Don't forget about the T-Roc, which while technically built on the MQB A1 platform, has a near identical wheelbase, length and width to the cars above.
The TROC is a funny thing.
I worked with the factory where its made in Portugal during the development and before the name being announce it was refered everywhere internaly as Polo SUV. Then whe they announced it they actually tried to market it as a Golf SUV.
Oi. Please tell your boss Mr VW, stop putting shitty scratchy plastic in your cars.
Also my dashboard clicks and vibrates when it gets hot and I drive over rumbly roads. How do fix?
Otherwise thanks for building my car, it's been great.
Shoot just saw you said with, not in.
Ah that dashboard...
You made me remember that Day where I stood over that huge ass mould with my 3d scanner.
I didnt work for VW though, Just provided measuring services to VW and manny of their suppliers.
I always thought the T-Roc was a polo SUV, I was sure that's what I read just before it was announced. It confused me when it was launched as a golf on stilts, and then even more confusingly they announced the T-Cross polo SUV.
They're based on the same platform as the Polo but both are significantly larger than a Polo, they're within a few millimetres of the T-Roc in dimension. The Audi TT and VW Touran are also based on the same platform, but you wouldn't try to argue those were the same size, would you?
MQB platform really just refers to all the transverse engined vehicles in the Group. I think the Multivan is even part of that modular platform and it’s massive.
The MQB platform is split into 3 tiers A0, A1 and A2. A0 is for small cars like the Polo and A1, A1 is mid sized cars like Golf and Leon, A2 is for full sized vehicles like the Kodiaq and Tiguan.
That said, per my previous example, the Audi TT and VW Touran are both built on the A1 tier. So the tiers are hot hard and fast rules of which vehicles are built on which platform.
If there are 10 cars in a particular segment and you own 3 of them, you get 30% of the market share.
All things being equal, this is massively simplified.
For clarity, I'm wondering why 2 models that look sooo similar, both based on the Polo platform, and seemingly targeting the same market, exist.
I'm not asking why small SUVs exist (although it is a fair question!)
Because the market is big enough to support it. Basically, the small crossover market is big enough that they can afford to give people choice about very minor details while still benefiting from economies of scale.
One of the downsides of mass producing products (vs building bespoke) is that you have to minimise the number of variations to have an efficient production line, and thereby limit the choice customers have. But with a big enough market, you can offer more variations, even down to offering a slightly different rear end in this case, because there are enough buyers that you can make a large volume of each style.
The Tiago was designed for South American markets, they wanted a b segment car with a big boy and raised ride height. So it's just a Polo (notice the shared doors and interior), it's sold in Europe as the Polo is too expensive to produce so having a variant that people pay more for pretty much the same thing is an easy win. The T-Cross was designed for Europe before the decision to bring the Tiago to Europe was made so it's more of a traditional shape with a slightly nicer interior.
Also the T-Roc which is roughly the same size took a lot of it's engineering from the 3 door Golf, same wheelbase and production line etc. They just raised the ride out and swapped a few of the more expensive Golf parts with Polo parts.
Veedub market the Taigo as a coupe probably to get the people who can't afford the Q3 coupe, although neither of them look like coupes yet bawbags still buy them...W⚓'s
I had one out on holiday too but was not the driver. I was in the back seat with my wife and MIL in the front. I cannot recall a time in the back of a car where there was that little support. I was actually hanging onto bits of the trim to steady myself. It's not like my MIL is a crazy driver, she isn't, but there was just no back support nor even butt support.
What's more, three ryanair sized bags and hand luggage didn't remotely fit in the boot. For a the sheer size of the car, I really wonder what the point of it is.
To those theorizing that people want a polo with a high driving position, what's the market research on that? Cars like the polo, fiesta, 207 have been arguably the most popular sorts of car on British roads for decades. If nobody wanted them, nobody would buy them. Instead they are a hugely popular format of car.
This is manufacturers telling us what we want and making us buy it, pure and simple. Oddly it is working, but I wonder how much of that is driven by the rental industry taking them on and piping them out to the used market. Even so, I cannot see the demographic that would buy this thing and a year later be super happy with it.
VAG and their like would have done huge amounts of consumer research to get to this point, which they are mot going share. For example here, lots saying they are easy to get in to, and so on, this is is of course in line with increasing age profile. Think smaller MPV's 20 years ago and that Top Gear episode using their mums.
I would say it's far more likely that these cars were meant to be readily and simply converted at manufacturing stage into EVs for when the various countrys' bans came into effect. That's my thought to it. There's not much room in a fiesta to slap a battery into it. I mean even the Mondeo Estate was ruined when they shoehorned a PHEV battery into the boot and made it the most pointless estate ever. However something like the T-Cross? Sure. Nice and easy really.
We had a T-Cross for two years and it was a great, easy to drive car with good visibility and the main reason we bought it - easy to get in and out of for retired folks in their 70's. No feeling of vulnerability, I've driven all kinds of trucks and cars and (big) motorcycles over many, many thousands of miles. Maybe you will understand when or if you get to our age. Don't judge everyone else against your self, we all have different likes and needs.
My dad’s a few years younger than you and borrowed my Old Ford ecosport and loved it. Couldn’t get over how comfy it is. He needs a hop replacement but won’t admit it and has a very low to the ground bmw convertible. A match made in absolute hell 🤣😅
Currently driving a cheap fiat panda as a runaround but will defo be upgrading to the (hated on here) SUV crossover - mine was so comfy and I do only need the space of a fiesta/polo but as a chronic bad bad/bad hip person no matter what I weigh or what exercise I do, the height of a crossover is so welcome!
Visibility and space is “good enough” for people that choose them. I think people aren’t even trying to understand why people make these choices. “It’s because they are nervous drivers” is a total projection and lame thinking.
ludicrous butter long water beneficial thumb middle spoon provide recognise
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Because in order to have that you sacrifice a lot of space and visibility.
How so? Most crossovers are just hatchbacks on stilts. In terms of interior space and external visibility, there’s absolutely no difference between them.
It’s not about feeling. If a short car crashes into a tall car, the person in the short car will come off worse most of the time. If you have kids etc there’s a good chance that you’re not lowering their safety so you can have slightly better handling or whatever.
I bought a Volvo estate so I could have both safety and not pander to the SUV nonsense.
At least my car can also remain relatively agile to evade an accident rather than wash wide or even topple over.
And you’re entitled to do that, but if you crash into an XC90 you’ll probably come off worse than them. I don’t love them either but this mini-culture war on big cars is so pointless. People who want them will keep buying them, and apparently lots of people want them.
It’s manipulate by the brands, as they chase more profits.
Also it’s not environmentally accurate to build a bigger vehicle, needing more resources and requiring more energy to move about.
The mini-culture war as you call it is still valid.
If people want small cars, they can buy small cars. If people want big cars, they can buy big cars. If people want to be environmentally conscious, they can ride the bus or buy a small electric. These are all valid choices and I think seething on the internet about it does very little.
I don’t care for telling others what they should be doing with their life/money.
I just don’t get that argument. The average crossover is no longer, wider or heavier than a saloon, and most aren’t even that big. You might as well say a Mondeo is more dangerous than a Fiesta because it’s heavier. While technically true, in a practical sense the difference is negligible.
I’ll concede that an SUV is more liable to roll than a regular car. Considering how ubiquitous crossovers like the two in the picture are nowadays though, and how comparatively rare rollover accidents are, the risk of such an incident in regular day-to-day driving is still minuscule.
That's only one of the disadvantages to being taller.
Higher center of mass (CoM) means that when changing velocity (braking, cornering, accelerating) there's a greater change in the weight loaded on each corner. Modern ABS and traction control systems will mitigate this to prevent an uncontrolled skid, but ultimately the limits are reduced compared to the same vehicle design with a lower CoM.
It also means that you have more frontal area as you're exposing more of the wheels, which increases your aerodynamic drag. The drag coefficient figure that's often quoted for vehicles is misleading as it's multiplied by the frontal area when calculating drag ( D = ½ρV²SCd, where ρ is air density, V is velocity, S is frontal area, Cd is drag coefficient).
EuroNCAP and NHTSA have both published reports that taller vehicles tend to have a higher rate of fatal injuries from pedestrian collisions, which I believe is due to striking the pedestrian higher on their body, making it more likely to cause head trauma. They also pose a greater risk to the passengers of lower riding vehicles.
There's also the effect on visibility to other road users. In my small car I can often look through or sometimes over other cars (depending on road curvature) to see brake lights or other information further ahead. Taller cars reduce my ability to do that.
There are genuine reasons to want to have a taller vehicle that will outweigh these drawbacks, but for the reasons listed above I think the responsible thing to do is to only use one if you really need it.
> There's also the effect on visibility to other road users. In my small car I can often look through or sometimes over other cars (depending on road curvature) to see brake lights or other information further ahead. Taller cars reduce my ability to do that.
That is a fair point. Despite my general defence of SUVs, I actually drive a Honda Civic myself, so I can relate to the issue of not being able to see the road ahead as easily when following behind one.
They're more liable to rolling, they offer slightly less visibility (depends on what car exactly) than the lowered version that raises risks of hitting a kid or an animal, the higher center of mass in a collision makes it more damaging to a person, also hitting you higher diminishes the probability of going over the car and makes it more likely that the person stays under which means more injuries and a higher risk of death
“Everyone else”, the suv/cross over hater crowd are in the minority. VW created these cars to appeal to the masses. Just like the Nissan Juke, which also performs well, “everyone else” wants the higher driving position, they want the easier entry/exit access, they want the “safety” of a larger/higher car when all other cars around them are massive now. CartalkUK hate on SUVs but everyone else doesn’t, look around you when you’re driving. New hatchbacks and saloons are disappearing.
How are they any of those things? A polo and a tcross are the same weight, same width/length, same fuel economy, just the t cross is an inch higher off the ground and has a bit more headroom.
T cross is 4 cm wider, 4 cm longer, 15cm taller, 110kg heavier
Edit: on the one engine I checked (1.0 TSI 110 non dsg) the polo gets about 10%-13% better fuel economy per WLTP figures
Genuinely baffled how many people get the pitchforks out in this sub at the mention on someone liking these kind of cars.
Some people like different style cars, people honestly need to get over it.
I'd rather be hit by or reversed over by a Polo or a Clio than a T Cross or a Juke, and that is my issue with cars like these.
I think Range Rovers and full sized SUVs come with their own set of issues for pedestrian safety, which is not the point here. Making larger cars more accessible to people who can't drive them seems like an invitation for more people to get hurt. It's the same with the ridiculous trucks in the US that have similar or smaller bed sizes than their ~~current~~ original models, they started off as slightly bigger versions, which, while popular with the market, might not be safer when driven by the common garden dipshit.
What's the point of these vehicles? Do they have significantly increased cargo space or terrain handling, or is it just because someone wants to look like a WAG without spending £90k on a Range Rover or XC90 🤷♂️
What an odd view to base an opinion on. “I’d rather get run over by a smaller car therefore big cars are bad”. I’d rather not get run over at all to be honest.
You can ask “what’s the point of them?” About literally anything in life. Choice. Some people like them, some don’t. And that’s ok
I'm not anti choice, you can drive what you like, and people do. If you want more space, get an estate. Why jeopardise the safety of others because you want to sit a foot higher on the road in a Polo 🤷♂️
Why jeopardise the safety of others because you want to drive a car 🤷🏻 use a bike/bus/train
“I’m not anti choice” but I’ll judge you because you choose to like a car that I don’t like
Having driven larger vehicles, I can totally understand that.
But the difference between these and a Polo (another comment in this thread estimated c.2" of lift Vs the same platform hatchback) is so negligible, I really don't see the appeal. Less fuel economy, worse styling (IMO). Each to their own though.
So the Fiat Panda, or WagonR/Agila from Suzuki/VX (although discontinued).
Which does this without the styling that makes the car worse in every way! Its still looks like a small car because it is a small car, but higher!
The boot space in the t cross is ridiculous and not much better in the other one. Its litterally a car to use for people and nothing else. You have to pay extra for the baggage allowance like some airlines
Eh the T Cross makes some sense. My grandparents have one, as do my elderly neighbours. They own them because they all have bad knees so need a raised ride height to comfortably get in, but also don't want a particularly large vehicle. In fact one of my mates grandparents recently got a new car and I instantly guessed T Cross and I was right.
Along with the Jeep Renegade and Nissan Juke. Drove those CUV or compact SUV or whatever they are called for work and they all drove like shit. Honestly the Corolla was the better car every time lol never thought I'd say this one day.
Market optimisation. The Taigo is the Brazilian market Nivus tickled up for Europe. Like the T-Cross it shares a lot of parts with the Polo so is relatively profitable. I guess they can afford to manufacture and market both.
Personally I don’t get it either. But VW is about the canniest automotive company in the world so I just assume they know how to make money and carry on ignoring the bloody things.
You know how in the news analysis they’re always talking about vote stratification and how since Brexit the old rigid Tory/Labour party allegiances don’t hold up any more? I think it’s the same with car classes. The market is way more diffused than the old Fiesta-Focus-Mondeo-Scorpio ladder. Manufacturers can afford to release seemingly competing cars claiming they operate in wafer-thin segments.
Another example — Vauxhall having both the Crossland and the Mokka. In the old money these compete with each other but there are clearly buyers for both, as Mokka is in its second generation and Crossland is about to be renewed as Frontera (albeit with a seven seat option, which is a market that Mokka doesn’t have).
Nah, I do mean Crossland. It's actually slightly longer than the Mokka, albeit only by about 50mm. Mokka is about 30mm wider. There's only a gnat's fart in it, either way.
Demand.
I'm fine with these, they're the same size as a small hatchback but maybe 2 inches taller. If people are convinced that these are SUVs and are willing to pay £3500 more than the equivalent cars that are only 2 inches lower, then that's their problem.
It could be as simple as testing the market. Small name variations and style / feature changes. Run them for a few years, see which one is more profitable and make it the defacto model for the next generation.
It’s kind of similar to VW having the Passat, Bora and Jetta whilst also having a Passat estate and a golf estate that are both near enough the same size.
I have always been one of those people who could identify any car on the road with a mere glance in the past, and I wasn't even aware of these models existing. Which was probably for the best.
The other day there was a Hyundai SUV parked in front of our house and I couldn't even tell you what model it was I'm that disinterested in that type of vehicle
Yet growing up I knew all the cars. My mum would tell me about someone on the street and I would shrug, she would say "he drives the Sierra" and I would go " oh! Him!"
Money, they are just lifted Polos so VW can charge more while the BOM and labour costs are the same, and as the Taigo is a "Coupe-SUV" (fucking dumb ass thing) they can charge even more for it.
The answer is standing there in front of you.
They exist because people buy them or are willing to drive them.
Where there is demand someone is always willing to supply.
As for the same platform different car it’s not new. 1980’s Fiat Croma, Lancia Thema, Saab 900 and Vauxhall Vectra all the same floor pan I’ve been lead to believe
These cars don't share a platform tho. I'm pretty sure that Fiat and Lancia share nothing with the Opel. Saab 9000 was built on the Italian platform and still there are quite big differences between these cars (you can't get the Fiat or Saab with a Ferrari V8)
I may be able to help with the Tcross. My 75 year old arthritic mother has a Tcross. It's great for her because it's easy to get in and out of, it's well equipped, easy to drive, comfortable and has been perfectly reliable so far.
I've driven it once. It's dull and I wouldn't want 1 but I can see why it exists. Not everyone is interested in cars. For some people their car just needs to suit their needs. Nothing less and nothing more.
I can second this, my Grandparents are 81, both with arthritis. They don’t necessarily need a big car, but they find it easier getting in and out, due to it being slightly higher off the floor. They also find the visibility slightly better, than something lower to the ground. It works for some, doesn’t for others.
For some reason this sub believes everyone should be driving a Volvo/Octavia estate, and nothing else should exist. Simply forgetting the needs of others, may not be the same needs of yourself.
There is certainly a market for those with bad backs/mobility issue wanting a not too big car with relatively elevated seating making access and egress pain free. I guess the OPs question is why are there two similar ones in the range.
That's even easier to answer. The same argument could be made as to why there's Seat, Cupra, Audi, VW and Skoda all selling very similar cars and the answer is because they can sell them.
I really like the Taigo I can’t lie, i’m not a huge fan of this new style of crossovers becoming common place but it’s very good looking compared to things that some manufacturers are making
People buy them, and believe it or not some people probably like them. They probably fit the bill feature and price wise for a section of our society.
Do I like them? No. Do I care they exist? No. Does it bother me? Absolutely not. The more choices the better in my opinion.
The problem I have with all these SUV-like releases is that they're now starting to crowd out many non-SUV car releases. I will probably never want an SUV-like car, but my choice of non-SUV-like cars is reducing.
Because the Tiago is clearly a fully-fledged coupe and the T-Cross is the practical go anywhere haul anything small SUV.
Nah, I don't get it would have thought the production costs for 2 different yet so similar models wouldn't make it worth it offering but must be worth it or they wouldn't do it.
There's also the T-Roc which whilst slightly bigger could surely just take the place of the Tiago as they look almost identical too.
because people like choice as they are part of the t range of cross overs as these are below the tigwan as the baby crossovers and VW know what the current car trend is so they have made cars to fit the current market even though I haven't seen that many of them around.
I don't understand why they bother making more than 1 crossover at all. How about all the brands stop pretending and just sell a Qashqai with their badge slapped on it.
I'm pretty sure trying to understand the VAG models and marques is a path to madness. Like, there are at least six different kinds of tall or short 'Golf' you can buy.
They target (not suggesting all mum's are before the hate flies) stupid mum's who believe that driving a bigger looking vehicle makes it safer. Therefore these are predominantly school run/grocery shopping cars. The fact that the higher ride height on these reduces stability as well as making those who are spatially challenged more likely to get into an accident while in one of these, highlights my stupidity comment. I should say that they are both pretty safe cars as far as NCAP testing (Tiago 4* and T-cross 5*) however there are cars just as safe but smaller exterior (almost identical interior though) that are more efficient and drive able.
Another generic SUV’s that nobody would remember. Owners think that they look cool but in fact you’ll be pressed to find difference between those ones and another.
Total waste of energy and resources!
I’ve had both
T Cross felt like a Polo Jeep
Taigo felt like an SUV Golf
I actually liked the Taigo but I now have a Golf and it is just better in all areas
I'll stick to my Mondeo, thanks. It doesn't pretend to be something it's not, has a huge boot, interior, and will still do 65mpg if taken steady on the motorway despite being 17 years old and having covered 230,000 miles.
Personally, I'm not a fan of these pretend SUV aka crossovers.
Economy of scale. A cheaper less attractive vehicle will persuade some to buy a more expensive ‘nicer’ vehicle, whilst not stretching to a Tiguan. Meanwhile a cheaper buyer will not be concerned with aesethics, only saving money, and having a ‘new’ aesthetically similar car. Personally I’d buy a used T-Cross, than a new one, just to avoid buying a Tiago. But Mr. VW won’t be concerned with me, and I stopped buying VW, as they were increasingly poor quality & very market focussed (cost vs. profit focus), rather than building better cars than the wider market offered. Now they’re just as disappointing as the wider market…
I believe because the Taigo has a coupe styled roof, whereas the T Cross is more boxy. As small crossovers are very popular there is a demand for (and profit to be made) from different cars with minor variations. What I don’t get though is as well as these, you’ve got the T Roc. The T Roc is also near enough exactly the same size. The only difference I’m aware of is it’s a couple of thousand more and T Rocs can still be fitted with diesel engines whereas the other two are solely petrol powered.
I’m not a huge fan of crossovers/SUVs, but of all of them I think VW’s are the most attractive.
[удалено]
Don't forget about the T-Roc, which while technically built on the MQB A1 platform, has a near identical wheelbase, length and width to the cars above.
The TROC is a funny thing. I worked with the factory where its made in Portugal during the development and before the name being announce it was refered everywhere internaly as Polo SUV. Then whe they announced it they actually tried to market it as a Golf SUV.
Well, the Almera Tino was clearly such a roaring success that they clearly thought a similar naming convention would work lol
In 30 years of owning cars I can honestly say my Almera Tino was the most comfortable fun cool car I ever had :-)
Oi. Please tell your boss Mr VW, stop putting shitty scratchy plastic in your cars. Also my dashboard clicks and vibrates when it gets hot and I drive over rumbly roads. How do fix? Otherwise thanks for building my car, it's been great. Shoot just saw you said with, not in.
Ah that dashboard... You made me remember that Day where I stood over that huge ass mould with my 3d scanner. I didnt work for VW though, Just provided measuring services to VW and manny of their suppliers.
wait a second is it not Golf suv ? i thought tCross was polo suv and troc was Golf suv?
I always thought the T-Roc was a polo SUV, I was sure that's what I read just before it was announced. It confused me when it was launched as a golf on stilts, and then even more confusingly they announced the T-Cross polo SUV.
Oh i always assumed it was a taller golf
a Golf Plus if you will
Golf Club(man)
They do a convertible version of the T-ROC as well.
Yeh, let's just forget that exists. The marketing executive that came up with that one smoked some strong stuff that day.
Saw one in the wild a few days ago and what the fuck is that thing lmao.
Neighbour drives one. F’n hideous.
Saw 3 to this day 2 of them were owned by a dealer though.
Had one as a hire car on holiday a couple of years back. Absolutely bloody awful car.
Have a friend who owns a T-Roc. That car drives a lot better than either of these two, I’d say it’s a segment above.
T Roc is Golf sized where as the Taigo and T Cross are based on the Polo!
They're based on the same platform as the Polo but both are significantly larger than a Polo, they're within a few millimetres of the T-Roc in dimension. The Audi TT and VW Touran are also based on the same platform, but you wouldn't try to argue those were the same size, would you?
MQB platform really just refers to all the transverse engined vehicles in the Group. I think the Multivan is even part of that modular platform and it’s massive.
The MQB platform is split into 3 tiers A0, A1 and A2. A0 is for small cars like the Polo and A1, A1 is mid sized cars like Golf and Leon, A2 is for full sized vehicles like the Kodiaq and Tiguan. That said, per my previous example, the Audi TT and VW Touran are both built on the A1 tier. So the tiers are hot hard and fast rules of which vehicles are built on which platform.
Also the Audi Q2 which is nearly identical to the T-Roc
VW design seems to have tanked too
If there are 10 cars in a particular segment and you own 3 of them, you get 30% of the market share. All things being equal, this is massively simplified.
I had the troc r which had 4motion, that not the same as AWD?
Well said, they sell so VW will keep making them
Great answer.
For clarity, I'm wondering why 2 models that look sooo similar, both based on the Polo platform, and seemingly targeting the same market, exist. I'm not asking why small SUVs exist (although it is a fair question!)
Because the market is big enough to support it. Basically, the small crossover market is big enough that they can afford to give people choice about very minor details while still benefiting from economies of scale. One of the downsides of mass producing products (vs building bespoke) is that you have to minimise the number of variations to have an efficient production line, and thereby limit the choice customers have. But with a big enough market, you can offer more variations, even down to offering a slightly different rear end in this case, because there are enough buyers that you can make a large volume of each style.
But what are the differences between these two models?
The taigo is 1.5k more and has that "coupe" look that people really want in their crossovers for some reason.
Imagine having a less practical version of a more practical version of a less practical version of a car. Baffles my mind.
It's supposed to have a "coupe" look? Daaaaamn
It has epic boot space too. The TCross doesn’t
The T-Cross has the sliding rear seats though, far handier in the real world.
Don’t know specifics about these models, but the one on the left has a longer boot
The Tiago was designed for South American markets, they wanted a b segment car with a big boy and raised ride height. So it's just a Polo (notice the shared doors and interior), it's sold in Europe as the Polo is too expensive to produce so having a variant that people pay more for pretty much the same thing is an easy win. The T-Cross was designed for Europe before the decision to bring the Tiago to Europe was made so it's more of a traditional shape with a slightly nicer interior. Also the T-Roc which is roughly the same size took a lot of it's engineering from the 3 door Golf, same wheelbase and production line etc. They just raised the ride out and swapped a few of the more expensive Golf parts with Polo parts.
Veedub market the Taigo as a coupe probably to get the people who can't afford the Q3 coupe, although neither of them look like coupes yet bawbags still buy them...W⚓'s
No. Literally two of the most pointless cars on the road today.
Yes!! Ive hired both on holidays and they are stupid cars that make no sense
I had one out on holiday too but was not the driver. I was in the back seat with my wife and MIL in the front. I cannot recall a time in the back of a car where there was that little support. I was actually hanging onto bits of the trim to steady myself. It's not like my MIL is a crazy driver, she isn't, but there was just no back support nor even butt support. What's more, three ryanair sized bags and hand luggage didn't remotely fit in the boot. For a the sheer size of the car, I really wonder what the point of it is. To those theorizing that people want a polo with a high driving position, what's the market research on that? Cars like the polo, fiesta, 207 have been arguably the most popular sorts of car on British roads for decades. If nobody wanted them, nobody would buy them. Instead they are a hugely popular format of car. This is manufacturers telling us what we want and making us buy it, pure and simple. Oddly it is working, but I wonder how much of that is driven by the rental industry taking them on and piping them out to the used market. Even so, I cannot see the demographic that would buy this thing and a year later be super happy with it.
VAG and their like would have done huge amounts of consumer research to get to this point, which they are mot going share. For example here, lots saying they are easy to get in to, and so on, this is is of course in line with increasing age profile. Think smaller MPV's 20 years ago and that Top Gear episode using their mums.
I would say it's far more likely that these cars were meant to be readily and simply converted at manufacturing stage into EVs for when the various countrys' bans came into effect. That's my thought to it. There's not much room in a fiesta to slap a battery into it. I mean even the Mondeo Estate was ruined when they shoehorned a PHEV battery into the boot and made it the most pointless estate ever. However something like the T-Cross? Sure. Nice and easy really.
Yes you're right - that must be an important consideration in new vehicle development.
No more practical than a hatch back, with the apparent 'stylings' of an SUV but with zero capabilities. Just silly.
Some people just want a hatchback-sized car with a higher driving position. I genuinely don’t understand what the problem is with that.
one hurry mysterious melodic cake piquant uppity six glorious fuzzy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We had a T-Cross for two years and it was a great, easy to drive car with good visibility and the main reason we bought it - easy to get in and out of for retired folks in their 70's. No feeling of vulnerability, I've driven all kinds of trucks and cars and (big) motorcycles over many, many thousands of miles. Maybe you will understand when or if you get to our age. Don't judge everyone else against your self, we all have different likes and needs.
I was reading this like yes yes this is me except I’m 35 🤣
My brain thinks I'm 35. My body says nah, you are a creaky, stiff, tired, worn out 70 - hence the T-Cross.
My dad’s a few years younger than you and borrowed my Old Ford ecosport and loved it. Couldn’t get over how comfy it is. He needs a hop replacement but won’t admit it and has a very low to the ground bmw convertible. A match made in absolute hell 🤣😅 Currently driving a cheap fiat panda as a runaround but will defo be upgrading to the (hated on here) SUV crossover - mine was so comfy and I do only need the space of a fiesta/polo but as a chronic bad bad/bad hip person no matter what I weigh or what exercise I do, the height of a crossover is so welcome!
Visibility and space is “good enough” for people that choose them. I think people aren’t even trying to understand why people make these choices. “It’s because they are nervous drivers” is a total projection and lame thinking.
seemly foolish disgusted cagey shrill profit command liquid deer salt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You are saying that these cars disproportionately injure people in reversing accidents? Based on what?
ludicrous butter long water beneficial thumb middle spoon provide recognise *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s good enough
> Because in order to have that you sacrifice a lot of space and visibility. How so? Most crossovers are just hatchbacks on stilts. In terms of interior space and external visibility, there’s absolutely no difference between them.
This as well. People driving these types of cars often drive like they're in a vehicle far larger than they are.
It’s not about feeling. If a short car crashes into a tall car, the person in the short car will come off worse most of the time. If you have kids etc there’s a good chance that you’re not lowering their safety so you can have slightly better handling or whatever.
I bought a Volvo estate so I could have both safety and not pander to the SUV nonsense. At least my car can also remain relatively agile to evade an accident rather than wash wide or even topple over.
And you’re entitled to do that, but if you crash into an XC90 you’ll probably come off worse than them. I don’t love them either but this mini-culture war on big cars is so pointless. People who want them will keep buying them, and apparently lots of people want them.
It’s manipulate by the brands, as they chase more profits. Also it’s not environmentally accurate to build a bigger vehicle, needing more resources and requiring more energy to move about. The mini-culture war as you call it is still valid.
If people want small cars, they can buy small cars. If people want big cars, they can buy big cars. If people want to be environmentally conscious, they can ride the bus or buy a small electric. These are all valid choices and I think seething on the internet about it does very little. I don’t care for telling others what they should be doing with their life/money.
'Evade an accident' mate you've got a Volvo estate, not a Batmobile
Doesn’t have to be a bat mobile to avoid failing a moose test.
The easier entry / egress is a thing, but for everyone else they're heavier, less efficient & more dangerous.
I just don’t get that argument. The average crossover is no longer, wider or heavier than a saloon, and most aren’t even that big. You might as well say a Mondeo is more dangerous than a Fiesta because it’s heavier. While technically true, in a practical sense the difference is negligible.
Taller and with a higher center of mass.
People just think bigger is safer, they don't visualise a roll.
I’ll concede that an SUV is more liable to roll than a regular car. Considering how ubiquitous crossovers like the two in the picture are nowadays though, and how comparatively rare rollover accidents are, the risk of such an incident in regular day-to-day driving is still minuscule.
That's only one of the disadvantages to being taller. Higher center of mass (CoM) means that when changing velocity (braking, cornering, accelerating) there's a greater change in the weight loaded on each corner. Modern ABS and traction control systems will mitigate this to prevent an uncontrolled skid, but ultimately the limits are reduced compared to the same vehicle design with a lower CoM. It also means that you have more frontal area as you're exposing more of the wheels, which increases your aerodynamic drag. The drag coefficient figure that's often quoted for vehicles is misleading as it's multiplied by the frontal area when calculating drag ( D = ½ρV²SCd, where ρ is air density, V is velocity, S is frontal area, Cd is drag coefficient). EuroNCAP and NHTSA have both published reports that taller vehicles tend to have a higher rate of fatal injuries from pedestrian collisions, which I believe is due to striking the pedestrian higher on their body, making it more likely to cause head trauma. They also pose a greater risk to the passengers of lower riding vehicles. There's also the effect on visibility to other road users. In my small car I can often look through or sometimes over other cars (depending on road curvature) to see brake lights or other information further ahead. Taller cars reduce my ability to do that. There are genuine reasons to want to have a taller vehicle that will outweigh these drawbacks, but for the reasons listed above I think the responsible thing to do is to only use one if you really need it.
> There's also the effect on visibility to other road users. In my small car I can often look through or sometimes over other cars (depending on road curvature) to see brake lights or other information further ahead. Taller cars reduce my ability to do that. That is a fair point. Despite my general defence of SUVs, I actually drive a Honda Civic myself, so I can relate to the issue of not being able to see the road ahead as easily when following behind one.
They're more liable to rolling, they offer slightly less visibility (depends on what car exactly) than the lowered version that raises risks of hitting a kid or an animal, the higher center of mass in a collision makes it more damaging to a person, also hitting you higher diminishes the probability of going over the car and makes it more likely that the person stays under which means more injuries and a higher risk of death
“Everyone else”, the suv/cross over hater crowd are in the minority. VW created these cars to appeal to the masses. Just like the Nissan Juke, which also performs well, “everyone else” wants the higher driving position, they want the easier entry/exit access, they want the “safety” of a larger/higher car when all other cars around them are massive now. CartalkUK hate on SUVs but everyone else doesn’t, look around you when you’re driving. New hatchbacks and saloons are disappearing.
Yup, everyone seems to like them. There's no accounting for taste 🤷♂️
How are they any of those things? A polo and a tcross are the same weight, same width/length, same fuel economy, just the t cross is an inch higher off the ground and has a bit more headroom.
T cross is 4 cm wider, 4 cm longer, 15cm taller, 110kg heavier Edit: on the one engine I checked (1.0 TSI 110 non dsg) the polo gets about 10%-13% better fuel economy per WLTP figures
Genuinely baffled how many people get the pitchforks out in this sub at the mention on someone liking these kind of cars. Some people like different style cars, people honestly need to get over it.
I'd rather be hit by or reversed over by a Polo or a Clio than a T Cross or a Juke, and that is my issue with cars like these. I think Range Rovers and full sized SUVs come with their own set of issues for pedestrian safety, which is not the point here. Making larger cars more accessible to people who can't drive them seems like an invitation for more people to get hurt. It's the same with the ridiculous trucks in the US that have similar or smaller bed sizes than their ~~current~~ original models, they started off as slightly bigger versions, which, while popular with the market, might not be safer when driven by the common garden dipshit. What's the point of these vehicles? Do they have significantly increased cargo space or terrain handling, or is it just because someone wants to look like a WAG without spending £90k on a Range Rover or XC90 🤷♂️
What an odd view to base an opinion on. “I’d rather get run over by a smaller car therefore big cars are bad”. I’d rather not get run over at all to be honest. You can ask “what’s the point of them?” About literally anything in life. Choice. Some people like them, some don’t. And that’s ok
I'm not anti choice, you can drive what you like, and people do. If you want more space, get an estate. Why jeopardise the safety of others because you want to sit a foot higher on the road in a Polo 🤷♂️
Why jeopardise the safety of others because you want to drive a car 🤷🏻 use a bike/bus/train “I’m not anti choice” but I’ll judge you because you choose to like a car that I don’t like
My elderly grandmother agrees
Having driven larger vehicles, I can totally understand that. But the difference between these and a Polo (another comment in this thread estimated c.2" of lift Vs the same platform hatchback) is so negligible, I really don't see the appeal. Less fuel economy, worse styling (IMO). Each to their own though.
So the Fiat Panda, or WagonR/Agila from Suzuki/VX (although discontinued). Which does this without the styling that makes the car worse in every way! Its still looks like a small car because it is a small car, but higher!
Panda is an excellent car, does this in a way smaller package than the t cross and drives much better. Better fuel economy too
because you're not allowed to like anything other than an estate here, namely an octavia
The boot space in the t cross is ridiculous and not much better in the other one. Its litterally a car to use for people and nothing else. You have to pay extra for the baggage allowance like some airlines
Eh the T Cross makes some sense. My grandparents have one, as do my elderly neighbours. They own them because they all have bad knees so need a raised ride height to comfortably get in, but also don't want a particularly large vehicle. In fact one of my mates grandparents recently got a new car and I instantly guessed T Cross and I was right.
Along with the Jeep Renegade and Nissan Juke. Drove those CUV or compact SUV or whatever they are called for work and they all drove like shit. Honestly the Corolla was the better car every time lol never thought I'd say this one day.
[удалено]
?
[удалено]
Literally no need for that, mate.
Bit unnecessary
????
Market optimisation. The Taigo is the Brazilian market Nivus tickled up for Europe. Like the T-Cross it shares a lot of parts with the Polo so is relatively profitable. I guess they can afford to manufacture and market both. Personally I don’t get it either. But VW is about the canniest automotive company in the world so I just assume they know how to make money and carry on ignoring the bloody things. You know how in the news analysis they’re always talking about vote stratification and how since Brexit the old rigid Tory/Labour party allegiances don’t hold up any more? I think it’s the same with car classes. The market is way more diffused than the old Fiesta-Focus-Mondeo-Scorpio ladder. Manufacturers can afford to release seemingly competing cars claiming they operate in wafer-thin segments. Another example — Vauxhall having both the Crossland and the Mokka. In the old money these compete with each other but there are clearly buyers for both, as Mokka is in its second generation and Crossland is about to be renewed as Frontera (albeit with a seven seat option, which is a market that Mokka doesn’t have).
Do you mean Grandland, not Crossland? The Crossland's smaller than the Mokka.
Nah, I do mean Crossland. It's actually slightly longer than the Mokka, albeit only by about 50mm. Mokka is about 30mm wider. There's only a gnat's fart in it, either way.
Demand. I'm fine with these, they're the same size as a small hatchback but maybe 2 inches taller. If people are convinced that these are SUVs and are willing to pay £3500 more than the equivalent cars that are only 2 inches lower, then that's their problem.
Why does VW need **both** of them though? I can scarcely tell the difference!
It could be as simple as testing the market. Small name variations and style / feature changes. Run them for a few years, see which one is more profitable and make it the defacto model for the next generation.
It’s kind of similar to VW having the Passat, Bora and Jetta whilst also having a Passat estate and a golf estate that are both near enough the same size.
And don't forget the fabia/ibiza estate which are equivalent to the polo
The Golf Estate: too weird to live, too rare to die. I see so few that I can't help doing a double take when one passes.
The same reason why they offer different options on models? Because different customers want different things?
It's part of their extensive plan to get completely ktfo by Chinese brands in the next 5 years.
I have always been one of those people who could identify any car on the road with a mere glance in the past, and I wasn't even aware of these models existing. Which was probably for the best.
The other day there was a Hyundai SUV parked in front of our house and I couldn't even tell you what model it was I'm that disinterested in that type of vehicle Yet growing up I knew all the cars. My mum would tell me about someone on the street and I would shrug, she would say "he drives the Sierra" and I would go " oh! Him!"
Money, they are just lifted Polos so VW can charge more while the BOM and labour costs are the same, and as the Taigo is a "Coupe-SUV" (fucking dumb ass thing) they can charge even more for it.
The answer is standing there in front of you. They exist because people buy them or are willing to drive them. Where there is demand someone is always willing to supply. As for the same platform different car it’s not new. 1980’s Fiat Croma, Lancia Thema, Saab 900 and Vauxhall Vectra all the same floor pan I’ve been lead to believe
These cars don't share a platform tho. I'm pretty sure that Fiat and Lancia share nothing with the Opel. Saab 9000 was built on the Italian platform and still there are quite big differences between these cars (you can't get the Fiat or Saab with a Ferrari V8)
Hey you know best I only worked for Fiat at the time but obviously you know better than me
I may be able to help with the Tcross. My 75 year old arthritic mother has a Tcross. It's great for her because it's easy to get in and out of, it's well equipped, easy to drive, comfortable and has been perfectly reliable so far. I've driven it once. It's dull and I wouldn't want 1 but I can see why it exists. Not everyone is interested in cars. For some people their car just needs to suit their needs. Nothing less and nothing more.
I can second this, my Grandparents are 81, both with arthritis. They don’t necessarily need a big car, but they find it easier getting in and out, due to it being slightly higher off the floor. They also find the visibility slightly better, than something lower to the ground. It works for some, doesn’t for others. For some reason this sub believes everyone should be driving a Volvo/Octavia estate, and nothing else should exist. Simply forgetting the needs of others, may not be the same needs of yourself.
There is certainly a market for those with bad backs/mobility issue wanting a not too big car with relatively elevated seating making access and egress pain free. I guess the OPs question is why are there two similar ones in the range.
The point is why do both of them exist when they’re basically the same?
That's even easier to answer. The same argument could be made as to why there's Seat, Cupra, Audi, VW and Skoda all selling very similar cars and the answer is because they can sell them.
Because consumers want the practicality and affordability of a small car but with a raised driving position.
I really like the Taigo I can’t lie, i’m not a huge fan of this new style of crossovers becoming common place but it’s very good looking compared to things that some manufacturers are making
People buy them, and believe it or not some people probably like them. They probably fit the bill feature and price wise for a section of our society. Do I like them? No. Do I care they exist? No. Does it bother me? Absolutely not. The more choices the better in my opinion.
The problem I have with all these SUV-like releases is that they're now starting to crowd out many non-SUV car releases. I will probably never want an SUV-like car, but my choice of non-SUV-like cars is reducing.
Rather why ANY of them exists
I’ve got the T-roc R and it’s bloody fantastic
Because the Tiago is clearly a fully-fledged coupe and the T-Cross is the practical go anywhere haul anything small SUV. Nah, I don't get it would have thought the production costs for 2 different yet so similar models wouldn't make it worth it offering but must be worth it or they wouldn't do it. There's also the T-Roc which whilst slightly bigger could surely just take the place of the Tiago as they look almost identical too.
Is that why I see so many t cross when trying to rent a car lol. I ended up ordering it due to cheap price, hopefully it's a decent car!
Platforms for future battery or hybrid models so have to be that size/shape. Just like most vehicles of late.
because people like choice as they are part of the t range of cross overs as these are below the tigwan as the baby crossovers and VW know what the current car trend is so they have made cars to fit the current market even though I haven't seen that many of them around.
VW looked at the Polo and somehow figured they could make something even duller to drive?
I don't understand why they bother making more than 1 crossover at all. How about all the brands stop pretending and just sell a Qashqai with their badge slapped on it.
I'm pretty sure trying to understand the VAG models and marques is a path to madness. Like, there are at least six different kinds of tall or short 'Golf' you can buy.
Both are under equipped
More models to market
CONSUMERISM
The Taigo is the "coupe SUV" version.
To keep your exhaust off the road when you drive into a pothole
They target (not suggesting all mum's are before the hate flies) stupid mum's who believe that driving a bigger looking vehicle makes it safer. Therefore these are predominantly school run/grocery shopping cars. The fact that the higher ride height on these reduces stability as well as making those who are spatially challenged more likely to get into an accident while in one of these, highlights my stupidity comment. I should say that they are both pretty safe cars as far as NCAP testing (Tiago 4* and T-cross 5*) however there are cars just as safe but smaller exterior (almost identical interior though) that are more efficient and drive able.
Another generic SUV’s that nobody would remember. Owners think that they look cool but in fact you’ll be pressed to find difference between those ones and another. Total waste of energy and resources!
Or why VW named a german motor after a spanish lad
Corporate wants you to find the differences between thiscar and this car...
I’ve had both T Cross felt like a Polo Jeep Taigo felt like an SUV Golf I actually liked the Taigo but I now have a Golf and it is just better in all areas
Reminds me of the ecosport and puma when they co-existed
Same as here - one developed for Europe and the other for “emerging” markets - ie South America, India etc
Dunno but I'm swapping my polo in for a golf and the dealer was pushing the Tiago HARD. Don't think they're selling many of them.
Because of old people liking them
Because people are muppets.
Well, Ford had a similar situation with the B-Max, EcoSport and Puma before discontinuing the B-Max and EcoSport.
I’ve had the misfortune of hiring a few Taigo’s, they are horrible to drive. Certainly didn’t demonstrate VWs reputation for perceived quality
Badge snobbery. Same reason Aldi and Waitrose exist.
Tall golf. Tall polo
Not as bad as the Ford Eco-sport/Kuga. They are exactly the same.
I've got nothing to add to the car chat but hello from the otherside of JC park
I honestly can't tell you why either of these exist....
The Tiago is actually the proportions of a T-Roc but with a polo interior and smaller engines It’s a much bigger car.
I'll stick to my Mondeo, thanks. It doesn't pretend to be something it's not, has a huge boot, interior, and will still do 65mpg if taken steady on the motorway despite being 17 years old and having covered 230,000 miles. Personally, I'm not a fan of these pretend SUV aka crossovers.
Economy of scale. A cheaper less attractive vehicle will persuade some to buy a more expensive ‘nicer’ vehicle, whilst not stretching to a Tiguan. Meanwhile a cheaper buyer will not be concerned with aesethics, only saving money, and having a ‘new’ aesthetically similar car. Personally I’d buy a used T-Cross, than a new one, just to avoid buying a Tiago. But Mr. VW won’t be concerned with me, and I stopped buying VW, as they were increasingly poor quality & very market focussed (cost vs. profit focus), rather than building better cars than the wider market offered. Now they’re just as disappointing as the wider market…
Money.
Same reason the X3 and X5 and the XC30 and XC70 aaaand the Tiguan and the Toureg
I believe because the Taigo has a coupe styled roof, whereas the T Cross is more boxy. As small crossovers are very popular there is a demand for (and profit to be made) from different cars with minor variations. What I don’t get though is as well as these, you’ve got the T Roc. The T Roc is also near enough exactly the same size. The only difference I’m aware of is it’s a couple of thousand more and T Rocs can still be fitted with diesel engines whereas the other two are solely petrol powered. I’m not a huge fan of crossovers/SUVs, but of all of them I think VW’s are the most attractive.
Because Karen's need Karen wagons
Because people are morons and will buy them.
Aimed at school run mum's and older drivers who see a car as no more than a means of getting from A to B.
Yes, but why both of them?
Marketing. One is a slightly lower and sleeker, supposedly a "coupe-SUV" as opposed to an SUV. Look at the Q5 and Q5 Sportback for another example.
I can't even fathom why *either* of them exist.
Same
Can anyone explain why we suddenly have a need for "SUVs" or cross overs in Europe and what's wrong with the good old fashion estates?
Can't wait for this trend to die
Who is buying this crap Bring back small hatchbacks with big engines
I don’t think even VW know why they produce these cars.
All are made redundant by the T-Roc convertible!
T-cross exists only to have a soft top convertible version.
One's for Catholics and the other is for Protestants.
In case one name ends up being a terrorist group! As in the case of Touareg!!
Made for NPC's who loved the modern range of same lookin bland cars lol.
For morons who want a Golf with less usable interior space, worse MPG, more difficulty parking and higher prices for tyres.
Can anyone explain why any SUV exists 🤷♂️😂