This is not a crossover. Not in the strictest sense, at least. We have made some rather radical departures from the typical shrunken SUV form factor that crossover’s normally take, and instead made something that’s more akin to an AWD hot hatchback.
But, don’t think for a second this is just a Civic in stiletto shoes…
The suspension is MacPherson/STA setup with Progressive springs and Adaptive dampers for a good match of on-road and off-road capabilities.
The car also comes with a full skidpan and 205/75R15 off-road tyres all round, so you can actually take it offroad.
It may also only be a 3 door car, but the doors are mounted with a suicide double hinge design, so you can have easy access to all 5 seats.
Power is delivered via a transverse 2.1L straight 6 turbo developing 208bhp and 195ft-lb of torque, mated to a 6 speed semi-auto transmission and a 50/50 AWD system. So expect 0-62mph in 7.0 seconds, and a 142mph top speed.
And, you say you need 25mpg U.S.? Well, we’ve gone one better, or, make that 10 better.
Let’s be real, I think our biggest qualm is “WHY THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE BUYING BLOATED HATCHBACKS OVER WAGONS” (some weird perceived increase in practicality???).
I see what you’re getting at, but it really doesn’t work that way.
Presenting your ultimate counterexample: the Holden (GM?) Craptiva
This is a bargain basement SUV/Crossover. About the same price as a Honda Civic, except not the base model, more like the mid-trim, so already it’s not bargain. For this you’ll get something that:
Has less interior room despite having exactly the same number of seats
Has less boot space, weirdly enough
Worse performance
Worse mileage
Worse handling
Worse dynamics and comfort because excess ride height coupled with stiffened dampers to make the steering vaguely responsive
Can’t even take the fucking thing offroad because it’ll probably roll over and it’s absolutely hopeless at it
So more so than just ragging on the stereotype of the demographic, it’s the same as us shaking our heads at people who get manipulated into voting against their own interests. These people are pouring money into a subpar market.
But you picked the worst example of them all! I hear you protest. That I did. Let’s move onto a much better industry standard option: The Mazda CX-3. With that I get…
…exactly the same issues as with the Captiva, except not nearly as bad. Or is it just that the new Civic is that good? Surely not. More like, the compact class is so competitive you have superior offerings for just about the same utility and versatility for a better price.
I hear you loud and clear, but especially looking at the cars being made here for this round, they seem unrealistically good. In reality it’s absolutely not.
It’s largely a matter of “the price of something is what people will pay for it.” Here, we’ve observed the effect of millions of idiots approving of a product that could have been much better in most every way.
Automation doesn’t have any of that, as a mathematical metric, it’ll assume mostly rational, predictable behaviours, so naturally the numbers we get will suggest that these vehicles could be genuinely good.
You know what. I completely concede the argument, crossovers are shit, but they don’t have to be. They could be much better if marques didn’t halfass it because they know it’ll sell anyway
@JohnWaldock Like the updated design style you’ve got going on there, and you’ve certainly bested me on fuel economy!
@ramthecowy If they actually gave them more purpose it’d be great. But the problem is, that’s difficult as they are a cross-over: a middle ground. An estate/wagon is always going to drive better and get better fuel economy, while an SUV is always going to be better off-road and actually be noticeably higher off the ground. But the power of advertising manages to mask that…
I just can’t get my head around the psychology behind people who buy these things. Example:
New Renault Megane Sports Tourer: Looks great, drives like the normal Megane, averages ~76 mpg diesel. Cost: £19k to £24k
New Renault Kadjar: Looks disproportionate and overworked, higher centre of gravity, fuel economy ranges from 58 to 74 mpg diesel with no clear pattern, costs £19k to £28k
So with the former, you have a wagon with plenty of space that has a range of trims with fuel economy all in the same ball park. With the latter, you have a car that costs generally the same (though much more for that top of the range trim), yet varies hugely when it comes to fuel economy and will never be as good as the Sports Tourer for outright MPG.
Where is the logic in buying a car that gives you no real advantage other than a higher driving position, yet will cost you more to run long term?
A Lada Niva would be a crossover?
Because that’s what a crossover should be to me. Just like the Suzuki Samurai, the Jimmy and the '88 Suzuki Vitara.
Compact hatchback with some off-road capabilities to drive on bad roads, wouldn’t even bother if they weren’t 4x4, just a good FWD or RWD with an LSD would be enough.
Yeah, But the whole trend of this class of car has been one of constant evolution. They were next step from the SUVs because practically no one ever took them off road car makers responded by removing those features so slowly these 4x4 features disappeared to improve fuel economy and space. (you never know perhaps they are quietly trying to turn them back into station wagons and minivan without anyone noticing )
So the modern ones essentially have abandoned any pretence of outdoorsy offroading ability and instead are all about the image they project. Most don’t even have full-sized spare tyres and instead, they share engines, platform and everything with their hatchback/car relatives yet because of their image can often be sold at greater margins to people who don’t know any better.
@strop That’s a perfect example. The Mazda CX3 is based on the Mazda 2 yet has even less space but at least it’s stylish well “Mazda says that styling, performance and fuel efficiency are key considerations for buyers, and that focus groups never found the cabin too small.” Which is probably another reason we don’t like them they are the culmination of the perfect focus groups idea of a car.
i don’t know much about crossovers
so i did it a Solid axle car with 4x4 transfer case, manual lockable diff, offroad skid, steel rims
the fuel economy is around 7 liter.
for a car that weights 1800 KG
My off-roading capability will be:
Can it drive at a brazillian road? Great!
Can it go across the “Transamazônica” while carrying 5 people, they luggage and a small dog? Perfect!
You and me both, with the added bonus of a suspension with (slightly) better offroading capabilities, and of course no alloy wheels, don’t want to break those spokes
I wouldn’t say the Suzuki Samurai and Jimny are crossovers since they have a body on frame chassis with locking hubs, high and low range transfer case making them a proper 4x4s. More like mini Landcruiser or Jeep than any crossover
I gave my entry some actual off-road capability by including off-road sway bars, a skid tray, and a manually locking differential, but forewent a true 4x4 drivetrain and off-road tires after realizing that I wouldn’t have to build a true heavy-duty off-roader.
)
