this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
45 points (92.5% liked)

[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3234 readers
1 users here now

We have moved to:

!electricvehicles@slrpnk.net

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion.
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling.
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So the term "SUV" has apparently lost all meaning. I've actually seen people calling the Ferarri Purosanguo an "SUV" too, which is hilarious.

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Great, an suv called a “mustang” from ford and a bloated 4 seater from Ferrari called “pure blood”.

Car makers are just wasting names.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"SUV" should mean an off-road capable vehicle or something that can tow a decent amount. Maybe had a body-on-frame construction. Usually larger and less pleasant on-road manners. Usually has a transfer case. A Tahoe, Expedition, Dodge Durango, Wagoneer. Those are all firmly in the SUV territory in my book.

Everything else should be called a "crossover". Less off-road capable. Less towing. Not saying they couldn't do these tasks, but not as much. Usually unibody construction. Usually smaller. More street-focused.

Obviously there is some overlap, and neither term is strictly defined, but not sure why this is so complicated.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the model Y, Mach-E and ID4 are definitely all crossovers.

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm more bothered by how this dilutes the "Mustang" moniker. Why they'd do that with their most iconic car I'm not sure. Might as well make a "Mustang M150" truck now too.

[–] mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I kind of like the idea on an EV El Camino, so that could work for me.

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Sure, shape it like an El Camino and call it an El Camino. But don't build a new 7-passenger mini-van or SUV and call it an El Camino.

[–] Desistance@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It doesn't dilute anything. Porsche has ample proof that it doesn't.

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't follow using Porsche as an example. What iconic model name are they re-using on vehicles that don't match its image?

Did they create a 911 SUV or a G3 station wagon?

[–] Desistance@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Porsche IS the brand. It's customers thought the Macan would tarnish the brand. But in reality they needed the Macan to keep making other models. Same situation as Lambo, Aston, Lotus and soon to be McClaren.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I can't wait for a McLaren SUV.

[–] diykeyboards@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't buy into the "we HAD TO in order to stay afloat" mantra all of the performance makers are using to justify SUVs. It's a lie. They sell tons of cars at absurd prices. What they meant was "Investors said we had to because there was more money to be made."