[uuddlrlrbaba]

Worse than what? And why are sedans conventional? The Sedan is a terrible legacy design shape. The divided trunk and rear seats wastes a ton of space.

A wagon or sportback I can understand. And thats essentially what a small CUV is based on, along with a bit more ride height and often awd drivetrain.

The CUV is popular because it's a really functional and practical design. You don't have to spend a lot on one, but you can. Maybe test drive some more and it'll click why so many people drive them. They don't all handle poorly either, some are downright fun.

[DCH3416]

The sedan, designed well, is the ideal shape that you want to cleanly cut through the air with the least amount of wind resistance. As you go up in size the area that a car covers increases, as does weight, among other things. So you lose the efficiency of the body shape. And the higher off the ground you go, the more drag you get because now air deflects underneath the car and will 'catch' in different spots. That's why you take like a prius with front air deflectors, they design it that way to create a bit of a ground effect reducing drag.

The "CUV", compact SUV, is popular because it's higher off the ground. Because as other cars have gotten larger, people feel less safe with traditional sedans. Sedans, which worked well before because really people don't carry a lot with their cars most of the time. They've taken the hatchback design, since with rollover it's difficult to make those high in cargo capacity, and blown it up and thrown AWD on it. Take makes the car more expensive, it's more metal and plastic.

Doing that spoils the handling because now you've taken a chassis where the wheels would be parallel and lifted it. Making it so the body rolls more, providing a stiffer chassis feel, compounded by the additional weight for now larger components like the rear hatch. And you get a worse riding vehicle. I mean if the scope of the vehicles you've driven is just SUVs, then yeah, they might seem very sporty. But most of that is just marketing. That's why manufacturers don't really make sports cars into SUVs, because there's a lot of compromises in doing that.

[uuddlrlrbaba]

You keep using SUV and CUV interchangeably. They are distinct frame designs. SUV is built on a ladder frame like a truck. CUV is built with a unibody car chassis.

CUV is far lighter duty, and far better in handling, driving dynamics and efficiency. Especially in models tuned for enthusiast drivers.

As for the efficiency of a sedan, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that putting non-cabin over the majority of the frame is an efficient design. Heck even a prius is a hatchback, not a sedan.

[yellowapple]

> Doing that spoils the handling

On the contrary, having driven plenty of cars with and without AWD, adding AWD is a massive boon to handling for me, even outside of "rough" conditions like mud/ice/snow/gravel.

[nucleardog]

The issue is the height, weight, etc, not really the AWD.

Especially since most vehicles’ AWD systems (especially if you’re talking crossovers) are really just “2WD but we can briefly engage the other two wheels if you’re trying to get moving on a patch of ice”. (One axle is not being driven except when the other is slipping, and in many cases there are speed limits above which this won’t engage. Many of these systems rely on clutch packs that, if they were engaged continuously, would overheat.)

[DCH3416]

The easiest way I can describe the difference is to go test drive a Tesla model 3 and a model Y. Same basic car. If you go down the road and yank the steering wheel a bit because of the weight of the things you'll find the model Y gets significantly more front heavy in a turn compared to the model 3.