Crossovers: SUVs, wagons and minivans

[kevm14]

Here are some SRXs.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1071&p=4319&hilit= ... lver#p4310

I have no idea how you got to minivan from this. I just think you want to lump crossovers into a single category of "it's really a minivan and lame but those automakers are trying to convince you it is something else." You are ignoring that there are THREE flavors of "crossover:" SUV-like, wagon-like and minivan-like. You can't just ignore the wagon class, and then continue to argue that an SUV has to be based on a body on frame truck platform, therefore most crossovers are really minivans. This is just bad logic. In fact the only really minivan-like crossovers are actually BASED on minivan platforms, which goes completely against your entire argument.

And by the way, "crossover" is short for "Crossover utility vehicle." Not "crossover minivan."

Minivans:
- Sliding side doors
- Efficient powertrains
- Efficient space layouts which always results in a very short hood line to maximize passenger and cargo area

The SRX has literally NONE of this.

And further:

A crossover or crossover utility vehicle (CUV) is a vehicle built on a unibody car platform combining in highly variable degrees features of a sport utility vehicle (SUV) with those of a passenger vehicle, especially a station wagon or hatchback.

Using unibody construction typical of passenger vehicles instead of the body-on-frame design of light trucks and the original SUVs, the crossover combines SUV features – such as a tall interior, high H-point seating, high ground-clearance, and AWD – with those of an automobile – including independent rear suspension, car-like handling, and lighter weight and better fuel economy than trucks or truck-based vehicles.

A crossover may borrow features from a station wagon or hatchback, such as the two-box design of a shared passenger and cargo volume with rear access via a rear liftgate door – and flexibility to allow configurations that favor either passenger or cargo volume, e.g., fold-down rear seats.

Crossovers are typically designed for only light off-road capability, if any at all,[1] and are offered with front wheel drive, rear wheel drive[citation needed] or all-wheel drive

I do not see the word "minivan" in that quote. On the other hand, the quote uses the term "wagon" and "SUV" multiple times.

The term "crossover" may be ambiguous, but literally no one else thinks all crossovers are really just minivans with a different name.

[kevm14]

This article is dedicated to the idea that the minivan is the most practical vehicle for families. I don't disagree. But he never makes the case that we are all basically driving around minivans that don't have sliding doors.
https://jalopnik.com/if-youre-a-real-gr ... 1764226230

A Traverse inched its way onto a list ranked by family utility, smack in the middle of minivans. That is not because the Traverse is really a minivan, but instead the Traverse is apparently the CUV that is CLOSEST to a minivan in terms of utility, meaning it is the only CUV that was anywhere near as useful as some minivans (and more useful than two older designs apparently). This does not attempt to connect styling or anything else.
https://www.cars.com/articles/whats-bet ... 681255719/

You can't beat sliding doors: These are the very definition of a minivan, and with good reason.

And when it comes to utility and convenience, what also separates the minivan from everything else is that it is always the best at those. Except apparently for the Traverse which Cars.com (above) thought provided more utility than a Grand Caravan or Town and Country (the old ones). Even the Traverse, however, is still not a minivan.
https://www.cars.com/articles/does-a-3- ... 697648029/

This article takes some turns and meanders around some political points, especially at the end. But ultimately it makes the case that the 70s was the decade of the wagon, the 80s the decade of the mininvan, the 90s the decade of the SUV, and now we seem to have standardized on the CUV which contains various characteristics from all three, depending on which one you are talking about. Some crossovers emphasize ruggedness and off-road more than others. Some crossovers emphasize performance more than others. Some crossovers emphasize luxury more than others. And some crossovers emphasize passenger space and cargo, more than others. Which is what I have been saying from the beginning. That does not mean they are all really just minivans. It does mean they all share some combination of SUV, wagon and minivan, in varying degrees depending on the model. Lazily throwing them all in the same category does not help your case. It turns out the term "crossover" does not mean a whole lot by itself. The underpinnings and resulting characteristics, however, DO mean a lot. And the SRX most closely resembles a cross between an SUV and wagon, and by architecture, is a tall CTS/STS wagon.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... et/374061/

I have exhaustively proven my point I think. If i wanted a minivan I would have bought one. I don't like their FWD-based architectures and the resulting drivability when the entire passenger/cargo area has been optimized to be as large as possible. Every vehicle in my fleet is RWD or RWD-based. It has nothing to do with the styling or stigma. I acknowledge that they are THE MOST USEFUL/PRACTICAL family vehicle in existence.