Though the Compact CUV segment continues to add volume, its starting to become one of the older segments, as models like Escape, Rogue, CR-V and RAV4 approach the ends of their life cycles. And yet only one of those competitors, the Toyota RAV4, has fallen off sharply. The Equinox seems to have permanently passed the Toyota model in the YTD race, and the Rogue could end up passing it as well before the year is over. Meanwhile, as we start looking ahead to the new look of this segment, there will be some divergence between the top two models that bears keeping an eye on. The Escape, long a cheap-n-rugged entry in this segment will be replaced with a more premium, European-style global crossover (see the Vertrek concept), while Honda is taking a more conservative approach, adding room but keeping the vehicle’s basic image intact. It should be interesting how those changes affect the top of this segment going forward…
I agree that some of the key players are aging but the Hyundai and Kia are relatively new yet sell comparatively poorly. I am surprised since both companies are doing well with other mainstream products (Sonata/Elantra etc). I had read before they could be production limited but when you are looking at only 50-100K a year that is pretty low.
Either Hyundai can’t make enough of them, or they are prioritizing the Tucson production to higher profit markets than the US.
dwford,
or maybe people just don’t want to buy those models??? Maybe they aren’t practical enough. Maybe people just don’t prefer those models over the others? The Escape sells well because of function over form. Maybe the almighty Hyundai got a little too cute and forgot what they should be doing.
I think the issue at Kia is that the differential between street prices for the Sedona and Sportage is minimal. Most buyers go for the Sedona, which seems like a bargain for an extra grand over the smaller Sportage.
@SherbornSean,
It’s not that consumers don’t want to buy them, it’s that Hyundai doesn’t supply the dealers with enough product to sell them! We turn people away all the time because we just can’t get them.
Both the Tuscon and Sportage were designed primarily for the European and other overseas markets and thus tend to be a bit smaller than what US consumers prefer, as well as being pricier (otoh, the larger Sorento, which is btwn a compact and mid-size in size is a huge seller for Kia).
Also, production is at full bore for these 2 models and the overseas markets get more of them.
The Sportage’s biggest competition seems to come from the same dealer lot – the Sorento. On TrueCar, the real-life price difference is only $1,000 or $2,000.
Why buy the Sportage when you can get the bigger Sorento for not much more?
The Sedona isn’t much more than the Sportage, either – and it’s a whole lot more practical for obvious reasons.
The Sportage is a fine car in its own right, but there isn’t enough reason to pick one over its two “competitors” from the same dealer.
IMO the Hyundai Santa Fe should be included in this sales comparison. It is no bigger than several others listed here. It sold 6200 in Sept and 58k ytd.
The Rav4 seemed inordinatley affected by the Tsunami. I don’t see the Rogue continuing its assault on the Rav’s 3rd place position now that production is back to 100%
The weird part is, RAV4 is made in Canada.
(snicker)
IIRC only the ones sold in Canada are made there. The US still come from Japan.
@GarbageMotors: IIRC only the ones sold in Canada are made there. The US still come from Japan.
Of the 96,000 Rav4’s sold in US so far, 78000 were made in Canada and 18000 were imported.
Source – Toyota September sales chart, where they have a breakdown of NA made numbers for each model.
Further proof that a spare on the 5th door of a CUV is a no go.
That probably has very little to do with it. The RAV was one of the models most affected by the disaster. Maybe more so than any other vehicle. They’ve only been back to full production for a few weeks. Combine that with the fact that this model is almost 6 years old and you would expect a sharp drop.
The companies that have put the spare on the back door could always brag about best in class cargo space. Isn’t that what these CUV’s are for?
Actually, the best thing about the door spare on RAV4 was that it was full size.
“Further proof that a spare on the 5th door of a CUV is a no go”
I really doubt that. I see the 2006-2011 RAV4s EVERYWHERE, so unless the public suddenly had an epiphany that the spare is in the wrong place, I’d be looking to other factors.
The RAV4 is a great vehicle and arguably still leads the class when taken as a sum of its attributes: Powertrains, efficiency, interior packaging, utility, handling. I hope Toyota doesn’t screw up the redesign, the RAV4 was one of its few extremely competitive vehicles in the last 5 years.
….Pete…re: RAV4 full size door spare…..when is somebody going to hang DUAL mini-spares on that rear door?……or even dual full-size, sort of a 21st century Continental Kit?
Just another example of how hamstrung Chevrolet sales are because of GMC. Both the Equinox and Terrain are production constrained. Get rid of GMC then Chevrolet can finally have the sales crown. Same with full-sized pickups. Move Buick into Cadillac stores.
Check out the transaction prices on the Terrain vs Equinox, Acadia vs traverse and Sierra vs Silverado and you will understand why canning GMC will be boneheaded move. Besides, GMC has among the most growth in the last 2 years and has higher customer loyalty than Chevy. For the year GMC is up 27% while the entire market is up 9%. That’s three times the growth in a year that had the highest gas prices since september 2008. BTW GM is going to start making them at spring field to keep up with demand. That should alleviate supply shortages
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111017/OEM01/310179964/1261
“Check out the transaction prices on the Terrain vs Equinox, Acadia vs traverse and Sierra vs Silverado and you will understand why canning GMC will be boneheaded move.”
Data please. I’ve heard that claim many times but never with any proof to substantiate it.
in Sept – Equinox transaction price was $27,388 with an average of $600 in incentives, average of 20 days in inventory. Terrain was $29,882 with an average incentive of $487 and spent an average of 27 days in inventory.
Sierra (only using 1500 here) – $36,132 with $4,730 incentive and an average of 71 days in inventory
Silverado 1500 – $33,365 with $4,795 incentive and 77 days in inventory
Traverse – $34,468 – $3,015 incentive, 80 days in inventory
Acadia – $42,725, $3,062 incentive, 47 days in inventory
getacargetacheck: the data is an aggregate of all trim levels for the month for each of the models. So unless the mix is really disproportionate between two models on the same platform within different makes – my opinion is the data is fairly representative of the market. We could lose the forest for the trees if we want – and compare every transaction –
If I were GM management, I would never kill off a model simply to try and give another vehicle a worthless sales ranking.
GM has found time and again that killing off a brand does not means those customers automatically migrate to another GM vehicle.
JohnHorner: getting rid of Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab had a negligible effect on GM’s market share. But it has simplified GM’s offerings greatly for buyers.
Motorhead10: Your data is meaningless without comparing model to model trimlines. For example, Terrain does not offer an equivalent Equinox LS trim. You’d have to compare transaction prices for the Equinox FWD LT2 to Terrain FWD SLE1, etc. My guess is there isn’t much difference either way.
I am amazed to see an argument that GM is stupid for keeping their premium brands. They most certainly do command higher prices and generate larger net profits, likely on the order of twice that of the Chevrolets. On top of that, as John Horner writes, extra brands gain additional market share. Product diversity is what put GM ahead of Ford 80 years ago.
The fact that GM’s sales volumes have increased despite the loss of 4 brands presupposes it would not have grown even faster with them. Pontiac still sold more cars than all but the top Japanese brands just before the collapse and bankruptcy, and Saturn was at a couple %. Instead of capturing 20% of the market, GM could be at 23% or 24%, just assuming the dismal volumes of 2008.
btw- bragging rights are nice, but profit is king and the reason for the enterprise.
Getting rid of Saturn and Pontiac killed off several very good products. GM should have kept them, and maybe killed off the divisions. Why can’t a Saturn be built on an assembly line next to a Pontiac? It’s just a name plate anymore. If Gm can make profits on 39 different products then they ought to sell 39 different products, not rely on a handful of “homerun” products.
And – sell the whole lineup at all the dealers except maybe Caddy and Corvette.
Equinox at nearly $30K? No thanks.
I don’t think they should get rid of GMC, but I also don’t think we should downplay just how important bragging rights are. Just a quick glance at this chart and you can see that GM dominates this market by quite a bit, adding the Terrain and Equinox’s sales together, yet Ford gets to lay claim to having the #1 selling compact SUV in America. I wonder how many buyers are seduced by that slogan. You can bet every salesperson at every Ford dealership mentions that in their presentation.
How many extra unit sales has Ford grabbed over the years by having the bragging rights to the #1 selling vehicle in North America for – what are they up to now? 42 or 43 years with the F-150. Yet, except for the last couple years, the Silverado/Sierra has handily outsold the F-150.
The average consumer is not that smart.
The women in my office were shocked to know that Toyota is not even close to being #1 in total sales in Canada, or the U.S. They had all believed Toyota was #1 because they had heard statements like #1 (brand) etc.
No Mini Countryman? Is there an Ultra Compact CUV chart coming?
It does go up directly against the Juke with a 1.6 liter turbo.
The Escape sales are amazing for a vehicle whose basic design dates back more than a decade. It proves how right Ford got the Escape for its market segment.
I’m seriously worried that the “premium” CUV that Ford wants to replace the Escape with will fail to appeal to Escape buyers and/or be overpriced.
The current Escape is like the Taurus was circa 1995 – an aging design (dating back to 1986) with mainly evolutionary changes, but still exactly what its buyers wanted.
I hope the Escape replacement doesn’t turn out like the 1996 Taurus blunder.
I think they are about to screw up their gravy train. The new Escape is a lot more stylish but a lot less practical. It also doesn’t let people kid themselves in to thinking that they are buying a real SUV. I think it will be a much better vehicle that won’t sell anywhere near what the old one sold.
IF Ford would just spend a little on the Escape and change the window line – all the cosmetic changes over the years still doesn’t cut it with me, as the door and window frame shapes remain untouched.
My brother-in-law owned an Escape for several years and I found it much more comfortable than our 2002 CR-V and nicer to drive, too.
The Escape is a very good vehicle that could really sell like gangbusters if they’d just update the doors!
I don’t see anything wrong with a 10 year old product. Why put so much value into cosmetics? Lower the price a little, the engineering costs have been recouped. Maybe refine it or quieten it down a little. Try some wild colors and upholstery options.
In other countries you can buy 30-40 year old designs with minor upgrades since new. In Brazil for example you can still buy the 70s style VW bus with an upgraded watercooled drivetrain. A diesel version is getting 30MPG+ even. In South Africa you could buy a very nice upgraded VW Vanagon forever and I think they still sell the ’80s style Rabbit/Golf. “City Golf” I think they call them.
We drive a 1st gen CR-V and it satisfies our needs as well today as it did when I drove it off the dealer lot. Only improvement I’d ask for? Soundproofing upgrades and a sixth gear. Am still very satisfied with the rest of the car despite it’s age and being “out of style”.
A Mazda Tribute driver here and I really like the boxy cargo compartment with a flat load floor. Yep, its built on on a modified Mazda 626 platform from the late 1990ies – but I needed a smallish station wagon and the current Escape/Tribute fits my needs well.
Let me add a couple of points:
Ford will be dropping the 240hp, Duratec V6 when the current Escape is replaced.
There are no plans for a hybrid when the remodeled Escape debuts.
The 2.5 four cylinder will be carried forward as the base engine with 2.0 four cylinder turbo as the optional engine.
Flat floor alone is a small plus. Here’s a picture of RAV4 with 8 bags of stone on its flat floor:
http://www.rav4world.com/forums/members/albums/22498-zaitcev/zaitcev-1478-picture10070-loaded.html
Does not seem to be helping, does it? Escape has something else going for it aside from the flat floor. Maybe the rear window that opens :-)
Ford is about to screw up majorly with the Escape replacement. By remaining boxy, while the other cute-utes went curvy, the Escape has managed to look classic and premium, like a Range Rover or the old Cherokee. Especially with the very well done mid-cycle refresh.
Ford would do much better to just update the interior and engines, but won’t realize what it has until it’s replaced.
It’s interesting that the two class leaders are taking opposite approaches with the new models — the new CR-V will be more of the same, while Excape goes all Kuga-curvy.
Honda just needs a solid hit right now, with one of its 3 big sellers, given the tepid response to the Civic, Insight and CR-Z introductions.
Ford is taking chances, and I like it.
That’s exactly what I was saying in some comment thread, but some other B&B peeps said the Escape would continue to be sold alongside the new one.
Or maybe they were saying something else entirely and I am too dense.
Either way, I think the utility of the box shape in a cUv would attract more than a few buyers. Plus, people think it’s a truck
Detroit seems to have the innate ability to self-destruct, don’t they? Back when the ‘new’ Tracker came out in ’99, it was far superior to anything on the market then. If anything, the vehicle was over-built for the North American market.
But, GM sat on the trucklet for 6 or 7 years, doing nothing with it, then replacing it with the first generation Equinox, which was (to be generous) half-baked. By the end of the Tracker, everyone else including Ford had long surpassed it.
The Equinox and Terrain combined easily outsell the Escape. At 207,000 units for the year, the Theta twins outsold the Cruze, Corolla, Civic, Altima, Fusion and Accord. GM has underestimated demand for these cars and is scrambling to increase production. Even 2 yrs after introduction they are among the fastest turning high volume vehicles on dealer lots.
Sales Gain/Loss for the Year compared to last year.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/6775311/640/6775311.bmp
Is an extra 20k units a year really “easily”? Especially given the extra dealerships involved in having two separate brands? who knows after the cull but for a while there the total Chevy/GMC dealerships outnumbered total Ford dealerships by about 3000.
One wonders how many GM sales are lost due to the fact that in many major urban markets, GM has little or no presence. I know that in the greater Toronto area, a market of some 4.5 million people, GM went from 42 down to around 18 dealerships, none of which are remotely close to downtown (where I live.)
When the 2nd generation Equinox came out, I spoke to a die hard Honda fan who really liked the Equinox but didn’t want to travel halfway across town for servicing.
Toyota and Honda each have 2 dealerships in downtown Toronto. Even Chrysler has one. But there are no Ford or GMs.
Just because it’s generally polarizing and hasn’t been mentioned yet, I’ve sure been seeing more and more Jukes with paper tags on them in the greater Phoenix metro in recent weeks. Maybe that’s because we bought one a couple months back.
If they continue to round out the bottom, I’ll be happy, because the relative rarity makes them stand out, we’ll continue to enjoy the friendly, almost excited waves between Jukes on the road, and the almost daily requests from strangers in parking lots asking us about them.
And, if they start to climb the chart, I’ll be happy too, because it’s good to see a uniquely designed car that genuinely fun to drive get some traction in a market of otherwise forgettable consumer appliances.
We choose ‘none of the above’ and bought a 2011 VW Tiguan SEL – although a loaded Rogue and CR-V were in the next 2 positions in our personal rankings.
After nearly a year, my folks report their 2010 CR-V as comfortable, competent, and mechanically trouble-free but underwhelming in two key areas: performance (due to the smallish engine) and fuel economy (due to mass, drag, and the need to thrash said engine to get anywhere).
That said, everything else on this list has its own positives and negatives Theirs is a more general complaint about CUVs in general; they’re just not as fast, efficient, or involving as regular cars of similar size. If they had to buy a CUV from this list, they’d probably still choose the CR-V.
What a dump the RAV4 took! Serves them right for trying to milk an extra model year out of it. No real changes from 06-12.
even though the Rav4’s styling is getting old, in at least one way, its a good thing they extended the current model’s life – the 269hp V6 option. It’s a sleeper – 1/4 mile in the 14s and 0-60 in the mid 6’s. It was the fastest in the segment until this year when the Kia Sportage turbo came out. Of course, the Kia’s 2-liter engine (GDI & turbo) runs on technology that may not result in a long life.
the next model Rav will probably not offer a v6 option
OTOH, the chassis is not made for the v6.
but then again, it’s not supposed to be a sports car and for the things most people need power (passing, entering freeways, vehicle stuffed with people and things), it has a lot
Why does the compact CUV shopper care about 1/4 mile times? Honestly, they don’t. Having enough to pass on the highway is important, but I am sure most people care more about mileage.
Some folks occasionally tow a trailer with their CUV.
So, for them the V6 option is must have.
I just can’t wrap my head around the fanatic fixation on mileage.
Sure commuting in a 12 mpg Tahoe doesn’t make sense anymore. Hasn’t for years. We get it. But within the reasonable class of car, 5 years and 60,000 miles of a 22 mpg V6 against a 25 mpg – to be very generous – I4 at $4 a gallon would cost $1,300.
$1,300. You know what else on one of these CUVs costs about $1,300? A power passenger seat and a leather steering wheel. There isn’t a car in the segment that won’t sell you $7,000, even $10,000 of slightly more cosseting inside and shinier out.
And nobody questions that for a second.
Yet you can’t talk about cars anywhere, to anyone, even on a car website purportedly populated by people who enjoy driving, without running into the mileage brickwall. There’s no feature too useless to make a dealbreaker. Pushbutton start, in dash Garmin, the shape of the headlights, you name it and we argue every niggling detail.
But you get to the refinement of an adequately sized motor that isn’t wheezing and straining all the time and the conversation suddenly turns to “Mileage is more important,” and “But the fuel economy.” Bullsht. It’s an option like any other, and a fairly cheap one at that.
Manufacturers can’t be reasonable about this because our clowns in DC won’t let them. But what’s your excuse?
Steven02
the reason some of us like the zero to sixty time is because we hate the drag feeling getting off at every damn green light in the burbs.
If only passing was our worry.
I am a lover of turbos for their quickly available power.
I see above once again we are warned of their long term reliability, but I still do not know the facts.
My problem with the Escape was its horrible wind noise. I hate wind noise more than I do sluggish take off.
And according to RAV4world, getting 26mpg is common. The RAV platform is also one of the most entertaining in the Toyota stable. it’s just in search of a decent interior.
@Trailer
0-60 doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t lag off the line. It also doesn’t mean that a 4cyl will lag off the line. I mean, no one drives their car like the guys do when trying to get the best 0-60 time. It is an indication of power, but it really doesn’t mean that much from a stop light.
carve
Well, that, and they didn’t build any for like 4 months! Small detail.
Steven02….
You show your ignorance….In numerous comparison tests, it has shown that the 4WD RAV4 V6 gets 27mpg combined. The CR-V 4WD (4 cylinder (figured you don’t know that it’s 4 cylinder only)) also achieved THE EXACT SAME 27mpg combined…
So why would you chose the slow CR-V over the tire smokin’ RAV4 when they get the same mileage; yet the RAV4 is significantly faster?
Lets see, I didn’t compare the CR-V to a RAV4 and comparison test vary widely based upon how people drive. It would be very impressive to see people get 27mpg COMBINED 55city/45hwy mpg. BTW, EPA ratings for the RAV4 V6 4WD is 21 mpg.
There are other options that get better mpg than the RAV4 V6 4WD. And most people shopping for CUVs, especially small ones, aren’t interested in tire smokin’.
Mazda just doesn’t get any love. The CX-7 is a darn nice CUV.
….with awkward hips, a motor mount that goes through the belt, and MPG pushing Tahoe territory. I’m looking forward to the CX-5 though.
The 2011 Tahoe gets 21 hwy, the CX7 turbo 25.
What are you referring to?
And so did the 1st gen CR-V. You put a jack under the engine, remove the mount, remove the timing belt, and replace it. No big deal. I’ve done it every 80K miles for the past 224K miles.
No marketing budget
Fewer dealerships versus Ford, too.
You’ll notice the charts above don’t include the Tribute’s sales numbers.
I don’t see why not, because for according to Edmund’s – Mazda sold a grand total of 180 Tributes during September.
“Mazda just doesn’t get any love. The CX-7 is a darn nice CUV.”
Yes, but from a practical family vehicle standpoint, the CX-7 doesn’t stand out. Rear seat is comparatively small, cargo area is constricted, and the turbo is a bit of a gas hog. It brags on driving dynamics, but I would think most people shopping this segment don’t care if their CUV is sporty. Most of the vehicles in this class handle far better than truck-based SUVs anyway.
I’ve stood next to and parked next to current generation Terrains and Equinoxes and I can’t believe those damn things are compact. Even the old Equinox (which I drive at least once a week because my employer has a few in the fleet) doesn’t feel compact to me in anything but width. (BTW just rambling, I need to go look up the EPAs designations for size classes now.)
I am not sure that there is one and TTAC doesn’t follow EPA designations for chassis anyway on these reports. It is more of where the vehicle is marketed too or fits in better. You could put this up against the next size, like the Highlander size, but then the question is what does the Lambdas compete against? Sometimes it is hard to classify these things.
At one point the “wild a$$ rumor” was that the Lambdas were going to replace the Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban… but I don’t see that happening unless gas hits $5 a gallon and stays there.
It might someday, but agreed, that day isn’t today.
As other proof of it not being EPA numbers that are used, look at the Chevy Cruze which is an EPA midsize car. Not one really considers it that though.
Neither the government nor the manufacturers follow any consistent pattern that I can see. I usually use the two “W”s: wheelbase and weight. By that standard, the Journey, Equinox and Terrain don’t belong in the compact class.
Those three have wheelbases of at least 112″, while all the others are around 103”. All three are just under 3800 lbs, while the others are under 3400 lbs, the Compass under 3100 lbs.
Take those three out and Dodge, Chevrolet, and GMC don’t have any vehicles in the compact class. It might be that TTAC is just being generous to include those brands who don’t have anything smaller, but you can make the argument that they represent sales to SUV buyers whose needs aren’t met by the others, either physically or financially. I can see the longer wheelbase allowing more backseat legroom or ease of access, or more legroom in the front for tall drivers. The sales pitch of getting more vehicle for the money is well proven, and the effect on compact SUV sales justifies including them.
I think it’s based more on price range. Most people don’t especially care about 9 inches of wheelbase or a few hundred pounds of weight.
The compact CUV market might be better described as the $20k-30k CUV class.
@klossfam
Your Tiguan is in the ‘none of the above’ category because the number sold in Sept. was only about half that of the bottom-ranked Juke. I like the Tiguan myself and would consider buying one if it were offered with a TDI engine and manual transmission. I can’t understand why VW doesn’t bring the diesel version to the U.S. — I’m sure it would bump up Tiguan sales significantly. TDIs have accounted for over 40% of VW’s total U.S. sales YTD, and for vehicles offering the TDI option, the diesel take-rate is as high as 80%!
Count me among those worried about the next-gen Kuga/Escape. Ford is ditching the two biggest things the current Escape has going for it: Boxy look; Rugged hybrid version.
Already, we’re seeing the “kinetic” Focus and Fiesta arguably under-perform in the face of slightly more traditional Chevy an Nissan offerings.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Escape sales next year being half of what they are now.
Maybe Ford will make up for reduced sales numbers with increased margins. I’d guess that a lot of Escapes are sold because they’re cheap. It looks as if Ford and Chev are attempting to move upmarket with their newest generation vehicles.