Why does it seem most americans hate hatchbacks yet love CUVS?

Tom_Spangler wrote: Several things. One, we are enthusiasts, and time has shown again and again that what we want isn't what the general market wants. Two, all or most CUVs tend to be available with AWD, a big selling point here in the frozen north. And three, people like sitting higher in cars these days. It provides better visibility, and it also makes the cars easier to get into and out of, especially for older folks.

All of this. As much as we (royal use of hte word) want to blame this on status, this is more realistic.

Toyman01 wrote: There is a awful amount of hate for a car design in here. Personally, I'd love a Ford Flex. The new Explorer isn't bad either. Both of which are CUVs, albeit full sized versions. Both have reasonable towing capacities. The smaller ones are less useful to me, but given the choice between the two in the OP, I'll take the one with the more vertical seating position every time because it's more comfortable to me. That's probably not going to be the hatch.

ease ofentry and exit IS an important issue for a lot of people and to automatically lump them into the "they're stupid for buying that because I don't like them" is not only closed minded but flat out rude and obnoxious. I should know... I feel that way about the Ridgeline (Complete waste of money). But I'm not going to tell people they're stupid for buying one. Just because I think the design is idiotic doesn't mean it is. IT's, like, just your opinion man.

Small SUV's have their place. I still wish we had our Grand Vitara. I loved the turning radius, the 4wd and the ability to do whatever was needed.

One thing I noticed is that people equate CUV with SUV and SUV with Jeep. It's like suddenly they can go anywhere that a truck can. They quickly learn this isn't the case.

Unless you're a Subaru guys who are first worried about MPG (trucks suck gas), in which case you'll spend thousands trying to lift a vehicle to fit 28" offroad tires on it (killing the MPG) and my cheap truck can go the same places stock.

Hatchbacks are typically FWD and most of the SUV types (CUVs are just petite SUV's in my book) I've seen are RWD.

Also most of the people I know who finally bite the bullet and buy a CUV/SUV are looking for the most space inside for baby or hauling things. If they've got to get a practical vehicle they want the most practical vehicle they can buy.

I get the CUV thing. We had a VUE for a couple of years. Not a very good car, but from a practicality standpoint, it was a lot of utility for little $. There aren't a lot of cars around that compare short of mid/full-size wagons, which have their own set of issues (mainly, nobody makes them). I certainly get why a CRV or RAV4 is popular.

That said, now we have a minivan which is certainly overkill for one kid, but doesn't have many downsides other than slightly worse mileage. If buying new, the $ premium would've been really significant though.

My grandparents have a Traverse. My wife's grandparents have the Buick equivalent. My grandma's previous ride was an HHR, which she loved. Then her back got worse. The taller Traverse makes ingress and egress much easier.

Equinoxes and Escapes are also popular with older people in my neighborhood. It seems that's what they gravitate towards now that they can't buy Towncars and Grand Marquis any more.

Furious_E wrote: Because hatchbacks are for poor people. Ouch. I'm going to drive my Focus ST out to the corner so I can beg for change. Back in a while...

He's right, in the '80's and '90's most of the cheapest cars were hatches, and they were considered poor people cars. Sedans with a real trunk were seen as a step up. Silly, especially when you could get many cars both ways, but I know lots of people who still think of hatchbacks as beaters. The funny thing is that most sports cars of the day were also hatchbacks, but not considered hatchbacks, because they were sports cars or coupes, with a hatch. But not hatch backs. Which were cheap. So now hatch backs are SUV's, because SUV's are more expensive, even when they are not. With a hatch.

Are those hatchbacks really hatchbacks though?

In reply to Appleseed:

Mostly not.

I think I'd be ok with the CUV thing if people didn't make stupid excuses around them. My favorites are still the things like the Subaru Outback and Volvo XC70 where they don't even try to hide the fact that they just lifted a wagon and called it done. The Crosstour almost gets away with it but they tried to hard to hide it's Accord-ness by beating it with the ugly stick.

Also I question the AWD motive. Nearly everyone I know that owns a crossover has one that's FWD.

This may not factor into every decision-maker's calculus, but it is way easier to strap a kid into a car seat in a cute-ute or crossover type car than into a regular sedan or wagon. No bending over required.

In reply to pheller:

not all small suv's are created equal. The 'zuk's were still offroad capable.

carguy123 wrote: Hatchbacks are typically FWD and most of the SUV types (CUVs are just petite SUV's in my book) I've seen are RWD. Also most of the people I know who finally bite the bullet and buy a CUV/SUV are looking for the most space inside for baby or hauling things. If they've got to get a practical vehicle they want the most practical vehicle they can buy.

Are you sure? Maybe 10 years ago that would have been correct but nowadays they are all based on FWD or AWD cars. I mean even the venerable Cherokee and Explorer are both front wheel drive unless you pay up.

pheller wrote: One thing I noticed is that people equate CUV with SUV and SUV with Jeep. It's like suddenly they can go anywhere that a truck can. They quickly learn this isn't the case.

Interesting. I'd guess that if you ask small SUV/CUV owners "Will you take your car off road", 99.5% of them would say "no".

Most people I know with them recognize that they are more about seating position, ingress/egress, interior space, and (in AWD form) snow.

What's the difference between a CUV and an SUV? What does CUV stand for anyway.

In reply to Appleseed:

"Compact"

Upfront I'll say that I have no use for CUV/SUVs. I believe in the right tool for the job rather than trying to come up with something that is a jack of all trades.

That said, I have two observations on this topic:

1) My grandparents could probably pay cash for any new car they desired to own. They pick their vehicles based on comfort of the seats, current availability (won't wait more than a couple weeks once they decide to buy), and ingress/egress (hips cannot change elevation during this event). They usually drive minivans or Lexus SUVs.

2) CUV/SUVs have gotten much better at being an everyday car than your average hatchback in the past 20 years. I would argue that today's ford explorer is an order of magnitude better than an early 2000's one while the hatchback is maybe twice as good in the same amount of time.

Pete Gossett wrote: In reply to Appleseed: "Compact"

E36 M3, really? I thought "Crossover," but I guess compact makes more sense for the vehicles we're discussing. So, how do you distinguish between a crossover SUV (Highlander) and a truck-based SUV (4Runner), or do you?

Appleseed wrote: Are those hatchbacks really hatchbacks though?

No, they're fastbacks.

So here's the deal--the taller vertical space often works better, particularly for families.

My parents have a Mercedes E350 4Matic wagon which they purchased while we still had our Kia Sorento CUV. Both vehicles had a similar footprint, V6 engines and seats for 7--two of which consumed all the cargo space when in use. The Merc was double the price, so we'll set aside the nicer interior materials and ride quality, and just focus on usability as a family vehicle for hauling a mix of up to 4 adults and 5 kids, four of which need carseats.

The lower roofline on the E350 corresponds to a lower seating position then in the Sorento. Entering and exiting the Mercedes is more difficult for my retirement-age parents and my (pregnant) wife. The Merc's lower seating position also requires more legroom to sit comfortably, requiring more longitudinal space for each row--and rear-facing passengers had to cross their legs. Only the CUV could accommodate adults in the 3rd row. Two outboard carseats in the middle row consumed an equivalent space between the two vehicles, rendering the center seat useless in both vehicles. Both cars can haul a fantastic amount, but the taller interior cargo space made moving furniture easier in the CUV. The Mercedes is quicker and has higher cornering limits, but still isn't that fun to drive. We used the ride height in the CUV every once in a while to drive over a curb to get around an obstacle or to park on the grass; we wouldn't have dreamed of doing that in the Mercedes.

Last year we replaced our Sorento CUV with a Kia Sedona Minivan. The van does everything better than the CUV did. The Merc is nicer inside and a little more engaging to drive, but from a usability standpoint it's no contest--minivans beat wagons and CUVs.

Basil Exposition wrote:

Pete Gossett wrote: In reply to Appleseed: "Compact"

E36 M3, really? I thought "Crossover," but I guess compact makes more sense for the vehicles we're discussing. So, how do you distinguish between a crossover SUV (Highlander) and a truck-based SUV (4Runner), or do you?

Actually, it is Crossover.

Because it's a Crossover Utility Vehicle built on a car chassis, rather than a Sport Utility Vehicle built on a truck chassis.

Boost_Crazy wrote:

Furious_E wrote: Because hatchbacks are for poor people. Ouch. I'm going to drive my Focus ST out to the corner so I can beg for change. Back in a while...

He's right, in the '80's and '90's most of the cheapest cars were hatches, and they were considered poor people cars. Sedans with a real trunk were seen as a step up. Silly, especially when you could get many cars both ways, but I know lots of people who still think of hatchbacks as beaters. The funny thing is that most sports cars of the day were also hatchbacks, but not considered hatchbacks, because they were sports cars or coupes, with a hatch. But not hatch backs. Which were cheap. So now hatch backs are SUV's, because SUV's are more expensive, even when they are not. With a hatch.

Yes, please read my prior post with dripping sarcasm, that statement in no way reflects my own views. Just an observation of the perception among the non-enthusiast community. I think hatchbacks are almost universally better looking and better proportioned than the compact sedans they share platforms with, not to mention infinitely more useful.

Toyman01 wrote:

Basil Exposition wrote:

Pete Gossett wrote: In reply to Appleseed: "Compact"

E36 M3, really? I thought "Crossover," but I guess compact makes more sense for the vehicles we're discussing. So, how do you distinguish between a crossover SUV (Highlander) and a truck-based SUV (4Runner), or do you?

Actually, it is Crossover. Because it's a Crossover Utility Vehicle built on a car chassis, rather than a Sport Utility Vehicle built on a truck chassis.

CUV has been around longer than the term Crossover though (which was really first used on the old Chrysler Pacifica) CUVs were the original Rav4, CR-V and Suzuki models. They were compact utility vehicles, aka Cute-Utes.

We have a fairly new RAV4, but it's not exactly small. The reason is pretty simply, because my wife wanted one. I have to admit it drives pretty nice, and is very usable as an everyday car, um, SUV. She liked it because of the seating position and view, and it is easy to load and unload groceries from the back. We looked at a few cars also, and this was a particular sticking point with her. Pulling things out of the truck is not her idea of a good time. It is also easier for her to get in and out of, and to load the grandkids when she needs to.

In response to pushrod36, my son and daughter in law just bought a new Explorer a couple of months ago, and it should have a different name it is so different than the earlier ones. It is extremely nice for a SUV, almost rivaling my mom's X5.

Chris_V wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

Basil Exposition wrote:

Pete Gossett wrote: In reply to Appleseed: "Compact"

E36 M3, really? I thought "Crossover," but I guess compact makes more sense for the vehicles we're discussing. So, how do you distinguish between a crossover SUV (Highlander) and a truck-based SUV (4Runner), or do you?

Actually, it is Crossover. Because it's a Crossover Utility Vehicle built on a car chassis, rather than a Sport Utility Vehicle built on a truck chassis.

CUV has been around longer than the term Crossover though (which was really first used on the old Chrysler Pacifica) CUVs were the original Rav4, CR-V and Suzuki models. They were compact utility vehicles, aka Cute-Utes.

Compact SUV was coined by AMC to refer to the XJ Cherokee because it was their compact SUV. CUV now refers to crossover utility vehicles across just about every manufacturer as well as any media reference in the last 10 years.