Why are Subcompact Crossovers so popular?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
3,706
Location
utah
How did we go from subcompact cars with great MPG and low prices to the ultra small SUVs? I totally understand the CX-5 CRV Rav 4 size crossovers and above. But what is the deal with a Chevy Trax or Ford Ecosport, CX-3, toyota CH-R? Are people buying these because they are just a few thousand dollars shy of a properly sized SUV? They seem to start at like $20k+ and yet are all small on back seats, cargo, and not even that great on fuel economy.

It seems to me that people should buy the larger unit or step down to something like a Hyundai Elantra for way less money and better mpgs.

I mean no offense to anyone who owns these or plans to buy one, i just genuinely don't get it.
 
Nice combo of room to carry stuff, good mileage, and lower insurance costs (compared to a larger SUV).
 
When I was buying my Escape I saw an Ecosport and they are small. My Escape with the rear seats folded down has almost as much room to haul as my Jeep GC.
 
Originally Posted by CT8
Should or should not ? Comrade we all have our opinions and choices.


This
 
As mentioned the higher seating position (easier to get in and out) is attractive to anyone with back/hips/knee problems.
With the lower MSRP of subcompact Crossovers, that gives persons this advantage for the about the price of a sedan.
I also like the cargo hold in the back which is climate controlled, vs whatever is in your trunk either freezing or roasting depending upon the temp.
 
[Linked Image from blog.consumerguide.com]
 
Last edited:
Like hatches. The better gas mileage offsets the tougher ingress. Don't like sedans. My Soul has tons of room. It used to be called a hatch, now it's called a cuv. Go figure. Used to have a Buick Encore. Less reliable but do miss the electronic goodies. Need nothing bigger.
 
Last edited:
Wife owns a new model Suzuki Vitara. Consider this: she wants to "get in the car" rather than "sit down in the car" or "climb up in the car". Seat height with relationship to the outside floor height is what's important
 
Originally Posted by csandste
Love my Soul and it's a great size for me. I'm old and it's easier to get in and out.


The Soul is a wagon IMO. Sure plenty of articles or whatever lump it into the subcompact crossover class but its a wagon. Wagons are awesome.

i get the riding higher thing too but my question is why buy the sub compact when the must roomier/better size is so close in price??
 
They are quite practical, get excellent gas mileage and have awd to boot.

The new Mazda CX-30 is one to keep an eye on.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
They are quite practical, get excellent gas mileage and have awd to boot.

The new Mazda CX-30 is one to keep an eye on.


Wow, a size between CX-3 and CX-5, what a world we live in! Doesn't sway my point/opinion. The CX-5 is the minimum size for an SUV. Its not large, its not small, its Goldilocks perfect.

Now if it was like a Samurai or a Wrangler where it is very small in order to dominate offroad i can wrap my head around that.

But if its just very compact for the sake of looking different or being 20k instead of 23k or whatever i don't get that.
 
Quote
They are quite practical, get excellent gas mileage and have awd to boot.


Agree. I personally like them, especially the CX-3. Lower/mid $20k's for an AWD vehicle that gets up to 30mpg. They handle well too. Smaller cars have their advantage. Where I live, which is heavily populated, it's often nice to zip around in a smaller car. And if you go into the city parking is much easier.
 
That's your opinion though. Some people don't want a larger vehicle even if it's a compact. The sub-compact market has its fans.

I like the size of my CX5. It's perfect for the wife and I. We didn't need anything bigger. There are people that prefer smaller cars.

A good example is the Subaru Outback versus the Forester. Both are popular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom