Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
06-11-2004, 09:16 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
SRX and wondered just what to call it?
These vehicles combine some of the qualities of SUVs with those of cars and
minivans, yet they're really none of these. Chevy terms the Equinox an
SUV. Chrysler has variously deemed the Pacifica a 'segment buster', or a
"luxury car, SUV and minivan all in one," while Car & Driver recently
decided for comparison purposes that it was an SUV. Cadillac is calling the
SRX a 'Performance SUV', whatever that means.
Most folks driving one of these vehicles bristle at the term 'station
wagon'. Apparently that term receives much of the same negative cachet
normally reserved for 'minivan'. This is probably a fair assesment. All
station wagons are cars. These are really not cars. Most are far too tall
to be compared alongside, say, a Dodge Intrepid or a Chevy Malibu. And
station wagons are derived from sedans, while these vehicles clearly stand
alone in their manufacturer's product lineups.
A comparison of these vehicles with SUVs leaves them decidedly lacking in
some respects. Although they typically are offered with AWD, they don't
offer the low range or ground clearance required for any serious off-road
duty. Many SUVs are truck-based, capable of towing substantial loads of
5,000lbs or more. Although towing capacity is certainly available with
these vehicles, a serious camper or boater would probably look elsewhere.
Minivans have been marketed as SUV lookalikes by GM for some years now,
beginning with the Pontiac Montana. This concept is about to be extended
across their line with the forthcoming models in 2005. Yet minivans
typically have far more interior space than a Pacifica or SRX does. Most,
if not all minivans are equipped with sliding doors, while none of these
vehicles are.
The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
In order to clarify the distinction between CUVs and other vehicle segments,
I offer the following questions and answers:
When is a vehicle a CUV and not an SUV?
o When its design emphasizes passenger comfort, interior space and
touring utility over off-road ability and towing capacity
o When it is only offered with AWD or 2WD, as opposed to a traditional
4-wheel-drive system with low range
o When its styling suggests a tall car or high-sided station wagon,
rather than a highly-suspended station wagon
When is a vehicle a 'car-based' SUV and not a CUV?
o When its interior space more closely resembles that of a compact car,
rather than a large car (CUVs emphasize passenger comfort.)
o When its styling suggests a small, highly-suspended station wagon
rather than a high-sided wagon or tall car
When is a vehicle a CUV and not a station wagon?
o When it shares no sheetmetal with a direct sedan counterpart offered
elsewhere in the manufacturer's lineup
o When its vertical dimension is larger than any 'car' offered by the
same manufacturer
When is a vehicle a station wagon and not a CUV or SUV?
o When it shares a large proportion of its sheetmetal and/or exterior
styling with a sedan or coupe in the same manufacturer's lineup
o When its height and width are similar to those of a traditional car
When is a vehicle a minivan and not a CUV?
o When it offers one or more sliding doors
o When it is primarily sold as a front wheel drive vehicle.
o When its interior capacity enables the user to carry 4-foot wide
sheet goods laying flat in the cargo area
When is a vehicle a car, rather than a CUV or SUV?
o When its design emphasizes passenger comfort and space in a
reasonably compact package
o When its design only lends itself to occasional use for cargo hauling
o When its styling suggests use for commuting, touring, or racing
*It is noted that the name 'CUV' is tentatively to be applied to a
forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle. Regardless, one manufacturer
deciding to give a product a name that is more rightly descriptive of a
segment than a particular vehicle does not invalidate the use of the term to
describe the segment as a whole.
Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
SRX and wondered just what to call it?
These vehicles combine some of the qualities of SUVs with those of cars and
minivans, yet they're really none of these. Chevy terms the Equinox an
SUV. Chrysler has variously deemed the Pacifica a 'segment buster', or a
"luxury car, SUV and minivan all in one," while Car & Driver recently
decided for comparison purposes that it was an SUV. Cadillac is calling the
SRX a 'Performance SUV', whatever that means.
Most folks driving one of these vehicles bristle at the term 'station
wagon'. Apparently that term receives much of the same negative cachet
normally reserved for 'minivan'. This is probably a fair assesment. All
station wagons are cars. These are really not cars. Most are far too tall
to be compared alongside, say, a Dodge Intrepid or a Chevy Malibu. And
station wagons are derived from sedans, while these vehicles clearly stand
alone in their manufacturer's product lineups.
A comparison of these vehicles with SUVs leaves them decidedly lacking in
some respects. Although they typically are offered with AWD, they don't
offer the low range or ground clearance required for any serious off-road
duty. Many SUVs are truck-based, capable of towing substantial loads of
5,000lbs or more. Although towing capacity is certainly available with
these vehicles, a serious camper or boater would probably look elsewhere.
Minivans have been marketed as SUV lookalikes by GM for some years now,
beginning with the Pontiac Montana. This concept is about to be extended
across their line with the forthcoming models in 2005. Yet minivans
typically have far more interior space than a Pacifica or SRX does. Most,
if not all minivans are equipped with sliding doors, while none of these
vehicles are.
The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
In order to clarify the distinction between CUVs and other vehicle segments,
I offer the following questions and answers:
When is a vehicle a CUV and not an SUV?
o When its design emphasizes passenger comfort, interior space and
touring utility over off-road ability and towing capacity
o When it is only offered with AWD or 2WD, as opposed to a traditional
4-wheel-drive system with low range
o When its styling suggests a tall car or high-sided station wagon,
rather than a highly-suspended station wagon
When is a vehicle a 'car-based' SUV and not a CUV?
o When its interior space more closely resembles that of a compact car,
rather than a large car (CUVs emphasize passenger comfort.)
o When its styling suggests a small, highly-suspended station wagon
rather than a high-sided wagon or tall car
When is a vehicle a CUV and not a station wagon?
o When it shares no sheetmetal with a direct sedan counterpart offered
elsewhere in the manufacturer's lineup
o When its vertical dimension is larger than any 'car' offered by the
same manufacturer
When is a vehicle a station wagon and not a CUV or SUV?
o When it shares a large proportion of its sheetmetal and/or exterior
styling with a sedan or coupe in the same manufacturer's lineup
o When its height and width are similar to those of a traditional car
When is a vehicle a minivan and not a CUV?
o When it offers one or more sliding doors
o When it is primarily sold as a front wheel drive vehicle.
o When its interior capacity enables the user to carry 4-foot wide
sheet goods laying flat in the cargo area
When is a vehicle a car, rather than a CUV or SUV?
o When its design emphasizes passenger comfort and space in a
reasonably compact package
o When its design only lends itself to occasional use for cargo hauling
o When its styling suggests use for commuting, touring, or racing
*It is noted that the name 'CUV' is tentatively to be applied to a
forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle. Regardless, one manufacturer
deciding to give a product a name that is more rightly descriptive of a
segment than a particular vehicle does not invalidate the use of the term to
describe the segment as a whole.
Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
06-11-2004, 10:54 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
06-11-2004, 10:54 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
06-11-2004, 10:54 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
06-11-2004, 10:54 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
Well, in the case of the Chevy Equinox, you can call it "an engine failure
waiting to happen". The 3.4 litre V6 is a crap design that sucked eggs
when it was made in North America. Now it's made in *China*.
In the case of the SRX, you don't really have to call it anything; you can
just laugh and roll your eyes.
In the case of the Pacifica, you can puff up your face and hold your hands
out as if to indicate "fat".
> The most logical conclusion is that a new segment has truly been born. For
> the purposes of discussion, these should be termed Car-like Utility
> Vehicles, or CUVs* for short.
We already have one idiotic clunker of a vehicular referent ("sport
utility vehicle") out there. Your four-word mess isn't needed.
> forthcoming product in 2006 by DaimlerChrysler's Smart brand. Their
> definition of the term is 'Crossover Utility Vehicle', which I maintain is
> very similar to Car-like Utility Vehicle.
Then you should sue for royalties or something.
> Copyright (C) 2004 by Geoff Gariepy
And you plan on enforcing this...how?
-Stern
06-11-2004, 12:23 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
06-11-2004, 12:23 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
06-11-2004, 12:23 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
06-11-2004, 12:23 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
Geoff wrote:
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
> Ever driven behind or next to a Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac
> SRX and wondered just what to call it?
No, I know just what to call it. ;-)
John
--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
06-11-2004, 01:28 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The CUV
forwarded to: abuse@hp.com
From:
"Geoff" <geoff_gariepy@nospam.hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.autos.ford, alt.autos.gm, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.chrysler, rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.misc
Subject:
Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The
CUV
Date:
Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:16:48 -0400
Lines:
89
X-Priority:
3
X-MSMail-Priority:
Normal
X-Newsreader:
Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE:
Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
NNTP-Posting-Host:
dhcp2666-bjj091.msr.hp.com
Message-ID:
<40c9b263$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>
X-Trace:
usenet01.boi.hp.com 1086960227 15.31.199.91 (11 Jun
2004 07:23:47 -0600)
Path:
news1.central.***.net!central.***.net!east.***.net !filt02.***.net!peer01.***.net!***.net!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1 .nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosti ng.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!nntp5.savvis.net !newsfeed.frii.net!newsfeed.frii.net!news.compaq.c om!usenet01.boi.hp.com!not-for-mail
Xref:
east.***.net alt.autos.ford:254159
alt.autos.gm:197202 rec.autos.driving:567737
rec.autos.makers.chrysler:249206 rec.autos.makers.jeep+******:519129
rec.autos.misc:147729
X-Received-Date:
Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:16:42 EDT (news1.central.***.net)
From:
"Geoff" <geoff_gariepy@nospam.hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.autos.ford, alt.autos.gm, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.chrysler, rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, rec.autos.misc
Subject:
Chrysler Pacifica, Chevy Equinox or Cadillac SRX: The
CUV
Date:
Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:16:48 -0400
Lines:
89
X-Priority:
3
X-MSMail-Priority:
Normal
X-Newsreader:
Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE:
Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
NNTP-Posting-Host:
dhcp2666-bjj091.msr.hp.com
Message-ID:
<40c9b263$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>
X-Trace:
usenet01.boi.hp.com 1086960227 15.31.199.91 (11 Jun
2004 07:23:47 -0600)
Path:
news1.central.***.net!central.***.net!east.***.net !filt02.***.net!peer01.***.net!***.net!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1 .nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosti ng.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!nntp5.savvis.net !newsfeed.frii.net!newsfeed.frii.net!news.compaq.c om!usenet01.boi.hp.com!not-for-mail
Xref:
east.***.net alt.autos.ford:254159
alt.autos.gm:197202 rec.autos.driving:567737
rec.autos.makers.chrysler:249206 rec.autos.makers.jeep+******:519129
rec.autos.misc:147729
X-Received-Date:
Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:16:42 EDT (news1.central.***.net)
