Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrpippy | Hacker News Reader

Compared to the Model 3, this has:

- one extra inch of ground clearance - hatchback instead of trunk - a few more inches of head/leg room

And because of that, it's an "SUV".

This positioning is not at all exclusive to Tesla, but it's still annoying. Call them "CUVs", "crossovers", "lifted, less-practical wagons", whatever.

Ultimately the problem is that Americans all want "SUVs", but most (rightfully so) don't want the downsides of an actual body-on-frame SUV (poor mileage, ride, packaging), or have any need for off-road capability. As a result, our most competitive auto segments are "lifted, less-practical wagon/minivan". Sigh.

View on HN

To give an example, the Subaru Crosstrek is a lifted Subaru Impreza hatchback. They share nearly all parts, and have the same interior and cargo space. The differences are:

1. Crosstrek costs more ($22,145 vs $18,695)

2. Crosstrek is less efficient (33/27 mpg vs 36/28 mpg)

3. Crosstrek is taller (64" vs 59")

4. Crosstrek outsells the Impreza in the US (131k vs 66k)

Americans love feeling tall and are willing to pay for the extra few inches.

The actual hatchback/liftback trunk design is far more practical, however, and is part of why wagons/estate cars and hatchbacks are more popular in Europe where a car's footprint is more of a concern (and particularly hatchbacks in many Asian cities where the footprint is even more constrained). I think expanding vertically is still better than expanding horizontally, within reason.

As you probably know, it's beneficial both for the wide opening to insert larger objects into the trunk as well as the folding of seats (less common in sedans/saloon cars) to provide much more space when rear seats aren't needed.

3.6 extra inches of clearance for the Crosstrek vs. the Impreza is a lot more than the 1 here though. I think that's part of the complaint.

The Crosstrek also gets a beefier rear diff, stiffer suspension, and larger brakes too.

They're the same platform, and share a lot of bodywork, but that's not uncommon among manufacturers now. The Golf and Atlas are both on VW's MQB platform now but that's about where the comparisons end.

Beefer rear diff, stiffer suspension, larger brakes all say "towing" to me.

"The Crosstrek also has a beefed up locking center differential for towing and a standard six-speed manual transmission,The Impreza’s manual only has five gears..."

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/impreza-vs-crosstrek

That certainly accounts for the price difference. Those higher end parts have real costs. And, Americans have plenty of stuff to tow around. (I am an American car guy.)

Do you have any data that shows Americans are buying the Crosstrek because they "love to feel tall" and not because of all the differentiating factors between it and the Impreza?

It may be more that that's what the dealerships stock and push, but there really are very few other differentiators.

The Crosstrek comes stock with a 6-speed manual instead of the Impreza's 5-speed (though 90% of them are sold with the execrable CVT instead); the Crosstrek only comes as a hatchback while the base Impreza is a sedan; the Crosstrek has intermittently been available with a hybrid system.

No, that's editorializing based on the few differentiating factors I found.

Though I think the idea that the more expensive model is pushed by dealers makes sense too.

I think the most accurate description is just "tall cars".

https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5e0840dce96...

I don't see how wanting these features in a vehicle is a "problem", per se. Yes, we want to be able to bring our entire families and enough stuff with us to enjoy an outing. Yes, that means a slightly bigger vehicle; but yes, we need to be able to use it to commute as well.

This desire has lead to the creation of a thriving segment of the market where you can get a vehicle for ~25-35k that gets reasonable gas mileage while offering AWD and a lot of space. It works well for a lot of people - jack of all trades.

Only urbanite bugmen with no families really see this as a "problem", because that type of person never actually has all the seats in the car occupied, or bothers to load a boat on top and drive out to go camping and fishing somewhere, or otherwise actually utilizes the capabilities of the vehicle.

For you, there are small electric jellybean cars.

I would have one of those too, but insurance costs make that prohibitive. Give me an insurance-follows-driver model so I can own a shitty cheap old pickup, a family SUV, and an electric commuting jellybean car, and I will happily do that and use less fuel overall.

These vehicles with taller profiles often don't have more space than their platform-equivalent wagon or hatch variants. Sometimes, they're actually smaller. They just have worse aero and therefore worse fuel economy, because people like to sit higher.

~Nobody is buying a Kicks/C-HR/HR-V to go offroad/fishing/etc. Nor do these vehicles offer more space compared to similarly priced or similarly capable vehicles in these manufacturers lineups. They simply have a confidence-inspiring seating position and look cool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com