http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/10/tj-cruiser/
I'm all about it :muffin:
So it's an uglier Ford Flex with sliding doors.
I don't like the styling of this example, though generally speaking a boxier van-ish SUV makes sense for space/utility and fold flat ability for all seats would be great. I don't see them ever being popular though as all of them thus far (incl this concept) have been ugly/dorky looking - Element, Flex etc. I mean, if a guy who salivates over CRVs thinks they look dorky what does that tell you?
I saw a blue Flex a few weeks back with some police box stickers applied in a nod to Dr Who's TARDIS. Super dorky.
Can't they bring back the Fj instead?
FJ Cruiser was super dorky too, and fairly impractical for an SUV.
I like it. Rugged and functional.
Best looking vehicle to come from Toyota in a long time, too. But that is not saying much.
Quote from: Lebowski on October 24, 2017, 02:04:43 PM
FJ Cruiser was super dorky too, and fairly impractical for an SUV.
I never really figured the the "why" of the FJ. What they really needed was a decontented Prado (Lexus GX) with a mild lift.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 24, 2017, 02:08:50 PM
I never really figured the the "why" of the FJ. What they really needed was a decontented Prado (Lexus GX) with a mild lift.
Isn't that just a 4Runner?
Quote from: MrH on October 24, 2017, 02:14:11 PM
Isn't that just a 4Runner?
No, different model; but the 4Runner would be so close it's probably why they wouldn't.
Turns out this thing is really small. From the pictures it looks pretty big, but it's actually only 168 inches long. Probably won't make it to the US market then :cry:
It's like a new age Element that will probably be a lot better.
All these modern concept vehicles seem to have gigantic ass 20 inch+ wheels as a prerequisite. Never have liked that very much. :fogey:
If I was Sergio Marchionne I'd have FCA's legal department make a call to Toyota's about that name...
Quote from: Lebowski on October 24, 2017, 02:04:43 PM
FJ Cruiser was super dorky too, and fairly impractical for an SUV.
It was impractical for hauling kids around to soccer practice, less impractical for actually driving it offroad or cleaning the interior after a weekend of camping/biking/skiing/etc...
FJ Cruiser is a great adventure vehicle.
Quote from: Tave on October 24, 2017, 05:26:06 PM
It was impractical for hauling kids around to soccer practice, less impractical for actually driving it offroad or cleaning the interior after a weekend of camping/biking/skiing/etc...
Fairly poor usable interior space, though.
I'd love a small tough 4WD van with clearance. AWD may or may not be good enough. The only reason I don't drive a minivan is the lack of 4WD and clearance.
Quote from: Rupert on October 24, 2017, 06:40:15 PM
Fairly poor usable interior space, though.
It's not the biggest on the inside, but it's not poorly usable.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7e/ed/b8/7eedb83f5f000a0a05c95ac1552f8970.jpg)
(http://www.sfxperformance.com/altimages/GAR55007.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGMqbMcS3lSiYaKyYpUw2fJkKOIO8QyxgZfUTyaS-UrUhuYPl-oQ)
Rear seats in the FJ are pretty much useless. It's like having a gigantic off roading coupe disguised as a Tonka truck. The only reason I could see buying one over a 4Runner are those three windshield wipers. That's pretty cool.
Quote from: MrH on October 24, 2017, 08:26:07 PM
Rear seats in the FJ are pretty much useless. It's like having a gigantic off roading coupe disguised as a Tonka truck. The only reason I could see buying one over a 4Runner are those three windshield wipers. That's pretty cool.
I rode 3 hours in the back seat of an FJ and thought it was fine. Not every vehicle is gonna be a rocket couch. :huh:
Quote from: Tave on October 24, 2017, 05:26:06 PM
It was impractical for hauling kids around to soccer practice, less impractical for actually driving it offroad or cleaning the interior after a weekend of camping/biking/skiing/etc...
It's not horribly impractical but the suicide doors and smallish back seat are definitely drawbacks if you don't mostly use it for 1-2 ppl.
Quote from: Lebowski on October 25, 2017, 05:29:45 AM
It's not horribly impractical but the suicide doors and smallish back seat are definitely drawbacks if you don't mostly use it for 1-2 ppl.
Yeah you're not gonna take 2 kids and a dog on a camping trip, that's for sure.
Quote from: Rupert on October 24, 2017, 06:41:48 PM
The only reason I don't drive a minivan is the lack of 4WD and clearance.
Toyota offers AWD.
I've thought about this a lot, I'm guessing they think the niche is too small to build a decent van crossover. I don't know if they can make anything truly off-roadable with a uniframe like minivans have. Seems all the SUV architecture sacrifices too much interior space to get the clearance.
But then they also have to tuck a lot of the accessories up higher- look under a minivan and there's all kinds of random stuff stuck really low which would get beat up if you went off-roading.
But I wonder how capable the old Mazda MPVs were...
Quote from: MrH on October 24, 2017, 02:43:28 PM
Turns out this thing is really small. From the pictures it looks pretty big, but it's actually only 168 inches long. Probably won't make it to the US market then :cry:
It's like a new age Element that will probably be a lot better.
168"? That's like a food truck in Tokyo, though.
Quote from: Rupert on October 24, 2017, 06:40:15 PM
Fairly poor usable interior space, though.
Not for the size of vehicle it is. It makes efficient use of its cargo room (and is downright cavernous if you fold the second row flat) with easy cleaning surfaces. I'd say it was a more useable offroad space than anything short of a pickup when it was on sale.
Quote from: Lebowski on October 25, 2017, 05:29:45 AM
It's not horribly impractical but the suicide doors and smallish back seat are definitely drawbacks if you don't mostly use it for 1-2 ppl.
Eh--there's at least as much room if not more than my old 4runner. Neither would be my choice for a 4-person highway trip, but then again pretty much every SUV is impractical and uncomfortable for that kind of action compared to a full size sedan, station wagon, or minivan. :huh:
Quote from: Tave on October 25, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
Neither would be my choice for a 4-person highway trip, but then again pretty much every SUV is impractical and uncomfortable for that kind of action compared to a full size sedan, station wagon, or minivan.
:nutty:
Uh, no. SUV gives up practicality vs a minivan if you need a third row, but for 4 adults vs a sedan or wagon no way unless we're talking A8/S/7 range.
Yeah, give me a big SUV for a four adult road trip vehicle. 4Runner is a much better long distance vehicle than the Genesis was.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 25, 2017, 08:00:35 AM
Toyota offers AWD.
I've thought about this a lot, I'm guessing they think the niche is too small to build a decent van crossover. I don't know if they can make anything truly off-roadable with a uniframe like minivans have. Seems all the SUV architecture sacrifices too much interior space to get the clearance.
But then they also have to tuck a lot of the accessories up higher- look under a minivan and there's all kinds of random stuff stuck really low which would get beat up if you went off-roading.
But I wonder how capable the old Mazda MPVs were...
AWD, not 4WD, not enough clearance.
The unibody is not the issue, and IMO neither is packaging. I think it's just that there isn't enough of a market for that kind of thing.
The MPVs were OK, probably good enough for me, though I might push the limits sometimes. I never get close to the limits of the XTerra. The Syncro Vanagons (and the Westphalia versions of the same :wub: ) were also reasonably capable, as were the old mid-engine Toyotas with 4WD, and the Mitsu Delicas they sold elsewhere than the U.S. into the '90s. None of these were big sellers, none had a low range, and I don't think there has been any kind of 4WD minivan that would fit my needs since the MPV.
Quote from: Lebowski on October 25, 2017, 04:23:57 PM
:nutty:
Uh, no. SUV gives up practicality vs a minivan if you need a third row, but for 4 adults vs a sedan or wagon no way unless we're talking A8/S/7 range.
Badge whoring much? You don't need to spend $100,000.00 to buy a full size car. :nutty:
A Camcord/Impala/Taurus/etc...will be infinitely more comfortable for your rear seat passengers, drive and ride better, be more fuel efficient, has plenty of cargo space, and costs far less. :huh:
Quote from: MrH on October 25, 2017, 07:01:08 PM
Yeah, give me a big SUV for a four adult road trip vehicle. 4Runner is a much better long distance vehicle than the Genesis was.
Shocking you preferred the vehicle in good working order compared to the one with a damaged and malfunctioning rear end. :confused:
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 06:41:03 AM
Badge whoring much?
:huh:
Not in the least. What I was doing was granting your absurd argument every possible benefit.
Quote
A Camcord/Impala/Taurus/etc...will be infinitely more comfortable for your rear seat passengers
Aside from fuel efficiency, that's just not true. SUV/CUVs are comfortable and practical, that's why people buy them. Unless you're comparing them to a minivan (which is sorta the point of this thread), they generally win on practicality.
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 06:42:21 AM
Shocking you preferred the vehicle in good working order compared to the one with a damaged and malfunctioning rear end. :confused:
:lol:
Quote from: Lebowski on October 26, 2017, 06:52:34 AM
:huh:
Not in the least.
Aside from fuel efficiency, that's just not true. SUV/CUVs are comfortable and practical, that's why people buy them. Unless you're comparing them to a minivan (which is sorta the point of this thread), they generally win on practicality.
Small CUVs often make you choose between passenger space and cargo space, though. When you get to midsize and large, that's when they start to give you both. But I think larger ones do trade off some "comfort" in the form of road manners, being more susceptible to that high up floaty feeling and being tossed around a bit by high winds. 90% of the time, SUVs are very comfortable, at least the ones I've been in, but I don't think I'd choose one for a long highway trip if a sedan would suit my space needs.
I'd rather sit in the back of a Tahoe for hours as opposed to an Impala.
Quote from: Raza on October 26, 2017, 07:10:30 AM
Small CUVs often make you choose between passenger space and cargo space, though. When you get to midsize and large, that's when they start to give you both. But I think larger ones do trade off some "comfort" in the form of road manners, being more susceptible to that high up floaty feeling and being tossed around a bit by high winds. 90% of the time, SUVs are very comfortable, at least the ones I've been in, but I don't think I'd choose one for a long highway trip if a sedan would suit my space needs.
Like most other classes, small CUVs have gotten larger of late. CRV has plenty of back seat space for two ~6' adults, and decent cargo space.
CRV, Highlander, Pilot, 4Runner, Tahoe etc I'd take about any of them for a highway cruiser w/ 4 adults + luggage over a comparable sedan unless gas mileage was the primary concern.
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 06:42:21 AM
Shocking you preferred the vehicle in good working order compared to the one with a damaged and malfunctioning rear end. :confused:
Lol, fair point.
Ultimately, the issues with the rear end were fixed and it still sucked. I was talking more just about rear seat space and ride quality though.
Quote from: Lebowski on October 26, 2017, 06:52:34 AM
:huh:
Not in the least. What I was doing was granting your absurd argument every possible benefit.
Aside from fuel efficiency, that's just not true. SUV/CUVs are comfortable and practical, that's why people buy them. Unless you're comparing them to a minivan (which is sorta the point of this thread), they generally win on practicality.
People buy SUVs because they make them feel safer and more visible on the road, because they think they need AWD/4WD, because they think they look tough, etc...
Anyone who buys one thinking they're getting a vehicle with great rear legroom is delusional. While not quite the penalty boxes of yore, they have only recently progressed to merely adequate, and they can't touch a full size sedan. Case in point, the new 4 runner has 6 inches less on the second row than the Camry.
Hell, I just got done taking a road trip in your generation 4Runner and it had less useable legroom than my late Jetta!
Are you really arguing that a full size SUV is both cheaper and rides/handles better on the highway than the equivalent sedan???
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 26, 2017, 07:13:09 AM
I'd rather sit in the back of a Tahoe for hours as opposed to an Impala.
How tall are you?
Quote from: MrH on October 26, 2017, 07:30:06 AM
Lol, fair point.
Ultimately, the issues with the rear end were fixed and it still sucked. I was talking more just about rear seat space and ride quality though.
Having ridden in the back of both your gen Toyota as well as the Genesis, I don't have any clue how you've reached that conclusion. The 4Runner is one of my favorite vehicles, not just on sale now, but ever; spacious it is not.
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 10:50:21 AM
How tall are you?
5'10"
Have you ever been in the back seat of an Impala? They're not as spacious as I think you're imagining. lol
(http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2013/05/2014-Chevrolet-Impala-2LZ-rear-interior-seats.jpg)
(https://www.cstatic-images.com/stock/1170x1170/71/img-1074064203-1474487946671.jpg)
Put me down for the captain's chair with arm rests and reclining. :zzz:
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 26, 2017, 11:07:45 AM
5'10"
Exactly
QuoteHave you ever been in the back seat of an Impala? They're not as spacious as I think you're imagining. lol
Yes, both new an old, I don't have to imagine anything. :huh:
It wouldn't be my first choice in the segment either—I was just listing full size main streamers off the cuff.
As someone who is 6'4" and painfully cognizant of available legroom, I can assure you—unreservedly, unabashedly, and unequivocally—SUVs generally aren't all that when it comes to rear seat legroom. I wish that wasn't the case, as it would make my life a lot more pleasant if it was, but thems the breaks. :huh:
I don't see how you being taller than me makes it impossible for me to realize when one vehicle is more spacious than another. That's like saying I don't know how high a 10' basketball hoop is because I'm not as tall as you. :hmm:
But still, my point stands...
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 26, 2017, 11:07:45 AM
Put me down for the captain's chair with arm rests and reclining. :zzz:
As somebody that tall, I'd expect you to prefer an SUV...more headroom, more shoulder room. I'm confused. Do you sell sedans for a living?
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 10:53:56 AM
Having ridden in the back of both your gen Toyota as well as the Genesis, I don't have any clue how you've reached that conclusion. The 4Runner is one of my favorite vehicles, not just on sale now, but ever; spacious it is not.
Seating height is higher and reclining seat back. There's more legroom in the Genesis, but I usually find the back seats of sedans to be too low.
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 26, 2017, 11:24:02 AM
I don't see how you being taller than me makes it impossible for me to realize when one vehicle is more spacious than another. That's like saying I don't know how high a 10' basketball hoop is because I'm not as tall as you. :hmm:
But still, my point stands...
As somebody that tall, I'd expect you to prefer an SUV...more headroom, more shoulder room. I'm confused. Do you sell sedans for a living?
I doubt you spend all your seat time in the second row imagining and empathizing what it must be like to be half a foot taller. No one does that, me included. If some guy who's 7'0" comes up to me and starts talking about which kind of vehicles are uncomfortable for seven-footers, I'm not going to sit there and argue, "Hey man I can dunk a basketball too! What makes you such an expert on legroom?"
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 10:47:10 AM
People buy SUVs because they make them feel safer and more visible on the road, because they think they need AWD/4WD, because they think they look tough, etc...
The #1 reason people buy SUVs though is that they aren't minivans.
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 10:47:10 AM
People buy SUVs because they make them feel safer and more visible on the road, because they think they need AWD/4WD, because they think they look tough, etc...
Top selling SUV/CUVs (2016) are CRV, RAV4, Rogue, Escape, Equinox. You think people buy a CRV or a RAV4 because they "look tough"? Come on, they're colloquially referred to as cute utes.
I think you can argue there's an image component of people not buying minivans, I think that assumption falls flat in comparing CUVs to sedans. The "looks tough" thing was/is a big contributing factor to popularity of say the H2, fortunately that fad has long passed, or full sized trucks etc.
Quote
Anyone who buys one thinking they're getting a vehicle with great rear legroom is delusional. While not quite the penalty boxes of yore, they have only recently progressed to merely adequate, and they can't touch a full size sedan. Case in point, the new 4 runner has 6 inches less on the second row than the Camry.
Seating position is very different, measurement specs don't always tell the whole story wrt comfort. A CRV, 4Runner, or second row of any of those SUVs mentioned in my last post (highlander, pilot etc) is perfectly comfortable for a ~6 footer.
Quote
Are you really arguing that a full size SUV is both cheaper and rides/handles better on the highway than the equivalent sedan???
:huh:
This is now the second time you've changed the parameters of your argument, which was:
Quote from: Tave on October 25, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
pretty much every SUV is impractical and uncomfortable for that kind of action compared to a full size sedan, station wagon, or minivan. :huh:
My argument is with the exception of minivans the above statement is largely wrong. You've since added fuel economy and now "cheaper". If the criteria is purely efficiency, sure the sedan will usually win. The criteria was practicality and comfort, and on that the SUV generally beats the sedan. Even adding in value, a CRV, Highlander, Pilot etc offer pretty good value IMO. The Tahoe was the one SUV example I threw out there where the value is questionable IMO.
Now I'm going to have to sit in the back seat of my SUV/CUV to see how comfortable/uncomfortable it is. The front/driver's seat is great, imo. Lots of headroom, easy to get in and out of. Very comfortable on a 4 hour drive as well. Stupid cars make it too awkward to get into and out of; usually because of the low door top opening clearance.
What I can't understand is why don't SUVs offer so much more room than sedans. Are the CUVs shorter in length than sedans? They're so much taller!
Quote from: Lebowski on October 26, 2017, 12:00:52 PM
Top selling SUV/CUVs (2016) are CRV, RAV4, Rogue, Escape, Equinox. You think people buy a CRV or a RAV4 because they "look tough"? Come on, they're colloquially referred to as cute utes.
I think you can argue there's an image component of people not buying minivans, I think that assumption falls flat in comparing CUVs to sedans. The "looks tough" thing was/is a big contributing factor to popularity of say the H2, fortunately that fad has long passed, or full sized trucks etc.
They look more tough and capable than the civics and corollas they're based off. The toughness thing was just one factor though, I think the vast majority of SUV buyers want the raised seating position and perceived safety benefits.
QuoteSeating position is very different, measurement specs don't always tell the whole story wrt comfort. A CRV, 4Runner, or second row of any of those SUVs mentioned in my last post (highlander, pilot etc) is perfectly comfortable for a ~6 footer.
Yes, ergos matter a ton. In the case of SUVs, their ergos tend to be very upright, which exacerbates any legroom issues and cuts down on headroom. Sedans tend to have low sling seats that are canted back, which adds useful inches to the stated measurements. Obviously there are exceptions, but by and large you're getting more legroom out of a full size sedan.
Quote:huh:
This is now the second time you've changed the parameters of your argument, which was:
My original argument was that sedans are more comfortable AND practical for highway roadtrips. I would assume things like price, efficiency, and useful handling characteristics factor into practicality. I would also assume, since you said "Everything except the fuel efficiency argument is factually wrong," that you were addressing the non-dimension points I made regarding price and handling. I don't think I'm the one moving the goalposts here.
QuoteMy argument is with the exception of minivans the above statement is largely wrong. You've since added fuel economy and now "cheaper". If the criteria is purely efficiency, sure the sedan will usually win. The criteria was practicality and comfort, and on that the SUV generally beats the sedan. Even adding in value, a CRV, Highlander, Pilot etc offer pretty good value IMO. The Tahoe was the one SUV example I threw out there where the value is questionable IMO.
When something costs more, gets worse mileage, handles worse, has less passenger space, and only wins on ground clearance and slightly more cargo space, it's not the more practical choice unless you are absolutely stuffing it full to the gills all the time or taking it off-road. :huh: Using colossal, cramped, brick like SUVs to drive down a flat highway is not something that arises out of practical concerns. It's the definition of overkill.
Quote from: Tave on October 26, 2017, 02:45:33 PM
They look more tough and capable than the civics and corollas they're based off. The toughness thing was just one factor though, I think the vast majority of SUV buyers want the raised seating position and perceived safety benefits.
Yes, ergos matter a ton. In the case of SUVs, their ergos tend to be very upright, which exacerbates any legroom issues and cuts down on headroom. Sedans tend to have low sling seats that are canted back, which adds useful inches to the stated measurements. Obviously there are exceptions, but by and large you're getting more legroom out of a full size sedan.
My original argument was that sedans are more comfortable AND practical for highway roadtrips. I would assume things like price, efficiency, and useful handling characteristics factor into practicality. I would also assume, since you said "Everything except the fuel efficiency argument is factually wrong," that you were addressing the non-dimension points I made regarding price and handling. I don't think I'm the one moving the goalposts here.
When something costs more, gets worse mileage, handles worse, has less passenger space, and only wins on ground clearance and slightly more cargo space, it's not the more practical choice unless you are absolutely stuffing it full to the gills all the time or taking it off-road. :huh: Using colossal, cramped, brick like SUVs to drive down a flat highway is not something that arises out of practical concerns. It's the definition of overkill.
I think when most people think "practical", handling, fuel economy, value are separate criteria imo. Handling isn't very important to me on the highway at constant speed.
Based on what you said, practicality and comfort, you are wrong and if you weren't wrong SUV/CUVs wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are. Plus if you weren't wrong you wouldn't keep adding/modifying criteria, "oh I really meant fuel economy and value and handling, and by comfort I meant assuming all four passengers are 6'5" or taller ..."
It's very SUV specific (ride comfort) and handling is kind of moot when we're talking about US spec wide highways, relatively straight roads, and speeds around 70-75 mph.
The CRV and Camry are both going to be comfortable but neither as good as the Lexus RX which isn't going to be as good as the Lexus LS.
I think this would sell to small businesses that need something reasonable as a daily driver & has a slight cool factor, but can also move light-but-bulky stuff: florists etc. I still see a few Honda Elements around in that kind of role.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 26, 2017, 01:54:43 PM
What I can't understand is why don't SUVs offer so much more room than sedans. Are the CUVs shorter in length than sedans? They're so much taller!
Part of it is that the small SUVs are generally compared to midsize sedans because they're priced more similarly, and then the larger SUVs have to juggle legroom around to fit a third row.
But just like sedans, there are super-spacious crossovers and SUVs and some that are not. It varies by model.
I was horribly unimpressed with SUVs when I went to Carmax in 2015 shopping for a 3 row vehicle. The Flex, CX-7, Explorer, etc... just didn't have the interior room minivans have. This little vehicle seems to overcome those space issues because it's not seeking to look like it has ground clearance like SUVs shoot for.
Wife was totally reluctant to get a minivan but if I'm home and she wants to head to the store, she chooses Odyssey. She liked it on our cross-country trip, we hauled 4 people, luggage, and all of her boxes of stuff that were stored at her parents with no issues and quite comfortably.
I've honestly enjoyed every minivan I've driven. Zero pretense suburban utility is a respectable goal.
Your Odyssey is also pretty fun to drive for a van. I've driven one a good amount and liked it a lot
Quote from: CALL_911 on November 02, 2017, 09:07:57 PM
Your Odyssey is also pretty fun to drive for a van. I've driven one a good amount and liked it a lot
Definitely the best driving minivan I've driven.
I think for road feel it's not that far behind my NA. Sure it's big and doesn't accelerate as fast as newer ones, but honestly it's not terrible for a huge car.
Oh I forgot the 4WD Astro vans earlier. I almost bought one of those over the Explorer, but thought it was just too big.
Quote from: Lebowski on October 26, 2017, 03:11:01 PM
I think when most people think "practical", handling, fuel economy, value are separate criteria imo. Handling isn't very important to me on the highway at constant speed.
Obviously an SUV is more "practical" if you're talking about tossing $400 worth of groceries in the rear hatch, or bags of multch, etc... I've already acknowledged that SUVs are better than fullsize sedans for cargo. Over and over.
My general comments on "practicality" are entirely within the realm of ordinary usage. Which is a more practical car for mostly city driving, a Focus or an H1 Hummer? Which is more practical for highway cruising, a Passat TDI or a Jeep Wrangler?
You have to drive 3 miles by yourself to the pharmacy to pick up some cold medication--Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf vs. fully loaded Yukon Denali XL--which is more practical?
QuoteBased on what you said, practicality and comfort, you are wrong and if you weren't wrong SUV/CUVs wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are. Plus if you weren't wrong you wouldn't keep adding/modifying criteria, "oh I really meant fuel economy and value and handling, and by comfort I meant assuming all four passengers are 6'5" or taller ..."
That is a strange correlation to make. The original Beetle is the #1 selling car of all time, is that because it was the most comfortable highway cruiser for 4 on the market?
You are wrong, and if you weren't wrong, you would have had a better response to the actual data than "B-b-b-but maybe that foot of extra legroom in the fullsize sedan doesn't really feel like an extra foot!"
Throughout North America and Western Europe, adult males taller than 6' are extremely common. And you don't need 4 of them in a car for the tall one to be uncomfortable.
Quote from: Tave on November 04, 2017, 06:13:56 AM
Obviously an SUV is more "practical" if you're talking about tossing $400 worth of groceries in the rear hatch, or bags of multch, etc... I've already acknowledged that SUVs are better than fullsize sedans for cargo. Over and over.
My general comments on "practicality" are entirely within the realm of ordinary usage. Which is a more practical car for mostly city driving, a Focus or an H1 Hummer? Which is more practical for highway cruising, a Passat TDI or a Jeep Wrangler?
You have to drive 3 miles by yourself to the pharmacy to pick up some cold medication--Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf vs. fully loaded Yukon Denali XL--which is more practical?
That is a strange correlation to make. The original Beetle is the #1 selling car of all time, is that because it was the most comfortable highway cruiser for 4 on the market?
You are wrong, and if you weren't wrong, you would have had a better response to the actual data than "B-b-b-but maybe that foot of extra legroom in the fullsize sedan doesn't really feel like an extra foot!"
Throughout North America and Western Europe, adult males taller than 6' are extremely common. And you don't need 4 of them in a car for the tall one to be uncomfortable.
That you have to use an h1 and wranglers as examples is further evidence of the desperation of your position. And then you continue to make the efficiency argument passed off as practicality. Lol how many people in the history of the world have cross shopped a focus vs a H1, a Passat vs a wrangler, or a leaf vs a Yukon Denali XL? You're stretching because you can't otherwise make a case.
Mainstream suv/cuvs are more practical than sedans. Carrying groceries, luggage etc are absolutely part of everyday usable practicality, though rear seat comfort is usually better too.
Wagons are more practical than similar-sized sedans. Legroom in a Taurus Wagon and Taurus Sedan was the same.
SUVs are just extensions of wagons. Unfortunately with some extra ground clearance which can steal from interior space. Except SUVs are taller than wagons, so that offset many times balances out.
Most CUV's are just SUV styled minivans
Quote from: Lebowski on November 04, 2017, 07:36:47 AM
That you have to use an h1 and wranglers as examples is further evidence of the desperation of your position. And then you continue to make the efficiency argument passed off as practicality. Lol how many people in the history of the world have cross shopped a focus vs a H1, a Passat vs a wrangler, or a leaf vs a Yukon Denali XL? You're stretching because you can't otherwise make a case.
Dude. I never said ANYONE is cross shopping those pairs, I asked which one was more practical, because you had such a hang up about the definition of that word. Incidentally, plenty of people (aside from the Hummer) DD Wranglers and Denalis.
I've already made my case on the numbers and you continually refuse to acknowledge it. Model-to-model, mainstream fullsizers are averaging 6-8" more rear seat legroom than their SUV counterparts. That is extremely significant given your hypothetical of 4 adults on a highway road trip. Assuming you don't have oversized luggage requirements, that's 3-4" extra per passenger, better ride and handling, better fuel efficiency, cheaper, et al.
QuoteMainstream suv/cuvs are more practical than sedans. Carrying groceries, luggage etc are absolutely part of everyday usable practicality, though rear seat comfort is usually better too.
But we weren't talking about groceries, strollers, Home Depot runs, or anything like that. The hypothetical, which you posited, FWIW, was 4 adults on a highway cruise. Firmly within the wheelhouse of a full-size sedan. That's its bread and butter.
I'm wondering how much of this pushback is you DD'ing a 4Runner. Look, I'm not saying anyone is "bad" or "wasteful" for driving a SUV. I love SUVs. My first car was a 4Runner, and I'd love to own another one in the future. I've had 100+ hrs seat time in almost every generation. They might be my favorite car, ever. I'm sure you've gotten plenty of utility out of yours and it's been a great car for you.
I just find it ludicrous that anyone would try to argue it's a "practical" highway vehicle. The new models are fine for that but they are still expensive, top-heavy, relatively cramped, relatively middling-powered, floating bricks.
Quote from: Tave on November 04, 2017, 09:47:01 AM
Dude. I never said ANYONE is cross shopping those pairs,
Why were you directly comparing them?
Of course we know why - because you don't have an argument without pretending the H1 or Wrangler are the norm for SUV practicality.
Quote from: Lebowski on November 04, 2017, 09:50:59 AM
Why were you directly comparing them?
Because you engineered a bizarro-world definition of "practicality" and continually scoffed at the notion it should include any factors other than cargo volume and load floors.
IDK SUV's also usually sit more upright, with H-points more akin to sitting at a desk versus sitting in a car.
But I don't know if the 4runner is the best example of that, though. The 4-runner has a high floor and low seats.
Yeah, 4-Runners and Tacomas have weird seating positions compared to most
:winkguy:
Quote from: 2o6 on November 04, 2017, 11:14:18 AM
IDK SUV's also usually sit more upright, with H-points more akin to sitting at a desk versus sitting in a car.
But I don't know if the 4runner is the best example of that, though. The 4-runner has a high floor and low seats.
High H-points tend to eat into available leg and knee room, all else being equal. That's part of the reason why SUVs tend to perform worse by the numbers. You're going to get the most legroom placing the seats as low and as canted backwards as you can, allowing for trunk space and passenger comfort. Ever buy yourself an extra inch in the driver's seat by raising the front of the seat cushion? Same ergo concept.
Where high H-points really shine is ease of ingress/egress, and lots of driver prefer the higher seating position. I wouldn't consider the latter a comfort issue, really, unless you're talking about motion sickness or someone who is physically hardshipped by getting in and out. Which are real issues, the second especially so for older drivers.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on November 04, 2017, 11:36:00 AM
Yeah, 4-Runners and Tacomas have weird seating positions compared to most
I don't think it's weird; I think it's just truck-like. I'm pretty sure the BOF design makes the H-points the way that they are. It reminds me of riding in an old S-10 Blazer.
Quote from: Tave on November 04, 2017, 11:39:25 AM
High H-points tend to eat into available leg and knee room, all else being equal. That's part of the reason why SUVs tend to perform worse by the numbers. You're going to get the most space placing the seats as low and as canted backwards as you can, allowing for trunk space and passenger comfort. Ever buy yourself an extra inch in the driver's seat by raising the front of the seat cushion? Same ergo concept.
Where high H-points really shine is ease of ingress/egress, and some (lots?) prefer the higher seating position. I wouldn't consider the latter a comfort issue, really, unless you're talking about motion sickness or someone who is physically hardshipped by getting in and out. Which are real issues.
No, they don't. High H-points and more upright seating positions mean for more legroom, not less. The high H-point trend of 2000+ is part of the reason why small cars aren't such penalty boxes to be inside anymore. If the seat is low to the floor, a lot of times that requires more of a "knees in the air" feeling. You can get more space in a shorter wheelbase or seating area with bolt-upright seats with deep footwells, than with a low reclined seat and shallow footwells.
Honestly, I don't see what your point is, here. I don't think the 4-runner is a great freeway cruiser because of it's seating position and suspension design, but I would definitely take a small SUV over small sedan every time. Not everything is equal.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 04, 2017, 11:44:59 AM
No, they don't. High H-points and more upright seating positions mean for more legroom, not less. The high H-point trend of 2000+ is part of the reason why small cars aren't such penalty boxes to be inside anymore. If the seat is low to the floor, a lot of times that requires more of a "knees in the air" feeling. You can get more space in a shorter wheelbase or seating area with bolt-upright seats with deep footwells, than with a low reclined seat and shallow footwells.
Honestly, I don't see what your point is, here. I don't think the 4-runner is a great freeway cruiser because of it's seating position and suspension design, but I would definitely take a small SUV over small sedan every time. Not everything is equal.
I didn't say anything about a small sedan. My original comment that started all this was that full size sedans are more comfortable and practical highway cruisers than SUVs. I'm downright befuddled why that would be a controversial opinion on a car forum.
SUV's have always had high H-points. It is necessitated by the taller ride height and need for a useable cargo space. The trend circa-2000 onwards was that the vehicles themselves switched to unibody and continued to grow ever larger, allowing for taller rear seats and the deeper footwells you mentioned. It helps—like I said, SUV rears aren't the complete penalty boxes they used to be—but that doesn't make high H-Points optimal from an ergonomic comfort perspective.
For a three hour drive, I'd rather sit on a couch than a stool. And I'd rather my knees be floating in the air than jammed into the seat back in front of me.
Quote from: Tave on November 04, 2017, 12:03:46 PM
I didn't say anything about a small sedan. My original comment that started all this was that full size sedans are more comfortable and practical highway cruisers than SUVs. I'm downright befuddled why that would be a controversial opinion on a car forum.
But they aren't always. I'd rather have the weight and higher H-point of an SUV versus the lower one of a car. Granted, the way things are now, the difference between cars and SUV's is more related to ride height rather than H-point, but I digress.
SUV's have always had high H-points.
No, they haven't. Related to the ground? Yes, the driver may physically sit higher, but the H point was more similar to a car rather than desk.
Older cars and SUV's were more like this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/0/03/20100329214450%21H-Point_%28rev%29.PNG)
rather than the new trend of this (granted this is a Polaris ATV, but my point still stands)
(http://brpdealers.com.au/canberramotorcycles/ssv/pics/design_04.jpg)
It is necessitated by the taller ride height and need for a useable cargo space. The trend circa-2000 onwards was that the vehicles themselves switched to unibody and continued to grow ever larger, allowing for taller rear seats and the deeper footwells you mentioned. It helps—like I said, SUV rears aren't the complete penalty boxes they used to be—but that doesn't make high H-Points optimal from an ergonomic comfort perspective.
Says you. The trend towards more upright seating is both for comfort, and ergonomics.
For a three hour drive, I'd rather sit on a couch than a stool. And I'd rather my knees be floating in the air than jammed into the seat back in front of me.
What?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on November 03, 2017, 03:04:30 PM
I think for road feel it's not that far behind my NA.
Settle down.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 04, 2017, 11:40:16 AM
I don't think it's weird; I think it's just truck-like. I'm pretty sure the BOF design makes the H-points the way that they are. It reminds me of riding in an old S-10 Blazer.
Toyotas have always had lower seats in their trucks and SUVs compared to other brands, both American and Japanese. It was that way in 1987, it was that way in 2014 (I think the newest Toyota truck I've been in).
Quote from: 2o6 on November 04, 2017, 12:22:55 PM
Trucks and SUVs have always had high seats (except Toyota, see above). I guess cars are getting higher? but there isn't much difference as far as I can tell between a 1977 Chevy truck and a 2017 Chevy truck in that regard.
As someone who's put tens of thousands of highway miles on trucks and SUVs, with 15 kmiles on my own in the last year, I can say that for highway driving, sedans are absolutely better and more practical. I'm skeptical that one or the other body style has more leg room on average, but I can say for sure that some SUVs don't have the leg room, either in the front or back, that you expect, and the same can be said for sedans.
CUVs, I don't know, haven't spent much time in them.
If all I was doing was driving myself around, over long distances, with maybe one passenger and some luggage; I choose a sedan (or coupe) all day every day over something more trucky.
Sitting in the back, the nod might go to a SUV of some manner.
H point on the 4Runner is low for what it is, which is awesome. I like my legs out in front of me more for driving. Anytime I drive the Tucson, I feel like I'm sitting on a bar stool.
The rear seats have a much higher H point though than the driver.
It's hard to separate seating comfort from the quality of the ride and noise insulation real world. Seating comfort also has a lot to do with the length of the bottom seat cushion and quality of the padding and materials; not just H point angles.
All that being what it is, is a last generation Ford Crown Vic/Mercury Grand Marquis or current Ford Taurus really more comfortable in the backseat for a long trip than a current Ford Explorer? I really doubt it.
What would be better in the backseat for a long trip? A Lexis ES or Lexus RX? I dunno.
I seriously doubt there is an SUV on the market today for under 100 thousand dollars that has a better backseat ride than any of the German flagship sedans, Lexus LS, Jaguar XJ, or current Lincoln Continental.
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 04, 2017, 01:16:50 PM
Settle down.
:lol:
But seriously, over the years I've driven a few cars. I've owned 4 minivans. The 2003 Odyssey is far superior for road feel than the 2004 Sienna I owned. I've put at least 40k miles on each.
As much as I loved my Legacy, it was sloppy. Wife's Impreza is better but kinda floaty.
I don't think I've detailed/driven an Odyssey, which now that I think about it, is a little surprising.
Quote from: MrH on November 05, 2017, 11:56:48 AM
H point on the 4Runner is low for what it is, which is awesome. I like my legs out in front of me more for driving. Anytime I drive the Tucson, I feel like I'm sitting on a bar stool.
Amen.
Not for me but the market is so starved for original ideas and cars with character that I will allow it.