4 ms·

The "body on frame" requirement isn't exactly definitive in my opinion. I consider the Honda Pilot and Nissan Pathfinder (latest gen) to be SUVs, at least as fa

by cc439 10y ago

The "body on frame" requirement isn't exactly definitive in my opinion. I consider the Honda Pilot and Nissan Pathfinder (latest gen) to be SUVs, at least as far as their intended market is concerned. They're as capable as a non-Z71 Tahoe is offroad (enormous and fragile airdams) and they are all within the same ballpark when it comes to towing capacity (5,000lbs for the Pilot/Pathfinder, 6,400lbs for the Tahoe) as there's nothing I'd tow with one that I wouldn't feel safe towing with the other (hardly anyone will put a Class IV hitch on a Tahoe). The difference between the hottest selling crossovers like the CX-5/Forester/Escape/CR-V/Rav4 and the "soft-road" SUVs like the Pilot/Pathfinder/Traverse/Explorer is that they have redefined crossover to mean a vehicle based off a compact sized platform, with compact sized engines (all 4 cylinders), delivering compact-sized fuel economy (30mpg+), with absolutely 0 consideration given to off-roading (all FWD with AWD being a complete afterthought). The "soft-road" SUV is based off a mid-size platform, if not it's own and still gives credence to things like towing, real AWD, and imposing size without significantly larger interior room (the CX-5 in particular feels as roomy as most full-size SUVs) The modern crossover is in every way a "tall wagon", just with a better name.

kbenson 10y ago
> real AWD You mean 4WD, right? They aren't really the same thing, or at least, a decade ago they were still considered separate, if often confused by the public. Are the current SUVs offering AWD or 4WD (or do they offer both on select variations/models)?
- cc439 10y ago
  No, I mean real AWD. The systems used in smaller crossovers are such afterthoughts that they are only able to handle a tiny fraction of the drivetrain's torque continuously. They may be able to handle up to 50% for a period of time but the tiny little clutches would fry themselves if they weren't protected, thus neutered, by software. They exist to fill out the highly marketable checkbox of "AWD" and to provide some assistance once the vehicle is in motion but they cannot be depended on to deliver the performance of a more traditional AWD system. See the Honda CR-V for an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo The same "trick" has been applied to the Focus RS. It's "AWD" but the system is so weak that it can never live up to the expectations of those who think the AWD system will perform like that of a Subaru WRX or a Mitsubishi Evo. Source: http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372 http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I was referring more to the "soft-road" segment, as you termed it. Ford Explorer, etc. I had a 2004 Explorer Sportrac (which is actually on the ranger chassis instead of the F150 chassis like regular Explorers IIRC), and it definitely had real, wheel locking 4WD in low and high gear, and as such it was dangerous (illegal?) to drive on pavement with it.
    - cc439 10y ago
      Your generation of Explorer was from the era where it was still a true SUV. Ford introduced the Freestyle in 2005 which was among the first attempts to reach the modern "crossover" market. It was based off a modified Volvo sedan platform with unibody construction and a FWD focused layout. Unfortunately, it was a product ahead of its time as consumers had yet to warm up to the "tall wagon" approach to crossovers. My point in mentioning the Freestyle is that when it came time to release the 2nd generation, Ford elected to merge the fundamentally sound "crossover/soft-road" concept with the power of the Explorer name. The 5th generation Explorer is a 2nd generation Freestyle/Taurus X in all but the name. The auto industry press was extremely skeptical of such an extreme change in the design philosophy of a truly iconic vehicle. However, despite concerns over the large reduction in "truck" capabilities (massive reduction in approach, departure, and breakover angles as well as towing capacity), the market had stopped caring about such features. Sales are roughly double or even triple those of the 4th gen Explorer in its last years and are an order of magnitude greater than the worst years of the Freestyle/Taurus X. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation_.282011_.E2.80.93_present.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation...
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Ah, that's a shame. That said, I have been noting how good the new Explorers look. To my eyes they look somewhat comparable to the Range Rover Sport. I imagine the new form has quite a bit to do with the sales. From your link: > The development of the fifth generation Explorer was led by chief engineer Jim Holland, who was also a chief engineer for Land Rover; heading development of the Land Rover Range Rover (L322) 2005 face-lift. Ah. That explains it. From the "capability" section under the link you provided, it looks like the AWD system has some interesting 4WD simulation modes, so it's not a complete departure, but I have no idea how well those perform in practice.

by cc439 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> real AWD You mean 4WD, right? They aren't really the same thing, or at least, a decade ago they were still considered separate, if often confused by the public. Are the current SUVs offering AWD or 4WD (or do they offer both on select variations/models)?

cc439 10y ago
No, I mean real AWD. The systems used in smaller crossovers are such afterthoughts that they are only able to handle a tiny fraction of the drivetrain's torque continuously. They may be able to handle up to 50% for a period of time but the tiny little clutches would fry themselves if they weren't protected, thus neutered, by software. They exist to fill out the highly marketable checkbox of "AWD" and to provide some assistance once the vehicle is in motion but they cannot be depended on to deliver the performance of a more traditional AWD system. See the Honda CR-V for an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo The same "trick" has been applied to the Focus RS. It's "AWD" but the system is so weak that it can never live up to the expectations of those who think the AWD system will perform like that of a Subaru WRX or a Mitsubishi Evo. Source: http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372 http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?p=58372
- kbenson 10y ago
  I was referring more to the "soft-road" segment, as you termed it. Ford Explorer, etc. I had a 2004 Explorer Sportrac (which is actually on the ranger chassis instead of the F150 chassis like regular Explorers IIRC), and it definitely had real, wheel locking 4WD in low and high gear, and as such it was dangerous (illegal?) to drive on pavement with it.
  - cc439 10y ago
    Your generation of Explorer was from the era where it was still a true SUV. Ford introduced the Freestyle in 2005 which was among the first attempts to reach the modern "crossover" market. It was based off a modified Volvo sedan platform with unibody construction and a FWD focused layout. Unfortunately, it was a product ahead of its time as consumers had yet to warm up to the "tall wagon" approach to crossovers. My point in mentioning the Freestyle is that when it came time to release the 2nd generation, Ford elected to merge the fundamentally sound "crossover/soft-road" concept with the power of the Explorer name. The 5th generation Explorer is a 2nd generation Freestyle/Taurus X in all but the name. The auto industry press was extremely skeptical of such an extreme change in the design philosophy of a truly iconic vehicle. However, despite concerns over the large reduction in "truck" capabilities (massive reduction in approach, departure, and breakover angles as well as towing capacity), the market had stopped caring about such features. Sales are roughly double or even triple those of the 4th gen Explorer in its last years and are an order of magnitude greater than the worst years of the Freestyle/Taurus X. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation_.282011_.E2.80.93_present.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer#Fifth_generation...
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Ah, that's a shame. That said, I have been noting how good the new Explorers look. To my eyes they look somewhat comparable to the Range Rover Sport. I imagine the new form has quite a bit to do with the sales. From your link: > The development of the fifth generation Explorer was led by chief engineer Jim Holland, who was also a chief engineer for Land Rover; heading development of the Land Rover Range Rover (L322) 2005 face-lift. Ah. That explains it. From the "capability" section under the link you provided, it looks like the AWD system has some interesting 4WD simulation modes, so it's not a complete departure, but I have no idea how well those perform in practice.