First Performance Utility Vehicle

[blacksambo]

Before there was the Crosstour, there was the BMW X6.

And before the X6 there was...

Good stuff! The VX is definitely the predecessor to the X6, but the Eagle didn't handle like a Miata or have 4 Low. Right?

[Riff Raff]

I think a key criteria factor to whatever PUV/SUV/CrossOver is being considered, it must have a seperate switchable lever/switch to engage 4WD "LOW RANGE". Otherwise, it ain't squat and should be excluded from our discussion.

[pbkid]

hmm.. very interesting discussion for sure....
circmand- generally i would agree with you on jeep being the first....UTILITY vehicle... but there is nothing performance or sporty about the first jeeps.

im gonna have to go with the eagle as well... first of its kind to have ground clearance, AWD and a little power...(ya maybe lacking in power a little, but its definately more powerful than an old jeep)

[blacksambo]

Yes but it can't handle like a Miata and has no 4LOw. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, lacks the now popular aggressive styling. Right?

[SlowPro48]

Dude, you set a high standard - does any crossover handle like a Miata? Seems like decent ground clearance and low center of gravity would be mutually exclusive.

And about the 4-Low requirement.... I guess that's always been a characteristic of true off-road capability - but if you've got enough torque, in a crossover, who needs Low? Not that an Eagle had torque - but the X6 does - a friend took me for a ride in his hybrid model and I think he said it cranked out 575 ft-lbs. With that much twist on tap - you don't need no stinkin' Low Range! You can already pull a school bus straight up a wall with your street gears. Plus if you double/triple/quadruple the torque with a transfer case, you have to beef up all manner of stuff to cope with the potential additional stress so you end up adding a bunch of weight for a feature you'll hardly ever use. Most of these crossovers need more ground clearance to go off-road, not lower gearing...

[Riff Raff]

SlowPro48--- I disagree. In an off-road environment, 4WD "Low Range" is absolutely mandatory because the need to slowly crawl over obstacles and/or manuever slowly around obstacles with varying degrees of road surface (sand, mud, snow, slick-rock, tree-rooted, jeep-trail tire-rutted, etc). Trying to haul@ss in high gear in an off-road environment is merely gonna' get your vehicle either stuck (buried up to the axles due to its high HP torque) and/or totaled into a boulder or tree.

Additional ground clearance can easily be increased with taller O.D. tires, provided they fit within the confines of the fenderwells. When it comes to selectable 4WD "Low Range"-- either it came on the vehicle from the factory or it didn't. It can't simply be added later on a whim. Heck, even the tiny Suzuki X-90 (1996--1998) came with a 3-way transfer case in 2W-Hi, 4W-Hi, 4W-Lo.

[blacksambo]

The Miata thing is not my idea but rather Car&Driver I believe. After all Tone Monday claims to have dusted off 50 out of 70 Porsches in an Auto Cross competition and the ones he lost to had racing rubber etc. while he had SUV tires. So yes, it handled for its day. Open Road by Road and Track magazine called it the best handling SUV ever. Infact, they still comptete and won the Aussie Condo 750 Rally last month. Please respond.

[pbkid]

And about the 4-Low requirement.... I guess that's always been a characteristic of true off-road capability - but if you've got enough torque, in a crossover, who needs Low? Not that an Eagle had torque - but the X6 does - a friend took me for a ride in his hybrid model and I think he said it cranked out 575 ft-lbs. With that much twist on tap - you don't need no stinkin' Low Range! You can already pull a school bus straight up a wall with your street gears. Plus if you double/triple/quadruple the torque with a transfer case, you have to beef up all manner of stuff to cope with the potential additional stress so you end up adding a bunch of weight for a feature you'll hardly ever use. Most of these crossovers need more ground clearance to go off-road, not lower gearing...

while i have to agree that the X6 is a sweet ride for a street driven vehicle. i have to argue that there isnt much utility vehicle about it.... it would be hillarious to see something like that try to do anything of real offroad capability.

SlowPro48--- I disagree. In an off-road environment, 4WD "Low Range" is absolutely mandatory because the need to slowly crawl over obstacles and/or manuever slowly around obstacles with varying degrees of road surface (sand, mud, snow, slick-rock, tree-rooted, jeep-trail tire-rutted, etc). Trying to haul@ss in high gear in an off-road environment is merely gonna' get your vehicle either stuck (buried up to the axles due to its high HP torque) and/or totaled into a boulder or tree.

and sorry slowpro- riff is right on this one. if you took that thing out to a place like moab. it would either roll over, crash into something or get bogged down. you cant exactly just floor it....in any offroad situation, unless your looking to wreck or break your vehicle.
what do you think would happen in this situation with an X6? mmm... not a good idea.

[SlowPro48]

@Riff Raff:

Maybe you misunderstood my post. What I was saying is 4-Low is for true off-road but in a crossover you don't really need it. This was in response to your assertion that a crossover must have Low Range otherwise it "ain't squat".

There are plenty of fine crossovers out there that don't have 4L. The smart people who design them know most buyers aren't interested in bashing rocks on the Rubicon. They just want to do light-duty stuff like get to their favourite trout stream at the end of a rutted forest service road - so why add 500+ lbs of transfer case and beefed up drivetrain if you don't need it? My boss's new Acura MDX has enough power and traction to go anywhere my VX will go - it not only apportions torque front and back like the VX but also side to side. What it lacks is ground clearance - but what it gives up in ground clearance, it gains in handling. I guarantee you - he uses the MDX's good handling a lot more often than I use my VX's 4L!

Not sure what to say about the haul@ss in high gear/crash into a tree thing. I tend to think of momentum as a friend who keeps me OUT of trouble more often than getting me INTO trouble. Throttle control man! Just because that loud pedal goes all the way to the floor doesn't mean you have to put it there when you're in a tight spot!


@blacksambo

Well, I've driven a Miata and I've driven a VX and I can tell you, my VX is no Miata. It handles quite well considering its height and mass - but it's no low to the ground, 2500 lb sports car that's for sure. As far as Tone's success at autocross I think there may be a few other factors at work besides handling. AWD traction comes to mind. The autocrosses I've been to had really tight turns connected by short straights so RWD cars were at a disadvantage. Oversteer looks good to the spectators but wastes time. Corner speed was important (as with just about any type of racing) but the ability to put the power to the pavement and get to the next corner as quickly as possible was what separated the winners from the also-rans. (there's that throttle control again) This is where the VX would have an advantage over a Porshe or Miata. Also - did you consider that maybe Tone was a very good driver? He probably could have beaten some of those Porsches if he were driving a clapped out Country Squire. Not to insult any autocrossers here but that sport seems to have a lot of appeal to the weekend warrior type who doesn't have the skills to keep from wadding his expensive sports car up at the track so he runs over cones instead. Some really get into it and have serious skills but alot of the ones I saw lacked knowledge and precision - they were playing - basically just there to have fun and show off their car - and Tone would trounce someone like that no matter what he was driving.

[blacksambo]

Good points all. But C&D did say Miata and Open Road did say best handling SUV. So, keep the commentary coming. The VX is something special, and we need to define in order to get that "obscure" point off Wikipedia. Thanks

[circmand]

hmm.. very interesting discussion for sure....
circmand- generally i would agree with you on jeep being the first....UTILITY vehicle... but there is nothing performance or sporty about the first jeeps.

im gonna have to go with the eagle as well... first of its kind to have ground clearance, AWD and a little power...(ya maybe lacking in power a little, but its definately more powerful than an old jeep)

The original post asked for the first utility vehicle so I answered that question. Following high jackers continue to try to change the question to high light their prefered vehicle. As for performance and sporty? Well think back to the 30s and 40s when it came out. You could not even 4 wheel anywhere. They actually created the vehicle that made 4 wheeling popular, suree a car invented 40 years later is going to do it better but that means they are not first. Add to that all the functionality of the Jeep and you have a winner.

[vt_maverick]

What was really the first performance utiility vehicle? Said differently, what is the VX's palce in automotive history. Was the Mercedes G-Wagon the first? I'm guessing the Porsche Cayenne thinks it's first but it would seem to owe alot to the VX, at least in terms of styling innovation. What does the group know about this subject? I hate to see the "obscure" history words used when describing the VX in Wikipedia. Don't you?

The original post asked for the first utility vehicle so I answered that question. Following high jackers continue to try to change the question to high light their prefered vehicle. As for performance and sporty? Well think back to the 30s and 40s when it came out. You could not even 4 wheel anywhere. They actually created the vehicle that made 4 wheeling popular, suree a car invented 40 years later is going to do it better but that means they are not first. Add to that all the functionality of the Jeep and you have a winner.

I think you see what you want to see.

[blacksambo]

No high-jacking here. The original Thread request was for First "Performance" Utility Vehicle, and the discourse on the history of all Utility Vehicles is quite helpful at getting us to the point we need to reach. Thanks

[circmand]

I think you see what you want to see.

That proves my point even I saw it difeerently then it was. Thanks VT for proving my point even if it was at my expense

[vt_maverick]

No worries circ, in fact if you read carefully enough, sambo actually was actually coining a new term called "utiility" - I think it's like utility 2.0 or something.