv? Well, not really. What I am saying is, its their money. Who am I to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't drive or buy.
 
Last edited:
Ground clearance is great for snow. Four wheel drive is great for snow.

Hence the theoretically spec'd Xdrive 5-series. The X5 M hardly has any more ride height than an average saloon.
 
I love performance SUV's, mainly for the reasons @Danoff listed. Once I actually have a family buying a two seat sports car isn't going to make a ton of sense to me, but getting an SUV that can haul the kids, the dog, the wife, and all the stuff that comes with them and still be able to have some fun. If station wagons were more of a thing in the US, my mindset could be a little different.

My favorite will always be the Typhoon though and I would love to own one some day.
 
Hence the theoretically spec'd Xdrive 5-series. The X5 M hardly has any more ride height than an average saloon.

The M5 has 4.6 inches, 550xi looks like 5.6 inches, and the X5M has 8.1. Am I missing something? The Macan looks like it goes up to 9 on command.

My FX35 has 7.6 inches of ground clearance and I can tell you it is a WORLD of difference over my 330i which is probably 5 inches. Like, I can change the oil without jacking it up vs. had to buy low-profile jack kind of difference.
 
Last edited:
The X5 M and the like are jack of all trades, masters of none. Too compromised in almost every regard. On track they're as quick as the quicker end of the hot hatch segment, same with the hotter small coupes and warm/hot mid-sized saloons/sedans (S Audis and M-sport BM's) but that's beside the point as the brakes and tyres are likely to fade within a couple of laps i'd imagine. So hardly 'supercar like' despite what the raw figures suggest. On the road once you get past the initial wow factor of something so big being so quick and corner so flatly, reviews point to the steering not being so feelsome, it having a tendency to push wide in the tighter corners and has noticeable turbo lag. All compromises due to it's weight and how the chassis has to be set up to try to counter act it. Sure, it has a little more ground clearance than a similar size and performing saloon/estate, but it doesn't make it a snow-beast. A quick look in various BMW forums points to the standard-fit tyres are not advised to be used below 40ºF/4.5ºC as the soft compound becomes very hard. Owners also state that they're awful/borderline dangerous on any kind of snow or ice covered inclines or declines. You could spend $5000 on a set of narrower, taller winter tyres - but that's going to mess up it's 'spirited' dry road handling. Compromises at every turn. Surely car guys would be the first people to understand how flawed a concept it is? ;)
 
Around here people think their 2500/3500 diesel pickups are sports cars. Those make a Cayenne look like an Elise.

They are everywhere around here...
 
Surely car guys would be the first people to understand how flawed a concept it is? ;)
They're not built for car guys though. The people who buy them just want something big, powerful and expensive that's also usable. The vast majority aren't going to be taking them on track, so they won't care about back-to-back performance against sports saloons or coupes - they like big numbers.

They're just statements of wealth. There's nothing wrong with that in my book.
 
The X5 M and the like are jack of all trades, masters of none. Too compromised in almost every regard. On track they're as quick as the quicker end of the hot hatch segment, same with the hotter small coupes and warm/hot mid-sized saloons/sedans (S Audis and M-sport BM's) but that's beside the point as the brakes and tyres are likely to fade within a couple of laps i'd imagine. So hardly 'supercar like' despite what the raw figures suggest. On the road once you get past the initial wow factor of something so big being so quick and corner so flatly, reviews point to the steering not being so feelsome, it having a tendency to push wide in the tighter corners and has noticeable turbo lag. All compromises due to it's weight and how the chassis has to be set up to try to counter act it. Sure, it has a little more ground clearance than a similar size and performing saloon/estate, but it doesn't make it a snow-beast. A quick look in various BMW forums points to the standard-fit tyres are not advised to be used below 40ºF/4.5ºC as the soft compound becomes very hard. Owners also state that they're awful/borderline dangerous on any kind of snow or ice covered inclines or declines. You could spend $5000 on a set of narrower, taller winter tyres - but that's going to mess up it's 'spirited' dry road handling. Compromises at every turn. Surely car guys would be the first people to understand how flawed a concept it is? ;)

The tires that came on my 330i would be horrible in the snow as well. That's why I run blizzaks in the winter on that car (the cost for that is $0 since you're wearing out your summer tires at a reduced rate. So you pay twice as much for tires but replace them 1/2 as often). Of course it's a compromise, it messes up the 'spirited' dry road handling during the winter. So why on earth would I do it?

Because I want to drive a car that handles well in the winter. Look I'm going to have winter tires on whatever I drive in the winter. Why would I not want to drive something good with winter tires on it instead of something crap with winter tires on it? The fact that you're putting winter tires on it does not suddenly make it worthless. The real question that pops to my mind is why I have to even state this. Is this not obvious to everyone?

There are a couple of problems with driving the 330i in the winter, and it's not tires. The open diff means if either back wheel is stopped on ice, and especially if there's snow built up around the wheel or under the car, or a bump that the front wheels need to push up and over, you're stuck. That one wheel will spin and you're not going anywhere. For that reason I put an LSD on the car, specifically an LSD designed to spin both wheels under zero friction (which is not what most of them do). It does help prevent my car from being stuck when both wheels are full-time drive wheels. But ground clearance is a real issue. It's easy to beach that car on the crap left behind by snow plows (which often leave significant ridges of ice in the middle of intersections) or just the wall of junk left behind at the bottom of my driveway after the plow goes by. Ice balls are another big issue with a low ground clearance car, as it's easy to catch your front lip on a ball of ice that fell off of someone's wheel well. Another problem is just sheer snow volume. If the plow hasn't made it to my neighborhood (neighborhoods are the last thing plowed generally), I may be driving my car down into a level of snow that effectively makes my front lip a snow plow on its own.

It's easy for nature to overcome the snow driving capabilities of my 330i. It handles the vast majority of the winter, but even with snow tires and a very specific LSD, it's not that hard to get that car stuck. I've had to drive over my floor mats to get it unstuck. Denver winters, by the way, are nothing compared to Chicago or Minnesota or even Mammoth Mountain where I used to ski when I lived in LA. A very good friend of mine who is a BMW enthusiast and who lives here with me has explained that the xi can be readily overcome as well. I suspect that his xi has only a narrow snow advantage over my LSD RWD version.

My AWD FX35, on the otherhand, has enough ground clearance to really get through some silly snow piles. Things my BMW wouldn't have a dream of are tackled with ease by the FX. It's not a jeep by any stretch, but it has enough capability to handle some of the worst residential snow experiences you might get thrown at you in Denver (and probably most US cities). And being able to get home, or get to work, every day without getting stuck is kindof a big deal. The handling of the FX is not as good as the BMW, but it's phenomenal when compared to something like a pickup truck, a full-sized SUV, or a minivan.

I love driving. I love track driving, I love ice and snow driving, and I even kinda like commuting. But for commuting, where my kids' daycare will charge me through the nose if I can't get to my kids by 6pm, or where I have to burn precious vacation time if I can't get to work, there is real peace of mind in knowing that you have a powerful tool that can handle all of the conditions that will get thrown at you. If that means compromising a little track performance (which I wasn't going to take my daily driver to anyway) that's not a problem. It does not mean that I want to spend 99% of my driving time in something boring.

Also, it's a weird review that lumps in "and the like" and then complains about specific issues like turbo lag.


TL;DR - Winter tires are a given, still want something fun. I can't believe I have to explain that.
 
Last edited:
It is the myth of extra practicality and the higher riding position that makes SUVs far more popular than wagons so it's really a no-brainer that they make a lot of these things and they sell like hotcakes.

It's also pretty self-explanatory as to why they're all so bloody expensive too.
 
Most of them don't because of a low ground clearance, stiff suspension, and tyre choices geared towards on-road performance rather than off-road, and no choices for the latter.

Granted for the model-X. Most of the sporty SUVs have improved ground clearance. I don't know what you mean by "no choices" for tires. tirerack.com has about a million choices for tires.
 
I'm not sure I get why an off-road ability is crucial at all. While many luxury SUV's are designed to be able to go off road, a vast majority of their owners will probably never even take it down a dirt road, that probably becomes even less so with a performance SUV. However, even a vehicle with super sticky summer only tires can still drive on grass or a dirt two track through the woods without any real issue, I've managed to do both when I had my Volvo with Michelin SuperSports on it.

No one would ever expect a stock SUV to tackle any serious off road, even Jeep Wrangles often need modification before tackling something like the Rubicon trail safely.
 
Back