|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:Probably an offshoot of the euro-fetishism that was mentioned earlier, but still interesting... You have to consider the number of luxury wagon sales. It's such a tiny market that it is dominated by people who want Exactly That and are willing to pay out the nose for it. Probably also dominated by less flashy spenders who also tend to be quite affluent.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Thwomp posted:Except the Murano looks like a jellybean with a weird grill. And luxury crossovers like the M-klasse and Cayenne look like larval Caravans. It's not my æsthetic, I thankfully wasn't forced to buy one, and my parents both drive wagon-like Toyotas (a Matrix and a Prius).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
I kind of like the GLK does that make me a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I kind of like the GLK does that make me a bad person. Let me see… [✓] not a miata [✓] SUV that isn't a Wrangler or '80s Grand Cherokee [✓] out of the average goon's budget Probably.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I kind of like the GLK does that make me a bad person. It's a little expensive for what you get in my opinion, but it seems like a decent little SUV. The G-class is also pretty cool, and although I wasn't a fan at first, I have to confess I've grown to like my Dad's GL-class diesel. It's huge, comfortable, handles well for a giant-rear end SUV, and gets roughly the same fuel economy as my car. It can fit 7 people and/or huge amounts of cargo in it, too, which is main reason he bought it in preference to a car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I kind of like the GLK does that make me a bad person. The interior on those are garbage. I'm really not someone who spends a lot of time feeling up the interior of cars (also coincidentally a Chrysler afficianado) but the GLK was like sitting in a Rubbermaid container with some lovely silver plastic thrown around. It *was* pretty roomy though, bigger than it looks from the outside. If I made the same kind of lovely lifestyle choices as you and had to pick a car of that segment I'd probably take the Infiniti EX, but I'm pretty sure you can get a lower spec Grand Cherokee or Durango for that price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Cakefool posted: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. He wanted reliable and Volkswagon/Volvos were some of your recommendations? oh boy. At least the Prius was a decent pick, but I can understand not wanting to drive that considering that it's become as much a symbol as a car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
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. The Nissan Murano has a starting price of $30,000 (with top trims going up to $40k) and Nissan puts the VQ in everything, so I wouldn't really call that a major plus. You can get the same engine in a Nissan Quest for less money. Hell, the Nissan Quest, a bigger minivan with 3 rows and sliding doors, gets better EPA mileage on both city and highway than the Murano. The only reason to get a Murano instead of the Quest is looks, and even then that's debatable because the Murano really is rather ugly. Also, I'm sure CVTs are perfectly fine but plenty of people hate them. Finally, I don't know if "you can see out the back" is really a plus factor so much as a basic design feature that gets ignored when designing CUVs. Visibility's pretty great in most cars and wagons, too. The only reason to get the Murano is if you have some sort of rare skin disease that needs constant exposure to fresh air and sun and need a convertible yet also need a high ride height because judgmental non-mutants force you to live away from paved roads. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:He wanted reliable and Volkswagon/Volvos were some of your recommendations? oh boy. Yeah the Prius V sounds like it's a pretty good Prius wagon. If I needed a family car, it would be on my list. Otherwise, I don't know what they offer out there in his area. In the US, obviously, the only diesel available is VW. I've also idly thought about a Transit Connect passenger version with hose-out interior, but that's more out of curiosity and novelty because those things seem really roomy. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The interior on those are garbage. I'm really not someone who spends a lot of time feeling up the interior of cars (also coincidentally a Chrysler afficianado) but the GLK was like sitting in a Rubbermaid container with some lovely silver plastic thrown around. It *was* pretty roomy though, bigger than it looks from the outside. Are you an insane person? I am single with no kids and drive a 1-series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Pff why buy a GLK when you can buy a G-Class? The GLK has pretty cool styling but it is seriously kind of small and not super practical. If I had to haul kids around, I would get something that I'm ok with apple juice and worse being flung all around inside and get a nicer car later once they've learned how to control their bodily functions. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Not sure if it was just not clear or what, but I was really only talking about styling wise because someone said all CUVs look like blobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The Nissan Murano has a starting price of $30,000 (with top trims going up to $40k) and Nissan puts the VQ in everything, so I wouldn't really call that a major plus. You can get the same engine in a Nissan Quest for less money. Hell, the Nissan Quest, a bigger minivan with 3 rows and sliding doors, gets better EPA mileage on both city and highway than the Murano. The only reason to get a Murano instead of the Quest is looks, and even then that's debatable because the Murano really is rather ugly. Also, I'm sure CVTs are perfectly fine but plenty of people hate them. Finally, I don't know if "you can see out the back" is really a plus factor so much as a basic design feature that gets ignored when designing CUVs. Visibility's pretty great in most cars and wagons, too. I wasn't talking about the crosscab (in fact, nobody talks about the crosscab; I've only ever seen one in real life), but the popular four-door. Yes, it's less practical than a minivan, but lots of people don't want minivans. That is why CUVs are popular. quote:judgmental non-mutants force you to live away from paved roads
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Not sure if it was just not clear or what, but I was really only talking about styling wise because someone said all CUVs look like blobs. Yeah, the GLK is definitely a pretty good-looking CUV. The weird thing is that even really angular crossovers like the Cadillac SRX look kind of blobby to me. I think it's more a function of fundamental proportions where super tall roof + short hood + rounded sorta-hatchback rear ends make them look like chubby little blobs. The ugly bulbous styling found on most modern cars generally, as well as the fattening body cladding found on most CUVs only makes this worse, of course. There's a reason the Ford Escape was a bestseller other than just price - it also looked more upright and less lame than its competitors. The GLK basically also looks more like a tall wagon, similar to the previous-gen Forester or even the Escape. Then again, I think the new Escape is inferior in exterior styling to the previous one. Given the massive volume done by the Escape anyway, I feel like they should have brought that over separately as the Ford Kuga or something, since it goes 100% blobby CUV instead of the mini-SUV look of the Escape, and modernized the Escape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I wasn't talking about the crosscab (in fact, nobody talks about the crosscab; I've only ever seen one in real life), but the popular four-door. Yes, it's less practical than a minivan, but lots of people don't want minivans. That is why CUVs are popular. I was joking about the crosscabriolet because, honestly, that car is a joke. But at the same time, the Murano is super-duper expensive, very ugly, and inferior in every way to a minivan, so I think it's relevant when discussing the merits of crossovers as a concept. Crossovers are supposed to be for people who want a car that looks better than a big minivan or SUV, drives better than a big minivan or SUV, and gets better mileage than a big minivan or SUV. Except, usually, crossovers end up looking sort of lame and get bad mileage anyway while also being smaller and more expensive. I just thought it was weird you brought up the Murano as a shining example of CUVs done right when it sells pretty poorly, is expensive, looks bad, and it gets beat on every practical and economic measure by a minivan made by the same company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
I saw a crosscab in real life on the beltway last summer and it wasn't even a Nissan field rep's car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I saw a crosscab in real life on the beltway last summer and it wasn't even a Nissan field rep's car. Just imagine. That car has an MSRP of $47,000. Even assuming that it sold for less than that, someone still actually decided that they'd rather drive a convertible Nissan Murano than an optioned out BMW 3-series convertible, base-model Z4 roadster, or Audi A5 convertible. There must be more to that story than meets the eye because otherwise daaaaamn what the fuuuuck. I mean like seriously giving those things away. Pics:  Audi A5 Convertible, Base MSRP $42,600 VS.  Murano CrossCabriolet, Invoice Price $42,710 and MSRP $46,390 OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Which is why the Camry and F150 are top sellers, right? Ask an average woman what she thinks about the looks of an F150. She will tell you that it looks very masculine. That right there is why so many guys buy them (those that don't need them for work, that is). Plus, the F150 can be pretty good looking with the right options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Just imagine. That car has an MSRP of $47,000. Even assuming that it sold for less than that, someone still actually decided that they'd rather drive a convertible Nissan Murano than an optioned out BMW 3-series convertible, base-model Z4 roadster, or Audi A5 convertible. I think the Murano looks a lot nicer than that Generic Boringvertible
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Faerunner posted:I think the Murano looks a lot nicer than that Generic Boringvertible This is a boringvertible:  And it still drives better than that Murano. Even if you don't think the Audi looks better (totally subjective, so I get it), all it takes is driving one to understand WHY it is better. In fact, simply sitting one without driving it would make the difference very evident unless you're really into rubbermaid and ikea quality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
I don't know man, nothing can be worse than those twin turds Sebring and Avenger. EDIT: I didn't think that out all the way. The Sebring/200 is probably the worst convertible you can buy new in the US right now. Comparing the Sebring/200 to the Murano is a disservice to the Murano. BabyMauler fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:I don't know man, nothing can be worse than those twin turds Sebring and Avenger. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:I don't know man, nothing can be worse than those twin turds Sebring and Avenger. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:I don't know man, nothing can be worse than those twin turds Sebring and Avenger. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
I kind of wanted to quote Bob Lutz on some of the discussion about how vehicle design trumps everything since that's what he believed, but then I've never actually read his book, so I'm reading it now. I'm about half way through and it's hilarious. When he first got to GM he was completely  at how awful literally everything in the GM product pipeline was and regretted that he couldn't just cancel/kill every single non-BOF-truck-SUV they made. Senior designers and engineers were taking health related leave because the vehicles they had to approve made them physically ill.Obama really should have wound GM down and just given all the parts/workers/plants to Ford and Chrysler. The Republicans are going to call him a socialist/Stalin anyway.  EDIT: Choice quote. quote:The Cadillac STS was another disaster in the making. With a steep windshield and a very flat roof, it exuded all the charm of a brick. I asked why the roof was so wide and flat, and the VLE explained that it was so we could reuse the sunroof from the prior model. (Remember: VLEs had “parts reuse” targets in those pesky PMPs!) I commented that it seemed silly to ruin the appearance of the vehicle just to save a sunroof and suggested that if reuse were the goal, they should take the one from the smaller CTS instead. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
I don't believe what you guys are saying about design being so important. I mean, GM sold more than zero Aztecs, explain that.Throatwarbler posted:
Honestly, I think GM's just too big. I would have loved to see it broken down into three or four smaller companies. Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac and Chevy each as an independant, competing manufacturer. Though I don't know how well they would have been able to compete against Ford and Chrysler. In my mind, American car companies should have never been allowed to merge together and congeal into three cancerous masses. I think back in the twenties or thirties there were forty or more separate car companies in America. I'd like to see a return to that - competition should drive innovation, their spread would be such that a single city wouldn't be slave to the marketplace's undulations, and the consumer would have a huge variety of options to 'buy American' rather than one or two that are actually built in Mexico. Of course, the benefits that come with such large scale mass production would probably go away, and if not restrained the Japanese/European car companies would certainly take huge advantage of that... dammit anyway, it sounded like a good idea at first. CornHolio fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:I don't believe what you guys are saying about design being so important. I mean, GM sold more than zero Aztecs, explain that. On Design: as it has been said previously in this thread, AI posters are not the average car buying public. People buy cars for a lot of reasons and not all decisions are based after rigorously researching cars. The average car decision making process goes size/cost->looks->handling/driving quality. Why does the Camry sell more than other nameplates? It's offered at a reasonable price, a reasonable size, doesn't look like poo poo (debate-able), and offers boring but predictable drive quality. Some decisions are made on the sole recommendation of Consumer Reports or MotorTrend. Why does stuff like the Aztec or Sebring sell(or Mitsubishis, or Aveos, or whatever poo poo car is on the lot)? Incentives, special offers, and non-picky customers. And you pretty much answered your question on the big vs small automakers. Economies of scale bringing down costs, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 14:46
|
|
on big vs small automakers
|
CornHolio posted:I don't believe what you guys are saying about design being so important. I mean, GM sold more than zero Aztecs, explain that. There is no way 40 domestic auto companies could compete with massive overseas companies. Bigger companies are generally more profitable than their smaller counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
It also requires an absolutely tremendous amount of resources to support an automaker, which is why the industry consolidated in the way that it did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Ward's Automotive Names the 10 Best Car Interiors in the 2012 Class (alphabetically) Audi A7  Chrysler C300 Luxury  Dodge Dart  Chevrolet Sonic  Hyundai Accent  Hyundai Azera  Mazda CX-5  Infiniti JX35  Range Rover Evoque (Job well done Mrs Beckham)  New Beetle  http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/04/ward-automotive-names-10-best-car.html I like the Audi and the Infinity the best but also props to Hyundai for stepping their game up. The VW IMO is 
Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
That's a really unflattering photo of the Beetle interior. It's pretty good in person. Also supplemental gauge cluster woo yeah (which isn't on that one).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
Faerunner posted:I think the Murano looks a lot nicer than that Generic Boringvertible You're crazy. If you've actually seen one in real life, I doubt you'd call the A5 boring except in the sense that it has four wheels instead of five or something. Or else you're one of those people who bought the Aztek because it was "different." Alternatively, there's the Z4, which I didn't use as a direct comparator because it's slightly more expensive and only seats two.  Seat Safety Switch posted:We have a winner! I can't even begin to imagine how floppy that chassis is once the roof is cut off. I bet it pops off interior panels when you go over potholes. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:Ward's Automotive Names the 10 Best Car Interiors in the 2012 Class What are you talking about? The VW and the Mazda have the cleanest interiors there. I sat in a new New Beetle recently, and the interior really was pretty darn good. I'm kind of sick of bit swoopy curves that take up lots of space, and the "twin cockpits" scoop look is getting old now in my mind. They look good in photographs, but I'll take the cleaner design every time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:You're crazy. If you've actually seen one in real life, I doubt you'd call the A5 boring except in the sense that it has four wheels instead of five or something. Or else you're one of those people who bought the Aztek because it was "different." It looks like every other Audi to me. Boring. As for the Aztek, I think it was a pretty cool SUV as far as SUVs go. Though unless I could get one for REALLY cheap, I'd never even consider buying one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
The Dart interior is gorgeous. I hope it holds up in production.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:I don't believe what you guys are saying about design being so important. I mean, GM sold more than zero Aztecs, explain that. The Aztec was undeniably ugly, but it was also the wave of the future in a lot of ways. It was arguably the first modern crossover CUV and, honestly, subsequent models haven't exactly looked that much better. Also, it had a tent. It was innovative in a lot of ways. It just also looked like dogshit, but apparently the rest was good enough to overcome that deficit. CornHolio posted:Honestly, I think GM's just too big. I would have loved to see it broken down into three or four smaller companies. Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac and Chevy each as an independant, competing manufacturer. Though I don't know how well they would have been able to compete against Ford and Chrysler. No, I feel like you really could do this if you had the proper government subsidies, (highly restricted) trade policies, and antitrust enforcement to prevent too much consolidation. The American market is so big that it can more or less support itself. And, honestly, I think that it would be a good macroeconomic model to follow for basically everything, because giant monopolistic conglomerates with highly centralized capital are a threat to the health of the political system. But American politics and American economic thinking doesn't really work out like this even though a semi-monopolistic system is about as far from a "free market" as you can get, since neoliberal economics is still the dominant ideology these days. Also, fix the intellectual property system while you're at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Faerunner posted:It looks like every other Audi to me. Boring. Again, have you actually seen one in real life? The A5 is definitely the least boring of any Audi in terms of design and styling (other than the R8). It doesn't have lots of chrome and fender vents or stupid swoosh cutlines, but it's a well proportioned and well-detailed design that looks really good and stands out on the street pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:What are you talking about? The VW and the Mazda have the cleanest interiors there. I sat in a new New Beetle recently, and the interior really was pretty darn good. I'm kind of sick of bit swoopy curves that take up lots of space, and the "twin cockpits" scoop look is getting old now in my mind. They look good in photographs, but I'll take the cleaner design every time. I like thick center consoles. Makes me feel like I'm in a lazy boy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Again, have you actually seen one in real life? I have no idea if I've ever seen one. I see four rings and lose interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Just FYI, only interiors of cars that are new or have been substantially redesigned are eligible and the award is based on a lot of factors besides how it looks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:09
|
|