Stop complaining: SUVs aren’t terrible

H​ere we go again.

There are many terrible things in the world today that are worth complaining about.

AIDS. Global warming. Garlic breath.

But SUVs aren’t one of them.

First, you start advocating an electric Porsche 911, now you’re defending the SUV.

I officially hate you.

Oh please. You'll come around.

Honestly, though, everyone on the internet seems to be an SUV-hating parrot hellbent on burning the entire SUV industry. My question is why?

They’re hideous.

Some of them are.

The Frankenstein-esque Aston Martin DBX is a prime example of how NOT to design a car. Who in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to attach the rear end of a Vantage to a land-yacht? It’s akin to grafting Keira Knightley’s face on to my body. It doesn’t matter how pretty she is, the outcome would be the same: disturbing.

Then there is the overcompensating rolling grill that is the BMW X7… Utterly grotesque.

On the flip-side, some are rather lovely.

The Range Rover Velar is one of the prettiest cars. Full stop. Then there’s the Mercedes G-Wagen, which, in spite of its ostentatious pretensions, is undeniably cool. We’re talking about a twin-turbocharged, off-road-capable, family haulier dressed up as a car from the 1970s. What’s not to love?

What’s not to love? How about the fact that they’re destroying the planet…

Well, yes. There is that.

Buy a Tesla then.

I HATE Tesla.

*Sigh* Of course you do…

SUVs are also big. Too big. And big things are bad.

No, they’re not too big.

I went to Motorclassica a while back and came across an immaculate 1924 Hispano Suiza H6B with a bonnet that you could land a Airbus A380 on. Now THAT was massive. Even compared to the “big” SUVs of today, it was positively mammoth.

And judging by the size of your phone and dream-house, you don’t really think “big things are bad”.

T​hey're just hateful objects.

Well, so is your attitude chump, but I don’t go on about it.

But… but…

But what?

Yes, some SUVs are ugly. Yes, some SUVs are killing the planet. Yes, some SUVs are a little on the large side. However, the same is true for every other class of automobile. So internet, tell me, why the hate?

Here’s an idea: rather than condemn manufacturers for creating SUVs, why not thank them for figuring out a way to fund the next generation of your favourite exotica?

Try thinking for yourself rather than parroting the opinions of others.


W​hat do you think? Are SUVs really that bad?

P​hotography Credit: Manufacturer

Join In

Comments (73)

  • Sorry, not convinced. If you want a car that can go offroad, buy a Range Rover. If you want a practical car, buy an estate (they are just as roomy and far more economical). For me, two points stand against SUVs - first of all, they ARE too big for most European streets. There are streets in Germany that are impassible when an SUV is parking on it - in some town historic centers they are allready banned (as well as trucks and other big vehicles). And the most important thing is the one you glossed over in half a sentence. They are hatefully un-environmental without serving any purpose other than moving itself. And that is as far as I can make out - their purpose. You can do the school run in a Golf, no problem. I have never seen an SUV with all seven seats (if they even have seven) occupied. And they are not used as rugged Sport-Activity vehicles anyway - practically all SUVs are too heavy, too expensive and too complicated for that. So they are driven by a divorced single mother to school and to the shops. They never see as much as a dirt road. All most of them do is taking up road and parking space as well as killing off baby owls. Pointless.

      1 year ago
    • "They are hatefully un-environmental without serving any purpose other than moving itself." --> Isn't that the primary purpose of most cars? To move people around?

      Pointless? I wouldn't say that. Either way, I'm not sure that...

      Read more
        1 year ago
    • SUVs do not move people, they move themselves. They have the worst mileage in average of any car type apart from Pickup-Trucks. I work in traffic planning and development - many statistitians say that you should count SUVs as two cars,...

      Read more
        1 year ago
  • Well said

      1 year ago
  • Yes, they are really that bad. The key is that they are inefficient at 4 wheel transportation. And in this context 'inefficient' does not necessarily mean that they are wasteful with fuel - nobody cares about that, if burning fuel makes someone happy then so be it. But then at least make good use of that fuel.

    The actual problem is that they are also inefficient at making fun - which is a lot more hurting for car enthusiasts. If you want to extract X amount of driving joy out of a piece of metal, pressing it as an SUV makes no sense. Automotive engineers themselves hate designing SUVs, you arrive at a bunch of obstacles to which the high centre of gravity, massive amount of steel and huge wheels are no solution. You can't name a star-engineer - like Gordon Murray, Adrien Newey or Ken Okuyama - who would agree with using the design philosophy behind SUVs for road cars. That is because we - humans - are programmed to love and strive for efficiency, just check your daily routine if you don't believe it: you probably try to solve problems in efficient ways too, whether it is eating efficiently, communicating efficiently or sleeping efficiently.

    The only thing I can see them work in is to somewhat fill the void between proper off-roaders and trucks, but then arises the question why are people glorifying something utilitarian at such a mass scale. Vans are great at doing SUV-like tasks too (in fact they are quite closely related), yet not many are dreaming of owning a VW Transporter nowadays.

      1 year ago
  • I don’t really care that much about SUVs. But when someone says they are going to get one, I try everything I can in order to sway them to get a wagon or sedan. I don’t want to see them die

      1 year ago
    • More likely they would die in an sedan/wagon, because an suv is more heavy and will avoid alot of crashes because its bigger then the rest.

        1 year ago
    • Their high centre of gravity make them more likely to fall over. Also their size and weight make them difficult to make safe. Saloons and estates are safe just look at saab.

        1 year ago
  • SUV is a stupid acronym to start with. However, I will cut vehicles with proper off-road capability some slack (so Land/Range Rovers for example, get a pass). That’s why you buy big tall vehicles with plenty of ground clearance. When you build a big tall vehicle (sitting on Michelin PSS) and try to convince people that it’s a “sports car”, then the idea is just dumb. And when you compromise it’s “utility” by giving it “sporty” fastback roof line too, then that’s dumb beyond belief. I guess I don’t have to give examples of those.

      1 year ago
    • I agree. An SUV will never be a sports car.

      And yes, maybe coupe-style SUVs are ridiculous, but I think there's a place in the world for ridiculous things.

      From a logical standpoint, the Lamborghini Urus is undoubtedly stupid, and yet it...

      Read more
        1 year ago
    • I don’t think you understand the true acronym of SUV. Namely the “S” portion of the acronym. A SUV is supposed to be a vehicle that is used for Sport as in doing something for fun (in this case the targeted audience is people who are more...

      Read more
        1 year ago