Aren't we obsessed with SUVs?

virhlpool on 17/06/2023 - 13:40
Last edited 17/06/2023 - 14:09

A few recent comments on OzB got me thinking about what we see on our roads lately.. Even the narrow or single lane roads are usually full of giant SUVs and a handful of hatchbacks and sedans 'hidden' amidst them. This is fast becoming more common as car companies want us to buy bigger, more expensive cars. I am not sure if anyone else feels this but in my eyes, SUVs are inherently uglier (as f***!) than sedans and hatchbacks.. too bulky and heavy for my personal liking, especially considering our roads (case of the American roads could be arguably different). No matter which brand and how expensive really, they just don't look as attractive.

Also, I never understood why small families in our country (even in major cities) opt for less cost-effective, uglier and more expensive SUVs vs much nicer looking, cheaper and more cost-effective sedans or hatchbacks. Parking lots in Australia aren't even made for SUVs at the most places - sedans barely fit there. Not that everyone goes to camping every other weekend or all SUV owners need to fit in prams either. For a couple with no kids or a family with one kid, sedans (if not hatch) are perfect and so much better looking, ay! I was in Europe in last holidays and I didn't notice that many SUVs there. Beautiful hatchbacks and sedans on the roads was quite refreshing, honestly.. compared to our increasingly congested roads where all you see around you is giant SUVs driving past, all looking quite similar. Btw, I have owned SUV in the past for extended family needs and now own a hatch which I love driving around. If I don't have more space requirement, I would prefer hatch any day even for daily commuting or even reasonably long distance driving; so much easier to deal with driving and parking in our busy urban areas.

What do you all think?

Automotive Car SUV

Comments

    • morse on 18/06/2023 - 08:49
      +1

      Your colleague does need an ‘excuse’ nor need to explain her vehicle choice to you.

      • tetsuma on 21/06/2023 - 08:15

        Speaking of trends, stop this cop out. She's an adult and should be able to articulate why she bought something. He pointed out that it was bullshit, leading more to a trend or an envy of sorts. Why do people defend selfish and emotional decisions? Its a lot of debt or money to put down. Scott is being quite reasonable, and there's nothing wrong with being judgemental.

  • outlander on 17/06/2023 - 22:13
    +4

    I concur. They constantly want to get infront of me when I'm slowing down at a red light. Then I can't see anything, because they always without fail have windows tinted to the max.

    I'd like to see some of the data on road accidents. My gut impulse says that SUVs, with their raised frontend, result in more catastrophic injuries for the other party more often.

    • morse on 18/06/2023 - 10:28

      There’s reasonable data to suggest that when involved in an incident SUVs cause more damage to the other car or pedestrians.

      https://towardsdatascience.com/suvs-are-killing-people-de6ce…

      • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 18:37

        Ditto for trucks. Don't see any slowing in the scourge of trucks, in exchange for trains. We are the dumbest nation on the planet in so many ways. The only smart thing about America is their massive rail network.

  • saltypete on 17/06/2023 - 22:18

    I realise it goes against the whole minimalist vibe but I agree about all of those middle sized SUVs. I have a GIANT SUV! It is ugly, thirsty and great to drive. A 3t magic carpet. I intend to change out my wagon town car for an EV in a while and like the big SUV so much I’d really consider a big SUV EV if such a thing came to OZ.

  • Vulgar on 17/06/2023 - 22:35
    +5

    While I do think SUV's look better than the average car, they are far more dangerous to both pedestrians and other cars. Furthermore they are less fuel efficient and generate more emissions due to their larger size.

    A signficant proportion of their userbase don't really need the extra space afforded by one.

  • SpicyStew on 17/06/2023 - 22:55

    not obsessed enough to post about it

  • plmko on 17/06/2023 - 22:56
    +2

    This is by design from the car manufacturers because the average spent on a car is climbing ever year. Psychologically speaking if you've got $40k-50k (the average car price) to spend you'd never spend less and you'd always spend for more.

    So that's why Cross-overs dominate sales. For instance Subaru can offer you a Impreza for $34k top-spec but you'd always buy the XV for $42k because you're "in the budget" even though they are more or less the exact same car.

    The trend will get exasperated with the EV transition. EV architecture favors the SUV form so they will not only be of superior spec wise but sedans/wagons will see their cabin space intruded by the battery platform.

    • Save Medicare on 17/06/2023 - 23:04

      If I had $42k to spend on an impreza I'd buy a used WRX, not a XV

  • jaffar on 17/06/2023 - 23:26
    +1

    I drive a sedan. I prefer the lower driving position/handling and more comfortable and reclined/relaxed seating position. SUVs however are popular because… They offer better visibility as they're higher up, safety is better (well at least that's what we've been told) because they match up in height with all of the larger bigger cars now (offset a little by increased rollability and more damage to smaller vehicles and pedestrians), practical folding down rear seats like a hatch, easier height access for seat attachments, and fuel mileage is going to be similar to an equivalent sedan anyway. Most people want an A to B/do everything car and also what's popular which is the SUV at the moment. Also as hatches/sedans/wagons fall out of favour and the small car segment has all but disappeared due to regulation the value of an SUV looks better from an eyeball test. E.g. Corolla base - 32k v rav4 base - 42k. I'm sure many families will see the corolla pricing and think if I'm already going to pay these bloated prices why not rav4.

  • Herbse on 17/06/2023 - 23:43
    +5

    The buyers aren't dictating the sales The manufacturers are dictating it to us.

    We're constantly being told that Australian drivers want the SUV's because they are the higher selling models. But the manufacturers are actually the ones who make and ship more of them to Aus because they are able to build a small size car with higher suspension, call it an SUV and jack the price up by $12k.

    If you're in the market for a new car that will fit your family and all you can find are mini SUV's within your budget, then that's what you'll buy. if that's all people buy, then that becomes the popular car. Then that figure is used to justify that eVeRyOnE wAnTs An SuV!

    Most manufacturers have killed off the medium sized sedans because there's more profit in them if we buy their jacked up hatches.

  • RADICALIST on 18/06/2023 - 00:04
    +1

    I agree, that's why I drive a lifted dual cab

  • Matt P on 18/06/2023 - 00:15
    +1

    Still some good wagons on the market if you have a few kids and need an all rounder. We've got a 2017 Skoda Octavia wagon. Plenty of room, plenty of power, reasonably efficient. I'm reasonably tall, wife isn't much shorter and we're both comfortable. 165cm 11 year old has plenty of room behind me and i fit well behind my driving position. Boot holds the weekly shop and had enough space for a chunky pram back when we had one.

    Bought it 3yo model second hand but would have got a far worse SUV (no leather/heated seats, no 2.0 turbo, no premium sound system) for the same money.

  • DreadPirateRoberts on 18/06/2023 - 00:25
    +1

    I've always been a fan and big proponent of sedans / hatchbacks / coupes. The problem is that because so many cars are SUVs / utes their headlights are blinding. And this is in a regular stock height sedan

    We bought my wife an SUV because we go far and off-road once every 1-2 months. Sedan wouldn't make it easily and ran out of space when there's 4 of us in the car. I never thought I'd say it but as much as I love my sedan, I find myself reaching more and more for the missus's SUV - especially at night. Also doesn't hurt that it's more fuel efficient than the sedan

  • humilem servum tuum on 18/06/2023 - 00:30

    After many, many, many years of successive instant asset write-offs, people are more than ever, encouraged to buy SUVs. That and the pull of YOLO and FOMO mentality exacerbate this further.

    Also, in the event of a car incident, the driver and occupiers of an SUV are more than likely to come out better/largely unscathed compared to those of other car types.

    https://theconversation.com/ive-always-wondered-are-suvs-and…
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/about-here-s…
    https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s…
    https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/driver-death-rates-remain-h…

    Really, it is a no brainer in terms of driver/occupancy safety.

    • Thinkscape on 18/06/2023 - 09:09
      +7

      That is some fine one-way thinking there…

      It's a no-brainer that they should be highly limited or regulated as they kill more people.
      In the articles that you have quoted they state it outright:

      Small SUVs perform worse for occupant protection than small cars and are quite aggressive towards other road users, which is a poor compromise and problematic for a growing market group.

      Overall, the move to SUVs is problematic for road safety in the case of large and small SUVs, as well as commercial utes. This is because these vehicles, while not improving crashworthiness overall, put other road users at a higher risk of severe injury. Therefore overall road trauma will be higher with a shift to these vehicle types.

      In a crash with a traditional, block-front SUV, the grille strikes the pedestrian’s pelvis or chest split seconds after the bumper hits the lower extremities, transferring more energy to the pedestrian’s body.

      “Our findings provide more evidence that manufacturers need to make design changes to help combat the increase in pedestrian fatalities now that more of the vehicles on the road are SUVs,” says IIHS Senior Research Engineer Becky Mueller.

      • Ghost47 on 18/06/2023 - 16:35
        +1

        In a crash with a traditional, block-front SUV, the grille strikes the pedestrian’s pelvis or chest split seconds after the bumper hits the lower extremities, transferring more energy to the pedestrian’s body.

        That sounds pretty scary. Sadly it seems to be the way to combat that is to just buy an SUV like everyone else.

        • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 18:39

          Worry not!
          There is an attempt for a big slab of Aussies to fight fire with fire.
          Check out fast food joints. Big SUVs being driven by ppl too lazy to walk, cos built like big SUVs

        • Thinkscape on 19/06/2023 - 09:13

          Bulletproof logic!
          We should also inject adamantium into our children's skeletons to make them impervious to collisions with 3 tonne Land Rovers driven by distracted soccer mums 👍

    • seannami on 20/06/2023 - 11:18

      The Conversation piece specifically said the SUVs came out statistically worse for the occupants on the used car tests, iihs is based on death per registration, not deaths per crash, so hard to tell statistical comparison and nothing about injury (or what hit them etc- if a small car driver was smashed by an SUV and that killed them where they would have maybe survived if it was small on small, that hardly says SUV is safer overall). SUVs also shredded pedestrians.

      Basically you could argue you as the driver are less likely to die in an SUV… but it sucks for everyone else.

  • DeToxin on 18/06/2023 - 01:12
    +2

    I think generally cars are getting bigger, with less internal space. I recently looked at some new hybrids, and between the corolla hatch, and Corella cross, both were substantially bigger externally than any car I've owned previously, and both felt substantial less spacious inside.

    Not sure if it's the new safety features or tech, but I don't think you get the same internal space you used to? Am I imagining that?

    Anyway, considering I'll be having kids soon, I only really considered the cross, which might be considered an SUV? (Bit of a stretch)

    I don't really have an issue with any of them, except the dodge rams, which seem absurdly wide and pretty unnecessary. I don't think I've seen any with toolboxes in the back so I'm not sure they're tradies driving them. They feel pretty oversized for aus roads in my opinion.

    • Saver Scott on 18/06/2023 - 18:35

      I agree on the bigger car with less room comment. My kids are over 6 foot and still growing, so I’ve been looking for a car with space for them in the back and man it’s difficult to find one that’s not gonna cost a fortune! These companies are building cars for our roads, which is great, but they’re not really building them for us. Australians are some of the tallest people on the planet. Unfortunately, we’re also the fattest. But still, taking both points into consideration, I’m surprised at the lack of interior space of these vehicles to suit our size and also lifestyle.

  • Blargman2001 on 18/06/2023 - 02:07
    +3

    SUV's are ugly as hell. They handle like whales on wheels vs a decent sedan. People think they're safer but it's balanced by the fact a smaller car with lower centre of gravity would allow you to avoid a whole lot of other accidents in the first place.

  • nobro25 on 18/06/2023 - 05:34
    +6

    Kiwi - typical big family car.
    Lebs - for tax write offs.
    Indians - large family numbers.
    Caucasians - The missus needs it for grocery shopping.
    Asians - For compensation and so they can cut people off easier.

  • conza on 18/06/2023 - 07:49
    +2

    I agree with your observations, unfortunately you're about 15 years too late to notice the trend.

    Consumer SUVs really started being a thing in the late 90s early 00s, by the late 00s they were everywhere and have never stopped.

    It's the sense of safety, 'big thing safe when go crash' mentality, the higher driving position, some have a 2/5 off-road credential - which is more than the 1/5 or 0/5 credential of non-raised traditional cars, even if people don't use it its something to have, and at the end of the day, they can handle a similar load to a station wagon or a hatchback depending on the size and length, or some of them can handle 7 seats.

    There are many valid use cases for them, even if they're less fuel efficient, harder and less fun to drive and to park, aesthetically less pleasing to some, more expensive to maintain (go look up tyre prices as a random example), and cause other non-SUV users less visibility.

    I don't see this trend changing, EVs are all cross overs or SUVs basically, helps that they're all about 2 tonnes still.

    • Randolph Duke on 18/06/2023 - 13:08
      +1

      Yeah I was wondering why this post worthy, only a decade late observation.

  • Cohey on 18/06/2023 - 07:52
    +1

    As someone who actually does go camping a lot… I wish we had a SUV (ideally a 4wd but I'd settle for AWD). We are very good at Tetris packing our Lancer at least.

  • mrmachine on 18/06/2023 - 07:58
    +3

    I don’t inherently hate all SUVs, although many are ugly IMO. I would love an SUV for light off road camping and towing. But the thing that annoys me as a family with 3 young kids is most SUVs you would think have more space, actually don’t. They look visibly much bigger but the boot and 2nd row seats are often smaller than my medium sized Skoda Octavia wagon. I can fit 2 forward and 1 rear child restraints in the Skoda with the rear facing in the middle or side position. We recently had an outlander for a week and could only fit the rear facing in the middle which is difficult to get the kid buckled up, and the boot and cabin feel smaller.

  • peekabooo on 18/06/2023 - 08:15
    +1

    Mazda 3 is longer than a RAV4 and only slightly slimmer. And the boot is spacious enough to throw and double pram in it! I personally prefer the looks of an SUV. Parking is similar but I always reverse park with Mazda 3 as it's got a longer nose!

  • morse on 18/06/2023 - 08:55

    I have a CRV but wouldn’t call it ‘giant’. The primary consideration was a good working height for lifting baby into the back set and not having to stoop down to do up straps, to avoid manual handling injuries. CRV rear door opens quite wide so also good for this. Sure, I would have survived with a lower car, but also glad to avoid back injuries. The old car was due for replacement anyway for safety reasons, so why not get one that has features suitable to lifestyle?

  • Thinkscape on 18/06/2023 - 09:01
    +12

    SUVs and light trucks (utes etc.) in most urban scenarios are anti-thesis of what they were originally supposed to be for.

    TL;DR
    what has already been said and researched (links above)

    My fav: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

    • SUVs/trucks are just fat versions of normal cars.
    • SUVs/trucks are heavier and more polluting (primary, secondary emissions, manufacturing emissions etc.).
    • SUVs/trucks are more expensive to buy, run, repair and later recycle.
    • SUVs/trucks are statistically still occupied on average by ~1.2 people at a time
    • SUVs/trucks are more lucrative for OEMs and the whole chain.
    • SUVs/trucks are being pushed by car manufacturer's and their lobbies (see vid above).
    • SUVs/trucks are on average NOT safer for occupants in a collision.
    • SUVs/trucks are much more dangerous to pedestrians and other road users in a collision.
    • SUVs/trucks drivers are on average more aggressive and self-confident with false sense of supremacy/safety (yep, there's studies for that too).
    • non-US and non-AU regions demonstrate practically how other form factors can be as practical if not more (i.e. "people movers" are called that for a reason, vans have much more usable m3 capacity, combi/wagon has great packing capacity etc.)
    • notauser on 18/06/2023 - 09:39
      +3

      Such a good summary. It's a case of very effective marketing and not actually meeting a need

    • Brick Tamland on 18/06/2023 - 10:05
      +4

      Wow, that really brings it altogether and helps me pin point why I have such maliase towards the SUV.

      Basically SUV's have become a cultural artefact of how increasingly stupid, self absorbed, rude, and Narcissistic society has become.

    • Ghost47 on 18/06/2023 - 17:31
      +5

      What a great video. Everyone who is pro-SUV needs to go and watch it.

      A lot of the comments in this thread say things like "well, why does it matter what other people drive?" or "just let people drive what they want to drive" but the fact is, when more and more people start doing things that are detrimental to society as a whole (and the environment), it should become everyone's business what they are choosing to do. Or do we want to become a society where people just do selfish shit all the time to the detriment of others? I guess the brightside is that at least the SUVs we have in Australia are nowhere near as stupidly large as the ones in the US.

      Now I want go outside and hug my hatchback.

      hugmyhatchback

    • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 18:59

      SUVs/trucks are just fat versions of normal cars.
      We could say that about a lot of the occupants too.
      SUVs/trucks are heavier and more polluting (primary, secondary emissions, manufacturing emissions etc.).
      More ppl (too many of us) just amplify this every second of every day, anyway. We should breed less.
      The amount of forest fires is blowing away the stats on this pollution. And most are human induced. Over 90%
      SUVs/trucks are more expensive to buy, run, repair and later recycle.
      Our society is a throw away society. We just collect crap, cos peers.We vote for lazy,stupid self interested parasites
      SUVs/trucks are statistically still occupied on average by ~1.2 people at a time
      Most cars are. You think trucks should carry multiple passengers?
      SUVs/trucks are more lucrative for OEMs and the whole chain.
      Definitely
      SUVs/trucks are being pushed by car manufacturer's and their lobbies (see vid above).
      Yes. New cars (any kind) are more common than ever. Needed or not. Baaaa.
      SUVs/trucks are on average NOT safer for occupants in a collision.
      Nor are most cars of a certain age. It's not black+white. I'm not sure ppl choose SUVs for safety as a priority
      SUVs/trucks are much more dangerous to pedestrians and other road users in a collision.
      True. But even e-scooters and e-bikes pro rata are catching up on the avoidable injury tally.
      There's more crashes all round>too many humans.
      SUVs/trucks drivers are on average more aggressive and self-confident with false sense of supremacy/safety
      (yep, there's studies for that too).
      There is a shtload of superiority complex in Evs too.Women in carparks drive like Supercars.In all types
      I find ppl who barrack for certain sports teams, wear certain coloured clothing, or who drink milk to be aggressive too.
      I'm sure I could find a study to match the claim.Aggression is more common period>too many humans/meth/ice etc.
      *non-US and non-AU regions demonstrate practically how other form factors can be as practical if not more
      (i.e. "people movers" are called that for a reason, vans have much more usable m3 capacity, combi/wagon has
      great packing capacity etc.)
      Agree USA is no role model, and we are gullible followers. On all levels.
      If vans replaced SUVS imagine the thread about it.
      SUVs are more often a compromise. Yep we could all hire an SUV at holiday time, ot ride share,etc.
      But we don't. SUVs are not the problem. The number of humans is, and our behaviour along with it.

      • Thinkscape on 19/06/2023 - 09:17
        +1

        Nah mate. Australia has relatively low population density, and statistically the heaviest, fattest, most polluting and most dangerous passenger cars are driven primarily in the crowded metro centres.
        It’s not as simple as “too many people”.

        It’s the behaviour, fads, and hundreds of millions in advertising money. More details in the video I’ve linked.

        • Protractor on 19/06/2023 - 09:40
          -2

          and …the planet is overpopulated and there's too many of us.

          Density? It's the impact that counts, and has for decades.Always. Yes we are greater per capita pariahs for sure, but globally, there's too many ppl. And the rate of our expansion here, vs the ability of the landscape to cope, let alone the crap we take away or put on top, is beyond sustainable. We are midst swapping the carnage of fossil fuels for a different but equally damaging mining boom as coal ever was.Wilderness that has lithium or other minerals under it will disappear and we'll keep driving up demand by breeding to keep fresh customers on the conveyor . We aint no tourist brochure version of ourselves.

    • WeeDeePotato on 19/06/2023 - 11:13
      +1

      Was about to link this vehicle. He hits the nail on the head as to why everyone's driving SUV's now. They're specifically more lucrative for manufacturers because they get around loopholes for 'trucks' in the US. About time someone got rid of this loophole.

  • lonewolf on 18/06/2023 - 09:16
    +5

    Suvs have some useful aspects for families and people in general but the part i hate the most. Is the sheer selfish behaviour and over aggressive behaviour of people who otherwise dont know how to drive safely or dont care . what i mean is they feel safer in a big SUV and so drive more aggressively than they otherwise would and know how to do, and hence it the onus is more on you to keep out of their way, to expect them to not check their blind spot or to just turn into your lane and you having to stop / brake quickly to avoid hitting them as they know their big car will be much safer than your car. Or they think that anyway. Also usually these issues come from middle aged mums , who are the category i encounter the most Road Rage from on the streets these days which surprises me greatly, but they feel absolutely safe and away from everyone else in their SUVs.

    • Ghost47 on 18/06/2023 - 18:04
      +1

      Supposedly studies have shown that SUV drivers are more aggressive and take more risks due to a false sense of security they have when driving SUVs.

  • Speckled Jim on 18/06/2023 - 09:19
    +6

    100% agree OP. Depends on individual's needs though. Myself?

    Easily fit two 29" MTBs upright (front QR wheels removed) plus all riding gear into our hatchback. On the way home, have the ability to do a major grocery shop (4-5 green bags) and fit that in too.
    2005 Jazz.

    • virhlpool on 18/06/2023 - 09:36
      +2

      Love the Jazz.

    • Brick Tamland on 19/06/2023 - 18:33
      +1

      I am always quietly amused when I get to the MTB trials and everyone else needed a Ranger or Landcruiser to get their bikes there while I managed the same feat in my 20 year old Corolla.

  • Waltervp on 18/06/2023 - 09:30
    +1

    I don't really get it either except it is much easier to get into for many elderly.

    People also seem to think it's not much more in fuel to drive an SUV, well let me calculate the fuel alone: The average SUV drives 20,000kms per year. If petrol is say $2 just to make things easy, every l/100km is $400pa difference! So that means my family sized diesel Ford Mondeo wagon which runs at 7 l/100kms on average, compared to an economical SUV which consumes say 12 l/100km, that is an annual saving of $2000 every year.

    The other problem is we are charged fixed insurance and registration rates so that there is no point owing a small car or motorbike and a family car. Why get a small car to save petrol if you pay $1500pa just to have it. People who do need two cars normally have at least one non-suv size. We need rego/insurance build into fuel cost so that makes it user pay - bigger vehicles that drive more pay more.

    Yes I do like SUVs, but i am aware of the cost and can easily do with something less thirsty. And i haven't even started on the environmental concerns….

    • SBOB on 18/06/2023 - 12:53

      compared to an economical SUV which consumes say 12 l/100km

      Where did you pull this from?
      Many suvs would he similar fuel efficieny of the mondeo wagon example you gave

    • ConsumerAffairs on 19/06/2023 - 01:43

      Where'd you cook up that 'economical' l/100km figure? My MIL's Kia Sportage does around 7l/100km with the petrol engine, it's more economical than the Lancer she replaced it for.
      And just for the comparison, my Toyota Kluger does 11-12l/100km but it has a V6, it also weighs over 2 tonnes before occupants and can tow and carry more weight than a Mondeo.
      The Kluger in your terms would not be an economical SUV but it's also in another size class. The Sportage on the other hand most definitely is and I guarantee you that it'd also cheaper to service and maintain than your diesel Mondeo.

      • Munki on 19/06/2023 - 09:28

        Not to mention the Hybrid Kluger now too would mean even better fuel economy.

    • ColtNoir on 20/06/2023 - 08:27

      My CX-5 runs real world 7.8L/100km and is classified as an SUV.

      OP has annoyed me more with the broad SUV label.

  • Sweet3st on 18/06/2023 - 09:41
    +3

    As a pedestrian I hate SUVs and the attitude of their drivers.

    • Wasabi Ninja on 18/06/2023 - 11:37
      +2

      As a driver I hate pedestrians and the attitude of their walkers.

      • Sweet3st on 18/06/2023 - 11:56
        -2

        So it's a case of how annoying you're delaying me for a couple of seconds vs jump out of the way before I run you down?

        • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 19:06
          +1

          Not necessarily. More a case of don't put your phone or earphones on when "being" a pedestrian, and be proactive. The (profanity) rumbling down on you may not be paying attention. In whatever car.
          I nearly wiped out a scooter rider on a roundabout once. He was nowhere to be seen when I entered the roundabout at snails pace, and he screamed in to be right there front of us ,within the roundabout, ready to be t-boned, and he was on the abuse megaphone about a nanosecond after I saw him. My caution saved him. Not the other way around. I think 8/10 ppl would have welded him to the bitumen with rubber, where he probably is today. (These days) as a pedestrian, we trust other road users behaviour at our own peril.

  • jaimex2 on 18/06/2023 - 09:43
    +2

    You're a decade late to notice this. Everyone switched to SUVs in the 2010s.

    Most manufactures canned their sedans thereafter.

    Its 2020s now and our top selling vehicles are all Diesel utes.

    • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 10:42

      You just highlighted OPs next complaint post
      "and our top selling vehicles are all Diesel utes"

      I'm pretty sure the pandemic lockdowns changed the auto landscape in Straya overnight.Thousands hit the bush. A lot of those van pulling purchases are showing up in car yards now.
      I think a fair % of those drivers will stick with SUV going fwd. Once you get used to 'up high' driving position,it's hard to go back. I notice when I switch between conventional and SUV cars, the car type is like you are sitting on the road scraping your arse.
      And access in and out of the seating in an SUV is easier for many. (less drop/bend down).
      No idea how we have a housing crisis when every second boomer has a giant caravan doing SFA and the yards have dozens for sale.

      • jaimex2 on 18/06/2023 - 10:55

        In past having a sporty sedan was fun because roads weren't clogged and full of speed traps.

        You're lucky to average 40 on most trips these days so you might as well be high and have a view of which lane to be in.

        As for caravans. You still need somewhere to put it.
        Caravan parks don't accept long term stays and councils crack down on it in private land.

        No one wants an American style trailer park. It devalues property prices.

        • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 11:02
          -1

          Too many ppl, = too many cars on the road, and every other problem we have, thrown in.
          As for accommodation, wouldn't it be better to 'actually' have it?
          My view is I would rather have the eyesore of caravans, than empty vans and ppl parked under a bridge sleeping under a tarp. Caravans are a viable stopgap, surely. If we keep breeding (we will) beyond the capacity of the already bloated situation…..

          We should have woken up to the issue of an overpopulated planet 25yrs ago.

          • jaimex2 on 18/06/2023 - 11:24
            +1

            @Protractor: Yep. Agree with everything you're saying.

            Australia had a chance to vote government that would prevent a lot of what we're seeing repeatedly.

            Reap what you sow I guess.

          • ssfps on 19/06/2023 - 01:49

            @Protractor: Not sure if you realize this (maybe you do), but Australians aren't breeding - Indians, Asians, Middle easterners and Africans are - and we import them.
            Aus population would probably be 15 mil today if not for the huge increase in migration over the last ~30-40 years.
            … and i don't blame them for wanting to immigrate, their own countries often left as shitholes after colonization or being bombed out in wars, then subjected to decades of brain drain and "foreign aid" to keep them reliant.

            • Protractor on 19/06/2023 - 08:22

              @ssfps: It's a global problem. Not sure if you realise but 'we' are not special.

              Other peoples /countries misery is not our license. And do you think we all just stay home, self contained, and have no impact on other places indirectly, but substantially? If a gazillion pp in far flung places (and growing in number) need us to supply shit, indefinitely, what do you think happens? The planet is one place.Borders and slide rule excuses don't change the physics of a planet of humans past the safe limit.
              Denial is an ongoing pandemic.
              WE collectively base our entire worth on capitalism which requires continual growth. Relying on migration to maintain the capitalist system, and dressed up as preserving our lifestyle, is just another symptom of our govts deception enabled by our own denial and apathy.

  • 2esc on 18/06/2023 - 09:54

    So your more interested in beauty over function?

    Seriously?

    Each car has a purpose to get people from A to B to carry familys and people to work.

    In regards to parking suvs are a pain if trying to reverse out of a parking spot beside them visibility is limited.

    My first couple cars were the small Holden Geminis i thought they were great but totally impractical for me now ive never had a suv but its in the top 5 of cars i would choose. A hatch? Not in my top 50 because doesn't suit my lifestyle.

    Maybe parking spaces need to be bigger?
    Designed better? Such as wider road in-between for easier swing in.
    Maybe people need to learn to park.
    Stop being in such a rush and be have patience in parking lots.
    Dont park right out the front of your destination if you can physically walk is it going to hurt a person to walk a bit more (health and car less likely to get door dings).

    Do cars companies want us to more bigger? They just want us to buy a car.

    Car designs are mostly driven by customers what they want and need.

    • p1 ama on 18/06/2023 - 12:43
      +3

      A hatch? Not in my top 50 because doesn't suit my lifestyle.

      What special "lifestyle" do you have that requires an SUV (which is a raised hatch) over a hatch?

    • Leadfoot6 on 18/06/2023 - 16:56

      Increasing land values(more purchase price + more stamp duty+ more land tax) makes more/larger parking spaces problematic, as advantageous as they might be.

    • Thinkscape on 19/06/2023 - 09:46

      Nope. The fat cars are more expensive to buy, run, and maintain. Bigger tires, stronger suspension to carry the overweight chassis, more hungry and polluting engine to push this thing on the road.

      There is direct financial incentive for OEMs to push products that drive more lifetime revenue 🤷‍♂️ and that’s exactly what they have been doing with light trucks.

  • Windows7forever on 18/06/2023 - 10:26
    +2

    I never liked them. If i wanted a larger vehicle i would opt for a station wagon. The wagon shape is the perfect form of functionality. You can haul bulky items and sleep in the boot. I really wish they bring it back.

    • Euphemistic on 18/06/2023 - 12:27

      It’s hard to opt for a station wagon when they only sell a couple of models. Many more would opt for a wagon if they could.

  • shrapse on 18/06/2023 - 10:30
    +1

    Bought a mondeo sedan / hatch for the family car. Gets 6L/100. Boot space for days. Great to drive. Super comfy with all the bells. Cost like 20k second hand with 15k on the clock. Why would you want anything else?

    • Wasabi Ninja on 18/06/2023 - 11:33

      What year for $20k with 15k ont he clock? Just had a look and a 2019 with 75k on the clock was $29k

      • shrapse on 18/06/2023 - 12:14

        2017 model, purchased in 2019

  • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 10:36
    +1

    I hate how Australia is jumping on the giant Ram type ute bandwagon, but the entitlement of this post makes me want to grab the first SUV version of this type, and race up and down OPs street.
    Auto bigotry has become a thing.

    • LFO on 18/06/2023 - 13:11

      Pickup, the RAM proudly advertised as a pickup.

      • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 13:12
        +3

        Yean nah. Its a band wagon. It should really be a banned wagon

    • Brianqpr on 18/06/2023 - 23:53
      +1

      Some SUV's are pretty nice cars design wise, those giant Utes though, every last one if them is seriously ugly.

  • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 10:53
    -1

    and the consumer has washed their hands of caring about the environmental impacts of cars. We (loose term) no longer care about emissions,impacts,carbon etc.That's across the board not just cars. If we cared we would have less children from the getgo. Covid proved that given a choice between survival and maintaining a lifestyle, this country is divided along entitled lines.
    We may as well bring back the 1970's supercar mentality for all the thought we give to impacts. How many 4wds have bypassed EGRS, no cats etc? Tens of thousands.
    Population will consume us like it has the natural world

    • Leadfoot6 on 18/06/2023 - 16:59
      -1

      The population problems are the makings of the Third World, not here.
      We need more, homegrown, people not less.

      • Protractor on 18/06/2023 - 18:26
        +1

        Crap. The problem is global. First world ppl are up to their guts in the problem. ppl per sq km per other country isn't the core issue, it is the fact the planet is past it's safe level for how we ALL live,consume,pollute,pillage,raze,shit on,blow up etc. There are too many ppl,period. In 1st world countries children and pets have become fashion accessories.In the case of animals highly disposable.
        Just because there is an empty space or a wilderness doesn't mean it needs suburbs,tourists or roads in and out. Space and nature is not an enemy, it's the safety net..

    • Thinkscape on 19/06/2023 - 09:51

      Well said. While the EU has been pushing the Euro standard that forced lazy OEMs to squeeze more power with less consumption and emissions (better ICU, turbos etc) the US and imitators like AU are all swallowed in the wankpanzer arms race…

      “the fatter, louder, bigger, heavier, higher of the ground the more important you will be as a person” seems to be the prevalent message, and big bucks source for OEMs.

      • Protractor on 19/06/2023 - 09:54
        +1

        Easy pickings for a lazy hollow species who consider an 'influencer' is an aspirational end point in life, or font of all wisdom, or guide to life.
        Choice in the hands of the gullible is a parasites dream

  • Bensonzaclucy on 18/06/2023 - 11:04

    I need my volvo v70 just to be able to carry the kids, wife, dog, luggage and all the women that desparately want a ride because the car is so functional and cool!!

  • TightAl on 18/06/2023 - 11:05
    -2

    Thanks for you for sharing your personal anecdotes lol.
    Driving SUVs is far more superior than hatches/sedans. Having a higher ride height makes driving much more comfortable and arguably safer.
    You do you.

    • SpicyStew on 18/06/2023 - 11:29
      +7

      good drivers rely on their driving skills for safety not the car they drive

      • TightAl on 18/06/2023 - 14:22
        +1

        Having a greater field of vision is better than a smaller one.

        • Brianqpr on 18/06/2023 - 23:51
          +2

          While denying others a field of vision.

      • Leadfoot6 on 18/06/2023 - 17:00

        Or a combination of both aspects.

    • Euphemistic on 18/06/2023 - 12:28

      Higher does not equal safer. It makes for worse handling, although modern electronics helps some of that.

    • Brianqpr on 18/06/2023 - 23:52

      I've owned both, no real difference in driving experience for me.

  • Wasabi Ninja on 18/06/2023 - 11:29
    +1

    What choice is there? 4 kids, two in car seats. Suv is the only way to go.

    • p1 ama on 18/06/2023 - 12:34
      +1

      Yes, because people back in the 1980s before SUVs were common couldn't fit two car seats in a Toyota Corolla…

      Come on, are you being serious?

      • Wasabi Ninja on 18/06/2023 - 13:00
        +1

        Okay so two car seats in a coralla, two parents. And where do we put our other two kids? Can’t you read where I said 4 kids? Come on, are you being serious?
        Edit: car seats weren’t mandatory in the 80’s and not as big as they are now. Two seats in a hatchback you’ll never be able to buckle up a kid in the middle seat as well.

        • LFO on 18/06/2023 - 13:09
          +1

          "Can’t you read where I said 4 kids?"

          You also said two parents.
          So it is 6 passengers.
          SUV's have 6 seats??????????

          You need a people mover not a suv.

          Get a suv if you like it, please don't make it a SMART choice.

          • Wasabi Ninja on 18/06/2023 - 13:13

            @LFO: Yes many suvs have 7 seats. We’ve got a Kia Sorrento and a Prado.

            • LFO on 18/06/2023 - 13:19

              @Wasabi Ninja: "Yes many suvs have 7 seats"

              Like the tiny seats/torture chamber at the back, facing backwards?
              I thought only a dog will be dumped there.

              "We’ve got a Kia Sorrento and a Prado."

              Ahhhh … seven seats between the two. Spot on then!

              • Wasabi Ninja on 18/06/2023 - 13:30

                @LFO: Front facing back row. I’ve sat there as an adult (6’2” male) and there’s plenty of room. Same with the pathfinder and Santa Fe.
                Either way SUV’s are great and that’s why they’re so popular and definitely the SMART choice. 😄

        • Thinkscape on 19/06/2023 - 09:54

          Literally what people-movers (mini-buses, vans, etc) were designed for, without the glut of something that pretends to be something else by having “sports” in the name.
          And yes, some families in the 80s also had 4 kids 🤯

          • Wasabi Ninja on 19/06/2023 - 11:47
            +1

            @Thinkscape: I was a kid in the 80’s and at 6 we didn’t sit in car seats or boosters. In fact sometimes I sat on the console between my parents.
            Why would I drive any of those options when you can have a 7 seater suv? That’s crazy talk 😆

    • TightAl on 18/06/2023 - 14:23
      +1

      OP thinks you need a hatch lmao

      • Wasabi Ninja on 18/06/2023 - 21:37

        Yeah some funny responses 😆 I’ve got quite a few cars other than our family cars. But none of them are hatches.

    • mark-emark on 21/06/2023 - 10:53
      +1

      I'll never understand this "back in the 80's" type argument, I was a kid in the 80's and we didn't need a computer in every house, or mobile phones, or the internet etc. but the world changes a lot in 40 years.

      That argument also boils down to "just break the law", there are very specific requirements now for how long your kids need to stay in a car seat and the safety standards of the seats. We have 3 kids, the oldest is 7 and based on his age and height he still needs to be in a booster seat which is squeezed in between the 2 other seats.

      For reference we have a Calais and an SV6 we bought specifically to fit 3 car seats across, now we're looking at 7 seaters for room. I just purchase a people mover (Grand Voyager) as a 'side-step/downgrade' for the Calais based on all the features and abundance of space.

      I get the SUV appeal though, if you're in the market for a 7 seater that's done ~100k or less for around $20k, the outlander or Territory (or Craptiva) would be a good option. Common enough that parts are readily available if repairs are needed and mechanics would service them all the time.

      • Wasabi Ninja on 21/06/2023 - 14:31
        +1

        “Back in the 80’s” is just a weird flex that tells us they’ve lost touch with moden times. We also had to fit three car seats in the back of a sedan at one stage and that’s what first made us look for a seven seater. Getting the middle kid strapped in was an ongoing nightmare. Especially trying to find the buckles oce the disappeared down the side of the child safety seats.

  • THL on 18/06/2023 - 12:23

    Are you married or have kids OP?
    Do you live with many family members?
    Or are you single and mostly drive by yourself or with a partner? What car do you drive?

    You can probably see most SUV drivers up sized due to space requirements. Imagine trying to fit a pram, child seats, groceries and other stuff in a sedan.

    Everyone make decisions based on what their needs. No one in their right mind would go out of their way to buy a more expensive 7-seater SUV that consumes more fuel unless they have the needs.

    It’s also a trend that car manufacturers make more SUVs as they become more popular. There’s less attractive sedan/hatchback options across all car brands.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join