Implication request: SUVs are cars.

BUR #25649 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication sports_utility_vehicle -> car

Related to previous topic #22605.

In the US, SUVs fall into same regulation standards as light trucks due to its commonly body-on-frame construction.
While in real life use and according to Wikipedia, SUV is a passanger car classification.

Despite so, I don't think van should automatically imply car as well because its design serves to transport both people (post #7110219) or goods just like a truck.

BUR #25690 has been rejected.

create implication sports_utility_vehicle -> motor_vehicle

Alternate BUR, since car implicates motor vehicle.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #25649 (forum #278555) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #25690 (forum #278764) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Confirmed, SUVs are not cars.

Are there going to be some obscure models of SUVs that are actually trucks and are going to fuck up this BUR?

I'm not very knowledgeable about cars but AFAIK anything over a certain weight is considered a truck in the United States, which includes many SUVs and similarly heavy vehicles like minivans.

Well it's more of the common definition of the terms. Are there any examples of SUVs that we (or the average guy) wouldn't consider cars, but trucks?

SUVs have become so much more round and blobby looking over the years (just look at the examples in the wiki) that I don't think there will be much confusion over what's a truck vs what's a SUV. The only things that I think will lead to some confusion are the SUVs that have pickup variants (Cadillac Escalade EXT, Hummer EV, G-Class 6x6), but these can simply be tagged as a pickup truck when they have a bed and a SUV when they don't.

Edge cases will always exist with unusual vehicle types like Utes (which are normal cars with a pickup bed instead of backseats and a trunk, see post #7403003 and post #6198256 for example), so I don't think we need to stress too much on the technical similarities between SUVs and trucks. At the end of the day, a SUV is designed to carry people while a truck is designed to carry stuff, and that shows through well enough in how they're designed to consider SUVs as cars.

The bulk update request #25649 (forum #278555) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

The SUV tag comes off as a half-trash tag when it is used for things like post #2373719 that are visually indistinguishable from a regular car. If the tag isn't purely based on a visual difference from conventional cars, then it becomes an extremely arbitrary collection of images with some "might as well just be a regular car" images padding their tag counts and others that are objectively different from conventional cars.

GreyOmega said:

The SUV tag comes off as a half-trash tag when it is used for things like post #2373719 that are visually indistinguishable from a regular car. If the tag isn't purely based on a visual difference from conventional cars, then it becomes an extremely arbitrary collection of images with some "might as well just be a regular car" images padding their tag counts and others that are objectively different from conventional cars.

The Porsche Macan looks more like a crossover car than an SUV, it really shouldn't have this tag.

Like Grey said, the problem with SUV as a whole is that a lot of the compact crossovers are basically indistinguishable (at least to the untrained eye) from passenger cars. For example, this is Tesla's compact crossover SUV and this is their mid-size sedan. I wouldn't trust myself to know the difference. I think the whole rise of the compact crossover SUV has more to do with tax credits and regulatory law than anything else. We could consider removing compact crossover SUVs from the SUV tag so we end up with a more visually distinct set.