If the market has shifted to SUV's where are they?

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

I used to think the dual cab obsession was a bit silly. But I bought one, mostly for my mountain bike, and I now see why families love them. They are very practical. I have had two fat blokes and two 6 foot 3 bloke in the back of my ute and I ask them how comfortable it is and they says it's pretty good.
I had 2 fat blokes in the back of my sedan and almost beached it on my driveway because the underside scraped so badly.

As for the tray being too small, too small for what exactly? Everything I have ever wanted to do with it has fitted in. Fitting multiple bikes side by side only fits with the tailgate left down, but it is much easier than loading them into a sedan.
If you need a huge tray for work, buy a single cab, trailer or a proper truck. If you want a vehicle that can comfortable carry passanger around town, off-road and too carry a bit more than a regular car, buy a dual cab.

[Matty4]

Sorry, but in this day and age of over zealous enforcement of the roadrules, driving enjoyment has gone by the wayside for me (I am getting old). There's no way I can drive at 10/10th with my wife and 3 kids, just gotta go with the traffic flow, and the Jeep does it in spades.

[something wrong]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I had 2 fat blokes in the back of my sedan and almost beached it on my driveway because the underside scraped so badly.

.

Ha ha that made me laugh, crack up

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by new2ford

It's not subjective, there are measurements to prove it (**). Try the two child seats and baby capsule test - only those over 1500 mm across the second row are likely to make it.

AussieCJ7, if it helps, here is a compilation of internal measurements I got together during my own search for an under $70,000 SUV. I've included wheelbase as a rough indicator of leg room but it depends on how well designed the interior is.

Wheelbase: Jeep Grand Cherokee 2915, Nissan Pathfinder 2900, Mazda CX9 2875, Ford Territory 2843, BMW X3 2810, Audi Q5 2807, Toyota Prado 2790, Toyota Kluger 2788, Mitsubishi Pajero 2780, Holden Captiva 2707, Hyundai Santa Fe 2700.

Internal width at front seats: Territory 1548, Pathfinder 1541, Q5 1527, Santa Fe 1508, Mazda 1508, Kluger 1506, Jeep 1491, X3 1483, Pajero 1482, Captiva 1424, Prado 1369.

** Internal width at second row seat: Pathfinder 1534, Territory 1528, Kluger 1513, Q5 1494, Mazda 1490, Santa Fe 1480, Jeep 1474, X3 1458, Pajero 1451, Captiva 1422, Prado 1369.

Headroom front: Territory 1074, Pajero 1056, Pathfinder 1043, Q5 1043, X3 1033, Kluger 1033, Captiva 1026, Santa Fe 1006, Mazda 1005, Prado 970, Jeep 960.

Headroom rear: Pajero 1017, Kluger 1013, Territory 1006, Captiva 1003, X3 994, Santa Fe 992, Q5 990, Mazda 990, Pathfinder 977, Jeep 961, Prado 790. (Bear in mind that Territory and Pathfinder have theatre seating, which has view advantages for second-row passengers but the headroom is a little less.)

Cargo (behind second row in litres): Prado 621, X3 550 (without net, even more with), Q5 540, Territory 523, Santa Fe 516, Mazda 487, Pathfinder 450, Captiva 430, Jeep 412, Kluger 396, Pajero not known.

Here is a comparison of kerb mass (tonnes). In reverse order because lighter is better!: Captiva 1.64, Santa Fe 1.72-1.83, X3 1.73-1.8, Q5 1.77, Kluger 1.95-2.02, Mazda 1.96, Territory 1.96-2.14, Jeep 2.0-2.32, Pathfinder 2.04, Pajero 2.25, Prado 2.43.

Funnily enough, the Jeep Grand Cherokee doesn't seem to tick all the boxes!

It will be interesting to add figures for the Everest to this when they come out.

Thank’s for all those measurements, very handy for me personally, for me the Territory is top of the list in all of that that matters to me.

Makes me want to go down to my local Hyundai dealership though and shove those measurements in the face of a certain young upstart little salesman that spoke to me there a few week’s back, when I was cross shopping and mentioned the Territory, and he arrogantly told me that I wouldn’t get 3 car seats across the back of a Territory and that the Santa Fe was so much larger and better and that he also had two laddies return back to him and bought the Santa Fe over the Territory as it had a larger rear area etc...

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

depends what you want in a car.

SUV is a far more versatile vehicle, long trips with 5 people, no problem

short trips with 1 person, no problem

Need to move some furniture, no problem

Sedans are also great, generally go a bit quicker, handle a bit better (all things equal), more fuel efficient, but are limited in what they can do.

thats why families buy SUVs.

That exactly the stupidity of it. I owned a Territory for 2 years (selling my XR6) in 2 years.

now I owned a car that handled like a POS, accelerated like a POS, used fuel like POS, drove like a bus, more expensive to run and never moved furniture as it was delivered for free.

I can hire ute for 50 bucks from Bunnings if desperate.

Pointless cars. Sheep will be sheep I guess, I was one of them.

[Ben73]

What car should sheep buy exactly?

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Ben73

What car should sheep buy exactly?

Well if they were smart, instead of the poxy feminine SUVs, they would get the big people movers for moving people and stuff. No better way to travel 2000km

[new2ford]

^^^
I bet that handles like a mattress.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Stefan

now I owned a car that handled like a POS, accelerated like a POS, used fuel like POS, drove like a bus, more expensive to run and never moved furniture.

From the things you write, sometimes I wonder whether you actually owned a Territory or you just like taking the mickey?

[Elks]

So what was wrong with this....



Deisel , 7 seats, big, can tow 3.5 tonne, lots of tech, looks good

Just order one and get on with it.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Ben73

What car should sheep buy exactly?

What ever you want I guess...just saying 99% of the time SUVs are useless. I see no point in compromising on handling, performance, comfort, running cost and up front expense for no benefit other than to put a piece of furniture in the back. Makes no sense.

25 years ago never seen an SUV, we all got on, furniture got moved around OK....

[Elks]

Originally Posted by new2ford

^^^
I bet that handles like a mattress.

I think it's fair to say that everything in this class does.

Notable exceptions are Territory and X5. Even they can't defy physics. 2.5 tonne and a high centre of gravity. They are never going to handle like an M3. But by quite a margin the best of that group.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Stefan

What ever you want I guess...just saying 99% of the time SUVs are useless. I see no point in compromising on handling, performance, comfort, running cost and up front expense for no benefit other than to put a piece of furniture in the back. Makes no sense.

25 years ago never seen an SUV, we all got on, furniture got moved around OK....

I think you are stuck in the 70's!!!

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by Elks

So what was wrong with this....

image

Deisel , 7 seats, big, can tow 3.5 tonne, lots of tech, looks good

Just order one and get on with it.

I guess that fact that they aren't even available on the Australian market yet would have something to do with it
No release date, no pricing, no specs list, nothing.....

Oh, and BTW, only tows 3T

I'm anxiously awaiting it's release. Reckon I'll have one by the end of the year if they release it and price it right.

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by Stefan

That exactly the stupidity of it. I owned a Territory for 2 years (selling my XR6) in 2 years.

now I owned a car that handled like a POS, accelerated like a POS, used fuel like POS, drove like a bus, more expensive to run and never moved furniture as it was delivered for free.

I can hire ute for 50 bucks from Bunnings if desperate.

Pointless cars. Sheep will be sheep I guess, I was one of them.

Okay then........................but you still bought one.
BTW, I guess your XR6 then must have accelerated like a 80% POS, cause they weren't that much slower

[b2428]

At the moment we have a pulsar and mondeo. I would trade the mondeo for a dual cab in a heart beat. Why? Because the dual cab or even suv for the size and for what I want give so much better space for size. And I am especially drawn to a dual cab as it is the best of both worlds. Stuff in the tray family in the cab and can go on the beach when I feel like. I think this honestly is the appeal. Not for everyone but I am starting to feel very disheartened with the whole suv debate.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Stefan

25 years ago never seen an SUV, we all got on, furniture got moved around OK....

Weird, I remember Hiluxes/Navara type vehicles back then, Land Cruisers, Patrols, F150s, F250s, Broncos, Jackaroos, Pajeros, 4Runners, Range Rovers - plus the bigger trucks. So I hope you're not implying that all furniture deliveries happened in taxis?

[Elks]

Originally Posted by Matty4

I guess that fact that they aren't even available on the Australian market yet would have something to do with it
No release date, no pricing, no specs list, nothing.....

Oh, and BTW, only tows 3T

I'm anxiously awaiting it's release. Reckon I'll have one by the end of the year if they release it and price it right.

Yeah. I thought they were closer than that.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by Matty4

I guess that fact that they aren't even available on the Australian market yet would have something to do with it
No release date, no pricing, no specs list, nothing.....

Oh, and BTW, only tows 3T

I'm anxiously awaiting it's release. Reckon I'll have one by the end of the year if they release it and price it right.

Yeah. I thought they were closer than that.

[Hawkeye84]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Kia Carnival is brilliant. Diesel would be the pick.

Or the all new Sorento http://www.kia.com.au/cars/suv/sorento/2015

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by Ben73

What car should sheep buy exactly?

This is a nice woolly one they’d love



And of cause the good old Toyota Hatchback has always been popular with sheep and seats seven.

[new2ford]

Don't underestimate sheep, they're smart. They leave our 7 seaters for dead:



And don't even mention recreational boating!

[kevino]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

Add more expensive tyres a big cost factor.
I dont understand it either but where I am there is new CX3,s everywhere, which just look like a jacked up Mazda 2 in a much higher price bracket.

I think with toddlers the higher they are the easier it is to load them into back seats and the higher driving position is a factor as a positive for buyers but jeez extra extra cost for what!

Mazda 2 and 3 sales will go down but Mazda will sell heaps of CX3, s at a higher price-good for the car company margins.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Elks

I think it's fair to say that everything in this class does.

Notable exceptions are Territory and X5. Even they can't defy physics. 2.5 tonne and a high centre of gravity. They are never going to handle like an M3. But by quite a margin the best of that group.

Add the Porsche Cayenne and X3 to that. When manufacturers put an effort into it, they can design an SUV that's as near-as to a low car for handling. Most don't make the effort, I guess because their market research shows that most customers aren't necessarily looking for that as top of the list of buying criteria.

I have a 3 series - it goes around corners flatter than the Territory for sure, but it's not enough of a difference to make me not to want an SUV for the advantages that an SUV has.

What are those advantages? The ones that seem obvious are:

High step-in. People really like that, especially older people who find it difficult to get in and out of a low car and parents who don't like putting their back out every time they get their littlies in and out of the back seat and all the gear and settling-in that goes with it. You'd have to experience that to understand that completely and a lot of young car enthusiasts without kids wouldn't understand that, one iota. That's why they're popular with families.

Cargo volume. That extra internal height does make a difference. I've done a lot of furniture moving over the years and it certainly determines whether you can carry a squarish wardrobe or armchair or not. Even with smaller luggage, lots of it, if you have something like the BMWs with their retractable cargo barriers (or a fixed barrier in other cars) you can pile stuff right up to a much higher ceiling. It's also much easier to load and unload cargo from that higher step-in than a low car. Assuming you value your back.

There would be other factors important to some, like higher ground clearance, driving position - I'm sure there are things I haven't thought of.

There must be an awful lot of people thinking the same way if high step-in vehicles are accounting for a third of the market and rising. That many people certainly aren't stupid.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Add the Porsche Cayenne and X3 to that. When manufacturers put an effort into it, they can design an SUV that's as near-as to a low car for handling. Most don't make the effort, I guess because their market research shows that most customers aren't necessarily looking for that as top of the list of buying criteria.

I think the handling of the good SUVs are way overrated. Even a Commodore ute is quicker around the Nurburgring than a V8 Porsche Cayenne.

Some SUVs feel sportier than they are as the car makers have to firm up the suspension so much in an attempt to keep the centre of gravity in check.

Hence where you have the situation that something like a crappy handling Captiva has a much harder ride than a SS Redline Commodore. To some the Captiva will feel sportier.

But you are right, most people don't have ride and handling high on their list so it's all moot. The downside is that there are potential safety aspects, Australian and US with its highest rate of SUVs in the world have the highest incidence of rollover deaths. 1 in 4 deaths on the road are due to a rollover in Australia. Be also interesting to see the effects of the dynamics on the ability to avoid a crash.

I'm probably the only person who found SUVs to be worse with kids. Higher distance to lift the capsules and toddlers into place . I can swing the capsule easily into its bracket without lifting and my 2 year old can get herself in and out the car with ease whereas I have to lift her in and out the in-laws CRV which is annoying.

I think SUVs are much better for older or mobility impaired though as they dont have to bend their back as much and I know a lot of women prefer the command driving position for visibility. In the end choice is good for consumers. I would thoroughly suggest people check out people movers though if they are checking out SUVs.

[new2ford]

One other thing I forgot to mention why people like SUVs - again a family thing - is the 7 seat option.

[MAGPIE]

Would rather walk or catch a bus than buy a people mover.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Would rather walk or catch a bus than buy a people mover.

A bus is a people mover!

But yeah I get you ;)

[Focused]

Originally Posted by AussieCJ7

So the press continues to stay families dont want to buy sedan's and want to buy SUV's.

Looking to update a territory Turbo Ghia so when I do a quick scan of the market,

1. remove $70K plus vehicles
2. 7 seats
3. Has real 3 seats across the back for a family of 5
4. capable of a family of 5 doing comfortable long distance (2000K +) trips


The choices are remarkably slim
1. Toyota Kluga - higher priced on feature for feature comparison, drive train is getting pretty dated and has the driver engagement of watching paint dry
2. Mazda CX9 heavy on fuel, dated drive line
3. Ford territory best in class on space and long distance comfort but engine choice is lacking on performance and the total package is dated
4. Kia/Hyundai at best 2.5 seats across the back so fails on space of a family of 5
5. Izuzu MUX/Holden Colorado off road capability but based on truck platform gives more 4x4 comfort than SUV. still pretty narrow across back seat
6. Nissan Pathfinder. dated drive train poor fuel economy


So if the market is really gone this way why are manufactures not jumping over them selves to deliver vehicle's with SS commodore/XR8 style performance and space in SUV format ?

I'm fairly sure my mother has a greater understanding of the Australian automotive market.
Why aren't car makers making SUVs with SS/XR8-style performance? Because there's limited numbers of people who can afford $100-200K for a X5M or AMG ML.
So why don't they sell a performance SUV for under $70K? Because there's no money in it. How successful was the Territory Turbo? It wasn't...

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Fiat Freemont is also a 7 seater, not a fantastic car but has the room.

Which is a badge swapped Dodge Journey that has been around for years as well.