Something with more utility

I always thought that if I were to ever get a second car, it would also be something of the sporting variety. Something to compliment my rear-wheel drive BMW M2. Perhaps a front-wheel drive Honda Civic Type R, or an all-wheel drive Toyota GR Corolla. Because every car guy should have examples of each drivetrain style, am I right? I’ve already done the engine in at the back of the car thing…

Lately however I’ve been slightly frustrated by the lack of utility with my M2. Sure there’s a normal size trunk at the back, but the opening is on the small side. Bigger items that would otherwise fit inside can’t get through the aperture. I completely understand why the sport-utility vehicle is the most popular type of car sold in America. It’s nice to go to IKEA and not have to worry about jigsawing those furniture boxes to fit. Simply open the hatch and dump it all in.

So I’m thinking maybe, if I were to get a second car, that it should be something on the utilitarian side. I already have a sports car! It makes sense for the other car to be able to take care of the everyday life stuff. An SUV that can haul stuff in the back with ease, carry pets and their dirt without care, and be able to park it anywhere with no worries. The M2 will then be relegated to pure, occasional pleasure driving. No more Costco runs for the little BMW.

This is all a big if, obviously. A second car is way down on the priorities list. Insurance cost for one car is expensive enough as is. It’s just something nice to think about. Unlike sports cars, the availability of SUVs is vast and varying. There’s so many options to choose from that doing a bit of window shopping and comparing is fun in it of itself.

View fullsize

You’re not going anywhere.

Aston Martin DBX

View fullsize

Photo credit: Aston Martin Lagonda

Porsche was way ahead of the curve nearly two decades earlier when it introduced the Cayenne sports utility vehicle (SUV) to the market. Reactions to the famous maker of sports cars producing an SUV was decidedly mixed; people were incredulous that Porsche would forsake decades of tradition to chase after the mighty consumers dollars. Like Burger King introducing french fries to compete with McDonalds, it was a necessary move to ensure Porsche’s long-term survival, as the market size for SUVs is immensely larger than weekend driving toys.

The profits from the Cayenne also act as a monetary float for Porsche to keep making the 911 ever better with each generation. Indeed, P-car enthusiasts quickly forgot about whatever stain on the legacy it is to have an SUV in the Porsche lineup, so long as the 911 remains at the pinnacle of sports cars. Today, the Cayenne and the smaller Macan continues to print money for the German automaker, and we get to enjoy our GT3s. It’s a win win.

So it’s a slight surprise it has taken this long for other premium sports car manufacturers to copy Porsche’s formula. The Cayenne debuted way back in 2002, and it’s only at the end of this decade that we are seeing SUVs from the likes of Lamborghini and Bentley - the Ferrari SUV won’t be a reality for another few years. The proliferation of SUVs have really accelerated since the start of the 2010s, so much so that steadfast traditionalist brands that are synonymous with fast supercars can no longer ignore the market opportunity.

Even Lotus will be making one. Hard to imagine such a thing just five years ago.

Last evening, Aston Martin world-premiered its very first SUV effort, dubbed the DBX. The iconic British marque, known for its fast GT coupes and association with James Bond, is ready to reap the fat profits that Porsche have been collecting for the longest time. A lot is hinging on the DBX, as the stock prices of Aston Martin have not done particularly well since its IPO, and last quarter it lost 13.5 million pounds. The company is hoping the massive SUV market will turn its fortunes back into the positive.

If looks alone makes a car worthy of consideration, then the DBX will sell tremendously well. It’s the first of these “super SUVs” that I would actually call beautiful, though you wouldn’t expect anything less from Aston Martin. The DBX shames the Bentley Bentayga into common obscurity, and reveals the Lamborghini Urus as the incoherent, offensive mess it truly is. The DBX exudes a flowing elegance that doesn’t offend, yet retains the sense of specialness that spending upwards of $200,000 should get you in return.

Of course, speed and athleticism worthy of the Aston wings ought to be a given in DBX, but I think those attributes don’t matter to the target audience. Brand equity and interior space is what counts; how the DBX takes to a corner is secondary, perhaps tertiary. Because if buyers are looking for something that handles well, they wouldn’t be looking at an SUV.

It’s all about the badge: the forthcoming Ferrari SUV can steer like a pontoon boat and customers will still buy. That’s the game, and premium sports car makers are busily scrambling to follow what Porsche started.

GM doesn't care to make good sedans

A few months ago Ford announced the company will cease to sell sedans (other than the Mustang) and will focus fully on SUVs and trucks. Most in the industry thought it is a prudent strategy because consumer tastes having switched dramatically to SUVs, and also Ford’s currently lineup of sedans are lackluster to say the least.

Last week General Motors basically announced a similar plan, only that GM will shutdown plants and cut workforce into the 10 thousands as well. The public reception to that have not been so good. The same GM that received the massive government bailout after the start of the great recession, and the same GM that just last year lavished in the cut to corporate taxes, cannot repay the favors in kind by eliminating precious jobs. Those are real consequences to people’s livelihoods, rather than just a different product mix inside a dealership showroom as in the case of Ford.

Even from a strict economical standpoint this plan by GM isn’t entirely positive. It’s true that the market is leaning so heavily towards SUVs that Lamborghini sells one, but that isn’t to indicate the sedan category is dead in the waters. Asian manufacturers are still making quality sedans and continuously improving them (the redesigned Honda Accord is brilliant), and people are still buying. While not completely immune to shift to SUVs, the combines sales of Toyota’s Corolla and Camry remains in the 600,000s annually.

GM simply isn’t making class-competitive cars.

Indeed (negative) reputation plays a part, and I think American manufacturers never recovered from the adverse brand equity it carried from the 80’s and 90’s. Back then if a customer wanted a well-built car that will last for many years, the only option were Asian marques, and brand perception is a heck of a sticking point. Surely you’ve seen the Chevy commercials where “real people” were surprised at the quality of a Chevrolet car; bad reputation is insanely difficult to repair.

These days GM and Ford are making solid cars, but it’s never class-leading. Alpha-chassis Cadillac sedans are some of the best handling cars currently available, but the interior quality is leagues below its rivals from Germany. It can be argued that GM never intend to produce world-class sedans, but merely what’s good enough to move units. Now that those units aren’t moving quite at the numbers of the past, GM decides to eliminate the category from its portfolio completely.

It’s a shrewd move; partly due to prevailing market forces, and partly because GM doesn’t care to make great cars. Thousands will be out of a job because of GM’s incompetence.

Businesses are driven by the bottom line, but I think ceasing production of sedans is the wrong decision. The popularity of SUVs and trucks is partly bolstered by cheap gasoline prices, so then what will happen when prices inevitably go back up? Just like in the early aughts, American automakers will once again not have the appropriate product mix to cater to that demand.

Only there won’t be another bailout; GM never learned from their mistakes precisely because the government saved them from collapse back in 2009.

Working hard or hardly working?

I now see why SUVs are so popular

Sport-utility vehicles (SUV) are popular as ever; if an automaker wishes to print money, produce an SUV. Porsche was highly prescient over a decade and a half ago introducing the Cayenne SUV; that car made the company so much money that they were then able to invest it back into sports cars. The likes of Lamborghini and Bentley have followed suit, and Ferrari will soon join the fray. These historic nameplates, far removed from the idea of an SUV, simply can’t resist the money prospective.

Full-line manufacturers have long ago latched on to the SUV money train, even if some are later to the party than others (looking at you, Volkswagen). Particularly, Subaru proved that consumers will buy anything resembling an SUV: they simply raised the Impreza hatchback on stilts, call it the ‘Crosstrek’, and the result is mega profits. The buyers are none the wiser that it’s merely a wagon sat higher from the ground.

SUV sales are doing so well and consequently traditional sedans are not (even the vaunted Honda Accord and Toyota Camry is down in sales) that Ford will be jettisoning its entirely sedan lineup in favor of SUVs. Of course, nowhere in the announcement is an admission that Ford’s current sedan portfolio is desperately outdated and behind on the competition.

As a car enthusiast I used to be utterly against SUVs. Wagons and hatchbacks offers the same utility, and if I were inclined to venture truly off-road, I’d buy a proper body-on-frame bruiser like a Toyota 4Runner or a Jeep Wrangler. The way I see it, the typical unibody SUV needlessly sacrifice fuel economy for the sake of a tall seating position and commanding view.

Keyword is I used to. My family recently bought an SUV - Hyundai Tucson, and having driven it around and on a few long trips, my mind has completely changed. There is indeed something magical, and more importantly comfortable, about the elevated seating position: ingress and egress is tremendously easy, and unlike a sedan your body is not hunkered down in a contorted position (especially if you’re on the taller side like I am). An SUV is also much easier to park, it being significantly shorter in the length than the typical four-door.

Sports cars remains the zenith in my heart, but for the regular commute and long journeys, I can understand why SUVs have become so incredibly popular.

The iPhone XS Max’s camera is a low-light monster.

Where are the affordable performance SUVs?

The big trend in the automotive world recently is the sports-utility vehicle: customers are buying them in droves, so much so that even purest of the pure sports car makers like Lamborghini has come out with one, and their crosstown rivals Ferrari is widely believed to be developing one as well. Few buys the traditional sedans anymore; everyone wants an SUV.

This may sound antithetical to a car enthusiast's ears, and perhaps it's because I'm properly #adulting these days: I absolutely get the allure of the SUV. These hopped-up station-wagons are more compact than the equivalent car so therefore easier to park (have you seen the latest Camry class of sedans? They're longer than minivans now). They've got plenty of suspension travel/tire sidewall so speed bumps and potholes are of no issue (some days are more tiresome than others in the Miata). Armed with all-wheel drive SUVs can practically go anywhere in most weather conditions - with a proper set of tires, of course. 

Modern engineering have enabled SUVs to achieve roughly the same gas mileage and driving dynamics as the typical sedan, so with none of the old drawbacks it's no wonder they've become leading sellers. Honda sells more CR-Vs per year in America than the entire BMW brand. 

I've been looking at SUVs recently, though naturally the models that catches my fancy have more of a sporting bent, however oxymoronic that may be. But there's a problem: SUVs with above average power and driving fun all costs at least $50,000; the offerings below that threshold are more of the mundane grocery-getting variety. In particular a BMW X3 M40i would fit my bill nicely with its 3-Series based chassis and a 355 horsepower motor, but it's starts in the mid $50,000s. 

Though I bet it leases tremendously as do most BMWs.

I think - and hope - it's only a matter of time before automakers produce sporting SUVs for more plebeian budgets. If Subaru puts the 2.0-liter WRX motor into its compact Crosstrek SUV, I'd be first in the line at a dealership tomorrow. The general motoring public is buying SUVs by the shipload, but to attract enthusiasts like me to the party we've got to have some mainstream performance offerings. Not all of us have 55 grand to spend on an Audi SQ5. 

If indeed people are buying less and less sports-cars and sedans, then why not put those exciting ingredients and engineering effort into the SUVs that are selling well? A Chevy sports-utility with the chassis character of the alpha platform would be tremendous, wouldn't it? Or what about the brilliance Ford Performance has done with the Fiesta ST and Focus ST but in a Ford Escape?

What I am saying is: a sports-utility is high on the list of vehicles for my next car (I'm still shocked this is the case), but said SUV will need to have a proper level of move and agility to satiate the sports-car driver in me, and at a palatable price. Sports-utility vehicle with a capital S: an Ariel Nomad with the body trappings of a typical car. Isn't too much to ask, is it? 

Ferrari building an SUV is not sacrilege

The automotive world is in a tizzy due to reports of Ferrari in serious consideration for producing its first ever SUV. If there's one marque in the world where an SUV would be seen sacrilege by the petrol-head gallery, the Prancing Horse is it. For a company dripping with racing and speed for over 70 years, an SUV, well, simply isn't. I counter that a production Ferrari SUV wouldn't be breaking anything sacred - it actually honors the tradition. 

What's the point of Ferrari as a road-car manufacturer? Back in the early days it sold cars to the public not because Enzo Ferrari wanted to, but rather to finance his lofty racing ambitions. That was the ethos. These days, what are the best money-makers in the automotive world? The sports utility vehicle. Ferrari producing one makes sense - maximize revenue from the road-car business to fund it's racing. Perhaps with an SUV the Scuderia will then have the resources to design a reliable engine for Vettel.  

People griped hard when Porsche first introduced the Cayenne SUV, but without its sales bolstering the company's bottom-line we probably wouldn't get all the delicious GT cars and the 918 Spyder. Even Lamborghini, Ferrari's eternal rival on public roads, will soon have an SUV on sale. It's a business, and there's immense pressure on these publicly traded companies to steer towards the hot item in the market. 

A Ferrari SUV is a complete positive: the extra profits can be diverted back to developing its more sporting road-cars a la Porsche, or pump additional resources into the F1 or GT3 program. Purist need not be alarmed because those with the means and in the know will ignore it entirely and buy the "good" ones.