QOTD: What's the Worst Automotive Segment?
There’s no need for detail. Nuance is unnecessary. Set aside demands for specifics.
What’s the worst type of vehicle known to humankind in 2017?
There are leaders in every category, of course. But the fact that the Ford Transit Connect is surprisingly fun to drive doesn’t make the small commercial van sector particularly appealing. Likewise, there are laggards in every category, too. Yet the Mitsubishi Lancer’s uncompetitive nature doesn’t cast a broad brush across the entire compact sedan segment.
Somewhere, however, in some corner of the vast U.S. auto industry, resides an entire segment of vehicles that is, as of 2017, the worst. It’s the segment that provides the worst return-on-investment. The vehicles in said segment haven’t moved the game forward in the same way full-size pickup trucks or American muscle cars have their own category. There’s no obvious class leader or class embarrassment because every vehicle in the category lacks true sensibility.
What vehicle category are we talking about?
We’re obviously talking about subcompact crossovers. The extra cost over and above a subcompact car isn’t matched by extra content. Just compare prices of the Ford EcoSport and Ford Fiesta as an example.
For the most part, due to limited ground clearance, subcompact crossovers don’t live up to their own purpose, either. Greater visibility of the road ahead? Hardly. More ability to tread through deep snow? No.
Worse fuel economy? Yes. Less attractive exteriors? Yes.
Obviously some consumers feel differently, though not many. Subcompact crossover popularity is growing fast, but at just 3 percent market share, the entire subcompact crossover segment earns far less volume than the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V, combined.
But maybe we’re wrong. (Probably not. But maybe.) Perhaps the Chevrolet Trax and Fiat 500X represent the best of automobile manufacturing in 2017: an automaker’s ability to tap into the vehicular taste buds of a select few. Maybe there’s an entirely different vehicle category that you feel manifests the worst of the modern automotive industry.
Minivans. Too big?
Midsize pickup trucks. Not big enough?
Luxury station wagons. Not remotely within your budget?
Hot hatchbacks. Not sufficiently trunkified?
Body-on-frame full-size SUVs. Not sufficiently space efficient?
European roadsters. Not as good as the much less costly Miata?
Whatever the reason, you need to tell us which new vehicle segment is the worst new vehicle segment in 2017. Or just type, “Agree,” in the comment box below.
[Image: Ford Motor Company]
Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars and Instagram.
More by Timothy Cain
Comments
Join the conversation
I can't stand crossovers. Blah, ugly bland blobs supposedly in place to replace sedans. They all look the same and they are usually equipped with problematic CVTs and turbocharged, start-stop engines to duplicate the fuel economy of a small car. I will never buy a crossover. I can't say the same of my wife. She has very different automotive tastes.
The 4 door sedan with a fixed rear window and trunk, at any size is easily the dumbest, most useless bodystyle of 'car'. I say 'car' as opposed to truck, SUV, or van. So-called 4 door coupes with 4 forward swinging doors and 4 blatant door handles add insult to injury by crassly insulting our intelligence. First off, taste is subjective so this is opinion: Sedans are frumpy, boring and just generally the ugliest way to execute an automobile. Those 2 added doors enhance the styling of a car the way a unibrow enhances a ladies face. Again, JMHO. What is less subjective is sedans offer no unique merit. Theres literally not one thing a sedan excels at that some other bodystyle cant do while offering something that a sedan cannot. --A coupe based off the same platform as a sedan will usually be a little shorter, lighter, and simpler. It's structurally the stronger platform since there are less holes in it. With (usually) no rear window mechanisms and fixed rear panels in place of the doors, theres less flopping around. The shorter wheelbase means less leverage on the chassis. From a performance and handling standpoint, a coupe with the same engine and suspension as the related sedan will always return better numbers. ALWAYS. Of course both have a trunk and fixed rear window so from a utility standpoint, both are compromised, and a sedan would offer marginally better rear seat room/access. BUT... --A wagon, hatch or shooting brake would offer up the same or slightly inferior rigidity and higher weight as a sedan vs a coupe. However, the tradeoff is a MASSIVE increase in utility over either one. The cargo bay is much bigger, flatter, more accessible and versatile. A long roof means a much larger roof rack can be used. --A 5 door liftback might look similar to a sedan but has the all important ability to get the rear glass out of the way, which allows a still significant advantage in carrying a load. Even if you have to leave the rear hatch cracked open and tied solid...you can get the job done whereas with that fixed sedan or coupe rear window...youre hosed. --A convertible offers the weight/rigidity issues of a sedan/wagon possibly even worse. However the ability to drop the roof has a fun factor that may or may not matter, but also allows tall, bulky items to be loaded that wouldn't fit anything else save a wagon. So what exactly is a sedan for? Its the beige, milquetoast choice for those who are indifferent towards cars. Rolling mediocrity. They aren't sporty, they aren't sexy, they aren't uniquely useful, and they aren't fun. Anything a sedan can do, something else can do far better. So why do these things even exist? Can anyone name one unique thing these are good for that nothing else could possibly handle as well? Anyone?