Truckin Blog - Crossovers

Mark Halvorsen, Staff Editor
Tuesday, January 24, 2006

I just recently visited the Detroit and Los Angeles auto shows, and I'll be heading to the Chicago auto show soon enough. There's a lot of movement in the auto industry away from larger, body-on-frame SUVs toward crossovers. But what the heck is a crossover?

Just a couple of years ago, a crossover was a compact SUV that offered more cargo and passenger capacity than a car, had a taller stance, and some styling cues that said, "Hey, I'm outdoorsy," in the same way a mechanical bull in a honky-tonk bar says, "Howdy, I'm a bovine." Now they are all crossovers.

The problem with the word "crossover" is that it's suggestive instead of edifying. It's like saying something is "challenging" when it really and truly is a "pain in the ass." That said, I find the crossover label challenging, indeed. And here's why. "Crossover" gets the point across in a vague sense, but the fact that it refers to a vehicle that is both car and SUV, like the Ford Escape or Toyota Rav4, is not obvious.

What makes more sense to you, that the tall woman with the large Adam's apple who is sitting at the other end of the bar is a cross-dresser or a dude-wearing-a-dress? Which reference would you have preferred that your buddies used before you asked for her/his phone number? And if you were shopping for a new people/cargo mover, how useful would the word "crossover" be to you?

I used to be an avid hiker and climber until I became a couch enthusiast. But back in the day I would examine the strength of a climbing rope with great and necessary interest. I bought one that is constructed to easily withstand the force of 10 screaming climbers accelerating towards the ground at an unforgiving rate of 9.8 meters per second. Now I use this incredibly engineered piece of equipment to hang my wet laundry. In the same way, today's SUV buyers may not need an SUV that can cross the Rubicon Trail, so much as something that can overcome potholes without spilling the driver's latte.

Should the crossover be, then, a whole new class of vehicle derived but distinct from the SUV? A segment that acknowledges what it is that most people use their SUVs for: hauling people and groceries? And what about the Honda Ridgeline, a unibody pickup built for both the shop and for shopping? Or is the crossover an unacceptable abandonment of the manly body-on-frame utility of the Explorer, Suburban, and their burly brethren?

Share your thoughts with us! Write to Mark at mark.halvorsen@primedia.com. Do you think we're right on, or that we're full of it? Either way, we want to know! If you make a good point, we'll post your message on the blog!Please give your first name, last initial and hometown. Example: "Joe W., Indianapolis, Indiana"

Edward A. Sanchez, Senior Online Editor
Wednesday, January 25, 2006

I think the rise of the term "crossover" is an attempt by the OEs to de-stigmatize the SUV segment. Behemoths like the Excursion and Hummer H2 gave SUVs a black eye in the eyes of the greenies and a significant portion of the general public. But the buying public is still loathe to give up the practicality and room of SUVs. So they figured "how can we make consumers feel all warm and fuzzy about their purchase, while giving them the attributes they want?" Hence, the term crossover.

In a similar vein, Mercedes-Benz steadfastly refuses to call their new R-class a minivan. No, it's a "Grand Sport Tourer". Looks like a blinged-out Chrysler Pacifica to me, itself a minivan derivative. There's no questioning the space efficiency of the basic minivan design. By SUV standards, the R-class is quite roomy, but my minivan standards, a little snug. Yet at more than 200 inches long, it rivals full-size SUVs for bulk.

I'm a wagon nut myself. Cost no object, I think the E 55 AMG wagon is one of the baddest rides out there, hands down. The idea of a wagon doing 0-60 in almost 4 seconds flat is freakin' cool. A little closer to reality is the Magnum SRT8, but still a stretch. Again, Dodge called the Magnum anything but a wagon when it came out. "Sport Tourer" is the term they coined. As opposed to "Grand Sport Tourer"? So, let me get this straight. Is "grand" now a euphemism for "bigger" or "luxurious & expensive"? Because both describe the difference between the R-class and the Magnum. But the OEs think the public associates "wagon" with the proverbial Wagon Queen Family Truckster adorned with vinyl woodgrain and liberal amounts of gaudy chrome. Wagon=uncool. Personally, I think they should give customers more credit and stop trying to patronize them with new-speak marketing lingo to describe new vehicles. Call the Magnum a "sportwagon" if you want. At least it's more descriptive.

Write Edward at edward.sanchez@primedia.com. What do you think of the explosion of new SUV derivatives and the names used to describe them?