Sport Utility Vehicle
Compact Utility Vehicle
Sport Activity Vehicle
Crossover

Did I miss any? I'm just tired of this nomenclature game. To me they are all the same, some more "sporty" than others. What's with the alphabet soup classification?

FYI: on our insurance forms my wife's Tribute is listed as a "Wagon".

 

Yea way too many names but I think some of them are built on truck platforms and some on car platforms. Maybe that's the difference?

 

The SAV term is a BMW thing.
Crossover typically refers to car based SUVs (i.e.: Odyssey based MDX/Pilot, Altima based Murano, Infinti G based FX, etc.)
Compact Utility Vehicle is usually (but not always) a subsegment within the Crossover category
SUV pretty much encompasses all of the above PLUS truck based vehicles like the Sequoia and Pathfinder.

As for the insurance reference, my Quest is classified as a wagon and my MDX a '4x4 utility' by Amica.

 

I find it annoying as well.

 

that's because many people don't want to get a vehicle called a wagon or a minivan anymore, and then there are those who don't want to buy an SUV because of the stigma. So carmakers come up with semi-clever names to trick the sheep into buying minivans with additional ground clearance and SUVs with lower ground clearance that are named and styled differently.

by far the most retarded nomenclature for a car is the four-door "coupe"

 

Definitely a strange category name for otherwise sexy sedans (i.e.: MB CLS and VW CC).

 

yeah. I guess their marketing department got lazy, but I really like the CLS and CC stying-wise.

 

I don't have as much of a problem with the names of these "categories" of vehicles as much as I do with the naming of the vehicles themselves! ZDX, CLS, IS, ES, LS, TSX, RDX, CHIT....
...give them NAMES got-dammit! (one of my favs...Acura LEGEND)

 

Only term that matters: not a wagon

 

You forgot "cute-ute"...... That is the real name for these suck-mobiles...It's for those so insecure that they can't bear to buy a wagon. Nothing like rolling up behind one of these and seeing that the rear differential is "missing"....

 

I generally agree.

Caveat: While not exactly a Jeep SRT8, the RAV4 V6 does bring the goods in terms of acceleration....if nothing else.

 

marketing.

 

Crossovers sacrifice a little bit of handling stability for a little bit of interior room vs. a wagon. Simple trade-off that people are willing to make. The more upright seating position possible with a crossover gives you more effective legroom. And they are easier to throw kids in and out of. The smaller ones are easier to drive around town than a minivan, which you don't really need with one or two kids. It really is that simple. They have superior packaging to a wagon if you want more space in the same footprint.

Our crossovers (we have two) have rear differentials. I drove a wagon (2004 WRX), and an ugly one at that, so it has nothing to do with "image" or "marketing". Crossovers are more practical than wagons. They are easier to get in and out of and to put cargo into.

 

I'll buy that as a sensible argument. But it's valid as long as you get AWD. If not, a minivan will provide more room and do everything the FWD crossover can do.

 

I think I prefer the more car-like handling (when compared to a crossover or especially an SUV) of say, a Sienna or Odyssey. Plus you can get the Sienna in AWD, and its roomier (IIRC) and easier to get in/out of than say, a Pilot or Highlander. and more comfortable, and.....

I wouldn't care about looking like a soccer dad... though when it gets to that point it'd probably be convincing the wifey that's the hard part.

 

My sister just bought a Subaru Forester and I believe the registration papers call it a wagon, too. I find it funny she went for the Subie...she's not a tree-hugging liberal. We did get the invite to attend Birkenstocks Anonymous '10, though.

 

You mean she didn't get the optional Kerry-Edwards, Obama, COEXIST stickers which are supposed to adorn the rear bumper of said vehicle.

 

Oh so true, Ford did a extensive marketing survey in the early 90's when the 4 door Explorers were becoming big sellers and were seeking ways to further expand the market.

IIRC, one of the lessons learned was most family buyers deplored station wagons. Conclusion was it possibly made them think they were repeating their parents owning a wagon in the 60's/70's.

 

I am pretty certain our RDX and Forester XT handle better than any minivan on the market. And they are certainly easier to park. We wanted more space, but not too much more. They are a nice balance. We did not see the point of a third row for a family of four, and most of our traveling is by air so we didn't need huge cargo space. The crossovers we chose are a nice balance. It just works for us. I can see others making another choice. I am thinking my next vehicle will be a sedan since the kids are getting the point of self sufficiency getting in and out of the car. We will still keep a crossover type of vehicle around for longer trips.

 

So what does a slightly conservative drive?

And I don't have any stickers on my Subie..........

 

Yup. Of course, few people drive their cars to the train station anymore which is where the station part of station wagon came from.

 

I'm amazed they aren't factory equipment.

A Honda?

 

Cliff Notes: People are idiots.

I can see the merits of a minivan (which are apparently just as repugnant to men as station wagons are to women) and possibly a crossover.

But I prefer a wagon. And I hate to break it to everyone but cars like the Mazda3 are station wagons, not hatchbacks

Golf GTI 2-door = Hatch
Golf GTI 4-door = Wagon

 

I agree with you 100% on people being idiots but that explains car companies calling the little wagons hatchbacks. If they called it the Mazda3 Wagon people immediately think of this and it wouldn't sell.

 

Isn't that the Family Truckster?

 

Honestly, I don't know why people are so anti-wagon.

It goes way beyond space though, doesn't it ... "I have two kids and a dog and I work a job I hate in middle management but don't try to make me drive something that reminds me of my parents ... Even though I'm now like them in every single fucking way"

 

Yes...I figured it would get the point across.

Seriously. People are all about appearances; they pretend to be happy and pretend to like a job they despise but don't make them drive a car that makes them look like their parents. Only when you present them with that risk of being seen that way do they realize just how much they care about how much other people think. Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

My friend has a 2002 Audi Allroad 2.7T 6-speed and the day he bought it in '07, my sister's friend said, "Does it come with a wife and two kids?" I gave him a really dirty look and said, "If you drove it, you wouldn't be saying that." I love driving that car...you can blow off almost anything at lights with it.

 

I'd be inclined to believe you. The RDX (SH-AWD especially) and Forester are both marketed with a sportier image than most CUVs/crossovers and I would be surprised if a minivan, even a Sienna AWD handled better than them, being that the Sienna is longer and heavier. But if you compared apples to apples, a Sienna AWD compared to an AWD body-on-frame SUV with similar weight/dimensions, for instance, say, a 4Runner, I'm confident the Sienna would be easier to drive and maneuver. I've driven my uncle's Odyssey several times and my friend's Sienna AWD a couple times and I preferred them over midsize SUVs

I'm glad you're happy with your vehicles, I have nothing against crossovers or SUVs. Its just the main reason I'd get such a vehicle (to carry up to 7-passengers) is for increased cargo room and extra passenger capacity, and I feel that minivans do the same job as SUVs, but with fewer drawbacks. However if I wanted to tow something massive and bring people along too, I'd definitely get an SUV with a V8. They have different segments for a reason - because people have different needs.

 

I agree. I would have to need to tow something to buy a body on frame true SUV. I would definitely get a van over a big SUV if we had the third kid and needed the seat room. The access to the third row just sucks too bad in non-van three row vehicles to be worth it.

In a way, the smaller cross-overs are kind of like two row minivans--car like handling with increased headroom and leg room over a wagon (again, at the expense of some amount of handling).