By on October 12, 2017

2018 Ford EcoSport - Image: FordThere’s no need for detail. Nuance is unnecessary. Set aside demands for specifics.

What’s the worst type of vehicle known to humankind in 2017?

There are leaders in every category, of course. But the fact that the Ford Transit Connect is surprisingly fun to drive doesn’t make the small commercial van sector particularly appealing. Likewise, there are laggards in every category, too. Yet the Mitsubishi Lancer’s uncompetitive nature doesn’t cast a broad brush across the entire compact sedan segment.

Somewhere, however, in some corner of the vast U.S. auto industry, resides an entire segment of vehicles that is, as of 2017, the worst. It’s the segment that provides the worst return-on-investment. The vehicles in said segment haven’t moved the game forward in the same way full-size pickup trucks or American muscle cars have their own category. There’s no obvious class leader or class embarrassment because every vehicle in the category lacks true sensibility.

What vehicle category are we talking about?

We’re obviously talking about subcompact crossovers. The extra cost over and above a subcompact car isn’t matched by extra content. Just compare prices of the Ford EcoSport and Ford Fiesta as an example.

For the most part, due to limited ground clearance, subcompact crossovers don’t live up to their own purpose, either. Greater visibility of the road ahead? Hardly. More ability to tread through deep snow? No.

Worse fuel economy? Yes. Less attractive exteriors? Yes.

Obviously some consumers feel differently, though not many. Subcompact crossover popularity is growing fast, but at just 3 percent market share, the entire subcompact crossover segment earns far less volume than the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V, combined.

But maybe we’re wrong. (Probably not. But maybe.) Perhaps the Chevrolet Trax and Fiat 500X represent the best of automobile manufacturing in 2017: an automaker’s ability to tap into the vehicular taste buds of a select few. Maybe there’s an entirely different vehicle category that you feel manifests the worst of the modern automotive industry.

Minivans. Too big?

Midsize pickup trucks. Not big enough?

Luxury station wagons. Not remotely within your budget?

Hot hatchbacks. Not sufficiently trunkified?

Body-on-frame full-size SUVs. Not sufficiently space efficient?

European roadsters. Not as good as the much less costly Miata?

Whatever the reason, you need to tell us which new vehicle segment is the worst new vehicle segment in 2017. Or just type, “Agree,” in the comment box below.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars and Instagram.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

145 Comments on “QOTD: What’s the Worst Automotive Segment?...”


  • avatar
    Car Guy

    Definitely the “coupe” style CUV like BMW X4, X6, and MB GLE. The proportions of these things are God awful, poor visability, and for such large vehicles a terrible interior package size. From top to bottom a waste of steel, plastic, and electronics…………

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Yes.

      Lets make a utility with all of the utility sucked out of it.
      Lets make a sleek, sporty car that isn’t sleek nor sporty because it’s lifted and ungainly.
      Lastly, lets make a coupe that isn’t a coupe because it has four doors.

      Perfect car for driving like a jackass.

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        As much as I hated them when they first came out, i disagree.
        -The rear hatch/liftback gives them a utility advantage over a sedan, even if they are never going offroad the ride height is also nice to have somtimes.
        -Yeah, not sleek, but they kinda do look badass if you can imagine being a 12 year old boy who loves Mad Max. And more sporty than a Range Rover.
        -Yeah, OK, it’s not a coupe. But it’s at least a fastback.

        And I guess some of the tanned leather cougars who drive them tend to not be the best drivers in the world.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGhost

        100% agree that CUV-coupes are a mess, and you didn’t even mention the ugliest – the Acura ZDX.

        And yet, I kinda like the AMG GLE 43 Coupe. I feel guilty about this.

        • 0 avatar
          dwford

          The ZDX is probably the best looking of all the CUV coupes. It’s grown on me over the years. Of course, at this point they are bought exclusively by hood rats, so I can never own one. I drove past one last year on the side of the road with a flat donut spare tire. That told me the entire life story of the person driving it.

          • 0 avatar
            Marko

            The ZDX has grown on me as well. The only other “coupe SUV” I like is the Infiniti FX/QX70, which is no longer in production. And they seem to attract the same characters as they age…

    • 0 avatar

      Yep. Completely agree.

    • 0 avatar
      hgrunt

      This, all the way…It’s the most obvious and egregious gaming of the CAFE regulations to move something into the “truck” category. Wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t all so ugly!

    • 0 avatar
      DAC17

      Perfect response!

  • avatar
    deanst

    Coupe CUVs are the worst. Not only are they ridiculous on their own merits, but they shame entire brands. My respect for BMW and Mercedes has fallen since the introduction of these things.

  • avatar
    Clueless Economist

    Midsize trucks because they aren’t small enough to get better MPGs but cost almost as much as full size trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      They fit in your garage, though. Which is nice in San Francisco if for some reason you “need” a truck there.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        “Cost as much”

        That depends on the brand.

        I can spec a Canyon just the way I want it (crew cab, V6, 4×4, trailering package) and have it be roughly $5000 cheaper than an extended cab, 5.3 V8, 4×4, short bed Sierra with fewer comfort and convenience options. That’s significant to me.

        I’m sure a Frontier can be had much cheaper than a Titan (although the Frontier is relatively ancient in automotive terms).

        The Tacoma is pretty expensive for the segment but even with the limited amount of price checking I’ve done on Toyotas I’d wager the price difference between a popularly equipped Tacoma and a Tundra is close to $10,000.

        I don’t really see that as chump change.

        It remains to be seen how the new Ranger will compare to the F150 price and capability wise.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          MSRP yes. Actual transaction price, the Sierra will be about the same or cheaper.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @MBella – agreed. I usually can find a new full sized truck with deep discounts that is the same or better than a small truck.

            Buying small trucks based on saving is a myth/meme that needs to be buried.

            The vast majority of small trucks I see are mid to high end trims that are comparable to full-sized.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      Some of us like pickup capability in a package that doesn’t dwarf the Titanic. If you need a stepladder to access your pickup bed, it’s too frickin high.

      Also, you can get them with manual transmissions.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “Also, you can get them with manual transmissions.”

        Not if you move into higher trims and not if you want any semblance of payload/towing ratings.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          Yep sticks are always rated to tow less. And for towing an automatic is superior in every way over a stick.. I say that only after owning & towing with both.

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          A fair observation. Modern automatics are really amazing. The amount of torque they can handle is really impressive.

          However, I don’t need more than 3500 pounds of towing and I just feel happy rowing the gears in my Tacoma.

    • 0 avatar
      Guitar man

      ..also they have rock hard cart spring suspension, less interior space than a Geo while using twice the fuel and weighing two tonnes, hopeless build quality and pre-WW2 handling. And the dinky little tray at the back won’t hold anything bigger than an esky.

  • avatar
    chaparral

    B-and-smaller compacts, because nobody’s been able to figure out how to make one a commercial success by emphasizing how much fun they are to drive.

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      “Fun to drive” is just not a factor for 98% of drivers as much as “enthusiasts” continue to harp on about it. For most Americans, driving is a chore as they slog through rush-hour traffic or drone on across endless stretches of straight as an arrow roadways.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        ““Fun to drive” is just not a factor for 98% of drivers as much as “enthusiasts” continue to harp on about it. ”

        100% spot on. Otherwise, why does the Corolla sell so well while the Mazda3 sells so poorly?

        • 0 avatar
          Mandalorian

          For people like me fun to drive has to have fast in there somewhere. Handling is only one part of the equation. Loud, buzzy, and slow just does not amount to fun.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            The cure for that ailment, is to spend some time full on street racing, while merely/barely keeping up with traffic, in a worn out 3 cylinder Geo Metro. Or on a 50cc two stroke sportbike….

  • avatar
    dougjp

    All SUVs/CUVs, AKA Boxes.

    Raise the center of gravity and eliminate attractiveness, what could go wrong? Worse performance, handling, fuel economy, NVH, and of all things additional to those, price! Embarrassing.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I do not like subcompact eggUVs. However, the consensus on here seems to be that they exist so the elderly and those suffering chronic pain can efficiently get around so being against them is like railing against canes or service dogs.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      The real reason they exist is because there is a demand for them. You could say the same about the coupe CUVs, except nobody was asking for one, but since they’re there (oozing with German badge-snob appeal), some will buy it.

      Back to the Trax, Renegade and so forth, people have been screaming “we don’t want cars!” for quite a while now. If you want a small vehicle, but don’t want a car, its a natural progression. But they should just buy a hatchback! Except they don’t want a car, and a hatchback version of a car is still a car. When you give it a more upright appearance, lessen the slope on the rear, it becomes something totally different.

      The only people consistently buying subcompact cars like Fiesta are named Avis, Hertz, Budget, etc. The buying public has shunned them.

      So, we should just sit around and b¡tch up a storm because automakers found a way to make money on small vehicles.

  • avatar
    alff

    Convertible crossovers.

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    Any sedan that isn’t a full size. They don’t look as good as coupes, but have several of the same downsides. The only reason anyone sells midsize or compact sedans is that the general public aren’t really interested in cars, and they buy the thing that looks the most like ‘a car’. And most people who don’t care about cars don’t want to learn alot of things they don’t care about just to buy something they barely even need, so they buy what everyone else buys.
    In Europe that is usually something with a hatchback, in the US it is a sedan. I’d say compact hatchbacks are almost as bad since they less practical than a sedan if you actually use the rear seats, but with the rear seats down, they gain an advantage, so the fact that we have hot hatches skew the scales in their favour.
    I can understand fullsize sedans to a point since they often offer a comfort advantage, and I guess some people travel far with 2 or 3 other people and a small amount of luggage occassionally. And since at least one of them have back issues or a small handicap they couldn’t use a large coupe instead or whatever…

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      My brother bought a midsize sedan to commute in. It gets 30 mpg +/-, it drives well, and it fits him (he’s about 6′ tall). He also found one that he really liked how it looks. Could a coupe version of the same car have worked? Well, probably since he has no kids, but he does put his lunch box and other misc. items back there, having a door to access it is easier than flipping forward a seat and squeezing through.

      He doesn’t need a full-size sedan just to drive himself to work. He looked at an Impala before deciding on something smaller. It didn’t drive as well nor would it get as good MPG. It would just have some extra space he doesn’t need.

      Don’t get me wrong, I prefer coupes, but I don’t necessarily hate sedans because of that. I have nothing against full size sedans, either, though few (if any) drive as well or get as good MPG as their smaller midsize counterparts. If you don’t need extra room, there isn’t much point to buying one over a midsize.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      For transporting people and non irregular luggage, which is what most seem to do with their cars, sedans are as optimal as it gets if comfort counts. They are quieter than unified volume hatches and wagons, luggage is out of the way, locked up, and not stuck in the same climate as passengers. And the rear window doesn’t get coated with slush, mud and dust, the way hatch and, even worse, wagon rear windows do.

      Wagons and hatches are a bit better for hauling irregular objects. In a bit of a reversal of your POV, I’d say that wagons and hatches are the ones that suffer the most from not being full size, as you really ought to be able to sleep in the back of them once the rear seats are down. The compact ones are just too short for that, hence somewhat useless. Once you reach V70/E class/Crosstour size, they suddenly gain a whole ‘nother dimension.

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        Good points from both of you. I guess I’m a bit too used to having only one car, so it annoys me that there are cars out there that can do only one thing well.
        That said, a coupe can still do most of the things a Sedan can, and a liftback sedan/coupe can do almost everything. But midsize cars as a whole are very compromised. Wagons or sedans. European midsize wagons today have become more and more of a fashion statement and are not very practical anymore. i’m tempted to belive they did that on purpose to sell more CUV’s here too.
        PS, Stuki, one thing that has annoyed me with sedans are that unlike most hatchbacks they don’t have a rear windsheild wiper, meaning any slush and dust gets stuck there until I can stop and clean it myself.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          You’re European, I assume :)

          In America, only the most car obsessed enthusiasts will even change a wiper blade, so that rear wiper doesn’t work anyway :(

          But I hear you. It would be nice to have the option, although I can’t imagine it would be easy to pull it off aesthetically.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    Supercars.

    honestly, 99.9% of us will never be allowed to sit in one, nevermind drive one. I’ve given up on almost all print mags now because they spend most of their time “reviewing” $200-400,000 toys which are unattainable for almost everybody.

    I stopped caring whether Ferrari was better than Lamborghini when I was 13.

    and don’t pull the “technology” argument on me. there’s been more technology transfer to the industry from cars like the Prius than anything out of Maranello or Sant’Agata

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      An excellent point.

      The only benefit I see is that they push the envelope, and technology they pioneer eventually trickles down to the masses. But, that doesn’t mean it always works out very well, or serves a purpose beyond pretensions of sportiness (like paddle shifters on a family sedan or DCTs that clunk and shudder when damn-near everyone would be just as/more satisfied with a conventional automatic).

    • 0 avatar
      Drew8MR

      They are all essentially the same as well now. There’s a used supercar place a couple blocks from me, and the only one that stands out is a Veyron, and only because it’s a particularly hideous shade of blue. I’d take a Caterham,Atom, Nobel or Superformance coupe over all of them. Singers are the only really lustworthy rich people (“new”) car for me now.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      JimZ

      Yes! I could not agree more.

      This is probably what caused the shift for me when I was younger to Hot Rod or whatever that created my old car nerdness. At least a normal guy can afford to restore a 70′ GTO if he wants to.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      If it weren’t for supercars, I’d be a highschool teacher.

      Only quit teaching in college because I wanted a Ferrari and I knew I could never buy one on a teachers salary. Became an engineer instead.

      If it weren’t for supercars, Corvettes wouldn’t be what they are today. They prove to the world what the “Art of the possible is”.

      If it weren’t for supercars, What would ignite the passions of 12 year olds staring at their walls.

      And if it wasn’t for supercars, what use is a high paying, soul crushing career?

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        @_@

      • 0 avatar
        dawooj

        Hahaha, since when can you afford supercars on an engineer’s salary? Sorry to tell you you chose the wrong profession.

        JimZ is right.

        • 0 avatar
          DevilsRotary86

          It can see it happening. I once met a guy who did some contract software work for us. The sort of guy who knows every programming language known to man and can get pretty much any project you throw at him back on track. During the height of the boom times he would easily pull down 6 figures a year doing contract work solving various software project problems.

          He basically lived in “Krieger-style” sub section 8 housing (see the “Skin Game” episode of Archer to get the reference) and ate ramen so that he could afford his sports cars. He didn’t go for the likes of Lamborghinis or Ferraris but instead like that modded Dodge Viper that he had. I think it cost close to a Ferrari after all the work he had done to it.

          So yeah, I can see an engineer getting a supercar. It would involve certain sacrifices that I think are silly, but it’s possible.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Around the turn of this (21st) century about half of the ten richest people in the province of Ontario were tool and dye makers.

        And the most expensive house in Toronto was built and owned by an ex-professor who made his riches writing mathematics textbooks.

        https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/02/04/the_house_that_math_built.html

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “What would ignite the passions of 12 year olds”

        Ummmmm. I can think of some things.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        Come on over to the dark side, I mean airfield, and discover that, for supercar prices, you can acquire a used airplane whose upkeep will make the Ferrari look like a sound investment.

        But, of course, the speed limits are considerably higher…

        • 0 avatar

          You made me check…I suspect you have some good examples, but it seems fairly hard to get a new or used airplane that is faster than a (respectively) new or used Ferrari 458.

          So a 458 and a Cessna 172 are priced about the same, new, and surprisingly, the claimed top speed of the car and the “Never Exceed” speed of the plane are both about 300 km/h.

          Mind you, a shiny new Mooney will leave you with plenty of change from a million-dollar bill, and will cruise at 447 km/h quite happily, so the airplanes do metaphorically pull away rather quickly as the price goes up.

          (This nerdy post brought to you all by long-ago flight lessons in a tail-dragging Taylorcraft, which I never flew faster than highway speeds).

          • 0 avatar
            ttacgreg

            Straying way off topic, ears ago after my once-in-a-lifetime highly extravagant day of helicopter skiing, I realized that if I were obscenely wealthy I would spring for a helicopter rather than a supercar
            Behold a machine that weighs about the same as a Toyota Corolla and yet can lift six people vertically and fly them at speeds that few motor vehicles can attain. The materials and engineering technology would seem to be far more exotic and sophisticated than your every day Bugatti, and one could actually legally use the attainable speeds.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Good choice. The biggest problem with supercars, imo, is their over reliance on electronics. Once upon a time it was a big deal to drive a supercar. They had heavy steering, heavy brakes, heavy clutch, heavy gear change, etc. They also had incredible power, which made them difficult and engaging to drive.

      Today they are just a rich person’s play thing. They can be driven with one hand on the wheel, while you sip a latte. Since the power figures and savagery of the machine is no longer limited by the human being in the seat, they’ve become nothing but stat sheets. The computers pilot the car. You’re just the figurehead in the drivers seat. PR stunt.

  • avatar
    threeer

    I generally don’t try to paint broad strokes (especially after somebody called minivans embarrassments recently), but I have a hard time with the subcompact CUV. I parked next to an EcoSport the other day and had difficulty understanding the appeal…which, naturally means they’ll sell a ton of them for exactly that reason. Is it because they sit up marginally higher? Do folks look at the extra cladding and assume since it *kinda* looks like a SUV that it’ll all of a sudden have that much more practicality and usefulness of a larger SUV over a comparable (gasp) hatchback?

    And then yes…the coupe SUV. Again, some folks love them, and God bless ’em. I won’t disparage anybody who owns one, but I don’t grasp the appeal.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Minivans. Too big? Agree. Too bad the microvan segment has disappeared in the USA. Canada still has the Rondo and for a while longer the Mazda 5. Gone is the Orlando and long gone are the Axxess/Multi and Colt Vista.

    Midsize pickup trucks. Not big enough? Disagree. They are as big as fullsize pickups of previous decades. Would love to see a Ranger sized pickup available again in N.A.

    Luxury station wagons. Not remotely within your budget? Agree.

    Hot hatchbacks. Not sufficiently trunkified? Could care less.

    Body-on-frame full-size SUVs. Not sufficiently space efficient? Still would go out and buy a Suburban the day after picking up my lottery winnings.

    European roadsters. Not as good as the much less costly Miata? A market segment so small as to not matter.

    I also disagree regarding the subcompact CUV market. The HR-V and Trax for example do fill a useful role. They do provide more ground clearance and better ride height than their subcompact hatch competitors. Recently watched a subcompact scrape its front end making a right hand turn out of the local service station. Probably over $1k to make the required repairs. Ground clearance is a major consideration when driving in the winter. And I now have relatives who have a very difficult time getting into and out of mid-size sedans, let alone subcompacts due to their low roofline. The subcompact SUV provides much easier access/egress for them. So long live the subcompact SUV!

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      “Midsize pickup trucks. Not big enough? Disagree. They are as big as fullsize pickups of previous decades. ”

      1997 Ford F-150:
      202-244″ L x 78-80″ W x 72-75″ H

      2017 Chevrolet Colorado:
      212-225″ L x 74-77″ W x 70-72″ H

      The only reason the smallest new Colorado is longer than the smallest 1997 F-150 is because Colorado doesn’t offer a single cab. Other than that, clearly it is smaller than a full-size truck of 20 years ago.

      I do agree with you about subcompact CUVs, even if I’m not personally fond of them enough to buy one. I don’t hate them, some look pretty good to me. But, the point is, they make sense for a lot of people, and clearly people do like them. That’s reason enough for their existence.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        The massive amount of sheet metal makes the new ones look and feel way bigger than they actually are.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Try comparing the modern Colorado to the original Chevy LUV (built buy Isuzu). That shows just how much the “smaller” pickup truck has grown.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @John, thanks for proving my point. Would you also be able to post the dimensions of a midsize pick-up from 1997 and a full size pick-up from 2017 to further reinforce that midsize pickups are now full size and that full size pickups are now ‘supersized’?

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        Arthur & John – Agree with you on subcompact CUVs. What’s nice about them is the packaging. I don’t own one, but I became more accepting of them after doing the “sit behind myself” test in an Encore at an auto show. Because of the rear headroom, four of me would fit more comfortably in one than in most non-full-size sedans on the market. There must be a few non-CUVs with decent rear headroom out there (the Golf comes to mind), but they’re few and far between. Nissan for example, had great rear seat room and comfort on the previous Versa hatch, but has gotten away from that with the current, swoopier design.

        The “fake off roader” level of ground clearance also makes them better when dealing with parking stops, speed bumps, and inclined driveways.

        I don’t love CUVs, but I can see the appeal when most cars and hatches have sacrificed packaging in the name of styling and highway MPGs. I do prefer the ride/handling balance that a lower center of gravity allows in cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      You know, I live in the GTA too (other side of Toronto, but still), and have somehow managed to never scrape up or incapacitate any of my cars – are you sure this subcompact wasn’t lowered?

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Yep, totally stock. Wasn’t the first time I have seen this happen.
        Husky station on Steeles Avenue West, near the Lada building.

        • 0 avatar
          Maymar

          Yup, spent plenty of time around there (although never used that station), and I certainly wasn’t gentle on the Accent I had at the time (I wanted to see that car die). Only time ground clearance has ever been an issue was getting plowed in when I street parked, and that was usually enough a crossover wasn’t much help either (keeping a shovel in the car was useful though).

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            One of the most recent I witnessed there was a newer model Elantra. When you drive by, check the entrance onto Steeles and you will can numerous scars on the pavement.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Subcompact SEDANS. Just make em all hatchbacks.

    Fiesta sedan – ugly to the point of being comical.

    Sonic sedan – makes you wonder what they did to that poor Cruze until you get close to it.

    Yaris sedan (while it existed) – Why? The only Toyota that made the Echo look gracefully proportioned.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      hatchbacks are so ugly I don’t know how anyone could be caught dead in one. I’d rather have a Fiesta or sonic sedan than those babyish hatches. Not all of us are 17 years old…

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Seriously?

        The trunk looks like it’s tacked on – like the old Jetta

        https://tinyurl.com/ybthbq7a (yes the link has the word butt in it and few naughty pictures comparing the Jetta’s trunk to bad plastic surgery)

        • 0 avatar
          Clueless Economist

          I agree. HBs are, in general, more attractive and certainly more functional with more interior space.

          An example, the Ford Focus HB is one of the best looking small cars on the road and it is in its seventh year. The Focus sedan’s trunk looks tacked on.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Sajeev – I think we need a Velum Venom on the subcompact class hatchback v. sedan for each model where there is an equivalent.

  • avatar
    IBx1

    Lurchback sedans like the BMW 5GT, Audi A7, and BMW 3GT.

    • 0 avatar
      Nick_515

      IBx1, you are the FIRST person I have ever heard call the A7 anything but “beautiful.”

      • 0 avatar
        IBx1

        It isn’t though. The front end is copy and paste Audi and the rear is way too droopy with the taillights and trunk lip lower than the hood. I’d say it’s a dog popping a squat but it looks worse because somehow everyone thinks it’s the best design of the last 1,000 years.

  • avatar
    Dan

    Midsize sedans are losing sales like no other because they’ve lost the plot like no other.

    1. The space advantage is gone. Between the oversized center console up front, the EPA enforced coupe roofline over the back seats, and the mail slot trunk opening a Camcord is now no better at moving people or things than a Civic.

    2. The power advantage is gone. A midsize used to be your ticket out of Buzzville to a smooth V6 that was fun on an onramp. Now that smooth V6 is $35,000 if it exists at all.

    3. The style advantage is gone. Extra length used to make the difference between having a long hood and back deck like a real car or looking stubby and cheap. Now they all look stubby and cheap.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Mid size sedans still just plain work, though. For all the criticism they are getting these days, they are still as large and comfortable as you’d want to go, without them becoming an annoyance to park in cities. And as tall as you’d want to go before they become wobbly, wind noisy and car sickness inducing, on 1000 mile road trips off freeway. They give fuel mileage up there with the best. Last forever, even when serving as third world taxicabs in places where pothole is short for bomb crater. And are cheap to have fixed once forever is up, ans they do require some little touch up.

      Them losing sales has as much to do with the average Amercian family having morphed from mom, dad and 2-3 kids; to two lesbians and their pack of recycled dogs, as with the sedans themselves losing the plot.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        I’m pretty far left on the political scale, so it may surprise you that I find that last comment to be one of the funniest I’ve read in a long time. Well done!

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      If anything, the midsize sedan is suffering by taking on weird proportions – they’re growing longer and longer, and have acres of legroom, but headroom gets pinched by the sloping rear.

      Also, current I4 midsize sedan performance is roughly where V6 midsize sedan performance was 15 years ago. I’m not about to deny esoteric noise factors, but as far as the sweep of the speedo needle goes, you’re getting about as much onramp fun as you used to.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        The (automotive) world was slower 15 years ago. A 2003 Accord V6 would leave everything else in the Honda showroom, much less the mid 90s crap that made up most of what was on the roads then, behind like they were literally sitting still.

        An I4 Camcord today may only be a half second off that pace in absolute terms but most of what’s on the road from pickups to three row busses to minivans to a kid in a new Civic can walk you.

        Yeah adults don’t drive like that on the street, at least not very often, but it’s still enjoyable to know that you could. And the new ones can’t.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Thing is, none of this is mandated, it’s just second-rate engineering. The old Volvo 7 series offered top-hat headroom front and rear, outstanding safety, a big useful trunk, and an excellent balance of power and fuel economy from its biggish turbo 4. In the late 1980s, for God’s sake!

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Along with the stupidity of the coupe CUV/SUV the coupe sedan.

    My business partner has a 650i. What a stupid car. Fast as heck, but completely useless behind the front seats. It is not possible for a full size human to sit in the back seat.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      Yup, came in to post this. Just buy a 650i coupe, which is a comparably beautiful car.

      • 0 avatar
        r129

        As a coupe buyer, these “coupe sedans” don’t do anything for me and I wouldn’t buy one. It’s fine that they exist, but I have a problem if they are offered in place of an actual coupe. Of course, these days it doesn’t really matter what coupe buyers think.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Midsize luxury sedans. Wonderful cars like the E-Class, 5-series, A6, but fantasticlly bad value for money. The segment is dying out to luxury SUVs with more bang for the buck.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      4cyl models especially. And then to get more power and the necessary refinement you are into silly money, deep into the $60ks with the things people expect these cars to come with.

  • avatar
    Drew8MR

    Well, I hate all the new half tons. I’m 5’6″ and 50 years old, !@#$ you for making me hoist bags of mortar and the like to shoulder height to load a bed or God forbid, dump a wheelbarrow.

    • 0 avatar
      Nick_515

      It’s like they need to comp a one year CrossFit membership with the purchase of a new half ton.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Buy new 1/2 ton, start home improvement project, by the time you finish you’ll feel like you’ve been taking testosterone supplements. (Strong like bull!)

        It’s a net win for everyone.

    • 0 avatar
      tommytipover

      I keep wondering why bed height keeps going up. I would think having the lowest load height would be a point to brag about when advertising you “military-grade” pickup. Guess it just wouldn’t look Butch enough.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        IH advertised (on and off), and delivered the lowest bed height in the industry for their 69-75 full size 1/2 ton (2wd) pickup, look where they are today.

        To me there is such a thing as too low too. I do use my truck for home improvement projects and often times the bed and tail gate are my work bench/saw horses. Why pull a board out of the truck take it somewhere to cut it, then to where it needs to go when you can cut it before you remove it from the truck and take it to where it needs to go.

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          Did this last week with 4×8 sheets of melamine that I sawed into shelving. By the way, the $30 Kreg guide on my SkilSaw does 90% of the job of a $500 track saw.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Right? And I’ve known people who use work trucks to actually work, who share your view. One wished for a Euro-style drop-side pickup, so he could actually access his stuff. This is why the extended cabs and crew cabs keep getting bigger and bigger: because the cargo beds, hidden behind mile-high walls and jacked up over 20″ wheels, keep getting more and more useless. Anything that isn’t a 4×8 sheet of plywood is better kept in the cab, where you can just open the door and grab it.

        I’m told this is because automakers want to run only one chassis down the line now, the one built for 4×4 duty, so every 4×2 essentially comes with a factory lift kit whether you want it or not. But it’s not just the higher ground clearance, it’s also styling. The soft automotive styling of a 1990s Ford pickup was not just pretty but functional: you could reach in and grab your stuff. The styling of the ridiculous Ford Tonka Truck show car, with its comically high slab sides, turned out to be not a funny car-show gag after all, but the actual production styling of the current Ford trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      If you do a lot of in and out of the truck bed type stuff, consider getting a body more suitable for it, than a pickup one. Depending on what you normally carry; either a service body or a drop side makes getting things in and out much easier. And unless you care a lot about off road use, heavy towing, speeds above 85 or fitting into parking structures, getting the body on a Transit, Promaster or Sprinter chassis sits it closer to the ground than on a contemporary full size pickup.

      • 0 avatar
        wstarvingteacher

        Or you could just get a small trailer that you can equip with toolboxes etc. It will do it all and you can unhitch it in your garage or driveway and leave your troubles behind.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          If you have the space for it, sure. But as painful as getting around San Francisco and finding parking in a truck is, doing so with a trailer attached is much worse still.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    Full sized trucks. What used to be honest utility vehicles are now expensive in-your-face overbuilt suburban family commuting barges. Don’t forget your body lift, craptastic blacked-out aftermarket wheels and LED light bar!

    A quick search of new F-150s on Autotrader revealed, within a 500 mile radius, 8% are single cab XL models (“XL” is ironically the base trim level). Another ~20% are Extended Cab.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      that’s why you order one. don’t act like they don’t exist.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      ” (“XL” is ironically the base trim level)”

      Ironically, its been the base trim for a couple decades now. When you see that the next step up is “XLT”, it makes more sense. But, who wants to understand something when you can just blindly hate it?

      You think nobody should buy anything but base model trucks? Well, there was a time when mainstream sedans came with painted steel wheels, vinyl interior, column shift and few “luxury” options. Now, you can load one out to $40k with all kinda stuff like screens in the dash, leather, turbo engines and so on. Why don’t you hate sedans since they used to be honest but are now well equipped? Same with hatchbacks, SUVs, hell, damn-near every niche in the market can trace its roots back to far more basic versions that aren’t popular anymore. Do you hate all of them, too? You can still get a full-size truck with vinyl seats, manual windows, painted steel wheels, rubber floors and a column shifter. Can you get a sedan like that? Go see what percentage of sedans come that way on Autotrader. I bet its less than 8%. Try 0%. So, the full size truck is far more “honest” (as you described it) than anything else, since it can be had in such basic trims.

      Also, I would figure that dealers who sell lots of base model trucks do so by way of fleets, so they’re not going to show up on Autotrader. They know that retail customers seldom demand basic trucks with no options, so they’re not likely to have their lot full of them just to make someone who hates their product anyway hate it a tiny bit less.

      If you were a dealer selling full size trucks, would you ONLY stock base models that nobody wants in the retail sector and with which you don’t make nearly as much profit? Would you instead order those base trucks for who wants them, but then stock up on what is in demand and what makes you lots of money?

      And God-forbid people buy (and customize) what they want instead of only what they need. Is that why you have *never* owned anything you liked more than you needed?

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        My guess: it offends some if they’re supposedly work trucks, not personal transportation like a car?

        Years ago, my mechanic’s wife drive their family around in a brand new Jeep Grand Wagoneer. Why buy a luxury SUV that was already 20 years out of date? Because thanks to its dinosaur-age engineering, it was the only one with a heavy enough curb weight that he could write it off against his business, claiming it was a work truck. I wonder if people driving gigantic pickups for family-sedan duty are running that same scam. Hell, gas is cheap, maybe it pencils out.

  • avatar
    alexrcp

    The “mini”van. There is absolutely nothing mini about this. Some are nearly as wide as full size pickup trucks (I’m looking at you Odyssey) and nearly as long. The minivan left the US when the Mazda5 died.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Electric cars. Supposed to be green but generally are not when considered from a lifecycle perspective due to extra emissions from manufacturing and scrapping (dirty batteries and energy intensive lightweight materials), and may not be cleaner from driving if the electricity comes from coal as it does in much of the world. Most except the Bolt and Tesla have serious range problems with the equivalent of a 2 to 4 gallon tank, and all are very slow to refuel (most people don’t think 15 to 30 minutes “supercharging” is fast refueling). All are very expensive for what your get, and I have problems giving rich people subsidies so they can buy an overpriced new car so they can preach to the rest of us about how green they are. And to top it all off – none are profitable for manufacturers or shareholders.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Electric cars. Supposed to be green but generally are not when considered from a lifecycle perspective due to extra emissions from manufacturing and scrapping (dirty batteries and energy intensive lightweight materials), and may not be cleaner from driving if the electricity comes from coal as it does in much of the world.”

      —- Not true, even with all those considerations. Analysis shows that AT WORST, taking all those named considerations into account, a true BEV is 50% cleaner than the best pure ICEV and 25% cleaner than the best hybrid. The articles saying otherwise all show prejudicial tendencies and are often, if not always, sponsored by a fossil fuel company. Yes, some factors taken on their own do demonstrate that BEVs are worse but over a 200,000-mile lifetime of the vehicle, those worse factors are overwhelmed by the operational cleanliness when driven to the point where they almost become statistically insignificant. Remember, when comparing birth-to-death scenarios for these vehicles, you have to consider all aspects of both types, including fluids use during the life of the vehicle. Too many anti-BEV reports ignore this factor.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Sorry, but I don’t believe you. I know this literature and I have not seen one credible analysis that shows BEVs are cleaner unless they assume a BEV can go 200,000 miles on the original battery pack, which is highly doubtful. Contrary to the myth you repeat in your statement, most BEV analysis is done by people that are highly biased in favor of BEVs, which means all their assumptions tend to favor electrics including the use of much cleaner than typical electricity, massive economies of scale that don’t exist, and a tendency to assume very low cost/clean recycling/scrapping of batteries that also doesn’t exist. One are a couple of good examples, which finds BEV environmental advantages only under the most promising circumstances, and not economically attractive under any conditions.

        http://www.casteyanqui.com/ev/leaf_vs_prius_utilities/lca_article_jiec532.pdf

        https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/are-electric-cars-really-green

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Vulpine – you should perhaps do some research before you spread your BS. If there is any bias in BEV lifecycle analysis it is pro-BEV because they typically make very generous assumptions about long-life batteries, clean sources of electricity, clean/cheap mass production of batteries (that don’t exist), clean/cheap sources of battery recycling (that don’t exist). Even using very generous assumptions, BEVs are only very slightly cleaner than ICVs, but these small mostly theoretical advantages cost thousands of dollars per CO2 equivalent ton reduction, when the environmental benefits of such reductions are generously projected to be about $50 per ton. I’ll help you out with some research – follow the links and educate yourself.

        http://www.casteyanqui.com/ev/leaf_vs_prius_utilities/lca_article_jiec532.pdf

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          And to refute your link, here’s mine:

          http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Stingray: You might not be happy to note that your linked document did NOT take into account the energy use and emissions of extracting, refining and transporting the fuel for ICEVs as well as suggesting some ICEVs would use far, FAR less ‘fuel’ than an EV under supposedly identical conditions. Yes, I read the pdf and as expected, they glossed over and flat ignored many of the ICEV’s costs and emissions while exaggerating many of the BEV’s costs and emissions. Trying to claim, for instance, that a BEV uses up to 16% more aluminum than an ICEV while ignoring that many ICEVs use aluminum-block engines (cast and milled, meaning far more volume which subsequently is partially milled out and recycled), along with other parts both aluminum and steel not common to both platforms shows that the writers went out of their way to show the ICEV in the best possible light.

            Simply put, even taking mine-to-recycle usage into account, a single Tesla Model S is half as dirty as a single Fiat 500 at 1/4th the weight and 1/4th the horsepower.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Note also that your PDF is from 2012, now five years out of date.

  • avatar
    arach

    Electric Cars.

    As much hype as they all have, few of us buy them for the obvious:

    1- High Cost
    2- Low performance per dollar
    3- Poor infrastructure
    4- Not enough body type options

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      1- Depends on vehicle
      2- Depends on vehicle
      3- Depends on vehicle
      4- True

      In order, it’s possible to buy an EV (true EV, meaning battery powered for now) for as little as around $10-15K, which is well below the average price of any other type outside of the sub-compacts. While the better ones are quite pricey, they have benefits to go along with that price.

      Performance of a BEV almost across the board is quite snappy. True, the highest priced models offer the best performance but even the mid-priced models would challenge any similarly-classed car for the price. After all, not every car offers even a 5-second 0-60mph acceleration while most available BEVs offer this and better. The “per-dollar” add-on applies to item one.

      Infrastructure is, to a good extent, brand-centric. One brand in particular has an excellent network of rechargers that is constantly being enlarged and improved. They offer road-trip capabilities without all that much loss in road time for the average family trip. The rest rely on piecemeal placement of chargers at unconventional locations which really makes them hard to utilize. Worse, there are typically only one or two of each standard at each location which makes using them for road trips even more difficult. Honestly a planned and coordinated network is needed and only one brand offers this.

      As for body types, this too is improving, though is still extremely limited. Typically they are either sedans or crossovers, with one or two sub-compact coupes and 5-doors in the mix. We already know the variety is increasing over time, with even now one off-road SUV and one pickup truck due within the next year. It’s only a matter of time.

  • avatar
    jh26036

    No idea if the above poster is talking about electric cars only or plug in hybrids also?

    But I cannot think of a better commuter than the 2017 Volt my wife and I bought for her daily slog through terrible Boston traffic. Ridiculous amount of discounts and government rebate brings our cost to ~$16,000 for a very nicely equipped brand new car with heated seats, heated steering wheel, Apple Carplay, remote start via smartphone and keyfob, LED headlights, and leather seats. It has currently over 8,000 miles and we’ve put petrol in it twice (totaling to ~10 gallons). Equivalent electricity cost for me to run the car is about 60mpg (assuming $2.50/gallon).

    Let’s not even talk about oil changes are likely every 2 years. Probably won’t be a brake job until 75k miles as most braking is done via regenerative braking.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Plug in hybrids are hard to fault from a pragmatic powertrain POV, for lots and lots of contemporary usages. They aren’t the easiest to package, but unless you need the extra space that comes from Fit like packaging efficiency, or you “need” a proper transmission, Plug in hybrids, like you say, do an awful lot of pragmatic car things very well.

    • 0 avatar
      NetGenHoon

      +1 on this.
      Plug in hybrid > Electric car.

      Once plug-in EV range hits ~ 50 miles (10kWh) most people will get these benefits:
      -Commute on pure electricity
      -Top off at the slowly expanding network of chargers, helping increase public charger demand and hopefully infrastructure spending
      -In hot climates, pre-cool their car w/o idling
      -In traffic have engine start/stop that doesn’t suck
      -Have one car for commute and road trips
      -Increase engine maintenance cycles
      -Increase familiarity with EV operation modes and charging

      All this without slamming up against the supply issues of trying to convert everyone to electric before we have the power grid and battery manufacturing required for every car to carry a ~70kWh pack

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @NetGenHoon: Plug in hybrid > Electric car.

        Not true. You still have all of the annoyances of ICE ownership. They also have incredibly slow on-board chargers and take much longer to charge than a BEV. You can get a BEV with 300+ miles range now so you can make long trips in full battery mode. Don’t understand where you get the idea the grid isn’t ready. A home level 2 charger pulls about as much power as an electric clothes dryer and those haven’t exactly destroyed the grid. Also, no one is trying to convert everyone to full electric overnight. I think most of the sales bans are over 20 years away.

        By the way, I regularly perform a 100 mile round trip without a problem with a full EV, I have 55k miles on it without a problem. And yes, I can pre-cool it and pre-heat it at the charger.

        • 0 avatar
          jh26036

          You’re right. Oil changes and coolant is something I’ll still have to deal but it’ll be incredibly infrequent. In the 8,000 miles we’ve logged since January, only about 600 is on the ICE. After the 2 free oil changes from Chevrolet, I doubt I’ll go every year.

          I am really impressed that in ICE only mode, the Volt will happily net 40mpg going 75-80mph. If you bring it down to the speed limit 55-60mph, 50mpg is easily achieved.

          All I can hope is it stays reliable enough to hit 100k without major issues. That’s really all I want out of the car. Never thought I would own a GM car that isn’t named Corvette.

  • avatar
    sensiblebuyer

    Subcompact and compact sedans. I’m talking about the Yaris’, Fit’s, Versa’s, and Corolla’s of the world that look like Little Tikes cozy coupes on the road.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Worst type:
    Full-sized pickup trucks.
    • Too big
    • Too heavy
    • Too thirsty
    • Deadly to both their passengers and to others.

    The type is simply unnecessary as a personally-operated vehicle and is honestly too much of everything except “common sense.” Oh, I know there will be arguments against this viewpoint but I am willing to address them individually if requested.

  • avatar
    TW5

    The offroad segment has become a bad joke. Ground clearance and torquey agricultural engines cost almost nothing. Modern offroad vehicles are laden with comfort features, powered by car engines, clad with superfluous body molding, and driven by electronic computers. Even Wrangler has surrendered to market trendiness a bit.

    Most of an offroaders utility is derived from design features that cost nothing. I understand that fuel economy is forcing manufacturers to raise prices, thus, forcing the vehicles into luxury-esque territory. Regardless, offroad vehicles are more about lifestyle posturing than getting into the great outdoors or running trails.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      The “need” to perform on-road, makes ground clearance and off road worthy suspension travel expensive. Tall vehicles with crash worthy (read strong, heavy) superstructures, needs all manners of sophisticated and expensive suspension trickery, to not roll over like mad doring Moose test type evasive maneuvers.

      From what I’m seeing, those who live in rural communities, are increasingly offroading in ATVs, the biggest of which have gotten as big as cars by now. Those things can afford to be much more optimized for offroad, while still remaining cheap and simple, as they don’t have to pass on-road tests. And while not freeway legal (nor suitable), they are perfectly OK for errands into town, and for limited use between your farm or rural house, and the trailhead.

      And many rural sheriffs (no doubt owning one themselves….) are very much aware of that, so tend to be pretty relaxed about them being used for the occasional on road excursion. Doesn’t help the guys from LA/OC wanting to take their rigs to Moab, but in places where offroadability is often more than just a recreational requirement, ATVs are increasingly filling in the gap you are referring to.

  • avatar
    turbosasquatch

    Small pickup trucks.

    Why? Because they don’t sell them here! I saw a late model S10 and it was the perfect size! I don’t want a hulking mass to drive, give me a Subaru Crosstrek with a bed and the WRX engine!

    • 0 avatar
      jh26036

      They are called the Subaru Baja. They didn’t sell very well.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        They would have sold more if they’d kept them just one year longer (I only buy new unless there’s no other option.) That said, the problem was more in the styling than in the functionality. People who want a smaller truck do NOT want or need four full doors… not even in a Subie.

  • avatar
    Rengaw

    Full sized high end pickups.

    You pay $50,000 plus for a big gaudy pickup then throw concrete blocks, garbage, steel fence posts, and head down a deep rutted road with brush slapping the truck’s prettiness. Do you really want a huge face on a half ton pickup? Do you really think you are driving a Peterbilt? Most big ole double cabs are seen in the real world with just the driver on board. Surely, these showy parade boats are more an expression of ego than everyday usefulness. My wife insists the size and flamboyance of a pickup truck is in direct relationship to the size of a man’s penis. That, and being a relatively poor guy, keeps me from getting one.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    Any segment ruined with transmissions sporting too many gears. For example, the 9 speeds put in Honda Pilots and Jeeps have ruined those vehicles. Those transmissions are fragile. That whole segment will be polluted with 9 speed transmissions in a few short years.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Anything not a pickup!

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Agree.

    However, many prefer the easy-in, easy-out convenience that CUVs/compact CUVs offer, especially for those who actually want to drive practically standing up but can’t afford or don’t have the space to park a step-van!

  • avatar
    BobNelson

    I don’t know if it’s the “worst” segment… but the most absurd is surely the three-row SUV.

    Get a fuçking minivan, you idiot!

  • avatar
    PentastarPride

    I can’t stand crossovers. Blah, ugly bland blobs supposedly in place to replace sedans. They all look the same and they are usually equipped with problematic CVTs and turbocharged, start-stop engines to duplicate the fuel economy of a small car.

    I will never buy a crossover. I can’t say the same of my wife. She has very different automotive tastes.

  • avatar
    MoparRocker74

    The 4 door sedan with a fixed rear window and trunk, at any size is easily the dumbest, most useless bodystyle of ‘car’. I say ‘car’ as opposed to truck, SUV, or van. So-called 4 door coupes with 4 forward swinging doors and 4 blatant door handles add insult to injury by crassly insulting our intelligence.

    First off, taste is subjective so this is opinion: Sedans are frumpy, boring and just generally the ugliest way to execute an automobile. Those 2 added doors enhance the styling of a car the way a unibrow enhances a ladies face. Again, JMHO.

    What is less subjective is sedans offer no unique merit. Theres literally not one thing a sedan excels at that some other bodystyle cant do while offering something that a sedan cannot.

    –A coupe based off the same platform as a sedan will usually be a little shorter, lighter, and simpler. It’s structurally the stronger platform since there are less holes in it. With (usually) no rear window mechanisms and fixed rear panels in place of the doors, theres less flopping around. The shorter wheelbase means less leverage on the chassis. From a performance and handling standpoint, a coupe with the same engine and suspension as the related sedan will always return better numbers. ALWAYS. Of course both have a trunk and fixed rear window so from a utility standpoint, both are compromised, and a sedan would offer marginally better rear seat room/access. BUT…

    –A wagon, hatch or shooting brake would offer up the same or slightly inferior rigidity and higher weight as a sedan vs a coupe. However, the tradeoff is a MASSIVE increase in utility over either one. The cargo bay is much bigger, flatter, more accessible and versatile. A long roof means a much larger roof rack can be used.

    –A 5 door liftback might look similar to a sedan but has the all important ability to get the rear glass out of the way, which allows a still significant advantage in carrying a load. Even if you have to leave the rear hatch cracked open and tied solid…you can get the job done whereas with that fixed sedan or coupe rear window…youre hosed.

    –A convertible offers the weight/rigidity issues of a sedan/wagon possibly even worse. However the ability to drop the roof has a fun factor that may or may not matter, but also allows tall, bulky items to be loaded that wouldn’t fit anything else save a wagon.

    So what exactly is a sedan for? Its the beige, milquetoast choice for those who are indifferent towards cars. Rolling mediocrity. They aren’t sporty, they aren’t sexy, they aren’t uniquely useful, and they aren’t fun. Anything a sedan can do, something else can do far better. So why do these things even exist? Can anyone name one unique thing these are good for that nothing else could possibly handle as well? Anyone?

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Now here’s an argument I can get behind 100%. I have never purchased a sedan for myself and if I can at all help it, I’m not going to. Yes, I’ve owned them (given to me) and I’ve owned wagon-style vehicles which are today called SUVs(square back is SUV, egg-shaped is CUV) but every car has been a 2-door from my 1973 Cutlass S through my 2014 Fiat 500 Pop. Even my pickup is a 2-door because four full doors on a pickup truck just looks ludicrous–especially when they’re half-width doors such as the Ram carries on its so-called extended cab model.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        –especially when they’re half-width doors such as the Ram carries on its so-called extended cab model.

        Finally something I can agree with Vulpine on. ;-)

        Clam-shell short little suicide style doors, no B-pillar – good. Easy access for getting people and cargo in and out.

        Pointless mini doors with b-pillar and external handles – stupid. Might as well go back to no door at all and make the front seat slide forward like a proper coupe.

        However Vulpine I do think properly sized doors on a 4-door double cab pickup are just fine. But my viewpoint is colored by early positive experiences with the old GM 3+3 cab during my 1980s childhood.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Since I have never truly needed a 4-door vehicle (though I have had them) the full second row in a pickup truck is useless to me; a proper extended cab with TEMPORARY seating is more than enough for my needs, letting me pack weather-sensitive items inside and reducing the risk of pilferage for items I want to leave in the truck (like cargo management tools, etc.) A standard cab doesn’t give enough room and a full second row is simply overkill that, to me, looks ridiculous when the bed is thereby compressed to a mere 4-½ feet in length. My old standard-cab Ranger has a 6-foot bed. I’d happily lose a foot of that to have the half-doors the Ranger came with so long. And yes, I’d accept adding six inches to the length to make that extension 18″ as long as I avoid that full 30″ (or more) a crew cab adds to the interior.)


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Fred: Acura has a dealer option to install space saver for about $800
  • JimZ: I think it was a huge tactical error on their part to launch the new “design language” on the MKZ...
  • MrGrieves: My thoughts exactly. I’m in my late 40s and nothing about the BMW brand appeals to me. I owned a...
  • YeOldeMobile: But a Mercedes can do the ‘Ring AND be luxurious! Or at least, that’s the counter-argument.
  • slavuta: Elantra Sport brakes feel super good. Even better than 2011 Mazda3 and on par with 2017 Mazda6. I had 1990...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States