The Case Against Crossovers

Everyone loves to hate on pickup trucks as a symbol of gross overconsumption. But when I look around trailheads or parking lots in mountain towns, I see exactly the opposite problem: drivers buying the image of capability, rather than the real thing. People are paying too much for too little car and causing quite a lot of harm to the environment in the process. I’m talking, of course, about that paragon of automotive mediocrity: the crossover.

Crossovers dominate the American auto market, making up 45 percent of all consumer vehicle sales. Pickup trucks? Only 19 percent. Real SUVs? 10 percent.

This is a relatively new trend. As recently as 2013, sedans made up 48 percent of sales.

Now’s probably a good time to define what a crossover is. They’re just normal cars, jacked up with slightly taller suspension, and more upright seating. They commonly feature hatchback or wagon-type rear ends. And, of course, most offer an all-wheel drive option.

It’s tempting to assign some functional merit to that loose formula. The efficiency and low purchase price of an economy car combined with the the commanding, raised view of a truck? Interior space rivaling that of a minivan? Off-road and winter weather traction? The clearance to climb obstacles? Sign me up for monthly payments!

In reality, something much more depressing explains the popularity of crossovers: regulatory loopholes.

The story goes like this. Way back in the 1960s regulators established a carveout for “off-road vehicles” that exempted them from most safety and emissions legislation. The thinking was that farmers, lumberjacks, and their ilk didn’t need vehicles burdened by emissions and safety equipment, since they were mostly using their trucks and 4x4s way out in the countryside, away from the smog and fender benders of the big city.

Those regulations established a formula for defining an “off-road vehicle.” To meet that description, a vehicle needs either four-wheel drive (AWD had yet to be invented, and in this formula is accepted) or a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of at least 6,000 pounds. Additionally, it needs at least four out of five additional features. Those include at least a 28-degree approach angle, a 14-degree breakover angle, and 20-degree departure angle; plus either 7.8 inches of total ground clearance or 7.1 inches of axle clearance.

As the government started to regulate things like crash safety and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, “off-road vehicles” remained either exempt, or subject to less stringent rules.

While the safety thing largely worked itself out due to consumer demand in the 2000s—it turns out basing rollover roof strength on vehicle weight is a good idea—“off-road vehicles” are still counted differently when it comes to CAFE standards.

CAFE standards have been a bit of a political football in recent years, but currently stand at 181 grams of carbon dioxide per-mile for passenger vehicles, and 261 grams for light trucks. The “off-road vehicle” definition shifts most crossovers into that latter category, which is allowed to pollute 36 percent more. More efficient, cleaner vehicles are more expensive to make than less efficient, dirtier ones. Making more “off-road vehicles” than passenger cars can save automakers a whole lot of moolah. Enough that there’s millions of dollars leftover after they make a vehicle for marketing designed to convince consumers they want something that can loosely be defined as an “off-road vehicle,” instead of a regular car.

And that’s why, odds are you or someone in your family is driving an “off-road vehicle,” without actually driving an off-road vehicle. And combined, all those features that allow a crossover to emit more carbon actually make them much worse vehicles than the plain-old alternative. Let’s look at some of the marketing claims about these things, and compare them to the facts.

Ground Clearance

The claim: This helps off-road!

The reality: While some clearance along the vehicle’s centerline is necessary, it’s only a minor part of the numbers that allow a vehicle to clear large obstacles. If you go back to the regulatory description of an “off-road vehicle” you can see that ground clearance on a vehicle with a live axle (as is used on most actual 4x4s) is lower than that of a vehicle with fully independent suspension. This is why crossover makers put so much emphasis behind quoting ground clearance numbers.

The problem: Increasing the height of a vehicle’s center of gravity also increases the forces that cause it to lean over while cornering. This spoils on-road handling characteristics, and the additional aerodynamic drag caused by the height also reduces fuel economy and performance.

All-Wheel Drive

The claim: It provides traction!

The reality: Absent other technologies, AWD actually directs power to the wheel with the least traction. Automakers use various clutches and electronic gizmos to try and counteract this, but still, no AWD system can match the traction provided by true four-wheel drive, which locks the speeds of the front and rear axles together.

The problem: AWD adds drag and mechanical complication. This reduces fuel economy and decreases reliability. Most drivers also confuse the supposed traction provided by AWD with the actual traction provided by appropriate tires, and put themselves and other road users at risk as a result.

Interior Space

The claim: Crossovers provide large load areas and fold-flat seats!

The reality: So do hatchbacks, wagons and minivans.

The problem: You’re paying more to drive a less capable vehicle.

High Seating

The claim: You have a commanding view through traffic!

The reality: Have you seen how tall modern trucks are?

The problem: This provides the appearance of additional safety without the presence of additional safety. Physics remain physics—larger vehicles will transfer more energy to smaller ones when the two collide—and a crossover’s energy-absorbing structure remains lower in height than that of large pickups and SUVs.

Off-Road Capability

The claim: Our special overland edition, gee-wiz, XXRR-S, National Forest-badged, rock-rated crossover is the real deal! And Z-mode makes it even better, even thought we can’t tell you how it works!

The reality: No crossover has anything approaching the angles, traction, or articulation to match the capability of even the most basic four-wheel drive vehicle.

The problem: Telling people their vehicle can go off-road without providing them with critical off-road safety features like rated recovery points, puncture-resistant tires, a real jack, and more puts their lives in danger.

Too tall for good road manners, but not tall enough to actually go off-road. Crossovers have traction systems that don’t really do much except cause problems. Nearly the exact same interior space as better handling, more efficient normal cars, wagons and minivans, but no more safety than those normal cars. Exactly the same off-road and winter capability as any economy car. Crossovers do nothing better, and most things worse, compared to sedans, wagons, hatchbacks, and minivans. About all you can say for them is that they burn more fuel and cause more pollution.

Add to all that the fact that crossovers typically cost thousands of dollars more than equivalent cars, and you can see why anytime anyone anywhere buys a crossover, they’re not only providing automakers with a strong financial incentive to continue polluting, but they’re also spending more of their hard earned money to buy a worse vehicle. This costs you money both in your monthly payment, and at the pump, while putting you in a vehicle that’s less fun to drive, and less practical.

What about EVs? While cradle-to-grave carbon emissions are fully half that for an electric vehicle, compared to an equivalent one powered by gasoline, producing and powering one still comes at a significant environmental cost. And making a larger, less efficient EV is more polluting than making a smaller, more efficient one. Compromising a vehicle’s function just so it conforms to a certain, questionable trend remains a poor decision, no matter the power source.