LosAngeles

CROSSOVERS*

26 posts in this topic

I was thinking about the so-called crossovers I dig (*those that are basically semi-tall cars and don't remotely look like SUVs)...those one could easily lower and drive like a sedan, wagon (which the thing basically is) or fastback.

I see my faves going in this order:

1. Ford Flex-great for family, hanging out with the bros, or a complete date (if you know what I mean!)...looks are cool and inspiring. And it's all-American (sans D3 platform originiating with Volvo)

2. Infiniti EX-it's basically a G35/37 hatch. Just find a way to lower it and it's on.

3. Toyota Venza-yeah, it's partially based on the evil Camry, but I love the exterior. Looks like another great cruiser.

4. Mercedes R-Class-falls to 4th place chiefly on price...though I'm sure examples can now be had for a song by comparison. It's basically an S-Class wagon. A Flex or Venza built by Mercedes. Only considered a minivan by detractors.

5. Acura RDX-I'm interested in that turbo four...but the SUV shaped front spoiler is the only killer.

The Freestyle/Taurus X, original SRX, and Pacifica all fell into this category, but all are dead. Element isn't really a car, seems more vannish to me. A long one would make an interesting camper. Everything else made by other makes is an SUV pretending not to be (though Journey and Compass/Patriot have soft carrish leanings).

Now, as far as compact box-wagons and retromobiles (HHR, Scion xB, Cube and such), that should probably be a separate category...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Buick Enclave

2. Chevrolet Traverse

I can't think of any that makes any sense in my mind. They all get the same gas mileage but don't have near the capability.

I'm not a fan of:

1. Ford Flex - Useless sizing for carrying capability

2. Infiniti EX, Toyota Venza, Acura RDX - useless, ugly designs. And yes, I'm not a big fan of the latest Cadillac SRX (though I do find it better looking). If I wanted something that was a 5 seater with all-wheel drive I would go for the 2010 Equinox for the great gas mileage and same abilities as the mentioned without the poor gas mileage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Buick Enclave

2. Chevrolet Traverse

I can't think of any that makes any sense in my mind. They all get the same gas mileage but don't have near the capability.

I'm not a fan of:

Infiniti EX, Toyota Venza, Acura RDX - useless, ugly designs. If I wanted something that was a 5 seater with all-wheel drive I would go for the 2010 Equinox for the great gas mileage and same abilities as the mentioned without the poor gas mileage.

Bingo!

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't care for the category generally, but I'm with LA on which ones I prefer.

I'll take the "tall wagon" version over the "big lump" look of the others (like the Lambdas).

And, the small ones are just crappy-looking things I'd never consider.

I see none of them in my future.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't care for the category generally, but I'm with LA on which ones I prefer.

I'll take the "tall wagon" version over the "big lump" look of the others (like the Lambdas).

And, the small ones are just crappy-looking things I'd never consider.

I see none of them in my future.

Why dod I read that one part as "Lambadas?" LOL.

Anyways, yeah, i generally agree. This category is hard to think out. I don't care for the SUV-ish kind of any size. They may as well just be SUVs. A few are handsome, but that's generally not my kind of motoring, way up in the air like that.

I like Flex, Venza, R-Class and such because that's closer to what people with big families should actually drive. Since these people can't be convinced to drive estates, that's the next best thing.

Are they driver's cars? With the possible exception of the EX, of course not...but I definitely see cruisers with serviceable fun quotients to them coupled with lots of grown man luxury. Tyoe of car I'd like to see GM, Chrysler, or Volkswagen make.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see the appeal of the bigger ones, I'd rather just get a minivan and its sliding doors if I needed a people mover and had > 2 kids. Sorry there is not really a "coolness" factor in a fullsize CUV vs a minivan. Hot women don't really turn heads to see who is driving that CUV.

The ones that are similar to midsize sedan in footprint or smaller yet offer more cargo capability without much of a mpg penalty or driving a rolling kleenex box I can see the use for. To be honest the Venza is about the right size and priced well IMO, but has a silly grill spoiling an otherwise handsome design (far better than the Camry).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take a Grand Cherokee over any CUV... though of them, the only ones I kind of like are the Acacia and Enclave.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the Audi Q7 is a CUV, but it would be #1.

otherwise

2. Cadillac SRX

3. Audi Q5

4. Buick Enclave

5. Volvo XC60

I also really like the Jeep Patriot, Equinox, Terrain, future 9-4X and Outlook. I think the Journey is an attractive looking vehicle, but after looking at one on the dealership lot, I would never consider buying one.

Like Cubical said though, I'd take a Grand Cherokee over any of them anyday.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about the category of the Q7..I tend to think of the Touareg, Q7, and Cayenne as SUVs...they are more rugged and capable than most CUVs. Of the luxury premium SUVs, I like the Range Rover Sport, 2nd gen Merc ML, and 1st and 2nd gen BMW X5. They are more than I'd want to pay new, but make interesting CPO options I'd consider.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure about the category of the Q7..I tend to think of the Touareg, Q7, and Cayenne as SUVs...they are more rugged and capable than most CUVs. Of the luxury premium SUVs, I like the Range Rover Sport, 2nd gen Merc ML, and 1st and 2nd gen BMW X5. They are more than I'd want to pay new, but make interesting CPO options I'd consider.

That's what I thought about the Q7 as well, but I figured I'd throw it out there anyway. I like pretty much the same lux Suv's too...although I wouldn't pay for an X5. If it were given to me though...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the wannabe SUV crossovers, it's a shame that nice engines and fairly curvy car lines are ruined by the ground clearance and the silly *cue dumb blonde* "SUV bits." I think most all of them should have been standard wagons, or at least more like the Flex or R-Class.

It really is a shame to see the industry and the entire automotive scene, all this great tech and luxury and their true capabilities put to the wrong use in this stupid SUV/crossover craze of the past 15 years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMC Eagle

I actually agree. I really like the look of those. That's the world's first sport utility wagon.

I guess I'll add teh 2nd gen X5, it's a sharp looking CUV, one of the few recent BMWs that isn't ugly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMC Eagle

A crossover is really any SUV that is based on a car or otherwise unibody platfrom, from those as big as the Acadia to as small as the X1. I don't make a distinction between those that are more "SUV like" and those that are more "wagon like" because to me none of those listed above look like wagons. If you lowered them they would just look like lowered SUVs. I don't think it has to do as much with ground clearance as it does the hight of the actual body from floorpan to roof, as well as overall stance. The current Subaru Outback is taller than the XJ Cherokee, but if you lowered the Cherokee it would not look like a wagon, just a dropped Cherokee. Even though the Eagles were tall Concords and Spirits, they still stood at least six inches shorter than any of todays crossovers; it looks nothing like an SUV.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always liked the Pacifica. Nicest interior Chrysler has made in forever, and still the nicest IMO. neat Nav system built into the gauges. I would love to get a late model one with a 4.0/6-speed and AWD.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always liked the Pacifica as well. It was elegant inside and out, quite an anomaly compared to its stablemates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMC Eagle

Hardy har har...

A crossover is really any SUV that is based on a car or otherwise unibody platfrom, from those as big as the Acadia to as small as the X1. I don't make a distinction between those that are more "SUV like" and those that are more "wagon like" because to me none of those listed above look like wagons. If you lowered them they would just look like lowered SUVs.

In the immortal words of Jay-Z, we don't believe you, you need more people. I'll give you maybe EX and Venza, but Flex and R-Class don't look remotely like SUVs.

Observe...

Foose-Ford-Flex-3.jpg

9081019.002.1M.jpg

carlsson-r-500-cm50-k-3424.jpg

Come on...let's not act as if I tried to sell the panel on a lowered Highlander or CR-V.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, no one that has answered this is the type of person any of these companies are expecting to buy their products. The better question: If you had to recommend a "crossover" to a Mom with 3 kids, which one would you recommend (use the assumption she hates minivans otherwise . . .)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, the Flex still looks more akin to a truck than a car. It's just too tall.

The Venza just looks like a... thing.

And I am dead serious about the Eagle. I'd own one of those before any other new crossover.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And after the Eagle, I'd probably get a Transit Connect because it can haul more than most (if any) crossover and still get the same or better fuel economy.

If I were to reccoment a crossover to a mom with three kids, I'd probably say a Volvo, then Flex, Traverse, Journey, and Outback.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, the Flex still looks more akin to a truck than a car. It's just too tall.

The Venza just looks like a... thing.

And I am dead serious about the Eagle. I'd own one of those before any other new crossover.

I'd love to have a modern incarnation of the Eagle...the existing ones are just too old for me to deal with.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, the Flex still looks more akin to a truck than a car. It's just too tall.

The Venza just looks like a... thing.

And I am dead serious about the Eagle. I'd own one of those before any other new crossover.

I'm not buyin' it, but we can agree to disagree here.

I think the cars I named off have style. I don't see the Flex as even appealing to women. The average sedan of today is about as tall as the Flex, do they look akin to trucks too?

And as far as AMC, as irrelevant as their name is in the conversation, I'd rather have a standard Concord wagon...lifted station wagons just look silly to me....like someone's lame attempt at building a suburban dunebuggy. Eagle, Outback, XC...all blow super chunks. Pisses me off the way high-riding a Cutlass or Caprice does others.

One thing I notice is people have loaded opinions of things and subjects they don't like.

Edited by LosAngeles
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 68 inches, the Flex is signifigantly taller than most moder sedans, which are usually under 60". Even lowered, the body still looks thicker. Also, the windshield has a steeper rake and the roof is flatter, compared to most cars with more swept-back windshields and arched greenhouses.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Flex, I just don't think its very car-like at all. So yeah, agree to disagree I guess.

Edited by §carlet §wordfish
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At 68 inches, the Flex is signifigantly taller than most moder sedans, which are usually under 60". Even lowered, the body still looks thicker. Also, the windshield has a steeper rake and the roof is flatter, compared to most cars with more swept-back windshields and arched greenhouses.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Flex, I just don't think its very car-like at all. So yeah, agree to disagree I guess.

The Flex almost reminds me of a modernized early '50s car..it has the thickness of midsection, fairly flat glass and more vertical windshield, hood height, etc that reminds me of something from then updated..

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...