Joaquin Ruhi

Expert
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
2,077
What exactly is a B segment CUV? Does someone have an example? Is that smaller than a C-HR/UX? C-HR is very small inside... hard to imagine something smaller than that.
In North American market terms, B-segment CUVs would be Ford EcoSport; Chevrolet Trax and upcoming 2021 TrailBlazer; Buick Encore and Encore GX; Hyundai Venue; Nissan Kicks; Mazda CX-3 and, arguably, Honda HR-V.
 

spwolf

Expert
Messages
2,577
Reaction score
2,594
In North American market terms, B-segment CUVs would be Ford EcoSport; Chevrolet Trax and upcoming 2021 TrailBlazer; Buick Encore and Encore GX; Hyundai Venue; Nissan Kicks; Mazda CX-3 and, arguably, Honda HR-V.
heh, a lot of these are C-HR class.

This is definitely not a vehicle for US in any case, it is best to be defined as Yaris Hatch CUV, which probably explain it better... CHR is more of Corolla Hatch CUV (as supposed to Sedan).
 

internalaudit

Admirer
Messages
571
Reaction score
681
True but with Mazda, they released the CX-30 which got some warm reception from the press. It's also just a raised Mazda3.

Maybe a lowered UX will be the next gen CT hatch? Besides AWD, I don't really see the point of these smaller SUVs except for raised seating (which I'm not really fond of anyway because I keep a decent distance from the car in front of me on the highway and can see far more than in a SUV while tailgaiting). For the CX-30, the cargo volume is not that much better than the Mazda3 hatch.

I think there would still be a demand for a sporty hatch that isn't a SUV. They can always put AWD in there, just like how Mazda did.
 

Will1991

Admirer
Messages
668
Reaction score
1,223
Isn't the UX pretty much a raised CT?
Yes, but it’s much more expensive... Here in Portugal a top of the range CT (30~43.000€) is cheaper than a base spec UX (43~62.000€)...

Now all of this SUV craziness seems to have made Lexus to replace our CT for a even smaller SUV... Nowadays 5cm raised suspension is worth 10% more than a equivalent sedan, honestly I don’t get it as usually they don’t provide any more praticality or off-roading abilities...
 

internalaudit

Admirer
Messages
571
Reaction score
681
Yes, but it’s much more expensive... Here in Portugal a top of the range CT (30~43.000€) is cheaper than a base spec UX (43~62.000€)...

Now all of this SUV craziness seems to have made Lexus to replace our CT for a even smaller SUV... Nowadays 5cm raised suspension is worth 10% more than a equivalent sedan, honestly I don’t get it as usually they don’t provide any more praticality or off-roading abilities...
Just raised seat height that some women or seniors prefer. It is much easier to put infants and toddlers on raised back seats too but to me the only advantage of SUVs are the bigger cargo room, easier loading (which is also true for hatchbacks) and AWD (but I prefer Toyota e-AWD for fuel savings and mechanical simplicity, i.e. reliability down the road).

CUV/SUV is just license for car makers to raise prices for their cars (gullible people will still buy them thinking they are cooler and more practical) because prices for vehicles haven't really risen as fast as inflation (say 2%/annum). I still recall that the base Porsche boxster in 1995 was just $35,000 CAD (it's $62k today) and I just read this week the Lexus LS was priced about $35,000 USD. The Porsche kept with inflation (it's not a volume car anyway) but not most other cars. Our 1995 Acura Integra was already $21k and today, a Civic SI is only $30k CAD.

I hope Lexus starts coming up with Macan-like SUVs. Even Mark is swayed by the Macan and I know he detests SUVs.
 

internalaudit

Admirer
Messages
571
Reaction score
681
Glad Porsche hasn't cheapened out and went for FWD-biased system. I though with the modular design, Porsche took a short cut lol


That's combined with a rear-biased all-wheel-drive system, a quick-shifting seven-speed transmission and a suspension that's calibrated more for a winding mountain road than for off-roading. Equipped properly, though, the Macan performs respectably well once the road gives way to dirt or gravel.
 

spwolf

Expert
Messages
2,577
Reaction score
2,594
Glad Porsche hasn't cheapened out and went for FWD-biased system. I though with the modular design, Porsche took a short cut lol


That's combined with a rear-biased all-wheel-drive system, a quick-shifting seven-speed transmission and a suspension that's calibrated more for a winding mountain road than for off-roading. Equipped properly, though, the Macan performs respectably well once the road gives way to dirt or gravel.
According to Autobild articles, it is exactly the same setup as in Q5, just different suspension option being available? (something like AVS).

But yes, it is their best seller and nobody seems to mind.
 

internalaudit

Admirer
Messages
571
Reaction score
681
According to Autobild articles, it is exactly the same setup as in Q5, just different suspension option being available? (something like AVS).

But yes, it is their best seller and nobody seems to mind.
I thought the Q5 is FWD-biased, just like all Audi's except the R8?

Edmunds write-up can't be wrong, or can it?
 

Sulu

Follower
Messages
180
Reaction score
280
I thought the Q5 is FWD-biased, just like all Audi's except the R8?

Edmunds write-up can't be wrong, or can it?
VW is the best when it comes to platform and engine sharing: Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini are all VWs at heart, sharing longitudinal-engine AWD platforms and engines.

The Q5 and the Macan do share a platform and an AWD drivetrain; front- or rear-wheel drive bias may be how the transmission was tuned.
 

internalaudit

Admirer
Messages
571
Reaction score
681
VW is the best when it comes to platform and engine sharing: Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini are all VWs at heart, sharing longitudinal-engine AWD platforms and engines.

The Q5 and the Macan do share a platform and an AWD drivetrain; front- or rear-wheel drive bias may be how the transmission was tuned.
Interesting how Mark of Savagegeese can sense a big difference between the Macan S and the SQ5.

Are these accurate pros and cons for transaxles and transfer cases?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

spwolf

Expert
Messages
2,577
Reaction score
2,594
Interesting how Mark of Savagegeese can sense a big difference between the Macan S and the SQ5.

Are these accurate pros and cons for transaxles and transfer cases?
keep in mind Macan is based on old "Q5" platform, and Q5 was renewed 3 years ago while SQ5 is new.

Back when Macan was introduced in 2014, Autobild tested it vs similary equipped 2014 Q5 and said that you can not feel the difference and how only real difference is active suspension option on Macan, rest of the hardware is same.

Now SQ5 is newer, so yeah it will be different now... but in general, differences between Macan and Q5 were much smaller than Rav4 and NX.

However, customers do not care so I would think it is a moot point.
 

ssun30

Expert
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
3,332
Interesting how Mark of Savagegeese can sense a big difference between the Macan S and the SQ5.

Are these accurate pros and cons for transaxles and transfer cases?
The biggest problem with both Quattro and Symmetrical AWD which don't use transfer case is engine placement. Since the engine sits in front of the front axle the weight distribution is always worse. On the other hand the lower center of gravity (especially when paired with boxer engines) counteracts this effect to some extent. In the end it all depends on the actual execution.

but in general, differences between Macan and Q5 were much smaller than Rav4 and NX.
That's not true since Q5 and Macan use different chassis layout while RAV4 and NX are based on identical chassis.
 

Levi

Admirer
Messages
802
Reaction score
925
The biggest problem with both Quattro and Symmetrical AWD which don't use transfer case is engine placement. Since the engine sits in front of the front axle the weight distribution is always worse. On the other hand the lower center of gravity (especially when paired with boxer engines) counteracts this effect to some extent. In the end it all depends on the actual execution.
No worse than transverse front engine.

That's not true since Q5 and Macan use different chassis layout while RAV4 and NX are based on identical chassis.
Both the Macan and Q5 gen 1 have a 2.807 mm wheelbase. I do not see what do you mean by 'different chassis layout'.
 

ssun30

Expert
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
3,332
No worse than transverse front engine.
Both the Macan and Q5 gen 1 have a 2.807 mm wheelbase. I do not see what do you mean by 'different chassis layout'.
Longitudinal is better for AWD, that is a given. But we are not comparing transverse vs. longitudinal here.

Of course the layout is different. One being longitudinal FWD-based and the other being longitudinal RWD-based with different engine positions and AWD designs. That's what this whole conversation is about. It has nothing to do with wheelbase.
 

Will1991

Admirer
Messages
668
Reaction score
1,223
Well, a couple of weeks ago we saw two Yaris-based mules playing around, but Mag-X stated "relationship between the Yaris CROSS and the world's best small Lexus".



Maybe it's true and it makes sense having two different mules being tested... One is the new Yaris Cross, and the other is the LF-SA test mule? Will really a B segment SUV replace the CT? It should be around the same price...
 

internalaudit

Admirer
Messages
571
Reaction score
681
I don't mind a BEV 2CT as long as it's affordable (around $10k over the base but with additional creature comforts of course), powerful enough (no more 0-100 in 10+ seconds), seats four adults comfortably, still fun to drive and maybe just a tad more cargo volume space. I don't even need torque vectoring if it's going to be inexpensive enough as I'm a realist and not a dreamer.
 
Top