SUVs/CUVs on pace to outsell cars in the US veddy veddy soon

[12,000 RPM]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/02/suvs-and-crossovers-will-cars-in-america-but-when/

How soon before the U.S. auto industry makes the same claim? In January, as car volume plunged 9 percent and utility vehicle sales jumped 6 percent — despite an abbreviated sales month and an overall volume decrease — cars outsold utilities by just 1.1-to-1. That's down from a 1.25-to-1 gap a year ago.

Over the first half of 2015, SUV and crossover sales were expanding rapidly with average monthly market share of better than 35 percent. Since Independence Day, the average monthly market share for the sector shot up to 38 percent.

The move away from larger utility vehicles, if there is such a move, won't be back to sedans. "Fuel prices eventually will go up, but if it happens to that extent, we think people will shift to smaller SUVs, not away from SUVs completely," Ford's Mark LeNeve said in Chicago last week. Ford plans to offer plug four more holes with SUVs by 2020, and we expect at least one to be an efficient subcompact crossover, perhaps a next-gen EcoSport.

[2o6]

I think most will basically be in the B/C segments and their raised CUV counterparts. I don't see the D and E segment really re-surging; the Edge offers a more workable footprint whilst offering a similar level of (straight line) performance as the Fusion. I think they'll all still have a market (shrinking doesn't mean elimination)

[12,000 RPM]

C segment is just about where the ideal size of cars has been for a few decades. I think when fuel bounces back D/E segment everything will take a huge blow.

[RomanChariot]

Not really a surprise since anything with an inch of lift and slightly chunkier styling counts as a utility vehicle these days, even if it is only FWD.

[giant_mtb]

Not really a surprise since anything with an inch of lift and slightly chunkier styling counts as a utility vehicle these days, even if it is only FWD.

True that.

[SJ_GTI]

Not really a surprise since anything with an inch of lift and slightly chunkier styling counts as a utility vehicle these days, even if it is only FWD.

+1

A lot of the new SUV's are just econocar hatchbacks with a slight lift (and then sell for +$5000).

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Not really a surprise since anything with an inch of lift and slightly chunkier styling counts as a utility vehicle these days, even if it is only FWD.

[AutobahnSHO]

a slight lift (and then sell for +$5000).

Even Subaru is guilty of this. Kills me how the American Public gets suckered so easily.

[MX793]

Even Subaru is guilty of this. Kills me how the American Public gets suckered so easily.

Could be argued that Subaru (and AMC) was a pioneer of the segment.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I gave Accent a slight lift and nobody wanted it. Should have called it the Albuquerque?

[AutobahnSHO]

Could be argued that Subaru (and AMC) was a pioneer of the segment.

True. But they weren't passing off vehicles just for the appearance- but for the utility in being just a bit higher.

[MX793]

True. But they weren't passing off vehicles just for the appearance- but for the utility in being just a bit higher.

Did the Outback Sport really have any more utility than the Impreza wagon?

[AutobahnSHO]

Did the Outback Sport really have any more utility than the Impreza wagon?

http://www.subaruspecs.info/2005-subaru-impreza-outback-sport-base-4dr-all-wheel-drive-station-wagon/
http://www.subaruspecs.info/2005-subaru-impreza-wrx-4dr-all-wheel-drive-station-wagon/
6.3" ground clearance listed for both. I think the "outback sport" Impreza consists of just paint around the fenders, foglights, and other cosmetic treatments.

The Outback vs. Legacy though lists 5.9" vs. 8.4" ground clearance
http://www.cars101.com/subaru_comparisons.html

[Eye of the Tiger]

http://www.subaruspecs.info/2005-subaru-impreza-outback-sport-base-4dr-all-wheel-drive-station-wagon/
http://www.subaruspecs.info/2005-subaru-impreza-wrx-4dr-all-wheel-drive-station-wagon/
6.3" ground clearance listed for both. I think the "outback sport" Impreza consists of just paint around the fenders, foglights, and other cosmetic treatments.

The Outback vs. Legacy though lists 5.9" vs. 8.4" ground clearance
http://www.cars101.com/subaru_comparisons.html

8.4" is a bhutt load for a not-truck

[AutobahnSHO]

8.4" is a bhutt load for a not-truck

Original outback baby!

[12,000 RPM]

Kills me how the American Public gets suckered so easily.

Oh don't be so melodramatic. A CR-V is most definitely worth a few thousand dollars more than the Civic it's based on. Bigger engine, bigger interior, bigger trunk, more ground clearance, available AWD. "Enthusiasts" need to get off this kick that CUVs are a stupid choice- for a lot of buyers they make a lot more practical sense than similarly priced sedans or WAGONS.

[SJ_GTI]

Oh don't be so melodramatic. A CR-V is most definitely worth a few thousand dollars more than the Civic it's based on. Bigger engine, bigger interior, bigger trunk, more ground clearance, available AWD. "Enthusiasts" need to get off this kick that CUVs are a stupid choice- for a lot of buyers they make a lot more practical sense than similarly priced sedans or WAGONS.

I don't think the CRV is what people in this thread are talking about. For myself, I am thinking more along the lines of the new Mazda CX-3 (smaller and less practical than the Mazda 3 hatch because it is based on the Mazda 2, but more expensive than both). The Honda equivalent would be the HRV versus the Fit (there is not Civic hatchback IIRC)..

[AutobahnSHO]

Oh don't be so melodramatic. A CR-V is most definitely worth a few thousand dollars more than the Civic it's based on. Bigger engine, bigger interior, bigger trunk, more ground clearance, available AWD. "Enthusiasts" need to get off this kick that CUVs are a stupid choice- for a lot of buyers they make a lot more practical sense than similarly priced sedans or WAGONS.

Oh don't be so melodramatic.  I didn't say anything to elicit such an argument from you.

MANY CUVs are simply taller small cars, over-priced.

[12,000 RPM]

I don't think the CRV is what people in this thread are talking about. For myself, I am thinking more along the lines of the new Mazda CX-3 (smaller and less practical than the Mazda 3 hatch because it is based on the Mazda 2, but more expensive than both). The Honda equivalent would be the HRV versus the Fit (there is not Civic hatchback IIRC)..

Well, in the article they are talking about the whole spectrum of cars and CUVs, not just the specific ones that are worse than their car counterparts. I see the subcompact CUV class either dying or improving significantly next go round. Buick Encore is in that class and seems to be doing well. But the CUVs in the next class up work very well for a wide range of people. Better than sedans for sure.

Oh don't be so melodramatic.  I didn't say anything to elicit such an argument from you.

MANY CUVs are simply taller small cars, over-priced.

Again, no. They are bigger, more powerful, easier to get in and out of with a better view of the road and more cargo capacity. With most CUVs you get what you pay for. Even if they made more station wagons you still have the issue of the low hip point, less leg room, smaller cargo opening and bigger footprint. It's no melodrama- you are wrong, I am just explaining why

If the American public is getting "suckered" for CUVs explain how a Civic or Accord is a better choice than a CR-V for a young family or older person.

[Morris Minor]

The view from the Official CarSPIN 59-year-old.

Hip height in a vehicle gets more & more important as you get older. If you keep your weight down & do lunges at least once a week, you will stave off the day of reckoning, but it will come: the crackling knee joint & the twinge of pain as you try to lever your way up & out of the low-slung sedan. Also, the hatch is useful, the load space, & the flexibility of the layout. I can totally see why CUVs are popular Certainly not an enthusiast's choice unless you choose very carefully, but the good outweighs the bad.

[12,000 RPM]

Hell, going from the Z to the Civic made for noticeably ingress/egress, and I do loaded barbell squats twice a week. Wifey's Rabbit has shown me the benefit of a bigger cargo opening and cargo space with better geometry. I question the analytical skills of someone who doesn't see the practical benefits of CUVs over sedans/coupes/wagons/hatchbacks for the average person, especially as the median demographics of the US gets older.

[MrH]

Honestly, I don't see myself owning a sedan again.  After owning an SUV for a bit, the utility difference is huge. 

SUV + convertible is the perfect two car garage.  For daily driving, utility trumps handling dynamics.

[12,000 RPM]

Comfort too, though I'm not sure SUVs ride any better than the cars they are based on. More suspension travel and tire squish but more unsprung weight too.

[MrH]

I'm not sure the unsprung weights are all that substantially different.  There's a much bigger difference in sprung weight, in which case a heavier vehicle will typically ride better.

[Cookie Monster]

I'm not sure the unsprung weights are all that substantially different.  There's a much bigger difference in sprung weight, in which case a heavier vehicle will typically ride better.

Bigger wheels, higher profile tires, bigger brakes/hubs/etc?

I like CUV's. They ride fairly car-like while having good ground clearance (good as a snow vehicle), decent on gas and not an ass park. I just wish we had more manual transmission AWD CUV options.

[Madman]

I have resigned myself to the fact I will probably one day have to buy a CUV simply because station wagons have nearly disappeared from the North American marketplace.

Conspiracy theory time!   I have often wondered if the reason Honda and Toyota have made the last several iterations of the Civic and Corolla so underwhelming was because they would rather the buying public spend thousands more on the CR-V and RAV4?

[ifcar]

I have resigned myself to the fact I will probably one day have to buy a CUV simply because station wagons have nearly disappeared from the North American marketplace.

Conspiracy theory time!   I have often wondered if the reason Honda and Toyota have made the last several iterations of the Civic and Corolla so underwhelming was because they would rather the buying public spend thousands more on the CR-V and RAV4?

Even though they're based on compact cars, I'd see the CR-V and RAV4 as something that you'd buy over a midsize sedan, not a compact one. They're closer in terms of price, utility, fuel economy, and luxury.

Besides, Honda went all-out with the latest Civic even if you don't like the looks, and the latest Corolla was a big improvement also.

[2o6]

Also the last Corolla and Civic have never been bad. Wtf is madman taking about

[ifcar]

Also the last Corolla and Civic have never been bad. Wtf is madman taking about

I think it's fair to say that the 2009 Corolla and 2012 Civic were half-assed redesigns, though Honda did move quickly to fix things.

[12,000 RPM]

They still sold like gangbusters.... which is more than can be said about station wagons