Why The Modern SUV Is Completely Pointless

I recently refuted the existence of the recently announced Ferrari SUV which got me thinking: could I refute the SUV concept as a whole? As it stands, I am very much against the SUV’s existence, and in the comments of my previous piece about the Ferrari F16X, I vowed that I would write this very article.

Well as promised, the time has come for me to finally debunk the existence of the modern SUV. Unfortunately in order to do this, I may have to sound like a consumer car journalist at certain points, but as car people I hope that you’ll bear with it. With that disclaimer out of the way, I am now going to go through exactly why I think that the modern SUV is completely pointless - and it will be thorough; no stone shall be left unturned.

1. They Sacrifice Speed

First, let’s talk about speed. If you look at almost any SUV offered by a manufacturer, and then look at their equivalent estate, the estate car is nearly always faster. This is down to one obvious major factor: weight.

A base BMW X3, for example, is 330kg heavier than the base BMW 3 series - 330kg - that’s a massive difference. The effects of which are seen clearly in the performance, with the 140hp 2.0L diesel X3 getting from 0-60 in 10 seconds, and the equivalent 2.0L diesel 3 series estate (also with 140hp) cutting that time to 8.9 seconds.

But I’m not just picking on BMW, as this is a trend that is seen across the board when it comes to comparing SUVs to their estate counterparts, no matter where you look. Weight is such a vital factor when it comes to speed, and it is one that no manufacturer can get around.

If we also continue to compare the two aforementioned BMWs in terms of top speed, you’ll find that the X3 also tops out at 120mph, whilst the 3 series romps ahead at 130mph. Again, this difference in speed exists with every SUV.

In addition to a greater kerb weight, SUVs also have to contend with drag from the air. Put simply (and rather obviously), SUVs have a higher drag coefficient because of their larger profiles, thus causing the top speed deficit.

To add to the effects of the extra weight, SUVs also suffer from a higher centre of gravity. Both of these factors affect the speed that can be carried through the corners, making SUVs slower both on the straights and through the bends.

First blood goes to the estate car then, but it is just one of many victories. After all, another significant problem with SUVs is that…

2. They're Always More Expensive

Bigger is always better…right? This is the mantra by which companies build an SUV. Unfortunately, the saying is also applied to the price that these companies then demand that you pay.

Take a look at the picture above that’s taken from Mercedes’ actual website, and you’ll see the gulf between the prices of a C-Class estate, and the GLC (the SUV version of the C-Class). It’s not just a small difference, it’s near enough a £6500 premium. Or perhaps you want an even uglier, even less practical version of the GLC? Well the GLC Coupé is even more. A whole lot more.

At £41,335, the GLC coupé isn’t just a joke, but one that costs over £11,000 more than the C-Class estate. And it’s the same story across the entire range - an E-Class estate will cost you £37,205, whilst the GLE SUV will cost you £14,000 more, and as for the GLE Coupé? That’ll be £25,000 more.

‘Where does this money go?’ you may ask. The answer, is into Mercedes’ pocket. That’s right, that money gets you pretty much nothing. Whilst you do get a taller car which means more headroom, as well as a taller driving position, that’s pretty much it. The E-Class offers better performance, and also (surprisingly) better legroom, as the E-Class is actually a longer car.

And before you say that the extra money gets you more toys to play with, I can assure you that it doesn’t. After using the Mercedes configurator, I discovered that the base E-Class estate gets all the same kit as the GLE and GLE Coupé. Rather fundamentally, the E-Class is also cheaper to run.

Yes, the base model GLE gets AWD, but remember that it costs £14,000 more. With that money you can specify your E-Class in a higher trim, thus getting Mercedes’ 4Matic AWD, as well as a few extra gadgets to play with. And even if you just want more headroom, is it really worth £14,000 extra?

The estate is therefore better value for money, and cheaper to run. Talking of which…

3. SUV's Are Less Economical

On the theme of costing less to run, it’s worth remembering that SUVs always cost more to live with. Using the example of the Mercedes GLE vs E-Class estate, you will find that the base E-Class is thirteen insurance groups below the base GLE.

Then, the weight and drag coefficient that I talked about earlier come into play again. Since the GLE has more of both, it achieves 20mpg less than the E-Class. So it’s not only slower, but also less efficient.

Although I’ve only used the comparison of the GLE and E-Class estate to make this point, it still remains true for any other example. This is because SUVs are always heavier and taller than their estate counterparts, meaning that they’re all victim to the same problems.

4. They're Less Useable

In an everyday sense, SUVs are less useable. This may sound silly to a lot of you, because you may say that some SUVs have seven seats, which is more than can be said for most estate cars. But the two seats in the boot are largely useless for anyone other than small children or amputees, and since a lot of people don’t have seven children and aren’t missing a leg, you’ll find the two rear-most seats folded up most of the time.

But in a lot of instances, estate cars (surprisingly) have larger boots than the SUVs (this is a particularly consumer journalist-y part but bear with it). The Audi A6 Avant for instance has 565 litres of space with the rear seats folded up, and 1680 litres with the seats folded down - thus beating the Q5 which has 540 litres with the rear seats up, and 1560 litres with the seats down. You could also argue that having a taller car means loading heavier items into the boot is harder due to an SUV’s higher boot sill.

It’s worth mentioning that usability also means how usable a car is in everyday driving. This is where the SUV suffers due to their larger width; meaning that driving in tighter streets, or in multi-storey car parks, as well as parking can be more stressful than in an estate car.

5. They're Uglier

This last point is completely subjective, I know. But since it’s only car enthusiasts that will be reading this, I expect that this opinion will be welcomed.

My opinion is that an SUV can’t match the smooth, svelte and elegant lines of a well designed estate car. Whether it’s their higher profile or their generally more boxy looks, it’s hard to imagine that many people think that an SUV can match an estate car aesthetically.

It is for these key reasons that I consider the modern SUV to be pointless in an era that is obsessed with style, low emissions, and enjoyment. It’s high time then that the estate car should make a triumphant return to our roads as the sensible, but fun family car.

Sponsored Posts

Comments

LiveToDrive

Not to disagree, but what about all the people who dont want minivans but have kids? They cant drive 2 seaters or even coupes sometimes.

07/21/2017 - 15:04 |
2 | 0

not to mention SUV’s often can tow more and have 4WD and higher ground clearance

07/21/2017 - 15:47 |
1 | 0

Most people have no more than 3 kids. So building a car to accommodate the smaller number of people with more than 3 children is a bit too niche.

Also if you need a car for off roading and towing then you get a dedicated off roader like a Land Rover or a truck, and not an Audi Q7 :D

07/23/2017 - 11:01 |
0 | 0
Dat Incredible Chadkake

You not liking SUV’s doesn’t change the fact they are some of the most popular and best selling vehicles on the market

07/21/2017 - 15:48 |
4 | 0

not to be rude but being popular does not mean good, the camry for example, its really popular but its interior or performance is not that nice compared to other models. SUVs are probably so popular cause of marketing, i mean thats all i see on tv, ads about cuvs and suvs barely anything else.

07/21/2017 - 17:45 |
0 | 0

I wouldn’t expect it to. But the reasons that I have given show that they really shouldn’t be as popular as they are.

07/23/2017 - 10:38 |
0 | 0
Jia the Supra Fanboy

I find it really funny that you said they’re “less useable” yet didn’t even mention :

-increased visibility
-ease of access
-higher ground clearance = no fear of potholes and curbs

Also, your last point is absolutely subjective. I dont care if it appeals to the majority CT, it’s still subjective and therefore not a fact.

07/21/2017 - 16:21 |
4 | 0

I find it funny how you that you think that this website isn’t about automotive opinions - and this was me just expressing mine. I did say that the last point was subjective, so you don’t need to correct me there.

But you are right about the three points that you made, in those respects SUVs are more usable, but for the criteria that I mentioned, the estates are more usable.

07/23/2017 - 10:45 |
0 | 0
TheMindGarage

Totally agree - glad someone spoke the truth!. SUVs should be niche vehicles for off-roading or possibly towing. And the high seating position isn’t helpful if everybody has an SUV. SUVs are just fashion statements these days. While I appreciate a decent-handling SUV like the Porsche Macan or Jaguar F-Pace, I’d much rather have a Cayman or F-type isntead.

Couple of pedantic pointers: The M5 Touring is called the E61, not the E60 (that’s the saloon). And a high profile doesn’t necessarily increase the drag coefficient (although it often does), but it does increase the frontal area. The drag force is a product of the drag coefficient and the frontal area.

07/21/2017 - 17:52 |
1 | 0

Thanks for those corrections. Also you’re right about them being niche vehicles and the high seating position. I will admit that there are benefits to having an SUV, I think that they are few and not worth the extra money that you’re charged to get them, as well as the fact that there are many reasons why you shouldn’t buy an SUV.

07/23/2017 - 11:08 |
0 | 0
HDose

I agree but you also left out that SUV have higher rollover risk.

07/21/2017 - 21:56 |
1 | 0
Matt Davis

In reply to by HDose

That’s a good point!

07/23/2017 - 11:09 |
0 | 0
Honda NSX

THANK YOU! Finally someone who likes estates more!

07/21/2017 - 23:58 |
1 | 0
JenstheGTIfreak (pizza)

Ever thought about getting in and out more easily and more cabin space + legroom?

07/22/2017 - 07:53 |
0 | 0

I have but I thought that these points are outweighed by the points against the SUV. Getting into and out of an estate is also something that’s very easy, so I really don’t think that it’s a major factor that someone would consider when buying an SUV.

07/23/2017 - 11:11 |
0 | 0
Kei Cars Are My Jam

My biggest pet hate about them is how they’re driven around cities by people who think they’re status symbols and fashion statements. They aren’t needed and they’re clogging up the roads for everyone else.

07/22/2017 - 10:44 |
1 | 0
AHoneyBadger

Well, I’ve some points to discuss. Let me start on your points, where I will prepare a counter-argument. (clears throat)

  1. They sacrifice speed. Well, yes, they do. But speed isn’t really the point of an SUV. It’s more on families, with people who have kids and the like.

  2. Well, estates are indeed cheaper to run, and I’ve almost no argument for that. The only thing is that for some people, AWD is needed. Examples are: If you live in an igloo in Canada, if you live anywhere near a desert or flood-prone zone, and if you live nowhere near a road or city.

  3. No argument that I could think of there. Maybe I’ll come back when it’s not 1 in the morning.

  4. They’re less usable. Well, that depends on what you mean by “usable”. 2 extra seats could mean a lot of things, like going on road trips with the family, coming back from a party with your non-driving mates, and the guy who had to much “fun” with his wife and now has to care for at least five children. Point is, they can be more usable depending on what you deem “usable”.

  5. Well, the Range Rover is an SUV, right? Please come to me and call that “ugly”. We can meet in a lovely park I know, or maybe have some food in a lovely restaurant. The Evoque can be more down to tastes, but I think it looks alright. The new XC90 looks great, even if it’s not estate-level looks. Point is, they can look good, it’s all down to what you think looks good. Oh, and remember there are SUV enthusiasts. Yes, some say SUVs aren’t cars. Should we make an SUV Throttle?

So, that was the “addressing your points” bit. Now, let me give you one point which will win this argument. (clears throat yet again)

Estates aren’t sold where I live.

There is literally almost no estates here, and the only guy I know who has one is my best friend. let’s call him X. Calling him X is quite unnecessary as I won’t need to mention his name yet again. He has an old Mercedes estate. Forgot what model, as he moved away. But he is literally the only guy I know who has one.

You still here? I’m amazed. Thanks for listening to my rant, if there are any spelling or grammar mistakes, it’s because I just want to go to sleep. Goodbye.

(makes honey badger noises)

07/22/2017 - 16:28 |
1 | 0

I too, have prepared a list of counter-arguments to your counter-arguments (also I’m sorry for this late reply!):

1.) Yes they do sacrifice speed, but objectively this is a bad thing because it means that you get less for your money. It also is a gripe that I have as a petrolhead, because we of course like fast cars. So for both demographics (car people and non car people) it is a valid point.
2.) I agree with your point here, but these people wouldn’t buy an Audi Q7 or a Volvo XC90. They would buy either a dedicated off roader, like a Land Rover, or a pickup truck. But they certainly wouldn’t buy a soft SUV.

07/23/2017 - 11:18 |
0 | 0

4.) (I’ve skipped your 3rd point for obvious reasons :D) That’s absolutely right, it does depend on your perception of ‘usable’. However, most people don’t have any more than 3 children, and so I think that’s a bit too niche to justify having cars for that issue. The non driving mates point is a good one, but this isn’t enough of a reason to justify spending so much extra to fulfill such a small and infrequent issue.

5.) Don’t worry I’m NOT calling a Range Rover ugly xD . I’m saying that SUVs tend to be less good looking than their estate counter parts. Range Rovers don’t have an estate counter part because Ranger Rover only make luxury off roaders. I’m not saying that ALL SUVs are ugly, I’m just saying that they’re less good looking than modern estate cars. But I personally think that the Range Rover and Volvo XC90 are good looking cars.

Also, I’m sorry that this is a second comment. I accidentally posted the first 2 reasons before I was finished :D

07/23/2017 - 11:46 |
0 | 0
H5SKB4RU (Returned to CT)

You forgot modern SUV’s cant even go offroad :P

07/22/2017 - 20:19 |
1 | 0