Your thoughts on "performance SUVs"

[Joey D]

SUV is a bad concept to start with, so what's the point of making them high performance? USELESS

How do you figure it's a bad concept to start with?

 

[Neddo]

How do you figure it's a bad concept to start with?

Comparing to true offroaders like G Class, which offer space, power and enough stability, they simply lack offroad capability (comparable to good old offroaders). Main thing about cars with higher ground clearance is to have off road capabilites.

Also almost every SUV is UGLY

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Look at them as a future engine swap donor vehicle. I view every Escalade that way now.

That's how I view anything with an LS these days including my dad's 01 Silverado in front of the house on the street. I tell him all the time to keep the engine if it gets totaled because of that.

As for the poll- yay. If a brand can sell it and turn a profit on it, they should be able to build it. At the end of the day, most everything being built doesn't get used to its full potential anyway. I can bet that most of the C7 Corvettes GM sold last year may never see a single lap at a track. If a person wants to spend their money on a sports car or performance SUV, let them. The buyer is the one that will be living with for years and should be happy with what they bought.

 

[Bo]

Comparing to true offroaders like G Class, which offer space, power and enough stability, they simply lack offroad capability (comparable to good old offroaders). Main thing about cars with higher ground clearance is to have off road capabilites.

I think you're confusing the SUV with crossovers and softroaders. A Range Rover is a good example of a popular SUV, and I've never heard anyone say it's unfit for general off-roading.

 

[Joey D]

Comparing to true offroaders like G Class, which offer space, power and enough stability, they simply lack offroad capability (comparable to good old offroaders). Main thing about cars with higher ground clearance is to have off road capabilites.

Also almost every SUV is UGLY

I wouldn't consider a G Wagon an offroader, sure it's designed to go off road, but something that starts at $120k isn't ideal to bang around in the bush with.

But I agree with @Bo, sounds like you're describing crossovers opposed to SUV's. And I can agree with crossovers to a degree, however they sell like hotcakes and allow manufactures to stay around and turn a profit so I can't really hate on them too much.

 

[Danoff]

I think you're confusing the SUV with crossovers and softroaders.

But I agree with @Bo, sounds like you're describing crossovers opposed to SUV's. And I can agree with crossovers to a degree, however they sell like hotcakes and allow manufactures to stay around and turn a profit so I can't really hate on them too much.

I'm pretty sure my FX is considered a crossover, and that thing is a beast in the snow.

 

[LM7325]

I feel bad for kids growing up with these hot rod monstrosities. They will never know the wonders of tight interiors, or 3 downshifts just to get up a hill. My heart goes out to them.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm pretty sure my FX is considered a crossover, and that thing is a beast in the snow.

Tires and drivetrain design/programming are what enable offroad capability, of course. Ground clearance just enables you to get over things. The front license plate on my Legacy is punched in from plowing through ice-crusted snow. It'll go anywhere so long as I don't get hung up on the snow, and I don't even run winter tires.

What @Neddo has in mind are crossovers with street/summer tires and FWD-biased AWD systems designed only for a modest on-road benefit.

 

[Danoff]

Tires and drivetrain design/programming are what enable offroad capability, of course. Ground clearance just enables you to get over things.

Sometimes getting over things makes a world of difference. You get better traction if you're not pushing against something like a snow bank. I've turned my FX into snow banks that came up to the hood and run through them, that would hit the windshield of a lot of cars and stop them dead. Ground clearance is one of those things that doesn't matter 99% of the time but when you need it you need it.

 

[Wolfe]

@Danoff -- Ground clearance is vital, but my point was that traction is what mainly distinguishes an offroad-capable vehicle from a crossover or SUV that isn't, and they aren't all built or equipped the same. There are significant differences in design and function between a X5M, CR-V, Ram SRT-10, Cayenne, Forester, or Evoque, and it's pointless to slap them with the same label for not measuring up to things like ex-military-contract trucks.

Also, taller vehicles can be appealing for some people with disabilities or age-related injuries who may find it easier to climb into and drop out of a seat at hip height.

 

[Neddo]

Sorry GLA is no where as near as capable as G Class. SUVs aren't that offroad. But that doesn't mean that they're as capable as low slung exotics

 

[TenEightyOne]

Comparing to true offroaders like G Class, which offer space, power and enough stability, they simply lack offroad capability (comparable to good old offroaders). Main thing about cars with higher ground clearance is to have off road capabilites.

They're not intended primarily as off-roaders though so it's not really a fair comparison. And if you've ever seen an X5 giving pursuit it's really no slouch

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Granted for the model-X. Most of the sporty SUVs have improved ground clearance. I don't know what you mean by "no choices" for tires. tirerack.com has about a million choices for tires.

The performance SUVs have a very limited ground clearance compared to the standard versions of them so "improved" is also a myth.

 

[Danoff]

The performance SUVs have a very limited ground clearance compared to the standard versions of them so "improved" is also a myth.

Let's have some examples. If you're comparing, say, an X5M to an X5, you're talking about buying a car with significantly less performance. If you're comparing an X5M to a 5 series xdrive, it has improved ground clearance.

 

[The87Dodge]

Here's my opinion:

Performance oriented SUVs/crossovers are only useful if they weigh less than 1,900 ors so kilograms. Any more weight than that, they become stout, causing sluggish acceleration and poor handling. That being said, this would be a problem for a full-sized performance SUV, since it would be hard to get it below 1,900 kgs.

I think the Nissan Juke Nismo RS makes for a perfect sporty crossover. It's not so big where it becomes too heavy to handle well, but it's too small either. A sports crossover should be able to handle decently and comfortably seat four adults, and the Juke does that. It weighs a mere 1450 kilograms.

 

[Grandea GTR]

Here's my opinion:

Performance oriented SUVs/crossovers are only useful if they weigh less than 1,900 ors so kilograms. Any more weight than that, they become stout, causing sluggish acceleration and poor handling. That being said, this would be a problem for a full-sized performance SUV, since it would be hard to get it below 1,900 kgs.

 

[The87Dodge]

Of course there would be the exceptions (the Range Rover you have in the picture, Porsche Cayenne Turbo) but still, most sporty SUVs over like 2,00 kgs would have unideal handling. The Grand Cherokee SRT8 weighs over 2,300 kgs, and I can't imagine it's handling to be anywhere near on par.

 

[McLaren]

Of course there would be the exceptions (the Range Rover you have in the picture, Porsche Cayenne Turbo) but still, most sporty SUVs over like 2,000 lbs would have unideal handling. The Grand Cherokee SRT8 weighs over 3,000 lbs, and I can't imagine it's handling to be anywhere near on par.

The SRT8 lacks the finesse of the Germans & the Brit, but that's be expected by a company that focuses more on building production vehicles to hit the quarter mile by churning out 700Hp Hellcats alongside the SRT8.

Otherwise, most of the thread has been focused on the elite of the elite when it comes to these vehicles. A lot of sporty SUVs are somewhat more aesthetics than performance. It will be interesting to see if the F-Pace & Levante get more "track"-based performance models later on, the latter surprisingly so far, being marketed more for its usability than power or luxury.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Let's have some examples. If you're comparing, say, an X5M to an X5, you're talking about buying a car with significantly less performance. If you're comparing an X5M to a 5 series xdrive, it has improved ground clearance.

I'm not comparing an X5M to a 5-Series xDrive though.

And as for the significantly less performance, well that's what comes when you're paying for a Golf GTi on top of your already fairly potent xDrive50i, for instance.

Face it, hot-rod SUVs are an indulgence, nothing more. And for the record, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[CarBastard]

They suck.

Next question.

 

[Crash]

Then you buy an M5 with better performance and save yourself £18k. Or if you really need the extra practicality and four wheel drive, then a 550i Touring Xdrive with the sport package and save even more.

There's certainly market availability differences that I want to point out as well. Europeans have the option of choosing the 5 Series Touring with xDrive, but unfortunately the current generation 5 Series Touring was never sold in America. If you want a BMW with a lift gate here, you're constrained to either a 3 Series Touring or go the X1/X3/X5 line.

Sorry GLA is no where as near as capable as G Class. SUVs aren't that offroad. But that doesn't mean that they're as capable as low slung exotics

The G-Class is classified as a SUV in America. Incidentally, there is also a performance variant of the G-Class, which would fall into the "performance SUV" category in this thread title.

 

[Danoff]

The performance SUVs have a very limited ground clearance compared to the standard versions of them so "improved" is also a myth.

I'm not comparing an X5M to a 5-Series xDrive though.

Ok, so I'm not sure what you point was then. When I said improved ground clearance I was comparing to a sports car.

And as for the significantly less performance, well that's what comes when you're paying for a Golf GTi on top of your already fairly potent xDrive50i, for instance.

Face it, hot-rod SUVs are an indulgence, nothing more. And for the record, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Sure, they're an indulgence, like all things fast. I have no problem facing that. I think everyone in this thread sees a point in indulgences.

 

[Pupik]

Since the title is "your thoughts on performance SUVs"...nobody has to justify their physical existence for anyone but themselves.

Different strokes for different folks. I'm just not one of those folks...I like the ideas of what they stand for, but they're generally ugly and it's no longer much of a unique statement. And yet, the trend hasn't really died out.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I understand fully the point of performance SUVs and I do like some of them such as the BMW X5M, Jeep GC SRT, and Porsche Cayenne Turbo S. Though, would I want to own one? Nope, I would own a sport sedan and sport wagon for if I had a family. For utility, I would prefer using a pickup truck to be honest.

 

[Cale]

TIL

Of course there would be the exceptions (the Range Rover you have in the picture, Porsche Cayenne Turbo) but still, most sporty SUVs over like 2,000 lbs would have unideal handling. The Grand Cherokee SRT8 weighs over 3,000 lbs, and I can't imagine it's handling to be anywhere near on par.

 

[Obelisk]

@The87Dodge Most sport SUVs weigh in over 4,000 pounds.

 

[lxmmy]

@The87Dodge Most sport SUVs weigh in over 4,000 pounds.

I think he meant KG.

 

[Neddo]

This is probably only cool high perfromance modern SUV

 

[Wolfe]

I think he meant KG.

The Grand Cherokee SRT8 isn't quite that overweight, but it is almost literally a ton heavier than 3000lbs.

 

[Grandea GTR]

The Grand Cherokee SRT8 isn't quite that overweight, but it is almost literally a ton heavier than 3000lbs.

5,104 lbs to be exact, or 2,315 kg.