Chris Harris has become one of the most highly respected motoring journalists in the industry. While Harris can be quite blunt when speaking about cars he doesn’t like, something he isn’t shy about doing, his opinion matters in this industry. Over the years, he’s been quite outspoken about his distaste for SUVs and, especially SUV “Coupes”. In a recent video from Top Gear, Harris talks about mainly the Aston Martin DBX but also about the state of the industry as a whole and its move toward crossovers and SUVs. And it’s worth listening to for the bigger picture.
While this video isn’t directly about BMW, it’s hard to not lump the Bavarian brand into the argument. BMW invented the SUV Coupe and while it’s faced considerable criticism for it, it’s a trend that’s been followed by almost all premium automakers. Which is something that Chris Harris obviously does not like and is also something objectively bad for the entire industry. Hell, it’s bad for the world.
SUVs are incredibly inefficient and utterly pointless 90-percent of the time. Unless you’re actually somewhere off-road, there’s really no reason at all for an SUV. A wagon or a hatchback is perfectly fine for anyone that needs space some extra space. Need even more space than a wagon can afford? Buy a minivan. It’s that simple. But minivans aren’t cool, wagons are lame and in America bigger always means better. Maybe that argument was fine in 1995 but it isn’t anymore. The world is changing, and rapidly, and we need to change with it. Except we aren’t and automakers share as much blame as the customer. If not more.
Chris Harris has some good points about how the car industry designs and manufactures cars and, again, it’s hard to not lump BMW into the mix. His point is that the car industry doesn’t lead, it follows what its customer wants. That’s obviously something that makes financial sense but it’s also something that’s brought us here, to a world where we buy more fuel-sucking SUVs than ever before, during the least appropriate time in history to do so.
Why do so many premium automakers build these fuel-sucking, incredibly inefficient vehicles in a time when fuel consumption and energy efficiency are at their most critical? Because customers buy them up in droves and automakers make tons of money. So entire industry is just following the trend, the flow of money, and it isn’t leading the way.
Chris Harris gives some examples about how the automotive industry can lead and how it’s done so in the past. The idea is to get a bunch of smart people in a room and just have them come up with solutions for the future. And they’ll do it to. Give engineers a blank sheet of paper, with no target audience or market analytics, and tell them to create the future and the future is what you’ll get. It might not be the future that customers were hoping for but it will objectively be a better future.
Top Gear’s Jack Rix brings up Steve Jobs in the video, who famously said “people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” While you don’t want to completely alienate the customer’s needs, engineers and designers do know better than the customer and they need to lead us into a new age of automobiles, one that’s filled with intelligent and practical solutions to our current problems.
And once we see how bright the future can be, we’ll likely jump on board. Before he iPod, no one thought a little rectangle filled with music could change the world and now look at us.
Again, it’s hard to not lump BMW into this mix of automakers failing to lead. BMW consistently claims that it will build what the customer will buy. How about building something that the customer doesn’t even know can exist? Now, BMW has done some very innovative things over the years, I have to give it that.
The BMW i3 is a perfect example of bringing to market a product that challenges the idea of what a customer might want. However, it’s done nothing with it since then and it’s chased massive SUVs and misshapen luxury cars instead. Maybe the i3’s poor sales figures scared BMW off. But rather than getting another i3, or something else similar, we have the BMW X6, the X7, the 6 Series GT and the MINI Countryman. The latter might be the most egregious because it’s supposed to be “mini”.
Admittedly, BMW has a chance to redeem itself. The Bavarians are indeed working on some interesting new products, such as the BMW iNEXT and the i4. Also, in BMW’s defense, the iNEXT does seem to be a very innovative and forward-thinking look into the future of mobility but it was also publicly slammed by enthusiasts when it was debuted. So I can understand BMW’s hesitance to make such products when they aren’t well received.
However, I think BMW, as well as the rest of the industry, needs to be brave and develop some new vehicles and new ideas, even if it means facing some early skepticism. It needs to challenge what we already think we want from our cars and come up with new and innovative solutions to our problems.
Of course, BMW isn’t alone on this. Far from it. Most of the industry is guilty of the same trend. But BMW has a real opportunity to make a big change. If the iNEXT and i4 can be as impressive as BMW claims, then we’ll be on the right track. If not, we’ll have to wait for another brand to have the courage to lead.
This argument is baloney: laughably naive from someone who claims expertise. BMW tries other formats from time to time, and if they sold well then they would take market share from their SUVs. The 6GT is a great example of offering an alternative to the X5, and customers largely rejected it. 3GT and 3-series wagon had similar stories. Is BMW supposed to pull its SUVs from the market, so customers can only buy non-SUVs? Then customers will choose other brands instead. The only way to persuade customers to value fuel efficiency over size is to make SUVs more expensive, and that means increasing taxes on low-efficiency vehicles. America is decades behind Europe in using fuel and licensing taxes to influence car-purchasing decisions.
As for your last sentence, all I can say is thank God. God forbid we are confined to running around and overpriced Little Tim 3-cylinder cookie boxes. I’d say half the cars in airport not even safe on the highway at speed.
Taxing is never the answer unless the question is, “How can the government waste more money?”
Taxation is a tool that every government uses to shape public behavior, including the USA. Your trite response is straight from the Ayn Rand Cliff Notes. You should read more widely.
This blog is for typists, not readers. It is consumers who moved the market to not mini minivans, SUVs, crossovers & pick-ups post-muscle cars, V8s, OPEC “fuel crisis” CAFE, & fwd. downsizing. 4 door coupes of ANY kind increase profitable margins on costly platforms that otherwise would do less volume, these unwanted behemoths are bankrolling new BEV production & R&D. Chris Harris needs to pull his head out of his butt. Or whoever’s it’s up. Didn’t the U.S. gov’t. build the rail that allowed the country to be settled, & highways & much other infrastructure during the Depression, they have been bankrolling military suppliers since WWII, even during a “cold war”. Pick-ups are perennial best-sellers, how many are used for anything more than fashion & “lifestyle”?
I would LOVE a 3-cylinder MINI stick cookie box, with 1/2 a BMW turbo i6! Or in an i8, either way. Or both. Most cars are not safe on the highway @ speed – because DRIVERS.
Well, a car company is in the business of making money. If SUVs bring that money they build SUVs. There are a lot of choices out there and lots pf people still prefer SUVs. So this is more a general societal question than anything else. It’s not the car companies task to engage in social engineering. And dont forget that car design these days is heavily determined by bureaucratic regulations and the Gods of NCAP tests which have become totally ridiculous and over the top.
Number two, re “they offer you nothing”:
For me they offer a little more ground clearance and are free of kerb level spoilers and splitters which I value around town and on the more questionable roads of Eastern Europe.
And for my wife it’s the fact that she can get in and out more or less level without acrobatics.
So we have two vehicles: a coupe as my daily solo car, and a SUV if we go places together.
Like you, we bought an SUV for my wife (2018 Discovery HSE) for the 7seats, cargo for camping, skiing and future towing. As a consumer, there’s still a purpose for an SUV. Until arguably the X7, BMW’s X lineup just didn’t deliver enough on the aspects of a true 4×4, at least not for us.
However, I’m really irritated that BMW is eager to turn every product on 4 wheels into an SUV. Make the X series proper SUVs, M cars proper sports cars. The company has enough breadth to make each the pinnacle of their respective segment.
Those are called M. How is the neue 1er an SUV? X1? Car and Driver Best in Class? Or it “just didn’t deliver enough on the aspects of a true 4×4…”? Apparently it does for MANY others.
“a car company is in the business of making money” So does the tobacco, weapons, drug and other industries. My comparison is a bit harsh but watch closely what environmentalists currently do to Euopean cities. Car free zones, forbidden fossil fuel engines etc. The SUV definitely had a huge impact on this development.
SUVs are this century’s replacement for last century’s station wagons, which were manufactured for decades. The other industries you mention KILL people, as cars used to (& still do) despite safety legislation. But more people die now from pollution than car accidents (WHO) & certainly it is not SUVs that are responsible for millions of deaths in India & China. Banning guns would save more lives in the U.S. than banning SUVs, neither’s going to happen. The difference between car company profits>the others is they will bankroll the change to BEV, thereby hopefully saving lives & the planet. Tobacco, weapons, drug and other industries? Not so much, people will continue to die in pursuit of their profits.
The i3 also wasn’t given an earnest chance At delivering what BEV customers wanted. BMW insisted that 150+ mile range on a BEV was unnecessary… had the iDivision delivered what we know to be the i4 back in 2014, the company’s head start over the Model 3 probably would’ve influenced the current product line-up. Instead the iDivision was setup to fail from the start so that the management can say, “look at the paltry sales, no one wants EVs”.
Instead we now get SUV permeating every aspect of every new product – even the next halo M car. Yep, BMW M GmbH is about to be a bespoke SUV maker. Even the next gen of the iconic M3 (yes, “THE” M3) gets an SUV inspired front end… screw aerodynamics, M enthusiasts need a stronger dose of hiphop bling.
BMW have doubled volume & turned parts maker Magna into a manufacturer this century because they had more demand than they could meet, they are America’s largest exporter of vehicles (& a huge contributor to their economy) because of SUVs. Perennial best-sellers in the richest market are pick-ups, a segment BMW don’t even compete in (like volume fwd. hatchback, until recently). Meantime, every manufacturer from AMG to N to R has created a performance division chasing M, who offer more models than ever & increase sales with every new wannabe competitor. BMW not only created a new division for i, they let their employees create & build clean sheet ground up design, tech., engineering & manufacturing innovative showcases, they built a dedicated CFRP factory on fresh water in Washington state, fer horst’s sake! NO ONE was building an i4 in 2014, what part of NEW TECHNOLOGY & MANUFACTURE don’t you understand? Tesla haven’t even built a million vehicles yet, pick-ups still best-sellers, we have a LONG way to go & BMW still lead that charge. & since BEV are still a single digit % of the market, “no one wants EVs” is accurate. Since i3 sales are increasing? Lead on, BMW! Mit hydrogen, as well.
Harris nails it again. Sports cars aren’t eco heroes but they provide joy and when driven normally they are actually sensible. Vans, wagons, hatches etc. they all have a purpose but SUVs are utterly useless because they even fail as a 4×4.
I know several people with SUVs, including my own family but nobody had a conclusive argument on the why question. It is a weird mixture of liking the command position and a (false) sense of security.
Overly critical to state SUVs are useless, no? People who buy them have common sense, maybe it’s what they want. Chris Harris has lost sense of objectivity as a journalist, many are beginning to find his views “nazi-like” (his way or no other way). He states manufacturers should build minivans instead, even if people prefer SUVs. Imagine that! Minivans do not look cool, are not dynamic/versatile, aren’t sporty yet he advocates manufacturers “take the lead” and build minivans. SUVs are bought for various reasons and whether Chris Harris and others like him like it or not, that’s not changing anytime soon and even if it does, it might be to another car body form he might, once again be critical of.
You can speculate as long a you want on his views. Clarkson also had drastic views but sometimes not just because people failed to understand his sarcasm (M135i vs GTI etc.).
However an SUV, when compared to an equivalent hatch or wagon has nothing beneficial to offer. Not more space, or anything useful. It’s relally just more fuel consumption, compromised handling, a higher price – the end.
The end? Perhaps for your comment, certainly not for SUVs. For starters, SUVs, as “unbeneficial” as you claim them to be, are certainly more spacious than hatches/wagons. A cursory look at BMW’s website would easily show dimensions to prove that. And SUVs provide more comfort on bad U.K. roads and off-roads hence their popularity here. Besides, the contention wasn’t about hatches/wagons vs SUVs, it was Chris Harris’ take of wanting manufacturers to make minivans rather than SUVs. No one cares about Clarkson’s or Harris’ comments if they aren’t objective or fall on the correct side of common sense.
Minivans, besides being considered uncool, do not drive or handle well, just as you stated. Why then is Harris campaigning for manufacturers to make them and force them on buyers all in a bid to get rid of SUVs? Makes no sense.
Because the Minivan is not a drivers car. But in stark contrast to a SUV it has excellent utilitarian capabilities. The SUV has no driving/sports capabilities, nor an advantage in the utilitarian category. Compare a X3 with a 3 Touring and tell me why the X would be better.
Aren’t BMW predicting X3 will be bestselling M? So ask owners & paying customers.
come and visit me and try and drive with your minivan
Harris is wasting his time going on about SUVs and OEMs “needing to lead”. Rubbish. People want: booze, fatty food, fake boobs…and SUVs. Deal with it. Might as well tell your dog to stop sniffling butts.
Harris would be better off doing political advocacy if he wants to get rid of SUVs: more taxes, surcharges for vehicle weight, or just straight up making them illegal. Why beat around the bush with a bunch of ideas that are completely irrelevant?
IMO we will just eventually see BEV, PHEV and FCEV tech get us the best of both worlds. May take 10 years though.
Acting stupid usually doesn’t pay off well. It inevitably ends in a prison or a grave.
Or in the White House. EVERYONE inevitably ends in a grave.
SUVs look better, drive better, are more dynamic/versatile than minivans. Chris Harris needs to be more objective rather than being closed minded. No one can deny SUVs have pushed innovation, sales, creativity, versatility, and efficiency in the motor industry. What manufacturers need to be doing is finding ways to create/build affordable and enjoyable sports cars and people will gravitate to them just as Corvette did with C8 but that won’t happen because they’re chasing profits, and rightfully so as they’re businesses who report to shareholders. For Chris Harris to advocate building of minivans instead of SUVs makes his objectivity on the matter questionable.
Id prefer an suv over a minivan anyday of the week and most people will thus they are selling so well
“Fuel sucking”?! Ever drove an X5 30/40d?! I guess, even a stupid Opel Corsa 1.2l petrol car will use more fuel you drive it in the same way. It all depends on the driving style and profile. A new, powerful and efficient diesel engine in any SUV is way better than these small, downsized petrol engines. And of course companies should offer what customer wants, everything else would be suicide.
Diesel vs. Petrol is an apples vs oranges argument. Imagine what a puny litle diesel does when put in a normal car. I had a E91 BMW 320d Touring for several years. I’ve managed to get 5.9L/100km (40-43mpg)average and sometimes even 5.5 with AC and not being slow. Do that with your X3 junker.
Joe Shmoe customers are stupid. It most likely ends with a “Homer” car. There is not a single bit of cleverness to an SUV. People buying them also take supersize junk food meals and can hardly read a book.
I had an E91 330d as long run car and have around 8.5l, ok an X3/X5 might have 1l more, but I dont see a problem here, it also has more much more (space) to offer.
Anyway, its like I said, really depending on your driving style! This can bring maybe 3l difference or more.
But generally, a Diesel never uses so much, even if you push it. I cant understand why so many countries arent using it. Got a 530Li in China and have 14l/100 which is a real joke!
the other day i averaged 4.9l /100km with an x3 2.0d i used it for one day but hell I was still impressed
Harris is entitled to his opinion, but he can’t link things with Apple, because a Mac is not going to clogged much space, even if you have Mac Pro, MacBook, iMac and AppleTV altogether, the most it can cause, is your living quarter, it won’t result public congestion. Cars on the other hand will, because limited roadways, that leads to government impose tax on road, tax on vehicles in many countries, even fuel is tax. Yes, Minivan does serve the purpose, but the compromise is the driving dynamics, thats why I don’t agree with him. SUV, crossovers, and today’s modern saloon from many manufacturers especially BMW strike a right balance, by adding driving dynamics even to these categories, and makes driving something that big a pleasurable experiencs. By reducing the traditional approach on sports car due to practicality, they produce a portfolio of 4 doors that fills up all the gaps.
Tesla was brave!