Talk:Crossover (automobile)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] ESC and Rollovers
This article mentions that the tendency for SUVs to rollover "has been essentially mitigated by the widespread application of Electronic Stability Control systems, especially since about 2004." I fail to see how an ESC system could directly prevent a vehicle from rolling over. The ESC is responsible for modifying driver input to help prevent a vehicle from entering situations of understeer/oversteer. In a situation of oversteer, a vehicle moving laterally may roll if encountering an obstacle in the road or if the traction of the tires is able to resist the cars momentum enough to create significant rotational torque. However, this is only an indirect relation between ESC and a rollover. Being indirect, the claim that ESC prevents rollovers is therefore not true (in a strict sense). A claim of this kind can instill a dangerous false sense of safety in motorists looking at the benefits of ESC systems, thus making it an inappropriate inclusion to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.74.53 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Crossover SUV" is a contridiction
I don't agree with the term "crossover SUV", because an SUV itself is a "crossover" between a car and a truck. Therefore, it is a redundant term. Here is my reasoning: an SUV can be either truck-based OR car-based. This is the very reason the term SUV was invented - because more car-like vehicles were appearing. These new vehicles were neither car nor truck, so a term was needed which, as well as including the traditional truck-based vehicles, could also include these new vehicles. I think this article should therefore be limited to a brief mention in the "SUV" article. Please refer to my five points below for more info/explanation. Thoughts? Davez621 10:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. The term has become mainstream (115,000 google results - although I am sure many mean it in your context) and is used to designate cars. In this context it means that the SUV was based off a car chassis instead of either a car or truck chassis, which is important to note. PS2pcGAMER 06:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Point 1: Your google search returns 115,000 results. Meanwhile a search for just SUV returns 15 million results. This means the term crossover appears in less than 1% of all articles containing SUV. I don't consider that common.
- Point 2: I don't disagree with the term crossover entirely, although it is somewhat redundant because most vehicles can be classed as either car or SUV. A crossover, in my opinion, is a vehicle which is neither SUV nor car (in the traditional sense), in that it may look like either. For example, a PT Cruiser, a Toyota Matrix, or a Nissan Murano. A Honda CR-V on the other hand (as pictured in this article), is certainly not a crossover, because no matter what angle you look at it, you could not mistake it for anything but an SUV. It doesn't at all look like a car.
- Point 3: I need to re-emphasize my original point - the term SUV itself refers to a cross between a car and a truck! However, depending on the type of SUV, it might be more truck (LandCruiser, Jeep), or more car (Honda CR-V). These are two vehicles at either end of the SAME scale, and there are many vehicles in between.
- Point 4: The distinction between car and truck chassis or platform is now irrelevant. The Mitsubishi Montero (or Pajero/Shogun), uses a car like construction and is at the same time an extremely rugged vehicle, very macho looking, and certainly not a crossover.
- Point 5: The average person should not have to know anything technical about a vehicle in order to categorize it. For example, an average person can easily point to a vehicle on the road and identify it as a "sedan", "coupe", or "station wagon". They base this purely on its external appearance. The same should hold true for an SUV. The distinction should only be based on the external appearance. If you can't tell what kind of chassis/platform a vehicle uses just by looking at it, then it really doesn't matter, the vehicle is just an "SUV". Davez621 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lada Niva is not a SUV, much less a crossover SUV
The Lada Niva is mentioned in the article as a cross-over SUV. This is impossible, since Niva was never a SUV in the first place. There is nothing sporty about it, Niva is a true cheap off-road vehicle that happens to be monococque design. Also, a SUV is something you are afraid to bring to terrain, not true for the Niva. Niva has nothing of the faux "fool the riches" idea 4WD found in Porsche Cayenne or BMW X5.
[edit] NPOV
Problems with NPOV in the last and second-to-last paragraphs of the "history" section, as well as encyclopedic content (outdoorsy?) Bizznot 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that: the whole paragraph should be deleted or modified. I don't feel worthy: I'm not a car person. Bizznot 04:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stigma?!
I find it amusing that because a few hippy idiots dislike the SUV, it's now "become stigmatized in American culture" - surely, such stigma would contradict "Given the market's demonstrated insatiable appetite for SUVs and SUV-like vehicles", would it not? Who writes this tripe, anyhow ? Kythri 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- while the language is a bit strong, i think the jist of the criticism is correct. i suggest changing to something like "SUVS have been associated by some with poor fuel economy, etc..." this should not be difficult to support. if that view is deemed to be growing, such assertions should be supported with references.
- incidentally, i'm not so sure about the conflict cited in the critique. the contradiction may be in the article or in human behavior. sometimes we continue to do things we know are bad for us and even do more of it as we grow increasingly aware. clear assertions with supporting references are helpful.
- Ericfluger 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original work?
The article had been mostly original work without citations or references -- full of big statements, weasel words and peacock terms -- but mostly unreferenced conjecture.
To that end, I've reworked the article using citations and references, and eliminating the conjecture and dependance on original work. 842U (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rename article: Crossover (automobile) ?
What do people think of renaming the entire article Crossover (automobile) vs. Crossover SUV, with disambiguation links to Crossover SUV and CUV.
Currently CUV links to the Crossover SUV.
