Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

"CUVs are ultimately jack of all trade vehicles, which is what the average family needs" This line caught my eye and is true. However none of what it describes cannot be provided better by a minivan. In the US maybe as there are smaller CUVs, but in other markets, where minivans come in all sizes, this argument can be argued against. In my opinion, when discussing CUVs there is a very definite element of fashion involved.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos I will definitely grant you that there is a stigma associated with minivans in many countries. That said, for small families with just one child (only child or before their second child), is a minivan truly the most practical vehicle? A standard, full-sized is actually quite a large vehicle. Whenever I drive my sister's Sienna around the city, I'm quite aware of how large it is versus the small CUV and the 2 door coupe I usually drive. I'd much rather drive my nephews and niece around my car than the large minivan simply because they're easier to drive.

@Signal11 That's why I said in the US, the fact that there are CUVs of various sizes, it actually can make more sense than a US-sized minivan, specially in the scenario mentioned by you. In other markets, where both minivans and CUVs come from subcompact sizes to humongous, the reasoning for a CUV is even more challenging. In the US though, sadly there are no small minivans, so CUVs have taken over that role. In other words, I'm agreeing with you. A modern minivan sold in the US is just too big for smaller families.

Irrespective of whether CUVs are brilliant or awful, and practical or useless, it should be obvious from the sales volumes and trends that people actually like them enough to buy them instead of something else. And it is that demand that ultimately drives the automakers to produce them. It is not the job of profit-seeking companies to preach the gospel of diesel stickshift station wagons or coupes or compact pickup trucks or whatever wacko fetish that is demanded by some internet neurotic. Rather, their job is to sell stuff that the market demands and to turn a profit while doing it. And right now, CUVs are a pretty good way to make sales and make money.

@Pch101 But those sales come out from a couple of things. The high seating position is appreciated by women, not only, but women (rightly or wrongly) associated that with greater safety. Add easier ingress and egress for older folk and those with kids, you start getting there. The fact that they ape more the styling of SUVs is another more difficult thing to pin down, but does seem to exist. Then this cultural ethos of being against anything "mommy" (more prevalent in the US and Europe, but has somehow percolated, albeit changed, to the rest of the world). So 2 or 3 "real" reasons, plus 2 or 3 "cultural" attitudes, and voilà, a beginning of an explanation is born. And yes, it is the mission of makers to capitalize on this as best they can, while planning for a rainy day, as another economic crisis, or petroleum shock, could send people scurrying back to sedans and hatches for economic reasons as well as station wagons and minivans for "cultural reasons" (if CUVs, for whatever reason, become unfashionable, families will still need family friendly cars and those who can will pay more for those vehicles perceived as such).

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos The Mazda 5 and Ford Transit Connect Wagon would disagree that there are not mini minivans in the US. I believe that the Nissan NV2000 is going to offer a passenger version other than the NYC taxi spec versions too.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos Agreed, the choice is starting (in a way, xb20, Soul, Cube, too), but I'd argue most don't even know about such cars yet (also the upcoming Fiat Doblo, err Ram whatever), specially the ones you mention. Most of these have definite advantages over the CUVs (in my opinion), but people prefer the CUVs. Design is often cited, but design is closely related to fashion. So again, in my estimation, fashion cannot be discounted as a driving force behind the rise of the CUV.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos SUVs were enormously popular here until fuel prices became too high to justify them. Many of the factors that supported the SUV market are still in play, but for the excessive operating costs. Automakers are driven by two major factors: consumer demand and cost amortization. The CUVs support both: people want them, and they allow the automakers to squeeze more value out of their passenger car platforms. Similarly, the decline in demand for compact pickups supports the demise of the compact body-on-frame SUV. Without a truck platform to share the cost burden, the SUV becomes pointless. Much better to build a CUV that can milk the car platform than to bother with the smaller truck that no longer needs to exist.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos I disagree that it's a safety thing. I think it's more of a visibility and perception of control thing. You see more of your surroundings the higher you are off the ground and considering the rising beltlines of sedans, resulting in a situation where more and more sedan drivers not quite knowing where the corners of their vehicle are, higher seating position sells itself more because it gives people the sense that they are in more command of their vehicle and surroundings. Maybe that's related to perceived safety but for me, driving a Mustang or Genesis Coupe in the hills and alleyways of Seoul is a markedly more stressful experience than driving a Mini Countryman or a Jeep Compass. I am much more confident that I won't nudge things in the latter two than the former and that's primarily due to the raised, upright seating position. Or for that matter, the Sienna - I will go down alleys in the Sienna that I will go out of my way to avoid in the Mustang or Gen Coupe.

@Pch101 Agreed, plus the fact they sell for a bit more than their car brethren means makers don't mind making and pushing them more. I'd add that from my perspective the SUV, though never as hugely popular in other places, had just a positive an image. When CUVs came, reminiscent of the SUVs, but at a price people could actually pay, well that was the icing on the cake.

@Signal11 Again, I think we are saying the same thing in different words. The rising beltlines of cars add to that safety argument. They rise partly due to the fact people feel safer in them, though we may have reached a point where there is a backlash against that. Safety, or the perception of, and commanding view, is a definite selling point for CUVs.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos Well, where do you draw the line between a small minivan and a CUV? Is the Transit Connect a van or CUV? What about the Kia Carens/Rondo? Is the Soul a CUV or a hatchback? Here in Korea, the Soul, Carens/Rondo and Carnival/Sedona are sold in the category of RV/utility vehicles. (Along with the Ray, Santa Fe and Mohave).

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos Minivans have sliding doors. Vans are primarily designed to carry cargo. CUVs are based upon car platforms.

@Signal11 It's about perceived safety. Whether that translates into actual safety isn't relevant. In practice, SUVs were more dangerous than passenger cars until the feds instituted stability control. Now, the elevated vehicles are safer because their higher bumper heights make them more lethal to passenger cars, and they are no longer tipping over as they used to.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos I guess it goes into the personal choice category. Here a Citroen C3 Aircross is officially rated as a utility vehicle, while the same car, but called Picasso (with less plastic cladding and "decoratve" doo-dads), is a hatch. In my mind, the closer it looks to a car, it's a minivan or van, while if it looks more SUV-y, it's a CUV. Here in Brazil, the Soul is sold as a car, Carens and Carnivals are minivans and the others are sold as SUV. Actually, anything that looks like what we call "jipe" (anything that even vaguely reminds you of a WWII Willys Jeep) is sold as an SUV (the term CUV has not caught on here). Then we have the minivans, passenger vans derived from car-derived vans (sometimes called "monovolumes", things like Fiat Doblò or Renault Kangoo), vans (Ducato, Sprinter). Hatches are sometimes also confused. The Fit looks to me more minivan than hatch and I've seen it classified as both. The Citroëns mentioned above are another example. A car like the Fiat Idea has always been sold as a minivan while the old Class A was always referred to as a hatch, though their general shape and proportions are very similar. Guess it is what the makers chooses to call them, and if the market accepts ot not that classification.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos Pch, don't really agree. Plenty of passenger Ducatos, Sprinters and EuroFord vans here. Not to mention the Ford Transit Connect and Fiat Doblò (Ram something or other), which are vans derived from cars that serve as commercial and passenger vehicles. Like people, there are always those vehicles that will defy any and every hard and fast classification.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos The issue isn't whether the van can carry passengers, but whether the design is primarily intended to carry people or goods. Vans are cargo vehicles that may or may not have seats bolted in them. If the seats are easily removed and the interior isn't that fancy, then it's probably a van. (This is actually similar to what the US does to determine whether the car or truck/cargo tariff applies on imports.)

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos That I can agree with, especially as to the primary design intention. Also, RWD for vans seems to be defining factor, while FWD is the norm for minivans and car-derived vans like the Ford and Ram. Everything else though is pretty much in the air, at least to me. Sliding doors, interiors, removable seats, cargo or passenger, all of that depends on the moment. Government regulations may or may not take all of that into account, but makers and the market sometimes classify things differently.

@Signal11 I don't know, Marcelo. From what I understand, rising beltlines have less to do with perceived driver/passenger safety and more to do with pedestrian crash safety regulation mandating more crush space between the hood/bonnet and the engine. PCH101, as I said, in my case, it has nothing to do with perceived safety and everything to do with confidence in knowing where my corners are in tight maneuvering. In a head-on collision, I'm better off in either coupe. They're just a pain in the ass to drive in urban areas due to seating position. Personally, the two vehicles I prefer to drive in African cities are the HiAce and the 70 series LandCruiser. They are both terrible vehicles for passenger safety. I am well aware every time I drive the HiAce that I am kissing my knees goodbye in a high speed, head on collision. Still, both are much easier to maneuver in tight, moving traffic third world traffic than Subaru and Mitsu Evo sedans.

@Marcelo de Vasconcellos I would have to say that there are a couple of things Minivans aren't better than CUV's, but it's a bit of a narrower perspective as we don't have the same selection of large vans here, and I have only tried my own CRV's when it comes to CUV's. First of all, my 2nd gen CRV could seat three grown ups in the rear seat (my current 3rd gen. is a bit narrower at shoulder width). This means it can actually seat 5 people, even if a couple of them need babyseats, and still carry luggage, unlike most of the minivans or so called 7 seaters we get here in Europe), unless I get the (statistically) maintenance nightmare that is a Voyager/Caravan (and from here, most parts for them have to be ordered from the US) or go all the way and buy a VolksWagen Caravelle Van, which offers none of the comfort or handling the little Honda has (and that says a lot) There are very few proper 'Japanese' (the American ones, like the Odyssey) minivans to choose from, and tbh, the CRv's 150 hp 2 liter can outrun most of the european diesel vans, so I'll just have to live with the horrible seats and awful fuel economy, until the smaller kids can sit in a normal backseat. Then it's back to hatchbacks for me (lift-back sedan preferably, but the new Civic tourer looks awesome) PS, I really hate daily-driving huge cars, having a classic chromed up US car for sundays and summers would be fun, but driving a B-body Caprice every day over here would just be a chore.

This is why they make so many different vehicles, because of so many different needs. I try not to judge another's driving choice because I don't know why they chose what they did. A big SUV at the mall? Maybe they have a weekend cabin in the woods or tow a boat. I don't know, but their money, their choice

@Lie2me The problem is, the OEMs don't make ENOUGH different cars; they're ignoring the needs and wants of many people who now refuse to buy anything new simply because nothing new meets their needs AND wants. Ford used to say, "We build for the 20% and the rest can take what's left." The problem is, they're no longer doing that. They're building for the lowest common denominator and ignoring those who are willing to pay for something different.

@Vulpine I think BMW builds just about everything that 'people who are willing to pay for something different' could possibly dream of...For those with really specific, weird needs there is always Nissan/Infiniti. Except maybe a simple, practical, economical and reliable large car, but who wants to pay extra for that?

@Vulpine Ford used to say, “We build for the 20% and the rest can take what’s left.” That is exactly what they are doing, you are just interpreting it wrong. They build for the 20% that can make them profit. The "rest" they are talking about is GM, Toyota, ect. The reality is that there are segments of the market that are too small for every mfg to offer a product and make a profit doing so.

@Vulpine Car manufacturers build cars/trucks to turn a profit for their stockholders period. As much as we'd like a custom built vehicle that suits our needs no one could afford such a thing so car companies try to build enough variety to sell more vehicles then the next guy. It's not rocket science, it's pretty much basic economics

@Vulpine "they’re ignoring the needs and wants of many people who now refuse to buy anything new simply because nothing new meets their needs AND wants." If a person can't find a new vehicle that ticks off their needs and wants, it's probably only because they can't afford it. Never has there been so many choices and options. Never. It's also possible their wants aren't actually within the realm of reality. I would love a vehicle that carries 6 people with room for their cargo, that has more than 400hp, gets 50mpg, can pull 1g on the skid pad, comes with a warranty, looks awesome, and costs less than 20k, but my experience on this planet tells me it's not very reasonable to expect someone to actually build it for me. "They’re building for the lowest common denominator and ignoring those who are willing to pay for something different." Why do you suppose that is? Out of spite?

@danio3834 Yes, they hate us, they make us drive 4-cylinder Camrys and wear sensible shoes then laugh at us over cocktails, it's a conspiracy

@Scoutdude Ok, I'll accept that Scoutdude. However, that also points out that NOBODY is addressing a potentially profitable market simply because they are so closed-minded and regulation-limited to recognize it. Now, what if one company--just one--addressed the desire for true small trucks and 2-door cars?

@Lie2me Who said anything about "custom built"? There are people all over this country who will "custom build" anything you want. On the other hand, there is a viable market segment that simply is not being addressed because of closed minds who refuse to believe anyone WANTS a vehicle in that segment.

@Lie2me If you're still beating the small truck drum there is no "viable market" There's an article on this very subject up front. If somebody thought they could turn a profit by building them for the NA market, they would and if this is about the C-tax then talk to your congressmen