http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/02/suvs-and-crossovers-will-cars-in-america-but-when/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/02/suvs-and-crossovers-will-cars-in-america-but-when/)
QuoteHow 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.
QuoteOver 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.
QuoteThe 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.
:popcorn:
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)
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.
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.
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 16, 2016, 12:31:59 PM
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.
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 16, 2016, 12:31:59 PM
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).
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 16, 2016, 12:31:59 PM
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.
:golfclap:
Quote from: SJ_GTI on February 16, 2016, 01:38:53 PM
a slight lift (and then sell for +$5000).
Even Subaru is guilty of this. Kills me how the American Public gets suckered so easily.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 18, 2016, 08:59:16 AM
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.
I gave Accent a slight lift and nobody wanted it. Should have called it the Albuquerque?
Quote from: MX793 on February 18, 2016, 09:09:49 AM
Could be argued that Subaru (and AMC) was a pioneer of the segment.
:hmm:
True. But they weren't passing off vehicles just for the appearance- but for the utility in being just a bit higher.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 18, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
:hmm:
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?
Quote from: MX793 on February 18, 2016, 09:56:04 AM
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-outback-sport-base-4dr-all-wheel-drive-station-wagon/)
http://www.subaruspecs.info/2005-subaru-impreza-wrx-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 (http://www.cars101.com/subaru_comparisons.html)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 18, 2016, 10:23:14 AM
http://www.subaruspecs.info/2005-subaru-impreza-outback-sport-base-4dr-all-wheel-drive-station-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/ (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 (http://www.cars101.com/subaru_comparisons.html)
8.4" is a bhutt load for a not-truck
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 18, 2016, 08:59:16 AM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 18, 2016, 11:18:02 AM
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)..
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 18, 2016, 11:18:02 AM
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.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on February 18, 2016, 11:28:30 AM
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.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 18, 2016, 12:17:02 PM
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 :huh:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: MrH on February 18, 2016, 04:27:46 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Madman on February 18, 2016, 05:31:22 PM
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.
Also the last Corolla and Civic have never been bad. Wtf is madman taking about
Quote from: 2o6 on February 18, 2016, 05:42:20 PM
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.
They still sold like gangbusters.... which is more than can be said about station wagons :lol:
They're not undrivable like Madman insuinated.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 18, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
They're not undrivable like Madman insuinated.
He just said underwhelming -- a fair and tempered critique, I'd say. Those weren't cars that Honda or Toyota went all-out on, and I think both automakers would agree. Heck, Honda did so publicly by significantly updating the Civic in both 2013 and 2014.
Quote from: MrH on February 18, 2016, 02:59:43 PM
SUV + convertible is the perfect two car garage. For daily driving, utility trumps handling dynamics.
Yup......
Quote from: MrH on February 18, 2016, 02:59:43 PM
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.
Not sure I could do it. Definitely an SUV in a three car garage, but I'm on the fence about it in the two. I definitely wouldn't want to drive an SUV everyday.
My perfect garage would have a pickup, an SUV, a sport sedan, a coupe, and a convertible.
I would be good with a 6 manual transmission cylinder sedan for the daily grind, a quick CUV for my wife, a street bike and a track bike. Maybe an old minivan for moving shit.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 04:41:37 AM
I would be good with a 6 manual transmission cylinder sedan for the daily grind, a quick CUV for my wife, a street bike and a track bike. Maybe an old minivan for moving shit.
DUDE, I'd love a 6 manual transmission cylinder sedan, but you lost me at old minivan. You mean a turbo 4 Chrysler old, or Mercury Villager Nautica® Edition old?
When I said suckered I meant the price. Just like pickup prices are insane (because demand is HIGH), the prices if many CUVs are artificially higher than the makers charge for similar sedans/ hatches.
NOT suckered into buying them. My choice right now would be a forester/ outback/ crosstrek over an impreza or legacy, even in hatch form. Because of entrance height.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2016, 06:07:17 AM
When I said suckered I meant the price. Just like pickup prices are insane (because demand is HIGH), the prices if many CUVs are artificially higher than the makers charge for similar sedans/ hatches.
They aren't though. A CR-V is cross shopped against an Accord, not a Civic, and is within a couple hundred bucks similarly equipped. Mainstream CUVs are commodities with a ton of competition, unlike pickup trucks, so there's no room to gouge.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 18, 2016, 10:29:00 PM
My perfect garage would have a pickup, an SUV, a sport sedan, a coupe, and a convertible.
Z4M Roadster, Evo X, Range Rover Sport.
I'd be pretty damn happy with that, I think.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 07:19:37 AM
They aren't though. A CR-V is cross shopped against an Accord, not a Civic, and is within a couple hundred bucks similarly equipped.
Umm,
http://shop.honda.com/cr-v.aspx (http://shop.honda.com/cr-v.aspx) "starts at $23,475"
http://shop.honda.com/accord-sedan.aspx?Group=accords (http://shop.honda.com/accord-sedan.aspx?Group=accords) "starts at $22,205"
Not about to compare features, it's totally possible the CRV has more features in the lowest trim.
However Subaru is a better example- same engine between Impreza and Crosstrek, one is higher and fancier, basically the same size vehicle.
Impreza hatch starts at $18,795. Crosstrek starts at $21,595. Significant different for a little different style.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2016, 10:45:17 AM
Umm,
http://shop.honda.com/cr-v.aspx (http://shop.honda.com/cr-v.aspx) "starts at $23,475"
http://shop.honda.com/accord-sedan.aspx?Group=accords (http://shop.honda.com/accord-sedan.aspx?Group=accords) "starts at $22,205"
Not about to compare features, it's totally possible the CRV has more features in the lowest trim.
However Subaru is a better example- same engine between Impreza and Crosstrek, one is higher and fancier, basically the same size vehicle.
Impreza hatch starts at $18,795. Crosstrek starts at $21,595. Significant different for a little different style.
Here is a more direct apples to apples comparison.... EX-L Accord vs CR-V, CR-V costs a whopping $1300 more out of almost $30K, with equipment matched as close as possible:
http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/price-108-2016/vs-CR-V-110-2016&body_1=2&pt_1=128&body_2=14&pt_2=141&price_feature=3&personal_feature= (http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/price-108-2016/vs-CR-V-110-2016&body_1=2&pt_1=128&body_2=14&pt_2=141&price_feature=3&personal_feature=)
Now how much more, after inflation, did a Honda Accord station wagon cost than a same model/year sedan? $1300-2700...
http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/1997/snapshot (http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/1997/snapshot)
...and that was with nowhere near the added utility or benefits the CR-V has over the Accord besides more cargo room.
CUVs are not a rip off. If anything, the station wagons people stopped buying 20 yrs ago, well before CUVs were even a thing, are the ripoff. That XV Outback is the exception, not the rule.
LOL how much more do Mazda tall cars cost than wagons?? LOLOLOL
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 19, 2016, 01:02:31 PM
LOL how much more do Mazda tall cars cost than wagons?? LOLOLOL
CX-5 is cheaper than the 6 equally equipped:
http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-5/price-1093-2016/vs-Mazda6-171-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=3411&body_2=4&pt_2=182&price_feature=3&personal_feature= (http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-5/price-1093-2016/vs-Mazda6-171-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=3411&body_2=4&pt_2=182&price_feature=3&personal_feature=)
CX-3 is $2000 more than the 3 equally equipped:
http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-3/price-1311-2016/vs-Mazda3-170-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=4937&body_2=4&pt_2=2368&price_feature=3&personal_feature= (http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-3/price-1311-2016/vs-Mazda3-170-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=4937&body_2=4&pt_2=2368&price_feature=3&personal_feature=)
CX-3 is universally regarded as a POS though, with no advantage over a 3 hatch besides a hair more ground clearance. CX-5 on the other hand is a much more practical ride than the 6, with more interior room and not much lost in the fun to drive factor :huh:
So no, barring a few exceptions, manufacturers are not ripping consumers off with CUVs. The contrarian hate for CUVs and love for wagons needs to die.
So basically small CUVs are a ripoff. CX3 and Crosstrek so far.
Just read an article on C&D about the new Kia Optima wagon we won't get- that and the comments are pretty hilarious. I'm all for availability of everything but I agree, SUVs in many cases make more sense than the wagon.
Lol the comments in that are pretty hilarious
"There are dozens of us wagon lovers! DOZENS!!!!"
"I think I read somewhere that the reason Kia doesn't want to bring the Optima Sportswagon to the United States because they fear it will be so popular it would actually cannibalize Sportage and Sorento sales."
Etc.
Americans just don't like wagons. Hell, OK, I wouldn't mind my Civic as a wagon. But an Accord wagon? I would have to clear out my garage. Thats another boon for CUVs. They are like a foot shorter than the sedans they compete with, which really comes in handy in dense areas.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 01:17:49 PM
CX-3 is $2000 more than the 3 equally equipped:
http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-3/price-1311-2016/vs-Mazda3-170-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=4937&body_2=4&pt_2=2368&price_feature=3&personal_feature= (http://www.truedelta.com/Mazda-CX-3/price-1311-2016/vs-Mazda3-170-2016&body_1=14&pt_1=4937&body_2=4&pt_2=2368&price_feature=3&personal_feature=)
Compare the CX3 to the Mazda2, because they're the same car. @_@
Quote from: Laconian on February 19, 2016, 02:28:13 PM
Compare the CX3 to the Mazda2, because they're the same car. @_@
The Mazda 2 isn't sold here, the CX3 has more engine.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 19, 2016, 12:49:44 PM
Here is a more direct apples to apples comparison.... EX-L Accord vs CR-V, CR-V costs a whopping $1300 more out of almost $30K, with equipment matched as close as possible:
http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/price-108-2016/vs-CR-V-110-2016&body_1=2&pt_1=128&body_2=14&pt_2=141&price_feature=3&personal_feature= (http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/price-108-2016/vs-CR-V-110-2016&body_1=2&pt_1=128&body_2=14&pt_2=141&price_feature=3&personal_feature=)
Now how much more, after inflation, did a Honda Accord station wagon cost than a same model/year sedan? $1300-2700...
http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/1997/snapshot (http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/1997/snapshot)
...and that was with nowhere near the added utility or benefits the CR-V has over the Accord besides more cargo room.
CUVs are not a rip off. If anything, the station wagons people stopped buying 20 yrs ago, well before CUVs were even a thing, are the ripoff. That XV Outback is the exception, not the rule.
I'm pretty sure the CR-V is Civic sized, not Accord sized.
EDIT: CR-V is 1" wider and 4" shorter than Civic, and 1" narrower and 14" shorter than Accord.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 19, 2016, 04:52:07 PM
I'm pretty sure the CR-V is Civic sized, not Accord sized.
EDIT: CR-V is 1" wider and 4" shorter than Civic, and 1" narrower and 14" shorter than Accord.
But if you're looking at a family car, the CR-V is equivalent in its utility to an Accord more than to a Civic. The Accord's extra length doesn't make it more useful than a CR-V.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 19, 2016, 04:52:07 PM
I'm pretty sure the CR-V is Civic sized, not Accord sized.
EDIT: CR-V is 1" wider and 4" shorter than Civic, and 1" narrower and 14" shorter than Accord.
If you look at the interior specs the Accord & CR-V are matched. CR-V is also equipped with the Accord engine. CR-V is much closer to the Accord in everything than the Civic. The platform is irrelevant.
Quote from: MrH on February 18, 2016, 02:59:43 PM
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.
True, utility matters hugely.
A hatch though, like a Golf, is about perfect. Though still nice the Golf, even in GTi and Golf-R guises, still has tell-tale econo car roots - the picnic bench back seat drives me nuts. The dealers and VW are playing the false demand/economy with Golf R availability so it's probably out. As I near 100k miles on the G37 I have my eyes on an SQ5 or if I cheap out a QX50 (which is mostly a G37 hatch).
So if SUV and convertible is the perfect two car garage, the perfect one car garage would be the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet😀
Quote from: veeman on February 20, 2016, 10:23:52 AM
So if SUV and convertible is the perfect two car garage, the perfect one car garage would be the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet😀
:nono:
Quote from: veeman on February 20, 2016, 10:23:52 AM
So if SUV and convertible is the perfect two car garage, the perfect one car garage would be the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet😀
I'd need a brushguard with extra lights, winch. But I'd rock that. :lol:
To be fair, I would go with the Murano Cross Cabriolet over the Wrangler.
This thread has officially gone to shit.
:lol:
Lessee-
Car a has good reliability, better gas mileage, but looks lame top up.
The other is not as good on-road where its used 90% of the time, sketchy reliability, but looks more "manly".....
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 20, 2016, 06:08:15 PM
To be fair, I would go with the Murano Cross Cabriolet over the Wrangler.
So, hybrids are better than turbos, and not only does the Murano convertible, a visual abortion, deserve to exist, it's better than a Wrangler? You're getting twisted, mate.
Wrangler fucking rules!
Quote from: Raza on February 20, 2016, 10:48:02 PM
So, hybrids are better than turbos, and not only does the Murano convertible, a visual abortion, deserve to exist, it's better than a Wrangler? You're getting twisted, mate.
He didn't say better, but if you like cars more than trucks, the car is a logical pick for you over the truck.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 21, 2016, 12:03:50 AM
Wrangler fucking rules!
Anything fucking rules next to a Murano Crass Crabiolay.
Quote from: Raza on February 20, 2016, 10:48:02 PM
So, hybrids are better than turbos, and not only does the Murano convertible, a visual abortion, deserve to exist, it's better than a Wrangler? You're getting twisted, mate.
Bro not everyone is as wrapped up in image and bullshit product philosophy and marketing as you are. The Wrangler is an icon and a classic but it's a terrible road car. Looks and ridiculousness aside the Murano is just an objectively better vehicle.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 21, 2016, 08:03:54 AM
Bro not everyone is as wrapped up in image and bullshit product philosophy and marketing as you are. The Wrangler is an icon and a classic but it's a terrible road car. Looks and ridiculousness aside the Murano is just an objectively better vehicle.
If you say so.
Quote from: Raza on February 21, 2016, 12:31:58 PM
If you say so.
I dont have to say it, these are just facts.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 21, 2016, 12:40:06 PM
I dont have to say it, these are just facts.
If you say so.