Your thoughts on "performance SUVs"

[Tornado]

TIL

I mean, he's not technically wrong.

 

[The87Dodge]

I think he meant KG.

Yes I meant KG. I will fix my mistake.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Sorry GLA is no where as near as capable as G Class. SUVs aren't that offroad. But that doesn't mean that they're as capable as low slung exotics

I'm sorry for the late reply, but I had to respond to this. Are you talking about this?
http://cdn.boldride.com/mercedes-be...gla.2000x1333.Aug-14-2013_07.15.28.607126.jpg

because if you are; that's technically a Crossover, it's not like a regular SUV.

 

[Neddo]

I'm sorry for the late reply, but I had to respond to this. Are you talking about this?
http://cdn.boldride.com/mercedes-be...gla.2000x1333.Aug-14-2013_07.15.28.607126.jpg

because if you are; that's technically a Crossover, it's not like a regular SUV.

this

 

[Grandea GTR]

this

That's a GL.

 

[Neddo]

That's a GL.

That's what I meant. Now it's called GLS (like WTF another one)

 

[Cale]

I mean, he's not technically wrong.

Yes but he mean KG, which in that case he is, just like I pointed out on the first page. He's been quoting the towing capacity for the X5 M and SRT and claiming those to be their curb weights since the first post.

 

[niky]

He's been quoting the towing capacity for the X5 M and SRT and claiming those to be their curb weights since the first post.

To be fair, you aren't going to be doing very much off-roading or hot-lapping while towing a trailer.

-

Just sayin'

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

this

Alright then, so you just got your model names confused. Okay.

 

[Cale]

To be fair, you aren't going to be doing very much off-roading or hot-lapping while towing a trailer.

-

Just sayin'

I didn't say anything of the sort. Just that hes been posting incorrect information for three pages now (about 50% of the cars listed in his OP), even after being corrected. 7200lbs is 40% more than 5200lbs. That's like claiming a Lotus Elise weighs 2800lbs.

Just sayin' yo

 

[niky]

I didn't say anything of the sort. Just that hes been posting incorrect information for three pages now (about 50% of the cars listed in his OP), even after being corrected. 7200lbs is 40% for than 5200lbs. That's like claiming a Lotus Elise weighs 2800lbs.

Just sayin' yo

I know. I found it hilarious that the numbers were so incredibly off whether you treated them as kilos or pounds.

 

[Danoff]

This topic seems to be all the rage at the moment so I thought I'd update it with another thought of mine on the subject.

Performance SUVs are becoming the area where car engineering is really being tested. Is it hard to build a sports car that goes fast? Not really. It's a one-trick poney. This is evidenced by how insanely fast even moderately priced cars have gotten. If you limit the car to being dedicated for track use (which is a good idea), you can really get just oodles of performance out of a pretty cheap car with a few inexpensive mods. It's all relative of course, it's still hard to be the fastest thing out there. But that's so far beyond most people that it's just a measuring contest.

Is it hard to make a car that is practical? Not really. The Toyota Sienna is absurdly practical and doesn't really cost that much. It's even comfortable (added bonus over practicality). Power doors all the way around, seats 7, reconfigurable to just about any interior shape, can tow a small load, AWD, entertains your kids. It's a ridiculous amount of functionality in one vehicle.

But what if we want both? What if we want something that is bonkers fun to drive but also practical. That's still kinda hard. Package an off road vehicle that's truly fun to drive and practical for every day use, and luxurious and comfortable as well, and you have the holy grail - but it's not easy or cheap to put together.

In my eyes, it's not the sports car that is the showpiece of a car company, it's the performance SUV. Sure ok, you've got a sports car and you've got a pickup truck... show me the performance SUV and maybe I'll be impressed. Ok Ford, you've got the GT and you've got a van, but how's your explorer doing up against the Macan? The 911 is great and everything, but it's the Macan that makes me realize Porsche can do everything.

 

[homeforsummer]

You're pretty much on the money @Danoff, though where I'd say the theory falls down is that you ultimately can't cheat physics. I've driven some very good performance SUVs, but they're never as good as the performance cars offered by the same manufacturers. They're not as agile, not as quick, don't brake as well, they're more expensive to buy and to run, and pretty much universally don't look as good.

A Macan GTS is great fun by SUV standards, for instance, but by Porsche standards it's less fun than the most basic 718 Boxster with zero options and that nasty flat four powering it.

Likewise, some performance SUVs have set fairly impressive Nurburgring times - an Alfa Stelvio Quadrifoglio with 500-odd horsepower has set a 7:51, which is jolly quick. But then you realise the current Civic Type R with 200hp less, half the driven wheels and less than half the price is another eight seconds quicker than that.

The capabilities of some are undoubtedly impressive, and I admire the engineering work that goes into achieving that, but I'd admire even more if engineers were given something more worthwhile to work on than attempting to make SUVs slightly less crappy than they start off as.

I've driven a couple of performance SUVs/crossovers that I don't mind that much. The Merc-AMG GLC 43 looks pretty good and is genuinely good to drive. I'm a fan of the Juke Nismo RS at the lower end of things. Both of those almost make a feature of being taller, in that it introduces some imperfections into the handling (largely extra roll) that don't harm the dynamics so much as make the driver feel like they're working the car harder (almost in the vein of "slow car fast"). I've possibly driven others which haven't been bad either, but none are springing easily to mind - even though I could name two dozen "normal" cars I've driven in the last few years that were great fun.

I can't help feeling "performance SUV" is a bit like being ever slightly too smart to be voted village idiot.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You're pretty much on the money @Danoff, though where I'd say the theory falls down is that you ultimately can't cheat physics. I've driven some very good performance SUVs, but they're never as good as the performance cars offered by the same manufacturers. They're not as agile, not as quick, don't brake as well, they're more expensive to buy and to run, and pretty much universally don't look as good.

A Macan GTS is great fun by SUV standards, for instance, but by Porsche standards it's less fun than the most basic 718 Boxster with zero options and that nasty flat four powering it.

Likewise, some performance SUVs have set fairly impressive Nurburgring times - an Alfa Stelvio Quadrifoglio with 500-odd horsepower has set a 7:51, which is jolly quick. But then you realise the current Civic Type R with 200hp less, half the driven wheels and less than half the price is another eight seconds quicker than that.

The capabilities of some are undoubtedly impressive, and I admire the engineering work that goes into achieving that, but I'd admire even more if engineers were given something more worthwhile to work on than attempting to make SUVs slightly less crappy than they start off as.

I've driven a couple of performance SUVs/crossovers that I don't mind that much. The Merc-AMG GLC 43 looks pretty good and is genuinely good to drive. I'm a fan of the Juke Nismo RS at the lower end of things. Both of those almost make a feature of being taller, in that it introduces some imperfections into the handling (largely extra roll) that don't harm the dynamics so much as make the driver feel like they're working the car harder (almost in the vein of "slow car fast"). I've possibly driven others which haven't been bad either, but none are springing easily to mind - even though I could name two dozen "normal" cars I've driven in the last few years that were great fun.

I can't help feeling "performance SUV" is a bit like being ever slightly too smart to be voted village idiot.

One thing that I can't help but think is that performance SUVs are made possible by the incredible evolution of tires and dampers. The Stelvio has enormous tires with a very grippy compound. These types of tires are also ruinously expensive. Yeah, I understand these vehicles are very capable, but the cost of the wear items....man (like the $8,000 carbon brake option for the Stelvio). Also, I wonder how useless something like the Stelvio is off road when equipped with the Pirelli P-Zero tires.

I think the real reason they are popular is that they deliver headline performance figures and they look as expensive as they are. From what I've seen, they are actually used just as any other SUV is....minivan replacements. I've seen more than a few middle aged moms taking their pre-teen kids to school in G63 AMGs. It's status. The 'fast' models just happen to be the most expensive ones, which is all most of the buyers really care about, I would wager.

 

[Danoff]

You're pretty much on the money @Danoff, though where I'd say the theory falls down is that you ultimately can't cheat physics. I've driven some very good performance SUVs, but they're never as good as the performance cars offered by the same manufacturers. They're not as agile, not as quick, don't brake as well, they're more expensive to buy and to run, and pretty much universally don't look as good.

A Macan GTS is great fun by SUV standards, for instance, but by Porsche standards it's less fun than the most basic 718 Boxster with zero options and that nasty flat four powering it.

Likewise, some performance SUVs have set fairly impressive Nurburgring times - an Alfa Stelvio Quadrifoglio with 500-odd horsepower has set a 7:51, which is jolly quick. But then you realise the current Civic Type R with 200hp less, half the driven wheels and less than half the price is another eight seconds quicker than that.

The capabilities of some are undoubtedly impressive, and I admire the engineering work that goes into achieving that, but I'd admire even more if engineers were given something more worthwhile to work on than attempting to make SUVs slightly less crappy than they start off as.

I've driven a couple of performance SUVs/crossovers that I don't mind that much. The Merc-AMG GLC 43 looks pretty good and is genuinely good to drive. I'm a fan of the Juke Nismo RS at the lower end of things. Both of those almost make a feature of being taller, in that it introduces some imperfections into the handling (largely extra roll) that don't harm the dynamics so much as make the driver feel like they're working the car harder (almost in the vein of "slow car fast"). I've possibly driven others which haven't been bad either, but none are springing easily to mind - even though I could name two dozen "normal" cars I've driven in the last few years that were great fun.

I can't help feeling "performance SUV" is a bit like being ever slightly too smart to be voted village idiot.

At the track you will notice the performance difference. But nobody goes to the track, and hopefully they're not taking their daily driver. I don't care that the latest 911 is however many miles per hour through the bends than the Macan, because I can't approach those limits anyway. I do agree with you that the Macan is probably less engaging to drive than a 911 (of course, what isn't?), but then modern cars are less visceral and engaging than cars from decades past.

I agree with you that given a set of technology at a particular time, a dedicated sports car is always going to be sportier than a swiss army knife of a car. But my point is that it doesn't matter. The swiss army knife in this case is getting so good (especially on city streets) that you can have your cake and eat it too. Maybe it's not the best cake on sale, but it's still great.

 

[homeforsummer]

At the track you will notice the performance difference. But nobody goes to the track, and hopefully they're not taking their daily driver. I don't care that the latest 911 is however many miles per hour through the bends than the Macan, because I can't approach those limits anyway. I do agree with you that the Macan is probably less engaging to drive than a 911 (of course, what isn't?), but then modern cars are less visceral and engaging than cars from decades past.

If the average driver can't approach the limits of a 911, I suspect they probably can't approach the limits of a Macan either - the speed doesn't matter so much in that scenario, and the car that engages more with its engine note, steering feedback, size, agility etc will be the more fun, and that ain't the Macan.

Modern cars may not be as visceral as older ones too, but there's still a wide gulf between the most and least engaging. SUVs are rarely (if ever) at the sharp end of that spectrum, in my experience.

I agree with you that given a set of technology at a particular time, a dedicated sports car is always going to be sportier than a swiss army knife of a car. But my point is that it doesn't matter. The swiss army knife in this case is getting so good (especially on city streets) that you can have your cake and eat it too. Maybe it's not the best cake on sale, but it's still great.

I think even the average driver, after spending a generation or two with an SUV, would be amazed at how much better a regular car is to drive though. You don't need to be a virtuoso to realise that a regular car stops, steers and goes more easily than an SUV, or that you don't have to spend as much filling it during your commute.

Of course, there'll always be an element that some people neither know better nor care, and just as people on the internet like to judge cars solely on performance ("x car doesn't have enough power, a Camry V6 is quicker" etc) a performance SUV still gets a move on from a stop light and will no doubt impress the average buyer.

Your premise is (if I understand it) that it would be impressive if a manufacturer can make an SUV that's truly fun to drive, more so than them doing so with a sports car. My argument is that for now, they haven't done, and it's not something I see changing any time soon. Adding speed and grip to an SUV doesn't necessarily make it more fun, it just makes it faster and grippier.

As I mentioned further up, making an SUV do something you don't expect is impressive, but it's doing more with more. Show me an engineer doing more with less and I'll be really impressed - and "less" pretty much rules out any kind of SUV, in automotive terms.

 

[Danoff]

Your premise is (if I understand it) that it would be impressive if a manufacturer can make an SUV that's truly fun to drive, more so than them doing so with a sports car. My argument is that for now, they haven't done, and it's not something I see changing any time soon. Adding speed and grip to an SUV doesn't necessarily make it more fun, it just makes it faster and grippier.

My premise is that they have, lots of them have at this point.

I can't agree with you. I think you're defining what's fun to drive on a sliding scale of technology and relative to what else is on the market rather than an absolute scale. My '08 FX35 (not even the 45) is a lot of fun to drive, in the turns too. It's not the fastest car I own, or the most engaging, or even the most practical. But it does deliver fun. Way more fun than my old ford explorer from the 90s, way more fun than my minivan from 2015. More fun than any pickup truck I've ever driven, and a more fun than a bunch of boring "normal" cars I've ever driven.

This is what I mean when I say it doesn't matter that a dedicated sports car from 2008 might be faster or more fun still. My SUV is fun and practical, and that will make it the right balance for a lot of people. The envelope of buyers that the performance SUV can capture in that way has been growing since.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think you're defining what's fun to drive on a sliding scale of technology and relative to what else is on the market rather than an absolute scale.

Oh lord no, on an absolute scale SUVs fall even further down the list for me, behind ropey old crap from the 1970s and underpowered superminis that at least deliver a bit of driver engagement when you throw them into corners.

Fun is a weird concept to define as it's obviously different for everyone. But I get mine from having some kind of interaction from whatever I'm driving, be that through the steering, with the gas pedal, through a gearshift, through the balance of a chassis or whatever, and even the best SUVs I've driven don't really deliver on that front. Getting from place to place at a rate of knots is neat, but then almost any modern cars will do that - I was quicker on my commute in my old Honda Insight with 165-section tyres and 70-ish horsepower than 99% of other traffic, and even that required relatively minimal effort.

Earlier you said this:

Performance SUVs are becoming the area where car engineering is really being tested.

The more I think about it, the more I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. You said it's not hard to build a sports car that goes fast, but I'd say it's not hard to do similar with an SUV either - you just throw lots of power and lots of tyre at it to overcome the inherent limitations of weight and centre of gravity. As my thoughts in the "slow car fast" thread explain, there's more to something being fun than that.

I don't disagree that "a lot of people" will find performance SUVs fun, but I'd argue that it's not impressive engineering if you can convince someone who knows very little about driving that a car can be fun. You only need to look at Tesla owners, whose sole party trick is going quickly in a straight line, claiming their car is the most fun car they've ever owned.

As an aside... Funny you mention your FX35 as that sits in an unusual position as being one of my favourite SUVs, and in the last form I drove it (in the UK, as the QX70) one of very few diesel engines I've ever used that I enjoyed. I'd concede that car can be fun, but it'd still be quite a long way down my own personal list of fun cars...

 

[Danoff]

Funny you mention your FX35 as that sits in an unusual position as being one of my favourite SUVs

Ok so... now I have to ask... I've never driven a Macan (it will happen, it just hasn't yet). Are you telling me that you think my (first) generation FX35 is more fun than a Macan? Because that would pretty much blow my mind.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ok so... now I have to ask... I've never driven a Macan (it will happen, it just hasn't yet). Are you telling me that you think my (first) generation FX35 is more fun than a Macan? Because that would pretty much blow my mind.

In pure, simple terms, no. The Macan is more fun. More agile, good engine, entertaining degree of power-on oversteer. But then the last Macan I drove was a GTS, and it's a Porsche, so it jolly well should be fun - and even then it's not as fun as any of the actual sports cars Porsche makes.

The Infiniti was incongruously fun. Most of what Infiniti makes is... pretty poor. The fact a large SUV with (for me) a diesel engine sounded good and seemed to relish corners was a surprise, and more fun than I was expecting. Part of why I like that car though isn't just the way it drives, but also the look, and the fact you never see them over here and I like rarity.

I guess this is all similar to the Cool Wall threads we used to do in that what I personally like doesn't necessarily bear any relation to it being objectively good. The Macan is an objectively good car that I can entirely take or leave. A Merc-AMG GLC 43 is an objectively less good car than a Macan, but I prefer it. An FX35/QX70 is less good than either, but much better than I expected and I enjoyed smoking around in it for a week, so if you asked me at random to pick the one from the lineup I'd like to knock around in day to day, it'd probably be the Infiniti.

 

[Danoff]

In pure, simple terms, no. The Macan is more fun. More agile, good engine, entertaining degree of power-on oversteer. But then the last Macan I drove was a GTS, and it's a Porsche, so it jolly well should be fun - and even then it's not as fun as any of the actual sports cars Porsche makes.

The Infiniti was incongruously fun. Most of what Infiniti makes is... pretty poor. The fact a large SUV with (for me) a diesel engine sounded good and seemed to relish corners was a surprise, and more fun than I was expecting. Part of why I like that car though isn't just the way it drives, but also the look, and the fact you never see them over here and I like rarity.

I guess this is all similar to the Cool Wall threads we used to do in that what I personally like doesn't necessarily bear any relation to it being objectively good. The Macan is an objectively good car that I can entirely take or leave. A Merc-AMG GLC 43 is an objectively less good car than a Macan, but I prefer it. An FX35/QX70 is less good than either, but much better than I expected and I enjoyed smoking around in it for a week, so if you asked me at random to pick the one from the lineup I'd like to knock around in day to day, it'd probably be the Infiniti.

Gotcha.

I let my favorite gearhead buddy drive my (sport package) FX to see what he thought. He hopped in it and was ready to hate it.

Him: Ok so it sounds good...
Him: Ok so it's comfortable...
Him: It's got a little power, not too bad....
Me: Take a right up here, there's an s-turn coming up, give it a little speed
Him: *eyebrows raised*
Him: Woah... woah... I did NOT think it would feel like that.

 

[TexRex]

While up-level performance variants of SUVs don't really do it for me, particularly those with horsepower in excess of 500 (as an alternative to...say...300), I don't understand the "X performs better, so why not get X?" narrative.

Why do companies that offer performance-oriented vehicles exclusively offer those vehicles in a retractable roof configuration when a fixed roof generally lends to a more rigid structure, less weight and/or better aerodynamics?

There's almost always going to be something that performs better, so concessions are made by consumers in order to have the vehicle one is buying suit their wants, needs and resources.

 

[kikie]

Late to this thread but I voted a "Nay".

 

[Danoff]

While up-level performance variants of SUVs don't really do it for me, particularly those with horsepower in excess of 500 (as an alternative to...say...300), I don't understand the "X performs better, so why not get X?" narrative.

Why do companies that offer performance-oriented vehicles exclusively offer those vehicles in a retractable roof configuration when a fixed roof generally lends to a more rigid structure, less weight and/or better aerodynamics?

There's almost always going to be something that performs better, so concessions are made by consumers in order to have the vehicle one is buying suit their wants, needs and resources.

It's all a compromise. Sports cars are often full of compromises not only with luxury items (such as AC) but also tons of other features that compromise track performance in exchange for road going concerns. A suspension that won't shake your fillings out, airbags, fuel economy, quiet brakes, sound deadening, door pulls (Porsche's favorite), stereos, spare tires, memory seating, automatic windows, cupholders, tires that stick in the rain...

Likewise, those same cars have even more compromises of road-going concerns in exchange for track performance. Suspension that will shake you a little, brakes that give off a lot of dust, seats that won't let you look backward, fuel economy (the other direction), a lack of rear seats, a like of ride height, fewer doors, etc. etc.

Like you point out, every car is a balance. But I keep coming back to the fact that track performance should not be the real driver for most cars. Most car-guys I know don't go to the track often. Many of them have never even been once. As has been discussed here and elsewhere, fun-to-drive is not the same as lap times. Teslas, despite their flaws, are actually fun to drive - even though they're not race cars.

 

[HoseHead]

I like this discussion.
My opinion: They are pretty cool and I like the 4 door wagon body style but I don't like the extra ground clearance they all have. It kills gas mileage. It kills gas mileage everyday. But you don't need the extra ground clearance everyday. You would need it, like you say, on snowy days, or the outside chance you are taking your $60K car off-roading.
What I want to do: get one and lower it to 'normal' car ride height. Is that even possible?

 

[Liquid]

Big cars with great performance? Why yes, I do like the 1993 Aston Martin V8 Vantage. It's the Industrial Revolution on wheels. The VW Phaeton is also a lovely machine.

Make that big car an off-road estate? Uh, not quite so much. There are isolated cars like the Range Rover Sport I somewhat like but as a whole SUVs and crossovers don't really appeal to me in general, never mind hot models. Crossovers just do not sit well with me and I can't quite explain it. As @Pupik mentioned, it's your own personal view and if you love those cars, all the power to you. Personally, I find more fun and desirability in regular saloon estates; Volvo 850s, Subaru Legacies and so on.

At least now the performance models allow SUVs to live up to their names; they taxed the definition of "sports" utility vehicle for a long, long time.

 

[20832]

What I want to do: get one and lower it to 'normal' car ride height. Is that even possible?

Yes, it's possible. It's possible by buying just a regular van or station wagon.

 

[Danoff]

I like this discussion.
My opinion: They are pretty cool and I like the 4 door wagon body style but I don't like the extra ground clearance they all have. It kills gas mileage. It kills gas mileage everyday. But you don't need the extra ground clearance everyday. You would need it, like you say, on snowy days, or the outside chance you are taking your $60K car off-roading.
What I want to do: get one and lower it to 'normal' car ride height. Is that even possible?

I assume you're ready to do a V8 to 4-banger swap in a sports car too. After all, you don't need the extra power every day.

 

[HoseHead]

Yes, it's possible. It's possible by buying just a regular van or station wagon.

Oh, I love station wagons, that's why I think a lowered performance SUV would be kind of cool.

I assume you're ready to do a V8 to 4-banger swap in a sports car too. After all, you don't need the extra power every day.

No man. I just wanted add to the discussion, and I didn't want to just say I like them or I don't like them without giving a reason, like so many people have already done, so I gave my reason. I guess I simply don't like jacked up vehicles (except trucks) we didn't need them we I was a kids, why would we need them now?

 

[Joey D]

What I want to do: get one and lower it to 'normal' car ride height. Is that even possible?

Lowering an SUV is entirely possible. It also ruins the vehicle, makes it ride like garbage, puts excess wear on components, and screws with the suspension geometry.

Changing the suspension height on a vehicle rarely works well. The automaker spent millions in R&D to get it right, a company that makes a kit for 400 different vehicles put just a fraction towards that.