Chrysler puts a bullet in the PT Cruiser

[ChrisV]

The crossovers of today, too, have off-road pretensions.

No, none of them have the 4x4 look (like the tailgate mounted spare tire, molded in "push bars, plastic offroad flares or cladding, etc). Modern crossovers are still, like the Venza, station wagons with height. The Flex doesn't try to be an offroader, the Pacifica never tried to look like or even be marketed as an offroader, the Edge never tried to be or was marketed as an offroader, the Murano and FX series never were, either. the Rav-4 and CR-V have had offroad in their advertising and DNA from day one.















You'll never (at least I haven't found it in the last 15 minutes of googling) see an FX or Edge or Venza or Pacifica with an exterior spare or pushbar, or black plastic flares and offroad advertising. Mini SUVs are mini SUVs. Crossovers are not mini SUVs.

[ifcar]

You don't see many exterior spares on car or truck-based SUVs because they force the back hatch to swing out instead of open upwards. At the moment, I'm only thinking of the Hummer and Wrangler among trucks, yet also the RAV4 and Cayenne among cars. Black plastic, same thing -- largely gone from today's vehicles.

And I don't think it was the PT Cruiser that caused that change.

[ChrisV]

The point was that the mini SUVs that YOU brought up (the early CRVs and RAV 4s) were not crossovers and instead were small offroad aimed vehicles, and as such, were not ancestors of the PT. The PT was a small tall wagon, along the likes of the Expo, Axxess, and Civic Wagovan. The cars that got the moniker of "crossover" were larger variations on THAT vehicle form, not the CRV and RAV4 form. CRVs and RAV4s are STILL not "crossovers," even though they have lost the cladding and exterior spare.

[ifcar]

The CR-V and RAV4 were very much designed as on-road vehicles. They had some off-road ability, but the point of basing them on cars instead of trucks was for their on-road comfort and driving dynamics. That was the cross -- the look, high seating position, and some of the ability of a truck crossed with the on-road driving dynamics of a car.

If they wanted the CR-V and RAV4 to be "offroad aimed", wouldn't they have made them trucks instead of cars?

[ChrisV]

*sigh*  you're being intentionally obtuse. Crossovers are not advertised as offoaders. The CRV and RAV4 were, specifically to be SUVs.

In fact, the term "crossover" was coined specifically for certain intermediate/full size tall station wagons with ZERO offroad advertising, pretensions, or claims.

Oh wait, it was you who think that every vehicle is a competitor for every OTHER vehicle....

Somehow I think Honda thinks it's an SUV:



Toyota thinks the RAV4 is an SUV also:



http://www.1000islandstoyota.com/newsite/pages/rav4.html

"The available 269 horsepower V6 engine makes it one of the most powerful SUV's in its class."

And even in 2008, it had an exterior mounted spare.

[AutobahnSHO]

Wrong. Ford started building crossovers in 1908.

No v-engine or ecu.  ;-)

[AutobahnSHO]

To me Crossovers are trying to capture the utility of a MINIVAN but not appear to be a Minivan.
Sure some of them have awd, but so did the Caravan.

They are NOT SUVs, but are built for people that want a taller vehicle than a regular wagon (CAR,) but don't want a Minivan.  So the crossovers are built to APPEAR closer to an SUV than a Minivan. Why?? Which has sold better the last 5-8yrs??

They want this type of vehicle for reasons that Chris already spelled out very well, on pg11.

[ifcar]

*sigh*  you're being intentionally obtuse. Crossovers are not advertised as offoaders. The CRV and RAV4 were, specifically to be SUVs.

In fact, the term "crossover" was coined specifically for certain intermediate/full size tall station wagons with ZERO offroad advertising, pretensions, or claims.

Oh wait, it was you who think that every vehicle is a competitor for every OTHER vehicle....

Somehow I think Honda thinks it's an SUV:

Toyota thinks the RAV4 is an SUV also:

"The available 269 horsepower V6 engine makes it one of the most powerful SUV's in its class."

And even in 2008, it had an exterior mounted spare.

If you're specifically talking about midsize crossovers instead of compact ones of the PT Cruiser's size, it would be difficult to argue (I'd think) that the Lexus RX300 wasn't the first.


But on the original topic, the RAV4 and CR-V were advertised as SUVs because that's all there was that they could compete against. They wanted to market the image of the truck-based SUV, but they certainly weren't trying to sell to people who wanted off-road vehicles. They had outside-mounted spare tires because that's what the sort of vehicle they competed against had, not because an outside-mounted spare tire makes them any more of a truck.

[AutobahnSHO]

If you're specifically talking about midsize crossovers instead of compact ones of the PT Cruiser's size, it would be difficult to argue (I'd think) that the Lexus RX300 wasn't the first.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=110
They said it was a midsize SUV..
Said the PT Cruiser was a small car.
Nevermind- the Pacifica is a "midsize SUV". So that site is worthless for classifications..

[ifcar]

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=110
They said it was a midsize SUV..
Said the PT Cruiser was a small car.
Nevermind- the Pacifica is a "midsize SUV". So that site is worthless for classifications..

They just go by weight, and don't use the term "crossover."

[Eye of the Tiger]

No v-engine or ecu.  ;-)

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

[AutobahnSHO]

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

Vehicles as old as that were not "crossovers"- they were just vehicles. I was just being silly..

[Eye of the Tiger]

Vehicles as old as that were not "crossovers"- they were just vehicles. I was just being silly..

Why can't all vehicles just be vehicles? I don't like arbitrary labels that exist purely for marketing. Hey, look at my new Cargo and Recreational Activity Personnel Vehicle. My CRAPV is a completely different type of vehicle than your CUV because it is one inch taller and has bigger fender flares.

[AutobahnSHO]

Why can't all vehicles just be vehicles? I don't like arbitrary labels that exist purely for marketing. Hey, look at my new Cargo and Recreational Activity Personnel Vehicle. My CRAPV is a completely different type of vehicle than your CUV because it is one inch taller and has bigger fender flares.

YES!!

But my Small Multipurpose Utility Transport has better gas mileage. In fact, the SMUT is the ultimate in utility.

[93JC]

My Sport Luxury Utility Trucklet (SLUT) has a far better blend of car-like handling and truck-like versatility, with a dash of luxury accoutrements for good measure.

[the Teuton]

Touche. 

My Big Impractical Truck-like Car-based Hatchback is more stylish however.

[93JC]

Sure, if pug fugly is a style...

[AutobahnSHO]

Sure, if pug fugly is a style...

read the acronyms, not the statements, Crackhead... :-)

[the Teuton]

read the acronyms, not the statements, Crackhead... :-)