When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
years ago i stated that suvs/cuvs would eventually outsell sedans. i believed this for several reasons - here's a few:
- families find them more useful / practical
- older people find them easier to get in and out of and their stuff
- an aging population (retiring baby boomers)
- many like the higher seating position and visibility of the road
- many who are active outside like the ability to carry kayaks, bikes, camping gear, etc. without being constrained by a 'trunk'
Lexus is launching 2 brand new SUV's, no wonder why.
Here is Europe, small B sized SUV class (Yaris, Fit, etc) is exploding... I expect a lot of that to transfer to USA as well... so we will have a LOT of SUVs available.
The other side of the 'Coupe coin' though is a coupe does not need all the excess (doors, cupholders etc.) because it is meant for the driving experience. More R&D, more exotic materials and more unique engineering practices drive up the price rather than physical size. Sometimes less really is more
I'm not sure I agree with the "more exotic materials" part. That may be true of some coupes, but, hands-down, THE cheapest interior materials I've seen on a present-generation car are on the Scion tC coupe. Much of the exterior, except for the paint-quality, is not very impressive either.
great discussion! of course some will 'never' want an suv/cuv, but the lines are also blurring... the bmw 'gt' models for one thing which are sort of tall sedans
pedestrian regs also mandated a 'tall front' which looks kinda ridiculous on a low car, so i believe that has had a HUGE impact globally on design, but most of all, while a 'tight fitting' car is cool to look and drive for a while, for most people, they just like the extra room, easier entry/exit, ease of getting stuff in and out, better visibility... real world stuff, and while suvs used to handle like russian tanks now they can be had in all levels of capability. a cayenne turbo is spectacular!
That's why I said earlier, in other threads, that Lincoln, with the MKC, seems to be introducing the right vehicle at the right time. Lexus will (probably) have similiar success with the upcoming NX.
The family sedan is dying, and the usual cure-all prescription -- cash on the hood -- isn't working.
In one of the U.S. auto industry's best years ever, with sales through August 0.5 percent ahead of last year's record pace, demand for midsize cars is at a five-year low.
The segment is fading faster with each passing month. Midsize car sales fell 3.4 percent in the first quarter, 13 percent in the second quarter and 21 percent so far in the third, compared with last year.
In August alone, sales of the Nissan Altima, Ford Fusion, Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima all plunged more than 30 percent. Chrysler 200 sales fell by two thirds. Across all 16 midsize nameplates, the declines averaged 27 percent, a loss of more than 60,000 units.
Meanwhile, sales of compact and smaller cars fell just 3.6 percent last month, in line with the industry's overall decline of 3.5 percent, showing that the market's shift away from sedans isn't across the board. Some high-volume small cars, including the Chevrolet Cruze and Honda Civic, posted gains in August.
"That larger sedan buyer just sees more value in the SUVs or CUVs," said Mike DeSilva, co-owner of Liberty Hyundai in Mahwah, N.J. "That's just where the activity is. And heading into the end of summer and going into winter, we're really going to get into SUV season."
Midsize cars have been the industry's powerhouse segment for decades, even through the SUV boom of the 1990s and early 2000s. In each of the past four years, sales have topped 2.4 million.
But for 2016, compact crossovers are poised to take over as No. 1 for the first time, as midsize cars likely will fall to fourth. Since June, midsize cars have been less popular than full-size pickups and compact cars, too.
That's in spite of increasing discounts on midsize cars. Incentives last month on the top eight midsize nameplates were 7 percent, or $252, higher than in August 2015 and 11 percent above the industry average, according to Autodata.
"It doesn't matter how deep you discount the leisure suit and bell-bottoms -- nobody's going to buy them if they're not fashionable," said Eric Lyman, vice president of industry insights at TrueCar. "I don't think they're ever going to go away, but there's a lot more people who don't consider them anymore."
Last December, Bob Carter, Toyota's head of U.S. operations, predicted that the Camry, America's No. 1 car for 14 consecutive years, would be outsold by the company's own RAV4 within five years. The fizzling of the midsize car segment could make that happen much sooner.
In August, the Camry trailed the RAV4 for the first time, according to the Automotive News Data Center. The Camry fell short of the Honda CR-V and Nissan Rogue as well.
Aside from midsize cars, sales of everything else rose 0.4 percent last month. Analysts and automakers are divided on whether the year will end up ahead of 2015, when 17.47 million vehicles were sold. Last year included the strongest fourth quarter ever, so matching that will be a challenge.
The industry's seasonally adjusted, annualized selling rate fell to 16.97 million last month, from 17.86 million in July and 17.79 million a year ago. Still, sales have topped 1.5 million in each of the past six months, the longest such streak on record.
General Motors' chief economist, Mustafa Mohatarem, said healthy economic indicators "point toward a strong second half of the year and another potential record year for the industry." But Ford Motor Co. said sales have already reached a plateau, signaling that a second consecutive annual record might be slightly out of reach.
"We have a pretty high level of sales," said Bryan Bezold, Ford's senior U.S. economist. "It's just we're no longer in a period where we have a lot of pent-up demand coming out of the financial crisis."
2 years later, and mainstream sedan sales in the u.s. are dropping faster than ever.
Not surprising at all. Low gas prices and generally improved fuel economy by the utility vehicles (I got over 25 MPG on the highway in the fully loaded Honda Pilot!) make the crossover seem like there's almost no penalty. RAV4 Hybrid gives you more power than the Gas model, and over 30 MPG combined. Average national gas prices are still well under $2.50, and are expected to stay there for several more years.
This whole idea that the family sedan is dead is not exactly true. It is still alive. The two tentpole manufacturers Toyota and Honda have not exactly been proactive it getting their Camry's and Accord's updated. Both are using old engines and the Camry's two gas engines and hybrid unit dates back to 2006-2007
Also, I do not agree that the Rogues, Rav4 and Escapes are true alternatives to the mid sized family car. Right now they look like they are but in truth the Rav4, Rogue, and Escape etc are all really replacements for the small entry level cars like Corolla, Civic etc. It just so happens that vehicles are new and more modern
Once the Camry, Accord get the proper updates with new engines and features, the family size sedans will take off again.
^ You get A LOT more room in a Rav4 than a Camry and it costs about the same. There isn't a big penalty in gas mileage either and the Rav4 drives about like the 4 cylinder Camry with similar handling. The Rav4 is slower, but people buying 4 cylinder cars don't really care. IMO the base Rav4 at 23k is a much more compelling buy than the Camry at 23k, you get A LOT more car for the $$$$. Now at 33k for a loaded Rav4 Hybrid or loaded SE V6 Camry, no doubt I'd buy the Camry because I'm a horsepower junkie and the Camry will straight run circles around the Rav4. Its just a lot more fun in V6 trim. If Toyota still offered the Rav4 with the V6 like the last gen, I'd probably take one of those over a V6 Camry.
This whole idea that the family sedan is dead is not exactly true. It is still alive. The two tentpole manufacturers Toyota and Honda have not exactly been proactive it getting their Camry's and Accord's updated. Both are using old engines and the Camry's two gas engines and hybrid unit dates back to 2006-2007.
The U.S.-market Accord did get some changes. I'll address that issue below.
Also, I do not agree that the Rogues, Rav4 and Escapes are true alternatives to the mid sized family car. Right now they look like they are but in truth the Rav4, Rogue, and Escape etc are all really replacements for the small entry level cars like Corolla, Civic etc. It just so happens that vehicles are new and more modern
So, what you're saying then, is that the true replacement for the mid-sized family sedan is actually one step up from the Rogue/RAV-4/Escape class........the Pilot/Highlander/Murano/Explorer class. Yes, that would make more sense.
Once the Camry, Accord get the proper updates with new engines and features, the family size sedans will take off again.
Not necessarily. Don't forget that, for decades, people bought Camrys and Accords simply because they were Camrys and Accords. At least some of those people have shifted to SUVs, regardless of what kind of engines and features the Camrys and Accords have....or will have. And, though I'm not are exactly what changes you got in Canada, here in the U.S., the American-Market 9th-generation Accord did get some significant interior and exterior changes for 2016, though not a total redesign. I did a partial (not complete) review on the 2016 updates.
So, what you're saying then, is that the true replacement for the mid-sized family sedan is actually one step up from the Rogue/RAV-4/Escape class........the Pilot/Highlander/Murano/Explorer class. Yes, that would make more sense.
Not necessarily. Don't forget that, for decades, people bought Camrys and Accords simply because they were Camrys and Accords. At least some of those people have shifted to SUVs, regardless of what kind of engines and features the Camrys and Accords have....or will have.
See I don't agree with that assessment, people are cross shopping the Camry vs the Rav4, not the Camry vs the Highlander. A Highlander is $10-20k more than a Camry, ie out of budget. Plus somebody who wants/needs that 3rd row seating capacity isn't going to consider a sedan.
I think the main thing is this newer generation of crossovers have gotten so good and are priced so aggresively that there is really no downside to picking one over the midsize sedan. Its not like 15-20 years ago when you had the truckish 4Runner, S10 Blazer, and Explorer, which when compared to a midsize sedan handled like a drunk elephant, rode stiffer, and drank a ton of gas.
See I don't agree with that assessment, people are cross shopping the Camry vs the Rav4, not the Camry vs the Highlander. A Highlander is $10-20k more than a Camry, ie out of budget. Plus somebody who wants/needs that 3rd row seating capacity isn't going to consider a sedan.
I understand what you are saying (and you may have a point about some of the cross-shopping). But the RAV-4, even if some people are cross-shopping it, is not derived from the Camry platform like the Highlander is. The RAV-4 comes from a significantly smaller platform, though it isn't exactly the same one as the Corolla. Of course, much of the public doesn't know that, because they don't do the kind of homework we do here in the auto-enthusiast-world.
I think the main thing is this newer generation of crossovers have gotten so good and are priced so aggresively that there is really no downside to picking one over the midsize sedan. Its not like 15-20 years ago when you had the truckish 4Runner, S10 Blazer, and Explorer, which when compared to a midsize sedan handled like a drunk elephant, rode stiffer, and drank a ton of gas.
Actually, when you mention 15-20 years ago, don't forget that the RAV-4 itself is 20 years old now in the American market. It itself, of course, opened up a whole floodgate of car-based, compact-sized crossover competitors....the first one of which was the Honda CR-V.
I understand what you are saying (and you may have a point about some of the cross-shopping). But the RAV-4, even if some people are cross-shopping it, is not derived from the Camry platform like the Highlander is. The RAV-4 comes from a significantly smaller platform, though it isn't exactly the same one as the Corolla. Of course, much of the public doesn't know that, because they don't do the kind of homework we do here in the auto-enthusiast-world.
Actually, when you mention 15-20 years ago, don't forget that the RAV-4 itself is 20 years old now in the American market. It itself, of course, opened up a whole floodgate of car-based, compact-sized crossover competitors....the first one of which was the Honda CR-V.
I think you're splitting hairs here, its all designed for the US FWD Toyota car architecture, just different bodies over the same basic mechanicals. There isn't that much of a difference under the skin between a Corolla, Camry, Highlander, Lexus ES, Avalon, Lexus RX, Sienna, Venza etc other than engine options(some of the engines are the same) and AWD on some models.
Yeah the original Rav4 and CR-V were much smaller than the current models, underpowered, noisy, and at least in those first few years kind of had a bad stigma as throw away chick cars(ie not off-road capable like most SUV's back then). IE I didn't think they were nearly as nice as a late 90's Camry or Accord, something I can say about the current CR-V and Rav4. Keep in mind that tiny SUV's up until that point had been crap, think Kia Sportage, Geo Tracker, the Jeep Wrangler with square headlights, Suzuki Samurai(although I do love that one because it is a beast off road)
I think you're splitting hairs here, its all designed for the US FWD Toyota car architecture, just different bodies over the same basic mechanicals. There isn't that much of a difference under the skin between a Corolla, Camry, Highlander, Lexus ES, Avalon, Lexus RX, Sienna, Venza etc other than engine options(some of the engines are the same) and AWD on some models.
The platforms also vary in size.....it's not just a one-size-takes-all engineering. I agree, however, that the drivetrains, especially with the V6s, were quite similar.
Yeah the original Rav4 and CR-V were much smaller than the current models, underpowered, noisy, and at least in those first few years kind of had a bad stigma as throw away chick cars(ie not off-road capable like most SUV's back then).
They were basically among the first attempts at getting SUVs (actually, CUVs) to drive and handle a little more like regular cars, and to raise their MPG a little. The results, as you note, were somewhat mixed.
Kia Sportage, Geo Tracker, the Jeep Wrangler with square headlights, Suzuki Samurai(although I do love that one because it is a beast off road)
The original 90s Sportage and Tracker/Sidekick were small, but still body-on-frame, truck-based (and drove like it LOL). You may have liked the Samurai (and I respect your opinion), but, as far as I'm concerned, it was just plain dangerous....especially with blockheads behind the wheel. It was ultra-short, ultra-narrow, tall, and tipsy....a classically unstable platform. Young people, especially those with little driving experience (and even less conception of the basic laws of physics), flipped them over like pancakes, filling up morgues and hospital emergency rooms. For a while, it was the object of more class-action suits than any other vehicle in the U.S. Besides its Roly-Poly handling, it was also a disagreeable vehicle in many other ways.....ramped, noisy, extremely rough riding, and crudely built. If you remember, it even used simple cloth straps for door-hinges instead of metal hardware.
If you remember the Daihatsu Rocky (which, for a brief time, competed with the Samurai)....Daihausu did it right. Suzuki sent over the same tipsy, narrow-track Samurais to the American market that they sold in Japan. But Daihausu, unlike Suzuki, figuring that immature American youth would try and drive them like sports cars (which they weren't), sent over their American-spec Rockys with several added inches of wheel-track on each side, which significantly helped with the vehicle's stability. The Rocky avoided the dangerous reputation the Samurai did, but, of course, Daihatsu did not succeed in the American market, and pulled out in the early 90s.
Here's a Rocky showing the American-spec wider wheel/fender extensions:
Oh I'm not disagreeing with you one bit about the Samurai having a tendency to flip over, but they weren't any worse than an old Jeep CJ5 or CJ7, or the smaller Ranger based Ford Bronco, which were on sale back then. Drive sensibly and you're fine. I think Dateline, Consumer Reports 60 Minutes, etc really singled out the Samurai and demonized it. But yeah as far as a road car it was pure crap, rode horrible, bad handling, very noisy, gutless engine. Off road it is a total beast though, the tiny size(smaller than a new Wrangler), solid front and rear axles(very easy to put a lift kid and bigger tires), and the gutless engine didn't matter with the 4x4 gearing. Its just one of those quirky, unloved, runt of the litter cars that is often overlooked/forgotten, its kind of a cult classic now days.
And that Diahuatsu Rocky looks like a great rig as well. I didn't know Diahuatsu ever sold cars in the US, I thought they just did kei cars over in Japan.
10-04-14 | 01:54 AM
now they can be had in all levels of capability. a cayenne turbo is spectacular!
