is a CUV/SUV overkill for everyday use?

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by Ws6

I've had SUV with 52/48 split, and my current, which is 98/2 split, and with lock-up electromagnetically, you literally cannot tell with a fast reacting system. It's just free mpg increase, basically. 200x per second, it's monitoring and will shift if needed to the rear. What I also found interesting is that traction is still increasing with mild tire slip. You cannot even notice it as t he driver. By the time you sense tires slipping, you're well past the threshold of a system that is properly designed, and losing momentum/traction. Dave Coleman did an interesting video on this once.

This is example of properly executed front-biased, reactive AWD (98/2, static, to 50/50 (full lock) dynamic, in this case)



To each his own; I simply don't like FWD in anything larger than a Mini- although my MS3 was fun in its own unhinged way. Given the choice I prefer RWD, but my wife likes AWD. I consider myself extremely fortunate that she also hates minivans and prefers smaller vehicles that are entertaining to drive.


I used to be a die hard RWD fan, only owning RWD sports cars, but once I got into AWD, I've never wanted anything else. My main point was that a modern AWD system can be reactive, and still perform like a full-time split.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted by Ws6


That's good and I hope it continues to treat you well. I have a lot of friends who own/owned BMW, though, and it seems to go like this: One of them lasts 300K miles without anything but tire changes. The next one is "never right" and goes through parts like crazy and runs like trash. I had a friend with an E46 M3 that was like that, while another friend had a 2002 3-series (non-M) that was just a boring Swiss watch of a car. I just don't trust it, and I put a lot of miles on a car so I don't want to deal with my schedule being disrupted while it's in the shop, etc.


I've owned 12 BMWs since 1983- most for over 100k miles. I believe the key to keeping a BMW in good shape is fastidious maintenance- and sticking with cars fitted with Inline fours or sixes.

 

[PimTac]

I enjoy Dave Coleman and his video presentations on Mazda. Very informative.

 

[DweezilAZ]

Originally Posted by madRiver
Superior visibility and typically entry/exit coupled to better cargo flexibility when needed.

That used to be standard in family sedans until it was edited out for the four door coupe/ sports sedan nonsense the manufacturers have been chasing for the past 10 or so years.

An awful trend for passengers and cargo.

There has been one occasion in 15 years of driving my ION that I have needed to hire a truck to bring home a recliner.

15 cubic feet of trunk space plus fold down rear seats have covered pretty much all my hauling needs and that includes a move from LA to Tucson in 2010.

However, I don't think I'd mind some extra seat and ride height. And the Tracker and Renegade my brother and SIL have are kind of neat simply because of the built in utility of them.

I've only owned two door hard tops and coupes and four door sedans, it might be kind of interesting to buy something different.

 

[DweezilAZ]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Overkill how?
Wifey has averaged near enough 30 mpg with our newer Forester that its thirst really isn't an issue and she makes no effort at maximizing fuel economy nor does she avoid using the AC at all ever.
OTOH, my Accord Hybrid has averaged near enough 48 mpg in my use, but wife doesn't like the low seating position and the lack of a large greenhouse.
A good CUV offers reasonable fuel economy along with a high seating position and the better ones also offer plenty of glass.
Nothing wrong with that.
These CUVs are also very reasonably priced, although you can get a deal on a sedan, as I did, since everyone else wants a CUV.



You know what I'd worry about in a CUV??

Roll overs... And I don't believe those vehicles are all that good when it comes to real world circumstances if one needed to take sudden evasive action AND one side of that CUVs wheel got unbalanced and off the pavement... The test I have seen always show those vehicles on a paved surface with all 4 wheels on a paved surface the entire time going around cones... Well... If one is one a real two lane road or even 4 lane road and one side wheels gets off the pavement and it is a dropoff of more than 6 inches and the driver has a lot of steering wheel input going all one way I bet it could really get tough really quick... Plus I wonder seriously about the roof structure above the occupants heads... Will that crush easily upon the occupants ??


Spare yourself the borrowed worry. This is just unnecessary concern trolling. Are you so worried about people on motorcycles, skate boards, bicycles, scooters, getting into showers and bath tubs?

And still, nearly half of all vehicle fatalities are from people who didn't belt up before driving off.

I'd also suggest, as was found in the Firestone/Ford roll over events that when people slammed on their brakes when a tire blew that a roll over condition occurred. In other words: driver error.

Stop worrying about "what if ?". This isn't "Final Destination" territory.

 

[DweezilAZ]

Ray CJ: "buying a small sedan or hatchback will probably save you only a few hundred bucks per year -and that's chicken feed in the grand scheme of things."

Absolutely the worst suggestion ever. It's a good place to start. A few hundred bucks saved here another few hundred there in a few areas adds up over a year, especially if one is mindful of their spending and periodically takes stock of outflow.

"Chicken feed" ? You must have some really fat chickens.

That attitude towards money is way too pervasive in this country and why a majority of adults can't get $400 together for an emergency or have nothing saved for the future.

But it's the internet. Everyone's a dental floss empire heir on the internet.

 

[Snagglefoot]

No one mentioned body weight. If you weigh over 200 lbs, chances are you'll be happier with a CUV/SUV. This works with any height.

 

[grampi]

A lot of people buy them because they're easier to get in and out of than a car. Some buy them because they like sitting up higher. Some buy them because they think they're cool (I don't). Are many of them unnecessary? Of course they are, but so are a lot of other vehicles...people buy what they want...

 

[DGXR]

I think a CUV or SUV makes sense as a DD if you have just one car that must support all of your activities. Some the CUVs get decent gas mileage but unfortunately they keep getting bigger every year. The current RAV4 is bigger than my Dad's 2006 Highlander.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Overkill how?
Wifey has averaged near enough 30 mpg with our newer Forester that its thirst really isn't an issue and she makes no effort at maximizing fuel economy nor does she avoid using the AC at all ever.
OTOH, my Accord Hybrid has averaged near enough 48 mpg in my use, but wife doesn't like the low seating position and the lack of a large greenhouse.
A good CUV offers reasonable fuel economy along with a high seating position and the better ones also offer plenty of glass.
Nothing wrong with that.
These CUVs are also very reasonably priced, although you can get a deal on a sedan, as I did, since everyone else wants a CUV.



You know what I'd worry about in a CUV??

Roll overs... And I don't believe those vehicles are all that good when it comes to real world circumstances if one needed to take sudden evasive action AND one side of that CUVs wheel got unbalanced and off the pavement... The test I have seen always show those vehicles on a paved surface with all 4 wheels on a paved surface the entire time going around cones... Well... If one is one a real two lane road or even 4 lane road and one side wheels gets off the pavement and it is a dropoff of more than 6 inches and the driver has a lot of steering wheel input going all one way I bet it could really get tough really quick... Plus I wonder seriously about the roof structure above the occupants heads... Will that crush easily upon the occupants ??



My SUV can sustain 5-600% of its own weight on the roof, per IIHS testing.
Further, what you're talking about? I've seen plenty of cars upside down in the ditch, too. An SUV does get you higher off the ground in case a deer runs out. Everything is a trade off. Everything.



It's obvious what I am talking about....

Supposed supporting of weight don't mean jack number2... An impact on that structure is going to have a heck of a lot more force... And hitting a tree... Which will not move at all ?? Where's your roof at ??

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by DweezilAZ
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Overkill how?
Wifey has averaged near enough 30 mpg with our newer Forester that its thirst really isn't an issue and she makes no effort at maximizing fuel economy nor does she avoid using the AC at all ever.
OTOH, my Accord Hybrid has averaged near enough 48 mpg in my use, but wife doesn't like the low seating position and the lack of a large greenhouse.
A good CUV offers reasonable fuel economy along with a high seating position and the better ones also offer plenty of glass.
Nothing wrong with that.
These CUVs are also very reasonably priced, although you can get a deal on a sedan, as I did, since everyone else wants a CUV.



You know what I'd worry about in a CUV??

Roll overs... And I don't believe those vehicles are all that good when it comes to real world circumstances if one needed to take sudden evasive action AND one side of that CUVs wheel got unbalanced and off the pavement... The test I have seen always show those vehicles on a paved surface with all 4 wheels on a paved surface the entire time going around cones... Well... If one is one a real two lane road or even 4 lane road and one side wheels gets off the pavement and it is a dropoff of more than 6 inches and the driver has a lot of steering wheel input going all one way I bet it could really get tough really quick... Plus I wonder seriously about the roof structure above the occupants heads... Will that crush easily upon the occupants ??


Spare yourself the borrowed worry. This is just unnecessary concern trolling. Are you so worried about people on motorcycles, skate boards, bicycles, scooters, getting into showers and bath tubs?

And still, nearly half of all vehicle fatalities are from people who didn't belt up before driving off.

I'd also suggest, as was found in the Firestone/Ford roll over events that when people slammed on their brakes when a tire blew that a roll over condition occurred. In other words: driver error.

Stop worrying about "what if ?". This isn't "Final Destination" territory.



I have come across a number of accident scenes...

What I said is not trolling ... ...

And no... I am not a believer in the whole idea we should all live in a safe bubble...

 

[PimTac]

I'm not a engineer but I think the point here is that a strong roof structure that is part of the overall structure and body of a vehicle can help in crash situations. In the case of Mazda and maybe others, the structure is just four pieces. Roof, sides (2) and the floor pan. Put together with glue and various welds it creates a very strong structure.

With that said, every accident is different. Things happen that we do not foresee.

I knew a young woman in college who was driving with seat belts on and windows open. She was involved in a accident and the car rolled. At one point in the roll her head was outside of the car due to the forces and I will leave it at that since it's too gruesome to tell.

 

[bbhero]

Yep ^^^^^^


I had a friend of mine who rolled his car... His head made just a slight contact with the pavement... His vision was messed up from that afterwards. He was very, very fortunate.


I am not saying not to buy a bigger vehicle... Not saying that at all.

I am thinking out what I have seen and what my biggest concern would be IF I ever purchased a vehicle like that.

And just making note of how weak a roof structure can often be... Or given a high speed and kinetic energy contact with a tree that does not move at all... What could possibly give way... I had a another friend of mine who got hit in the rear end of his small car and he obviously got turned and also went airborne... And his vehicle hit a large couple of trees... Had he not sat so very low in his driver's seat... He would have been killed instantly. From the roof being crushed on to him.

 

[PimTac]

Part of the problem too is how driving is taught these days. Back in the seventies when I was in drivers ed, defensive driving was the big thing. In those days you could also practice in parking lots at night. Speed bumps were being put in but there were still lots without them.

I've talked to a few younger people who seem to have been taught to focus on the car in front of them and the distance. They were not taught to keep an eye on the road further down. When I see brake lights ahead on the freeway I'm already easing off while others speed ahead only to slam on their brakes at the last instant.

As in everything else a bit of luck and chance will play a part. All we as consumers can do is make wise choices on vehicle purchases and drive defensively. But when it's your time, then that's that.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by edyvw

E84 X1 M sport has inline 6 engine, N55. It is old platform (and one that is really, really appealing to BMW enthusiasts).
Considering capabilities of that platform, steering feedback that NO ONE today can offer on the market, I would take E84 even if returned 15mpg on average over new X1 or Tiguan, or CX-5, or Audi, or whatever.


I like the E84 over the F48 as well, but my X1 has the N20 I4. Of all the small CUVs it's one of very few that have a default 60/40 torque split- so it handles like a RWD vehicle most of the time.


I've had SUV with 52/48 split, and my current, which is 98/2 split, and with lock-up electromagnetically, you literally cannot tell with a fast reacting system. It's just free mpg increase, basically. 200x per second, it's monitoring and will shift if needed to the rear. What I also found interesting is that traction is still increasing with mild tire slip. You cannot even notice it as t he driver. By the time you sense tires slipping, you're well past the threshold of a system that is properly designed, and losing momentum/traction. Dave Coleman did an interesting video on this once.

This is example of properly executed front-biased, reactive AWD (98/2, static, to 50/50 (full lock) dynamic, in this case)


It is FWD car with some serious understeer which can be compared to X1 E84 only by someone who lives in another universe. CX-5 rides on FWD platform, it has engine IN FRONT of an axle unlike BMW. And considering his E84 is N20 engine option, most of an engine sits behind axle. It would obliterate on track Mazda, any Mazda, except Miata maybe.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by edyvw

E84 X1 M sport has inline 6 engine, N55. It is old platform (and one that is really, really appealing to BMW enthusiasts).
Considering capabilities of that platform, steering feedback that NO ONE today can offer on the market, I would take E84 even if returned 15mpg on average over new X1 or Tiguan, or CX-5, or Audi, or whatever.


I like the E84 over the F48 as well, but my X1 has the N20 I4. Of all the small CUVs it's one of very few that have a default 60/40 torque split- so it handles like a RWD vehicle most of the time.


I've had SUV with 52/48 split, and my current, which is 98/2 split, and with lock-up electromagnetically, you literally cannot tell with a fast reacting system. It's just free mpg increase, basically. 200x per second, it's monitoring and will shift if needed to the rear. What I also found interesting is that traction is still increasing with mild tire slip. You cannot even notice it as t he driver. By the time you sense tires slipping, you're well past the threshold of a system that is properly designed, and losing momentum/traction. Dave Coleman did an interesting video on this once.

This is example of properly executed front-biased, reactive AWD (98/2, static, to 50/50 (full lock) dynamic, in this case)


It is FWD car with some serious understeer which can be compared to X1 E84 only by someone who lives in another universe. CX-5 rides on FWD platform, it has engine IN FRONT of an axle unlike BMW. And considering his E84 is N20 engine option, most of an engine sits behind axle. It would obliterate on track Mazda, any Mazda, except Miata maybe.


It is a better track vehicle. My point was that the AWD system configuration isn't a problem. I must have missed the part where understeer was an issue...care to point it out? Looked like the car went EXACTLY where it was driven with no issues.
Also, with the X1, definitely need the 6-cylinder if it's going to be fun, IMO. It woulda been nice if BMW had an "in between" the thristy but fast N55, and the slower but thrifty 2.0. Pretty decent gap between the two that coula been filled, IMO. As it stands, I'd prefer my CX5 to any of them except the N55, and it just doesn't make as much sense for a daily driver for me, so yes, I am sure it would be better on the track with the N55, but I chose the best one for me by a long shot.

 

[edyvw]

Quote

It is a better track vehicle. My point was that the AWD system configuration isn't a problem. I must have missed the part where understeer was an issue...care to point it out? Looked like the car went EXACTLY where it was driven with no issues.
Also, with the X1, definitely need the 6-cylinder if it's going to be fun, IMO. It woulda been nice if BMW had an "in between" the thristy but fast N55, and the slower but thrifty 2.0. Pretty decent gap between the two that coula been filled, IMO. As it stands, I'd prefer my CX5 to any of them except the N55, and it just doesn't make as much sense for a daily driver for me, so yes, I am sure it would be better on the track with the N55, but I chose the best one for me by a long shot.



It is better vehicle, period.
You are posting some videos on dirt track, so I am referring to it. By the way, X1 has system that can transfer 100% of torque to front or rear axle, unlike Mazda, ANY Mazda AWD. Every topic has to be polluted by your admiration of that appliance vehicle that is just bit better than RAV4 or CR-V. Get a grip. You are hoping someone will show up and tell you: yes, you own luxury vehicle.
An no, X1 does not need 6cyl. On mountain roads that N20 would still beat the [censored] out of your CX-5, let alone previous one. On mountain roads, 0-60 does not matter.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote

It is a better track vehicle. My point was that the AWD system configuration isn't a problem. I must have missed the part where understeer was an issue...care to point it out? Looked like the car went EXACTLY where it was driven with no issues.
Also, with the X1, definitely need the 6-cylinder if it's going to be fun, IMO. It woulda been nice if BMW had an "in between" the thristy but fast N55, and the slower but thrifty 2.0. Pretty decent gap between the two that coula been filled, IMO. As it stands, I'd prefer my CX5 to any of them except the N55, and it just doesn't make as much sense for a daily driver for me, so yes, I am sure it would be better on the track with the N55, but I chose the best one for me by a long shot.



It is better vehicle, period.
You are posting some videos on dirt track, so I am referring to it. By the way, X1 has system that can transfer 100% of torque to front or rear axle, unlike Mazda, ANY Mazda AWD. Every topic has to be polluted by your admiration of that appliance vehicle that is just bit better than RAV4 or CR-V. Get a grip. You are hoping someone will show up and tell you: yes, you own luxury vehicle.
An no, X1 does not need 6cyl. On mountain roads that N20 would still beat the [censored] out of your CX-5, let alone previous one. On mountain roads, 0-60 does not matter.



The X1 handles better, sure. It's slower from a stop light or a highway roll without the N55, though. My CX5 does plenty well in the mountains and in ice/snow, etc. It's also not a BMW, which I consider a huge bonus when it comes to the actual ownership experience, especially after the first 75K miles or so. I don't care if you think the CX5 is a luxury vehicle or not. It has more creature comforts that I care about than the X1, and so it's what I went with, aside from the fact that I'm anti-BMW for long-term ownership. Coulda saved a LOT of money and bought a 5-10K mile old E84 N55 X1 if I had felt like it. No thank-you. Even if it IS faster and handles better.

 

[Pew]

Originally Posted by edyvw

It is better vehicle, period.
You are posting some videos on dirt track, so I am referring to it. By the way, X1 has system that can transfer 100% of torque to front or rear axle, unlike Mazda, ANY Mazda AWD. Every topic has to be polluted by your admiration of that appliance vehicle that is just bit better than RAV4 or CR-V. Get a grip. You are hoping someone will show up and tell you: yes, you own luxury vehicle.
An no, X1 does not need 6cyl. On mountain roads that N20 would still beat the [censored] out of your CX-5, let alone previous one. On mountain roads, 0-60 does not matter.


On that note, did you see the program that was released where you can change the AWD bias of the BMW system? My coworker showed me for his 435i x-drive and he can switch it from 0/100 to 100/0 to anything in between within 10 seconds. That's pretty friggin nifty.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by edyvw

It is better vehicle, period.
You are posting some videos on dirt track, so I am referring to it. By the way, X1 has system that can transfer 100% of torque to front or rear axle, unlike Mazda, ANY Mazda AWD. Every topic has to be polluted by your admiration of that appliance vehicle that is just bit better than RAV4 or CR-V. Get a grip. You are hoping someone will show up and tell you: yes, you own luxury vehicle.
An no, X1 does not need 6cyl. On mountain roads that N20 would still beat the [censored] out of your CX-5, let alone previous one. On mountain roads, 0-60 does not matter.


On that note, did you see the program that was released where you can change the AWD bias of the BMW system? My coworker showed me for his 435i x-drive and he can switch it from 0/100 to 100/0 to anything in between within 10 seconds. That's pretty friggin nifty.


That is cool. You know, I have found people have interesting perceptions about AWD and biases. One of my friends bought a WRX STi and HATED it. Guy can drive. Had a spec'ed out Miata and tracked it, etc. Another friend bought a WRX STi and LOVES how it handles. He's a capable driver, as well.

My question is this...what do lap-times say? Can a pro driver dial a 435 in and turn a better lap time than the computer can? Back when I bought my Z06, and PTM came out, Randy Pobst was able to BARELY out-drive PTM on the track if he did EVERYTHING flawlessly. We are talking a tenth of a second or less. That's how good computers are. I am curious about how that goes with the BMW system, of if it's just for fun/circumstance/etc?