Talk:SUV

Suggested removal of "Hybrid" discussion advertisement

Discussing Hybrid Gas-Electric vehicles does not really belong in this article. Especially references to specific vehicles, which sounds like advertisement. It is perhaps only relevent in terms of Fuel economy. Perhaps one when noting the poor gas millage of SUV's compared to other passenger vehicles, the "hybrid" gas milage could be mentioned. "While the average fuel economy of SUV's is less than 20 mpg, some gas-electric hybrids can get 30 mpg".

The pages for Truck, Van, Minivan, Car, and Bus should be referenced. There is little to no reference to hybrid gas-electric in these pages. It really is not part of the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GodWasAnAlien (talk • contribs) .

Some of the SUV vehicles referenced here can achieve more than 30mpg with petrol engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.247.186.130 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

First SUV

The has been a little to and froing for the first SUV. The article used to say that the 1984 Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first but the Range Rover is occasionally brought up as the first. The XJ being unibody has been given as a reason for it being the first (teh Range Rover being body on frame) but I'm not sure this is a deciding factor. Many people count vehicles such as the Land Cruiser or Lexus LX as being SUVs and these are body-on-frame. To my mind, a unibody SUV-like vehicle is more likely to be classed as a crossover SUV. The Jeep Wagoneer (SJ) might also have a claim for being the first SUV.  Stepho  talk 

This paragraph about the "first SUV" is highly subjective, and based on one very-biased person's published book. It neglects many earlier and contemporary SUV-style models, such as the Ford Bronco II and Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, both of which were very similar to the Jeep Cherokee, and were introduced several years before the Jeep Cherokee. Other predecessors include the International Scout, Toyota Landcruiser, numerous Range Rover models, and many other vehicles that didn't survive for a variety of reasons. This paragraph should be removed or rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.43.68 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewed the entire article more thoroughtly, there appears to be a lot of focus on the 1984 Jeep Cherokee, which looks a lot like advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.43.68 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Between 2010 and 2018 SUVs were the second largest contributor to the global increase in carbon emissions worldwide.

True dat. But if SUVs weren't available other cars would have been bought instead, so it's a bit of a silly claim. It's also worth pointing that SUVs were only about 1/3 as much as the biggest contributor. The entire guardian article reads like a child's essay bashing SUVs. Cars have got heavier because every new car buyer wants HVAC and 5* crash and 6 airbags and so on and so forth. Greglocock (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved per quick and clear consensus. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Sport utility vehicle → SUV – Per MOS:ACROTITLE: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". That is the case here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support: I would wager that most UK readers do not know what SUV stands for, yet the acronym is widely used. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME. Indeed. Greglocock (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PNP MAHINDRA SCORPIO POLICE CAR.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Crossover definition

Clearly unibody is no longer an adequate criteria for considering a vehicle a crossover, as the new Defender is unibody, but not a crossover by any stretch of the imagination. There are many other examples, such as the Renegade, which are unibody but not derived from road cars and are available in full off road configurations.

Having 4x4 is not necessarily a good guide either. AWD is required for extra grip in mud and snow, but many people who do drive off road simply do not require that. In addition, electronic slip control and hybrid drivetrains are increasing the grip capabilities in different ways.

I would suggest the best criteria for defining a car 'crossover' would be the suspension. SUVs derived from road vehicles tend to maintain the popular torsion beam rear suspension that maximises rear load space. This layout is not very suitable for off-road vehicles. Traditional 4x4s had leaf springs under the chassis, modern unibody off-road vehicles tend to use McPherson struts on the rear, mounted high up above the centre line of the wheel. 94.247.186.130 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are talking about the Land Rover Defender (L663) with it's aluminium unibody. It's also worth mentioning the 2012 Range Rover (L405). It too has an aluminium unibody and most would call it an SUV - although it seems to get further from its farm roots with every generation.

Agreed that until recently frame vs unibody was a simple way to distinguish SUV vs CUV. Practically every car definition has some grey area. But as long as it is only a very small number of cars, I'm happy to ignore it. After all, there is no formal definition of SUV or CUV - both are marketing speak for whatever sells the vehicle. If "shitbox" became a fad label tomorrow then by the end of the week there would be 3 cars with a corresponding badge. Perhaps in a year or 2 we will make the distinction based on soft springs vs stiff springs or similar.  Stepho  talk  10:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)