New SUVs

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

The next Ford SUV will presumably be the GT40

Mustang themed rear lamps- that’s the link

[Alfisti]

They've just devalued the Mustang brand. Idiots; why the heck couldn't they sit down and dream up a brand name... now there'll just be a blur between a V8 muscle car and an electric SUV. It'll be a pain in the ass in years to come for people searching out used motor cars!!!

An obvious Tesla rival, with a lot of Jaguar E Pace in it's side profile. Not a bad looking tank, but these things will never be my cup of tea. I'd rather have an unpretentious down to earth old fashioned values Ford badge on my driveway than a Tesla one any day though.

Hopefully it'll sell well and allow the company to thrive in the future again.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

They've just devalued the Mustang brand. Idiots; why the heck couldn't they sit down and dream up a brand name... now there'll just be a blur between a V8 muscle car and an electric SUV. It'll be a pain in the ass in years to come for people searching out used motor cars!!!

I've already experienced first hand the confusion that arose when they brought out the Kuga, with the Cougar already around.

But don't worry, this is the first (second?) in a range of Mustang models being released by Ford in the next few years.

[Akrapovic]

Nice car. Terrible Mustang.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Nice car. Terrible Mustang.

Yes, and Tesla should be flattered....

The Aston Martin DBX official launch has happened. First pics I've seen....

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/...cid=spartandhp

Considering how ugly the original Cayenne is, IMO the AM front end is not bad at all.....

[E.B]

I could quite easily get used to seeing the AM in the driveway, something I couldnt say for the (any?) BMW with the Chinese Cadillac front end treatment .

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by E.B

I could quite easily get used to seeing the AM in the driveway, something I couldnt say for the (any?) BMW with the Chinese Cadillac front end treatment .

Yes, I’ve gone off Beemers big time, which is sad as I drive one.....

Sounds like Andy Palmer has bet the kid’s inheritance on the DBX, so hope it works for them. On appearance alone it should attract conquest sales.

Looks like they’ve taken towing and ‘off roading’ fairly seriously as well. 2700kg towing limit ain’t bad, only the serious kit from LR etc does better.

Good luck, Aston. You get my vote over the suggested competition!

[VIVA GT]

I don't usually like SUV's but have to say that the Aston looks lovely.
I've decided that if I achieve my ambition of winning a million pounds on the Premium Bonds I'll treat myself to one of those! (Well, I'll still have £842,000 left for the insurance).

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Yes, I’ve gone off Beemers big time, which is sad as I drive one.....

Sounds like Andy Palmer has bet the kid’s inheritance on the DBX, so hope it works for them. On appearance alone it should attract conquest sales.

Looks like they’ve taken towing and ‘off roading’ fairly seriously as well. 2700kg towing limit ain’t bad, only the serious kit from LR etc does better.

Good luck, Aston. You get my vote over the suggested competition!

[Akrapovic]

That Aston will for sure sell well. That'll go into the high end Range Rover market.

I seen Chris Harris making a ridiculous statement on Twitter about do these companies not look/feel stupid making constant SUVs. Or something along those lines. I like Chris Harris, but what a weird thing to say. SUVs sell well. People want to buy SUVs. So they make SUVs. So no, of course they're happy making them.

There's now a market for high end SUVs. Aston needed to be in that market. Arguably Ford did too...just not with that.

And whilst on the topic of electric cars, I seen another stupid tweet and a bandwagon of comments afterwards. Someone had problems with an electric Mercedes and needed the battery replaced (which was done under warranty...). To which he finished off with "Clearly the future is not electric". What, because one (or multiple) broke? We have breakdown services dedicated to scooping up broken petrol cars from the side of the road, and that didn't kill the petrol car? Or are Alfa Romeos now 100% reliable? Maybe the future isn't electric. But it has absolutely nothing to do with some reliability issues. Otherwise my 2006 Fiesta would've killed the ICE overnight.

People are weird man. If the Ford doesn't sell well it isn't because it's an SUV or because it's electric. It's because it's a Mustang for people who don't really want a Mustang. Maybe at this point Ford needs a premium brand like Honda/Acura, and it's decided that Mustang is the name it's going to use.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I seen Chris Harris making a ridiculous statement on Twitter about do these companies not look/feel stupid making constant SUVs. Or something along those lines. I like Chris Harris, but what a weird thing to say. SUVs sell well. People want to buy SUVs. So they make SUVs. So no, of course they're happy making them.

I'm with Harris on this. People only want SUVs as that's what the marketing people have pushed at them, once one person has one there's an element of "keeping up with the Joneses". SUVs make no sense - bigger, heavier, slower, less economical, worse braking, worse handling than a hatchback or estate along with a bigger environmental footprint. I can't see an 'up' side to these things.

If the marketing types and "trendsetters" decide hatchbacks are the way to go then everyone will ditch the SUVs.

[BertMk2]

Right on cue here's another collosal piece of unecessary vulgarity on wheels:

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/suv...aybach-gls-600

[Akrapovic]

I can’t agree at all. People want SUVs. Why they are popular doesn’t matter. But if everyone is buying SUVs, you should be making SUVs. If you aren’t, then you’re giving away sales. Trying to explain away the SUVs to marketing and trend setting doesn’t mean anything - they are popular. They are selling. So you should be making one. Especially with the current trends of high end SUVs. When hot hatches are the in thing, you should make a hot version of any hatch you have. If you don’t then you’re giving away sales.

I like Harris but I feel like he was playing the Clarkson Card of being intentionally dense in this regard to get a response.

“Why are people all making the things that sell!? Don’t they see how silly they are!?”

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I'm with Harris on this. People only want SUVs as that's what the marketing people have pushed at them, once one person has one there's an element of "keeping up with the Joneses". SUVs make no sense - bigger, heavier, slower, less economical, worse braking, worse handling than a hatchback or estate along with a bigger environmental footprint. I can't see an 'up' side to these things.

If the marketing types and "trendsetters" decide hatchbacks are the way to go then everyone will ditch the SUVs.

Well yes, it is purely marketing and InstFaceChat sheeple. But hasn't that been every car, clothing, electronic, housing, etc for all of time? It's not like it's a car specific thing, NO ONE could have ever thought any 70s fashion was good. It was supposed to be cool so you had to or be thought stupid until it was all that was left.

And most of the SUVs replace cars with the same or close to the same characteristics for the average driver. Fuel economy numbers are pretty close for a car with the same seating area, weights aren't much different across most of the cross platform car/suv/van models when comparing like built cars (you can't compare the stripped out car to the luxury SUV version), and handling-wise many aren't outside of the average drivers range (track and announced times are irrelevant on the actual roads) between the SUV to car. And the amount of crap people are almost forced to carry around the minute they have a kid, and car seats bigger and stronger than the Apollo capsule, means the tiny and often inaccessible build style of a trunk means the car is out for most. And most SUVs built now are an estate with bigger wheels, it's a car chassis with a hatch at the rear. And yes, I'm purposefully excluding the most useless of cars, the mini-SUVs and coupe styled SUVs. Neither has any sport or utility so are just wrong and useless.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Right on cue here's another collosal piece of unecessary vulgarity on wheels:

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/suv...aybach-gls-600

That looks like a Chinese knock off of something ugly.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I'm with Harris on this. People only want SUVs as that's what the marketing people have pushed at them, once one person has one there's an element of "keeping up with the Joneses". SUVs make no sense - bigger, heavier, slower, less economical, worse braking, worse handling than a hatchback or estate along with a bigger environmental footprint. I can't see an 'up' side to these things.

If the marketing types and "trendsetters" decide hatchbacks are the way to go then everyone will ditch the SUVs.

You missed out that they are also all pig-ugly!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by E.B

That looks like a Chinese knock off of something ugly.

Snap!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Well yes, it is purely marketing and InstFaceChat sheeple. But hasn't that been every car, clothing, electronic, housing, etc for all of time? It's not like it's a car specific thing, NO ONE could have ever thought any 70s fashion was good. It was supposed to be cool so you had to or be thought stupid until it was all that was left.

And most of the SUVs replace cars with the same or close to the same characteristics for the average driver. Fuel economy numbers are pretty close for a car with the same seating area, weights aren't much different across most of the cross platform car/suv/van models when comparing like built cars (you can't compare the stripped out car to the luxury SUV version), and handling-wise many aren't outside of the average drivers range (track and announced times are irrelevant on the actual roads) between the SUV to car. And the amount of crap people are almost forced to carry around the minute they have a kid, and car seats bigger and stronger than the Apollo capsule, means the tiny and often inaccessible build style of a trunk means the car is out for most. And most SUVs built now are an estate with bigger wheels, it's a car chassis with a hatch at the rear. And yes, I'm purposefully excluding the most useless of cars, the mini-SUVs and coupe styled SUVs. Neither has any sport or utility so are just wrong and useless.

Agree entirely with the majority of what is written here.

Entry level Mondeo - 167g/km, 458/1356L boot, £21,495

Entry level Kuga - 164g/km, 406/1603L boot, £23,375

So, in summary, the hatchback is a little bit cheaper, and has a slightly bigger boot, but is less fuel efficient and has less practicality when carrying bulky items.

[chillibowl]

is it really about functionality though? if space for the family and their weekly grocery trip was the primary need then shouldnt minivans be the primary option?

for a variety of reasons, car manus are very slow to react to public trends and arguably SUV's are about 10 yeas behind where consumers needs are today imo.

the era of big box stores and retail shopping is coming to an end. people buy online now. family sizes continue to shrink. parking is expensive as is insurance and gas and roads are over crowded...surely the modern customer/next gen customer is more inclined to buy smaller, lighter, cheaper, electric...but those option dont exists in a large enough quantities yet.

in 10 years they will though and then car manus will be responding to a need that existed 10 years ago...much as they are currently doing with SUV's imo.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

surely the modern customer/next gen customer is more inclined to buy smaller, lighter, cheaper, electric...but those option dont exists in a large enough quantities yet.

There are options in that market though. If that is what the current customer was purchasing, the range of options would increase.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Agree entirely with the majority of what is written here.

Entry level Mondeo - 167g/km, 458/1356L boot, £21,495

Entry level Kuga - 164g/km, 406/1603L boot, £23,375

So, in summary, the hatchback is a little bit cheaper, and has a slightly bigger boot, but is less fuel efficient and has less practicality when carrying bulky items.

Kuga is more Focus sized in terms of interior - that's another problem - big on the outside small on the inside. Interesting (although ott) article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...rom-our-cities

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Kuga is more Focus sized in terms of interior - that's another problem - big on the outside small on the inside. Interesting (although ott) article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...rom-our-cities

That may have been the case on the older models, but it has grown inside now to be more mondeo sized than Focus...

https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/ford/kuga/suv/practicality

'The Ford Kuga has been stretched to offer more passenger space and a bigger boot

There’s plenty of space inside the Ford Kuga for five occupants and their luggage,'

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Well yes, it is purely marketing and InstFaceChat sheeple. But hasn't that been every car, clothing, electronic, housing, etc for all of time? It's not like it's a car specific thing, NO ONE could have ever thought any 70s fashion was good. It was supposed to be cool so you had to or be thought stupid until it was all that was left.

And most of the SUVs replace cars with the same or close to the same characteristics for the average driver. Fuel economy numbers are pretty close for a car with the same seating area, weights aren't much different across most of the cross platform car/suv/van models when comparing like built cars (you can't compare the stripped out car to the luxury SUV version), and handling-wise many aren't outside of the average drivers range (track and announced times are irrelevant on the actual roads) between the SUV to car. And the amount of crap people are almost forced to carry around the minute they have a kid, and car seats bigger and stronger than the Apollo capsule, means the tiny and often inaccessible build style of a trunk means the car is out for most. And most SUVs built now are an estate with bigger wheels, it's a car chassis with a hatch at the rear. And yes, I'm purposefully excluding the most useless of cars, the mini-SUVs and coupe styled SUVs. Neither has any sport or utility so are just wrong and useless.

Exactly.

Bottom line: SUVs sell well. If you build a good one, people will buy it. So they absolutely don't feel bad or silly building SUVs, because they fly out the showroom.

There's good reason Nissan don't even sell 4 door saloons (sedans) in the UK (or, AFAIK, the rest of Europe). They didn't sell. Now it's hatchbacks, sportscars and SUVs.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Exactly.

Bottom line: SUVs sell well. If you build a good one, people will buy it. So they absolutely don't feel bad or silly building SUVs, because they fly out the showroom.

There's good reason Nissan don't even sell 4 door saloons (sedans) in the UK (or, AFAIK, the rest of Europe). They didn't sell. Now it's hatchbacks, sportscars and SUVs.

I'm not disputing the fact that they sell well - I just don't understand why - they don't do anything better than a hatch or an estate and they do lots of things worse.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I'm not disputing the fact that they sell well - I just don't understand why - they don't do anything better than a hatch or an estate and they do lots of things worse.

Which things do they do worse? Fuel milage now is a wash, which is impressive.

SUVs tend to beat a hatch on cargo space and seating capacity. Certainly my mother in-laws SEAT SUV thing has a usable middle seat, whilst my Fiestas middle seat is more a padded area to place things. The SEAT thing also has far better visibility than my Fiesta has. It certainly felt like I could see more. The way you entered the vehicle was interesting too. The mother in law struggles to step into my Fiesta passenger seat because it's too low for her hips and back to cope with. Mines just a standard 63 plate Fiesta, it isn't low, but she really didn't cope with it. However she steps into the SEAT as it's at a height that doesn't require bending. So in terms of accessibility for those with hip and back pain, it is much much better. In terms of load space, there are plenty of examples of SUVs with bad boots (trunks!), but hers certainly beat my Fiesta. It had more height than mine did, although that will of course lose out to an estate car - that'll win every time.

I can't think of much my Fiesta does better than the SEAT thing. Maybe handling, but people buying SUVs aren't buying it for the time it set from Bridge to Gantry.

If you don't like them and don't understand them then that's totally cool. Each to their own. But what Chris Harris said was -

Do any of these car companies realise how f**king ridiculous they look unveiling more massive, pointless SUVs?

I don't think he realises how f**king ridiculous he looks not understanding basic economics. And maybe understanding that just because we all love V8 engines and amazing cars, that most of the world doesn't care. Granny just wants to be able to get in and out of her car. She doesn't know what she drives. But it's beige and is the right height for her, and holds her shopping. It doesn't look ridiculous. It looks smart. It isn't pointless - it will sell.

And then Harris tops off his stupidity with -

To answer the SUV supporters - the world is out to vilify and kill the internal combustion engined motor car, and the car companies are giving all the haters the perfect justification to hate them.

Not sure what this has to do with the ICE. I'm disappointed. I like Harris. But he's being a tool here.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Which things do they do worse? Fuel milage now is a wash, which is impressive.

Basic physics means they're going to be worse on fuel usage, acceleration and braking. If they have same engine then with the extra weight and more drag then they're going to lose out. "official figures" mean nothing in the real world (just ask Vw )

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

SUVs tend to beat a hatch on cargo space and seating capacity.

They beat a hatch but the estate is usually similar if not better than the equivalent price SUV on carge space.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Certainly my mother in-laws SEAT SUV thing has a usable middle seat, whilst my Fiestas middle seat is more a padded area to place things.

I've found the Kuga to be no better for interior space than a Focus so I guess it's a model by model thing (you can barely get anyone in the back of our MINI if they've got legs).

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The SEAT thing also has far better visibility than my Fiesta has. It certainly felt like I could see more.

I find that it feels like I'm sat on top of the bloody thing rather than in it, visibilty is only worse in the hatch/estate if someone in front of you is in a bloody SUV blocking out the sun

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The way you entered the vehicle was interesting too. The mother in law struggles to step into my Fiesta passenger seat because it's too low for her hips and back to cope with.

That is the one thing I can see is better on SUVs - easier for old people to get in and out of (hence the old Ford Fusion thing that was essentially just a tall Fiesta and only came in beige with wipe clean seats).

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

If you don't like them and don't understand them then that's totally cool. Each to their own.

Very much this - market forces suggest I'm in the minority here.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

But what Chris Harris said was -

Do any of these car companies realise how f**king ridiculous they look unveiling more massive, pointless SUVs?

I don't think he realises how f**king ridiculous he looks not understanding basic economics.

I'm not sure that's the angle he's going for - I saw that more of a "as people start banging the environmental message more and more releasing big resource hungry vehicles seems out of step with the zeitgeist"

Which then leads into his second comment:

To answer the SUV supporters - the world is out to vilify and kill the internal combustion engined motor car, and the car companies are giving all the haters the perfect justification to hate them.