[SIM]

Ok, so according to your statement, since the Escalade, Yukon, etc... are based on the GMC and Chevrolet pickup truck frame, they should be called trucks?

All modern SUV are based on existing frames, unibody or the older H-beam truck design. It doesn't change anything to the vocation of the vehicle. A Murano is not the same as an Altima nor a Maxima. It is closer to a truck than a car when you look at it from outside. When you drive it, it is closer to the feeling of driving a car, only that you are seated much higher.

It all brings us back to what SUV means and I'll be damned if the Murano does not fit the description of SUV.

 

[Eric L.]

Ok, so according to your statement, since the Escalade, Yukon, etc... are based on the GMC and Chevrolet pickup truck frame, they should be called trucks?

All modern SUV are based on existing frames, unibody or the older H-beam truck design. It doesn't change anything to the vocation of the vehicle. A Murano is not the same as an Altima nor a Maxima. It is closer to a truck than a car when you look at it from outside. When you drive it, it is closer to the feeling of driving a car, only that you are seated much higher.

It all brings us back to what SUV means and I'll be damned if the Murano does not fit the description of SUV.

Yes truck frame = truck, regardless of how the outside looks. Car frame = car, regardless of how the outside looks. The MO is not a truck, but as long as you like it, its fine.

 

[njjoe]

According to Merriam-Webster a Sport Utility Vehicle is defined as: a rugged automotive vehicle similar to a station wagon but built on a light-truck chassis. The MO is neither rugged nor built on a light-truck chassis. Those are facts.

Just because the marketing suits at Nissan elect to call it an SUV does not mean it is a true SUV. The suits knew they would sell more Muranos if they marketed it as an SUV instead of a station wagon.

I have owned only one SUV. It was a Jeep Grand Cherokee LTD V-8. It was ruggedly-built and utilized a light-truck chassis. I didn't want another SUV so I bought the MO. Compared to the Jeep, the MO is a sharp-looking and smooth-riding... car.

Personally I don't care what "they" call it. It meets 95% of my expectations so I bought it.

-njjoe

 

[9495]

And from here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sport Utility Vehicle

it claims that it must be four-wheel drive as well, which means there are a LOT of vehicles out there that we call SUVs that aren't.

Also, by your definition, you could have a pickup with a uni-body frame that would no longer be considered a truck, huh?

 

[9495]

By the way, if you go to Edmunds.com and try to look for the Murano under CARS, you will not find it. Even looking under WAGONS, it's not there.

They even have Cars->Crossovers and Wagons->Crossovers. Not listed in either.

It IS listed under SUV->Crossovers.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm.......

 

[SIM]

Eric, I'm puzzled. If vehicles based on truck frames are trucks and vehicles based on car frames are cars, then what is a SUV? There is no such thing a s a SUV frame so I really have a hard time following your logic.

All SUVs are based either on car or truck frames. A SUV is not defined by its frame. It is defined by its features. It has to be a sporty and utilitarian vehicle. And according to a lot of people including reputed car magazine authors, Nissan's designers and marketing people, the MO fits exactly in the center of that sweet spot.

 

[Eric L.]

This thread just shows how successful the marketing people have been. The crossover SUV is a very clever invention, appealing to those who want the SUV image but without the traditional SUV poor handling and gas mileage. The fact is that every crossover vehicle is based on a chassis originally designed for a car. Other SUVs such as say, the Pathfinder or Armada, are based on the chassis of their truck cousins, the Frontier and Titan. To me, that is a very clear distinction, car vs. truck. Do you consider the Civic based Honda CR-V a truck? Its basically what the Murano is to an Altima.

To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck, since it includes crossovers (car-based) and traditional SUV's (trucks-based).

If Nissan's marketing folks read this thread, they'd be giving each other high fives. Maybe it takes away the cool factor of a crossover if we call it a modern station wagon, but I already knew what the MO was when I bought it, and had no pretentions it was anything other than a big roomy Altima with a little more traction when it snows.

 

[SIM]

To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck

Then we agree! :2:

 

[njjoe]

To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck, since it includes crossovers (car-based) and traditional SUV's (trucks-based).

What a way to wimp out on that one.

-njjoe

 

[Eric L.]

What a way to wimp out on that one.

-njjoe

Hey I only said the MO is a car, never said it wasn't an SUV too. Maybe kind of a softie in the SUV crowd, but nonetheless the marketing folks have put them all into the same group.

I still stand by my original statement though, that the MO is definitely NOT A TRUCK! :3:

 

[Eric L.]

Then we agree! :2:

Hey, we're all friends here, so no point in arguing about this, so I figured I'll take up the middle ground, you know, like a MO.

 

[SIM]

Eric, you're the crossover of moderators but I hope that it only applies here otherwise I don't want to hear about it! :2:

 

[Eric L.]

Eric, you're the crossover of moderators but I hope that it only applies here otherwise I don't want to hear about it! :2:

 

[Kris]

Who really cares about SUV, trucks etc. This is all about naming conventions and marketing spill. I bought Murano for what it is. And I really do not care what it is called. Even if it was called a minivan......it does what it does....and it suits me.....at least for time being...

 

[SIM]

Kris, I agree 100%.

It does not matter how anyone calls it. It is still the sportiest and smoothest machine of its kind and it still makes me smile when I drive it.

 

[Eric L.]

What convenient timing - this question was posted on Cartalk this morning:

Dear Tom and Ray:

I've always owned an "old lady" car (i.e., Pontiac Bonneville, Oldsmobile 88, Buick LeSabre). But I recently bought a 2007 Toyota Highlander. While I love the vehicle, I'm concerned about how easily SUVs "tip" over. I know there's a higher percentage of these vehicles that end up in the "turtle on its back" position. My husband assures me that my driving skills will not tip it over; it's just the idiots who think they can do anything because they have an SUV. Am I worrying for nothing, or do I have to learn to drive all over again and not take corners like I did in my old-lady cars? Thanks. -- Cheryl

RAY: I don't think you have to worry, Cheryl. But I think Toyota might be concerned that its Highlander is winning the "old lady" market!

TOM: First of all, your Highlander is not a traditional SUV. It's what is often called a "crossover." Not to be confused with my brother, who is often called a "cross-dresser."

RAY: The term "crossover" usually refers to a vehicle that looks like an SUV and has many of the advantages of an SUV, but is actually built on the underpinnings of a car. In the Highlander's case, it's based on the chassis of the Toyota Camry.

TOM: That means its center of gravity is lower to the ground, it handles better and it's less likely to flip over. Think of it as more like a station wagon than a truck. And as an old lady, you certainly remember when station wagons ruled the earth.

RAY: Plus, the Highlander comes with electronic stability control, which is a wonderful safety enhancement that works with the anti-lock braking system to help prevent you from losing control of the vehicle, even if you do something stupid (up to a point), like turning too sharply.

TOM: Can you flip it over? I'm sure, given enough effort, you could -- or given an unfortunate set of gravitational circumstances in just the wrong kind of accident. But that's true of almost any vehicle.

RAY: But your Highlander is much closer to the old-lady cars than to traditional SUVs. So, drive reasonably -- which I'm sure you do, Cheryl -- and you'll be fine.

 

[SIM]

I certainly agree that the Highlander looks and feels like an old-lady car. This is typical Toyota stuff. No fun but highly reliable.

The MO is better balanced. Maybe a little less reliable but SO MUCH MORE fun to drive!

The same comparison applies to a Corolla vs a Civic. Both cars are excellent but only one of them is fun to drive and feels safe over 60 mph in heavy rain.

 

[Kris]

Recently, I guess 4 weeks ago, I rented Camry in Houston and drove it for a week. Inside car feels OK but terrible driving experience! I would never ever recommend Camry! You turn steering wheel and..........5 seconds later car starts turning!

After that I drove Pontiac GrandPrix with turbo over mountains of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, 10,000 feet aboe the sea level. There is no comparison with Camry! I would take Pontiac over Camry in a hear beat!

I am a fun of Toyota as a company, as a business. But if Camry I rented is any indication of "fun to drive" Toyota style - there are no Toyotas for me! Reliability is not the only aspect of a car I consider during buying. There is much more.....

But what all of these has to do with lowering Murano?

 

[SIM]

But what all of these has to do with lowering Murano?

Who anyway, in his right state of mind, would even think about doing something so criminal? :2:

 

[tdmer]

What convenient timing - this question was posted on Cartalk this morning:

Dear Tom and Ray:

TOM: That means its a station wagon. And as an old lady, you certainly remember when station wagons ruled the earth.

Yup!