Returning to the trail head parking lot after one of our many splendiferous hikes in Joshua Tree NP, I saw these two and thought: Wow; two identical white Impala rental cars, side-by-side” Yes, the national parks are full of rentals, and many of them cars I never see on the streets at home, such as Sonic sedans, or current Impalas. But as I got closer to them, it suddenly became obvious that their rear-most side windows were not quite identical. What… Oh; that’s not an Impala in front. But it sure looks cut from the same cloth and pattern, except for one size smaller.
Now there’s a way to save on design costs: Shrink that one by 4%, and make that rear window and a few other details a wee bit different and you’re good to go. Somehow I don’t see that happening during Bill Mitchell’s time. But then there’s no future in sedans for GM anyway, so why bother spending money on differentiated designs?
These two may well be the last Impala and Malibu, unless the enamels are resurrected on a truck or CUV. The Impala is as good as dead, and although no specific rumors have been dropped about the Malibu, given that Chrysler (brilliantly) ditched their two sednas a couple of years ago, and Ford has as much as said that the current Fusion won’t be replaced (the Taurus is already a dead bull walking), I’m betting Chevy will go the same way. There’ll be a Bolt and Volt and maybe Spark or two, but the game is up for American mid-large sedans.
Meanwhile the Japanese are doubling doubling down with all-new Camcordias. They have the commitment, the buyers and the volume, which is essential to make sedans profitable. Once GM and Ford decided to reduce fleet sales, there wasn’t really much of a retail market left for sedans. It’s just not a profitable sector anymore, without the proper scale. They’ve become expendable commodities.
And to those that say: “but just wait until the next time oil and gas go up…” No problem, anymore. Detroit (and other players in the market) have in their words “cracked the code” in terms of mileage. Full size pickups are about to crash through the 30 mpg (hwy) barrier, and CUVs are also now getting the same EPA numbers that sedans did just a few years back. Hybrid and EV versions are inevitably going to become more common.
Although this chart doesn’t full capture the shift away from sedans to CUVs and more trucks, the strong growth in economy since about 2005 is a reflection of what detroit means about ‘cracking the code”. Lighter weight, better aerodynamics, multi-speed transmissions and so many other constantly improving complements and details are allowing even larger vehicles to keep overall fleet mileage improving or at least not stagnating.
My observation about many sedans going away is this: Coupe styling, making what is supposed to be an efficient people-hauler isn’t anymore.
Perhaps if the OEMs maintained a more formal roofline, that might have made a difference – maybe.
Or, it’s simply a question of efficiency – easy in, easy out, sit up higher and the ability to carry more stuff easily. A crossover or SUV just seems to makes more sense nowadays.
I don’t have an overall single answer because I’m not sure there is one.
If only a white Cruze was parked next to the Malibu.
Indeed… Call it Design Language. All car companies do it. Try to tell a Nissan Altima apart from a Maxima at a distance. Heck, even the Sentra could be confused with these to the untrained eye.
And it’s nothing new. Back in the eighties, I used to say this about Ford:
“A Tempo looks like an Escort with air pumped into it. And a Taurus looks like a Tempo with air pumped into it.”
At least the Thunderbird and Mustang looked different.
I am sure the purpose of Design Language is to move a buyer upward toward larger and more profitable models. However, I think it backfired on GM when I test drove a Malibu, saw the Cruze, test drove it, and bought it instead. To me, the difference in size (inside and out) was marginal and its road manners were much better.
Design Language is “designed” to tie a range of products together using common elements that can include styling, color, graphics, sound, texture, etc. (full disclosure: I’m an industrial designer and manage product identity for a Fortune 100 company).
It can be carried too far, however, and having been faced with a constant barrage of questions like “Is that the new Malibu?” when people approach my Australian-designed Chev SS, fully agree that GM crossed that line. The first week I had my car, I was constantly mistaking Malibus/Impalas/Cruzes for other SS’, when the likelihood of that in Central Illinois was virtually nought.
Rebadging my car back to it’s original Holden brand helped, but I still get the Impalabu question every so often even with no bowtie badges anywhere on the car.
If you’re getting that question frequently, then the Design Language is working as intended, don’t you think?
I have the same problem with Audis, confusing a 4 for a 6, or a 6 for an 8.
And it’s even harder to tell the current generation C-Class and E-Class, especially in the rear, apart without careful examination.
A sedan is never in question for me and my wife. We wind up with hatchbacks and coupes (one of each at a time, ideally.)
Sitting inside a modern sedan is surreal in how much material around you serves no purpose; such a huge percentage of the material in those cars is now devoted to feature and safety bloat. I dislike SUVs, but they fit that idiom a lot better than sedans without becoming as compromised.
Four door hatchbacks aren’t produced much in the US, but something like the format of the ’04 Prius or Elantra GT is a more ideal compromise between not driving a behemoth and not driving a “big” sedan that still walls you in. But the real problem in my eyes are gigantic consoles, dashboards, and high waistlines that people think they ‘want,’ but chip away at space.
The demise of the coupe is another thing that saddens me. Not everyone needs the extra space of a CUV or Sedan, and just wants something fun to drive. I probably bought my Civic Coupe just in time. Honda, one of the last hold outs to that body style, gave up on it for their latest generation of Accord. The Civic is probably next. The handwriting is on the wall. Yeah, you can get all three types for now; Sedan (most popular for the moment); Hatchback (growing in popularity if the Civics around here in Baltimore are any indication); and Coupe (seemingly rare comparatively)… BUT, while you can get an SI in Coupe or even Sedan, the Type R… Yeah THAT one… sportiest of them all… the one that can do the Nürburgring at 170 mph, ONLY comes in a Hatchback. Maybe I’m showing my age, but I remember a time when the COUPE was the sporty one for any car company.
I’ve said that about the Honda Fit and Civic, that it seems like all the extra space you get by going from subcompact to compact is eaten up by the megaconsole. The Civic hatchback’s mandatory black headliner in all trims (same in Si sedan?) doesn’t help.
It’s the same by degrees for a lot of manufacturers, but Honda seems particularly egregious, probably given that the Civic’s the newest major player in its’ class except the Impreza and Subaru doesn’t play in the B-segment.
We live interesting times. Ford has already said that the next-generation Focus will be sourced from China. If there is a next-generation Cruze, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is made in Mexico, and the Lordstown plant is turned over to crossover production.
According to a Bloomberg.com article, an “inside source” at Ford has said that the debate over the Fusion is whether to kill it entirely, or move it upscale, and sell fewer of them at higher prices (which would further negate the need for the Taurus).
In view of yesterday’s article about Buick, the move away from sedans could put Buick in jeopardy. The new LaCrosse is going nowhere in the market, and the new Regal is sourced from GM’s former European operations. I doubt that GM will be eager to contract with PSA to bring over a new Regal when it’s time to replace this one.
In his book, Steve Rattner, who led the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, and helped coordinate the bailouts of GM and Chrysler, said that one of the rationales for keeping Buick was to give Buick-GMC dealers a line of cars to sell. If Buick cars go away, dealers will be left selling two lines of crossovers that compete with each other. GMC handily outsells Buick, and has a better image. Rattner also said that the dealer franchise agreements with the “new” GM were specifically written to make it much less costly for GM to jettison a brand (based on memories of the cost to terminate Oldsmobile in the early 2000s).
Honda’s strategy has been interesting. The Civic, CR-V and Accord share a common platform, which undoubtedly helps with costs. The Civic and Accord are not cheap, and they deliberately emphasize sportiness and sleek styling. They are also not terribly easy for entry and exit (as several people commenting on my 2017 Civic sedan have mentioned.) But the Honda dealer still has plenty of HR-Vs, CR-Vs and Pilots to sell for those who want a crossover. For 2017, the CR-V barely edged out the Civic to become the best-selling Honda.
As I alluded to (late) yesterday, Buick’s future in North America is directly tied to its’ popularity in China and the need to maintain the perceived authenticity in that market that *not* being a China-only brand brings. If that continues, I fully expect the last GM sedan to be a Buick even if they’re ever fully dropped by Chevrolet and Cadillac.
GM doesn’t need Buick in America strictly as such, but it needs Buick in America for the sake of Buick in China, which is a cash cow they really want to keep healthy.
I could see GM simply folding Buick into GMC, thus turning it into a “sub brand.”
Ehh, they’ve probably done some demographic studies that show Buick and GMC buyers are quite different from each other (remember, Pontiac, Olds and Saturn buyers didn’t all gravitate to other GM brands) and they’d be quite happy to have two brands of SUVs/crossovers in the same showroom. Shared mechanicals but different design language and positioning, etc.
Everything is a crossover brand now.
Two things I wanted to add to this: I could see Buick becoming the “small” SUV brand of that sales division. The Encore would be safe by itself. The Envision and the Enclave could conceivably compete with the Terrain and the Acadia, although GM has made a noticeable difference between these models from each of the brands. The Envision seems smaller than the Terrain, while the Acadia seems smaller than the Enclave. It’s almost like they had this in mind when planning these cars… Hmmm….
Also, as a former Pontiac (and Olds) customer and even as I am the right demographic for a Buick, I don’t see them as “my” kind of car. I like Chevys, but I still have old notions about a more upscale car for someone at my stage of life. Everything is up for consideration these days, I think it will be a surprise to me what I end up with…
I personally think that Sedans are partially going away because space efficiency is becoming worse than an Eldorado of the 70s.
I got a last generation E-class as a loaner a few years ago and was shocked at how cramped I found it, given that I had driven a W124 for much of my adult life, until my business required more hauling space. I figured my (and it is a truth) increased girth was the main factor.
But then I compared it to my (sentimentally retained) W124 back to back and… the W124 is roomier in every dimension, easier to see out of, more comfortable. This despite being 4.5 inches longer, 5 inches wider, 1.5” taller, on a 3” longer wheelbase.
It’s almost a joke.
Not to mention the side collision protection that ‘thickens’ the doors in the subsequent generation. It’s pretty much the same for the A-pillars, too.
Modern sedans have almost turned into a 4 door version of what the coupe used to be a generation or two ago. They are not terribly roomy and are not that easy to get in and out of. They are (or can be) stylish. But in the 40s most buyers went with the more practical sedans and today they are doing the same with CUVs.
I always thought the sedan’s forte was quiet, comfortable cruising on the highway. But CUVs seem to have that covered, and they accommodate both older customers and younger ones better. I was scratching my head when FCA killed the American sedans not long ago but am not scratching any more.
FWIW, the Impala rental we had was very roomy, despite the fastback roof. With FWD, the amount of room available for people and luggage is pretty impressive. The trunk is cavernous, with a perfectly flat floor.
And I’ve found the Camry (previous generations) to be impressively roomy, especially the back seat. The new Camry is actually lower, which makes me wonder about its seating, as well as its attractiveness to older buyers, But that’s clearly not so much the priority in terms of its image.
I recently had the rare opportunity to ride in the back seat of my own car, a 2009 Corolla (we went wine tasting when my relatives visited for Christmas and my dad served as the designated driver). I was surprised by how roomy even the smaller Corolla is in the back seat. Certainly much nicer than when I visit them and have to ride in the back of their Focus.
The one time I rode in a 10th gen Corolla, I rode shotgun and was surprised at how cramped it was in places compared to the Yaris hatchback. The flip side of that is that the cargo space in the Yaris is truly tiny with the back seat in use.
I can’t imagine you experiencing that. The gen 10 Corolla, although not quite as big as the 11th, was substantially wider and longer than its predecessor, and much more so than the Yaris. Whatever…
The current Corolla is very comfortable, even for four large adults. But then its wheelbase is now almost 107″ long. It’s come a long way…
The 2018 Camry is lower, and not as easy to get into as previous model. First one I sat in at a dealer, I bumped my head on roof.
Wonder if they make cars lower to upsell to bigger UV?
I imagine that it’s the easiest way to save fuel and cut drag, by reducing the frontal area.
It’s a dadburned shame that our two-tiered system of vehicle regulation has brought us to this: a choice between cars you have to duck into, or light trucks that you climb onto, like a horse.
My most comfortable compromises between those two bad choices were my SAAB 9000, my ’04 Forester, and my current car, a C-Max. All of these have seats at a low chair height, so very easy to step in and out of. Those kinds of vehicles are rare…
More pertinent to the original post, no, I didn’t even consider the Fusion Hybrid instead, for all the reasons listed here. Plus one more- I do onsite work out of the back of my car, and I want to stand under the shelter of a tailgate on a hot or wet day, instead of standing behind a bumper and watching my gear get wet in an opened trunk.
Agreed on the Impala. The 2018 I’m driving at work is a great car, and I’m sad to see it going away in the near future.
Just looking at sales stats for 2017, it looks like Toyota and Honda are dicing up whatever passenger car market is left. Buyers seem to prefer the Camry over the Accord, but give the nod to the Civic over the Corolla. No one else is close to the volume of those four models.
Toyota sells the Camry to fleet customers, while Honda does not pursue fleet sales for either the Accord or Civic.
The Camry stays at the top with heavy fleet sales, heavily subsidized leases, and a massive advertising budget. Sure they move metal but I doubt it is that profitable for the reasons above, which also make their sales lean heavily to the base models.
There are a lot of Camry taxis out there, pretty common as rentals too.Toyota is quickly becoming GM in many ways.
The Camry LE Hybrid is going to be a monster for taxi use, both for traditional cabbies and full-time Uber/Lyft drivers. Reliable, durable, inexpensive, a trunk no longer infringed upon by batteries, and 52mpg.
I work at LAX. All the regular cabs are currently Prius’, mixed with a few various make minivans.. Shared ride (Uber.Lyft) are a diverse selection of primarily sedans, but the Sonata seems to be #1 by a small margin.
I don’t have any data to prove it, but I would not be in the least surprised to learn that Toyota makes more money per unit with the Camry than Ford does with the Fusion or Chevy does with the Malibu, all while producing twice as many as either of the other two last year and as a result of that keeping more people employed while doing so along with more supplier’s employees etc along the way.
Toyota seems to have every confidence in the Camry and if anything wants to up the volume whereas Ford is likely cancelling the Fusion and the Malibu’s future seems less than a sure thing as well. Toyota didn’t get to where it was by undercutting itself or selling their cars at a loss or for less than they’d be comfortable with, it’s not like they aren’t long-lasting cars that need rapid replacement where a low margin is made up for on volume from an individual buyer.
I was taken to task a few months ago on TTAC for daring to opine that I found it nearly impossible to distinguish an Impala from a Malibu from a Cruze at 50 feet. I feel vindicated here.
That site is ‘flame war central’. Sometimes entertaining, other times I am glad I don’t post there!
Yes, they allow far too much uncivil behavior there. Part of the problem is all the click bait political articles they post.
That’s the biggest reason I stopped visiting rec.auto.news and automobile-related newsgroups. I was tired of coming across so many douche bags and trolls along with so many lame or inaccurate comments. Not to mention being in the crossfire between the warring commentators.
That’s the biggest reason I love Curbside Classic. So many fascinating subjects and so many great dialogues that really expand my automotive horizon.
One thing that has killed sedan sales is the decreasing size of the trunk opening, making these vehicles far less practical than SUVs. Good luck trying to get a square box of any size into sedan trunks. The term “mail slot” comes to mind. Audi with the A7 gives the coupe profile with a hatch, like the new Regal (also coming in a wagon) – no sedan version.
It used to be that sedans had an actual trunk decklid that was more than a foot long. A coworker managed to get his rolling toolbox (2 piece) that was full of tools no less tipped into the trunk of his Volvo 240 sedan. Granted, the lid had to be tied down, and the suspension was not happy, but he was able to make it home.
The coupe profile/shrinking decklid can’t all be due to aerodynamics.
Also, the rise of bulk shopping has made consumers want a vehicle that can handle trips to Costco, Ikea, or to the airport even if that happens only once and a while. Ever try to pick up more than one or maybe two people at the airport with a sedan? Can be challenging given the amount of luggage that people travel with these days.
Yes! A trunk used to accept bicycles, cooler chests, and trash cans. No more though. A sedan with a hatchback seems way more practicle.
I remember hauling a load of wood in my dad’s ’83 LeSabre trunk. Oh, for the love of real trunks…
I remember putting a dining table top in my Grandmother’s ’75 Impala Custom Coupe, easy, peasy.
Topper, here. I remember me and dad hauling loads of dirt in the trunk of his ’67 New Yorker. Talk about “motor boatin'”! Haha.
The worst part is the trunk lid doesn’t even represent the actual trunk opening anymore, instead you are often greeted by several inches of body structure between the quarter panels and the rubber seal. The trunk volume, ironically, is gigantic in most midsize sedans(namely due to the high belt lines), but you can never get anything as big into one in one piece like you can a hatch.
The A7 and Regal aren’t the only midsize cars going the hatchback-only route. There’s also the A5, VW Arteon, Kia Stinger, and several BMWs to name a few that come to mind (well, Regal is hatch + wagon). I think we’ll see more former sedans replaced by hatchbacks in the next several years; the fastbacked shape manufacturers are insisting on just doesn’t work well for sedans.
Both Accord and Camry have hatchbacks in their past; I expect both to have hatchbacks in the future. The Fusion has a hatchback right now in Europe (as the Mondeo); they should offer it in the US too.
I for one, will welcome back mid sized hatchback cars again. I’ve had a couple over the years and they are incredibly handy.
I’m curious to see how the new Buick Regal will work out. I’ll be at the local new car show next month to see that car specifically. It might make me a Buick owner, who knows?
The problem with differentiation is risking an incoherent lineup from a design standpoint – what brand of car is it anyway? The other tack – same sausage, different lengths – while coherent – you know it’s an Audi – risks downselling to the smallest least profitable model without *enough* difference between the models.
The question is does the incoherence actually hurt the brand for the customers? The fundamental flaw with the same sausage different lengths approach is that styling always favors a dimensional sweet spot, and one particular model will shine brighter than the rest. Incoherence on the other hand can present the brand as having each model the best dressed it could be for their respective size and shape. Chevy of all brands used to actually be great at that, there were often defining themes carried over model to model, but the styling and shapes were all quite different. A lot of things hurt the brand in that time period, but it was never the diverse styling.
Regarding the Fusion/Taurus, I think Ford is going to do an Acura and nix both of them like they did the TL/TSX and make a singular replacement (that I hope retains the Taurus name)
That is what I was thinking, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the Fusion name is retained. Most likely we’ll have a three-car line-up from Ford – Focus, Fusion and Mustang. The Focus and Fusion will be built in a low-cost location, but offered mainly in higher trim levels, with the expectation that will sell in lower numbers, but fetch a higher price for each one sold.
Ford has also made a great deal of noise about reducing the number of build combinations for various vehicles. The Focus and Fusion would be prime candidates, while F-series buyers would still be offered a full plate of trim-level and engine choices.
I could see the Fusion being the sedan and the Focus going hatchback-only. Or maybe the Focus could keep its’ like-a-Golf-but-blobbier squareback hatch and the Fusion can go liftback like the Regal (and Euro Mondeo), possibly on a longer wheelbase.
Hope you got some photos of the vintage Mercedes Benz.
The Impala is an Epsilon II platform while the Malibu is on an updated newer version of that platform – E2XX I think – so the similar look should not be a surprise. The new LaCrosse is on a P2XX, which is longer, but also derived from the Epsilon II. There is also a C2XX for crossovers. So three new platforms derived from Epsilon ii but each better designed for the vehicles on it.
Part of sedan death has to be that the used fleet is the best it has ever been, and a 10 year old sedan gives up virtually nothing to a brand new one in any substantive or even superficial measure. There’s simply no incentive for buyers, and it’s reflected by the tech gimmicks the car companies are pushing so hard to make them interesting and revolutionary to a skeptical public(yes, the promise of AV tech too). I also think there’s something to the couped out styling hurting sedans as well, in order to accommodate humans in all 4-5 seats, the whole body has had to grow taller to have the sweeping roofline clear them, which throws off the proportions badly, most apparent by the big fat butts they all have.
CUVs aren’t any better differentiated than sedans either, in fact they’re even worse. What CUVs have the advantage of is being trendy(no, we aren’t a woke society impervious to fashion, despite it being fashionable to claim to be), the used fleet of them has less to choose from, and what there was were more like SUV pretenders, CUVs as a distinctive segment really came into its own more recently. They’re trendy because of it. Additionally, with younger buyers, where the practicality of CUVs is mostly wasted on, is a generational shift. Anyone of new car buying age grew up where sedans were boring and predictable, minivans were dorky and SUVs were what the cool parents had.
I’m skeptical about the CUV being the ultimate evolution of the automobile because it’s qualities are as fluid as our human priorities. The original ushering in of longer/lower/wider wasn’t some evil plot devised by automakers to take away practical tall cars from people. People voted with their wallets and bought them in droves, because that’s what was fresh and appealing, shunning the old guard KT Keller mobiles during the transition period, a direct inverse of what’s happening recently, and there’s no reason to think there won’t be another shift back again. Unless of course AVs obsolete personal automobile ownership and one basic design has to be chosen forever, that is, but like any big swing there’s always big backlash, so I’m not too worried about that dystopian vision either.
Here’s hoping you’re right about the wheel turning back to lower cars. In heavy freeway traffic it’s getting ever harder to see around the hulk right in front of you. Not to mention some style for a change.
In the eighties we had lots of sport coupe hatchbacks to choose from, with exciting styling, performance and lots of practicality. Bring them back!
Agreed. We desperately need more cars that look like this. I once had a ST162 Celica too.
I has hoped that CUVs/SUVs were a fad of sorts, but unfortunately due to human sheep their proliferation is relentless.
We’ve just bought a CUV. Many modern sedans are difficult to enter and exit once old age catches up, which is why we went the CUV route. We don’t need off-road ability nor the image, so no SUV for us, but the taller stance over a sedan (or wagon if one had been available!) gave us a vehicle that was easier to enter and exit, with hatchback flexibility and plenty of room inside. Ideal.
Good point, in that used cars are more durable, so why buy brand new?
People that have cash to spend, or want to impress people, get a xUV.
A big part of the CUV craze is that they are still classified as “light trucks”, whereas sedans are still cars. So from the get-go, things are already stacked against sedans since they have to follow different rules.
It’s my opinion that CUVs should be reclassified as cars. They are basically just SUVs that have been made as car-like as possible while still being able to retain the “light truck” classification. If that happened I think we’d see a shift away from CUVs and more to sedans, proper wagons, and hatchbacks.
Of course, this will never happen as it would pretty much destroy GM who seems to be putting all their eggs into the truck/SUV/CUV basket (again), as well as other automakers who are heavily invested into CUVs including the Asian manufacturers. However, VW would likely be happy.
I’d like to see this happen simply to outlaw rear window tint light trucks are exempt from, not being able to see ahead through the glass makes it difficult for anyone behind navigating through traffic, and it’s an unfair advantage, as some buyers may see them more appealing for privacy. It is truly an outdated and obsolete classification.
“It’s my opinion that CUVs should be reclassified as cars.”
I totally agree.
“They are basically just SUVs that have been made as car-like as possible while still being able to retain the “light truck” classification.”
Not at all. They are FWD passenger car based with a taller body, and maybe jacked up a couple of inches, not a shrunken truck based vehicle.
Where I work there are sometimes big meetings going on with many of the attendees traveling from out of town to attend. I recently figured out that if I see a bunch of Impalas in the parking lot in the morning when I arrive at work, that’s a sign that one of those meetings is going on.
Here’s the future of the American sedan. People lined up around the block to put down money for these Tesla Model 3s. Not just because they’re electric, there are lots of EV choices now. There is still demand for a 21st century mid-size four door sedan.
It’s interesting that Tesla chose to make its mass-market play in the sedan field. Do they know something we don’t? I sometimes suspect that Elon Musk may believe in himself a little too unquestioningly (his ‘You’re an idiot’ tweet to urban transit guru Jarrett Walker was bizarre http://humantransit.org/2017/12/elon-musk-responds.html ).
I do think a sleek modern sedan is a more attractive shape than the CUV/SUV format, and if Teslas sell on ‘design’ almost as much as technology maybe they can buck the market trend, at least until the novelty wears off.
It’s probably more that the Model 3 was announced well before the industry decided that not only are sedans were on the decline, but a mortal decline. With a half million preorders and an already rough development cycle it would probably sink them to retool it into a CUV on a whim.
I think there is the potential that the Model 3 is exactly what the mainstream sedan market needs to make it relevant again it’s something truly cutting edge and trendy in it’s technology in what has been a pretty stale segment for a good while, a nice change from the usual news of popular sedans cutting down V6s for tiny Turbo 4s for CAFE purposes. Not to mention Tesla currently still seems to sell more of the Model S than the Model X SUV as well, if that says anything
The next one is supposedly going to be a CUV, smaller than the X, named Y. Not sure if this is going to be after the Semi and the new Roadster or before. Or concurrently. It apparently will share the platform of the 3.
I think the main reasons the S outsells the X is that A) the price is lower and B) the S is almost universally considered to be attractive while the X is generally considered to look a little “unfortunate”.
I was in Los Angeles a few days ago and saw, from my rental car,* what looked to be unhappy rear-seat passengers in several different Model 3s. Those rear compartments sure looked cramped to me. The histories of the defunct Chrysler 200 and the previous-gen Malibu indicate that rear-seat room can be a critical factor in sedan market share. Perhaps the people who put deposits down don’t care about such things.
I did see happy drivers and passengers in several different Chevy Bolts, however.
*2017 Audi Q5 2.0T quattro, from Alamo, apparently a “premium plus” version – navigation, 19″ wheels, big glass roof, 8- or 9-speed selectable transmission, etc. It was well-sorted, as you’d expect in the 9th model year of the design, although the controls were overcomplicated. I found it very useful to be high up in freeway traffic; I’d never before driven anything with wheels bigger than 16″.
I’m pretty close to needing to finally buy a new car. My Focus had a highway failure a few weeks ago that pushed it over the hump for me into “headed toward being used up” territory.
While the Focus was in the shop I borrowed a 2-gen Odyssey minivan. I really liked the height and the visibility. I know, I know, since then all vehicles’ visibility has taken a tumble.
But it’s absolutely, positively moved this car guy toward a CUV for his next vehicle.
In Europe there are all kinds of MPV’s based on platforms about the size of a Focus. The now to be discontinued in the US C-Max is a tall Focus station wagon. In Europe it isn’t hybrid so it has more cargo space and there is an extended version with a sliding door – a mini minivan.
So elsewhere you don’t have to go as huge as an Odyssey or other American family van in order to get some version of the taller and lots more cubic feet car with sometimes a sliding door. Unfortunately not here and not any time soon.
Minivans Rule! 🙂
Seriously, with kids in college and an occasionally larger family the flexibility of seating for 7 and the ability to haul big things makes me love mine. Seating height and visibility ices the cake.
I keep thinking that I’m getting past the need for those capabilities but situations keep coming up where the the thing is just what we need.
Your minivan ownership has turned from a “need” to a “want”. Otherwise known as the love that dareth not speak its name. Embrace it, it’s liberating. 🙂
Audi sedans look alike, have to look at the back to see badge.
Anyway, glad to see this topic addressed. All the hand wringing about “why cant Detroit build a Camry/Accord fighter?” Well, “why bother?”
Electrification will allow larger vehicles to meet CAFE. No need for “good small cars”, again, why bother?
I was always mystified that “new” GM even did the Impala in the first place–seemed a lot like “old” GM to have multiple overlapping sedans competing for the same shrinking pool of buyers. If anything, the larger Impala should have been styled and made as a Buick–bigger and posher–while the Malibu stayed a Chevrolet.
I think an enormous issue that sedans are facing is actually their driving dynamics. It used to be that a sedan (or coupe) was more enjoyable to drive than a minivan or SUV. But now as the segments (and platforms) have blurred together, so has their performance. Today’s CUVs/SUVs perform and handle pretty well, and most sedans don’t seem to offer any advantages that would make them more fun to drive.
I think the situation is especially dire for brands like BMW, who built their reputation on sport sedans. With the exception of the 2 Series like Brendan’s, todays BMW sedans and coupes feel pretty remote with detached steering and in no way seem nimble. BMW SUVs perform at least as well, and offer the benefits of ride height and cargo carrying flexibility. My wife and I test drove the new 5-Series and gave it “2 thumbs down.” Gizmo laden and posh, but absolutely no fun to drive. Could have been a really fancy and expensive Buick or Impala. A few weeks ago, my son and daughter shocked me when they dropped a comment about BMW sedans–expressed with sheer teenage girl disdain by my daughter: “those are MOM cars” and my son readily agreed. Stake through my heart, but they’re right, which is why I don’t think the future is bright for sedans from most brands.
We have a 2014 Ford Escape SE, which has been praised for its ride and handling. I agree that it’s good for an SUV – better than the brand-new 2016 Honda CR-V I had as a loaner two years ago – but it’s still inferior to our 2017 Honda Civic EX-T sedan in that regard.
I think Honda is one brand that has actually been adding a good bit of driver-oriented “sparkle” to their sedans, which I think is very smart. Recent Civics are praised for their driving dynamics. The new Accord is also sportier looking than before, and based on reviews I’ve read seems to be enjoyable to drive. I think that makers need to give buyers a really compelling reason to still choose sedans–more nimble handing and superior driving dynamics would be a good one. The real tragedy to me is that BMW, of all brands, seems to be forgetting that fact. When sedans and SUV/CUVs feel so similar, it’s little surprise buyers gravitate to the more commanding ride height, functionality and current fashion “style” of the taller vehicles.
Some reviewers are saying that Cadillac is building a better BMW than BMW is! Unfortunately, not many people seem to want them, judging by the sales figures.
Sure, Cadillac’s sedans may have great driving dynamics, but they lack in other areas, like interior room and reliability. They can’t get away with selling on name like BMW can. In some ways, Cadillac’s sedans remind me of the Ford Contour – unflattering, I know.
Also, why can’t they drop the V8 in the ATS? What have they got to lose at this point?
The new Alfas have good steering and are fun to drive – they seem to be trying to fill the sport-sedan market that BMW has abdicated. Whether that will be enough to establish them in the US, and whether enough people still care, remains to be seen.
Sedan driving dynamics + extra interior room = wagon.
All D-segment models (and most E-segment models, for that matter) are offered as sedan and wagon, with the exception of Alfa Romeo. And the Skoda Superb, because that one is only available as hatch-/liftback and wagon.
Wagons are more popular here now than ever before, and the choice is endless.
I was struck seeing the latest Euro Passat… It’s so much better than the old one that it makes the Arteon seem kind of pointless. But I’ll reserve judgement until I see an Arteon in the metal.
Also find the new Skoda Superb to be a rather tasty-looking vehicle
Oh, yes! I see more Volkswagen Passat in estate form than saloon here in Germany. Volkswagen Jetta is a rare unicorn here amidst Golf, Golf Plus, Golf-based Touran, etc.
Right. I only mentioned the D- and E-segment, but many C-segment hatchbacks are also offered as wagons. VW Golf, Ford Focus, Opel Astra, Peugeot 308, Renault Megane, Toyota Auris, Skoda Octavia, …and probably of few others.
And Renault and Skoda can even sell you a wagon in the B-segment (sub-compacts).
All of them for those who want more room and practicality without extra height. Many of us, given their commercial success.
The American manufactures can keep those CUVs, SUV and pickup trucks coming, I’ll happily stay in the Japanese brand sedans. I pass those bulky balloons and gas station easily.
Well, I’m the target buyer for mid-size four-door sedans. I’ve owned four of them–an Audi 4000, Honda Accord, Chevy Malibu, and now a Toyota Camry. They used to have less road noise than two-boxes, although I don’t know if that’s still true. Four-sedans have always served me well, with a smooth, quiet ride, solid reliability, and good gas mileage.
If people can get almost the same driving dynamics and fuel economy ratings in a crossover, then they’ll probably take that over a sedan. That applies for older people, families, young people… Crossovers ain’t goin’ anywhere, and people aren’t going to go back to a less practical sedan unless it really offers something.
We’re probably about to see a further thinning out of the sedan herd and those that are left will potentially be pitched further upmarket or their styling will get more aggressive and coupe-like. I mean, a sedan is already much less practical than a crossover so why not make it more like a coupe?
The majority of the market considers a car to handle well if it can navigate the tight corners in the McDonald’s drive-thru without whacking the bumpers on the cement bollards… The “enthusiast” market is slim and slimming, when for example BMW was still a small manufacturer all the output they could produce was snapped up by that enthusiast base. As they have gotten larger they are running out of buyers that will pay and appreciate for the benefits, hence their range has expanded to encompass more of the hoi polloi that couldn’t tell you if their car is front wheel or rear wheel drive or even what the difference is.
Most people don’t care, driving is a chore, they are stuck in traffic going to work, stuck in traffic on the freeway driving to Grandma’s house during the holidays, and just want a way to get where they are going quickly, comfortable, and reliably. If there is a way to see over the hordes of traffic and further into the distance or make it easier to hand $5 to the attendant at the drive-thru window, then so much the better, ergo everything with a higher seating position is en vogue.
Detroit (and other players in the market) have in their words “cracked the code” in terms of mileage.
One customer objection to being pushed from a sedan to an SUV is that SUVs get worse gas mileage. That “cracking the code” line was one of the excuses Ford gave for implying they are dropping the Fusion (2020 redesign cancelled, will no longer be built at Hermosillo, will not be imported from China).
The truth is Fords are gas hogs, and the difference between their gas hog cars and gas hog SUVs is quite small.
I picked a few mpg numbers off Edmund’s, picking a sedan and comparable SUV with the same size engine, if possible and trim level. city/highway/average.
Fusion: 21/31/25, Edge 20/29/24
Focus 24/34/28, Escape 23/30/26
Malibu 27/36/30, Equinox: 26/32/28
Only 1mpg difference in the city rating. The Fusion only gets 2mpg better on the highway vs shoving a hulking Edge through the air.
Then look at the top drawer Japanese:
Accord: 30/38/33, CR-V 28/34/30
Civic: 31/40/34, HR-V 28/34/31
Camry 28/39/32, Rav-4: 23/30/26
How about the Germans?
Passat 25/36/29 new Tiguan: 22/27/24
So why do big three sedans get such terrible mileage when the Japanese and Germans can get 2-5mpg better with their sedans than their SUVs?
Where are you getting these numbers? The Fusion can get 36mpg from the 1.5 Ecoboost and thats not even counting the hybrid. The Focus gets 38 MPG with the 2.0 and 40 with the 1.0 3 cylinder.
Where are you getting these numbers? The Fusion can get 36mpg from the 1.5 Ecoboost and thats not even counting the hybrid. The Focus gets 38 MPG with the 2.0 and 40 with the 1.0 3 cylinder.
As I said, the numbers came from Edmund’s. I used mid level trims with standard engines. The numbers you are quoting are the highway numbers under ideal conditions.
Per the Ford web site: a 2018 Fusion in S or SE trim gets 21/32 with the 2.5 Duratec. Titanium and Platinum with the 2.0 Ecoboost are rated at 21/31. With the optional 1.5, which is only available in the cheaper S and SE trims, the rating is 23/34
Per the Ford web site, a 2018 Focus S sedan with the 2.0 and 5 speed manual is rated 25/34, Focus SE sedan with the 1.0 Ecoboost and 6 speed manual is rated 30/40, Focus SEL and Titanium with the 2.0 and 6 speed dual clutch auto are rated at 24/34.
I stand by my assessment. Fords are gas hogs.
If VW is any guide, better software (grins).
About the graph and ” better aerodynamics ” how could be applied to pick-up truck ?? Judging by theirs always taller front end , I doubt that their Cd is better than a 4×8 plywood
“Camcordia”
Not just a picture painting a thousand words.
Brilliant.
I’ve had both the Malibu and the Impala as rentals, and enjoyed both for what they were. They are hard to tell apart, but I look for the Impala’s window kink and “Impala” C-pillar logo (which I think are clever references to the nameplate’s history).
Interesting reading these comments regarding trunk space and practicality. Having driven only pickup trucks since I was 21 (in 1984), cargo hauling was rarely an issue, until I purchased a car about three years ago; a 2008 Impala (previous generation) that I drove for a little over a year, until replacing it with a 2012 Grand Cherokee. I can say without reservation that I felt the Impala was much more versatile and utilitarian than the Jeep. My Grand Cherokee has a flip up window on the liftgate, which was changed to a fixed-glass design in 2014. Without that flip-up glass, there’s no way I could load my Snapper push mower into it, and I still have to fold the rear seats down. In the Impala, I just slid it in the trunk, though the rear wheels did overhang the weatherstripping. I still have the roof racks I used for long items, though the Jeep has OEM racks. The only advantage the Jeep holds is trailering ability. The 6×12 trailer seemed to really load down the Impala’s rear suspension, even when empty, thus unloading the front suspension and the front-wheel drive, causing loss of traction, even on dry pavement. The rear-drive Jeep pulls like a champ.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I don’t know what possessed me to buy a crappy Chrysler product; the Jeep has been problematic since last summer. Hopefully the leaks have been fixed, it’s been two weeks “drip-free” now. My fingers are crossed. I’m still not sure if I should pressure wash the driveway, yet….
… given that Chrysler (brilliantly) ditched their two sednas a couple of years ago, and Ford has as much as said that the current Fusion won’t be replaced (the Taurus is already a dead bull walking), I’m betting Chevy will go the same way. There’ll be a Bolt and Volt and maybe Spark or two, but the game is up for American mid-large sedans.
Not surprisingly, I have a theory about this. With the rising popularity of SUVs, automakers figure they need an SUV in every size class. They already have a passenger car in every size class, so now they are designing and producing two different models in every segment, which imposes significant, on the order of billions, in extra costs. They have a very large incentive to push people away from one style of vehicle into the other style so they can trim the model line down to cut costs. Hence, we get moves like dropping the Fusion, in spite of it’s still selling over 200,000/yr, 60,000 more than they sold of the Edge, with no announced product moving into Hermosillo to replace it.
Marchionne openly said, several years ago, that FCA does not have the resources to design and produce a full line of vehicles, so it follows that he would be the first. The only surprise is he dropped the Dart/200 in the middle of the product cycle, when the R&D and tooling costs were already sunk. Of course, the Sterling Heights plant, were the 200 was built, will go from being shut down half the time to pulling overtime when Ram 1500 production move in shortly.