are all suvs crap handling and performance-wise?

>>17625396
yes

>>17625396
Yes

>>17625396
I have a 2013...

It can get up and go, but it isn't impressive by any means.

>>17625396
Well yeah they're not designed for such purposes

This is why amg SUV's are fucking stupid

>>17625396
Not really. 20 years ago it was different and SUVs were more like trucks. Recently they have worked to make them drive much better on the road. They realized that soccer moms want the 4wd for a dusting of snow and not mountains and the body roll is nothing like it used to be. Steering is much better and they softened the suspension since not many people are hauling more than a few kids in their Tahoe.

And the engines changed too. Drive an older SUV with bigger engine and they had tons of torque but when you wanted to get from 40mph to 70mph to merge on the highway, it wasn't great. But that seemed to change along with the ride quality and now they will really go if you want them to.

>>17625442
>basically SUVs went from proper trucks to transverse front biased awd cuck wagons

File: BMW-X5-M-2015-F85-Erlkoenig-Video-Nuerburgring-TouriClips.jpg (163KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1920x1080px

no

>>17625446
Depends what you get too. The smaller ones like my Escape are slow as shit and not meant to do anything offroad. Upside is they have a little ground clearance and you can put some A/T tires on it and won't get stuck in shit a Civic will get stuck in and you still get 25mpg.

But if you drive a newer Grand Cherokee or Explorer, they still aren't terrible if you need to get up a muddy hill. But they realized that 99.9% of the miles the car will be driven will be on paved roads. It is kinda nice tbqhwy.

If you really need something to do work, get a pickup truck. But even those are better for city driving than they used to be.

>>17625466
>won't get stuck in shit a Civic will get stuck in and you still get 25mpg.

but my Civic gets 50mpg

>paying 2x for fuel for 0.01% of offroad usage

cuck

File: 2017-jeep-grand-cherokee-srt-official-photos-and-info-news-car-and-driver-photo-671270-s-450x274.jpg (19KB, 450x274px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x274px

These handle quite well. Huge brakes and tight suspension

>>17625510
no they don't.

File: 1501361487803.jpg (1MB, 3344x2508px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3344x2508px

>>17625481
It's better than the 12mpg you would get from a 6cyl SUV 15 years ago. And you still get some ground clearance for heavy rain or snow, have a higher driving position which is nice, can actually fit people in the back seat, can tow a trailer and not look like an idiot, and fishing rods will fit in the back.

I will never own another small car unless it's some weekend toy.

>>17625510
That's my dream DD

>>17625529
Compared to what? A Cayman S? The thing still weighs 5000lb+

>>17625540
shill somewhere else braindead tripfag

what about the porsche macan?

Would it be accurate that today's SUVs fill in the role of the station wagon?

File: IMG_7941.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>17625548
Ok newfriend

Btw, isn't the exam for your learner's permit coming up soon? Make sure you study!

>>17625730
macan turbo lapped the nurburgring in 8:15

>>17625772
Lel kinda. The CUV takes that role moreso than the full size SUVs. CUV's have smaller engines typically for sedans and such but with the higher ride height that makes women feel safe. SUVs are still offered with a tow package and A/T tires.

The storage is probably worse tho since all of the new designs have that curved roof line. One of the first was the Lexus RX. The cargo are of that thing with the seats up is worse than most mid-size sedans.

>>17625730
Not as good as a Boxster, but bretty gud considering it's a fucking SUV/CUV. They will always be inherently worse because of the weight and height, but they have gotten much better.

File: IMG_0713.jpg (1MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x2448px

>>17625396
Since most of /o/ drive shitboxes from last century it wouldn't surprise me if my cuckmobile SUV outperformed almost all of them.

SC V8 with 510 hp, 461 lb-ft torque, 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, negligible body roll due to some weird overdesigned engineering wizardry

obviously it can't corner for shit but it's hilariously fast for no good reason, excessive in the most entertaining way.

I've been in a Cheyenne gts on a track and it handled shockingly well.

>>17627118
>inb4 "My NA Miata was only $2300 and has a faster time around some go kart track in Japan"

>>17627153
Cayenne * autocorrect fucked me

I feel like the MDX with the NSX like setup should be pretty funny especislly since it doesn't have that awful 9 speed transmission.

>>17625396
If you toss them in a track, yes. There is a reason why exotics or track oriented cars are low to the ground as possible.

Also, having higher horsepower number on an SUV is pretty pointless if it goes 0-60 in under 5.0 seconds. You really don't need that extra horsepower unless you want to waste even more gas.

>>17627153
For a car that costs more than 100 grand, it better.