Hacker News Reader

Comment by mywittyname | Hacker News Reader

People often complain about crossovers being heavy. But I have a Rav4 and it's curb weight is 3615lbs. The curb weight on my Mustang is 3618 and my Supra is 3345.

So, somehow, the largest, newest vehicle in my fleet weighs the same as my 10 year old sub-compact 2+2 and barely more than a two-seater that's a foot shorter in length and like 2 feet shorter in height. And a modern Mustang is like 500-900lbs heavier than mine.

Crossovers aren't the cause of fat cars. Mustang isn't unusual in the fact that it's a heavy coupe, there are lots of examples of coupes that are somehow much heavier than crossovers. For example, a new Forester is 3528lbs but a C8 Corvette is 3647.

View on HN

I had a late 1990s Audi wagon (A4) and eventually replaced it with the most comparable late 2010s Audi, which was a small crossover (Q3). Ignoring performance specs, my wagon could have compared to a late 1970s Volvo wagon I used to see all over California. The internet tells me the curb weight of the Audi wagon was 3350 lbs, the crossover is 3690 lbs, and the old Volvo would be around 2760 lbs.

When the crossover was in the shop, I was given a Mustang rental because the shop was out of normal loaner cars. I had no real experience with them, and was shocked that the Mustang felt larger and much harder to park than my crossover despite the compromised interior. So it is interesting to me that you quote such a high curb weight too.

I don't quite understand it. The "density" of cars seems to vary and yet they all have similar mass. It really does make me wonder how much it is engineering necessity versus some kind of weird regulatory mess where the engineers are targeting certain weight classes in spite of very different packaging.

As someone who owned a Mustang GT for a few years when I was younger, they weigh a lot because they have large V8s and beefy components to handle the power. They're also annoying to park because they have a much longer hood than most cars, also to fit a big V8.

Cars are getting uniformly heavier for safety crash testing regulations. Larger crumple zones, reinforced side impact bars, etc.

And they are getting more aerodynamic for the gas mileage requirements regulations….

The mustang is an SUV. Look at th size of its wheels.

Size of the wheels don’t make an SUV. In fact, wheel sizes have been constantly increasing, no matter the car. My Mazda3 has far bigger tires than the Camry from 15 years prior. It’s also detrimental to fuel economy.

> Size of the wheels don’t make an SUV

I was half joking because there is no clear definition of what it is.

The name do not translate, most SUV aren't sporty nor utilitary. At least they are vehicles.

Wheel size? you said it, all are growing bigger and bigger yeat after year regardless of category.

off-road capability? nope

ground clearance? nope, a tesla model Y or that new Kia sit closer to the ground than many non SUV.

hatchback shape? nope, there are now SUV coupe, concertibles, and some will rank pickup trucks in the SUV category.

how high are the driver/passenger seated? nope again, some vans are higher.

I think what now caracterize a SUV isn't even a combination of these variables but more a tag from the brands marketing team and a general perception based on the car looking vaguely more boxy and bulbeous than other models of the same brand.

Yeah I understand that sentiment. I use the “on stilts” metaphor - a sedan or a hatchback on stilts is an SUV to me. A van is a van, those rarely go on stilts. We also have a new segment called “crossover”, which is an SUV without the S.

There’s no coherent formula for what an SUV/crossover is, but ride height is my rule of thumb. But then I ask myself “where does the Jeep Wrangler fit in?” - afaic, it’s an SUV.

The Mach-E crossover weighs a thousand pounds more, OP is talking about the ol' gas powered coupe

I was also talking about the gas coupe. Take a minute and look at it with european eyes:

- it has comparably as large wheels as most euro SUVs

- it looks bulky and square

- it sits comparatively as high from the ground than most euros SUV.

- it is bigger and probably heavier than most euros SUV. [1]

And many manufacturers have introduced the concept of SUV coupe like Mercedes or BMW.

Given these caracteristics, it could just be called an SUV in the euro market. The only reason it is not is because it was introduced to play on the nostalgy of a pony car of the 60's.

[1] I think what of the most sold car in the SUV category in europe is the Peugeot 2008 which is just a bulkier shaped 208 with larger wheels. The 208 is considered a small/compact car. The 2008 is barely bigger and a mustang dwarfs it.

There is nowhere on earth that this mustang could be called an SUV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(seventh_generati...

Only because of perceptions, not because of actual facts/specs.

My point here is not to debate if the Mustang is a SUV, I don't personnally consider it one. My point here is to show that there is no clear/undisputable definition of what a SUV is appart from manufacturers labelling it as one and vague perception by the public.

Because for each definition you can give you will find an example of a car labeled SUV not adhering strictly to this definition and counter examples of cars not labeled SUV adhering at least partially to some of the definition.

That the edges are blurry doesn't mean there's no definite thing.

For that edge we have the term "crossover" (for example, the Ford Edge)

Sports cars in the category of coupe explicitly lack the "U" in "SUV" - that this is referred to as vague or debatable in this thread is a bit maddening, so I will just end with, lol.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com