This was the sight that greeted me when I left work this afternoon: one of the least popular cars on the American market and the Camry-on-stilts that drives the most successful brand to debut in America since the Vietnam War. The Mazda2 is often used by automotive journalists as an example of The Car That Real People Don’t Buy despite the fact that it possesses the cardinal virtues of small size, light weight, and a responsive chassis.
The Lexus RX, on the other hand, is the most cynical effort in additional manufacturer profit since the Cadillac Cimmarron and is the upscale vehicle most often purchased by the people who don’t know a God-damned thing about cars.
It’s also obviously a hatchback. If the Venza is a mega-sized version of the “bread van” Civic generations of the mid and late Eighties, then the RX is the scaled-up five-door 1979 Civic of our era.
Once upon a time, cars like this were very popular, you know. So much so that the be-trunked versions of the Camry and Stanza seemed like odd curiosities when they started rotating around small-town auto show stages. The demise of the family hatchback seems preordained in retrospect but there was nothing inevitable about it. While it’s easy to blame CAFE for the awkward, unpleasant, and occasionally deadly transition from full-sized sedans to pickup-based SUVs, it’s much harder to figure out why the hatchback disappeared from family cars only to reappear on family cars that just happen to possess an additional two inches of entirely useless ground clearance.
Perhaps it was the fact that BMW and Mercedes-Benz never embraced hatchbacks, which marked the fifth door permanently as an accessory of the proletariat. The problem with that theory is that the Gran Touring BMWs are showroom poison, which suggests that Americans will only accept a hatchback if it comes with additional ground clearance.
Maybe what’s required is one really good regular hatchback to turn this thing around. My vote for such a device would be the Honda Crosstour. Make the new one better-looking. Don’t raise the suspension. Make the pricing attractive. See if people buy it. If it succeeded, Toyota would respond with the return of a hatchback Camry. At that point, Nissan would have no choice but to bring the Stanza back.
You know what would happen then, right? Anything the Japanese do, Ford will do two years later and GM will do seven years later. Close this browser right now, hop into the interstellar cold-storage chamber, come back in ten years. The world could be full of hatchbacks. You never know.
‘Cause low, little crampy cars mean you’re on welfare. Period.
Absolutely hilarious. I’m sure every GTI driver out there is gunning it from the welfare office to the Grocery Outlet.
You’re a carguy and therefore exempted from understanding popular perception.
Go in peace and carve a corner or something.
Yeah, because the public perception of a dude in a Ferrari FF is “welfare queen”.
How many “dudes in a Ferrari FF” does Joe average see? I know in the last year I’ve seen, um… ZERO
How many Ferraris are econobox hatches with little clown wheels?
I know, I know… clown wheels can now be HUGE, too.
And I don’t assume any dude is a “welfare queen” unless I get a whiff of Kenneth Cole.
Lol, that’s “Clown-car wheels” but I’m being pedant
Why aren’t we out doing something with our Saturdays?
It’s glorious here in not-Rhinelander.
I’m closer to Rhinelander, cold and rainy
Rhinelander’s been coming up a lot lately.
I wonder what happened there.
Nothing ever happens in Rhinelander unless you like to fish or hunt
Hodag Festival is “nothing”?
City slicker.
Yeah, there’s that, but it’s up against the Cannes Film Festival, so relegated to obscurity on the globalist’s itinerary
Right on, carguy.
In Alpharetta GA, they built the Ferrari dealership right across the road from a pawnshop.
One-stop shopping!
That’s the Atlanta value system for you
“Yeah, because the public perception of a dude in a Ferrari FF is “welfare queen”.”
Perception is too malleable to serve as a reliable barometer in the indoctrination era.
But it is certainly true. Welfare checks in the millions per queen. Sanctioned and championed by Dumb-Broad-in-Chief Yellen herself.
Hey, I just bought some amazeballs wines at a Grocery Outlet.
My current WRX is a hatchback. And I won’t touch the new WRX specifically because it’s not available as one. According to the forum I’m definitely not the only one with this line of thinking. How many WRX owners do you know that are on welfare? I don’t know any.
The split for previous gen car was 50/50 between sedan and hatch. Imho, the hatch in WRX makes the car so much better than the sedan. It’s much more useful, it’s shorter so easier to park and it certainly looks better.
The only problem with getting more station wagons and hatchbacks is that every advocate in the world is in this commentariat. There are not enough of us to justify the costs. The world is poorer for it, but there you are. Maybe if we could get Speedhunters to go in with us…
“The only problem with getting more station wagons and hatchbacks is that every advocate in the world is in this commentariat”
QOTD!
Yes, ditto for me. Bought (ordered actually) one of the last 2014 5-door STIs for exactly the same reason. Looks better, more practical, no Constabulary Alert Device on the trunk by default. Also stiffer and like you say, easier to turn and park.
Which is not to say that those who favor the sedan version are wrong in any way (and frankly I’m glad Subaru is making them in any form still) but as a matter of preference, I prefer the hatch enough that I probably won’t buy one of the new generation so long as it’s not an option for me.
I remain quietly confident that once the current model has paid for its R&D, we’ll get another 5-door again anyway. Here’s hoping.
It is my opinion that people of limited means drive Tahoe’s and such. The new hatchbacks are driven by people who have put their prejudices behind them and are buying smart. i.e. people who can well afford to buy bigger but choose to buy smaller…
Yeah, I see those $50K Tahoes parked in front of Good Will and those $25K hatches in front of Prada all day
Yes, people of limited means but $50,000 Tahoe’s instead of $20,000 hatchbacks? Makes perfect sense..
But Jalopnik constantly tells me how I can buy all these expensive cars used for less than fill-in-the-blank. Why shouldn’t anyone assume people with lower incomes similarly buy used?
Some people have to buy used. Some people choose to buy used. But some people REFUSE to buy used for what is to them economic reasons.
With the high cost of repairs today on anything newer than 20 years old, it’s cheaper to buy new and absorb the depreciation to know they’re going to avoid paying for repairs for a minimum of three (or five) years and and enjoy the relative comfort of a vehicle that hasn’t been beaten into the ground by a previous owner.
Presentation and perception are everything. Jack-up that Mazda2 give it some sort of AWD and call it a CX-3 and then see what happens
Mazda is doing just that next year but based on the 3 not the 2.
Nope! The CX-5 is based on the “3” the CX-3 is based on the “2”
From what I understood the CX5 and 6 shared a platform. That was the reason why they were the first two “skyactiv” models coming out within a year of each other.
Derek wrote an article about a week ago which mentioned the CX3 and it being Mazda3 based. Maybe he was wrong too!
Mike,
My understanding is that the 3, 6 and CX-5 share a “platform”.
The CX-3 will share a “platform’ with the 2, but borrow elements from its larger brethren.
What platform would you place the CX-9 on then (hint, it’s the Mazda6). If Derek wrote that the CX-3 shared a platform with the Mazda 3 then yes, he was wrong. My guess is that you misread it
“…cars that just happen to possess an additional two inches of entirely useless ground clearance.”
If that is really your position, you live in an entirely different world than I do, my friend.
I know, right? Some people have the luxury of not having to venture out until AFTER the snowplow arrives
“an additional two inches of entirely useless ground clearance”
The hell… isn’t Baruth from Wisconsin?
Ohio
Oh, well, not his fault.
Where I live you only need the groundclearance to clear the ridge that the snowplow leaves in front of your driveway…
Where I live that ridge is at least a foot tall, and no amount of street legal ground clearance can replace an hour of shoveling.
Yeppers, around here that ridge is somewhere between knee- and waist-high. Refrozen into rock after getting melty in the daytime sun when you encounter it in the dark after work and can’t pull in your driveway until you deal with it.
No way in hell am I shoveling that ridge, I’ll just plow right over it in my jacked-up 4WD crossover. That’s one of the reasons I bought it. It functions perfectly in that regard just as it was designed to do
But how will you know when it’s time for an angiogram if you don’t shovel?
Snow mobility is the reason that every other car here in Dallas is an SUV?
You guys drive the 2WD variety, great for hurdling the tumbleweed
You guys do understand that about half the country never really deals with snow, right? And on the rare occasions that we do, it’s either a fun weekend dusting or enough to get work and school cancelled straight away.
Down here in the South, ground clearance beyond a normal sedan and another beyond FWD is overkill.
The extra clearance is wonderful for hurdling the pine logs that seem to litter the roads after even the mildest of storms
There are certain ramps and speed bumps that scraped my 87 Integra and my 2012 TSX Wagon, but left my 1997 Odyssey alone.
A friend’s Camry had its underbody shield impaled by some highway debris — might have been a bumper — but it would have left his wife’s Highlander alone.
Extra clearance is not entirely useless, but certainly overrated.
“We have clearance, Clarence.”
@bosozoku
We don’t care about your airbag-moistening realms.
Except for the high water during storms here in the flatlands of Houston. And the light trails for biking.
AWD FTW.
Jack it up a couple of inches and you can drop the “except for” from your rationalization
8.5″ AWD FTW
Then why aren’t we seeing jacked up sedans all over the place?
Huh? Where do you live?
Know where Rhinelander is?
Not there.
“Then why aren’t we seeing jacked up sedans all over the place?”
Because you’re not seeing sedans all over the place anymore?
This was a question I asked the other day to deafening silence.
Jack is just trolling, my friend. He is snickering right as you’re typing your wisdom so earnestly, and he’s going to use the check from Derek’s puppetmasters in order to rent a Jeep Wrangler. With an automatic, of course.
psst, we know what Jack is doing, but we like to play along. Don’t be a spoiler
That’s kinda why I asked the Jesus question.
So, you knew he drove a Honda like Jack’s, but you trolled us anyway. Well, I’ll be…
I play guitar, too.
Wheeeedle-wheedle-wheeeeeeeeeeee
Whaaarrouuuuuuuuuung…GRANNGGG..CHANNGGG..
BRAAAAAANNGGGGGGGG…*feedback*.. weeeyoooo..
Not everybody lives in the ‘sticks’ and needs that extra 2″ of ground clearance. A car lower to the road gets better fuel mileage than one sitting higher. What seems interesting is that even WITH falling gasoline prices, smaller cars are seeing an increase in sales–the Toyota Corolla/Matrix (a 5-door hatch btw) showed massive gains last month.
Which proves that people are liking small jacked-up cars regardless of gas prices
Matrix hasn’t been available for a little over a year.
I can still buy a new one in the Chicago area and I do believe if you’re in Canada buying a new one is even easier
I’m sure there are a few that are sitting on the lot here and there after a year. In regard to sales and his original comment where he emphasizes that some of those sales were of a hatchback, I’d call those Matrix sales noise. I’d be shocked if the Matrix accounted for more than 100 units this past month. Cars.com shows 5 new Matrices available nation wide.
I’ve wondered why a suspension like the one in the Audi Allroad (The 2000s one) hasn’t caught on. Air adjustable height, so you lower it at high speeds, and can raise it when you’re proving your manliness.
I’d get one, if they offered it with the 2.8 instead of the 2.7T.
In brown, of course.
Because frequent repair time.
It’s an Audi. That’s a given. ;)
The other major air suspension raise/lower vehicle is of course the Range Rover. And those are reliable as well!
/s
It’s simple. A hatchback makes you choose between people OR cargo. An SUV or sedan lets you carry people AND cargo.
… and a crossover? Have you met the X6 or ZDX that allows for neither?
I’m not sure if using the X6 or dead ZDX as your examples strengthens your argument. The market spoke on the ZDX and BMW has too much pride to listen in regard to the X6.
I was making a point that if you wanted a CUV that was incapable of carrying people OR cargo that those too were available. Replace the outgoing ZDX with a current Evoque or X4 if you prefer if it helps clarify my position
Incorrect – a Mazda 3 sedan and hatch have the same people carrying capabilities (or Ford Focus for this example) and have cargo space. You don`t have to choose. The hatch gives you ultimately more cargo space if you need it and only want to carry one passenger. Most cars are not driven full of people the majority of the time.
On the other hand, a Golf/GTI does make you choose. At least the older ones look really tight behind the rear seats, not sure about the new ones.
A Mazda3 and Ford Focus are pretty cramped in the backseat. A CX-5 is not, and has more cargo space than a Mazda3 as well. While true that most cars aren’t driven full of people and cargo all the time, this story is about the fall of the hatchback as a family vehicle. Not the vehicle of DINKs or the single and childless.
I prefer hatches to CUVs myself, just playing devil’s advocate.
Most versions of the Golf have had the same basic trunk space as the equivalent Jetta, it was just a vertical box instead of a horizontal one.
With the seats down the Golf has vastly more space.
A sedan only carries cargo that fits through the trunk slot, very small in most cars. That hatch is also an ease of access thing to.
And what if you have no need for carrying both people AND cargo? Why buy what you don’t need unless you specifically want it?
um, that’s what the X6 and ZDX are for
I don’t get the Hatch Hate. I had two SAABs with a hatch. My VW cars were all hatches. My MDX is just an XXXL car with a hatch, and that hatch was convenient when I take a 4×8 sheet from the home store.
In URRRUP, hatches are all over. The BMW 1 series here is a two door coupe, but over there, is universally a five door hatch, and in two weeks I didn’t see a single two door one series. Here, the GT series cars are just ugly….and I fully admit Stockholm Syndrome where BMW is concerned.
Oh well. Better a three ton SUV to get that quart of milk. We are Americans, after all.
Maybe because a hatchback is a car that’s shaped like a giant metal shoe, associated with that particular species of trendy urban European that frequents places like Sprockets?
associated with that particular species of trendy urban European that frequents places like Sprockets
In what backward universe? Jesus. The most people associate with hatchbacks in reality is that they’re either ugly or cheap.
At one time hatchbacks were quite sporty–a long, sweeping hatch that defined the ‘fastback’ cars. It allowed for carrying oversized loads in a body style that originally couldn’t carry anything behind the front seats.
Regretfully, the fastback design is all but gone now except in supercars and purpose-built sport coupes which have almost all gone back to having tiny trunks (if any). Forget about how comfortably passengers may ride in the back seat of a coupe; go back to the sporty, aerodynamic look. Odds are that somebody buying a coupe simply doesn’t plan to EVER carry people in back and unless you have one VERY large dog, said dog isn’t going to worry about headroom or legroom.
Meh… I dunno… I remember learning to tie shoes with a wooden shoe model on wheels with eyelet holes. It looked a lot like a Golf.
Why didn’t you learn to tie shoes on your actual shoes? Isn’t that easier?
I would order a BMW 1 series 5-door hatchback tomorrow if I could.
But only with extra ground clearance.
So I could drive over Jack’s gee-tar.
The 2 best cars I ever owned were a 1986 SVO and 2007 A3. Fast and practical and yes both had hatchs. Now I have a Acura Sportwagon, because no one want’s to build me a car with a usable trunk, ie I want to put larger stuff in it. And no I don’t need ground clearance here in SE Texas. Well maybe if I was stupid enough to drive thru flooded underpasses.
The hatchback and folding rear seat was a neat bonus feature of the Mustangs. And it was the fastback too. As Mustangs got heavier with every refresh, it had to be killed.
I thought Mustangs only came with 2 doors.
Correct me if i’m wrong DiM.
Hatchback Mustangs, well I didn’t realise. I learn something from you each and everyday.
A liftback is a 2 door and a hatch is a 4 door.
@BAFO – I figured you had to be a knowledgeable expert at SOMETHING, and here it finally appears…
You are The Sultan of All Things That HATCH!!!
Thanks DiM.
Ever so gracious, even in defeat.
@BAFO – Ba-COCK!!!
Sorry Big Al, but liftback and hatchback are apparently interchangeable. My old X11 2-dr was called a 3-door hatchback, so was my Chevette 2-dr, and SVO. I recall that Toyota(?) coined the term Liftback and applied it to their vehicles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Citation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang
Thanks 3Duece2,
I googled it. The term is interchangeable.
I do think the effeminate types call it a hatch and men would call it a liftback;)
Or men generally drive a liftback and hairdressers drive a hatch.
Only joking. Here’s a link I found.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What's_the_difference_between_a_liftback_and_a_hatchback
Just when we think you’ve said something intelligent BAFO, you go and insert both your feet in your mouth like this drivel. Once again I have to remind myself that you drive a Chinese pick-up truck making everything else you say and do mute
BAFO and Troll, completely interchangeable.
Or “You’ve been BAFOED upon!”
That may be today’s terminology, Big Al, but here in the States a 4-door was called a station wagon and a two door usually had a long, sweeping roofline which SOME (specifically starting with the Mustang 2) had the hatch. Here in the States the hatchback design of no trunk and folding back seats started in the late ’60s with the Chevy Nova/Olds/Pontiac equivalents and spread into other 2-door models by the ’70s. But with the fuel crunch and sudden drastic need to lighten cars and reduce costs due to the near-concurrent inflation, cars became boxier and similar-sized (but shrunken versions of larger models) gained the ‘hatch’ as well, defined by the Olds Cutlass and its Pontiac/Chevy siblings (though most had a “real” trunk some had a hatch).
As such, I cannot define a 2-door or 4-door modern car as a “hatchback”–liftback yes, but not hatchback. In fact, most descriptions I see even from the manufacturers tend to call them 3-door and 5-door models, NOT hatchbacks.
A liftback is a broad marketing term for a hatchback, which incorporates a shared passenger and cargo volume, with rearmost accessibility via a rear third or fifth door, typically a top-hinged tailgate—especially where the profile aspect of the rear cargo door is more horizontal than vertical, with a sharply raked or fastback profile. In comparison with the hatchback the back opening area is more sloped and longer and is lifted up to open, offering more luggage space. Very similar is the “fastback”. Liftback is not used as a term in the UK — fastback or hatchback are used instead.
– Wikipedia
But, of course BAFO wasn’t consulted, because the above definition didn’t include BAFO’s brilliant definition…
Hatchback = Gay
Liftback = Straight
BAFO = Idiot
IIRC, I’ve owned 9 vehicles with hatchbacks if small wagons count.
So, why do women still make me drool?
It’s annoying, I’m 60 already.
BAFO’s formula isn’t working.
“So, why do women still make me drool?”
It’s those Dagmars, dude, don’t fight it
My fave p0rn site:
oldcaradvertising.com
Note especially the line, “… especially where the profile aspect of the rear cargo door is more horizontal than vertical, with a sharply raked or fastback profile.” On any other vehicle where the cargo door is more vertical than horizontal, it’s a tailgate, not a hatch; even or especially if it’s a liftgate.
Well, not exactly…
If the door is hinged at the bottom it is termed a tailgate, particularly in America. A bottom opening door is common on a station wagon, pickup truck, or sport utility vehicle (SUV). Traditional U.S. station wagons included a roll down window. Because of the potential for carbon-monoxide fumes, the tailgate window on station wagons should be closed whenever the engine is running. Tailgates may contain accessories like a “pocket” for storage purposes. Traditional station wagon and pickup tailgates can also serve as a mount for a workbench. A 3-way tailgate is hinged at the s*de and bottom so it can be opened s*deways like a car door, or downwards like a truck tailgate. The window can be opened to load small items. The door and hinge mechanisms of the 3-way tailgate are designed with special handle(s) for opening in the selected direction. In the late 1970s, it was the most common station wagon tailgate arrangement.
If the door is hinged at the top it is termed a hatch, and is used on a hatchback.
– Wikipedia
petezeiss: So, why do women still make me drool?
It’s annoying, I’m 60 already.
That’s a high class problem.
Lye to0 moi,
My inference was directed at DiM. The reason why is this guy tends to place himself as a redneck pickup and Mustang whip.
But yet he calls a Mustang a hatchback??
If you want to see some gay or other bias connotation in the comment, then maybe it is your issue to manage.
“Only joking”
See how I made it all better. If you want to see it as some kind of snarky remark about your knuckled-dragging lack of sensitivity and intelligence, then maybe it is your issue to manage.
They’re referring to the 1979-1993 ‘Stang, not newer ones.
As for ‘liftback’ maybe other makes have used the term, but the only one I remember was the Toyota from mid 1970 for one of their Celica models. Maybe you’re being thrown off by the blue 4-door Civic in the photo. The only time I’ve seen a photo of a first gen Civic with four doors was for an article from Road and Track, when they did a story about the first CVCC motor, and they travelled to Japan for photos. The States never received a 1973-1979 Civic four-door hatchback, only the full-fledged station wagon. Comparing the photo car to a Lexus RX is an apple versus banana proposition.
The ’74 to ’78 Mustang was also a hatchback, when you got the fastback. I miss the add utility it offered. And faster back.
I always felt that it was a mistake for honda to offer the accord wagon in tsx trim.
They could of removed some stuff from it to make it cheaper and badged it as an Accord. I believe it would have sold in much higher numbers that way.
Really? I think the TSX appeals to the enthusiast niche where those who might be interested in an Accord wagon just end up with a CR-V or Pilot
Left up to enthusiasts, I think we can all agree that the TSX should’ve been built here as an Accord generally.
In the Seattle area we’re infested with Tesla S hatches. Some even have rear-facing seats.
I had to check that to see if it wasn’t a warranted defect. Son-of-a-gun, why that almost puts the Tesla in the… wait for it
Crossover category
True this, many Model S in Seattle. Tesla only makes the S with a hatch so… yes, they are all hatches ;-)
At least the Tesla Model S doesn’t have a square back like other brands claiming a ‘hatchback’.
I think you could be right that BMW and MB didn’t give us hatchbacks for so long that we think of hatchbacks as cheap. They may simply have done it so long that it stuck. I think BMW hatches would sell if someone could actually figure out what they are. Some of them don’t look very hatch like. It’s they just don’t have a niche. I mean… they move all their coupes to a 4 series and then introduce a four door 4. Huh? Do we cross shop the 4 coupe with the 3 sedan? The X4? BMW hatches are also premium priced. Since they are BMW’s to start with, which are expensive and BMW makes heat and opening Windows an option these days, you wind up paying $100,000 for your BMW hatch.
The Audi A7 is doing well. It’s special sauce I think is it doesn’t look like a hatch and it isn’t crowded out of a segment by other Audis. It’s Audis big sporty 4 door. It only comes with a hatch.
The crosstour won’t work. It has less room than an SUV with the same mileage. It doesnt handle as well as a sedan, doesn’t add much room and has worse mileage and performance. A nicely raised wagon, like the Audi’s or Subaru’s, even the sporty Caddis make much more sense.
BMW doesn’t do hatch’s?… 318ti
Don’t forget the MB C230 Kompressor.
Though the two of those are part of the reason hatches are associated with cheap: When luxury brands did them, they only did bargain basement versions of their cheapest models as hatches.
You could actually get the C230 as a manual with a cloth interior. In 2004.
At the end of the day, neither fit with the brand image, and they were axed.
The “3 Compact” would have been really sweet with the M3’s inline six, but I don’t think BMW ever built any like that, at least not as a production model.
The 1 series comes as a hatch, just not in the US… Oh! Wait, the X1 is a hatch… Damm!
How does an A7 not look like a hatch? If that doesn’t look like a hatch, then what does? Tesla Model S and Porsche Panamera also look like hatches, but not as much as the A7.
Sorry to get off track here but I’m fascinated since I’ve never seen this juxtaposition before in the same paragraph.
“They could of removed..” and “I believe it would have sold.”
Why not choose “..it would of sold”?
Not ragging on you, I’m just genuinely interested in the upsurge of people online using “of” instead of ” ‘ve”
Don’t be pedant, it makes you look persnickety
“the upsurge of people online using “of” instead of ” ‘ve””
Milk drinkers all. Victims of the Got Milk? campaign.
Now we know what it does to the brain.
Forensically speaking, it’s why Wally from LITB got killed in Vietnam, slowed his reflexes something terrible. And we all thought his chugging from the milk bottle in the fridge was so wholesome.
Not ragging on you here, but I don’t get your third line. “Of” is plainly wrong, so why even suggest the writer should have used it? Seems inconsistent with the rest of your post.
I’ve had a Porshe 928 and three Lexus RXs. All hatches!!!
The right tool for the job.
I call bull. You got married. No one replaces a 928 with an RX…
As a car person who sells cars-which is a rare thing, I guess I will say this: I sell Subaru. People look at an Impreza hatch and wrinkle their noses and say ewww (insert funny ugly Subaru joke here). Then look at the Crosstrek-which is just a lifted Impreza with different wheels and body cladding-and say oh my, what about that one? And they even think its bigger (nope).
And a point of contention-the Impreza sport was simply a trim package on the old Impreza. It offered no additional ground clearance. Well, it did offer 1/2″ more back in the 90’s if you want to be technical about it I guess. The Crosstrek did not take the Impreza Outbacks place. I read that all the time and scratch my head.
“As a car person who sells cars-which is a rare thing”
It’s non-existent, I applaud you sir, because you are right on the money about the Impreza/Crosstrek and a brilliant move by Subaru. Even I look at an Impreza and think, “Meh” but the Crosstrek looks cool
“(insert funny ugly Subaru joke here)”
Whoop-de-do for Subaru!
Really? I personally can’t stand to look at the Impreza hatch *or* the XV Crosstrek. They both remind me of the Dodge Caliber my father had when I was in high school, and I hated that car. I can’t say that I was disappointed when the Caliber met its demise and Dad got a Sonata SE. But yes, it was very smart of Subaru to create the XV Crosstrek, and it seems to be the vehicle that is expanding the brand’s customer base beyond traditional Subaru buyers.
Yeah I’m not a huge fan of the looks either. Even I like the Crosstrek a bit more. But for a lot of people its the stigma of driving a “wagon” (hatch) Vs. what they feel is an SUV. The Impreza hatch will do everything most people need it to-but they prefer to be up in the air, and don’t see the Crosstrek as a wagon-even though it is the same exact vehicle.
Also-I’m in northern New England. We get a ton of snow. I never had any issues getting around with either Impreza I used to own. People over hype the need for ground clearance. Only time I ever got stuck in my Impreza my driveway was drifted in and the snow was up to the windows. Pretty sure a Crosstrek would have got stuck as well. But hey, I’ll sell whatever people want.
If you had a Crosstrek that drifted snow would have only been up to the door handles and you wouldn’t have been stuck not even that one time :D
Wow. People are beginning to realize that most SUVs today are nothing but jacked-up station wagons on steroids. I’ve been seeing that for over 15 years now. Meanwhile, CUVs are nothing but jacked-up econoboxes on steroids with a shorter tail.
Yeesh! After 55 years of observing automotive design changes (I was too young to pay attention before that), all I see today are cars and trucks cloned from each other across all brands with almost no individuality between them. Very, very few cars are distinctive enough now to know what they are from a hundred yards away. A profile view of a Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Lexus, Honda, Infiniti, Toyota, etc. at 100 yards would have the vast majority of consumers unable to give the proper brand to any given model. It used to be that I could recognize a Chevy Impala from a Chevelle from a Nova at twice that distance just on profile. With their modern equivalents, I’m lucky if I can tell the difference at 50 feet!
@Kyree S Williams: My sympathies. The Caliber was one of the ugliest cars of this modern ugly car era.
@Vulpine
don’t get me started! I couild go on and on all day! Even if you overlook the Corvette, the difference between the models in the 1964 lineup of Chevys was greater than that between 98 percent of today’s cars.
As a kid, I lived in a development with winding streets and a lot of woods. One time my friend, George and I, played a game where one would lead the other blindfolded around the neighborhood, and eventually the blindfolded person had to guess where he was. When George was leading me, at some point I asked him to let me feel a car and I’d tell him what it was. No! said George, you’ll figure out the car and you’ll know where you are. I said, just let me feel the tail light. I felt a tail light, told him what kind of car it was, and told him where we were.
Are you kidding? in 1964 GM had what was called the “B” platform, do you have any idea how many cars GM built off that one platform? Every effing car GM built in 1964 was just about the same car . You “good ol’ days” guys just slay me
1936-1942 Buick Century
1954-1958 Buick Century
1936-1958 Buick Special
1959–1962 Buick Invicta
1959–1985 Buick LeSabre
1963–1970 Buick Wildcat
1971–1973 Buick Centurion
1991–1996 Buick Roadmaster
1936-1938 Cadillac Series 60
1939 Cadillac Series 61
1941-1947 Cadillac Series 61
1950-1951 Cadillac Series 61
1941-1942 Cadillac Series 63
1959–1972 Chevrolet Biscayne
1959–1975 Chevrolet Bel Air
1976–1981 Chevrolet Bel Air (sold only in Canada, as a rebadged Impala)
1959–1985 Chevrolet Impala
1994–1996 Chevrolet Impala SS
1966–1996 Chevrolet Caprice
1936-1940 LaSalle Series 50
1936-1939 Oldsmobile Series L
1939 Oldsmobile Series G
1940 Oldsmobile Series 70
1941 Oldsmobile Dynamic 76
1941 Oldsmobile Dynamic 78
1942-1947 Oldsmobile Dynamic Cruiser 76
1942-1947 Oldsmobile Dynamic Cruiser 78
1948 Oldsmobile Dynamic 76
1948 Oldsmobile Dynamic 78
1949 Oldsmobile Futuramic 76
1949 Oldsmobile Futuramic 88
1950 Oldsmobile 76
1950-1956 Oldsmobile 88
1951-1964 Oldsmobile Super 88
1957 Oldsmobile Golden Rocket 88
1958–1966 Oldsmobile Dynamic 88
1964-1966 Oldsmobile Jetstar 88
1965-1985 Oldsmobile Delta 88
1967–1968 Oldsmobile Delmont 88
1940 Pontiac Deluxe
1941 Pontiac Streamliner Torpedo
1942-1951 Pontiac Streamliner
1959–1981 Pontiac Bonneville
1959–1981 Pontiac Catalina
1959–1981 Pontiac Parisienne (Canada only)
1983–1986 Pontiac Parisienne
1959–1966 Pontiac Star Chief
1959–1970 Pontiac Strato Chief (Canada only)
1960–1961 Pontiac Ventura
1962–1981 Pontiac Laurentian (Canada only)
1966–1969 Pontiac Grande Parisienne (Canada only)
1967–1970 Pontiac Executive
1971–1975 Pontiac Grand Ville
Two-door only offerings include:
1977–1978 Buick Riviera
1964–1967 Chevrolet Impala SS
1961–1966 Oldsmobile Starfire
1964–1965 Oldsmobile Jetstar I
1962–1968 Pontiac Grand Prix
1966 Pontiac 2+2
Station wagons include:
1941-1942 Buick Special Estate
1954-1958 Buick Century Estate
1954-1958 Buick Special Estate
1959–1963 Buick Invicta Estate
1959–1964 Buick LeSabre Estate
1970 Buick Estate
1971-1976 Buick Estate (trim between LeSabre and Electra)[5]
1977–1979 Buick Estate (with LeSabre trim)
1977–1979 Buick Estate Limited (with Electra trim)
1980–1989 Buick Electra Estate
1980–1989 Buick LeSabre Estate
1990 Buick Estate
1991–1996 Buick Roadmaster Estate
1966–1968 Chevrolet Caprice Estate
1969–1970 Chevrolet Kingswood Estate
1971-1972 Chevrolet Kingswood Estate (Caprice trim)[6]
1973-1976 Chevrolet Caprice Estate[7]
1977–1996 Chevrolet Caprice Estate
1962–1968 Chevrolet Impala
1969–1970 Chevrolet Kingswood
1971-1972 Chevrolet Kingswood (Impala trim)[8]
1973-1976 Chevrolet Impala[9]
1977–1985 Chevrolet Impala
1962–1968 Chevrolet Bel Air
1969–1970 Chevrolet Townsman
1971-1972 Chevrolet Townsman (Bel Air trim)[10]
1973-1975 Chevrolet Bel Air[11]
1977–1979 Chevrolet Bel Air (sold only in Canada, as a rebadged Impala)
1962–1968 Chevrolet Biscayne
1969–1970 Chevrolet Brookwood
1971-1972 Chevrolet Brookwood (Biscayne trim)[12]
1949-1950 Oldsmobile 88 station wagon
1949-1950 Oldsmobile 76 station wagon
1957 Oldsmobile 88 Golden Rocket Fiesta
1957–1963 Oldsmobile Super 88 Fiesta
1958–1964 Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 Fiesta
1971-1976 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser (trim between 88 and 98)[13]
1977–1992 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
1942-1951 Pontiac Streamliner station wagon
1959–1970 Pontiac Bonneville Safari
1971-1976 Pontiac Grand Safari (Grand Ville trim)[14]
1977–1981 Pontiac Bonneville Safari
1959–1970 Pontiac Parisienne Safari (Canada only)
1977–1981 Pontiac Parisienne Safari (Canada only)
1967–1969 Pontiac Grande Parisienne Safari (Canada only)
1983–1986 Pontiac Parisienne Safari
1959–1970 Pontiac Catalina Safari
1971-1976 Pontiac Safari (Catalina trim)[15]
1977–1981 Pontiac Catalina Safari
1959–1970 Pontiac Laurentian Safari (Canada only)
1977–1981 Pontiac Laurentian Safari (Canada only)
1987–1989 Pontiac Safari
But if you look at each and every one of them, they were all VERY distinctive in shape and ‘look up until the mid-late ’60s. I especially like the ’59 models of the Chevy, Buick and Oldsmobile while Pontiac came into its own in the early to mid-’60s. If I had my choice of any car in the world, it would be the ’59 Impala Hardtop Coupe or the ’59 El Camino. Granted, lousy handling cars, but absolutely gorgeous bodies.
The greenhouses were the give away, they all had the same greenhouses
The good ol’ days were awesome, if you can block out all of the other days that were less than perfect.
Actually that list contains the best cars GM ever built. They should have stayed with the “B”
I owned a 2005 Outback Sport SE M/T in SE trim only Aqua Blue Metallic, which was a rare combination as Imprezas went. It did have a higher ground clearance than other Imprezas, but only .4″.
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/impreza/impreza2005.html
No matter what the marketing guys say, the XV Crosstrek replaced the Outback Sport. Both cars were lifted Imprezas. With the XV, they can charge more because it’s “not” an Impreza.
That’s just it though. The Impreza Outback Sport did not offer any real additional ground clearance. It is a figment of peoples imagination. Probably because of the word “Outback” in the name, and yes, the “real” outback was a lifted Legacy Wagon. However in the Impreza lineup it never offered any real ground clearance advantage. I think 1/2″ was the most difference I found going back through all the specs.
The Impreza Sport package essentially replaced the Impreza Outback Sport.
The Crosstrek has 8.7″ of ground clearance. The last available Impreza Outback Sport (2011) had 6.3″ of ground clearance, compared to the 6.1″ offered by the regular Impreza.
If you truly think .2″ really matters, consider this: The prev. gen WRX STI had 5.9″ of ground clearance, the regular WRX had 6.1″.
I totally agree that the Crosstrek is just a lifted Impreza-because it is. Well they also beefed up the brakes and transmission as well. But it did not take the place of the Outback Sport in the model lineup. And I’m not a marketing guy.
@Calvin
my comment was strictly about style, not platform, not quality, not about what I’d rather drive… I said the ’64 Chevys LOOKED more different from each other than 98 percent of today’s cars do.
Give me a roll of body s*de molding and some pin-stripe tape and I can make any car look different
Just gimme a BFH.
That explains the dimples on your hood
Holy crap, did you used to work at Pontiac or something? That’s genius!
Cadillac Cimarron…. I was head of the design team
I want the Nissan Pulsar!! Idgaf if they call it a Stanza, Sunny, or Walrus…
Jack, I don’t understand why many women like the Lexus RX, but they do. My theory is it offers a little extra height to see over/through traffic, but it drives like a Lexus ES instead of like a truck. The automotive equivalent of relatively comfortable pair of high heels. What’s missing in the car market is a vehicle that combines the comfort and efficiency of a Lexus RX with the square masculine not a family car styling of OJ’s Bronco. http://nypost.com/2014/06/17/where-is-ojs-bronco/
Many small cars end up with weird proportions and the boxy type hatchback emphasizes that issue. However, seems to me that sedans with a coupe roof line would be better with a hatch instead of a small trunk opening. Too bad that the 1st generation Mazda6 hatchback didn’t sell in large numbers. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-akYqVka3PG4/T5H3SF8O1rI/AAAAAAAACBQ/25ywOA62jtg/s1600/mazda6_hatchback4.jpg
Women just love roundy pretty things. Must be a Jungian archetype for bay-beez.
*Gasp* Just remembered, I love the Encore!
I have to say that the only Ford model I like the looks of is the Flex. It’s the only Ford with truly distinctive styling. All the rest look like clones of each other.
But, it’s just a jacked-up Taurus wagon on steroids.
No, it’s not. The Taurus is too “bubbly” and rounded like all the rest of Ford’s cars and SUVs. The Flex is squared with filleted corners. Even Ford’s trucks look all “bubbly” and rounded and to me, hideous with their grossly oversized proportions and fake ‘big rig’ grills.
You must love the razor-sharp Cadillacs
At least the Cadillacs are distinctive, unlike most other cars their size.
Former colleague had the 1st gen RX. When it came time to get a new car, she got the 3rd gen RX.
Yes, agreed, it’s what’s in these days. Not to mention that budget hatchbacks have budget interiors. My better half can’t stand my Mazda5’s austere interior.
+1
I have that hatch in MT and the trunk is huge an you can fit in a washing machine.
There are men that drive the Lexus RX. They’re called doctors. I’ve been to an MD’s party where the Lexus RXs parked around the house outnumbered all the other cars in sight. The Lexus RX now holds the market position held by the top Buicks in the ’50s. And unlike all the premium cars driven by people that know a God-damned thing about cars, a Lexus RX gets a doctor to work every day and doesn’t spend several days a year in a service bay while a busy doctor spends his or her valuable time swapping out courtesy cars.
That doesn’t sound right. Whenever I see doctors congregating, it’s mostly Porsche (Caymans). Sometimes a Benz with AMG decals and ridiculously wide rear tires that look completely out of place on that car. There was one poseur who had a chizel-shaped Mazeratti of some kind. Yellow, of course. Maybe they switched to RXes in different locales and we’re just behind times in the flyover country.
I think they drive their wives RXs when their Caymans and AMGs are in the shop
Sounds like you’re seeing post divorce doctors. Around the local hospital there are more Tesla’s than normal in the mix. Land rovers, Bentlys, Porkers etc. too, but mostly Camries, on and off stilts. (The term stilts may stand in for better bushings, shocks, heavier sway bars, bigger brakes, fore and aft adjustment and recline on the rear seats, better sound deadening and entertainment, upgraded interior and exterior lighting, an extra primer coat, several coats of clear, upgraded and longer lasting interior components, more welds, headlight washers, an extra airbag, and the named heavier suspension components)
Since it is possible that my anecdotal evidence isn’t representative, I looked for a source.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20120322/which-doctors-are-happiest-healthiest?page=2
Doctors’ Favorite Cars When the white coat is on the peg and doctors are heading home, what kind of car will they drive? Here are the top 10 doctor-mobiles (and the percentage of doctors who drive them):
Toyota (17%)
Honda (15%)
Lexus (8%)
BMW (7%)
Mercedes (5%)
Ford (5%)
Nissan (4%)
Chevrolet (4%)
Subaru (3.5%)
Audi (3%)
So, what do they drive to parties?
Fascinating. Thanks CJ
The Doctors were all driving the wife’s car.
Exactly! ;-)
You nailed it – women like the high seating position and serene drive and the fact that it handles easily for something that size.
At one point, over half of my wife’s inner circle had 2nd gen RXs (including my wife) until they moved up to minivans due to the arrival of their third kid. We still have our RX and it has really grown on me – good looks (much better than the third iteration IMO), delightful interior (I’m a sucker for two tone interiors), good mileage (19-ish with the 3.5L), handles expansion joints with aplomb, gets us up to Tahoe and back during the winter, has needed nothing but routine maintenance after we got a couple of minor annoyances fixed under our CPO warranty (they said that it was the first time that an RX ever needed a repair …. kidding), and it swallows the kidlets and their support gear easily. The jacked up height bemoaned by enthusiasts and journalists is a boon to parents of young children – it makes getting kids and car seats in and out much easier since you don’t have to bend over and the car area is the perfect height to use as a changing table, potty area, play area, changing area, etc.
“most cynical effort in additional manufacturer profit”
Really, Jack? The Escalade, Denali, and Navigator are much more deserving. As is just about about every Porsche option available. How much more expensive is an RX than an ES (which would be a proper apples to apples comparison after accounting for AWD, if the former is just a cold hearted profit optimization exercise and not something that the market was demanding at the time)?
That’s exactly it actually. My mom drives an RX, I think it’s the closest thing to a luxurious piece of dry white toast that I’ve ever driven, but she loves it exactly for the reason you described. It drives like a car but she gets to sit relatively high up. To each their own I guess.
I daily drive a 1998 Saab 9000. The car is worth next to nothing, but is really a great car for me and my needs. The hatch creates a ton of usable space. I just got the ecu tuned for $100 and am at 260 hp. The car easily gets 30+ mpg on the highway.
SAABs were great cars. I’m forever pissed at GM for ruining them.
Arguably the best winter cars ever an they started making convertible versions!!!!
What’s ironic is my sister and b-i-l own a Mazda 2 and a Lexus RX.
It’s 90% social class conditioning. The people who bought those Civics in hatch form wanted to maximize benefit size for their dollar. Therefore buying one with a trunk was counterintuitive. Up until 1984 Minivans didn’t exist so the family hauler was either a truck or huge Suburban-type SUV for camping or a station wagon. The rise of Minivans killed the station wagon, the rise of mini-SUVs that are actually useful killed hatchbacks completely. The RAV4/CR-V pretty much made buying a civic hatchback pointless because for maybe 10-15% more you could get an elevated seating position and maybe 4WD.
So between rational understandings and strong social anxiety to class conditioning it has made it largely irrelevant. Your beloved Civic circa 1979 is really just a Kia Soul today. It sells but it doesn’t outsell its competitors in the same segment.
You guys… class this, class that…get over Der Große Karl already.
I have no class at all and I’ve followed the same trajectory from hatches to CUVs. ‘Cause they’re easier to fill with people and things.
Ah, Pete, Karl wasn’t the first to note class or the one who used it the most. If you follow even the slightest of economic theories class is almost always at the center. But you can’t be serious when the first fistful of comments mentioned ‘welfare’ instead of poverty. It’s instilled in our society in a very open way.
As for the VW Microbus, not really. It’s a microbus and while there are some proto-minivans they were niche products. The Chrysler Minivans basically put forward the long tall 2 box design and catered to the public’s whims.
“Ah, Pete, Karl wasn’t the first to note class or the one who used it the most.”
Pshh.. did the other econs you refer to manage to spend their entire adult lives living on handouts from others?
Don’t play revisionist with me, sir. Karl Marx was and will always be the alpha-parasite and his writings the rightful lodestar of communist theology.
You’re just bitterly jealous of Karl ’cause you have to work for a living.
“the first fistful of comments mentioned ‘welfare’ instead of poverty”
Because they were trying to make a clear and understandable point. One does not drive to the Poverty Office, but one can drive to the Welfare Office
I’m not even sure “poverty”, as the word has meant historically, even exists in any significant amount in America.
If you’re a bureaucrat, and your job is ending poverty, do you really want poverty to end?
>> If you’re a bureaucrat, and your job is ending poverty, do you really want poverty to end?
Then you can go on the speaking circuit telling everyone how you ended poverty and make even more money.
@Ronnie – So we’re going to go for the ‘well they aren’t living in dirt floored, tenement housing! They got refrigerators and basic things, don’t they!’ argument? Historically poverty has meant a significant dollar amount that denied somebody middle-class or even working class status. The line defining poverty from working class is complicated and blurred but I’m going to have to call your BS on the ‘historically poverty’ approach because historically poverty has been measured as a factor of income not on material wealth.
Thus America still has the largest poverty class in the 1st world by a rather wide margin. If you feel like comparing it to say Brazil or China then we need to account for socioeconomic differences otherwise you’re merely counting apples to oranges and while it clearly favors your preferred method of measurement nobody in the economics field or social sciences would agree to such a measurement as valid.
That being said, Bureaucrats aren’t something you simply throw at poverty. Technically a bureaucrat is somebody who manages policy within the framework of the organization they administer, you’re referring to the legislature that sets the social policy and initiates laws and changes. The biggest issue with ending poverty is that there is no real political will to do so. The right has zero interest for their ‘pro-business’ agenda seeks to exploit that class for as much cheaper labor as possible and the left working within the constraints of the system gets most of their votes from educated middle-class and working class citizens, the poverty class does not vote and exists in two diametrically opposing places, inner-cities & rural towns. The inner-cities tend to get better programs but due to numerous factors not limited to the programs themselves being underfunded and a limited growth market for low-education jobs makes it much harder to affect those numbers. The rural towns are generally even more ignored because they tend to fall in red states or red regions of blue states and social welfare programs are generally non-existent due to servicing cuts and a complete lack of bureaucracy to run them.
As for the ‘keeping your job by keeping the problem’ argument, you mind as well complain about cancer cures and wear that tin foil hat a bit tighter. The constant flux of society would mean that as some people rose from poverty others would fall into it. Having a better policy that helped people get out of poverty and created a much smaller poverty class are beneficial attributes to any given society. The less grinding poverty you have the better your economy can recover and the better your economy will run, consumption is the life blood of a first-world capitalist system. No matter how you slice it, having 20% of society making less than 15K is just bad for business all around.
But I digress, I feel like I said my peace, have it if you wish. :)
So, Xeranar, do the poverty stricken prefer crossovers, sedans or hatchbacks?
If we’re to discuss the poverty stricken, most likely crossovers, they’re aspirational and want to maximize their social cache.
If you don’t like politics in your hobby discussion don’t bring it in. :)
Just trying to keep you on topic, buddy. If you don’t like to talk about cars in your social pundit leave your soapbox at home
So, the poverty stricken prefer crossovers? How about Applebee’s or Olive Garden? Walmart or Target?
@Xeranar
>>But I digress, I feel like I said my peace, have it if you wish. :)
+1
“”Please, sir, I want some more.” — Oliver Twist
“until 1984 Minivans didn’t exist”
VW T-type has been around since 1950
http://srv2.betterparts.org/images/vw-bus-03.jpg
“Minivan” in the sense of “front-engine, FWD tall wagon with sliding doors”.
…that didn’t kill you in the slightest of head on accidents
Ford Aerostar, Toyota Previa, and Mazda MPV were RWD.
Well, the Aerostar and Chevy Astro/Safari were “mini-vans,” basically downsized Econolines or ChevyVans.
The Astro is kind of an interesting vehicle, because from what I’ve read it’s a bit of a mishmash of S10 Blazer and B-body station wagon parts.
What about the DKW Schnellaster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKW_Schnellaster
Lol, at least people remember the VW bus. Has anyone even seen this silly looking minivan?
I found an article about it on an obscure Canadian web site:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/03/the-mother-of-all-modern-minivans-1949-dkw-schnellaster/
What do they know? ;-)
I’ve had more than one woman tell me that riding higher = safer. It doesn’t have to make sense (especially if the height raises the center of gravity and increases rollover chances), but it’s the illusion of how the car makes the ladies feel.
Have rollovers been a big thing since the Explorer/Firestone era?
I knew several yupster dames who went directly from Integras, 318s and the like into BOF SUVs. Yeah, that was a caution as at least one was ditzy enough to keep driving the truck as aggressively as the go-kart.
But hasn’t that meme gotten tired and irrelevant over the past 20+ years as lighter, more agile unibody S/CUVs have arrived and *gasp* even wimmenfolk have gotten more knowledgeable and safety-conscious in their driving?
Oh I know all vehicles are much safer now than ever, I was pointing out the irony of feeling safer because of height and nothing else.
At least with the big truck-based SUV’s there was some serious mass between the front grille and the steering wheel. Whether that was truly “safer” is another story.
Well, I don’t know… haven’t ever researched it because *I* have felt perfectly safe in CR-Vs since the first generation. But I am not a typical driver (slow!) and I had lotsa-lotsa previous time in pickups and vans.
I just haven’t stumbled into reports of recent rollover risk and so assumed it was a thing of the BOF and nouveau-trucker past.
“Have rollovers been a big thing since the Explorer/Firestone era?”
Not since the development of the Computer-Controlled Gyroscopic anti-Rollover and Traction Control ABS System. Do something stupid and your crossover stops dead in it’s tracks, shuts down and calls for help
Uses AAA batteries, doesn’t it?
higher is safer for the vast majority of collisions though – I’d rather go over the top of the car I’m impacting rather than straight on impact. Plus the higher cars generally have more mass, and the main thing we’re fighting in an collision is newton: more mass wins in most situations.
My daily driver is an S2000, and the prospect of going underneath basically any SUV I could get into an accident with is very real, and has made me a much more careful driver.
There is a big cultural difference between North America and the the rest of the world ,that makes it very hard for them to have similar tastes on the cars they drive.Image conscious people will never understand.
“What’s wrong with this picture?”
Absolutely nothing. Anyone can drive what they want, regardless of what the “B&B” might think of it.
I drive a Mazda Tribute. Come at me, bro.
I have an Escape, my friend
*deep, twangy guitar line, much reverb*
I didn’t say that I Escaped, I said I have an Escape… Though I did lose a trailer, a pick-up and my dog when my wife ran off with my brother
Your Dog?!
Ah, man… I didn’t know. That’s brutal. Let’s go shoot somebody. That’ll cheer ya up!
I lied about the dog, I’d have to be dead before someone took my dog
Phew! Thought I’d misjudged you.
Each cat has to maximize his own utility
I have no desire to own a hatch, wagon, or CUV and I really can’t stand the “4 door coupe” style.
I will buy the most formal-roofed vehicle I can until the day I die.
Fifth Avenue, baby!
Take it a step further and buy an old Turnpike Cruiser. Negative-slanted C-pillar to stick it to the man.
Someone who works at the local Taco Bell has a white/white top/red interior Fifth Avenue. Awful classy for fast food.
I’ve seen some FWD Chryslers with that same color combo as well, dunno why Chrysler buyers liked white over red so much.
That C-pillar may be negative-slant, but the window is still very much slanted forward. No, what this calls for is a true negative-slant vehicle. I see your Turnpike Cruiser (imagine calling a vehicle that nowadays!) and raise you a Rambler Six.
The 55 Turnpike Cruiser was the most overwrought and amazing looking thing I saw at a concours show this summer. I took at least 10 pics of it. Blue and white over blue and white.
I used to rant against all SUVs and CUVs as inefficient use of space.
But I’ve accepted small CUVs and tall hatchbacks that are almost CUVs. Last year my wife bought a Fiat 500L precisely because she wants an easier step-in height and she still hates large cars. It averages 29 mpg with plenty of turbo grunt. The tailgate opens at home with the garage door CLOSED.
The problem with normal sedans/saloons and hatchbacks is that CUVs brought about a class of cars that is easier to get in and out of. With the advent of front-drive CUVs that are just marginally heavier and thirstier but significantly more comfortable and easier to use, it’s a no-brainer for those who can afford the nominal price premium.
The Honda HR-V will be a great addition to this segment as the CR-V has been fattened into the next size class. The value king in North America is still the $18k Scion xB, if you can stomach the poverty-spec interior.
That’s the same reason my grandmother got a 2014 Kia Soul this year…easier ingress/egress.
Venza is the poster child of this trend. I know a woman who bought her to replace an ancient Subaru wagon, which was a rolling money pit. It’s superior in every concievable way.
“Maybe what’s required is one really good regular hatchback to turn this thing around. My vote for such a device would be the Honda Crosstour. Make the new one better-looking. Don’t raise the suspension. Make the pricing attractive. See if people buy it. If it succeeded, Toyota would respond with the return of a hatchback Camry. At that point, Nissan would have no choice but to bring the Stanza back.
You know what would happen then, right? Anything the Japanese do, Ford will do two years later and GM will do seven years later. Close this browser right now, hop into the interstellar cold-storage chamber, come back in ten years. The world could be full of hatchbacks. You never know.”
Let’s see if I have this right…the brands that led the charge AWAY from hatchbacks (unless you want a Fit, Yaris or Versa, all available in both stripper AND slightly-above-stripper trim levels) are going to lead the charge BACK to them – ?
And then Ford – who actually MAKES well-regarded hatchbacks that range all the way from grocery-getter stripper, to near-luxury, to genuine high performance trim, in both compact AND subcompact classes…will “follow” their “lead”?
Excuse me – I need my revisionist history cooked all the way through before I’ll swallow it.
The Big 3 J.A. Pan & Co. brands can’t even bring themselves to make a compact hatchback, much less a midsize one. I’m not looking to the risk-averse trio to blaze any trails here.
>>Excuse me – I need my revisionist history cooked all the way through before I’ll swallow it.
Because Jack chose the Honda Crosstour, a vehicle along with the Acura ZDX ridiculed here and on other sites, I figured he was being funny and I gave him a pass.
But yes, when I think hatchback, I see Ford, Mazda, and the VW Golf. No trailblazing from Honda, Toyota, or NIssan.
If Honda led the charge away from hatchback, then they’re the leader that could bring back hatchbacks. I’m not sure they were the most influential though. The introduction of the Accord sedan showed that buyers really wanted compact sedans instead of hatchbacks, but it wasn’t the only player in the fall of the hatchback. GM’s bungled X-cars played a role, as did the successful A-body sedans that followed on its flawed heels. The triumph of the Jetta MK2 over the Golf may have been a factor in the spread of subcompact sedans as well. Honda made Accord hatchbacks throughout the ’80s, after US automakers had killed off their Citations and Lancers. Ford never built a family car with a hatchback that was bigger than an Escort.
Ford may not have built hatchbacks in the US, but there has been a midsize hatchback available in Europe ever since the Sierra (Mercury Merkur) was launched in ’82 , throughout all generations of the Mondeo, and the new Fusion/Mondeo will also be available as a hatchback over here (not sure it is over there?. We even had the ‘fullsize’ rwd hatchback Scorpio for a while after ’85.
PS, the Crosstour is everything the ZDX should have been, but was not. I want one, but with our taxes on weight and engine size it would probably cost the same as a base model X6….
Do you remember the Accord hatch? At one point it was a top seller in Canada.
I loved the 86-89 generation accord 3-door.
I agree. GM’s X-body cars were downright hideous, which makes me wonder why so many people today like their direct descendants.
“If Honda led the charge away from hatchback, then they’re the leader that could bring back hatchbacks”
I’ll just reiterate my closing sentence: I’m not looking to the risk-averse trio to blaze any trails here.
These companies’ managements would be the first to agree that they are not leaders anymore…they wear that like a badge of honor – nothing that isn’t tried, tried, tried and true.
The Lexus RX is certainly the “official vehicle of female real estate agents”.
Cynical or not these things have been around a long time and continue to make serious dough for Toyota.
My wife and I got a ride from a friend in an RX450H. She was enamored with the car and the ride, and I sobbed quietly as I saw another victory for the CUV.
What should they have bought instead?
An MDX, dare to be different
What would Jesus drive?
A Honda “Jesus and his disciples were in one Accord” his father on the other hand drove a Plymouth… “In his Fury God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden”
Didn’t your first go-round with that have more puns in it? And more peanuts?
It’s your straight line. You’ve got something better? Go…
Dude, I’m spent.
“Jesus and his disciples were in one Accord”
Tight fit. Did Judas ride in the trunk?
It looses something in the translation, perhaps they were in Pontious’ Pilot ;-)
Crosstour? (bad pun, and a cheap shot, I know, if I was religious I’d end up in hell)
I’m ashamed to say that made me laugh.
I had the present generation RX for a loaner and I thought it was unpleasntly wide. It was like driving a Humvee. Or a Mustang.
I’m not a big fan of the Camry chassis. Having driven Camrys, Klugers (Highlanders) I really do think the vehicles are quite poor performers.
The Camry at high speeds of around 140-160kph+ didn’t feel as stable as my Kia Sorento on the highway. Wallowing around. Like controlling a nard.
The Kluger or as they are called in the US, Highlander are similar. Even driving at around 130-140kph the FE of the Highlander was atrocious. It used nearly a tank of fuel (70l) to travel 350km. It also was quite a poor handling vehicle, admittedly is was one of those silly FWD versions.
I really don’t see the problem. Americans like bigger sedans, by extension they like big hatchbacks, which are basically what CUVs are. Hatchback versions of cars like the Ford Fusion are, to be blunt, hideous, exacerbating the “too low wheel to car ratio” problem of current auto design. CUVs fix that by stuffing bigger wheels (and wheel wells) under the body, and are also just better proportioned.
On top of that they have higher hip points, which is good for old people and families with young child seat kids- aka a huge slice of high volume the auto market.
Plus it’s not like hatchbacks are failing. They are actually seeing a bit of a renaissance. The Mazda 2 failed because it’s an anomaly… it sacrifices too much in refinement and equipment for price and driving pleasure, which really doesn’t matter to enough people to make an econocar business case. It also looks pretty low rent. If Mazda comes back with one that looks better and has more mindless connectivity content and fake pleather stitched dash options it might move some units. The Fit, Fiesta, Versa and even the Yaris are better value propositions for the general driving public.
CTRL+F “Seating Position”
Four matches found. Many of you so called “enthusiasts” don’t understand the market.
There’s a reason why crossover sales have taken off and why wagons and hatches don’t sell nearly as well. People like the high seating position and I’ll happily admit, I like it too. It’s a helluva lot easier to get in and out of and you can actually see the road.
It’s more than that, or the Ford Five Hundred wouldn’t have been a relative failure.
What, huh?
When the Five Hundred came out, Ford made a fair deal out of its high hip point, its upright seating, and its airy and spacious interior. You know, that which apparently makes crossovers awesome. But it was a sedan, so that apparently makes it quieter, more solid, and more civilized than those uncouth 5-doors of all ilk. Huge trunk, AWD, too.
And collectively, the public was apathetic.
No sh1t, Sherlock we all know this, but it doesn’t stop us from battling out the pros and cons
And yet normal hieght sedans still sell about as well as CUVs. If hieght was such a thing, why are there no jacked up sedans? The Outback Sedan and the Ford 500 both failed miserably in the market, I can’t think of any other attempts.
Before 1957 all sedans were ‘jacked up’ more or less. And throughout at least the early 60’s so were most ‘compact’ sedans too.
Low and wide may look good, but it is not very practical for any other aspect than handling.
Exactly, we have just returned to a more sensible ride height after years of feeling like we were scraping our collective butts along the pavement
“it is not very practical for any other aspect than handling.”
That seems like a pretty good reason to prefer a sedan over an SUV.
Oh, c’on, you’d look great in a nice sensible Tiguan
For building a racecar, indeed. For any other purpose, nah.
The Ford 500 was renamed the Taurus and held on for a few years yet.
Well, I like my Mazda2.
Had mine about 3 months, put about 8000 miles on it. Great car, terrible seats. I regret nothing.
If any of you actually lived in an area with real snowfalls, you would know that
‘the ridge left behind by the snowplow’ is actually called a “windrow”.
The picture of the Civic brought tears to my eyes. Owned a 1982 Civic. Drove the heck out of it. Put on a ton of miles. Gave it to my brother after 4 years. It was as solid as new and did not burn a drop of oil. For that era, as good a car as you could buy.
I live in Norway, ‘ridge’ was just the first word in english I could think of to describe it , and everyone else seemed to follow :P
Me and my brothers first car was my dads 83 Honda Quintet (ancestor to the Integra) which was a ‘5 door liftback’. Despite the thin sheetmetal, those old Hondas were brilliant.
“‘the ridge left behind by the snowplow’ is actually called a “windrow”.”
Really? I think “slush wake” would make a better term
“‘the ridge left behind by the snowplow’ is actually called a “windrow”.”
By whom? Ex-pat Brits over 80?
Sounds nice & quaint, though. This season I’ll stop one of the plow drivers and say
“I say, Mongo, DO mind your windrows, could you please? If I could trouble you for an additional pass to clear them and then I shan’t have to track snow into my gar-rage?”
You’re killing me the past couple days Pete! TTAC should be paying you.
*shux* thanks.
Wish you’d comment more. Yours are always some of the cashews in this bag of mixed nuts.
Actually the term is listed in the Toronto City by-laws. Checked and also in the by-laws for York and Peel Region and Mississauga.
It is the official term. You’re welcome for the education supplied.
“Checked and also in the by-laws for York and Peel Region and Mississauga.”
I’ve no wish to offend so mention should also be made of “windrow”‘s presence in the Combined National Standards Inventory of Lilliput and Blefuscu.
I’ve no idea of what they *have* to comprise windrows in Lilliput and Blefuscu, but nonetheless…
What we call a windrow here is a swath of cut hay or grain laid out to dry. You can drive over it, but you shouldn’t, because if it’s grain, you’ll shell it out before it’s combined, and if it’s hay, you’ll crush the years and push the stems into the dirt.
Hatchbacks look like toy cars to some. Come to think of it, SUV’s look like toy trucks … what was I trying to say? I’ve just never been all that crazy about hatchbacks, myself. Now, the Dodge Shadow I had, if it had not been a damn mess from the jump, I liked the ‘liftgate’ aspect of it. It looked like a sedan (well, it was, with a big ass trunklid). OTOH, I agree that the Lexus and others like it are what the author says they are .. but as he put it, the people buying don’t know a damn thing about cars. Come to think of it, that’s the MAJORITY of buyers.
I dd an M3, but just spent a week with a Mazda Demio in the Turks and Caicos (Japanese Mazda 2 with Japanese nav, right hand drive).
Car was reasonably responsive, well built, handled well, took crappy roads crappily (bouncy bouncy), swallowed to large and two carry-ons with rear seats folded, got over 30 mpg local low speed driving, had good a/c and was a decent run about.
Would make a great second car or city only car, and far better than a smart car.
Ha looks like the new meme is calling any vehicle you don’t like “cynical” you are usually on the front of these waves not the back end Jack…way late to the party here.
I fear you are jumping the shark Jack, this article pretty much writes itself…the “if only normal people weren’t so stupid they would buy wagons” is about as tired as it gets. Did you have a deadline or something. Absolutely none of your usual insight here.
Oh ha ha seems I fell for the deliberate trolling LOL well played sir…
Did you really fall for it? The rest of us just like to play along. BTW, TV and the movies are fake too, but we all still watch for fun
I used to fuss about the cynicism of carmakers with CUVs and the naivety of the buyers, but then I brought a ’92 Accord.
Before I get to that I do want to say that I like the few more honest CUV approaches like the Subaru Outback, they were CUVs that weren’t ashamed to hide their car origins.
But with the Accord I learned something, I learned whats wrong with a fair deal of cars now. They are TOO low! Too low and too hard to get in and out of!
Yes the low-wide nonsense gives you better “dynamic” handling, I could tell the Accord wanted to be a BMW. But it also gets annoying hearing your front bumper scrape every speed bump, or having to bend over just to get inout.
Automakers should ditch the whole “coupe sedan” nonsense, there is a market for cars with people-friendly proportions.
Look at how well early Scion Xbs have sold and retained their value, and how many more CUVs sell just for the better proportions. I think that we should leave the swoopy coupe garbage to coupes and sports cars, bring back proper sedanswagons.
We shouldn’t have to deal with SUV pretensions to get halfway decent ground clearance and space. Look at the Kia Soul, it may be ugly and may have a goofy Hamster-fueled ad campaign, but its also proof that automakers can make reasonably proportioned cars that’re also safe.
These days I run a Volvo 245, I beg someone to find a modern CUV that can double as a truck when you fold the rear seats down.
It’s nice to know that the CUV Kool-Aid didn’t kill you. This is one point that CUV detractors can’t seem to get around. Yes, we know that they’re jacked-up wagons/sedans, but that’s what we like about them
People willfully emerging from heavy indoctrination deserve all our applause and support. They are now free to make the best choices based upon no doctrine beyond “works for me”.
Carguys! Throw Off Your Chains!
I went from an extended cab Ranger to an Escape. I lost 6 inches of linear hauling space. The Ranger had scads more vertical hauling space than the Escape; the Escape’s roof has something to with that. Close enough for me.
I know you… Escape-City
A 92 Accord was my first car. I think the scraping was more due to very soft suspension (the Accord was still a compact at the time, but really, really, really wanted to be a Midsize. Honda was gunning for the Taurus, so they tried to give it a ‘big-car’ ride. The front tended to plow down over speed-bumps. When the shocks got worn, it would really dip.
I disagree on the height – I’m irritated by how tall cars are getting. I like a driving position where my legs are out in front of me, stretched out. The ’92 Accord was 54″ tall. It’s now 58″. The ’92 Civic was 52″… it’s not 56″. The Mazda3 is 58″… the low, sleek Mazda3 is an inch taller than the goofy, tall Civic Shuttle wagons of the late 80’s/early 90’s.
It wouldn’t be an issue, except the cars are designed so that the seats often can’t be lowered all the way – they are designed to have upright SUV seating. I don’t mind that Cute-Utes and such exist, and am fine with tall seats for vertically challenged customers who want it, but the lockstep insistence on bolt-upright kitchen chair seating in even the lowest cars is annoying.
I used to have a ’90 Accord that was lowered 2.5 inches up front an 1.5 rear. I’m 6 feet tall and had to bend down to reach the door handles, a normal floor jack wouldn’t fit under it either. Lovely car to drive, even if it was hell when I had back problems…
(PS, it was still a lot taller than a ’70 ‘Cuda convertible , and then the Cuda had a lot more ground clearance)
Indeed, with how “compact” my Accord was I didn’t quite get why I had brought one over a Civic, beyond most 90’s Civics having utterly gutless engines.
As far as height goes it really varies on what the cars supposed to be imo, compacts should seat low, sports cars should seat low, but family sedans like the Accord need the extra space.
At Zyko: You don’t have to mod a Cuda to have a fun driver, though you do have to lift the hood more often.
I think the biggest problem with the Mazda 2 is the brother-sister Ford Fiesta, if you want a small deformed-looking hatchback why would you buy the slower Mazda 2 over the Fiesta?
The other problem is general perception with the Lexus GRX you feel like “you’re on top”, ahead of the game, its the difference between a Lexus ES 250 and a Toyota Tercel.
When people buy cars they feel better putting their money on something thats easy to live with and that feels a bit more “upscale”, if they were car buffs, they’d be driving around in modded Colony Park wagons, or something with a “chipped” turbo.
Theres also the Mazda 3, why would you buy the 2 over a 3? For more dynamic handling? Fuel savings? If you seriously want a bottom dollar hatchback theres the Chevy Spark (which is admittedly much harder to look at).
I’ve certainly seen a lot more Fiestas than Mazda2s.
Granted, the Ford dealer is much closer than the Mazda dealer.
Mazdas and Fords are no longer related, the divorce is final
I was referring more so to the Mazda generation in the in the picture, the newest 2’s are indeed going to be free of Ford parts.
The newest Mazda 2 is a bit more appealing if only from the Mazda 3 getting bigger via platform sharing with the 6 and CX-5.
I think the new CX-3 based on the new “2” is going to bring a lot to Mazda’s table
Agreed, if if the “kodo” styling doesn’t translate quite right.
I just hope that they offer it in a decent palette of colors.
Red, white, blue, silver, gray and black, Mazda knows no other colors