By on September 9, 2013

USA_small-suv-sales-chart-july-2013

If you want to know why Jaguar and Lexus are introducing compact crossover concepts at the Frankfurt Auto Show this week, all you have to do is check the sales data. Crossover sales are soaring, particularly compacts. Last month, Toyota’s RAV4 was up 50% year to year, and the CR-V at Honda had its best sales month yet. Car sales in general are good in the United States right now, with overall August sales up 17%, but sales of smaller crossovers have doubled that and then some at 36%. Crossovers have gained market share for 10 straight months and now take just over a quarter of the total market, on a pace to sell about 4 million units this year. Overall crossover sales are up about 2% from last year, with compacts making most of that difference. As recently as 2007, crossovers only made up 15% of U.S. light vehicle sales. Pickup trucks are usually seen as America’s favorite vehicles, but in August crossovers outsold pickups by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

Ford and Honda hope to sell as many as 300,000 Escapes and CR-Vs and Toyota is looking at selling more than 200,000 RAV4s this year, which would be a record for that model. Escape sales were down 5% in August, which Ford attributed to short supplies.

USA_luxury-suv-crossover-sales-figures-july-2013-ytd

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

101 Comments on “Crossover Sales Soar...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    youtube.com/watch?v=cbeR6uYxU50

  • avatar
    Brian E

    One of these things is not like the other: brand with the slowest selling luxury SUV is also the volume leader in the segment.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    Also, in the non-luxury section, Honda sold in excess of 27,000 CR-Vs to a lonely Element. Shows that just for being a sought-after brand is not an automatic pass by consumers for your products.

    • 0 avatar
      LeeK

      Um, the Element has been out of production for two years.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        I think I share Schmitt’s worldview in *not realizing* that the Element was out of production.

        Maybe it’s just living in the Northwest, but I see them regularly and they seemed quite popular, so I never suspected Honda stopped making them.

        (And I don’t haunt Honda’s site, so I never noticed…)

        • 0 avatar
          LeeK

          Elements sold in the 60k a year level for the first six years or so (compared to 120k CR-Vs in just one month — yikes!), but they decided not to do a redesign and just lived on the old platform with a minor facelift in 2007. It never worked for the target audience (millenials and Gen Y young adults who want a dorm room on wheels) and instead appealed to the 40-50 crowd who just appreciated the utility combined with Honda’s reputation for reliability. It’s a shame, as nothing really offers that today other than perhaps a Ford Transit, and those are not known for work outside commercial use.

          • 0 avatar
            Rental Man

            Used Element’s get a hugh Price Premium. Nice certified ones are going very close to original MSRP and people go the distance to get them. It is a Honda and all. Dog owners & trainers love them. That being said, for the $$$ Get a new or lightly used Ford Transit Connect, Nissan NV and the best set of Snow tires Money can buy.

  • avatar
    LeeK

    It appears that Ford’s gamble on making the Escape more cute and less trucky is paying off.

    Volkswagen needs a bigger and less costly competitor to the CR-V than the Tiguan.

    Somebody bought an Element!

    Who would’ve thought the X1 would outsell the X3?

  • avatar
    IndianaDriver

    No surprise about the sales. People don’t have big families anymore and the CUVs offer increased ride height, better utility than a car and decent gas mileage. I have a CUV that consistently nets 30+ mpg in 70% highway driving. I’ve gotten as much as 34 actual mpg on a tank (doing the math after a fill up – not going by the car computer). I really don’t see big advantages to cars anymore – and apparently more and more people are thinking the same way.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    I am considering a CUV. I wouldn’t do such a thing, except no one makes a halfway decent station wagon anymore!

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      The Jetta sportwagon is a geat little driver. If you need “more” (height, cargo, passenger space) the Outback is definitely a station wagon jacked up 5″.

      • 0 avatar
        eggsalad

        The Jetta Sportwagon is excluded by my request for “halfway decent”.

        The Outback is excluded because I have no reason to own an AWD car.

        My current favorite is the Mazda CX-5 – if only Mazda would sell a stick shift version in some color besides black, gray, or silver.

  • avatar
    carguy

    As much as I personally dislike them, the crossover checks all the boxes that US consumers value:

    - Enough room for passengers and gear
    - Decent fuel economy
    - Plush ride
    - Handles curbs, potholes and gravel roads
    - Better looking than a minivan
    - Raised driving position
    - Good crash scores

    I would expect that this segment has plenty of growth left in it.

    • 0 avatar
      LeeK

      Yes, exactly. And the “handles curbs, potholes, and gravel roads” can’t be dismissed because of the continually deteriorating state of US roadways.

      And I would add: makes people feel safer. I know many potential buyers (more women than men, but still a sample of both sexes) feel that being higher makes them safer. We know that the higher center of gravity and tendency to roll upon a departure from the pavement makes a CUV/SUV actually more dangerous, but people don’t think that way and only consider the physics of a collision with another vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Honestly now, can these things handle curbs, potholes, and gravel roads? They all “ride high” but some of them sit low (BMW X1/3) and they all seem to come with thin tires and gigantic wheels.

        • 0 avatar
          IndianaDriver

          I test drove several CUVs before settling on one and here are observations of all of them compared to a car:

          -Much better visibility than a car
          -Handles snow much better than a car
          -Curves and turns are comparable to a car
          -Driving over bumps is felt more than a car, because like you said, they tend to come with big rims and thinner tires

          • 0 avatar
            rudiger

            I wonder if the ‘much better visibility than a car’ would exist if it weren’t for all the other, high-center-of-gravity vehicles on the road blocking the view. At this rate, at some point we’ll all be driving vehicles as high off the ground as Peterbilts.

            Not to mention the higher beltlines and steep tumblehome windshields. Seems like a car with a traditional, low beltline, large side windows, and reasonably raked windshield/rear window might have nearly as much outward visibility as a stylish, gunslit window CUV.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Wheels/tires could always be replaced of course.

            Actually now I’d be curious to try one of them in the deep snow we sometimes get in these parts. I would think the higher center of gravity to be disadvantageous to the steep hills we have around here but I’m prepared to be wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            rudiger: Spot on. The one-upmanship after a few iterations becomes the undoing of what was once a great idea. The P/U market is a great example as well. I have to take exception that handling is comparable to a car; that higher center of gravity has to exact a toll on handling.

          • 0 avatar
            Signal11

            This idea that it’s only view blocking taller cars that are pushing seating positions higher is one of these nonsensical notions that doesn’t stand up to smallest bit of thought.

            The higher your eyeballs are off the ground, the more of the environment you see around you. That’s why crow’s nests are on top of the mast and watch towers are towers.

            Higher seating position equates with better visibility *without* regard to other cars, period.

            Of course, taller cars block more of your view, but even in the absence of other cars, a more upright position gives you a better view of the four corners of your car than if your eyes were closer to hood level.

            Rising beltlines in cars only makes this worse.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Is the car in front of you the only visible obstacle you encounter throughout your day? I find the increased drive height helps with seeing over bushes, fences, other cars, snow banks, numerous obstacles that a wider field of vision can increase safety. I find driving standard cars almost claustrophobic compared to an SUV/CUV. Also, they all don’t come with slitty slanted greenhouses

          • 0 avatar
            Superdessucke

            I’m utterly amazed we ever made it through winters and our species isn’t wiped out due to lack of, uh, safety before these stupid things got invented. I mean, how did we even see the roads before?

            They are pointless, and a trend that will die off like the personal luxury car of the 1970s. The new Jag CUV is the Camaro Type LT of the crossover world, the sign that the segment has jumped the shark.

          • 0 avatar
            Signal11

            @Superdessucke

            The CUV is the modern wagon, which as far as body styles go, is much more practical and utilitarian than sedans.

            You might as well get used to it because these things are here to stay.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            @Superdessucke, it is amazing, I used to get stuck in snow all the time. Not, once since getting my first 4X4 Jeep in 1990 have I ever gotten stuck… in anything

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        Most crashes don’t involve rollovers. Way more crashes involve more than 1 vehicle, in which case the higher center of gravity is a plus.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          It was not too long ago that the death rate in SUVs in single vehicle crashes way outstripped the death rate in single vehicle car crashes. Many of those single vehicle SUV crashes were rollovers. That higher rate fully offset the better survival rate SUVs offered in multi vehicle crashes. Hence the requirements for stability control, which has have a significant impact on reducing rollovers. However, the better performance in crashes of SUVs, at least as I recall, was due primarily to the fact that the higher crash structure of the SUV typically overrode that of the car. That higher structure obviously has a higher center of gravity, but I don’t see that the higher COG has any bearing in and of itself…

  • avatar
    hands of lunchmeat

    The tiguan is in the same boat as the CC is – its on a dated platform, and i think it shows that VW still have a bunch to learn about selling SUV’s, when the combined sales of the two offered barely matches what Audi did in Q5′s in the same month.

    I think the popularity of these things lies more with the Greying of our population. They sit higher, so theyre easier to get in and out of, and offer better visibility, just not to me when im in a car trying to get around them when theyre invariably doing 5 MPH under the posted limit on one of my favorite twisty roads.

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    These are going to eventually match or surpass midsize cars. A hatch is a lot more practical then a trunk for most consumers. It’s the high ride height I don’t like personally..

    I just don’t see the value in a higher center of gravity. But its clear that female buyers in general don’t really care about handling a whole lot..

    X1 is the only one I’d even consider with its RWD biased AWD and slightly higher then a normal car ride height. Still wish they would bring their 1 series hatch over here instead.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Considering how many men buy trucks, handling doesn’t seem to be always at the top of their priorities, either.

    • 0 avatar

      This July both my parents bought new cars for the first time in almost 20 years.
      The higher ride height of their Crosstrek and Escape makes it easier for them to get in and out of.

      Handling, high centre of gravity isn’t on the radar for them.
      Car didn’t fishtail out of control when changing lanes? “That’s some good handling!”

      • 0 avatar
        IndianaDriver

        Strange – when I checked out the Crosstrek, I was impressed by the higher ground clearance, but the seat felt low, like a car. The Escape seat felt higher.

        • 0 avatar

          The Crosstrek’s for my mom.
          She compared it to the Impreza hatch and found the Crosstrek had easier ingress/egress and felt “more solid”.
          Probably due to the higher profile tyres, soft-roady bits and psychological effect of the body cladding.

          She also got a kick out of driving off the road onto a dirt shoulder during the test drive.

          Dad’s a little slower these days due to surgery and his 96 Ranger started every morning. His old buddy’s a Ford salesman so Escape it was.

  • avatar
    azmtbkr81

    The Wrangler is the 6th best seller on the list yet no other manufactures bother to offer an even marginally off-road capable SUV? I don’t count the haven’t been updated since the Bush administration FJ and Xterra. Jeep is practically printing money at the prices Wranglers are selling for.

  • avatar
    jrhmobile

    Crimony, looking at all the Cute-Utes offered for sale, I’m not surprised that they sell a lot of of ‘em.

    I mean really — do I even have a choice? SUVs are all but dead except the big, industrial-strength versions. Minivans have been pared from most manufacturers’ lineups. Compact pickups are also all but gone. And wagons? Unless I’m willing to spend $50-60K for a stripped German or Swedish model, I’m flat out of luck.

    CUVs are selling because they’re what’s left. Who knows if CUVs killed all these other product categories, or the manufacturers killed all these other categories and offered CUVs instead. The point may be moot. As a car guy, I’d rather have a wagon. But if I’m looking for utility, my only choice seems to be a CUV.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      Valid points. CUVs have sucked a lot of the variety out of the market. I can see a point where aside from specialty vehicles full size pickups and CUVs are the only two categories left. Better start saving for an F150 I guess.

    • 0 avatar
      AoLetsGo

      Some people choose the Ford Flex which is some kind of CUV/Wagon mash-up. With the 3.5 Ecoboost and AWD options it can also be quicker than most CUV’s and good in the snow. The Flex even sells very well in California and of course in Michigan.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        When I was in CA a few weeks ago I was quite surprised as the number of Flexes I saw on the road, and they were not rentals since you usually don’t see the stick figure family or my kid is a honor student stickers on rental cars. Personally I’ve been sort of looking at them for our next Family Truckster.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      The first-gen Mazda6 sales records kind of answered that question for me. It was offered in three body styles in the US: sedan, hatch, and wagon. Roughly equivalent pricing — I think there was about a $1k discount on the sedan — and at least when I was shopping, the availability on dealer lots was decent. The results? The hatch and wagon combined were less than 10% of sales.

      Ford couldn’t move the Freestyle/Taurus X; Dodge couldn’t move the Magnum (though it certainly had issues); the Focus wagon didn’t sell well enough to make it past the facelift.

      I think the popularity of CUVs keeps ‘em dead, though — they’re higher margin vehicles.

  • avatar
    klossfam

    North Americans supposedly hate hatchbacks but most small CUV/SUVs are hatchbacks on stilts…i.e. a Tiguan is a Golf/GTI on stilts. I can do a good comparo as my son’s GTI sits right next to my wife’s Tiguan.

    A four door hatchback CAR is actually what MOST people need but when the raised seating, more cubes of storage and generally an AWD option come into play (for usually a few thousand more than a loaded hatchback), you can understand the successful small CUV/SUV formula.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      A hatchback is a povertous car for povertous people. A crossover is a mighty and fashionable SUV that’s easier to park and gets slightly better fuel mileage.

      /consumerthink

      In the end, it all comes back to repackaging the station wagon.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        +1 for the comment, but suddenly I feel very misanthropic.

      • 0 avatar
        walker42

        I think you’re kidding but too many people keep repeating that conventional wisdom bullish*t. The Mini and Tesla Models S are hatchbacks. The Mercedes GLA will be too. It’s not what it is it’s in the execution.

      • 0 avatar
        duffman13

        Danio,

        For pretty much every model that offers a hatch, the hatch variant is more expensive than the sedan. Better looking too.

        I feel like I see more mazda3 and focus hatches now versus their sedan variants, so the market may be shifting its opinion.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          You don’t need to remind me, I understand that only some hatchbacks are of poverty spec, not all. Looks, those are subjective.

          When it comes to the buying public, crossovers are generally seen as an upgrade from a hatch back or mythical wagon. Even though functionally, they rarely are.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I really wish I new what this one study was that stuck like glue that determined Americans hate hatchbacks. Then to lump them all as an unlikable needy class of car buyers worthy of scorn… must be coming from the porcupines that drive BMWs, who would never be seen in a hatchback… Oh, wait

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Haha – that’s what I’ve been saying all along as well.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      A Yaris is what I need, but I drive a 350Z. Thankfully I don’t have to get your approval to rationalize why I “need” what I “want”.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      Kloss,

      As a hatch owner, I question the utility of it over having the sedan version of my car, and comparing it to the CUV version as well. We have a 2010 Mazda 3 hatch for reference. Most hatches end up being slightly shorter on overall trunk length compared to the sedan variants, which hurts them for certain cargo.

      In particular, I actually find that aside from the larger opening and the ability to fit more cubic feet of storage, the trunk of the sedan actually has more floor space ie can fit a large and medium suitcase lengthwise, while we have to turn it sideways and stack them in the hatch, necessitating removing the cargo cover, which is a unnecessary pain for something like a quick airport run. The CX-5 you could do whatever you wanted, since it has both the length and the width.

      Since we have the old 2.5, both the K24 in the CR-V or the 2.5 Skyactiv offer similar or better mileage as well. Aside from the improved handling of being a car, I see little reason in retrospect that we should have gotten the hatch rather than paying the small premium for the CUV variant.

      And AWD would just be a plus, even if it rarely ever comes into play.

  • avatar
    ajla

    WTF is a Paceman?

  • avatar
    Grandstanding

    ATTN: Mods/Admins
    J. Emerson’s articles break my page and won’t display anything after his opening picture including previously posted articles on the front page. This is the case with all of his articles and no other author’s.

    Using IE8.

    • 0 avatar
      Zekele Ibo

      In the source code for the home page at the time of posting, lines 506 to 714 are copy-pasted Microsoft Word junk code that needs to be cleaned up (ie. removed) – that’s over 200 lines of the stuff! This is the reason why your browser is having problems (however I can’t see the issue myself, I only have access to IE10 not IE8). Try sending an email to the editors, I don’t think there’s a bug report system here…

  • avatar
    walker42

    Odd that it takes Hyundai/Kia four products to cover the same ground that Honda and Ford do with one. I don’t mean that as a criticism of H and K, it’s more of a compliment to Honda and Ford for focusing on one product and nailing it.

    One could argue that the Santa Fe should be bumped out of this segment, for reporting purposes, and into the one Highlander is in. When I use Edmonds to compare the “market price” of a mid-level V6 Highlander and Santa Fe they are just $2,000 apart.

    If it was Veracruz they had in the Highlander segment that’s long gone and it’s time to make some updates.

  • avatar
    Rental Man

    @TTAC Staff …”Last month, Toyota’s RAV4 was up 50% year to year, and the CR-V at Honda had its best sales month yet.
    “Last Month…” are these the numbers for July or August?

  • avatar

    I wish Chrysler would bring back the Pacifica with the Pentastar V6 and the new interior.

  • avatar
    cmus

    My first thought upon seeing this was: “Now the Wrangler is a Crossover?!?!”
    …but then I read the actual title of the chart, which explains why it is there.

    It seems bonkers that the Wrangler is on that list. I definitely feel like “which one of these is not like the others”.

    So, my primary issue seems to be that “Small SUV” is an aggregation containing many dissimilar entities. No wonder it is so big. It contains every vehicle that doesn’t fit into other more clearly defined categories.

    There needs to be a separate category for “hatchback with lift kit”. That would just about cut the list in two.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    The FJ Cruiser is a crossover? I thought it was a variant of the Tundra.

  • avatar
    GoFaster58

    You say that small SUV’s outsold pickups. Your data is skewed. You have a listing of 30 vehicles. PickUpTrucks.com lists 13 models. It’s not comparing apples to apples.

    • 0 avatar
      walker42

      Sure it is. If there wasn’t so much demand for CUVs there wouldn’t be so many entries. To say it another way… if the industry added a few more truck nameplates would the sales match CUVs? No.

      Also don’t discount the million and one ways that you can get a light-duty pickup… 2wd, 4wd, crew, long, short, diesel, etc. When you add up the major variations there is just as much choice as in the CUV arena.

  • avatar
    chicagoland

    American women love crossovers and decide what to buy in 60% of new vehicle purchases. “Car guys” say “performance sells”, but reality is functionality, practicality, and value come way before 0-60, ‘twisties’, and stick shifts with majority of car buyers.

    “Car guys’ will say car companies ‘sell out’ when they don’t push ‘enthusiast cars’. But, it’s a business first, not a ‘performing arts’ non-profit. Want to see new performance cars roll from factory? Then go out and put money where big mouth is.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      +10
      Thanks for corroborating my view that “Car guys” are just as much cloistered ninnies as are economists, social activists and Mac fanatics.

      • 0 avatar
        CelticPete

        Huh? Car guys buy performance oriented cars – because that’s what they like. How exactly does that make them ‘cloistered ninnies.’ The fact that women don’t care about handling or power and want something to haul their kids and dogs around is not really relevant. We already knew that..

    • 0 avatar
      Sam P

      My wife doesn’t care for crossovers. I guess that’s why she bought a new Mini Cooper that regularly gets thrashed around corners at double the posted speed limit.

      Tl;Dr: I married an enthusiast with a uterus.

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      THANK YOU for pointing out this sad but relevant fact. American men can talk all big and bad, but are scared to death to stand up to their wives. Pish. I’d be rich like Powerball for every time I had to hear some guy say “well she didn’t want to learn how to drive a stick.”

      I would never marry a woman who didn’t know how to drive. She might as well not know how to cook or fk either. My girlfriend wants a larger CUV than the Juke, fine. And she wants an automatic, fine. But she’s going to wait until 2015 when the youngest gets the Focus and I buy my next car. Then she can sell the Juke and get what she wants, but not a minute sooner because I’ll be damned if anything I have to drive on a regular basis for 2 years is going to be a slushbox.

      I love the Juke, but I agree it’s too small. I suggested a Kia Sportage, since its more spacious and the 3-pedal models are super cheap on the used market, but then she started fussing about wanting a slushbox so I said, “screw it, we’ll just keep the Juke.”

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Interesting priorities, in that order, or does it matter?

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        LOL. I hope you are paying for her car to where you get to dictate what she drives your kids [from another marriage it sounds like] to school. Swapping a relatively new car for another is a poor financial move and I can empathize that, but this car guy BS where you don’t want to drive around her lame car is pretty hilarious. She already drives a Juke. It is moderate fun to drive at best.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    where is the ford edge?

  • avatar
    Nick_515

    I have a question for TTAC Staff or the b&b. is there a particular segment whose lunch the CUV revolution is eating, or are the losses spread out more or less evenly?

  • avatar
    Marko

    I forgot the Infiniti EX was still made. I’ve seen how many on the road…about 3?

    Also, “Land Rover Range Rover Evoque” is a tongue-twister of a name. Wouldn’t 3/5 that length suffice?

  • avatar
    Firestorm 500

    Look at all the luxury models that have an “X” somewhere in their model name.

    • 0 avatar
      Signal11

      For a bunch of odd historical reasons, the letter X has become associated with science, technology and innovation in the (American) English speaking psyche.

      Branding firms know this and stick the letter X (and Z, followed by Y and Q) onto product names whenever they can.

      • 0 avatar
        GiddyHitch

        A number of the non-lux offerings feature ‘X’ as well. I theorize that it is an allusion to the ‘x’ in ’4×4′ or ‘XC’ (cross country) that subtlely reinforce the belief that these things are off-roadable.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Exactly, no one makes a station wagon anymore. The crossover is the closest to a station wagon available. My wife just bought a new CRV loaded with heated seats, navigation, and rear backup camera. It is a nice and very well put together. Years ago we had an Escort wagon which was perfect and an excellent car–it was based on the Mazda 323.

    • 0 avatar
      White Shadow

      They’re out there if you look. Just today I was behind an Acura TSX wagon. And there are still lots of Volvo wagons out there. And every once in a while I see a 3-series wagon and even a few Audi wagons. Lets not forget about all the Subaru wagons too.

      The only thing I don’t see anymore is a wagon based on a fullsize car. But then again, these CUVs aren’t that big either, so they’re definitely not a replacement for that kind of wagon.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Late to this party, but to this 62½-year-old guy, the cars I grew up with aren’t ever going to come back – that is, the three-box styling that made for the beautiful, if excessive – and in many cases, impractical cars of the past with their proportions that allowed for such styling.

    A CUV is the best bang for the buck for a family truckster. Wifey’s 2002 CR-V – I would never have one for my daily driver – has been a superior vehicle, if noisy and not very comfortable. The CUV is everything a minivan isn’t, plus still has a “cool” factor that the OEMs market very well. A minivan may be the most practical vehicle ever built, but not many want to drive one anymore… We got over the desire to own one almost 20 years ago. Never did have one.

    Me? Of course I’m an Impala guy, and will most likely own one for many years as long as there is a utility vehicle in the household for doing the dirty work.

    I’d just as soon own a nice full-size pickup truck – short bed, standard cab, thank you very much! Maybe when I retire…

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      The 2013 CRV is much more refined than the 2002 CRV. I too am a fan of the old Detroit iron but for a multipurpose vehicle that is extremely reliable the CRV is hard to beat. Sometimes beauty is in the functionality.

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    The CUV is today’s mainstream 4-door sedan. Everyone has one and those who don’t are getting one soon. I’m actually considering getting rid of my 4Runner and replacing it with a CUV. Why? Well, not only am I averaging about 13 mpg (combined, but mostly city driving), but it’s also a sloppy handling vehicle. Sure, it’s great offroad, but like 99.9% of owners, my 4Runner spends all its time on pavement. Very few times has it been offroad.

    Something like a Mazda CX-5 will give much greater fuel economy (about 25 mpg combined) with the ride & handling of a car. I’ll still have all the utility and all-weather capability I need in a fun-to-drive package. But I’ll probably have to turn in my man card…LOL

  • avatar
    50merc

    CUVs are selling well, and for good reason: “standard” sedans have been made unappealing in many respects. Imagine an advertising campaign for the new 2013 Typical Sedanmobile. “Smaller windows reduce visibility! Lower rooflines so you have to kiss your knees to enter and as for wearing a hat, forget it! Less rear seat legroom and seat height! Big-Ass styling so you’ll need a TV camera to know what’s behind the car! Driver and front passenger seating that feels like a collapsed deck chair! Touch screens like Windows 8 and more control buttons than a Comptometer! Tires with the cross-section height of rubber bands — you’ll even feel shadows on the road! Consoles that can hold a Great Dane! Yes, in the 2013 Typical Sedanmobile you’ll forget that automobiles were once intended to transport human beings in spacious comfort!”

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Crossovers sit a little higher as well and have better visibility. I have nothing against sedans but a crossover is like having many vehicles in one package. The Mazda 5 is a good choice if you are going from a SUV to a vehicle similar in function but with a little better fuel economy.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India