QOTD: Would We Still Love Wagons If They Were Popular?
Every so often, my mind starts to wander to various random automotive related topics. Take, for instance, the Chevy SSR. Here’s a car that makes absolutely no human sense: a half-convertible, half-pickup truck with two seats and a cover over the bed to make sure you can’t transport anything larger than a toilet seat.
So GM develops the SSR, and they bring the thing to market, and it just draws universal laughter. I mean, car enthusiasts, the press, random people on the street. They see this thing and its huge fenders, and its ridiculous size, and its substandard interior, and everyone asks: what the hell was General Motors thinking?
And now, guess what? The damn SSR is still averaging more than $25,000 on AutoTrader. The thing is ten years old, and it’s still bringing half its value, whereas a 10-year-old Chevy TrailBlazer is worth approximately the same money as a yard sale copy of Monopoly with a couple of plastic hotels missing.
So I wonder about how this happened. And then also, sometimes, I wonder about station wagons.
As car enthusiasts, we love station wagons. What I mean here is, us car enthusiasts believe that station wagons are the finest way to transport a family, because sedans don’t have enough room, minivans are boring, and SUVs are like road-going versions of Satan.
So we love station wagons, and we think station wagons are really cool, and we always implore people to buy station wagons, and instead they always buy a RAV4.
But I’ve recently started to wonder something: would we still love wagons if they were popular?
A lot of people will immediately say yes. OF COURSE we would still love them if they were popular, some enthusiasts will say. My love for wagons is not based on their POPULARITY!!!! It is because they offer SUV packaging in a cool, car-like package! It has nothing to do with the fact that every suburb-dweller has a RAV4 or a CR-V, whereas only the coolest people among us have wagons!
But I’m not quite so sure.
Let’s take, for example, the Subaru Outback. This is a car that’s generally loved by enthusiasts because it has kind of reinvigorated the whole wagon segment. People who weren’t even considering wagons before are suddenly buying the Outback, even though it’s – and I’m putting this mildly here – a little dull.
Indeed, it’s actually a lot dull. If you look at the Outback objectively, here’s what you see: front-based all-wheel drive. A 175-horsepower engine. Nearly 3,900 pounds of curb weight. And a continuously-variable automatic transmission. These are not usually the makings of a car enthusiast car. But we give the Outback a pass, because it’s a wagon, and we love wagons, and blah blah blah.
So then here’s the question: what if everyone had a car that matched these specs?
Yes, consider it: what if the Toyota Venza was a 3,900-pound wagon with 175 horses and a CVT, rather than a faux-minivan with SUV marketing? And what if the Honda Crosstour was a 3,900-pound wagon with 175 horses and CVT, rather than a strange-looking bug-shaped hatchback. And what if Mitsubishi had any automobile that could possibly manifest itself as a station wagon? Or even a midsize sedan?
In other words: if wagons were everywhere, what would we think? Would we still love them?
I’m kind of thinking no, we wouldn’t. Imagine a world where mom’s driving around in a 4-cylinder Ford wagon with a CVT, and dad’s driving around in a front-wheel drive Chevy wagon, and grandma has a Cadillac wagon, except it isn’t a CTS-V, it’s an Eldorado with a long roof and a 4-speed automatic tuned for a) comfort and b) complete failure at 75,000 miles.
It’s hard to imagine this kind of world would be something we car enthusiasts would appreciate. Therefore, I think the popularity of wagons among car enthusiasts is, in some form, rooted in their lack of popularity among the general public. In other words: if wagons were as popular as SUVs, and everyone drove them, and mom had one, and dad had one, and the guy down the street had one, and our neighbor had a beat-up used one, would we really still wax poetic about the joys of wagonhood?
My money is on no, we wouldn’t. What do you think?
More by Doug DeMuro
Comments
Join the conversation
"So GM develops the SSR, and they bring the thing to market, and it just draws universal laughter. I mean, car enthusiasts, the press, random people on the street. They see this thing and its huge fenders, and its ridiculous size, and its substandard interior, and everyone asks: what the hell was General Motors thinking? And now, guess what? The damn SSR is still averaging more than $25,000 on AutoTrader. The thing is ten years old, and it’s still bringing half its value, whereas a 10-year-old Chevy TrailBlazer is worth approximately the same money as a yard sale copy of Monopoly with a couple of plastic hotels missing." SSR was developed in order to give the Reatta Craft Centre something to build after the Eldo and J-body convertibles were being sunsetted. They could have built Isettas for all RenCen cared, the plant needed work else GM would still have to pay to keep the plant open. So they essentially try to build a mainstream concept car, and it bombed the same way the equally interesting and also impractical Plymouth Prowler did. I'd also point out 40K in 2003 buys 51K today per our BIS overlords so conservatively there has been 20% inflation in the period. Therefore 25K today buys you 19K in 2003 period dollars less than half of the 41K asking price of the SSR, and they only do near the 25K figure in extra clean to clean condition. MY03 SSR 03/24/15 OHIO Regular $23,600 15,457 Avg YELLOW 8G A Yes 04/01/15 NASHVILL Regular $22,200 15,585 Avg BLACK 8G A Yes 04/02/15 TAMPA Regular $22,200 26,569 Avg YELLOW 8G A Yes 03/11/15 PITTSBGH Regular $22,000 27,111 Avg BLACK 8G A Yes 03/19/15 ATLANTA Lease $14,600 57,907 Below BLACK 8G A Yes 04/17/15 NEVADA Regular $14,300 90,779 Below YELLOW 8G A Yes The reason for the popularity of these things is similar to why Corvettes hold value well: Unique styling/look at me characteristics. Bought new and never driven and/or babied. GM LS V8 which is one of the few things GM hasn't screwed up yet. Sedans, station wagons, minivans, and CUVs (with few a exceptions) lack the above characteristics for the most part, and in addition are bought and used up by design. Period. Trucks and truck SUVs skirt these problems in resale because trucks are generally built be be durable, are more useful, and are able to be easier repaired/serviced (there is also a financing aspect as used trucks are easier to finance than equivalent non-trucks). Your SSR argument lacks any real comparison other than the vague "gosh um why's that like that and wagons aren't". Think harder next time, I know you can do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isetta
Car "enthusiasts" probably don't like wagons per se, as much they like the wagon mix available in the US, then extrapolate to wagons in general. In Europe, you get plenty of wagons that are no more enthusiast friendly than a CUV for saps so cowed and raped they can't afford a "real" CUV. And enthusiasts over there like them accordingly. Contrarily, the love affair American enthusiasts have with wagons, seem to have started around a time when wagon in the US meant a BMW, MB or an Audi (No enthusiast ever liked Volvos for anything more than being the butt of jokes about 50mph in the fast lane. While Subies were never bought as "wagons", but rather as an accessory to the lumberjack flannel shirt for lesbians out to bolster their masculinity) I always thought it was kind of funny how every wagon that had any cred in the US, was a "sports wagon", which honestly makes about as much sense as the "utility convertible" headlining this article.