If the market has shifted to SUV's where are they?

[AussieCJ7]

So the press continues to stay families dont want to buy sedan's and want to buy SUV's.

Looking to update a territory Turbo Ghia so when I do a quick scan of the market,

1. remove $70K plus vehicles
2. 7 seats
3. Has real 3 seats across the back for a family of 5
4. capable of a family of 5 doing comfortable long distance (2000K +) trips


The choices are remarkably slim
1. Toyota Kluga - higher priced on feature for feature comparison, drive train is getting pretty dated and has the driver engagement of watching paint dry
2. Mazda CX9 heavy on fuel, dated drive line
3. Ford territory best in class on space and long distance comfort but engine choice is lacking on performance and the total package is dated
4. Kia/Hyundai at best 2.5 seats across the back so fails on space of a family of 5
5. Izuzu MUX/Holden Colorado off road capability but based on truck platform gives more 4x4 comfort than SUV. still pretty narrow across back seat
6. Nissan Pathfinder. dated drive train poor fuel economy


So if the market is really gone this way why are manufactures not jumping over them selves to deliver vehicle's with SS commodore/XR8 style performance and space in SUV format ?

[sprintman1]

MU-X auto fitted with an on road spring/shock package or decent shocks at least. Reliability and fuel efficiency.

[Franco Cozzo]

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

I think its because you can do more with an SUV or ute. I drive a 4wd now after driving Falcons. I can go off road, carry almost anything due to the space inside, have enough room for up to 7 people, tow better etc. Performance is good enough and you cant go over the speed limit anyway these days.

Its more of a lifestyle thing. Smaller SUVs lose some of the size but have more useable space than a sedan. All modern cars handle pretty well these days for normal street duty.

Most of my friends drive 4wd utes now. They are always regularly 4wding, camping, fishing or carrying something around. Also its not often people drive around with 5 fat guys

[something wrong]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

We like them for a few reasons

1. With a ute i can throw the kids bikes, wet sports gear, Surfboards, the dog (If we had one) ect in the back and only wash it out with a hose.

2. Sit up higher, (Mainly cause everyone has a 4wd or Hilux, So sitting in my commodore i cannot see round them)

3. Towing, i can tow pretty much anything at anytime, no matter the surface.

4. Friend have 300 acres near Goulburn, so we can hang out down there and not worry about bottoming out or having to leave the car at the front gate and getting them to pick me & kids up

5. My SV6 commodore is so low (Factory not changed) that the front bar is all scuffed from the parking stoppers in shopping centers.

6. A good trip to bunnings and i can put in timber , cement and anything else in the back and the roof racks and roll bar allow good size lengths.

7. Speed humps and roundabouts are optional, unlike my commodore where they slow me right down.

[HULK_I6T]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

depends what you want in a car.

SUV is a far more versatile vehicle, long trips with 5 people, no problem

short trips with 1 person, no problem

Need to move some furniture, no problem

Sedans are also great, generally go a bit quicker, handle a bit better (all things equal), more fuel efficient, but are limited in what they can do.

thats why families buy SUVs.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

depends what you want in a car.

SUV is a far more versatile vehicle, long trips with 5 people, no problem

short trips with 1 person, no problem

Need to move some furniture, no problem

Sedans are also great, generally go a bit quicker, handle a bit better (all things equal), more fuel efficient, but are limited in what they can do.

thats why families buy SUVs.

You know whats even more versatile than an SUV?

People mover, such as new Kia Carnival.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by HULK_I6T

depends what you want in a car.

SUV is a far more versatile vehicle, long trips with 5 people, no problem

short trips with 1 person, no problem

Need to move some furniture, no problem

Sedans are also great, generally go a bit quicker, handle a bit better (all things equal), more fuel efficient, but are limited in what they can do.

thats why families buy SUVs.

That exactly the stupidity of it. I owned a Territory for 2 years (selling my XR6) in 2 years.

now I owned a car that handled like a POS, accelerated like a POS, used fuel like POS, drove like a bus, more expensive to run and never moved furniture as it was delivered for free.

I can hire ute for 50 bucks from Bunnings if desperate.

Pointless cars. Sheep will be sheep I guess, I was one of them.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Stefan

now I owned a car that handled like a POS, accelerated like a POS, used fuel like POS, drove like a bus, more expensive to run and never moved furniture.

From the things you write, sometimes I wonder whether you actually owned a Territory or you just like taking the mickey?

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by Stefan

That exactly the stupidity of it. I owned a Territory for 2 years (selling my XR6) in 2 years.

now I owned a car that handled like a POS, accelerated like a POS, used fuel like POS, drove like a bus, more expensive to run and never moved furniture as it was delivered for free.

I can hire ute for 50 bucks from Bunnings if desperate.

Pointless cars. Sheep will be sheep I guess, I was one of them.

Okay then........................but you still bought one.
BTW, I guess your XR6 then must have accelerated like a 80% POS, cause they weren't that much slower

[FlipXW]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

Don't agree, the back of a dual cab PX ranger has just as much room as a falcon, or at least feels like it does. And while the tub isn't massive its still great for lots of things; wet, tall, dirty, smelly whatever it is can just throw it in the back and not worry about it. I can still sleep in the back of mine when I go camping. Feels like a car on the road and I can take it on the beach, many positives in my eyes.

[2011G6E]

Had both our sons in the back of our Triton dual cab...one 6'3 the other 6'2, and big blokes with it. No problems.

Oh, and I think there's way to much emphasis on "an exciting drive". You won't get it...there has to be trade offs.

When we got new tyres for our Triton, they were about an inch taller than standard. No biggie. The tyre guy warned us that we "might feel some tyre squirm if you go too fast into corners on a twisty road".
I replied "You...DO realise it's a big four wheel drive, and not an SS Commodore...? Flogging it down a twisty bitumen road isn't really high on my list of priorities..."
He sighed and said "You'd be surprised the number of people we get in here actually demanding we do something to give their fourbie or SUV the handling of something like that...I don't think they get it..."

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Oh, and I think there's way to much emphasis on "an exciting drive". You won't get it...there has to be trade offs.

When we got new tyres for our Triton, they were about an inch taller than standard. No biggie. The tyre guy warned us that we "might feel some tyre squirm if you go too fast into corners on a twisty road".
I replied "You...DO realise it's a big four wheel drive, and not an SS Commodore...? Flogging it down a twisty bitumen road isn't really high on my list of priorities..."
He sighed and said "You'd be surprised the number of people we get in here actually demanding we do something to give their fourbie or SUV the handling of something like that...I don't think they get it..."

Well some manufacturers manage it: BMW, Porsche - and Ford with the Territory. I have no intention of giving up that side of it any time soon. An SUV and driving pleasure thanks! I admit with an offroader its different but perhaps Land Rover/RangeRover does it? I haven't driven one for years.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

I used to think the dual cab obsession was a bit silly. But I bought one, mostly for my mountain bike, and I now see why families love them. They are very practical. I have had two fat blokes and two 6 foot 3 bloke in the back of my ute and I ask them how comfortable it is and they says it's pretty good.
I had 2 fat blokes in the back of my sedan and almost beached it on my driveway because the underside scraped so badly.

As for the tray being too small, too small for what exactly? Everything I have ever wanted to do with it has fitted in. Fitting multiple bikes side by side only fits with the tailgate left down, but it is much easier than loading them into a sedan.
If you need a huge tray for work, buy a single cab, trailer or a proper truck. If you want a vehicle that can comfortable carry passanger around town, off-road and too carry a bit more than a regular car, buy a dual cab.

[kevino]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I don't understand the SUV/Dual Cab craze:

The small "SUV" brigade:

- Slower than their hatch counterparts
- Use more fuel than their hatch counterparts
- Still SFA room in the back seats
- Handles worse

Then you have things like the Territory:

Same deal vs Falcon IMO, slower, uses more fuel (unless you opt for Diesel), etc.

Even our "Thailand Special" dual cab utes:

The tray/tub is now too small to be useful
The back seats are too cramped to be useful

The only dual cab utes that make sense are F series sized, you can actually fit 5 fat ****s like me in them comfortably and the tray/tub is still large enough in dual cab config to be useful.

Then you weigh up the single cab variants, they ride poor, the only benefit to them vs Falcon ute is diesel engine.

*flame suit on*

Add more expensive tyres a big cost factor.
I dont understand it either but where I am there is new CX3,s everywhere, which just look like a jacked up Mazda 2 in a much higher price bracket.

I think with toddlers the higher they are the easier it is to load them into back seats and the higher driving position is a factor as a positive for buyers but jeez extra extra cost for what!

Mazda 2 and 3 sales will go down but Mazda will sell heaps of CX3, s at a higher price-good for the car company margins.

[Agile]

Originally Posted by sprintman1

MU-X auto fitted with an on road spring/shock package or decent shocks at least. Reliability and fuel efficiency.

VERY good on fuel. Recent 1200 km trip returned 6.6 l/100KM. Terry Ghia on same trip 14l/100KM. Ideal drive conditions, following a mate in his Range Rover at 90km because over that it drank fuel at an alarming rate. After 10 months of ownership of a base MUX I would definitely recommend. Different chassis to Dmax and rides pretty good.

[Wretched]

I would say requirements 3 & 4 are subjective.
3) is dependent on who you're fitting into the back. We fit 2 adult males of average (below 6 ft) height in the back seat of a Territory on our trip to Perth. I wouldn't have put a third person, not enough room.

4) Define comfortable? Who for, both passengers and driver? Any of the listed cars are more than capable.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Wretched

I would say requirements 3 & 4 are subjective.
3) is dependent on who you're fitting into the back.

It's not subjective, there are measurements to prove it (**). Try the two child seats and baby capsule test - only those over 1500 mm across the second row are likely to make it.

AussieCJ7, if it helps, here is a compilation of internal measurements I got together during my own search for an under $70,000 SUV. I've included wheelbase as a rough indicator of leg room but it depends on how well designed the interior is.

Wheelbase: Jeep Grand Cherokee 2915, Nissan Pathfinder 2900, Mazda CX9 2875, Ford Territory 2843, BMW X3 2810, Audi Q5 2807, Toyota Prado 2790, Toyota Kluger 2788, Mitsubishi Pajero 2780, Holden Captiva 2707, Hyundai Santa Fe 2700.

Internal width at front seats: Territory 1548, Pathfinder 1541, Q5 1527, Santa Fe 1508, Mazda 1508, Kluger 1506, Jeep 1491, X3 1483, Pajero 1482, Captiva 1424, Prado 1369.

** Internal width at second row seat: Pathfinder 1534, Territory 1528, Kluger 1513, Q5 1494, Mazda 1490, Santa Fe 1480, Jeep 1474, X3 1458, Pajero 1451, Captiva 1422, Prado 1369.

Headroom front: Territory 1074, Pajero 1056, Pathfinder 1043, Q5 1043, X3 1033, Kluger 1033, Captiva 1026, Santa Fe 1006, Mazda 1005, Prado 970, Jeep 960.

Headroom rear: Pajero 1017, Kluger 1013, Territory 1006, Captiva 1003, X3 994, Santa Fe 992, Q5 990, Mazda 990, Pathfinder 977, Jeep 961, Prado 790. (Bear in mind that Territory and Pathfinder have theatre seating, which has view advantages for second-row passengers but the headroom is a little less.)

Cargo (behind second row in litres): Prado 621, X3 550 (without net, even more with), Q5 540, Territory 523, Santa Fe 516, Mazda 487, Pathfinder 450, Captiva 430, Jeep 412, Kluger 396, Pajero not known.

Here is a comparison of kerb mass (tonnes). In reverse order because lighter is better!: Captiva 1.64, Santa Fe 1.72-1.83, X3 1.73-1.8, Q5 1.77, Kluger 1.95-2.02, Mazda 1.96, Territory 1.96-2.14, Jeep 2.0-2.32, Pathfinder 2.04, Pajero 2.25, Prado 2.43.

Funnily enough, the Jeep Grand Cherokee doesn't seem to tick all the boxes!

It will be interesting to add figures for the Everest to this when they come out.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by new2ford

It's not subjective, there are measurements to prove it (**). Try the two child seats and baby capsule test - only those over 1500 mm across the second row are likely to make it.

Oh but it is. You see some may not care for the need for 3 baby seats but need to accommodate 3 teenagers, using more or less room.
His requirement is too vague, "..Has real 3 seats across the back for a family of 5." What are real seats, is it the third seatbelt good enough or does it need to fit 3 fat bastards?
Requirement 4 fits into this too, if you need to fit 3 adults for a long journey then shoulder width and leg room would need to be accommodated, whereas 3 toddlers won't need so much.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Oh but it is. You see some may not care for the need for 3 baby seats but need to accommodate 3 teenagers, using more or less room.
His requirement is too vague, "..Has real 3 seats across the back for a family of 5." What are real seats, is it the third seatbelt good enough or does it need to fit 3 fat bastards?
Requirement 4 fits into this too, if you need to fit 3 adults for a long journey then shoulder width and leg room would need to be accommodated, whereas 3 toddlers won't need so much.

I suspect the 1500 mm minimum would also apply to three fat bastards! As you can see, there's not much available that's above that.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Funnily enough, the Jeep Grand Cherokee doesn't seem to tick all the boxes!

In a similar vein to my post above, just because the Jeep GC does not tick all of your boxes ≠ the Jeep GC ticking all of someone else's boxes.

I really fail to understand why so many people on this forum struggle with the idea that just because something does or doesn't suit you means that it will or won't suit everyone else!

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

In a similar vein to my post above, just because the Jeep GC does not tick all of your boxes ≠ the Jeep GC ticking all of someone else's boxes.

I really fail to understand why so many people on this forum struggle with the idea that just because something does or doesn't suit you means that it will or won't suit everyone else!

I didn't say that it doesn't tick other people's boxes. The conversation was about internal space - I was saying that it doesn't tick most internal space boxes. That may not be an issue for many buyers and obviously isn't an issue for them given the number sold. It's an issue for me and apparently the OP.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by new2ford

It's not subjective, there are measurements to prove it (**). Try the two child seats and baby capsule test - only those over 1500 mm across the second row are likely to make it.

AussieCJ7, if it helps, here is a compilation of internal measurements I got together during my own search for an under $70,000 SUV. I've included wheelbase as a rough indicator of leg room but it depends on how well designed the interior is.

Wheelbase: Jeep Grand Cherokee 2915, Nissan Pathfinder 2900, Mazda CX9 2875, Ford Territory 2843, BMW X3 2810, Audi Q5 2807, Toyota Prado 2790, Toyota Kluger 2788, Mitsubishi Pajero 2780, Holden Captiva 2707, Hyundai Santa Fe 2700.

Internal width at front seats: Territory 1548, Pathfinder 1541, Q5 1527, Santa Fe 1508, Mazda 1508, Kluger 1506, Jeep 1491, X3 1483, Pajero 1482, Captiva 1424, Prado 1369.

** Internal width at second row seat: Pathfinder 1534, Territory 1528, Kluger 1513, Q5 1494, Mazda 1490, Santa Fe 1480, Jeep 1474, X3 1458, Pajero 1451, Captiva 1422, Prado 1369.

Headroom front: Territory 1074, Pajero 1056, Pathfinder 1043, Q5 1043, X3 1033, Kluger 1033, Captiva 1026, Santa Fe 1006, Mazda 1005, Prado 970, Jeep 960.

Headroom rear: Pajero 1017, Kluger 1013, Territory 1006, Captiva 1003, X3 994, Santa Fe 992, Q5 990, Mazda 990, Pathfinder 977, Jeep 961, Prado 790. (Bear in mind that Territory and Pathfinder have theatre seating, which has view advantages for second-row passengers but the headroom is a little less.)

Cargo (behind second row in litres): Prado 621, X3 550 (without net, even more with), Q5 540, Territory 523, Santa Fe 516, Mazda 487, Pathfinder 450, Captiva 430, Jeep 412, Kluger 396, Pajero not known.

Here is a comparison of kerb mass (tonnes). In reverse order because lighter is better!: Captiva 1.64, Santa Fe 1.72-1.83, X3 1.73-1.8, Q5 1.77, Kluger 1.95-2.02, Mazda 1.96, Territory 1.96-2.14, Jeep 2.0-2.32, Pathfinder 2.04, Pajero 2.25, Prado 2.43.

Funnily enough, the Jeep Grand Cherokee doesn't seem to tick all the boxes!

It will be interesting to add figures for the Everest to this when they come out.

Thank’s for all those measurements, very handy for me personally, for me the Territory is top of the list in all of that that matters to me.

Makes me want to go down to my local Hyundai dealership though and shove those measurements in the face of a certain young upstart little salesman that spoke to me there a few week’s back, when I was cross shopping and mentioned the Territory, and he arrogantly told me that I wouldn’t get 3 car seats across the back of a Territory and that the Santa Fe was so much larger and better and that he also had two laddies return back to him and bought the Santa Fe over the Territory as it had a larger rear area etc...

[Windsor220]

SUV covers quite a large number of vehicles. A lot more than what you've mentioned there.

Also how does 7 seats relate to a sedan

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by AussieCJ7

So if the market is really gone this way why are manufactures not jumping over them selves to deliver vehicle's with SS commodore/XR8 style performance and space in SUV format ?

Because it seems the majority of buyers want "compact" SUV's that have all the latest gizmos. They want the "look" of a 4WD product in the size of a corolla. What you have listed would seemingly fit the bill perfectly for the majority of buyers and then some.

[Elks]

A Jeep Grand Cherokee ticks all those boxes bar the 7 seats. Quiet, comfortable, wide, so fits 3 across the back easily. high on the gadget count Good on trips, I did 1300+ km last weekend.

That said the new Everest is released shortly and ticks all of your boxes. Why not have a look at one them?

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by AussieCJ7

So the press continues to stay families dont want to buy sedan's and want to buy SUV's.

Its true 2016 will see even more options in the SUV range. more options than there are for Sedans.

Originally Posted by AussieCJ7

So if the market is really gone this way why are manufactures not jumping over them selves to deliver vehicle's with SS commodore/XR8 style performance and space in SUV format ?

Because the market doesn't want performance SUV's & the press is quick to jump on their fuel consumption figures. as this is what Families look at.

If you can Sacrifice the 3rd Row wait for a Ford Edge Sport

[Spammy]

SUVs form 33% of the market or 350k sales this year. Appears they are out there somewhere.

[cheap]

I would widen to mid sized 4x4's, diesel Prado being 1st choice. Your resale will be a lot better on a second hand Prado than a SUV. If you're into risk, then Jeep awaits you.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by AussieCJ7

So the press continues to stay families dont want to buy sedan's and want to buy SUV's.

So if the market is really gone this way why are manufactures not jumping over them selves to deliver vehicle's with SS commodore/XR8 style performance and space in SUV format ?

The market moving to SUVs ≠ the market moving to satisfy all of your needs in an SUV.