That was a popular distinction maybe 20 years ago, but the line is fuzzed and functionally, the term "crossover (CUV) is dead. But, like all terms automotive, it's just marketing." Crossover" seemed friendlier to women to get them to drive tall cars. Now everything is classed as a [size] suv. Some classic suv examples were always unibody like the jeep Cherokee. Edit: I see now your other comment touches on offroad capability. So does a 2wd "suv" (by your definition) then get declassified? Does a body-on-frame tall wagon with viscous coupling awd get declassified?

And no (takes a deep breath to survive an emotional down vote onslaught), there is no legal difference between 4x4, 4wd, or awd. A manufacturer can choose any term to apply to any type of 4-wheel locomotion. Every definitive trait has some counter example that still counts because people "feel" it's good enough.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Crossover" was essentially "minivan without sliding doors."

4x4 generally means "you have a second gear selector to choose 2wd or 4wd Hi or 4wd Lo," whether that selector is a mechanical lever or a switch.

"Full time 4wd" and AWD mean that the car is always driving all four wheels, there is no selector to switch to 2wd, and usually with the primary being front wheel drive, with a teeny driveshaft sending a small percentage of the power (like 20% or 30%) to the rear wheels (though that may change based on traction control sensor inputs).

I apologize for the length of the previous sentence.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The 3rd gen Suzuki Grand Vitara had full time 4WD with low range, a center LSD, and a center locker

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Every definitive trait has some counter example that still counts because people “feel” it’s good enough.

There's an aphorism in statstics / science: "all models are wrong, but some are useful." I feel that the distinction between genuine off-road-capable SUVs and crossovers/tall cars/glorified station wagons or minivans is useful, even if it isn't completely definitive. Generally speaking, if it's a unibody vehicle it probably isn't very good off-road, and therefore doesn't really deserve to be called an "SUV."

So does a 2wd “suv” (by your definition) then get declassified?

A 2WD SUV is less general-purpose, but I think they still have enough potential to count (think desert-racing prerunners, which are often 2WD but legitimate off-road vehicles).

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Plenty of large SUVs are unibody.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Plenty of large "tall station wagons" are unibody. About the only legitimately capable offroad 4x4s I know of that are unibody are the Jeep Cherokee (the old one) ~~and maybe something like a Suzuki Jimny~~ (edit: nope, even that tiny thing is body-on-frame).

(Consider the difference between a (unibody) Toyota Highlander and a (body-on-frame) Toyota 4Runner, for example: only the latter is a "real" SUV, in terms of being capable off-road.)

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago

You've unilaterally decided that "AN SUV MUST BE BODY ON FRAME!" and that's just not the case.