QOTD: Worst Standard SUV Design of the 2010s?

Corey Lewis
by Corey Lewis
qotd worst standard suv design of the 2010s

Last Wednesday we pondered the best exterior styling found on SUVs and CUVs of the 2010s. This week, flip the question and consider the visually challenged rides of the past decade instead.

If I recall those distant 2010s correctly, there are plenty of designs upon which one might spill some Haterade.

First, a few guidelines. Like last week, we’re living by an affordability principle. All selections offered up today must cost less than $48,000 as new. That figure automatically rules out any one-offs or custom builds seen in random Internet places. Included for consideration are SUVs and CUVs of all shapes and sizes. And though some of you complained, there simply isn’t a large enough selection of SUVs to consider them in their own category. Sad! Finally, since we’re considering a single decade, all your picks must be of model years 2010 to 2019.

It took me a minute to scan my memories and decide on a singular worst-looking design for this category. A couple “maybe” choices were passed over once I’d recalled this abomination:

Part Accord, Part Outback, and not related to the similar-looking Acura ZDX, the Accord Crosstour is my selection for an awful CUV design. It debuted for the 2010 model year, playing the size-down alternative to the Pilot (really?). Considered a part of Honda’s SUV lineup, it had two rows of seats, a hatch, and a sort-of cargo area that bridged what you’d find in an Accord sedan and a CR-V.

Known as Accord Crosstour for the first two model years, Honda decided it didn’t want to associate it with its successful sedan any longer and renamed it simply Crosstour in 2012. It was available with front- or all-wheel drive, and with a 2.4-liter I4 (front-drive only) or the more-often-selected 3.5-liter V6. It was refreshed in 2013 (seen above) to look less Accordy and more Outbacky, suiting its mission.

Crosstour’s primary competition was the equally out-of-place Toyota Venza, and it died in much the same way: through slow sales. Crosstour’s strongest year was 2010, when sales nearly reached 29,000. By 2015 Honda shifted just over 9,000 of them. It was cancelled that year, but some Crosstours lingered on, unsold. There were 726 sold in 2016, and five more in 2017.

The Crosstour lacked purpose in Honda’s lineup, and in its design. Customers saw it, too, and instead chose one of the many other options available in the Honda family. It is undoubtedly one of the worst CUV designs of the 2010s.

What’s your pick?

[Images: GM, Honda]

Join the conversation
2 of 70 comments
  • MartyToo MartyToo on Apr 16, 2020

    The crusher is more likely than a trade-in. Else they would be seen on the road.

  • DownUnder2014 DownUnder2014 on Apr 18, 2020

    Ah, the 2010s. If you count ones sold in the 2010s in Australia: - BMW X6 (and anything similar) - Dodge Caliber - Jeep Compass (especially pre-facelift) - Mercedes-Benz ML (2G and 3G pre-facelift too) - Ssangyong Actyon (WTF is that rear) - Ssangyong Kyron - Subaru B9 Tribeca (the facelifts were far better) Dishonourable mentions: - Holden Captiva (pre-facelifts have ugly rears) - More recent Lexus CUVs/SUVs - Nissan Murano (the first gen has aged awfully, the second gen is slightly better) Ones that are generally okay but have a few odd styling elements (to me) - Porsche Cayenne (1G, just the front (a little bit)) - Ssangyong Rexton (1G, not ugly per se but just not a fan) - Volkswagen Tiguan (pre-facelift, just not a big fan of the rear)

  • BEPLA My own theory/question on the Mark VI:Had Lincoln used the longer sedan wheelbase on the coupe - by leaning the windshield back and pushing the dashboard & steering wheel rearward a bit - not built a sedan - and engineered the car for frameless side windows (those framed windows are clunky, look cheap, and add too many vertical lines in comparison to the previous Marks) - Would the VI have remained an attractive, aspirational object of desire?
  • VoGhost Another ICEbox? Pass. Where are you going to fill your oil addiction when all the gas stations disappear for lack of demand? I want a pickup that I can actually use for a few decades.
  • Art Vandelay Best? PCH from Ventura to somewhere near Lompoc. Most Famous? Route Irish
  • GT Ross The black wheel fad cannot die soon enough for me.
  • Brett Woods My 4-Runner had a manual with the 4-cylinder. It was acceptable but not really fun. I have thought before that auto with a six cylinder would have been smoother, more comfortable, and need less maintenance. Ditto my 4 banger manual Japanese pick-up. Nowhere near as nice as a GM with auto and six cylinders that I tried a bit later. Drove with a U.S. buddy who got one of the first C8s. He said he didn't even consider a manual. There was an article about how fewer than ten percent of buyers optioned a manual in the U.S. when they were available. Visited my English cousin who lived in a hilly suburb and she had a manual Range Rover and said she never even considered an automatic. That's culture for you.  Miata, Boxster, Mustang, Corvette and Camaro; I only want manual but I can see both sides of the argument for a Mustang, Camaro or Challenger. Once you get past a certain size and weight, cruising with automatic is a better dynamic. A dual clutch automatic is smoother, faster, probably more reliable, and still allows you to select and hold a gear. When you get these vehicles with a high performance envelope, dual-clutch automatic is what brings home the numbers.