Opinion: Maybe Crossovers Aren't So Bad, After All?
Maybe it’s just automotive Stockholm Syndrome, but after 15 years of testing vehicles, a huge percentage of which have been crossover SUVs, I’m ready to say it: Crossovers aren’t so bad.
Yeah, I know, you’re going to ask me to blink twice if I am OK, but hear me out.
First of all, I still remain a fan of rip-roaring sports cars, but let’s face it – even during boom times, sports cars are a small part of the market.
Second, I remain a steadfast sedan man. I am NOT, to be clear, suggesting I’ve abandoned that position. I still find that sedans, particularly mid-sizers, can get the job done for many drivers and their families.
Nor am I arguing here that crossovers are better than wagons (few of which remain), minivans, or body-on-frame SUVs. It would be a fool’s errand to try to argue what segment of vehicles is the “best”.
I am merely saying that for all the crap that we enthusiasts and auto journalists fling at crossovers, maybe only a small bit of it is actually justified?
Again, I get the arguments that wagons and minivans can do utility better than crossovers and that crossovers only exist because, for people of certain ages (particularly older Millennials and most, if not all, of Gen X), wagons and minivans get unfairly written off as deeply uncool. And you know what? I am not going to argue that crossovers are “better” when it comes to utility, driving dynamics, or even fuel economy. Generally speaking, they aren’t.
But I am starting to understand the appeal. Most crossovers DO look better than most minivans, and while some wagons are sexy AF (looking at you, Jaguar XF Sportbrake), most aren’t going to make me look at them the way Homer Simpson looks at a pork chop.
Fuel economy, or at least range if not mpg, is generally acceptable. I’ve given up hope when it comes to sporty driving – few crossovers do it well, and even fewer do it well without costing way too much – but most ride well enough. Most are comfortable, and most handle cargo just fine. I can see why people who have what marketers call “active lifestyles” and/or people who cart around a plethora of passengers and/or pets like them.
Crossovers just simply offer a jack-of-all-trades balance, and some manage to even look reasonably stylish. Minivans don’t often look cool (with apologies to our resident van fan, Matt P.), and while wagons can turn heads, too many don’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I mourn the dwindling of the mid-size sedan as much as anyone, and I believe that sedans can do more in terms of cargo and passenger hauling than most folks realize. I still believe mid-sizers have a place in the world, and unless practicality forces my hand, my next daily will almost certainly be a sporty sedan of the compact or mid-size class.
I still won’t argue that crossovers are the best choice for most buyers. But if we’re going to be stuck living in a crossover world, well, it could be far worse.
[Image: Lincoln]
Tim Healey grew up around the auto-parts business and has always had a love for cars — his parents joke his first word was “‘Vette”. Despite this, he wanted to pursue a career in sports writing but he ended up falling semi-accidentally into the automotive-journalism industry, first at Consumer Guide Automotive and later at Web2Carz.com. He also worked as an industry analyst at Mintel Group and freelanced for About.com, CarFax, Vehix.com, High Gear Media, Torque News, FutureCar.com, Cars.com, among others, and of course Vertical Scope sites such as AutoGuide.com, Off-Road.com, and HybridCars.com. He’s an urbanite and as such, doesn’t need a daily driver, but if he had one, it would be compact, sporty, and have a manual transmission.
More by Tim Healey
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- George How Could the old car have any connection with the new car as performance and wheel size?
- ToolGuy Spouse drives 3 miles one-way to work 5 days a week. Would love to have a cheap (used) little zippy EV, but also takes the occasional 200 mile one-way trip. 30 miles a week doesn't burn a lot of fuel, so the math doesn't work. ICE for now, and the 'new' (used) ICE gets worse fuel economy than the vehicle it will replace (oh no!). [It will also go on some longer trips and should be a good long-distance cruiser.] Several years from now there will (should) be many (used) EVs which will crush the short-commute-plus-medium-road-trip role (at the right acquisition cost). Spouse can be done with gasoline, I can be done with head gaskets, and why would I possibly consider hybrid or PHEV at that point.
- FreedMike The test of a good design is whether it still looks good years down the line. And Sacco's stuff - particularly the W124 - still looks clean, elegant, and stylish, like a well tailored business suit.
- Jeff Corey thank you for another great article and a great tribute to Bruno Sacco.
- 1995 SC They cost more while not doing anything ICE can't already do
Comments
Join the conversation
"and most, if not all, of Gen X" Speak for yourself sir, we may be old now but we're not lame... Hatchbacks are nice in a pinch, but they are fundamentally small unpretentious wagons. A coupe or reasonable sized sedan is nice for people hauling and the driving experience. An SUV should be the big stonkin' truck people won't be able to afford to drive soon, but it has a place. The crossover has no place, it is an aberration which has no real point to exist.
Crossovers are the ideal vehicle. Anything else is crippled one way or another. If you are an auto journalist, all you care about is how fast it goes, but nobody else cares about that.