DC Car Examiner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Things are never that cut and dry. Why would someone not cross-shop the Edge and Equinox/Terrain? What is so different between the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I am making a number of classification changes starting in the new year, and have been weighing whether it's possible to create a second SUV class between compact and full-size. Under this arrangement it would be: Compact: Escape, CR-V, etc. Midsize: Edge, Grand Cherokee, etc. Large crossover: Explorer, Traverse, etc. Large SUV: Expedition, Tahoe, etc. There would still be overlap, of course, probably even more than before, but it would reduce the size difference between the biggest and smallest vehicles listed in the same class. This would be more logical. Compact: CRV; Rav4; CX5; Escape; Equinox; Terrain; Tuscon; Sportage; Tiguan; Liberty; Patriot; etc Midsize: Edge; Grand Cherokee; CX7; Murano; Venza; Crosstour; Santa Fe; Sorento; etc Large CUV: Traverse; Acadia; Explorer; Highlander; Pilot; Flex; CX9; Veracruz; etc Large SUV: Expedition; Tahoe; Suburban; Yukon/XL; Sequoia; Armada; etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Things are never that cut and dry. Why would someone not cross-shop the Edge and Equinox/Terrain? What is so different between the two? As I had said already before, comparison can and will be made between different vehicles. For one off the top of my head the Equinox is much narrower than the Edge which means that the chances of three abreast in the rear is less likely. Also sales figures aren't a guide for someone shopping for a new car. You have the ability to be decisive about your classifications of cars. Putting a car in two different categories is wishy-washy at best. Subscribe to the generally accepted categorizations that exist in the market already. Edited January 6, 2012 by stpatrick90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Everyone has their own classification system. There are few cars where there is only one thing someone could, and does, consider it. When you say "generally accepted," you mean "generally accepted by you." Presenting sales data is about showing how a car sold compared to a competitor, so if it has direct competitors that clearly fall in different classes, there's nothing "wishy-washy" about presenting it in both. It just makes the comparison data more accessible for whatever car you're hoping to compare it to. Especially if, in the subjective assignment of cars to one class or another, it ends up only in the category you'd disagree with -- and in each case I have a car listed in multiple charts, there are plenty of people on either side. (With no doubt a significant "why is this such a big deal?" contingent.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Everyone has their own classification system. There are few cars where there is only one thing someone could, and does, consider it. When you say "generally accepted," you mean "generally accepted by you." Presenting sales data is about showing how a car sold compared to a competitor, so if it has direct competitors that clearly fall in different classes, there's nothing "wishy-washy" about presenting it in both. It just makes the comparison data more accessible for whatever car you're hoping to compare it to. Especially if, in the subjective assignment of cars to one class or another, it ends up only in the category you'd disagree with -- and in each case I have a car listed in multiple charts, there are plenty of people on either side. (With no doubt a significant "why is this such a big deal?" contingent.) No I mean generally accepted by the automotive world. Publications such as MT, C/D, Insideline, etc have no qualms or difficulties in subscribing in a consistent classification model. If you wish to ignore what the majority of the automotive world does then that is your call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) No I mean generally accepted by the automotive world. Publications such as MT, C/D, Insideline, etc have no qualms or difficulties in subscribing in a consistent classification model. If you wish to ignore what the majority of the automotive world does then that is your call. Please don't present MT as an example of what reviewers should be like, they are always injecting their own contrived standards into articles, usually to get the outcome they want. Edited January 7, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Please don't present MT as an example of what reviewers should be like, they are always injecting their own contrived standards into articles, usually to get the outcome they want. I am not talking about their reviews. I merely mentioned them as an example of an automotive publication that subscribes to the generally accepted classification of vehicles. Arguably it is the only thing that MT can get correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.