according to CNN

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...natives/2.html

 

Thanks for the link! I don't understand why people think the barn doors are "annoying"? I *love* them, as they are functional and unique.

 

If by SUV alternative they mean something that has four wheels and a motor, then I'd tend to agree. It certainly has four wheels and a motor, just like most SUVs.

 

Number 5 on that SUV alternative list is an SUV: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...natives/5.html

 

not to mention that the rest of the 7 "cars" mentioned actually have so-so fuel economy. The Clubman having the best #'s ... but really the article is more about the "utility" aspect me thinks.

there is also another SUV story on MF
http://www.motoringfile.com/2008/05/...ded-with-suvs/

 

So's number six...

Silly CNN.

 

A wheelbarrow is also an SUV alternative. The Clubman may be many things, but an SUV is not one of them. This is just another dumb automotive article with a grabber headline.

 

Disagree. Most Suvs, including truck based ones, are used as strip shopping mall status symbols. The vast majority of these vehicles have never seen off road use or heavy duty trailer duty.

These cars are used mostly by soccer moms and suburban dads to do exactly the same driving chores that most of us do. Go back and forth to work, grocery shopping, etc, etc.

Very few people actually need AWD, higher off the ground clearance, body on frame construction and thirsty V8s.

 

I hauled 12 bags of topsoil (480 lbs) and 4 (120 lbs) bags of mushroom manure on Saturday!... Fit perfectly in the back w/ the seats down - 4 layers of 4 bags!

That's about all the SUV I'll ever need :-)

~ Manu

 

+1 I don't get it either. I guess most people aren't used to a "new" concept - even though it's not new at all....

Donna

 

..and I just got back from the garden center with 10 bags of cedar mulch (30 cubic feet). That's a little more than a cubic yard, not bad for a small car!

 

..I'm not attacking or defending the SUV or SUV owners, just noting that there's a huge difference between a Clubman and the typical SUV. Clubman seats four, most SUVs seat 7 to 9. An SUV also has at least three or four times the cargo space with the seats folded down. While it may be true that many who drive an SUV could get along well with a smaller car, there's no way a Clubman is a substitute for those who need an SUV. How many drivers really "need" and SUV is a topic for another thread!

 

7 to 9? Show me an SUV that seats 9. A lot of them can theoretically seat seven, but I've always found the "include a third row in everything" mania of the last few years to be quite silly. All it adds is extra weight for a capability most people will never use. If you have to ferry 7 people on a regular basis, it makes a lot more sense to buy a Sprinter.

 

Perhaps those SUVs can seat 5 adults plus 2 or 3 small children in the third row of seats.

 

To be honest I much prefer the barn doors in the Clubman over the single piece hatchback in my other MINI.

 

If you need to seat 5 or 9 people get a Minivan or a 15-passenger Chevy Express full size van.

The Dodge Sprinter (Mercedes) is one of the best full size vans in the market today.

SUVs where created by savvy marketeers that successfully drilled into the American mind that they "need"and must "have"an SUV. Have you ever wondered what people used to drive before the SUV?

Hint, hint: Full size station wagons!

 

The article merely pointed out there are alternatives to the big SUV. While I agree many people own SUV for no reason, I own 08 Suburban, granted I have four children and a wife to cart around plus tons of stuff/junk. We also camp, hunt and drive on the dunes in Oregon - so for us it is a great fit, however, putting gas in sucks!

I love the Clubman, I think it is a great car, whatever you want to clasify it as, it is awesome. For us it is a second car, get around town, etc...

 

Amen! Have you every been in the 3rd row of a Jeep Commander. Don't get me wrong, I like the Commander and was even considering it before the Clubman. BUT, the 3rd row of seats made no sense (since no one but a small child could fit back there) and I had to put them down just to see out of the back window.

 

The Commander is like 9-10 MPG?

Chrysler can't wait to get rid of them. One of the worst sales performing SUVs in recent memory. You should be able to pick up a new one for $15K off MSRP.

 

doesn't Chrysler have some "$2.99 gas for 3 years" incentive going on now?

http://www.chrysler.com/en/refuel/index.html (its really shameful that in their entire vehicle lineup there is not one that averages better than 24mpg. ... and that's by their calculations not real world)

 

Nah. SUVs were around long before they became mainstream. The Bronco existed in the 1960s, and the first Range Rover was introduced in 1976. There are many others - the Scout, Blazer, Grand Waggy, Cherokee, and of course the Suburban.

It was only when these SUVs were made softer and more livable that they took off. That would be the early 90's, with the launch of the Explorer and Grand Cherokee, and to a lesser extent the widespread availability of the Range Rover in the U.S.

What marketers did was exploit the unforseen popularity of SUVs (which, at the time, were the "cool" alternative to wagons and minivans).

As a former avid offroader, I've often decried the mainstreaming of the SUV. With the exception of the Wrangler, all the utilitarian capability of the SUVs of old is pretty much gone. What we're left with are nothing more than cars with tall body panels and jacked-up ride heights.

To my mind, the Range Rover is the saddest example. When it first reached the U.S. in 1987, it was an offroader with a few luxury touches (leather seats, power windows...). At its heart, it was still meant as a go-anywhere expedition vehicle. It was so mechanically simple it could be repaired in the field with hand tools and duct tape (trust me, I've seen it). Now they've become luxury vehicles that pay lip service to their heritage.

I pray that Mini keeps its wits about it, and that popularity doesn't bestow the same curse on yet another storied British brand.

 

It is true that SUVs have been around for many moons (International Harvester anyone?) but these vehicles were the realm of farmers, off roaders and generally people that really had the need for one. Heck even the AMC Jeep Wagoneer of the 1960's and 1970's was a cross between a semi-luxury station wagon and 4WD truck.

But before 1991, most people survived riding in sedans and station wagons. Witness that the last full size GM RWD wagons died in the early 1990's, so did the Crown Victoria wagon version and many others.

Marketeers were very successful at making the consumer public believe that their really needed an SUV and could not live without one. This move was done while killing most full size sedans and station wagons left in the market.

 

Sorry, please excuse my ignorance on the seating capacity of SUVs, as I've never owned one or shopped for one. My point was that the CNN article featured many non-SUVs, basically for people who didn't need an SUV in the first place. If the criteria for a substitute for an SUV is so vague as to include a Clubman, why not also include a Miata! If you're looking for an argument from someone who thinks the SUV era was the high point of automotive history, you're not going to get one from me. I just think that the article itself proposed some far-fetched substitutes which are not likely to be seriously considered by anyone who regularly utilizes the features of a traditional SUV.

 

It may not be an SUV, but it's a substitute station wagon for me! The one thing that clinched the Clubman for me was when I stopped by the dealership with a 2x12 TopHat cabinet in the trunk of my Saab 9-5 wagon, and found that it fit in the Clubman boot - no problem! While I won't be able to fit a full p/a in there anymore, I'll get a trailer hitch from Mini Do More when it becomes available.

 

Is the Clubman an SUV? Good question. Check out my license plate. It gets a lot of smiles.