Repair-It

almost everything about the way this vehicle is currently configured is decidedly less sporty than my STS

That's because it is a glorified minivan. A minivan with a V8, but still a minivan.

It is a "minivan" in the generic sense that it is the family vehicle that is filled with food and trash and screaming children...but that's a pretty weak definition that could apply to anything. It's a minivan as much as a BMW X5 is...

The FE3/MR SRX on 18s in fact drives a lot like my STS - I know because I've driven one. I already explained the factors that make it drive less sporty. It works out for us because Jamie doesn't care about pulling 1G in corners. And I still appreciate the things it does better than, well, a minivan. It's functionally closest to being a tall CTS wagon based on the STS platform. Also keep in mind that it drives a hell of a lot better than any Tahoe. Is that a minivan now, too?

I will give you that most unibody crossovers are kind of a cross between a wagon and a minivan, but that is by architecture (the carmakers would tell you they are a cross between a wagon and an SUV or something but my definition of an SUV is that it is based on a body on frame truck and most of those are gone). But most crossovers are also based on FWD vehicles. The SRX is (was) a RWD-based crossover, which is a totally different breed. It was, in fact, available in RWD configuration, just like the STS. I digress....I think you are just trolling anyway.

FWIW, Cadillac did not market it as a crossover. Here is what C&D said in 2004:

The station wagon with the best combination of sport and utility.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/20 ... v-8-page-5

I just looked it up from the article. The 04 will do 142 mph.

Wikipedia says it is a "luxury crossover SUV." Here are its peers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... y_vehicles

Audi Q3
BMW X1
BMW X1 (E84)
BMW X1 (F48)
BMW X3
BMW X4
BMW X5
BMW X6
Cadillac SRX
Cadillac XT4
Cadillac XT5
Infiniti EX
Infiniti QX50
Infiniti QX60
Infiniti QX70
Lincoln MKC
Lincoln MKT
Maserati Levante
Mercedes-Benz M-Class
Porsche Cayenne
Porsche Macan
Range Rover Evoque
Volvo XC60

None of those are minivans...goddamnit, I took the bait.

I am not trolling. It is basically a minivan.

it drives a hell of a lot better than any Tahoe. Is that a minivan now, too?

Driving better than a truck doesn't make it less minivan.

And no, the Tahoe is truck based. As you said, the SRX is a cross between a wagon and minivan. A minivan was a tall wagon. The biggest difference is most minivans are FWD based, but yeah even minivans are available in AWD. Sure, they are FWD biased AWD, and this is RWD biased AWD. Body wise, it is a minivan. It isn't an SUV, as it isn't truck based. It also has the length of a minivan. Sure it sounds like it drives good, but how is it not a minivan?

There were rumors that Dodge was going to put the Viper engine in a Minivan. Wouldn't that still be a minivan?

Definition of minivan according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minivan

The minivan combines a high-roof, five-door one- or two-box hatchback body configuration with a mid-size platform, engine and mechanicals; car-like handling and fuel economy; unibody construction; front-wheel or all-wheel drive and greater height than sedan or station wagon counterparts. The design offers higher h-point seating, two or three rows of seating, easy passenger and cargo access with sliding wide-opening rear doors and large rear hatch, and a re-configurable interior volume with seats that recline, slide, tumble, fold flat or allow easy removal—enabling users to reprioritize passenger and cargo volumes.

Pretty sure the only difference between the SRX and this definition is the sliding door, and AWD w/RWD bias, although, this definition just says FWD or AWD, and the SRX is AWD. The definition doesn't specify bias. I think the whole "luxury crossover SUV" is marketing because minivans aren't cool anymore.

The SRX literally has everything from the above definition except a sliding door.

And yes, the SRX is not in the list. I saw that. I couldn't tell you why it shouldn't be aside from marketing reasons.

I would say this for all long, unibody, crossovers, based on cars. Not just the SRX so maybe that will sound less inflammatory.

Maybe a difference a crossover has from a minivan is bigger wheels?

bill25 wrote:I am not trolling. It is basically a minivan.

it drives a hell of a lot better than any Tahoe. Is that a minivan now, too?

Driving better than a truck doesn't make it less minivan.

And no, the Tahoe is truck based.

Right. In the conventional, 90s definition, which I kind of still hold personally (the definition has likely shifted over time and means little today - EDIT: it has, see a couple posts down for how broad the term is now), an SUV is a truck-based passenger vehicle. There aren't many true SUVs left. So in that regard, 95% of what is on the market is unibody and car-based.

As you said, the SRX is a cross between a wagon and minivan. A minivan was a tall wagon.

That's not what I said. Here is what I said:

most unibody crossovers are kind of a cross between a wagon and a minivan

I think the term crossover refers to marketing apprehension away from the term "wagon" more than "minivan" but then I guess both terms are derogatory in the US. The one difference is, some car guys think wagons are cool, and RWD-based wagons are the coolest. Look at the resale for the CTS-V2 wagon vs the sedan or coupe for proof.

But getting back to my quote, something like a Honda Pilot today is really blurring close to a minivan in a vaguely SUV shape. In fact Bryan really considered the previous gen because it looked a lot more SUV-ish (but was just as close to a car/van as the new one).

The biggest difference is most minivans are FWD based, but yeah even minivans are available in AWD. Sure, they are FWD biased AWD, and this is RWD biased AWD. Body wise, it is a minivan. It isn't an SUV, as it isn't truck based. It also has the length of a minivan. Sure it sounds like it drives good, but how is it not a minivan?

There were rumors that Dodge was going to put the Viper engine in a Minivan. Wouldn't that still be a minivan?

I think the term "crossover" does have practical merit. Yes, it is partly an eye roller so people can feel good about their vehicle purchase. But in practical terms, it is a wagony, sort of SUV thing, that is based on a car platform. And I guess it is a continuum. I don't think the Pilot is a minivan, but it is much closer than the SRX was. I do not agree that "if it is not a wagon, and if it is not an SUV, it must be a minivan." I think that's really crappy logic. Look at the vehicles Wiki listed in that category. Are they all minivans? If you think the SRX looks like a minivan, then you haven't spent a lot of time looking at it. To me I see an upscale, tall wagon. And yes, it has a longitudinal V8. The last RWD minivan we had was something like a Toyota Previa, Chevy Astro or Ford Aerostar. Those were all definitely vans. They all had sliding doors and very stubby hoods with the engine half crammed under the cowl - classic minivan characteristics that the SRX does not share.

Another difference I'd put forth is that minivans have ZERO performance trims, aspirations or marketing. They have V6 engines because they need to motivate their 2+ tons. And Dodge concepts aside, there is never been a performance minivan. Not one. Plenty of luxury/performance crossover/SUV/wagons.

bill25 wrote:Definition of minivan according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minivan

The minivan combines a high-roof, five-door one- or two-box hatchback body configuration with a mid-size platform, engine and mechanicals; car-like handling and fuel economy; unibody construction; front-wheel or all-wheel drive and greater height than sedan or station wagon counterparts. The design offers higher h-point seating, two or three rows of seating, easy passenger and cargo access with sliding wide-opening rear doors and large rear hatch, and a re-configurable interior volume with seats that recline, slide, tumble, fold flat or allow easy removal—enabling users to reprioritize passenger and cargo volumes.

Pretty sure the only difference between the SRX and this definition is the sliding door, and AWD w/RWD bias, although, this definition just says FWD or AWD, and the SRX is AWD. The definition doesn't specify bias. I think the whole "luxury crossover SUV" is marketing because minivans aren't cool anymore.

The SRX literally has everything from the above definition except a sliding door.

Right, no sliding doors. Also no stubby hood with engine crammed halfway under the cowl to maximize interior volume. In fact rear cargo area is quite compromised due to, get ready, the RWD-based platform (real rear differential, multi-link suspension). It is not almost a minivan in any sense.

And yes, the SRX is not in the list. I saw that. I couldn't tell you why it shouldn't be aside from marketing reasons.

I would say this for all long, unibody, crossovers, based on cars. Not just the SRX so maybe that will sound less inflammatory.

Yeah I just don't think you'll get very far with that argument, that every non-wagon or non-SUV is really just a minivan. I mean that probably applied in the 90s. But honestly, the Pacifica was not a minivan. Cadillac was early but the Germans beat them to this market. Cadillac just tweaked it by going a little longer and added a 3rd row. Here is what Wiki says about the X5:

The BMW E53 X5 crossover was manufactured between 1999 and 2006.

It is not a wagon or SUV. It is also not a minivan.

I think your biggest issue is that you are skeptical about branding things that look like SUVs, but based on fairly uninteresting car platforms as crossovers to increase their appeal. I am with you on that. I am not with you on lumping the SRX and the vehicles on that list, into that same bucket. Basing a tall wagon/SUV thing on a RWD based luxury car platform should not, at all, receive the same scorn and suspicion as something based on a Corolla or Camry.

bill25 wrote:Maybe a difference a crossover has from a minivan is bigger wheels?

It's the sliding doors, and I'd argue hood to body proportion. A minivan is the biggest passenger/cargo area that can possibly be bolted to a FWD-based car platform, basically. That is not the SRX, or any of the vehicles on that list I posted. Which is why it is not a minivan. And why there is some merit to the term crossover. The problem is, crossover to some people is a term used derogatorily and cynically to bin vehicles that are really just people movers with some "slight" body changes in order to sell what would otherwise be unpopular. The term "crossover" itself does not make any room or allowance for the variety of different crossovers on the market. A Dodge Durango is not a minivan. It WAS an SUV when it was based on the Dakota. But it is not an SUV now. Technically, neither is the Grand Cherokee, except for the name and the retention of historic Grand Cherokee proportions.

It gets really hairy here. Look at what Wiki says about the SUV:

Sport-utility (vehicle), SUV or sport-ute is an automotive classification, typically a kind of station wagon / estate car with off-road vehicle features like raised ground clearance and ruggedness, and available four-wheel drive. Many SUVs are built on a light-truck chassis but operated as a family vehicle, and though designed to be used on rougher surfaces, most often used on city streets or highways.[3][4] In recent years, in some countries the term SUV has replaced terms like "Jeep" or "Land-Rover" in the popular lexicon as a generic description for light 4WD vehicles.[5]

Many SUVs have an upright built body and tall interior packaging, a high seating position and center of gravity, and available all-wheel drive for off-road capability. Some SUVs include the towing capacity of a pickup truck with the passenger-carrying space of a minivan or large sedan. The traditional truck-based SUV is more and more being supplanted by unitary body SUVs[6] and crossovers based on regular automobile platforms for lighter weight and better fuel efficiency. In some countries, notably the United States, SUVs are not classified as cars, but as light trucks.[7]

Look, the word minivan is even in here!! Which means this is all a bunch of word games.

The SRX falls out of the SUV definition above in just a couple areas, namely I'd say probably ground clearance (not positive) and seating position. Both are lower than what I guess I'd call an SUV, but higher than a CTS or STS. Since the term SUV makes allowance for basically everything from body on frame trucks to family people movers, I'd argue the SRX is closer to "SUV" than minivan, because the difference in ground clearance and seating position is a matter of inches with a tape measure. The lack of sliding doors and lack of stubby hood are very noticeable without touching a tape measure.

In that respect, I'd pose the opposite argument for some SUVs. I'd argue Dodge says the Durago is an SUV for two main reasons: 1) they can say "no, no, this is no lame crossover, this is an SUV" and 2) because SUVs are still trucks in CAFE and emissions terms.

Guess what else. I believe the first gen SRX is classified as this according to Fuel Economy.gov:

Sport Utility Vehicle - 4WD

Which means the only difference between the Durango and 1st gen SRX is marketing. And again, a little less ground clearance and a little lower seating position.

So I think all the subtlety lies in the difference between crossover and SUV, because I think those can get VERY blurry once you have a crossover that is very close to the characteristics of some SUVs. Minivan exists totally separately.

Now here's kind of the worst part. A Subaru Outback Wagon (that is the name!) is EPA "Sport Utility Vehicle - 4WD."

In fact, the Outback managed to do that in 2005. Before that, it was "Midsize Station Wagons." What changed? I don't think much other than it became its own model instead of being part of the Legacy. But that was a paper drill. This is all stupid but I guess my remaining argument is, as above, we can argue about SUV vs wagon.

By the way, a Chrysler Town and Country is "Minivan - 2WD." As is the 2017 Pacifica. So the EPA does not recognize the "crossover" and retains wagon, sedan, and minivan. The "crossovers" seem to end up in some variant of SUV. Even the 2017 Honda Pilot which, again, is much closer to a minivan than the SRX.

There must be an actual rule, but I don't know what it is.

This is from Edmunds: This diagram corroborates EXACTLY what I have been saying the entire time. The discussion is between the SUV and wagon continuum. Minivan is a different thing entirely. Interestingly there are a few entries that span the minivan-SUV category and minivan-wagon category. In the minivan-SUV category is the Buick Rendezvous. It was on the U-body platform, which also produced such mediocre vehicles as the Chevy Venture (minivan). This shouldn't be too shocking then. So if it is built on a minivan platform, but shaped somewhat like an SUV, it becomes an SUV-minivan thing. Most on the list are in the SUV/wagon section though, and I believe that defines most crossovers today. Then for some reason, the first gen Pacifica does in the minivan/wagon category. What was it built on? The same platform that made these:

Chrysler Town & Country
Dodge Caravan
Dodge Grand Caravan
Chrysler Voyager

I don't really know if I buy that the first gen Pacifica was any less a minivan than the Buick Rendezvous. But the point is, when there is minivan in the DNA, we can have that conversation. When there isn't, I don't know what the argument is supposed to be. It can't be that things that you think are cool must be SUVs, and things that you don't think are cool must be minivans. That is not a serious argument. And again, you would need to throw the wagon in the mix. The point is, the EPA recognizes the SUV, wagon and minivan separately. So when you have a crossover (points where the venn diagram merges) we can talk about which TWO of the three categories the vehicle falls in.

New thread to contain the discussion.

bill25 wrote:

almost everything about the way this vehicle is currently configured is decidedly less sporty than my STS

That's because it is a glorified minivan. A minivan with a V8, but still a minivan.

And to get back to the quote that started this, the SRX drives differently than the STS because of this:

- FE1 suspension (with 125k on it)
- Non-performance tires (GM shipped it with Goodyear Eagle RS-As which I hate, but are much higher performing than these Coopers, and also wear out faster, and more expensive)
- The Sport package 20s (poorly named package) run tires that are basically as tall as the 18s, but on wheels 2" bigger. So the whole vehicle sits up higher. This does not help performance. Generally speaking, bigger wheels ruin performance, including more rotational inertia which saps acceleration (and braking), too.
- I do find the transmission calibration much less sporty though it does alright in sport mode.

Not because you think it is a minivan. An SRX with different options drives a LOT like my STS.