Small Wide 3 row Jeep coming worldwide!

UN4GTBL

Moderator
Well personally I don't driving around in Dirt trap but other people have other priorities. I prefer a more aero efficient shape over a brick and as infrequently that I carry cargo. I take a cleaner window and better gas mileage over flat surfaces brick dust bucket. But to each his own. The entire CUV and SUV market is driven by marketing appearance otherwise everyone would be in a Minivan which is better at moving cargo and people. So yes styling matters.
I may be mis-quoting, but didn't Ralph Gilles (or someone else) say that the "aero" shape of CUVs is more of a styling choice vs an aero choice?
 

TripleT

Well-known member
I may be mis-quoting, but didn't Ralph Gilles (or someone else) say that the "aero" shape of CUVs is more of a styling choice vs an aero choice?
More.... but flat backs are not aero efficient …… it really off subject but for a class that is killing the sedan it a odd ask that you made. There is a choice out there, personally dislike the fastback CUV look but man in some parts of the world people LOVE them to death.
 

UN4GTBL

Moderator
More.... but flat backs are not aero efficient …… it really off subject but for a class that is killing the sedan it a odd ask that you made. There is a choice out there, personally dislike the fastback CUV look but man in some parts of the world people LOVE them to death.
I may be misunderstanding you. But, I guess if a CUV is supposed to just be a tall car a sloped rear is fine, but for people like me that want more than just a trunk it can be frustrating.

The fastback look is nice for sure, but I would gladly trade it for usability.
 

TripleT

Well-known member
I may be misunderstanding you. But, I guess if a CUV is supposed to just be a tall car a sloped rear is fine, but for people like me that want more than just a trunk it can be frustrating.

The fastback look is nice for sure, but I would gladly trade it for usability.
Seems to be quite a product offering. Between a Fastback to a square rear end. So there is something for everyone. I don't think you are insisting that all product fit your needs and your needs only? All CUV are better than sedan for storage because of seating position and 5 to 8 inches of cargo room through the beltl
 

Bili

Moderator
Staff member
Interesting. So basically they are making taller sedans with only slightly more useful cargo areas.

I care more about being able to put cargo into a vehicle than it being visible through the windows. If I can't get it into the vehicle, the item won't be secure at all.
That's not what I've said. Parcel shelf is there for a reason. Put something above that line and it may be insecure.

Hatchbacks, SUV and wagons still have 5th door which is not present on sedans. It's easier to put cargo if you have a 5th door.

BTW, measured by VDA standards Jeep Compass has just around 305 liters of cargo volume, Alfa Romeo Giulia 380 liters while Stelvio has very generous 480 liters.
It's very clear to see what's the major drawback for Compass. It's not platform related. It's combination of a modest rear overhang with rear suspension type. Rear MacPherson takes a lot of vertical space. Switching to a rear multilink would solve some if not all cargo volume woes.
 

Mopar392

Active member
For practicality, tall CUV is the way to go.
For style, sloped-back CUV is admirable.

Each style has its fanfare, and it would be admirable if FCA can offer both, since most if not all the current offerings of the D-, C- or B-CUV with sloped-back comes from luxury or premium brands.
 

TripleT

Well-known member
That's not what I've said. Parcel shelf is there for a reason. Put something above that line and it may be insecure.

Hatchbacks, SUV and wagons still have 5th door which is not present on sedans. It's easier to put cargo if you have a 5th door.

BTW, measured by VDA standards Jeep Compass has just around 305 liters of cargo volume, Alfa Romeo Giulia 380 liters while Stelvio has very generous 480 liters.
It's very clear to see what's the major drawback for Compass. It's not platform related. It's combination of a modest rear overhang with rear suspension type. Rear MacPherson takes a lot of vertical space. Switching to a rear multilink would solve some if not all cargo volume woes.
but possibly raise the price beyond that vehicles market ….. at least in NA.
 

UN4GTBL

Moderator
Seems to be quite a product offering. Between a Fastback to a square rear end. So there is something for everyone. I don't think you are insisting that all product fit your needs and your needs only? All CUV are better than sedan for storage because of seating position and 5 to 8 inches of cargo room through the beltl
No absolutely not, I understand that there are a variety of tastes!

I just hope that there are still "boxy" vehicles to purchase in the future.

That's not what I've said. Parcel shelf is there for a reason. Put something above that line and it may be insecure.

Hatchbacks, SUV and wagons still have 5th door which is not present on sedans. It's easier to put cargo if you have a 5th door.

BTW, measured by VDA standards Jeep Compass has just around 305 liters of cargo volume, Alfa Romeo Giulia 380 liters while Stelvio has very generous 480 liters.
It's very clear to see what's the major drawback for Compass. It's not platform related. It's combination of a modest rear overhang with rear suspension type. Rear MacPherson takes a lot of vertical space. Switching to a rear multilink would solve some if not all cargo volume woes.
Agreed, a tailgate is much better than a trunk lid, but when the rear window is so sloped, it's challenging. (I found this with my Caliber, and occasionally with my Cherokee)
 

UN4GTBL

Moderator
Here's a perfect example of the issue I have with sloped rear designs:

I helped my bother move on the weekend. At one point, I took this red cabinet and a few storage bins. Now, because of the slope of the rear glass, I had to place the cabinet in on it's back, which only allowed 3 bins to fit.





Had the rear glass not been so sloped, the cabinet could have gone in on it's side, and there would have been much more room to fit the rest of the bins, instead of requiring another trip.

Having said that, a foam Queen size mattress will fit in the back of a Cherokee LOL
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top