They're not undrivable like Madman insuinated.

Quote from: 2o6 on February 18, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
They're not undrivable like Madman insuinated.

He just said underwhelming -- a fair and tempered critique, I'd say. Those weren't cars that Honda or Toyota went all-out on, and I think both automakers would agree. Heck, Honda did so publicly by significantly updating the Civic in both 2013 and 2014.

Quote from: MrH on February 18, 2016, 02:59:43 PM
SUV + convertible is the perfect two car garage.  For daily driving, utility trumps handling dynamics.

Yup......

Quote from: MrH on February 18, 2016, 02:59:43 PM
Honestly, I don't see myself owning a sedan again.  After owning an SUV for a bit, the utility difference is huge. 

SUV + convertible is the perfect two car garage.  For daily driving, utility trumps handling dynamics.

Not sure I could do it. Definitely an SUV in a three car garage, but I'm on the fence about it in the two. I definitely wouldn't want to drive an SUV everyday.

My perfect garage would have a pickup, an SUV, a sport sedan, a coupe, and a convertible.

I would be good with a 6 manual transmission cylinder sedan for the daily grind, a quick CUV for my wife, a street bike and a track bike. Maybe an old minivan for moving shit.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 04:41:37 AM
I would be good with a 6 manual transmission cylinder sedan for the daily grind, a quick CUV for my wife, a street bike and a track bike. Maybe an old minivan for moving shit.

DUDE, I'd love a 6 manual transmission cylinder sedan, but you lost me at old minivan. You mean a turbo 4 Chrysler old, or Mercury Villager Nautica® Edition old?

When I said suckered I meant the price. Just like pickup prices are insane (because demand is HIGH), the prices if many CUVs are artificially higher than the makers charge for similar sedans/ hatches.

NOT suckered into buying them. My choice right now would be a forester/ outback/ crosstrek over an impreza or legacy, even in hatch form. Because of entrance height.

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2016, 06:07:17 AM
When I said suckered I meant the price. Just like pickup prices are insane (because demand is HIGH), the prices if many CUVs are artificially higher than the makers charge for similar sedans/ hatches.

They aren't though. A CR-V is cross shopped against an Accord, not a Civic, and is within a couple hundred bucks similarly equipped. Mainstream CUVs are commodities with a ton of competition, unlike pickup trucks, so there's no room to gouge.

Quote from: SVT666 on February 18, 2016, 10:29:00 PM
My perfect garage would have a pickup, an SUV, a sport sedan, a coupe, and a convertible.

Z4M Roadster, Evo X, Range Rover Sport. 

I'd be pretty damn happy with that, I think. 

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 07:19:37 AM
They aren't though. A CR-V is cross shopped against an Accord, not a Civic, and is within a couple hundred bucks similarly equipped.

Umm,
http://shop.honda.com/cr-v.aspx   "starts at $23,475"
http://shop.honda.com/accord-sedan.aspx?Group=accords "starts at $22,205"
Not about to compare features, it's totally possible the CRV has more features in the lowest trim.

However Subaru is a better example- same engine between Impreza and Crosstrek, one is higher and fancier, basically the same size vehicle.
Impreza hatch starts at $18,795. Crosstrek starts at $21,595. Significant different for a little different style.

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2016, 10:45:17 AM
Umm,
http://shop.honda.com/cr-v.aspx   "starts at $23,475"
http://shop.honda.com/accord-sedan.aspx?Group=accords "starts at $22,205"
Not about to compare features, it's totally possible the CRV has more features in the lowest trim.

However Subaru is a better example- same engine between Impreza and Crosstrek, one is higher and fancier, basically the same size vehicle.
Impreza hatch starts at $18,795. Crosstrek starts at $21,595. Significant different for a little different style.

Here is a more direct apples to apples comparison.... EX-L Accord vs CR-V, CR-V costs a whopping $1300 more out of almost $30K, with equipment matched as close as possible:

http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/price-108-2016/vs-CR-V-110-2016&body_1=2&pt_1=128&body_2=14&pt_2=141&price_feature=3&personal_feature=

Now how much more, after inflation, did a Honda Accord station wagon cost than a same model/year sedan? $1300-2700...

http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/1997/snapshot

...and that was with nowhere near the added utility or benefits the CR-V has over the Accord besides more cargo room.

CUVs are not a rip off. If anything, the station wagons people stopped buying 20 yrs ago, well before CUVs were even a thing, are the ripoff. That XV Outback is the exception, not the rule.

LOL how much more do Mazda tall cars cost than wagons??  LOLOLOL

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2016, 01:02:31 PM
LOL how much more do Mazda tall cars cost than wagons??  LOLOLOL

CX-5 is cheaper than the 6 equally equipped:

http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-5/price-1093-2016/vs-Mazda6-171-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=3411&body_2=4&pt_2=182&price_feature=3&personal_feature=

CX-3 is $2000 more than the 3 equally equipped:

http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-3/price-1311-2016/vs-Mazda3-170-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=4937&body_2=4&pt_2=2368&price_feature=3&personal_feature=

CX-3 is universally regarded as a POS though, with no advantage over a 3 hatch besides a hair more ground clearance. CX-5 on the other hand is a much more practical ride than the 6, with more interior room and not much lost in the fun to drive factor

So no, barring a few exceptions, manufacturers are not ripping consumers off with CUVs. The contrarian hate for CUVs and love for wagons needs to die.

So basically small CUVs are a ripoff.    CX3 and Crosstrek so far.


Just read an article on C&D about the new Kia Optima wagon we won't get- that and the comments are pretty hilarious. I'm all for availability of everything but I agree, SUVs in many cases make more sense than the wagon.

Lol the comments in that are pretty hilarious

"There are dozens of us wagon lovers! DOZENS!!!!"

"I think I read somewhere that the reason Kia doesn't want to bring the Optima Sportswagon to the United States because they fear it will be so popular it would actually cannibalize Sportage and Sorento sales."

Etc.

Americans just don't like wagons. Hell, OK, I wouldn't mind my Civic as  a wagon. But an Accord wagon? I would have to clear out my garage. Thats another boon for CUVs. They are like a foot shorter than the sedans they compete with, which really comes in handy in dense areas.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 01:17:49 PM

CX-3 is $2000 more than the 3 equally equipped:

http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-3/price-1311-2016/vs-Mazda3-170-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=4937&body_2=4&pt_2=2368&price_feature=3&personal_feature=

Compare the CX3 to the Mazda2, because they're the same car. @_@

Quote from: Laconian on February 19, 2016, 02:28:13 PM
Compare the CX3 to the Mazda2, because they're the same car. @_@

The Mazda 2 isn't sold here, the CX3 has more engine.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 12:49:44 PM
Here is a more direct apples to apples comparison.... EX-L Accord vs CR-V, CR-V costs a whopping $1300 more out of almost $30K, with equipment matched as close as possible:

http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/price-108-2016/vs-CR-V-110-2016&body_1=2&pt_1=128&body_2=14&pt_2=141&price_feature=3&personal_feature=

Now how much more, after inflation, did a Honda Accord station wagon cost than a same model/year sedan? $1300-2700...

http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/1997/snapshot

...and that was with nowhere near the added utility or benefits the CR-V has over the Accord besides more cargo room.

CUVs are not a rip off. If anything, the station wagons people stopped buying 20 yrs ago, well before CUVs were even a thing, are the ripoff. That XV Outback is the exception, not the rule.

I'm pretty sure the CR-V is Civic sized, not Accord sized.

EDIT: CR-V is 1" wider and 4" shorter than Civic, and 1" narrower and 14" shorter than Accord.

Quote from: SVT666 on February 19, 2016, 04:52:07 PM
I'm pretty sure the CR-V is Civic sized, not Accord sized.

EDIT: CR-V is 1" wider and 4" shorter than Civic, and 1" narrower and 14" shorter than Accord.

But if you're looking at a family car, the CR-V is equivalent in its utility to an Accord more than to a Civic. The Accord's extra length doesn't make it more useful than a CR-V.

Quote from: SVT666 on February 19, 2016, 04:52:07 PM
I'm pretty sure the CR-V is Civic sized, not Accord sized.

EDIT: CR-V is 1" wider and 4" shorter than Civic, and 1" narrower and 14" shorter than Accord.

If you look at the interior specs the Accord & CR-V are matched. CR-V is also equipped with the Accord engine. CR-V is much closer to the Accord in everything than the Civic. The platform is irrelevant.

Quote from: MrH on February 18, 2016, 02:59:43 PM
Honestly, I don't see myself owning a sedan again.  After owning an SUV for a bit, the utility difference is huge. 

SUV + convertible is the perfect two car garage.  For daily driving, utility trumps handling dynamics.

True, utility matters hugely.

A hatch though, like a Golf, is about perfect. Though still nice the Golf, even in GTi and Golf-R guises, still has tell-tale econo car roots - the picnic bench back seat drives me nuts. The dealers and VW are playing the false demand/economy with Golf R availability so it's probably out. As I near 100k miles on the G37 I have my eyes on an SQ5 or if I cheap out a QX50 (which is mostly a G37 hatch).

So if SUV and convertible is the perfect two car garage, the perfect one car garage would be the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet😀

Quote from: veeman on February 20, 2016, 10:23:52 AM
So if SUV and convertible is the perfect two car garage, the perfect one car garage would be the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet😀

Quote from: veeman on February 20, 2016, 10:23:52 AM
So if SUV and convertible is the perfect two car garage, the perfect one car garage would be the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet😀

I'd need a brushguard with extra lights, winch. But I'd rock that.

To be fair, I would go with the Murano Cross Cabriolet over the Wrangler.

This thread has officially gone to shit.

Lessee-

Car a has good reliability, better gas mileage, but looks lame top up.

The other is not as good on-road where its used 90% of the time, sketchy reliability, but looks more "manly".....

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 20, 2016, 06:08:15 PM
To be fair, I would go with the Murano Cross Cabriolet over the Wrangler.

So, hybrids are better than turbos, and not only does the Murano convertible, a visual abortion, deserve to exist, it's better than a Wrangler? You're getting twisted, mate.

Wrangler fucking rules!