|
Faceless Clock posted:I guess I don't agree with you at all. Note I said "drive," not "ride." All that pillowy suspension travel is also likely to give the vehicle a hell of a lot of body roll and generally not inspire confidence or provide for high-speed stability or comfort on the highway. More air resistance and frontal area also means more wind noise, and off-roadish tires mean more road noise. If I had to do a lot of highway driving, I'd almost always take a conventional sedan/wagon over an SUV/CUV/minivan. The rest comes down to the choices made in that individual vehicle's suspension tuning and engineering. A modern car-based CUV is basically a very tall station wagon with a jacked-up ride height. But being tall, being fat, and having a really high ride height are all big differentiating features that lead to compromises in other areas. I disagree that an SUV/CUV is easier for older folks to get into. How is climbing up into a seat easier than sitting down into a seat? A station wagon is lower than an SUV but it's not like it's a Ferrari or something. Seat height is usually about the height of a typical chair, which is pretty much ideal. I've had lots of older people complain about having to climb up into their SUVs but never about sitting down in a car. Having a higher roof does make it slightly easier to get into your seat, but there's a lot of disadvantages that come with that, too. Similarly, the difference in cargo room between a sedan and wagon is significant, but has few real trade-offs in regards to other areas compared to a sedan. Comparatively, the trade-offs between a wagon and a SUV/CUV are significant. Also, those statistics are pretty difficult to parse since its unclear whether wagons and minivans are counted as "cars," "SUVs," or not counted at all (since they make up a pretty small percent of all cars on the road). I used insurance loss statistics because I was having trouble finding fatality rates by vehicle make and model. Neither are particularly useful and certainly not conclusive. It's particularly hard to apply statistical evidence here because basically nobody buys wagons in the US. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Apr 18, 2012 |
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
SUVs and CUVs are absolutely easier for old people to get out of, which is the difficult part of the process for the elderly. At any rate, CUVs are getting far more wagon-y as time goes on. The CR-V does has about 6ish inches of ground clearance. That's basically Accord Station Wagon territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
On the point of the elderly and suvs/cuvs. My grandmother had a hell of a time climbing into the different SUVs that my aunts had (Tahoe, Suburban, that full size Saturn, QX56. ) My mother downsized to a GMC Terrain and it has become the defacto car for driving nan around. It's not all jacked up like the full size SUVs, and not a drop down like my LeSabre or my sisters CTS. CUVs with their rear end level seating make sense for older people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:But Ford just did 63K Fiestas in '11. I have a related question: Why did/do car enthusiasts constantly disparage the lack of sporty wagons, then proceed to lambast and mock the CTS-V? Too sporty? Not enough wagon? To me, the whole thing seems analogous the nerd buzz before certain movies (Scott Pilgrim v. the World) that inevitably ends up tapering into disappointing sales. edit: not that that was the case with the CTS-v; the truth about cars said the break even point was less than 50! Omerta fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Note I said "drive," not "ride." All that pillowy suspension travel is also likely to give the vehicle a hell of a lot of body roll and generally not inspire confidence or provide for high-speed stability or comfort on the highway. More air resistance and frontal area also means more wind noise, and off-roadish tires mean more road noise. Fortunately the average US highway is very straight with a 65mph speed limit, handling does not matter much let alone how the car responds at 100+mph They are extremely quiet and smooth (takes a lot to unsettle that much weight, you don't notice potholes on a bus either). I don't think you've been for a ride in a recent Expedition or Tahoe, try it sometime, people don't buy them just because they love driving awful cars. Logically enough, full size pickups are the same. The seats might not be great but actual ride comfort in an F150 or Ram in terms of isolation from the road surface is pretty good, better than any non-luxury car I've been in. sanchez fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Let's examine the typical demographic of wagon/minivan/CUV/SUV/people-mover buyers: Now let's consider who makes the purchasing decision in this demographic (hint: it's not the one on the upper left, and it has a lot to do with all the poo poo that goes along with the one on the lower left). A wagon might be sleek&low and fit your skis and guitars in it with ease, but when you're 8 months pregnant and loading a 3 year old into a child seat, racy looks and driving dynamics comes off second best to sliding doors and not needing to stoop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I have a related question: Why did/do car enthusiasts constantly disparage the lack of sporty wagons, then proceed to lambast and mock the CTS-V? Too sporty? Not enough wagon? Who is mocking the V Wagon? Show me these people
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Omerta posted:I have a related question: Why did/do car enthusiasts constantly disparage the lack of sporty wagons, then proceed to lambast and mock the CTS-V? Too sporty? Not enough wagon? Because it's not import enough. Let's be real: at least part of the wagon appeal is euro fetishism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Powershift posted:You mean this one? Oh I love the Flex, but as has been said it isn't technically a wagon in the traditional sense, but functionally it certainly is (definitely moreso than the CTS-V wagon). If I had more cash I'd trade my Roadmaster for an Ecoboost Flex tomorrow. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Let's examine the typical demographic of wagon/minivan/CUV/SUV/people-mover buyers: Makes sense for minivans but most sales in the big vehicles segment don't have sliders so that's kind of out as an argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
QUOTE /= EDIT
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Let's examine the typical demographic of wagon/minivan/CUV/SUV/people-mover buyers: There's room for lots of cars in between sports cars and minivans. You're describing a minivan, which I've specifically excluded when talking about wagons because you really can't beat them for doing minivan stuff. I'm talking about those weird in-between CUVs that tend to be tall and bulky but often end up cramped inside anyway. Even the major manufacturers seem to be moving away from minivans lately - it's getting hard to find sliding doors on anything except for giant expensive minivans, cargo vans, and the occasional import people mover that somehow wanders onto the US market. Which is a shame because they really are better than regular doors in a lot of ways. sanchez posted:Fortunately the average US highway is very straight with a 65mph speed limit, handling does not matter much let alone how the car responds at 100+mph A new Tahoe starts at $38k and gets 17 mpg. Ditto the Expedition. I'm sure they're perfectly nice to cruise on the highway but it's also forty-thousand dollars worth of truck. A cheaper pickup will often be pretty noisy at speed, unsettled if you have to make any maneuvers (keep in mind that in some areas speed limits hit 80 mpg), and also get pretty bad mileage compared to a regular car of equivalent size or price. I mean, of course an expensive and/or heavy car will cruise well on the highway. The problem is that you have to pay for it. Most people don't drive Tahoes or Expeditions for a reason. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Makes sense for minivans but most sales in the big vehicles segment don't have sliders so that's kind of out as an argument. is it too late to edit out the sliding doors part?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Let's examine the typical demographic of wagon/minivan/CUV/SUV/people-mover buyers: That said though, I knocked my mrs up and I'm making the purchasing decision. Currently looking at getting a s/h mazda6/ford mondeo wagon, or a volvo v50 or v70, or a subaru liberty/legacy wagon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
I'm curious now: where could I find a list of stuff like h-point measurements for various car models?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:True, the only good reason I have heard for SUVs as a family car is the argument it's easier to load a kid into a child seat when you are not bending over doing it. Yeah but then you might as well get a minivan. Although it looks like you're in, what, Australia or something? No idea what they sell there. Do you guys have the Mazda 5? I always had a soft spot for those things. Or whatever that weirdo wagon thingy you guys have is - the Territory, is it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:There's room for lots of cars in between sports cars and minivans. You're describing a minivan, which I've specifically excluded when talking about wagons because you really can't beat them for doing minivan stuff. I'm talking about those weird in-between CUVs that tend to be tall and bulky but often end up cramped inside anyway. Even the major manufacturers seem to be moving away from minivans lately - it's getting hard to find sliding doors on anything except for giant expensive minivans, cargo vans, and the occasional import people mover that somehow wanders onto the US market. Which is a shame because they really are better than regular doors in a lot of ways. Yeah, there is lots of room. But filling it is better cars than wagons for moving people, and better cars for everything else than wagons. Wagons exist for people who like the look of wagons, or who have a personal aversion to people-movers (I include everything from Range Rovers and X6es to Mazda5s and Ford Kugas etc. in this category) but still need to move people and their stuff around. Turns out that's not a huge amount of car buyers. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:If you want a sedan, you buy a sedan. You don't buy the wagon because it's not a sedan. I did exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Yeah but then you might as well get a minivan. Although it looks like you're in, what, Australia or something? No idea what they sell there. Do you guys have the Mazda 5? I always had a soft spot for those things. Or whatever that weirdo wagon thingy you guys have is - the Territory, is it? No mazda 5 here. The only minivans or "people movers" we have in Australia is Chrysler Voyager, Kia Carnival, or the Honda Odyssey thing that comes close. Edit: And the toyota tarago. Nothing available in that market from ford or mazda. And I think something huge like a SUV Territory would be overkill for one kid passenger. Most other vans sold here are just for commercial purposes to carry cargo. Edit: The fact that SUVs became the fashionable choice for a family car didn't just kill off the wagon market here, it killed off the people mover/minivan market as well. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Don't worry, $5+/gallon gas will help America get over whatever style they thought they attained with SUVs. Speaking of the CTS wagon, I read today that Cadillac is going to keep the CTS as a 4 door and call the sportwagon and the coupe something else, which makes sense to me I guess. Also remember last page when I said I wished Jaguar had a low-end division and made a less stylish sportbrake that was cheaper? It just occurred to me that'd be the easiest thing in the world for GM to do. So gently caress you GM for not doing it. davebo fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Yeah, there is lots of room. But filling it is better cars than wagons for moving people, and better cars for everything else than wagons. Wagons exist for people who like the look of wagons, or who have a personal aversion to people-movers What is the advantage of, say, a Mazda 6 or Honda Accord sedan over the wagon version? As I see it aside from marginal weight and purchase price penalties the wagons are better cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
dissss posted:What is the advantage of, say, a Mazda 6 or Honda Accord sedan over the wagon version? Aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Aesthetics. Debatable. Personally I think the wagons of both the models mentioned look better (in Mazdas case there is a hatch too which is also very good looking). Then again I'm in a country where wagons are still fairly common so it may be what you're familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
dissss posted:Debatable. I'm not taking an objective position. But I think it's reasonable, given prevailing cultural trends, that people are willing to spend +/- a couple thousand and sacrifice utility to get a car that they like to look at. It's similar to the 2 vs 4 door debate (in models where the major difference is door number).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Like it or not almost all car buying is dictated by what people like to look at. Maybe they narrow the field with "needs to carry 2 adults, 2 kids & a dog" but from what remains most differences are in looks to the average buyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Like it or not almost all car buying is dictated by what people like to look at. I don't think it's that extreme. Otherwise, visual design would be front and center in car advertising; we would never hear what mpg a car gets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I don't think it's that extreme. Otherwise, visual design would be front and center in car advertising; we would never hear what mpg a car gets. Most people have no idea what mpg a car gets, or any of its other tech specs. Visual design really is front and center in advertising, and it's that way because that's how people buy cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Most people have no idea what mpg a car gets, or any of its other tech specs. Visual design really is front and center in advertising, and it's that way because that's how people buy cars. Which is why the Camry and F150 are top sellers, right? I don't see any reason to believe that visual design is why people buy one car over another. Cream_Filling posted:A new Tahoe starts at $38k and gets 17 mpg. Ditto the Expedition. I'm sure they're perfectly nice to cruise on the highway but it's also forty-thousand dollars worth of truck. A cheaper pickup will often be pretty noisy at speed, unsettled if you have to make any maneuvers (keep in mind that in some areas speed limits hit 80 mpg), and also get pretty bad mileage compared to a regular car of equivalent size or price. I mean, of course an expensive and/or heavy car will cruise well on the highway. The problem is that you have to pay for it. Most people don't drive Tahoes or Expeditions for a reason. I have a hard time believing that you've even stepped inside a modern CUV. My argument that most buyers who want to do wagon-y things will like a CUV/SUV/Van even better was not made with the Tahoe in mind. It was instead made with the CR-V and Rav 4 in mind. These vehicles provide an excellent view of the road, are easy to enter and exit and have excellent cargo room in both width and depth. They are not sporty, but they're far from unsafe. They're not going to flip just because you took a corner a little too hot. Again, this is not the 1990s. And so far as ride quality goes, again, they're as good or superior to wagons. And why wouldn't they be? These are slightly beefed up cars with increased suspension travel and (often) AWD. The CR-V and Rav 4 are among the most serene cars you can buy starting at under 25 grand. That's why they're so boring. Tragic Otter fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Which is why the Camry and F150 are top sellers, right? Yes. Why, you think the Camry is a horribly ugly car? Line the Camry up with the generation-before-the-last-gen Malibu, Pontiac G6 or Chrysler Sebring and tell me which one you'd rather look at every day. Incumbency is the other primary reason why people buy cars and both it and the F150 have that working in their favour too. Styling (both interior and exterior) and incumbency in markets outside the US are basically the reasons why VAG is the biggest car maker in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:And so far as ride quality goes, again, they're as good or superior to wagons. And why wouldn't they be? These are slightly beefed up cars with increased suspension travel and (often) AWD. The CR-V and Rav 4 are among the most serene cars you can buy starting at under 25 grand. That's why they're so boring. Sloppy suspension and good ride quality are not the same thing. An Accord wagon (or international Odyssey) rides and handles miles better than a CRV (admittedly the Accord is a more expensive vehicle). Likewise an Avensis is way ahead of a Rav 4. Throatwarbler posted:Styling (both interior and exterior) and incumbency in markets outside the US are basically the reasons why VAG is the biggest car maker in the world. I don't think that's true either - more people buy a Polo or Golf for the combination of cheap prices and (outside of North America) class leading fuel economy. dissss fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
dissss posted:I don't think that's true either - more people buy a Polo or Golf for the combination of cheap prices and (outside of North America) class leading fuel economy. Lets say person F is buying a car, their requirements basically point them to a c-segment hatchback. Lets say the population of that segment is the Golf, Astra, Focus & Auris, all with a comparable engine & spec, probably with a price range of £18-19k. As long as each of those cars meets the initial requirements it pretty much comes down to looks/desirability. In a lot of cases I know people have started with the car they want (made desirable through advertising that focuses on exterior looks) them worked backwards to justify it. In the case of the f150 this applies less - the first requirement is 'pickup truck', after that most buyers are not your average advertising-led joe but more likely fleet buyers. In my experience, no one sits down & wires a spreadsheet of economy/price/equipment etc, they end up with a shortlist that meets their requirements then look at the cars, maybe sit in them, then make a decision. This ignores people who only ever buy a certain marque out of misplaced loyalty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
dissss posted:What is the advantage of, say, a Mazda 6 or Honda Accord sedan over the wagon version? More secure trunk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:
I've constructed spreadsheets of economy/price/equipment multiple times, actually as recently as last week (for my father, who's getting an SHO).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
As an AI poster, you're already not anywhere near the average customer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 13:34
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:I have a hard time believing that you've even stepped inside a modern CUV. My argument that most buyers who want to do wagon-y things will like a CUV/SUV/Van even better was not made with the Tahoe in mind. It was instead made with the CR-V and Rav 4 in mind. And that's without getting into really nice crossovers like the Murano, which has the same engine as the G35, the smoothest-shifting transmission on the market, great visibility, and is at a height that makes it easy to get in and out of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:And that's without getting into really nice crossovers like the Murano, which has the same engine as the G35, the smoothest-shifting transmission on the market, great visibility, and is at a height that makes it easy to get in and out of. Except the Murano looks like a jellybean with a weird grill. Also, this got leaked today:  Someone over at Mercedes really likes Hyundai's recent moves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
What Kooney jr said. Most of the things in my post don't apply to me or most of my family but that doesn't invalidate them, I've been privy to a lot of the buying decisions friends & workmates have made & the overwhelming majority have followed my post, not my advice. Case in point, fella where I work just bought a car. He travels ~20,000 miles a year minimum, economy is important, as is reliability. I recommended a prius or diesel wagon, he dismissed the prius outright because of how it looks (didn't want to be labeled a prius driver) He wouldn't consider a bluemotion passat because the passat looks dull. Volvos are cars for old men (i own a volvo & he's twice my age lol) & bought a mazda 6. Nothing wrong with that, decent car, adequate diesel engine, but he outright dismissed cars that would objectively be better suited to his circumstances because of looks. Not an isolated case either, I seem to be the man people come to for advice to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Makes sense for minivans but most sales in the big vehicles segment don't have sliders so that's kind of out as an argument. Why would not having a slider eliminate the (obvious to me) benefits of a higher vehicle? My wife absolutely hated trying to put child seats/children into child seats in a car. That's when she started taking my drat pickup until I bought her an SUV. I swallowed my pride in the name of practicality and we looked at minivans first. They all drove either like poo poo or with no personality at all, so neither of us liked them for that reason alone, which was enough. So we went SUV, and it all works out. If I were to do it again (meaning buying new), it would probably be a CUV, but they weren't available at the time so we ended up with an Explorer. Fo3 posted:True, the only good reason I have heard for SUVs as a family car is the argument it's easier to load a kid into a child seat when you are not bending over doing it. A million times this. And if you don't like minivans, SUV/CUVs (when not stupidly designed to be too cramped inside) fit the bill quite well. Especially for primarily around town cruising/grocery getting where the poor mileage doesn't dig into your pocket so much. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:As an AI poster, you're already not anywhere near the average customer. So yeah, this is true of everyone in the discussion therefore making most of my and other people's observations much more informed, calculated and logical than the market as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Some recent article about the plans for CTS wagons posted:In the U.S., luxury wagons attract some of the most affluent car shoppers in any segment. Probably an offshoot of the euro-fetishism that was mentioned earlier, but still interesting...
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Motronic posted:Why would not having a slider eliminate the (obvious to me) benefits of a higher vehicle? My wife absolutely hated trying to put child seats/children into child seats in a car. That's when she started taking my drat pickup until I bought her an SUV. I swallowed my pride in the name of practicality and we looked at minivans first. They all drove either like poo poo or with no personality at all, so neither of us liked them for that reason alone, which was enough. So we went SUV, and it all works out. It doesn't eliminate the benefits, it just was listed as a benefit to larger vehicles when in fact most larger vehicles don't have them. If I had a kid or whatever I have no idea what I'd drive. Probably just let wife get whatever she wanted for kid duties even though that's horribly reactionary and unfair. Maybe a TDI Sportwagen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:15
|
|