Coches SUV ¿la gente se los compra por necesidad o por ostentación?

F.Alonso21 dijo:

Alemanes, nordicos y suizos suelen venir con su SW tope gama, prefiero fijarme en esa gente que no en paletismos patrios.

Hacer clic para expandir...

Warren dijo:

con todo respeto, pero debatir sobre la utilidad o no de los suvs (yo creo que no es un coche "absurdo"), y defender al mismo tiempo las berlinas de 4 puertas... que en mi opinión es el coche más inútil en relación a su tamaño que pueda existir...

en alemania los bmw serie 3 touring son la normalidad... mientras que en hispanistán la gente se queda con el 4 puertas por la sencilla razón de que es más bonito... cuando por muchos litros que tenga el maletero es lo más inaprovechable que existe.. un modesto megane 5 puertas, o un focus tambien de 5 puertas, de ultima generacion es mucho más práctico que cualquier berlina mediana de cuatro puertas... a cualquier compacto 5 puertas le tumbas el sofá, quitas la bandeja, y te traes una cocina del ikea... o una lavadora, o lo que se tercie...

recientemente he tenido la suerte de probar a fondo (un familiar se lo ha comprado) un kia carens de los nuevos.. y es una gozada de coche en cuanto a practicidad.. una especie de mezcla entre sw y monovolúmen...

Hacer clic para expandir...

El exclavizador de mentes dijo:

pues yo me quedo con este coche de muerto.

Hacer clic para expandir...

Warren dijo:

con todo respeto, pero debatir sobre la utilidad o no de los suvs (yo creo que no es un coche "absurdo"), y defender al mismo tiempo las berlinas de 4 puertas... que en mi opinión es el coche más inútil en relación a su tamaño que pueda existir...

en alemania los bmw serie 3 touring son la normalidad... mientras que en hispanistán la gente se queda con el 4 puertas por la sencilla razón de que es más bonito... cuando por muchos litros que tenga el maletero es lo más inaprovechable que existe.. un modesto megane 5 puertas, o un focus tambien de 5 puertas, de ultima generacion es mucho más práctico que cualquier berlina mediana de cuatro puertas... a cualquier compacto 5 puertas le tumbas el sofá, quitas la bandeja, y te traes una cocina del ikea... o una lavadora, o lo que se tercie...

recientemente he tenido la suerte de probar a fondo (un familiar se lo ha comprado) un kia carens de los nuevos.. y es una gozada de coche en cuanto a practicidad.. una especie de mezcla entre sw y monovolúmen...

Hacer clic para expandir...

Wagons v SUV comparison test: Mazda6 v Mazda CX-5, Hyundai i30 Tourer v Hyundai ix35, Holden Commodore Sportwagon v Holden Captiva7


Date
September 12, 2014
Comments 114
Stephen Ottley
Stephen Ottley
Deputy Motoring Editor
View more articles from Stephen Ottley
***ow Stephen on Twitter Email Stephen
Soft roaders have taken over from station wagons as the new-age family runabout, but are they the smartest option?

submit to redditEmail articlePrintReprints & permissions

http://media.drive.com.au/cars/car-reviews/wagons-v-suv-video-comparison-test-5758681.html

Hacer clic para expandir...

Wagons v SUV video comparison test
Soft roaders have taken over from station wagons as the new-age family runabout, but are they the smartest option?
Inside this review...
Comparison summary
For every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. Newton's Third Law seems to apply to new car sales as much as it does to basic physics.

A quick look at the latest sales figures suggests that for every SUV sold a traditional station wagon is left on the lot.

In 2013, Australians bought 333,511 SUVs but only 130,467 medium and large cars, of which traditional station wagons represent only a fraction of that amount.

Hyundai ix35 v Hyundai i30; Mazda6 wagon v Mazda CX-5; Holden Commodore Sportwagon v Holden Captiva7. Click for more photos
Wagon v SUV
Hyundai ix35 v Hyundai i30; Mazda6 wagon v Mazda CX-5; Holden Commodore Sportwagon v Holden Captiva7.
Hyundai ix35 v Hyundai i30; Mazda6 wagon v Mazda CX-5; Holden Commodore Sportwagon v Holden Captiva7.Hyundai ix35.Hyundai ix35.Hyundai ix35.Hyundai i30 wagon.Hyundai i30 wagon.Hyundai i30 wagon.Hyundai ix35 v Hyundai i30 wagon.Mazda6 wagon.Mazda6 wagon.Mazda6 wagon.Mazda CX-5.Mazda CX-5.View all 22 photos
In fact, the station wagon has seemingly become a car of the past. Car makers now use new phrases to try make the traditional load lugger more appealing - Sportwagon, Tourer, Shooting Brake and Avant to name a few.

Advertisement

But the name change doesn't seem to have had much impact. Sales of SUVs continue to dominate wagons - regardless of what they are called - but why?

One reasons is simply the amount of SUVs on the market; there are more SUVs to choose from these days as car makers continue to add more and more high-riding soft roaders. But there are still plenty of wagons to choose from and across the spectrum of size and price.

From the $24,990 Hyundai i30 Tourer to the $265,145 Mercedes-Benz CLS AMG Shooting Brake there is no shortage of variety for those in the market for a wagon.

So is there something more to the popularity of SUVS?

Is it because they are more practical? More efficient? Nicer to drive? Better value?

Well, to find out we assembled three of the most popular SUVs and their equivalent station wagon siblings to put them to the test. We've paired the six models from three brands to put as much focus on the differences between the body style rather than any differences between the rival brands.

And we have tried to match the models as closely as possible on price and specification to give the best indication of value differences between SUVs and wagons.

So, which type of car offers the nicest driving experience, best value and, most important of all, the greatest space and practicality?

Mazda6 wagon Touring v Mazda CX-5 Maxx Sport AWD
If you want a great example of the popularity of soft roaders, and the shift away from traditional sedans and wagons, look no further than Mazda. Australian's snapped up 20,129 CX-5 SUVs in 2013 but just 2165 new 6 wagons, despite the two models sharing the same basic mechanical hardware.

Mazda uses modular underpinnings that are shared between the two so they are almost the same size - the CX-5 rides on a 2700mm wheelbase whereas the 6 measures 2750mm; both are 1840mm wide; front track (distance between the front wheels) is identical too at 1585mm.

Under the bonnet is the same 2.5-litre four-cylinder petrol engine paired to the same six-speed automatic gearbox.

So aside from the CX-5's all-wheel drive system there isn't much to split the two mechanically.

But, as the saying goes, the devil is in the detail.

A closer inspection of the performance figures reveals the CX-5 has the same power and torque as the 6 but uses more fuel - 7.4-litres per 100km compared with 6.6L/100km.

That's thanks to a number of small differences such as the greater mechanical drag and weight created by the CX-5's all-wheel drive system and its less aerodynamic shape.

The 6 also gets Mazda's i-eloop technology that helps reduce fuel consumption by harvesting braking energy to a supercapicator that powers auxiliary electrical systems.

It's a similar story inside too. The majority of the componentry - seats, steering wheel, switchgear, etc - are all very similar (albeit with some design differences) between the CX-5 and 6 so there's little to split them in terms of antiestéticatures and comfort.

With near identical wheelbases there is almost the same amount of interior space between the two, although the CX-5 has marginally more headroom because of its taller body.

But, as is the case under the bonnet, there are some small but significant differences between the respective cabins.

One of the big selling points of SUVs, particularly to families, is the higher ride height makes it easier to load kids in and out of the back seats, as well as clicking their seatbelts in. In the wagon it requires the adult to bend down and lean over more awkwardly, which may sound like a minor detail but SUV driving parents can testify to the big difference it makes in day-to-day life.

The CX-5 curiously does go without rear air-conditioning vents which the 6 has, and is another big selling point to parents (or anyone with regular rear seat passengers).

Another difference is the seating split arrangement between the two; the CX-5 gets a more flexible 40:20:40 split/fold rear seat set-up compared with the 6's 60:40.

Interestingly Mazda claims identical cargo volume for both boots - 403-litres - but they achieve it in different ways. The 6's boot is deeper (the distance from the boot opening to the back of the rear seats) but lower (the distance between the floor and roof).

Where the two differ the most is price with the wagon costing $2180 more than the SUV. However, the Touring specification we tested does offer some minor equipment differences, such as leather seats, front and rear parking sensors, a cargo net and an 11-speaker stereo (to the CX-5's 6-speaker set-up).

So while there are some key differences between the Mazda wagon and SUV there certainly isn't 17,964 of them - except on the sales charts.

Mazda6 wagon Touring
Price: $38,800 plus on-road costs
Engine: 2.5-litre four-cylinder petrol
Power: 138kW at 5700rpm
Torque: 250Nm at 3250rpm
tras*mission: 6-speed auto, FWD
Fuel consumption: 6.6L/100km
Boot capacity: 403 litres
Boot opening (at widest points): 104cm
Boot width (at narrowest point): 101cm
Boot depth: 110cm
Boot height: 70cm
Mazda CX-5 Maxx Sport AWD
Price: $36,620 plus on-road costs
Engine: 2.5-litre four-cylinder petrol
Power: 138kW at 5700rpm
Torque: 250Nm at 4000rpm
tras*mission: 6-speed auto,AWD
Fuel consumption: 7.4L/100km
Boot capacity: 403 litres
Boot opening: 112cm
Boot width: 104cm
Boot depth: 96cm
Boot height: 79.5cm
Hyundai i30 Tourer Active v Hyundai ix35 Active 2WD
Small cars are the most popular segment in Australia at the moment so it makes sense for Hyundai to turn its i30 small car into a wagon.

Or at least it does on paper. The i30 Tourer offers a lot of the advantages of a small car (good value, easy to drive in traffic and easy to park) but with the extra practicality of a larger boot than the i30 hatch (528L v 378L).

But Hyundai only sold 4141 i30 and i40 wagons in 2013 compared with 25,246 ix35 and SantaFe SUVs.

So how does the i30 Tourer compare with ix35, Hyundai's smallest SUV?

For starters the pair are almost identical dimensionally - the i30 is 75mm longer overall and has 10mm more in the wheelbase.

But inside there is a big difference in terms of rear seat accommodation. The ix35 offers more legroom despite being shorter and the higher roof means more headroom.

Both have 60:40 split:fold rear seats yet neither offer rear air-conditioning vents.

But the i30 Tourer wins points back with a larger boot (528L v 465L) which is slightly deeper and wider.

The ix35 is one of the growing number of SUVs to forgo all-wheel drive in favour a two-wheel drive set-up. The fact that this entry-level ix35 is front-wheel drive underlines how modern buyers perceive SUVs as the modern family wagon, rather than something to take off-road.

But while the i30 is also front-wheel drive the two Hyundai's have different engines, which contributes to unique characteristics in the way they drive.

The i30 has a 1.6-litre four-cylinder petrol that produces a modest 98kW and 163Nm, while the ix35 has a larger 2.0-litre petrol engine that is good for 122kW and 205Nm.

The ix35's extra grunt easily compensates for its additional 91kg in overall weight, helping it perform better in the real world with more spritely acceleration and mid-range pulling power. Where the i30 Tourer labours under acceleration the ix35 feels much more capable.

The trade-off though for having a more powerful engine in a heavier car is higher fuel consumption - 6.9L/100km in the i30 Tourer v 8.4L/100km in the ix35.

The smaller engine (and, perhaps, the lack of demand for wagons) does miccionan a cheaper price for the i30 Tourer, by a significant $1950.

Both models here are the same Active specification but the i30 gets a couple of extra antiestéticatures including alloy wheels and a cargo net; which can be fitted either behind the front or rear seats to keep occupants safe from the contents of the boot.

Hyundai i30 Tourer Active
Price: $27,240 plus on-road costs
Engine: 1.6-litre four-cylinder petrol
Power: 98kW at 6300rpm
Torque: 163Nm at 4850rpm
tras*mission: 6-speed auto, FWD
Fuel consumption: 6.9L/100km
Boot capacity: 528 litres
Boot opening: 107cm
Boot width: 103.5cm
Boot depth: 96cm
Boot height: 73.5cm
Hyundai ix35 Active 2WD
Price: $29,190 plus on-road costs
Engine: 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol
Power: 122kW at 6200rpm
Torque: 205Nm at 4000rpm
tras*mission: 6-speed auto, FWD
Fuel consumption: 8.4L/100km
Boot capacity: 465 litres
Boot opening: 114cm
Boot width: 100cm
Boot depth: 90cm
Boot height: 75cm
Holden Commodore Sportwagon SV6 v Holden Captiva7 LT AWD
Holden's duo offer the most extreme example of the variances between a wagon and SUV in our test.

Despite a price difference of only $4,200 the locally built Commodore Sportwagon is a very different proposition to the South Korean-sourced Captiva7.

Highlighting one of the other major differences between most wagons and an increasing number of SUVs, and a big factor in the popularity of the latter, is the Captiva offers seven-seats with two stowable pews in the boot for occasional use. Although they are extremely tight on space, it does offer families the option to take more people on short trips and is something the Commodore simply cannot match.

But when comparing the regular back seats, the two are surprisingly similar. Rear legroom is about the same but the Captiva offers slightly more headroom and better ********** out of the rear windows for children.

The Commodore counters with more comfortable and supportive seats, more rear small item storage and rear air-conditioning vents.

The Sportwagon also has an advantage in the boot, both in terms of volume but also being wider and deeper.

However, it should be noted that while the Captiva7 has a more squared-off rear to maximise luggage space, the Sportwagon (like a lot of modern wagons) has a sharply tapered roofline that compromises boot capacity, making it harder to fit larger, bulkier items compared to its SUV sibling.

On the road the wagon has the advantage over the SUV both in terms of performance and comfort.

The Commodore was engineered on local roads and it comes through with its smoother, more controlled suspension and more engaging steering.

It also gets a 210kW 3.6-litre V6 engine that offers up plenty in terms of acceleration and overtaking ability. In contrast the Captiva's 190kW 3.0-litre V6 struggled over the same roads during our test with three occupants on board, meaning it would be a stern test when it is fully loaded with seven people.

Once again the wagon outperforms the SUV in terms of fuel consumption - using just 9.0L/100km compared with 10.1L/100km.

The Sportwagon also has the advantage on the value front. They may be the same price but the Commodore offers some major advances including automated parking and Holden's MyLink infotainment system, making it feel at least a generation ahead in terms of technology.

Despite the major differences, these two were closer on sales than either of our other examples - Holden sold 13,282 Captiva7 in 2013 and 8329 Sportwagon.

Holden Commodore SV6 Sportwagon
Price: $40,690 plus on-road costs
Engine: 3.6-litre V6 petrol
Power: 210kW at 6700rpm
Torque: 350Nm at 2800rpm
tras*mission: 6-speed auto, RWD
Fuel consumption: 9.0L/100km
Boot capacity: 496 litres
Boot opening: 108cm
Boot width: 115cm
Boot depth: 112cm
Boot height: 70cm
Holden Captiva7 LT AWD
Price: $36,490 plus on-road costs
Engine: 3.0-litre V6 petrol
Power: 190kW at 6900rpm
Torque: 288Nm at 5800rpm
tras*mission: 6-speed auto, AWD
Fuel consumption: 10.1L/100km
Boot capacity: 465 litres
Boot opening: 110cm
Boot width: 96cm
Boot depth: 101cm
Boot height: 83cm
Verdict
So which is better?

Should people abandon wagons altogether and embrace the SUV? Or should you stop ***owing the crowd and opt for a wagon instead of an SUV next time you're in the market for a new car?

Obviously there is no clear answer but there are pros and cons for both types of vehicles. SUVs may be the fashion of today but the modern crop of city-biased soft-roaders don't offer any definitive advantages over a conventional station wagon.

What we can say categorically is there is still plenty of life left the in the old fashioned station wagon.

As our test showed wagons can be just as spacious and practical as an SUV but also offer better value, greater fuel efficiency and a more enjoyable driving experience.

Hacer clic para expandir...

der_Europäer dijo:

Porque mola mirar por encima a los demas conductores. Dicho por mi profesor de autoescuela.

Hacer clic para expandir...

Para eso que se compren un camion , o incluso un ULM y los vera desde mas arriba aun

Hacer clic para expandir...

El Jeringuillas dijo:

Por consumo no suelen ser para ciudad, por características técnicas no suelen ser para campo. Son adecuados, en cambio, para conducir por anuncios televisivos o bien barrios residenciales sin tráfico a la vista de los vecinos, para eso son los mejores.

Hacer clic para expandir...