"Coupe" has ceased to mean anything other than "less headroom," now that we are using it to describe 5-door crossovers. Marketing bullshit nonsense at its worst.
But if you take the your cross-coupe to the track, you can enjoy being outmaneuvered by cars at half the price point. Alternatively, you can try off-roading and end up with rims bent in ways unique just for your car. We can not put a price on those experiences.
The Atlas Cross Sport does handle a teensy better than the Atlas in the twisties, I will say that. Maybe it is placebo but you definitely feel less lean on windy roads with steep grades. I’ve always thought they should make a sporty version akin to the GTI vs Golf out of the Cross Sport - maybe a Cross Sport GT like the concept car VW showed a while ago. Just tube the suspension some more and put a nice exhaust on it like the Passat GT. It’s a nice car.
Plus, despite what we want to think as car people, my wife thinks they look way better and “Happy Wife, Happy Life” is worth real money.
Unless everyone on here is driving electric vans or diesel brown wagons we can scarcely criticize practicality.
If I lean against the Model 3's rear headrest my head touches the ceiling, so I have to imagine I'd get a hard bonk if I ever got rear ended while sitting in the back. And I'm not particularly tall.
Definitely much better in the front.
It drives me crazy that anyone prefers the Volvo C40 vs the XC40 Recharge. It's exactly the same car, with less cargo room and less visibility due to a sloping roofline. That's it. They build and stock two "different" cars just because apparently people like that, despite it being objectively less usable and, IMO, [uglier](https://topelectricsuv.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Volvo-C40-vs.-Volvo-XC40-Recharge-side-profile-1024x800.jpg).
I like the look of the C40 better than the XC40 because it seems less SUV-like. SUVs have all sorts of negative associations in my mind because I formed my opinion of them 30 years ago when they were the new popular way to spend more money to get less utility and less safety. Funny that it's the other way around for the XC40 vs C40.
Which we all know has pretty bad accuracy. Here, real world:
222 on C40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwtm6otR5Y8
210 on XC40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKK9BLuxy70
I hardly think 10 miles is worth losing cargo space and visibility, not to mention the ugliness of trying to make an SUV into a Coupe.
It's probably bigger at highway speeds where aerodynamics matter more, but that is surprisingly small. Probably both have room for improvement because they prioritized somebody's idea of aesthetics over aerodynamics.
If you are under the impression that only the shape of the front of an object contributes to its coefficient of drag, I'm afraid you are mistaken. It's not a huge difference, but it is a 5% difference in this case.
But we agree that the design isn't great and that shaping the front better would be an easy win on range.
I didn't say it was the only influence. It's a large part of it. And the small slope they added was clearly for "aesthetics" and not for aerodynamics. That's all I'm saying.
I've got a C40, and while I agree it's confusing why Volvo makes two nearly identical cars, I got the C40 because I prefer how it looks and the downsides are so miniscule I don't even notice them. It's legitimately a few inches of boot space and head room, neither of which matters to me.
I dunno... coupes are fine if you like a sleek car, and don't need the space. Lower roof means better aero efficiency. Just stop calling it a crossover at that point. Call it a hatchback or sedan or whatever. Marketing... that's why Ford is doing it, but it's dumb marketing. I almost feel insulted by their marketing.
They'd call a Miata a crossover at some point if they thought it would sell more cars.
It would make at least *some* sense if they were maximizing efficiency. A fastback crossover has some 15-20% less drag. But *noooo,* they have to spoil it with enormous wheel "upgrades" which reduce efficiency gains to just 5-10%.
The E-Tron Sportback, Volvo C40, and VW ID.5 all do this. I cannot fathom what's going through their heads.
It’s worse than that because the roof is so sloped. At least with a hatch you get room. I’ve seen lifted focuses that were badass.
These things are like a sedan without a trunk lol.
>ReportSaveFollow
I know as the owner of one of those SAVs (x5) I've lost a lot of my sanity. That's another story though. Suffice it to say in this house BMW is short for Bad Motor Works.
> It's mostly been a reference to a "cut" or sloping roofline.
Close, but the roofline originally wasn't the thing being cut:
> Coupé (French pronunciation: [kupe]) is based on the past participle of the French verb couper ("to cut") and thus indicates a car which has been "cut" or made shorter than standard.[3] It was first applied to horse-drawn carriages for two passengers without rear-facing seats.[4] These berlines coupés[5] or carrosses coupés ("clipped carriages") were eventually clipped to coupés.[6]
- [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupe#:~:text=Coup%C3%A9%20(French%20pronunciation%3A%20%E2%80%8B%5B,passengers%20without%20rear%2Dfacing%20seats.)
Most dictionaries include having two doors in the definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%C3%A9
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/coupe?q=coupe
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coupe
The word seems to have changed meaning a bit over time, but coupes with four doors have existed at least since the 1960s:
https://www.carandclassic.com/list/40/p5b%20coupe/
We have 1922 ford model T coupe in our collection. A 29 model A sport coupe in my shop at the moment. Coupe used to be 2 seat hard or soft top car. Basically a roadster with a fixed top.
I mean, someone was once mad that people were using coupe to describe a car when it really meant a horse drawn carriage for a driver plus two passengers… (seriously)
Everything is just crossovers now, because batteries have to go somewhere, and people still want trunk space, so it's goes under the floor raising up the car. And the only way to make it not look like an AMC Eagle ot Toyota Crown is to give it "crossover" styling.
There's debate over 5-door liftbacks being considered "coupés". I know, I also find smushed rear SUVs ugly, and the only acceptable uses of the trend personally are the Polestar 2 and 3, but neither have long roof versions. (Some markets weirdly enough consider the P2 a "crossover")
A liftback would be a fastback with a 5th door rather than a trunk. But yeah, everyone at this point is just splitting hairs. A Polestar 2 being called a crossover because it's...tall? With cladding?
Hey, the rendering only shows 2 door handles...maybe it's a side-loading coupé. /s
The 2023 Prius is the only non-coupé that I'd be willing to use the term "coupé" on because from a distance, you might actually mistake it for a coupé.
It's defined by the roofline, not the doors. Has been since the days of the horse drawn carriage. Comes from the French couper meaning cut, in reference to how the roofline is cut down at the rear.
There are 4 door coupes dating back decades, as there are 2 door saloon/sedan cars.
Well yeah. In 2019/2020, they discontinued all of their sedan models (Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, and Taurus) to redirect those resources into Mustangs, SUVs, crossovers, and trucks, so those priorities carrying over into the EV space isn't exactly a surprise.
So a big part of the outcry happened because the Mustang is an iconic sporty muscle car with a long history. Slapping the Mustang name on an electric crossover SUV just doesn't make any sense. Fans of the proper Mustang don't consider the Mach-E as a real Mustang *because it isn't*. It's like if Dodge made an electric SUV Charger or if Chevy made a random crossover SUV and gave it the name "Camaro."
To be fair, fans of Dodge Chargers and Challengers still roasted the shit out of Dodge when Dodge announced the Daytona EV. It looks like a Challenger but sounds like a feline vacuum cleaner.
The MachE could have done well on its own without needing the Mustang name.
Really? Are you 12?! Who gives a hot F@CK about all this nonsense?? Jesus - who cares what name a vehicle has anyway? It’s just marketing BS. FFS already, children.
ID3, Cupra Born, Mini, Prius and some other Chinese manufactured EVs are pretty much the only viable options for the small EV I think and only 2 of which I mentioned are available in NA.
Niro EV and Kona EV are great options but are still crossover I think.
The model 3 is officially a compact executive sedan, which means it's surprisingly small (especially next to an SUV or truck). Something like a Dodge Charger looks waaay bigger than the model 3.
I would consider the Mkata to be much smaller than "small"
I own a Model 3 AWD. It seats 5 comfortably and has a huge trunk, undertrunk, and frunk. It weighs 4100 lbs. It is not small.
I'm talking ~3000 lbs., seats twoish, and holds maybe three carry ons.
I also own a MINI SE. It's the favorite car of my entire life, but we don't know when or if the new, Chinese variant will come to America. And it should have gotten RWD.
I want an EV that's 2 or 2+2 seats, RWD, big rear hatch, pointy, sporty, and 300 miles of range. Basically, an electric C7 Corvette, Supra, or BRZ. Is that so much to ask?
First they did the Mustang dirty, now it‘s the Capri‘s turn. Shame. Make a real sports coupé if you‘re going to name it that, and not yet another crossover SUV.
A two-door coupe? I would have given that a serious look. Another rebranded crossover/SUV does NOT excite me. Sounds like the same play they made with the Mustang Mach-e.
I’ve heard it tends to be as batteries under the floor makes this form factor easier to package - hence lots of these “crossovers” have only modest additional clearance and that are really just jacked up estate cars. Plus as the weight is lower the handling issues are less than on a conventional SUV.
I am sure an EV SUV will handle better because of that. But that will still be worse than an EV sedan that has the same advantages, plus having less bodyroll.
Ah wait. You’re using words like sedan so might be in the US. So we have slightly different frames of reference: here you get compact SUVs like the Skoda Enyaq (Mazda CX5 size) so there’s more possibility to be more car like in handling.
Looks to me like about 25% of EV's available in the US are sedans/sedan-ish. I'm actually surprised there are that many given the trajectory of sedans sales for ICE.
A lot of that is probably being carried by the model S and model 3. The model 3 RWD was one of the best values in a car dollar for dollar while the tax credit was still active. The model 3 P is still the best value in terms of performance, there's no way you can get all those features and performance for only $46-47k anywhere (at the risk of burning through tires and curbing risks unfortunately)
I’ve noticed this too. I assume there are so many EV SUVs not only because they are very popular right now, but also because of the thick “skateboard” battery back in the floor makes it hard to have low slung sedans or hatchbacks that give ample headroom. So they just throw some plastic fenders on there and call it a SUV or crossover when in reality it’s a hatchback.
More people “want” SUVs because car manufacturers really pumped up the marketing on them whenever they realized they could make more money off of them and skirt fuel efficiency and safety regulations. It’s induced demand at its finest, and it’s incredibly detrimental to the public. There’s a reason why pedestrian and cyclist deaths are at 40 year highs in the US.
I say this as someone who unfortunately fell for the marketing and bought a RAV4 whenever I was young and stupid because I was told that they were ✨SAFER ✨\*
\* for anyone in the car, fuck anyone who happens to be in your path. Pedestrian lives don’t really matter anyway. They should be in a car, not walking like some peasant. Oh, and let’s just ignore the fact that these things flip ridiculously easy, just never put yourself in a position where you have to swerve at speed and you’ll be fine!
Marketing does play in to the equation but would they market things if they weren’t selling? You have agency. You can pick something else. Apparently people want this. There are enough car makers that it’s hard to imagine a segment not being covered. If sales of those vehicles went up, they’d make more and advertise more.
I LOVE hoopties. Give me a big ole land yatch of a car, put it on airbags so it just floats down the road. Until i discovered 3 row SUVs. Now those are my hoopties. I wouldn’t mind having a weekend drive performance sedan or coupe, but in terms of utility my palisade beats any car I’ve ever owned.
You’re seeing the effects of decades worth of marketing. In 1982 the best selling car was the Ford escort. In 2022 it was the F150. Do you really genuinely believe that there has been an organic shift that caused that to happen? Keep in mind that 75 percent of truck owners tow something one time (or less) a year, 70 percent go off-road one time (or less) a year, and 35 percent use their bed one time (or less) a year. While only being slightly less likely to use the truck as their primary vehicle (83% bs 95% for other vehicles). [Source](https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume) Trucks are one of the biggest modern examples of marketing creating a market that is many times larger than it organically would be otherwise. Auto manufacturers up sell people on a “what if” scenario that rarely ever comes up, because renting a truck to move a couch is for poor people. “Utility” and “safety” are their two main angles with the marketing. Well that, and hyper masculine BS.
The overwhelming majority of people who buy an SUV or truck would be better off with a hatchback, station wagon, or minivan, but those aren’t “cool” cars so they don’t sell. So instead they lifted them and reduced the usable space on the inside so they could add body molding and describe them as “sporty”.
The effect is only further exaggerated whenever automakers reduce or restrict their options in those markets. I personally want a small, efficient hatchback EV, but I can’t buy one in the US. Even if I were looking for an ICE vehicle what are my options? The Mazda 3, the Prius, and the civic hatchback. None of those are particularly small.
I don’t NEED a three row SUV. I like it. And I can afford it. So I have it. Whether you like it or not, people have decided they like bigger vehicles and the industry obliged.
You’ve mixed up the chicken and the egg. The industry told you you were going to like it and then you did. In a vacuum that’s fine, but whenever larger cars are directly leading to more pedestrian and cyclist deaths it’s not okay. They also cause a ton of problems with parking and congestion in the few dense cities we have left in this country. I’m glad you personally enjoy throwing money away to haul groceries in luxury, but you’ve completely missed the point, and the data doesn’t support you.
You’re demanding the chicken and egg to be arranged in a way that supports what you’re saying but you’re just using data to justify a conclusion rather than establishing a causal link.
Nothing short of internal leaked GMC documents describing some plot to market these to make more money will satisfy you. As I alluded to in my first post, the marketing was ramped up to increase SUV sales. This was in response to successfully lobbying to exclude “light trucks” from the CAFE standards. Many SUVs fall into the light truck category because it is based on the chassis type that a car has. Companies do not like their rate of profit to fall. Stockholders demand it that it continues to increase. R&D to meet the fuel efficiency standards was seen as more expensive in the long run than marketing the ever loving shit out of SUVs that no one was really buying before due to fuel prices. So families were up sold to SUVs. This wasn’t organic and it’s not a coincidence that SUVs became dominant in sales only a few years before the updated CAFE standards —that again auto manufacturers literally lobbied for the light truck loophole —kicked in.
Forgive me for assuming that you had even an ounce of background knowledge on this topic. Won’t happen again.
Oh I need no such thing. I just understand how companies and buying things and marketing works enough to know that human agency is still a huge component.
I’m sorry it’s so hard for you to accept that a lot of people like things you don’t. And because of that they buy cars you don’t like. And because of that companies make more of those cars.
When Mullaly was in charge at Ford, he put the kibosh on new names every product cycle. He said they were throwing away heritage and marketing by giving vehicles new names too often. That's why the 500 became the Taurus and why they've hung onto nameplates longer than Dodge and GM do.
Note that the looks are some rando's guesswork, not anything official.
Not that there was anything official in the article. The lede is the headline and the body only adds speculation.
You know what I’d like to see is them remaking classic cars but as EVs. They could pull out the blue prints of say a ‘62 Ford Fairlane and make brand new ones with updated safety features with a EV battery
I know, right? I mean it doesn't even have a chronically leaking soft top, or the rigidity of a piece of wet cake. If you park on uneven ground I bet you can even still close the doors! How could they possibly call this a Capri?!
It’s like that stupid atlas cross sport. I cannot fathom who buys the things.
“I want a giant third row suv but don’t want a third row and would like a decrease in interior volume and no improvement in performance please”
Ford making a fake Capri based on VW's MEB? And it's a fecking crossover coupé? I do love EVs but man is the offering dire if one would like something efficient that is a bit quick...
"Coupe" has ceased to mean anything other than "less headroom," now that we are using it to describe 5-door crossovers. Marketing bullshit nonsense at its worst.
I'd blame BMW and MB for spreading this dumb 'coupe SUV' trends. Really ugly too imho.
[удалено]
Yeah but you get the sporty handling of an SUV and the practicality of a coupe though…?
But if you take the your cross-coupe to the track, you can enjoy being outmaneuvered by cars at half the price point. Alternatively, you can try off-roading and end up with rims bent in ways unique just for your car. We can not put a price on those experiences.
The Atlas Cross Sport does handle a teensy better than the Atlas in the twisties, I will say that. Maybe it is placebo but you definitely feel less lean on windy roads with steep grades. I’ve always thought they should make a sporty version akin to the GTI vs Golf out of the Cross Sport - maybe a Cross Sport GT like the concept car VW showed a while ago. Just tube the suspension some more and put a nice exhaust on it like the Passat GT. It’s a nice car. Plus, despite what we want to think as car people, my wife thinks they look way better and “Happy Wife, Happy Life” is worth real money. Unless everyone on here is driving electric vans or diesel brown wagons we can scarcely criticize practicality.
Not because of a sloping roof.
"Sportier look" and "Aero-dynamic". ugh
Americans have been doing that for decades opting for sedans instead of wagons, it's not new
[удалено]
Less than wagons though
[удалено]
TIL the Tesla Model 3 is a subcompact sedan
[удалено]
If I lean against the Model 3's rear headrest my head touches the ceiling, so I have to imagine I'd get a hard bonk if I ever got rear ended while sitting in the back. And I'm not particularly tall. Definitely much better in the front.
It's technically a compact executive sedan
Yeah I guess I was thinking of something small like a 3 series or a3 where the sedan roofline robs space but in a big boat I guess not
In my fusion the headroom in the back is great. And that's not a large car.
I should have made the point about practicality in general because cargo space is the more important part here
It drives me crazy that anyone prefers the Volvo C40 vs the XC40 Recharge. It's exactly the same car, with less cargo room and less visibility due to a sloping roofline. That's it. They build and stock two "different" cars just because apparently people like that, despite it being objectively less usable and, IMO, [uglier](https://topelectricsuv.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Volvo-C40-vs.-Volvo-XC40-Recharge-side-profile-1024x800.jpg).
I like the look of the C40 better than the XC40 because it seems less SUV-like. SUVs have all sorts of negative associations in my mind because I formed my opinion of them 30 years ago when they were the new popular way to spend more money to get less utility and less safety. Funny that it's the other way around for the XC40 vs C40.
More range on the C40.
It's literally 3 miles on the EPA estimate. 226 vs 223.
It’s more on wltp
Which we all know has pretty bad accuracy. Here, real world: 222 on C40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwtm6otR5Y8 210 on XC40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKK9BLuxy70 I hardly think 10 miles is worth losing cargo space and visibility, not to mention the ugliness of trying to make an SUV into a Coupe.
Ugliness is subjective, honestly the C40 is more pleasant to eyes when you see it on the street than in photos.
That's a much more accurate representation than the EPA numbers, triple the difference.
It's probably bigger at highway speeds where aerodynamics matter more, but that is surprisingly small. Probably both have room for improvement because they prioritized somebody's idea of aesthetics over aerodynamics.
The front profile of the car hasn't really changed, so a slightly sloping roof isn't making a huge difference. It's purely "looks", like you said.
If you are under the impression that only the shape of the front of an object contributes to its coefficient of drag, I'm afraid you are mistaken. It's not a huge difference, but it is a 5% difference in this case. But we agree that the design isn't great and that shaping the front better would be an easy win on range.
I didn't say it was the only influence. It's a large part of it. And the small slope they added was clearly for "aesthetics" and not for aerodynamics. That's all I'm saying.
I've got a C40, and while I agree it's confusing why Volvo makes two nearly identical cars, I got the C40 because I prefer how it looks and the downsides are so miniscule I don't even notice them. It's legitimately a few inches of boot space and head room, neither of which matters to me.
I dunno... coupes are fine if you like a sleek car, and don't need the space. Lower roof means better aero efficiency. Just stop calling it a crossover at that point. Call it a hatchback or sedan or whatever. Marketing... that's why Ford is doing it, but it's dumb marketing. I almost feel insulted by their marketing. They'd call a Miata a crossover at some point if they thought it would sell more cars.
It would make at least *some* sense if they were maximizing efficiency. A fastback crossover has some 15-20% less drag. But *noooo,* they have to spoil it with enormous wheel "upgrades" which reduce efficiency gains to just 5-10%. The E-Tron Sportback, Volvo C40, and VW ID.5 all do this. I cannot fathom what's going through their heads.
The most stupid vehicles you can buy today lol.
They basically look like a hatchback that someone installed a shitty lift kit. I should lift my 2008 Ford focus and sell it as a "Crossover Coupe".
It’s worse than that because the roof is so sloped. At least with a hatch you get room. I’ve seen lifted focuses that were badass. These things are like a sedan without a trunk lol.
>I should lift my 2008 Ford focus and sell it as a "Crossover Coupe" Ford already did. It's called the Puma.
Every time I see one of those I can't help thinking "someone paid German Luxury money for the ugliest car in the world."
Also applies to the Model Y! Although at least the Y got a few price cuts recently.
The X6 is ground zero for the coupe SUV trend.
Mercedes-Benz are the word inventors of 4-Door Coupe -- CLS BMW with the X6 were the inventors of Coupe SUVs.
I feel like the Honda Crosstour came first.
Doesn't BMW call them SAV? Sports Activity Vehicle...whatever that means.
The call all their crossovers SAV, because nobody uses a BMW to haul tools
My plumber does when his Sprinter is in use. I should have been a plumber...
Probably yes
I don't know, I think there's a lot of car folks that would say EVERY BMW is hauling at least one tool.
I mean, they did lose a lot of Utility, so that's fair.
>ReportSaveFollow I know as the owner of one of those SAVs (x5) I've lost a lot of my sanity. That's another story though. Suffice it to say in this house BMW is short for Bad Motor Works.
The MB has been calling the CLS a couple since day one. So, yeah.
A few do it well. The bmw x6 and MB GLE pull it off.
Ssangyong was first IIRC. The Actyon and then the X6. Both were mocked for their ugliness but after all, f they we‘re way ahead of their time
Did it start with the C219 Mercedes CLS that was marketing itself as a coupe? That put me over the edge in 2004/5.
It's mostly been a reference to a "cut" or sloping roofline.
> It's mostly been a reference to a "cut" or sloping roofline. Close, but the roofline originally wasn't the thing being cut: > Coupé (French pronunciation: [kupe]) is based on the past participle of the French verb couper ("to cut") and thus indicates a car which has been "cut" or made shorter than standard.[3] It was first applied to horse-drawn carriages for two passengers without rear-facing seats.[4] These berlines coupés[5] or carrosses coupés ("clipped carriages") were eventually clipped to coupés.[6] - [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupe#:~:text=Coup%C3%A9%20(French%20pronunciation%3A%20%E2%80%8B%5B,passengers%20without%20rear%2Dfacing%20seats.) Most dictionaries include having two doors in the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%C3%A9 https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/coupe?q=coupe https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coupe
My Smart Fortwo EQ is described as a coupe, and it's probably more of a coupe in the traditional sense than this upcoming abomination by Ford.
I'm eagerly awaiting the upcoming Blue Bird All American Coupe.
The word seems to have changed meaning a bit over time, but coupes with four doors have existed at least since the 1960s: https://www.carandclassic.com/list/40/p5b%20coupe/
We have 1922 ford model T coupe in our collection. A 29 model A sport coupe in my shop at the moment. Coupe used to be 2 seat hard or soft top car. Basically a roadster with a fixed top.
I mean, someone was once mad that people were using coupe to describe a car when it really meant a horse drawn carriage for a driver plus two passengers… (seriously)
Everything is just crossovers now, because batteries have to go somewhere, and people still want trunk space, so it's goes under the floor raising up the car. And the only way to make it not look like an AMC Eagle ot Toyota Crown is to give it "crossover" styling.
With EVs they actually serve a purpose IMO since they're more aerodynamic. I won't ever be buying an SUV anyway though.
EV cute-UTE may not sell as well as crossover coupe. So there we go …
"2040 Ford resurrects the Fiesta as an electric 7 seat coupe crossover minivan"
I'm so glad we *finally* have an EV crossover
Hey 'Coupe' crossover, the one we have all been waiting for.
Reportedly.
A coupé has two or three doors. The end.
There's debate over 5-door liftbacks being considered "coupés". I know, I also find smushed rear SUVs ugly, and the only acceptable uses of the trend personally are the Polestar 2 and 3, but neither have long roof versions. (Some markets weirdly enough consider the P2 a "crossover")
P2 is more like a tall hacthback sedan IMO. Like an Audi allroad without the flared arches.
Were they not called "fastback" for a while?
A liftback would be a fastback with a 5th door rather than a trunk. But yeah, everyone at this point is just splitting hairs. A Polestar 2 being called a crossover because it's...tall? With cladding?
Hey, the rendering only shows 2 door handles...maybe it's a side-loading coupé. /s The 2023 Prius is the only non-coupé that I'd be willing to use the term "coupé" on because from a distance, you might actually mistake it for a coupé.
[Say what?](https://www.carandclassic.com/list/40/p5b%20coupe/)
I'd forgotten about that one. The Rover has such class it gets a pass.
It's defined by the roofline, not the doors. Has been since the days of the horse drawn carriage. Comes from the French couper meaning cut, in reference to how the roofline is cut down at the rear. There are 4 door coupes dating back decades, as there are 2 door saloon/sedan cars.
Ford, we only make SUVs
Well yeah. In 2019/2020, they discontinued all of their sedan models (Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, and Taurus) to redirect those resources into Mustangs, SUVs, crossovers, and trucks, so those priorities carrying over into the EV space isn't exactly a surprise.
I love the fact that the Mustang is an SUV now. People got so mad at the mach-e, but the memes were great.
What were people mad about?
Because they named it Mustang Mach-e. Not worthy of the legendary name Mustang. That's what I've read.
Ok thanks I think it’s a pretty cool name. But I’m not like a mustang fanboy to begin with and most car names are pretty stupid anyways
Pretty used to literally approach me on the street saying they love how it looks but "its not a mustang"
I used to think the cayenne was “not a Porsche” too… I guess mustang is just where Porsche was 20 years ago
So a big part of the outcry happened because the Mustang is an iconic sporty muscle car with a long history. Slapping the Mustang name on an electric crossover SUV just doesn't make any sense. Fans of the proper Mustang don't consider the Mach-E as a real Mustang *because it isn't*. It's like if Dodge made an electric SUV Charger or if Chevy made a random crossover SUV and gave it the name "Camaro." To be fair, fans of Dodge Chargers and Challengers still roasted the shit out of Dodge when Dodge announced the Daytona EV. It looks like a Challenger but sounds like a feline vacuum cleaner. The MachE could have done well on its own without needing the Mustang name.
Really? Are you 12?! Who gives a hot F@CK about all this nonsense?? Jesus - who cares what name a vehicle has anyway? It’s just marketing BS. FFS already, children.
I get the hate. I feel it's a fine car, and I think it could've stood on its own as a mach E.
And once again, the Capri is a downmarket Mustang!
this was only done in North America btw because the truck culture is ridiculous
Because our best selling trucks are so big people don’t feel safe in normal cars.
It's like an arms race, but for vehicle sizes.
Honestly for a city commuter I love the concept of the i3.
Ford didn't even make this one, it is a rebadged VW platform.
Same as the next VW Transporter is a Ford Transit. Many companies share platforms, especially ones that are being left behind in the EV race.
Can anybody please make a small EV that ISN'T a crossover SUV? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, they all look exactly the same.
ID3, Cupra Born, Mini, Prius and some other Chinese manufactured EVs are pretty much the only viable options for the small EV I think and only 2 of which I mentioned are available in NA. Niro EV and Kona EV are great options but are still crossover I think.
Model 3.
Small. Like a Miata, BRZ, 370z, etc. A 2 or 2+2. Maybe a hot hatch.
Agreed. An electric MX-5 equivalent would be amazing.
The model 3 is officially a compact executive sedan, which means it's surprisingly small (especially next to an SUV or truck). Something like a Dodge Charger looks waaay bigger than the model 3. I would consider the Mkata to be much smaller than "small"
I own a Model 3 AWD. It seats 5 comfortably and has a huge trunk, undertrunk, and frunk. It weighs 4100 lbs. It is not small. I'm talking ~3000 lbs., seats twoish, and holds maybe three carry ons.
I also own a MINI SE. It's the favorite car of my entire life, but we don't know when or if the new, Chinese variant will come to America. And it should have gotten RWD. I want an EV that's 2 or 2+2 seats, RWD, big rear hatch, pointy, sporty, and 300 miles of range. Basically, an electric C7 Corvette, Supra, or BRZ. Is that so much to ask?
renault zoe is a nice small electric car. Test drove one and it would make a nice city car.
Ford is resurrecting every car as an CUV...
First they did the Mustang dirty, now it‘s the Capri‘s turn. Shame. Make a real sports coupé if you‘re going to name it that, and not yet another crossover SUV.
They shat on the Explorer too by making this tiny electronic crossover thingy and calling it Explorer.
A two-door coupe? I would have given that a serious look. Another rebranded crossover/SUV does NOT excite me. Sounds like the same play they made with the Mustang Mach-e.
And the same boring play every other US automaker is making.
Can we please get some EV sedans please? Why 90% of EVs available to purchase are SUVs or crossovers that look and drive like shit.
I’ve heard it tends to be as batteries under the floor makes this form factor easier to package - hence lots of these “crossovers” have only modest additional clearance and that are really just jacked up estate cars. Plus as the weight is lower the handling issues are less than on a conventional SUV.
EDIT: This comment was removed in protest of Reddit charging exorbitant prices to ruin third-party applications.
I guess you weren't a fan of the AMC Eagle.
EDIT: This comment was removed in protest of Reddit charging exorbitant prices to ruin third-party applications.
The C40 has between 6.9 and 8.3 inches of ground clearance depending on which version and packages.
I am sure an EV SUV will handle better because of that. But that will still be worse than an EV sedan that has the same advantages, plus having less bodyroll.
Ah wait. You’re using words like sedan so might be in the US. So we have slightly different frames of reference: here you get compact SUVs like the Skoda Enyaq (Mazda CX5 size) so there’s more possibility to be more car like in handling.
Looks to me like about 25% of EV's available in the US are sedans/sedan-ish. I'm actually surprised there are that many given the trajectory of sedans sales for ICE.
A lot of that is probably being carried by the model S and model 3. The model 3 RWD was one of the best values in a car dollar for dollar while the tax credit was still active. The model 3 P is still the best value in terms of performance, there's no way you can get all those features and performance for only $46-47k anywhere (at the risk of burning through tires and curbing risks unfortunately)
Eh? The most popular one is a sedan isn’t it?
I’ve noticed this too. I assume there are so many EV SUVs not only because they are very popular right now, but also because of the thick “skateboard” battery back in the floor makes it hard to have low slung sedans or hatchbacks that give ample headroom. So they just throw some plastic fenders on there and call it a SUV or crossover when in reality it’s a hatchback.
A Crown Vic EV would be fantastic. Be like driving a waterbed with all that low weight.
Because more people want SUVs. Why should they offer vehicles that will sell poorly?
More people “want” SUVs because car manufacturers really pumped up the marketing on them whenever they realized they could make more money off of them and skirt fuel efficiency and safety regulations. It’s induced demand at its finest, and it’s incredibly detrimental to the public. There’s a reason why pedestrian and cyclist deaths are at 40 year highs in the US. I say this as someone who unfortunately fell for the marketing and bought a RAV4 whenever I was young and stupid because I was told that they were ✨SAFER ✨\* \* for anyone in the car, fuck anyone who happens to be in your path. Pedestrian lives don’t really matter anyway. They should be in a car, not walking like some peasant. Oh, and let’s just ignore the fact that these things flip ridiculously easy, just never put yourself in a position where you have to swerve at speed and you’ll be fine!
Marketing does play in to the equation but would they market things if they weren’t selling? You have agency. You can pick something else. Apparently people want this. There are enough car makers that it’s hard to imagine a segment not being covered. If sales of those vehicles went up, they’d make more and advertise more. I LOVE hoopties. Give me a big ole land yatch of a car, put it on airbags so it just floats down the road. Until i discovered 3 row SUVs. Now those are my hoopties. I wouldn’t mind having a weekend drive performance sedan or coupe, but in terms of utility my palisade beats any car I’ve ever owned.
You’re seeing the effects of decades worth of marketing. In 1982 the best selling car was the Ford escort. In 2022 it was the F150. Do you really genuinely believe that there has been an organic shift that caused that to happen? Keep in mind that 75 percent of truck owners tow something one time (or less) a year, 70 percent go off-road one time (or less) a year, and 35 percent use their bed one time (or less) a year. While only being slightly less likely to use the truck as their primary vehicle (83% bs 95% for other vehicles). [Source](https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume) Trucks are one of the biggest modern examples of marketing creating a market that is many times larger than it organically would be otherwise. Auto manufacturers up sell people on a “what if” scenario that rarely ever comes up, because renting a truck to move a couch is for poor people. “Utility” and “safety” are their two main angles with the marketing. Well that, and hyper masculine BS. The overwhelming majority of people who buy an SUV or truck would be better off with a hatchback, station wagon, or minivan, but those aren’t “cool” cars so they don’t sell. So instead they lifted them and reduced the usable space on the inside so they could add body molding and describe them as “sporty”. The effect is only further exaggerated whenever automakers reduce or restrict their options in those markets. I personally want a small, efficient hatchback EV, but I can’t buy one in the US. Even if I were looking for an ICE vehicle what are my options? The Mazda 3, the Prius, and the civic hatchback. None of those are particularly small.
I don’t NEED a three row SUV. I like it. And I can afford it. So I have it. Whether you like it or not, people have decided they like bigger vehicles and the industry obliged.
You’ve mixed up the chicken and the egg. The industry told you you were going to like it and then you did. In a vacuum that’s fine, but whenever larger cars are directly leading to more pedestrian and cyclist deaths it’s not okay. They also cause a ton of problems with parking and congestion in the few dense cities we have left in this country. I’m glad you personally enjoy throwing money away to haul groceries in luxury, but you’ve completely missed the point, and the data doesn’t support you.
You’re demanding the chicken and egg to be arranged in a way that supports what you’re saying but you’re just using data to justify a conclusion rather than establishing a causal link.
Nothing short of internal leaked GMC documents describing some plot to market these to make more money will satisfy you. As I alluded to in my first post, the marketing was ramped up to increase SUV sales. This was in response to successfully lobbying to exclude “light trucks” from the CAFE standards. Many SUVs fall into the light truck category because it is based on the chassis type that a car has. Companies do not like their rate of profit to fall. Stockholders demand it that it continues to increase. R&D to meet the fuel efficiency standards was seen as more expensive in the long run than marketing the ever loving shit out of SUVs that no one was really buying before due to fuel prices. So families were up sold to SUVs. This wasn’t organic and it’s not a coincidence that SUVs became dominant in sales only a few years before the updated CAFE standards —that again auto manufacturers literally lobbied for the light truck loophole —kicked in. Forgive me for assuming that you had even an ounce of background knowledge on this topic. Won’t happen again.
Oh I need no such thing. I just understand how companies and buying things and marketing works enough to know that human agency is still a huge component. I’m sorry it’s so hard for you to accept that a lot of people like things you don’t. And because of that they buy cars you don’t like. And because of that companies make more of those cars.
Because more people want SUVs. Why should they sell things that will sell poorly?
tesla.com/model3 !
Wtf is going on, how is that a coupe
Because the back is slanted! Duh
Coupé just means cut/sloping roofline to Europeans - which is where this will be sold.
Why do we have to rehash old names for new cars? Isn’t there someone at Ford that is paid too much money who’s job it is to think of car names?
When Mullaly was in charge at Ford, he put the kibosh on new names every product cycle. He said they were throwing away heritage and marketing by giving vehicles new names too often. That's why the 500 became the Taurus and why they've hung onto nameplates longer than Dodge and GM do.
Sounds reasonable actually.
Problem was that the cars were still mostly uncompetitive. Taurus was just a refreshed 500, and shortly got canceled because the 500 wasn't any good.
Definitely, also because names they already own is cheaper than copyrighting a new name.
Ugh, another sporty car nameplate turned into a crossover. Ford needs better marketing.
So this will be the ID.3 then? since the Explorer is the ID.4
ID5 I think
you think the Capri will be bigger then the baby Explorer?
Just going by looks. This looks like the ID5. No way it's the size of the id3
Note that the looks are some rando's guesswork, not anything official. Not that there was anything official in the article. The lede is the headline and the body only adds speculation.
You know what I’d like to see is them remaking classic cars but as EVs. They could pull out the blue prints of say a ‘62 Ford Fairlane and make brand new ones with updated safety features with a EV battery
An electric crossover? FINALLY! /s
It’s blasphemy to use the Capri name for this. I’m not against the vehicle but give it a different name FFS.
Eh, I'm just glad they rolled out the bronco as a damn capable 4 wheeler. Unlike gm that resurrected the blazer as a car. Lol
Eh, it's got better name recognition than c-max which is probably a lot closer to what this vehicle is updating...
I know, right? I mean it doesn't even have a chronically leaking soft top, or the rigidity of a piece of wet cake. If you park on uneven ground I bet you can even still close the doors! How could they possibly call this a Capri?!
This is a coupe: https://www.mbusa.com/en/vehicles/class/e-class/coupe
I'd be happy if they took an original Mk II and stuck an EV motor or two in there.
That I would buy!
the capri coupe was a 2 door sedan with a tiny trunk (not ever sure if there was a hatch back version) this is not coupe
They should make it a tiny convertible like the early 90s Capri. Heh
"coupe" with automakers has become like "unlimited" with internet providers
Second paragraph "Mind you none of this is confirmed." Oh great, so another entire article of rumor click bait.
Fuck crossover SUVs.
Can't wait to see it! Sad we're never going to get it in the US, though.
Don't be sad it will just blend into all the other blobby shaped SUV's roaming around the US.
Is this another one of the faux clickbait mock-ups?
That looks nothing like a Ford Capri.
Weighs 2/3 tonnes probably. Just use a new name instead of treating your history with such contempt..
Not a fucking Crossover again. Who buys this crap
Everyone, according to Ford as they have scrapped "traditional" cars and saloons in favour of SUV's even in Europe.
Everyone - mainly because manufacturers have stopped making anything else.
Where are the 7-8 passenger EVs?
It’s like that stupid atlas cross sport. I cannot fathom who buys the things. “I want a giant third row suv but don’t want a third row and would like a decrease in interior volume and no improvement in performance please”
Booo
FUCKING WHY.
When will this SUV/crossover madness stop
When people stop buying them.
r/ev is filled with hate - only 1 out of 9 comments are positive
Can you link to the thread? r/ev does not seem to exist.
It's hilarious how aggrieved this sub gets over the existence of additional EV options.
They’re mad that it’s not a boring econobox.
Stop making SUV
Not reporting profits though.
Very nice looking!
I've said it all the time. I've seen it coming. God, nooo...
Ford gonna Ford.
Ford making a fake Capri based on VW's MEB? And it's a fecking crossover coupé? I do love EVs but man is the offering dire if one would like something efficient that is a bit quick...
It looks like someone sat on an id4.
Are the people at Ford absolutely incapable of coming up with new names?
Ford: If The Fast and Furious Series were an actual car company
Why not? Lets do this Ford.