Are these compact SUVs or raised hatchbacks that bad?

Ayy good luck driving in reverse

What the fuck are modern car designers thinking

Are all SUVs for women or just the midsize and smaller ones?
Like 4Runner and Landcruiser are SUVs that men would pick over something like a CRV or Rav 4 right?

safety standards
Nearly all cars come with back up cameras today which is kinda cool

That'd my pick if I want a reliable, fun to drive urban get-goer.

There really aren't any pros to the CUVs.
They're jacks of all trades but masters of none.
The aren't as good as the sedans and hatchbacks they're based on because they're too high to handle decently. The higher ride height increases the chances of a rollover accident in an emergency maneuver. People may say the increased ride height makes them better off road, but this has been disproven many many times.

The extra weight means they're slower and less fuel efficient than the cars they're based on as well.
And very few of them have actual useable AWD systems. Most of them are FWD 99% of the time and only send power to the back when they sense slip at one of the front wheels. And sometimes, not even then (see Honda CR-V and HR-V)
nd they usually don't hold much more than a normal hatchback.

Actual SUVs like the 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, LandCruiser, Tahoe, Escalade, and Suburban are all actually decent. They're not raised hatchbacks tailored to women. They're all based on actual trucks. They're good off road, have much more cargo and people space than the trucks they're based on, and they generally are safer than the trucks they're based on. They still have a good chance at rolling over due to ride height, and the fuel economy is still shit, but there aren't anywhere near as many compromises.

see:

Look in the engine bay.

If the engine is pointing to the side, then it's shit.

If the engine is pointing towards you, then it's probably good.

This really only applies to Trucks and SUVs right?
Most econoboxes like mazda 3 or civic have transverse engines tho
Seriously thinking of the Mazda 3 hatch now since its cheap and you can get manual

>This really only applies to Trucks and SUVs right?
correct.

For a daily driver shitbox, a car with a transverse, FWD engine is perfectly fine.

>LandCruiser
Pretty sure that's not based on a truck. Still body-on-frame, though.

There's also the Wrangler, body-on-frame but not truck based. Range Rovers, Grand Cherokees (and older Cherokees XJ), Touaregs and the like are unibody but they're still pretty decent off-road and are no-compromise SUVs.

In general I'd say the thing to look for to get a decent SUV is the existence of a selectable center differential and either live-axle suspension or some form of diff-locking (all around real diff-locks is best, but even modern brake-lock systems do a decent job on a car designed to go off-road) to compensate for lack of travel.

>Pretty sure that's not based on a truck
Actually I take that back. I thought you meant that the Land Cruiser had a straight up truck equivalent like the Tahoe, the Expedition, the Sequoia or the Armada, but not that I think about it, the frame on the Land Cruiser is still Tundra-ish.

The rest of my post stands, though.

So, pretty much ITT;
>that small SUV you want for city driving is crap because it's not an offroading truck
Veeky Forums ladies and gentlemen.

>Wanting a small SUV for city driving when the small hatchback it's based on is better in every way for city life
Retards, ladies and gentlemen.

...

Apart from the whole upright space, sure. Keep driving your Civic thinking it's a race car famalam.

Get a manual fwd HRV m8

no one said a Civic was a racecar. It's objectively better in every way for practical everyday driving though.

please explain how a base manual HR-V is better than a manual Fit which it's based on.

This, unlike most crossovers the Volvo XCs actually have more ground clearance than their regular couterparts.

>It's objectively better in every way for practical everyday driving though
Not when you're putting stuff in and out, and kids in car seats. The height is a huge ergonomic advantage, but one that's an advantage not easily benchraced by the armchair car reviewers here.

I test drove the HR-V and the manual was certainly fun, but after that there were no pros. The front seats are uncomfortable, with the seat adjusted all the way down my head was still pressing against the top, with no sunroof. Back seats were just as bad.

I was not impressed, I did try out the Scion iM and that was a fun cheap car, the engine did feel under powered.

Get a hatchback not the small gimmicky CUVs, they are a scam with no advantage

>I like CUVs so you're all retarded for bringing up legitimate complaints about them
fuck off retard

>my father praising the HR-V non stop
>tell him it has the same engine as a Fit
>put a stop to that shit for good

The HR-V uses the 1.8L R-series from a base model Civic. The Fit uses a 1.5L L-series engine

But close enough. The extra weight of the HR-V offsets any horsepower advantage it has over a normal Fit.

Oh, my bad. I wasn't aware there was a variant with the Civic engine. Here in Singapoor the Honda official dealers offer the HR-V only with the 1.5 L series. There are loads of parallel imports from Japan of the Vezel, which is more popular (I believe due to better trim level in the cabin) but only of the 1.5.

In Amerifat, it's 1.8L only, but fair enough. As an American, I didn't even know it came with the L-series. Pic related. The R18 engine in an American HR-V.

if you absolute must get a CUV get a nismo juke, you can make 250 hp with just a tune

too bad it looks like dogshit

Not sure about this one but the smallest Jeep is supposedly a great off-road option for its class If you get the trail hawk or whatever it is called. Still has tiny wheels and no ground clearance but its kawi as fuck

youtube.com/watch?v=kyJV8Q58Vlc

Receives a rating of Poor, lowest crash test score.

>Murican cars other than trucks
>any year

>>I don't like CUVs so you're all retarded for bringing up legitimate pros about them
Right back at ya, retard.

They're potentially more spacious because of the vertical seating positions (not true in the CX-3's case). AWD is an option not available in their equivalent normal cars.

But for the same price you're getting a chassis one class down. The HR-V is a raised fit and the CX-3 is a raised Mazda2. You won't get the same refinement as you will in a Civic or Mazda3. And being higher up is simply less fun to drive.

The CX-3 drives well but is small inside - not practical. The HR-V is impressively practical but really, really drab for the driver. The Mazda3 is better but has a fair amount of road noise on rough surfaces. The Golf is quiet, a little less sport, has a bigger backseat, but a very short hatch space. The Focus is an older design, terribly interior. Scion iM a little on the cheap side.

The Civic 5-door will probably be better than all of those (except less fun than the Mazda3), but it's not out until the end of summer.