Talk:Crossover (automobile)

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)

Essentially, ESC will mitigate or ignore driver input that would put the vehicle at risk of a rollover, this includes shifting power in order to stabalize the vehicle, applying braking to shift vehicle weight and cut power to rear wheels that are showing signs of a fishtail.--Evilbred (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The specific technology can be referred to as Roll Over Mitigation (ROM). Typically as a car's behavior looks likely to cause an untripped rollover the lateral acceleration is limited by braking one or other axle. Greglocock (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

Thoughts? 842U (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. By definition a Crossover is NOT a SUV. Well job. Randroide (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Section Needed on Mileage for Crossover Autos

I would like to see a section in here about mileage for crossovers.

Starfoot (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PT Cruiser

Is the PT Cruiser a crossover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.205.147 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Mazda 5 "minivan-like" ?

The article mentioned:

• Minivan-like CUVs: e.g., Dodge Journey, Mazda 5 (Mazda Premacy)

Taking into account that Mazda 5 and Mazda 3 share the same platform, can we call Mazda 5 "minivan-like"? By the shape - yes, but there is other category - "Compact sedan-derived CUVs". 99.248.136.251 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CUV and "Crossover Utility Vehicle"

These seem to be legacy jargon and no longer in current usage. Common usage is now exclusively "crossovers". This should be reflected in the article. patsw (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Highlander

The Highlander is listed as an early crossover in the midsize class, that does not really need any references as it's indisputable. However I added a fact tag rather than removing what is historically relevant to the topic.Pattidude (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no such thing as "Crossovers"

Its very simple really. Unfortunately the advertising departments at most car manufacturers don't care about the facts and just use whatever term or label is popular at the time. The facts are as follows:

station wagon - 4 passenger doors, 1 rear hatch, automotive chassis. SUV - 4 doors, 1 rear hatch, truck chassis. hatchback - 2 passenger doors, 1 rear hatch, automotive chassis.

The ground clearance, exterior or interior dimensions, amenities, number of seats etc. are not relevant. Even the number of driven wheels isn't relevant since so many cars nowadays are awd. Technically there are no such thing as "crossovers," the vehicles that are commonly refereed to "crossovers" are just large station wagons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.30.26 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, its not so simple. There used to be 2-door wagons in the 1970s - same length and box shape as the 4-door wagons but with only 2 doors. The Toyota Corolla and Holden Gemini spring to mind. Also, the Landcruiser has had plenty of 2-door models over its life. There have even been 4-door hatchbacks (eg Toyota Camry SV10). The RAV4 is typicaly of the 'crossover' term. It does indeed have a passenger car floorpan (no separate chassis) and driveline but its increase road clearance makes it different from a wagon or hatchback (and has limited cargo ability). As you said, the term is an invention of marketing departments - but so is coupe, hardtop, SUV, sportscar and even station wagon and van are not clearly defined (is a van the same as a wagon but without rear side windows?). There's no clear answer and definitely no solid definition from an authoritative source (does such a thing even exist for these terms?), so we present the best definition we can muster using common sense based on an agregate of manufacturer claims. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, crossover is a valid automotive term.

Station wagons, crossovers and hatchbacks are different cars. Station wagons are usualy defined by the long low profile, rear lift gate, and existance of a D-pillar. Hatchbacks are defined by the shorter, more pod like profile, rear lift gate and only the A, B and C pillars.

Crossovers are long high profile, A, B, and C pillars and rear lift gate. Essentially a crossover is a high bodied hatchback.

SUVs are the easiest, I would define an SUV as a body on frame vehicle with an enclosed combined passenger/cargo compartment. I would think that a unibody chassis with atleast 1 solid axel could also be an SUV. --Evilbred (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Body on frame being the only definition of a SUV is very north american and not a global view. Warren (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This article looks like it has been written from a North American point of view. I've added a line about the ancestor of crossover SUV's (the 1977 Matra Rancho, looked like some kind of Land Rover but had only a 1442cc unit powering the front wheels), I will try and edit the article for a more global point of view.

About the definition of station wagons mentioned above, the UK- and German-built Ford Escort had 2-door versions (not counting the rear hatch) of the estate version well into the 1980s. --Robert (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Which of them are plug-in hybrids?

Other than the Ford Escape? 71.215.79.206 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossover (automobile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/autos/1112/gallery.most-disliked-cars.fortune/7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossover (automobile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091211182435/http://www.edmunds.com:80/infiniti/fx35/review.html to http://www.edmunds.com/infiniti/fx35/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

CUV?

My understanding had always been that CUV stood for COMPACT UTILITY VEHICLE and basically applied to the smaller end of the SUV market, things that were never intended to replace minivans (which crossovers tend to be) things with more traditional SUV interiors, not quite so family oriented. A google search for "compact utility vehicle" returns roughly twice as many results as "crossover utility vehicle", I think inserting crossover into that acronym was done in error and crossover has always been a separate and distinct term. 50.240.245.217 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

usage of the term outside the United States

Hello. In my experience, the term crossover is mainly used in the United States (other countries use terms such as "compact SUV" instead). The article's current references also suggest minimal usage outside the United States, but does anyone have more references supporting or opposing that the term is not commonly used in other countries? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. People tend to read both Crossover SUV and Compact SUV as a vehicle looking like but not really an off-road vehicle.  Stepho  talk  03:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Crossover is a wannabe SUV?

It is a kind of lifted wagon pretending to be an SUV, but I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.110.147 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is more or less a lifted station wagon in an age where station wagons are unsellable. The article says "Crossovers are often based on a platform shared with a passenger car" in the lead paragraph and in the definition section it says "In the United Kingdom, a crossover is sometimes defined as a hatchback with raised ride height and SUV-like styling features.  Stepho  talk  04:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossover sizing

I did an analysis on crossover sizng, using the lengths of the cars and platforms they are based on to separate them to subcompact, compact, midsized and large crossovers. Such classifications are often rather chaptic on the cars' individual places and, at least for me, it would be nice to categorize all of them properly. The table is on Excel, not sure how to share it into here. However, it would need some explaining and is unclear in some places. There is no way to comprehensively classify all crossover as the manufacturers categorize them very freely and mostly randomly, but I gave it a shot.

For your reference, according to my analysis, these cars would be subcompact crossovers:

• Suzuki Jimny
• Suzuki Ignis
• Urban Cruiser
• Mitsubishi Pajero Pinin
• Ford Ecosport
• VW T-Cross
• Fiat Sedici
• DS3 Crossback
• Seat Arona
• Kia Stonic
• Opel Mokka
• Citroen C3 Aircross
• Citroen C4 Cactus
• Hyundai Kona
• Suzuki Vitara
• Toyota Yaris Cross
• Ford Puma
• Audi Q2
• Nissan Juke
• Opel Crossland X
• Ssangyong Tivoli
• Volkswagen T-Roc
• Renault Captur
• Škoda Yeti
• Jeep Renegade
• Škoda Kamiq
• Fiat 500X
• Mazda CX-3
• Mitsubishi ASX (arguably could/should be compact)
• Peugeot 2008
• Mini Countryman
• Dacia Duster (arguably could/should be compact)
• Honda HR-V

These would be compact:

• Kia Niro
• Seat Ateca
• Toyota C-HR
• BMW X2
• Peugeot 4008
• Citroen C4 Aircross
• Nissan Qashqai
• Range Rover Evoque
• Škoda Karoq
• Mazda CX-30
• Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross
• Mercedes-Benz GLA
• Jaguar E-Pace
• Jeep Compass
• Jeep Patriot
• Volvo XC40
• Infiniti QX30
• BMW X1
• Peugeot 3008
• Ssangyong Korando
• Renault Kadjar
• Subaru XV
• Ssangyong Actyon
• Hyundai Tucson/ix35
• Opel Grandland X
• Kia Sportage
• Audi Q3
• VW Tiguan
• Lexus UX
• Suzuki Grand Vitara
• Citroen C5 Aircross
• Mazda CX-5
• DS7 Crossback
• Honda CR-V
• Opel Antara
• Toyota RAV4
• Land Rover Discovery Sport
• Ford Kuga
• Jeep Cherokee
• Subaru Forester (arguably could/should be midsized, but then it would take the RAV4, CR-V and Cherokee with it)
• Mercedes-Benz GLB

These would be midsized:

• Peugeot 5008
• Lexus NX
• Nissan X-Trail
• Mercedes-Benz GLK/C
• Audi Q5
• Renault Koleos
• Porsche Macan
• Jaguar I-Pace
• Alfa Romeo Stelvio
• Volvo XC60
• Peugeot 4007
• Citroen C-Crosser
• Ssangyong Kyron
• Mitsubishi Outlander
• Skoda Kodiaq
• Infiniti EX/QX50
• BMW X3
• Tiguan Allspace
• Ssangyong Musso
• Mazda CX-7
• Hyundai Terracan
• Mercedes-Benz G-class
• Jaguar F-Pace
• Seat Tarraco
• Tesla Model Y
• BMW X4
• Mercedes-Benz EQC
• Santa Fe
• Ford Edge
• Jeep Wrangler
• Range Rover Velar
• Kia Sorento
• Jeep Grand Cherokee (arguably could/should be large)

These would be large:

• Toyota Land Cruiser
• Ssangyong Rexton
• Range Rover Sport
• VW Touareg
• Hyundai ix55
• Infiniti QX70
• Nissan Murano
• Fiat Freemont
• Lexus RX
• Subaru Tribeca
• Mitsubishi Pajero
• Audi e-tron
• Porsche Cayenne
• BMW X5
• Mercedes-Benz M/GLE
• BMW X6
• Volvo XC90
• Discovery
• Audi Q8
• Range Rover
• Maserati Levante
• Pathfinder
• Land Rover Discovery
• Tesla Model X
• Ford Explorer
• Nissan Patrol
• Audi Q7
• Mazda CX-9
• Lamborghini Urus
• Bentley Bentayga
• BMW X7
• Mercedes-Benz GL/GLS
• Infiniti QX80
• Rolls-Royce Cullinan

There are some missing, notably most Asian-only and American-only models, but this is a start. --Carfan16 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Carfan16

You did some great work categorising almost all SUVs, however, I think it would make more sense if we categorise them by size based on vehicle length. My idea is

• Subcompact: Anything below 4.35 meters
• Compact: Between 4.35 meters and 4.7 meters
• Mid-Size: Between 4.7 and 5.1 meters
• Full-Size: Anything above 5.1 meters

Blaze064 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• 2020 Volvo XC60 front view (United States).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• 2020 BMW X5 front view (United States).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)