The automotive industry is currently being transformed by autonomous driving technology, electrification, and shifting consumer preferences. Those first two issues still exist on the margins, while the latter trend has already produced seismic shifts in the North American market and elsewhere. Sedans are being ignored by car shoppers and its a change that will force automakers to make tough decisions about the future of their passenger car lineups. In North America, FCA and Ford already bit the proverbial bullet by axing their sedans. Who will be next?
To understand why more automakers will inevitably cancel some or all of their sedans, we need to first take a look at the numbers that made FCA decide to axe the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart. In 2015, Chrysler sold 177,289 examples of the 200. Models that sell over 100,000 units annually generally stay in production. That is not any type of universal law, especially since the profit margins between vehicle segments vary by quite a bit. But they do matter. And for FCA, their mid size sedan wasn’t generating the money they had hoped it would.
The Dart was almost certainly another cash drain for FCA. Like its larger sibling, it moved the most units in 2015, for a total of 87,392 sold. With about 320,000 Darts and roughly the same amount of 200 sedans produced during each of their respective runs, both cars probably needed to double their sales in order to turn a profit for the company. It cost Ford $1 billion to develop the 2006 Fusion, Milan, and MKZ. Since the Dart and 200 shared even less parts with each other, its highly likely that FCA spent at least that much on their cars as well.
Let’s assume FCA earned $500 for every Dart sold and $1000 for every 200. Using the broad production numbers listed above, the total dollar amount earned by both sedans was $480 million. That means its entirely possible FCA lost over half a billion dollars on both cars. No wonder Sergio publicly admitted to both of them being extreme money losers. And the numbers I chose are not based on any real numbers, corporate leaks, or estimates from industry experts. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that FCA lost even more money with these cars.
Financial arguments aside, its pretty shocking when an automaker cancels a long running and relatively popular nameplate, but its even more surprising when a manufacturer abandons entire segments. But if they’re not selling, why should they keep building them? In the specific case of the Ford Focus, which experienced a 41 percent drop in sales between 2012 and 2017, several factors contributed to its demise. Ford likely spent a considerable amount of money developing the platform. And while it may be profitable overall due to its use in the Ford Escape, Transit Connect, and Lincoln MKC, the company still has to expend its resources to develop unique components for the Focus. The issues with the Powershift dual clutch automatic probably didn’t help things either.
And there are other factors worth considering, like opportunity cost. Michigan Assembly Plant, which built the Focus from 2010-2018, is currently being retooled to produce the next generation Ford Bronco and Ford Ranger. If Ford simply remodeled the plant for the Ranger back then its entirely possible that the truck would have reached heights that the new model can only hope to achieve when it debuts early next year. Hindsight is obviously 20/20 though, which is why we see automakers making important decisions after external changes occur, not before.
These issues are worth discussing because FCA and Ford are not the only automakers faced with these types of decisions. Volkswagen, Kia, Hyundai, General Motors, and other manufacturers are going to have to grapple with walking away from segments they’ve competed in for decades. And the majority of these companies currently sell compact and mid size sedans that move or have moved less units than the Dart or 200.
I took a screenshot of Good Car Bad Car’s September 2018 sales chart for small cars sold in America because it clearly demonstrates why more automakers will walk away from passenger cars. Only the Hyundai Elantra performed decently. Almost everyone else experienced significant declines when compared to 2017’s numbers. No one was spared.
The mid size segment didn’t do well either. Every nameplate is doing worse in 2018 when compared to last year. That decline is even more dramatic when year compare year to date 2017 sales with figures from 2013 or so. And its not just mid sizes either. Pretty much every single sedan experienced significant drops in volume over the last several years.
And full size cars? Also flailing about wildly. It’s entirely possible that no mainstream, full size sedan will break 100K units this year.
There are a lot of models potentially on the chopping block. Let’s go through them segment-to-segment.
Subcompact Segment
Likely Cancellations: Fiat 500/500L, Chevrolet Spark, Chevrolet Sonic, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio
Toss Ups: Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris
None of the above models will likely break 40,000 units this year. There is no way any of these models make enough money in North America to justify their continued existence. None of these models are truly purpose built for the United States or Canada. Ironically, that might be the reason why they haven’t been cancelled yet. And the Yaris may get a stay of execution if the next generation model is developed by Mazda.
Compact Segment
Likely Cancellations: Subaru Impreza, Mazda 3
Toss Ups: Chevrolet Cruze, Kia Forte, Hyundai Elantra, Nissan Sentra, Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen Golf
Like the previously discussed subcompact models, all of the players listed here are designed with a global audience in mind. That means the larger companies might find it acceptable to use their compacts as loss leaders in order to get entry levels buyers hooked on their respective brands. Subaru could likely switch a decent portion of sedan buyers to the hatchback model. Or they might be saving enough money with their new modular platform to the point where the sedan is financially viable on its own. The Sentra, Forte, and Elantra are the three “value amigos” known for their low prices, which obviously eats into profits and makes them good candidates for cancellation. The Kona, Kicks, and Rouge Sport are viable alternatives for compact sedan shoppers. Given the corporate synergy between Hyundai and Kia, its also a possibility they stick around due to their shared platforms and powertrains. The Volkswagen Jetta and Golf will likely stick around because of Wolfburg’s historic stubbornness when it comes to the American market.
Mid Size Segment
Likely Cancellations: Volkswagen Passat, Subaru Legacy, Mazda 6
Toss Ups: Chevrolet Malibu, Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima
The mid size sedan segment is still pretty large despite its notable contractions over the past several years. This is where I can see a number of automakers sticking it out even if competing in the segment doesn’t make complete financial sense. The purpose-built American Passat is a no-brainer for cancellation due to its mediocre sales numbers. And the Legacy should get the axe too. The developing bromance between Mazda and Toyota could mean the 6 survives as a re-badged Camry. The Hyundai corporate system might make the Sonata and Optima profitable, which means they survive. General Motors has indicated that they like the idea of being the only American company in the segment, so they’ll probably stick around longer than they should.
Full Size Segment
Likely Cancellations: All of them?
From now on, if I’m talking to someone and they bring up full size sedans, my immediate reply will be a Regina George approved retort like “stop trying to make full size sedans happen, they’re not going to happen.” Why are so many of these still in production? The American minivan segment contains five vehicles and they’ve collectively moved about 375,000 units through September. There are currently nine full size sedans competing for a slice of a pie that has only reached 246,000 units this year. And I bet a substantial portion of those numbers are fleet sales. Mid size sedans are the obvious substitute here, because there isn’t much of a size penalty anymore. And there is no refinement gap either. At least half of this segment needs to die.
Sedans are not dying. That doesn’t mean they won’t die in the future; this is simply a contraction of sales due to a rapid shift in consumer preferences. At some point the market will self correct and rationalize. The question is when, because if Ford can’t make money on a Fusion that sells around 170k per year and a Focus that moves around 100k units in 12 months, its competitors probably can’t either.
The car buying habits of the American public will inevitably shift over time. Forty years ago, some of the best selling cars were rear wheel drive coupes. And body-on-frame sport utility vehicles sold in much higher numbers during the 90’s than they do now. Crossovers are all the rage today, and its a trend that isn’t going away any time soon. Beloved and familiar nameplates will get cancelled. The mainstream subcompact, compact, mid size, and full size segments will eventually consist of a couple of Japanese models and one or two other brands. We’ll also see more off road oriented vehicles and at least one new mid size station wagon. That doesn’t sound too bad to me.
Related Reading:
Future Curbside Classic: 2013-20xx Ford Fusion – Is This Ford’s Last Mid Size?
Future CC/Driving Impressions: 2015 Chrysler 200 – Better, But Just How Much Better? by Brendan Saur
What keeps coming to mind is Paul’s remark about space efficiency in crossovers and cars like the Xbox being like the ’40’s early ’50s cars. Not long and low, short and taller. Easier to get in and out of. Less overhang. Makes sense. I guess this is what the newer generation wants. Function over style. No one puts their kids in the back of a 2-door like we rode around in.
I wonder how permanent this will be. Would sedans ever make a comeback, or are they just seen as less viable.
You’re right about ingress/egress being a motivator for car shoppers to switch to crossovers. Baby boomers are aging, and it seems like they prefer the higher vehicles because of how easy it is to get into them. And millenials are starting families, which means they’re flock to crossovers as well. The lack of all wheel drive is also an issue for sedans. Subaru is the only company with an all wheel drive compact sedan. There’s only three cars with it in the mid size segment, and full sizers arent really relevant anymore. And there’s really no financial penalty between buying a compact CUV with AWD or a similarly equipped mid size.
Sedans aren’t going to go extinct. In all likelihood the segments will just be dominated by the Japanese, with one or two other companies at the margins.
As a baby boomer, I agree about the ingress/egress comment.
As I travel, all rentals cars are now SUVs. Two years ago, I kept hitting my hear on the steeply sloping A pillar of a Toyota Corolla. The extra cost of a small SUV in marginal compared to a small sedan.
Not to mention the experience Baby Boomers have with minivans and SUVs in the 1980s and 1990s, which led them to prefer higher seats for easier ingress and egress as they get older.
I also have to disagree about the lack of AWD system in saloons as a ‘deal breaker’. Many European and Japanese saloons have AWD system as standard or optional feature in their respective markets. There are many CUVs and SUVs without AWD system, namely BMW X1 sDrive, Mercedes-Benz GLA-Class and GLC-Class without 4Matic, Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban, etc.
In Europe, it’s more common to see hatchbacks and estates because of their better utilisation of space than saloons. Even Volkswagen sells more estate version of Passat than saloon version in Germany.
I think we boomers are the first generation who got used to pickups vans and SUVs as everyday transport. To our parents those were trucks for plumbers, farmers and landscapers, and were therefore simply not suitable for respectable people – and they bought Mercuries and Buicks until the end.
But we boomers consider crossovers as the more civilized and comfortable versions of the vans and SUVs we drove when we had kids at home. Having experienced the added versatility and more comfortable ingress/egress, it is no wonder sedans are going away. I am trying to remember the last person I know in my age group who bought one.
Um…
I don’t know about that. In the small town that I grew up in, almost every family had a car, but when the family had 2 cars, the 2nd car was almost always a pickup truck or an SUV which was driven by the man of the family.
I guess I don’t fit that profile although Medicare is just two months away. Pickups are good for only one thing and that is hauling stuff that isn’t human. I refuse to follow the crowd and buy a SUV. Reading all this about sedans could possibly mean that in the future there may not be a sedan for me to buy
Now from what I saw on the above charts about cars not selling that could explain why the Mazda 3 I bought two weeks ago was such a killer deal.
Less overhang.
That is a function of how the CAFE standard was reworked a dozen years ago. Now, each vehicle is assigned an mpg target based on it’s footprint, the product of track and wheelbase. Simply by pushing the wheels out to the corners of the body to increase the footprint, the mpg target is reduced, making it easier for the vehicle to make it’s target.
Steve, that’s very interesting. Are you aware of a specific reference to a regulation or a portion of a regulation where one can read about this in more detail?
That might have played a role (among many contributing factors) in killing off Ford’s Panther platform, which as a relic of 1979 probably had the largest overhang in production in 2011.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjD_YegroveAhUiLn0KHWV0CVMQFjACegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.caranddriver.com%2Ffeatures%2Fthe-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature&usg=AOvVaw0dGcUjvgoup_Vid_MCdvtU
Fuel economy was not a concern for the Panther platform, they were all Flex Fuel at the end so they had CAFE numbers that exceeded 100MPG. It was regulations that did it in and why those of us in the US only got 2011 models while GCC countries got 2012 models. The reason was stability control requirement. The fact that much of the plant and tooling was just plain worn out was another big factor.
Every manufacturer needs to rationalize its lineup. Every one of them has been trying to be all things to all people. Look at the number of individual platforms and models each manufacturer has been offering for decades now.
In the 1950s a moderately successful nameplate like Mercury or Pontiac was selling between 200-300K units *of the same vehicle* in a lackluster year like 1954. Chevrolet and Ford were over 1 million, sometimes over 1.5 million. In a much, much smaller market. And this was in an era where every model did not require crash testing and every powertrain combination did not require EPA certifications for emissions and fuel mileage. More recently the Taurus was good for 400K annual units in its good years.
I have been reading for 10-15 years that there is an overcapacity problem in the world auto industry, and this overcapacity seems to make a case for marginally successful vehicles that would not be built if not for plants that would otherwise just sit there. So in the short term I can see that a company may lose less money building some model that sells 30k units/year than by letting a plant sit idle. But losing money is not a good way to stay healthy over the longer term.
Your argument may not be as valid today as it was 10, or even 5 years ago as car manufacturers have whittled the number of “individual platforms” significantly. The Civic and Accord, for example, used to be on separate platforms, now they are using the same basic platform. The new Insight also uses that platform so now American Honda sells cars based off only 2 platforms.
Ironically, Ford was one of the worst when it came to separate platforms for every model, as was/is GM.
in my own case, I am currently shopping for a new car and would like to find a sedan that has a folding back seat AND a large trunk opening. With the fastback rooflines of most new sedans trunks with laughably small openings are the norm and not the exception unless you are looking at some of the full-sized models.
Have a look at the Elantra. The seats fold down in all models and the trunk is pretty roomy for the size with a good size opening. I wanted a full size spare for the car instead of the donut. I got the tire and the correct rim and took it to NTB for mounting. I was easily able to get the tire and rim in and out of the trunk.
The full size spare tire sits perfectly in the spare tire well but you will need a different case tool(the black Styrofoam thing that holds the jack and jack tools) as the original one will not fit. But that is just $20-$25 in cost.
Ford was not one of the worst in numbers of different platforms, they were the ones that created the original platform in the Falcon Chassis which was mutated to handle all sorts of cars over the years and that was followed up by the Fox platform which again was used on a wide range of vehicles. The Escort platform begat the Tempo. Today’s Conti is a stretched Fusion Platform shared with the Edge and MKX as well.
I totally agree with the first point. Manufacturers need to rationalize their lineups, and play to strengths and abandon the weaker points. Jeep is a good point. We don’t see a Jeep sedan, and we never will, yet Jeep is widely held as a profit monster. Ford will be the CUV/Truck specialist, and will do fine here without sedans, and many others may find the same works for them. The luxury brands, with higher margins and profits, can afford to keep sedans for the ones who want one. Everyone else will be happy with a CUV.
Your point on overcapacity is perhaps short sighted, but well intended as it seems to be that you espouse it better to keep a plant working making money losing marginal vehicles rather than closing. Losing money is never a good option for any ongoing concern, unless it is a VC funded tech startup founded by some guy named Musk. The problem is that any plant can be converted to produce vehicles that sell at a profit or are better off closed and written off as a tax loss. With fewer units made, demand goes up overall, which lifts prices and profits, so reducing overcapacity would actually be good for the bottom line. OPEC does that with oil, and has been very successful with that strategy.
Rationalize their line-ups, yes. But also freshen them and actually try to sell them. I think GM is correct in that there will be a market for cars and as of now, they’ll be the only domestic producer. Every time Ford seems to have a product hit on their hands, they stop investing in it and the sales subsequently fall. What a surprise. Now, Ford is talking about partnering with other auto makers on future product. That’s the same thing they did with Mazda and Volvo years ago. At least the Volvo platform (Explorer) is still around but is long in the tooth.
This too shall pass! Tastes/needs will again change. Not sure a “all the eggs in one basket” approach is wise.
The Next Thing probably won’t be an Old Thing.
Looking at the photos of the Camry and Maxima, I had no idea that Toyota and Nissan merged. There is no originality in car designs today. In fact, car designers no longer exist, just chimps with computers. The car companies have the perfected the idea that cars are nothing more than an appliance, much like a toaster, blender or microwave oven.
There is no originality in car designs today.
Umm…what?
Uhh, yeah.
Thank you, this demonstrates it nicely: Anyone who’s not an enthusiast and overly concerned with details will see a lot of long, low, wide automobiles with vinyl roofs and blocky hoods. The Beetle naturally stands out because it’s at its core a 1930s design.
The one thing older eras do have over today is the preponderance of actual colors.
Any details about the ’70s pic? Looks like the newest cars are ’74s, probably Florida, the Gulf Coast area or California based on the palm trees, and I’m guessing away from even a third-tier city since there are plenty of Toyotas but no Datsuns, the only Euros are VW Beetles and a captive-import Capri and there’s a lighter Mopar presence than I’d expect all of which points to an area with a limited set of makes represented by local dealers.
I agree that most cars are indistinguishable, but not for a lack of design talent. I think the competing interests of government-mandated efficiency and crashworthiness standards have basically overconstrained the problem such that designs have converged on a single geometric solution. This solution is aerodynamic and spacially efficient but stylistically dull, so designers have the job of gluing plastic onto it to try to make one company’s amoeba look different than another.
I have yet to find a cross-over that appeals to me. I dislike sitting this far above ground and feeling to be in a tippy carriage. For 20 years I was driving minivans with the same feeling. Therefore I am looking for an opportunity to get into a nice comfortable riding midsize sedan. This article tells me I should have no problem finding one in the used car market.
The last Focus was a stinker because of the Powershift debacle and some other quality issues early on, coupled with a too-tight rear seat. I think people forget that a ton of economy car buyers are family people that have the efficient sedan as the commuter for Dad while mom has the nicer minivan (or reverse the genders, whatever). Said commuter still needs to be able to fit car seats just in case. The Focus fails here. That’s my take on it anyways. The gen 1 Cruze I really quite liked, it was a solid heavy nice riding compact with grown-up styling. For gen 2 they made it look like something generic and Asian and cheap, and took weight out of the car that made it feel so substantial for the class.
If Subaru gets rid of the Impreza sedan, does that mean the 5 door is gone as well? Or does it live on as lowered Crosstrek?
Sorry I posted before fully reading the article. “Subaru could likely switch a decent portion of sedan buyers to the hatchback model. Or they might be saving enough money with their new modular platform to the point where the sedan is financially viable on its own. ” Guess we don’t know for sure, but there is hope.
I honestly could see them consolidating on the crosstrek, I feel like I see 20 crosstreks to one impreza (sedan or hatch). Remember too, Subaru axed the regular legacy wagon and began offering only the outback (or sporty/pricey turbo legacy wagon). They just recently added the Impreza line to the Lafayette plant and expanded further for the Ascent. I’m sure their discussing if it would be more profitable to cut back on the cheaper imprezas to accomodate more Crosstreks.
I see a fair amount of Impreza 5 doors here in the foothills, but of course, not as many Crosstreks or Foresters. The sedan is the rare one.
Strangely enough, I’ve actually been seeing a fair number of new Legacy sedans on the road lately. Admittedly, it might just be that I’m taking notice of them more precisely *because* they’re unusual compared to something like the Outback.
Where i live, I tend to see more Imprezas. Several reasons: fairly inexpensive, better gas mileage, cheaper tires, and dependable. That is why both my mother and I bought ones. There are far fewer Crosstreks – I know more that one person that thought the rims were too fugly. Hopefully Subaru will keep the 5-door Impreza around.
Of course in ultimate CC fashion, as soon as I post that, I ended up driving behind a base-trim new Impreza through my neighborhood last night. I really like them, good mix of utility/economy in the cheapest car Subaru offers. I could see my folks being interested to replace their ’07 Fit with one, they drive over all sorts of poorly maintained rural roads and all over their unpaved hobby farm and traction is an issue when the grass gets wet.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the used market is killing new sedan sales. What should compel me to buy a new 2019 Camry over a 2017, or a 2015, or a 2011? They’re all equally dependable, nothing of note has meaningfully improved, and value is miles apart. This can be said for virtually every sedan made in the last 10 years, and the word is out well beyond car people about the fact that most modern cars are mostly impervious to corrosion and mechanical maladies that would force you out of your otherwise beloved cars of the past if you don’t care about newness for the sake of it. There are a lot of new crossovers on the road, but they are still surrounded by late model sedans that aren’t showing their age.
Crossovers sell like gangbusters because they’ve been evolving in the same time, getting more efficient, safer, better performing, better styled to the point that a new one truly makes a better case over a used one. They’re compelling over sedans for the same reason, regardless of the so-called “demand” for absolute practicality, crossovers are the only happening thing in the industry these days and consumers that want new, want NEW. Not the new another mild reskin of a good/great but stale sedan has to offer. Tesla is a case in point here, the model 3 sells extremely well I’m told, and it’s because it offers something that is truly new and exciting, all in what is in reality a pretty mundane sedan package. Ironically I rarely have seen model X crossovers to the degree of the S and 3
I’m certain the market will correct itself eventually if it could, but if automakers commit their lineups to all 2 box crossovers, there will be no place for consumers to turn to when they need a new car that isn’t the crossover they were previously hyped into buying. Of course by then the confluence of events may just drive people into automous subscription services and this will simply be the shape of cars forever. That sounds like hell to me.
Used sedans are great values because most people who are in the market for a new/late model used car don’t want to drive them, and have the discretionary money to back up that preference. There are lots of used trucks and SUVs in the used vehicle market, and retail customers are willing to put cash on the barrel head or sign a contract to drive them. There’s no shortage of used SUVs and trucks for sale.
The used vehicle market doesn’t have a fleet segment to absorb unloved vehicles and push them onto employees and day renters.
My point is 5-10 year old used sedans fulfill the needs anyone would have out of a brand new sedan. Many 5-10 year old crossovers on the other hand are noticeably more dated, and SUVs in the traditional sense are practically extinct. Trucks are a different story, arguably those are the only vehicles with an owner base that buys them in the old keeping up with the Joneses mentality, or in the case of work applications truly wear them out and beat them up to the point of periodically needing brand new.
Used car sales are roughly double that of new car sales, and growing. The sedan reached full maturity a decade ago, and current models reflect that, add a crease here, some LED running lights there, and improve the infotainment is about all that’s changed in sedans over the last decade. Of course there are used crossovers too, and obviously the latest ones will come to dominate the used market as well, but my argument is that the majority of the customers seeking out sedans are seeking used ones for the well reported value. When crossovers inevitably wash out sedans the used market too, I suspect new sedan sales will begin to surge as those buyers backlash.
There seems to be this perception that because crossovers are the biggest growing segment in new cars now those buyers represent the majority of all possible car buyers, and that their dominance was inevitable and perminant due to their practicality and ingress/egress benefits. I think it’s very naive to assume that all current new and used buyers of sedans are all future crossover buyers, and that could put some of these sedan dropping companies in future peril, especially when their crossover entries aren’t even all that good(Ford)
Resale values suggest that people would rather have used SUVs than new sedans, so technology upgrades in new SUVs vs old SUVs probably aren’t important.
Exc for people who are buying small inexpensive new sedans instead of the big, expensive SUVs and trucks they’d rather have, today’s sedan buyers are tomorrow’s walker and cane buyers, not sedan or SUV buyers. American-brand medium/large sedan buyers have mostly aged out of the market. Sedan buyers who switched to Asian brands in the 80s and 90s are aging out of the market now. Their kids have grown up with SUVs and trucks, and *really* like SUVs and trucks.
The Volkswagen Jetta and Golf will likely stick around because of Wolfburg’s historic stubbornness when it comes to the American market.
The Golf is still the top seller in a very large market segment in Europe, so it will probably be around for a while. The US is a different matter. Word is that Golf production, which has been in Mexico for North America recently, will be reconsolidated in Wolfsburg with the Mk 8 next year. While US Golf sales enjoyed an increase when people were buying replacements for their TDIs, volumes have collapsed this year. I would not be surprised to see the Golf withdrawn from the US market. At first, I considered that margins on the GTI may be enough to sustain it here, but VW hasn’t offered a model like the Scirocco or Corrado here in years, so even the margins of the GTI may not justify the cost of federalizing the model for small numbers. To help drive a stake through the Golf’s heart here, VW has replaced the 1.8 with the smaller, cheaper, 1.4 that the Jetta uses. My fearless forecast is that the entire Golf line: hatch, wagon, Alltrack, GTI and R will all be dropped from the US with the discontinuation of Mexican Mk 7 production. (that possibility leaves me conflicted: whether to pick up a Golf wagon, even though my Jetta wagon is only 5 years old, but then, it wouldn’t break my heart to end up with a Tiguan)
One thing that I wonder for a long time is what would happen if United States, and to the extent Canada, would swallow its pride and harmonise their automotive safety and emission regulations with the rest of the world, namely UNECE?
Developing the vehicles for just one international standard rather than two or more disparaging standards would save millions of dollars for the manufacturers and give Americans better choices of vehicles and enable American manufacturers to be more competitive on the international market since they don’t have to engineer the vehicles separately for US and international markets.
Granted, UNECE isn’t perfect but has been adopted in many countries as their own de facto standards, including Australia and Japan. So the saying goes: if you can’t beat them, join them.
I agree with you that it would make a lot of sense. My guess is that the US auto industry thinks that it has more to lose than to gain by standardization. We have a large market here and the vehicles of other countries are appealing to many Americans. Making it easier for other manufacturers to sell here would surely add to their sales at the expense of those already here. However, the stuff we do well (like larger SUVs and trucks) are probably priced out of many markets based on their pricing, size and fuel mileage, so any gains in foreign countries would be incremental.
iirc there has been an effort to harmonize US and European safety and emissions standards for some time.
Making it easier for other manufacturers to sell here would surely add to their sales at the expense of those already here.
Harmonizing standard would also make it easier for the big three to import niche models from other markets. Saturn could have offered the entire range of Opel Astras, rather than just the hatchback. The Fiat 500 sold here is virtually a separate product from the European 500 because so much had to be changed to comply with US regs. Buick, or some GM division, could have imported the Opel Adam. GM even went so far as to show the media how much would have needed to be changed on the Adam to be able to sell it in the US.
This Is Why America Isn’t Getting The Opel Adam
Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/06/this-is-why-america-isnt-getting-the-opel-adam/#ixzz5U1RfLkmF
Of course, now the situation has changed. The big three would now be looking at importing from China (outside of the trade war now underway). US harmony with China would make it economic to import the Focus, as Ford had originally intended. Buick could still offer the Verano, as the model is alive and well in China.
Of course, different countries have different objectives, which are reflected in regulations. In Europe CO2 emissions are a hot issue, but, the official position in the US is climate change due to human activity doesn’t exist, so the Federal government is trying to block California’s stricter auto CO2 regulation.
[Citation needed]
I hope Chevrolet keeps building sedans, but they should go to one model, sized between the Malibu and the Impala.
And they should call it the Impalabu! 🙂
Every owner of the now-defunct Chev SS is familiar with the Impalabu name, having been constantly asked, “Is that the new Impala/Malibu SS?” That stopped when I rebadged mine to its origin brand, Holden.
The Dart and 200 were done on the cheap. They are just a Fiat platform that was drawn and quartered to fit the target size.
The Dart was a massive success for FCA because getting it to market as agreed earned them the gift of the portions of Chrysler they weren’t already given. Doesn’t matter if they lost $5k per car the overall profit was massive.
The 200 was a waste of money however and the massive discounts required to move them meant zero profit.
The Fusion was not canceled because it didn’t make money, it was canceled because of the tariff worries and that the money they would spend on a replacement would generate larger profits if used in their Truck, SUV and CUV lines.
The Focus also had to die due to the uncertainty of tariffs. They already spend the money on a new model but building it in Mexico or China could have resulted in large tariffs that would have killed profitability. The higher cost of producing it in the US also would have killed the profits. Meanwhile there was a much more promising way to use the plant, building the Ranger and Bronco instead.
There is a real possibility that the Fusion was killed because the replacement budget was just shifted to the Mondeo replacement out of Ford of Europe’s budget. It seems more an accounting shift. The Mondeo and Fusion are inherently similar, so any future need for such a sedan can be federalized and imported more cheaply than engineering a US version. I am assuming Europe will still have the Focus and Fiesta, and just like it was up to the 1980s, the budget for their development will be borne by the European branch, not the American one. The world will not be without sedans, just the US market. The minute demand comes back, so will sedans. OEMs will build whatever sells profitably, and right now in the US market, that is NOT sedans.
I doubt that Hyundai is going to kill off the Elantra anytime soon. The current version arrived in 2017 and had a refresh for the 2019 model year. These 2019 Elantra have just hit the showrooms.
The Ionic will not do super well until a gas crunch comes in as they are offered in ether gas/electric hybrids, plug in hybrids and fully electric versions and hybrid cars seem to suffer when gas is cheap.
I do think the 2017-current Elantra is stealing sales of the Sonata as the Elantra is actually a roomy car. I just bought a 2018 Elantra and it is a nice car. even with the driver seat all the way back, there is still plenty of room for a back seat passenger.
I also think the Elantra steals sales from the Accent as it is not much more money for a Elantra SE over a Accent.
The Kona is a nice car and I think it will do well. My neighbor bought her daughter a Kona as a 21st bitrhday gift(her previous car was a 2004 Grand Prix that was falling apart) and it is a nice vehicle.
The Focus is terrible compared to the previous generation. It also feels too narrow inside due to the center console. The Elantra seems bigger inside then the Focus.
This was an interesting article and the comments section is full of useful debate. I learn a lot on here. I still think my standard complaint of modern sedans being UGLY still has a place in the debate. Did cars become only appliances to people because of the looks or vise versa? Or are the looks beautiful now and it is only me who thinks the super aggressive look has had it’s day and graceful/pretty is due for a comeback? Or am I missing the point completely?
Well, you do raise a good point, but the design of cars AND SUV/Trucks are all pretty much generic. There are so many regulations any design must meet (for pedestrian safety, among other things) and with the limitations of aerodynamics, they all carry the same basic shape. Beauty is always subjective, but most OEMs try for a look that offends the fewest while being cheapest to build.
If you are looking for an aesthetic, think of how Apple compares to the rest of the market, or any other luxury product. When you charge a fortune for something, you can afford a fancy design and make it pretty. When you are trying to shave $0.01 per unit to keep costs competitive, you really don’t care as much how it looks, as long as it is acceptable by the buyers.
Beauty is so subjective that there are “ugly” and “pretty” cars from every year. And on the whole, cars from any given era will all look broadly similar. It’s not a new thing.
Cars have never looked similar for SO LONG since the 1940s. Once jellybean styling set in cars haven’t deviated in shape and proportions much since the mid-1990s. Size, lights and a few creases are about all that differs, which could be said about models from different makes in a single given year in the 60s.
I agree that beauty is subjective, I like ugly cars.
Everyone makes good points. For me, I think when the hoods got higher (around ’08?) to make it less brutal on unlucky pedestrians was the point at which the styling started to look really compromised. The second gen Fusion comes to mind. Also, Hondas forever lost their low fronts which was sort of why they were cool to me. I am all for safety, but the thick pillars and high beltlines just keep creeping thicker and higher until it starts to distort the whole look. The windows keep shrinking too, so that you really need cameras just to see. For me, the sweet spot of safety/styling was around 2000. I really liked the overall look of most cars across the board then. But I must be in the minority because it didn’t last very long. Sometimes ugly just works for me, too. The Matador coupe is among my favorite cars, and it is ridiculous!
I think there are a lot of handsome-looking fastback sedans on the market now. The bit drawback with them is that they don’t have any rear seat headroom and that is pushing people into larger crossovers and SUVs.
Toyota makes Crap load of money selling Camrys Corollas world wide while Big Three Are loosing money selling sedans.
Toyota isn’t making a carp load of selling Camrys and Corollas in the US and it is only going to get worse in the near future. The fact that they may make money with them in other countries however can allow them to hang on and keep moving the metal even if they only real contribution to margin is by reducing the amortization load on the vehicles sold in the rest of the world.
A coworker was just picking my brain for some car advice to replace a ’07 Camry that he runs up some good miles on with lots of highway travel, he’s in an enviable position in that he’s perfectly content with a plain-jane sedan, a compact/midsizer in a lower trim with automatic transmission are the only real requirements. Given the current CUV-obsessed marketplace, I’d say the world is his oyster! Plenty of crazy discounts on new cars, and good deals on used ones from what I’ve seen. And there isn’t really a bad midsize car anymore (although I’d put an asterisk by the Altima’s CVT).
Some of the bigger Hyundai & Kia sedans are pretty nice cars with good drivetrains. Carmax and Carvana are offering some 1-2 year old Cadenzas for the mid 20s.
He’s looking to stay in the $15-17k range for new or CPO. I specifically singled out Hyundai Sonatas and Kia Optimas as being excellent fire-sale cars that have just about reached (or eclipsed) the Camry for value/quality. He really doesn’t care for a ton of power or toys and was actually considering moving down to a Corolla, but for a car that gets 90% highway miles, a midsizer is the way to go IMO. I’m also a fan of the last-gen Malibu, the one that was heavily panned. Avoids the mini-turbo engine fad, regular 6 speed auto, just a very solid (heavy) and quiet car that gobbles up miles, and is dirt cheap used.
Try the Elantra. the EPA considers it to be a midsize with its room volume.
The 2017-2018 Elantra is probably around the same size as the older Camry
I got my 2018 Elantra SE 3 weeks ago for about $16,593.00 out the door. I got power windows, locks, A/C, 7 inch touch screen with USB/Satellite radio, ABS, Remote keyless entry plus more. It has a 6 year 50,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty and a 10 year 100,000 mile powertrain warranty.
The new 2019 Elantra are out right now so there is a high motivation on the dealer’s part to move the metal.
Here is a pic of mine
Leon thanks for the tip, I did infact come to the conclusion that an Elantra SE would be a decent fit for my friend, and got some OTD quotes, one of which was right at that 16,5 mark, so that’s good to know. I’ve had one as a rental and found it very competent and decent to drive.
A friend of mine just paid $15,000 (at Carmax) for a 2016 Fusion SE with leather seats, a sunroof and 40k miles on the odo. The local Carmax lot was overflowing with former rental car Fusions with low mileage and low prices. His car is in immaculate condition and still has the new car smell. I was amazed at how much car he was able to get for that price.
There definitely are great deals right now for someone looking for a lightly-used midsize sedan.
Interesting analysis. As someone who has only owned 3 sedans (and one a 2 door), all briefly, in over 40 years, I don’t actually see this as a big deal.
In my grandparents’ era, there were still lots of 4 door convertibles on the roads. We don’t really miss them now. Well, buyers don’t, though we CC’ers do. It’s similar with BOF SUV’s; other than some blingy Navigators and Escalades, they are only of interest to off-roaders (Wrangler, 4Runner/Prado). In Europe people still buy hatchbacks, here in the US (and many other places) it’s CUV’s. The industry will survive … fossil fuels are a bigger challenge than body styles.
I see it even less of a big deal, as the owner of one four door sedan in fifty years of driving. And it was a luxury sport sedan, BMW 325i, not a traditional one. I dont consider the two doors, a VW beetle and Mk I Fiesta traditional sedans either. Even our Fit is not a sedan in my book, no trunk.
If platform sharing is done right, the CUV should not cost that much more to manufacture, but sell at a slightly higher price.
Dad was born in 1927 and even he bought only two traditional sedans. His first new car was a ’55 Pontiac and his last was a ’99 Camry. In between was one ’64 suicide door Lincoln, a luxury barge, not generic American sedan. The rest were station wagons, a van and several semi-sporty coupes.
The Nissan Sentra platform could continue a bit longer if Mitsubishi (then Renault-Nissan recently acquired a stake) could inherit a re-badged version of the Sentra).
Subcompact – I expect Chevy will keep the Spark and drop the Sonic. There isn’t really room for both and the Sonic is older.
The Honda Fit seems to have most of the “truly small car that isn’t a cheaped-out you-know-what box” market sewn up. They should follow Subaru’s lead and merge the expensive sheetmetal panels of the next Fit and HR-V – even as it is, neither one is more “truckish” or “wagony” than the other, even ride height difference is minimal, you could swap around the flares and cladding and the HR-V would be the “car” and the Fit the “crossover”.
Toyota’s previewed “the new Yaris” in Europe but it’s yet another facelift rather than a TNGA-based really new model. The hard points go back to 1999. Just bring in the Mazda 2 hatchback.
Fiat’s only staying in the US if FCA determines Alfa/Maserati dealers need a loss leader. Really, all the Italian makes should’ve been plugged into the existing CJDR sales channel from Day 1.
Compact – As implied with Honda above, I think the Subaru Impreza hatch/Crosstrek model should be the industry standard for having a lucrative sub-Escape/RAV4 size CUV and continuing to serve the compact passenger car niche.
VW has blown through several opportunities to reunite the Golf and Jetta as bodystyle variants of the same car. There’s room in the line for an “Alltrack Sport” using the Golf hatchback body. The just-launched Jetta will be the last. It may last ten years in the US and 25 in China, but there won’t be another.
I traded an ’03 Buick LeSabre toward an ’08 Chevy HHR. We had been wanting some sort of vehicle with a hatchback, and the HHR had the added advantage (to me) of being equipped with a millennial anti-theft device, also known as a 5-speed manual transmission.
“Thirty years ago, some of the best selling cars were rear wheel drive coupes. ”
30 years ago was October 1988, and GM had long dropped their RWD G bodies. 1989 model year started, and only the T Bird and Cougar were “traditional” RWD coupes offered, and were not best sellers, like the decade before. Mustang and F body were selling ok, but not like Accord, Camry, Taurus, or even Cavalier in 1988.
Very good point. I’ll change it to forty years.
Law of supply and demand will kick in, when there’s more CUV’s to sell. Makers will try to offer more discounts, and then who knows?
Actually, by stopping production of sedans, it makes it more profitable for the ones left in the market. Discounts and rebates will only last a short time on current sedan inventory, then any sedans remaining in the shrunken market will not carry the discounting any longer. Supply will be equal to or less than demand and keep pricing up. As you noted, CUVs will start being loss leaders and carry more discounts and rebates to move product, but OEMs are fine with that as they started off at a higher price point and profitability.
The trend to CUV’s is also visible in the rental fleets. My last three, using Costco for the cheapest price across all categories, were a Jeep Compass, Kia Soul and Hyundai Santa Fe.
Fleet managers are finally looking at resale, not just initial price, so I no longer get a Focus with that horrible transmission.