This is an interesting take Sajeev. I'm glad that you thought of it and brought it up. I want to make some points for clarity. The CUV and cars from the 1930's-1940's do appear very similar, but their intended purposes are very different than one might think. CUVs are a branch of the SUV. That’s where their rooted no matter how car-like they are. SUVs by-and-large became popular due to their appearance. The SUV broke-up the van phase that had captivated America in the '70's and early '80's. I don't mean mini-van, I mean full-size van. And my historical reference to SUVs here is the increase in sales of SUVs that led to today, being a starting point to that with the 1970 Chevrolet Blazer. Everybody seemed to want a van by 1978. Van popularity explosion was based in the style and image, not its use. And the SUV was the next hit to sweep America, and again based in style and image. I'm not saying that vans and SUVs don't have a purpose, they do, but in both cases most people who bought them didn't have a use for their intended purpose, such as an SUV in order to get home by way of climbing a snow-covered mountain path in Vermont. Style and image are the intended purpose. And the popularity of the CUV is the same. The modern CUV, like the SUV doesn't have any real purpose other than people like the image of military looking vehicles and they want to sit up higher. That's it. Part of the proof is increased purchases of two-wheel drive versions. While sitting up higher makes a difference when one is driving a motorhome, or other large truck. I can't see any need to sit higher in a daily driver, especially since just about every vehicle in traffic is another SUV/CUV that’s at the same height. The vehicle I choose is for significant reasons, not the height I'm sitting at. But that's me. Overall, when it comes to cars American's do a lot of monkey-see-monkey-do, and it's been that way since the van phase. Now, the difference with the design of cars from the 1930's and 1940's is that those designs had a purpose. You might think I'm nuts, but this is true. They were designed tall because back then everyone wore tall hats. The tall height of cars predates the 1930's back to the time when cars were first being enclosed from being an open car, and hats played the same role. But for simplicity let's use Sajeev's comparison of 1930's-40's cars. So, people demanded a high ceiling because of hats. Look back at photos from the era and just about all men wore hats that were roughly six to eight inches above their forehead. And of course, women wore hats too. Hats had significance, and enough to influence automotive design. Back in those days they didn't think of hats the way we do about our baseball hats, basically us now throwing one on in lieu of brushing hair or just giving us a look that we like. Whereas back then a man's hat, like his shoes, completed his look. Very important. And hats made a statement, his status in life, his taste, and to an extent places he would favor. A diner and newspaper stand patron? A country club gentleman? Hats made the cars tall back then. Not style and image. As hat popularity decreased the auto designers lowered the roofs, and we entered the period when men took off their hat and placed it on the car seat, or on the rear window parcel shelf. The similarity of cars from the 1930’s-40’s and the CUV are just that. But the reasons for the two have nothing in common.
... View more