SUVs are 40% of total U.S. new vehicle market

[RidetheRain]

I happened upon this article and was fairly unsurprised by most of it, but then was floored by the last paragraph:

Ford expects all SUV sales to grow from 40 percent to more than 45 percent of the total U.S. new vehicle market within the next five to seven years.

Millennials just might be mainstream after all.

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/15/551232392/as-millennials-get-older-many-are-buying-suvs-to-drive-to-their-suburban-homes

[Travis]

SUV sales seem to increase or decrease inversely with the price of gasoline.  I remember articles of "the death of the SUV" in the mid-2000s.  We're in a new era of low prices, so clown car purchases are back on the rise.

[ketchup]

So dumb. About 5% of their purchases are warranted, and maybe another 15% are people who need a larger vehicle but a truck, large wagon, or mini van would do the job just as well or perhaps better.

Station wagons are by far the best large vehicles but sadly they are going out of style. I have a 2001 Volvo V70, and used to have a 1992 Buick Roadmaster wagon until it died last year. Wonderful vehicles for lots of cargo, towing, multiple crated dogs, or furniture transportation. Or seven people with seat belts in the Roadmaster. And they drive like a normal car so you're not way the fuck up in the air. Of course, like any large vehicles they are stupid commuters or single person transport.

[ObviouslyNotAGolfer]

Just got back from three weeks in Ireland. It was wonderful on many levels. We drove all around for three weeks and NOT ONCE did I see a single:

GMC/Chevy Suburban, Escalade, Tahoe, Denali, Twin-cab, twin-bed, extended-bed, dually Bro-Dozer, F-150 250 -350 Excursion or anything like that. GM and Ford apparently sell NONE of that hideous garbage over there. I did not see any of the smaller SUVs either. (The entry level GM apparently still has DRUM brakes. One acquantance bought one and it totally self-destructed after SEVEN miles--dealer had to replace it)

The ONE time, I saw a full-sized pickup, it was a Toyota. Unlike in Murica, the guy who owned it was actually using it for work.

[the_grillman]

I love this kind of news; means my bonus is going to be bigger & job is more secure.

From an MMM/environmental point of view, the positive is that they are going to drive money & research into improving the fuel economy of passenger vehicles as the automakers struggle to meet CAFE standards.  If everyone bought small fuel efficient cars, not only would it be much easier to meet CAFE standards, the automakers would have neither the incentives nor the means to really push the limit on fuel economy.

[One Noisy Cat]

I will say this for station wagons. I am 6'2" with a lot of my height in my legs. The most comfortable car I have ever had for leg room was a 1989 Pontiac station wagon that I bought used (in good condition). I could actually move the seat all the way back and not have my legs touch the gas or brake pedals. Naturally I didn't drive with the seat all the way back but I never had another car with comfortable leg room like that one. Never tried an SUV and I always liked the idea of high mpg cars.

[GilbertB]

Most contractors have a large steel sided van and a trailer here.
I know some guys that use smaller Toyota/Nissan pickups for landscaping, but it's more for style points.

There are a few F150s here, but it for people with small anatomy complexes as they could not acess most job sites with them, you never see mud on the body or anything in the bed.
Also, you can forget most town centres with those land whales, even if you got in, where to park it?

However, in the US, trucks tend to fit into how ya'all work/live so horses for courses.

That said, I don't get SUVs... it like a van with extra problems you have to pay for yet can't throw half a ton of manure in the back.

[BlueMR2]

I will say this for station wagons. I am 6'2" with a lot of my height in my legs. The most comfortable car I have ever had for leg room was a 1989 Pontiac station wagon that I bought used (in good condition). I could actually move the seat all the way back and not have my legs touch the gas or brake pedals. Naturally I didn't drive with the seat all the way back but I never had another car with comfortable leg room like that one. Never tried an SUV and I always liked the idea of high mpg cars.

Until I test drove my first MKII Toyota MR2, I'd never driven a vehicle that the seat actually went far enough back for me.  I was astounded that one of the smallest little sports cars out there would actually have the best leg room.  Cars really have to be test fit.  You can never tell from the outside...

[jinga nation]

Most contractors have a large steel sided van and a trailer here.
I know some guys that use smaller Toyota/Nissan pickups for landscaping, but it's more for style points.

There are a few F150s here, but it for people with small anatomy complexes as they could not acess most job sites with them, you never see mud on the body or anything in the bed.
Also, you can forget most town centres with those land whales, even if you got in, where to park it?

However, in the US, trucks tend to fit into how ya'all work/live so horses for courses.

That said, I don't get SUVs... it like a van with extra problems you have to pay for yet can't throw half a ton of manure in the back.

The trends I see in my West Central Florida metro area (Tampa Bay):
-Big changes in the cargo vans category. Commercial fleets moving to Ford Transit Connect, Nissan NV200, RAM ProMaster, etc. from the old larger fuel inefficient white boxes.
-A lot more "smaller" trucks recently like the Honda Ridgeline, the GMC/Chevy twins, and Nissan Frontier, Toyota Tacoma.
-A lot more of the newer full-body trucks, most co-workers/friends/neighbors buying these are getting with the turbo option and a smaller engine.
-A lot of compact crossovers. RAV4s are ubiquitous, I am guilty of it too with a growing family (bought a used to me with remaining factory warranty). And a lot of sub-compact crossovers like the Honda HRV, Nissan Juke, Jeep, etc.

Dick complex? Can't be fixed, I just ignore it. We have a few coal-rollers, raised, etc. I'm just happy they're paying good money to the modders.

Why worry about putting manure in the back of a SUV when it is already sitting in the front?

Europeans shouldn't try understanding the American driver mindset; you're better off doing sciency things like space exploration, stem-cell research, affordable healthcare, sub-particle physics, climate science, and other things the USA deems not important anymore.

[PDXTabs]

Station wagons are by far the best large vehicles but sadly they are going out of style. I have a 2001 Volvo V70, and used to have a 1992 Buick Roadmaster wagon until it died last year. Wonderful vehicles for lots of cargo, towing, multiple crated dogs, or furniture transportation. Or seven people with seat belts in the Roadmaster. And they drive like a normal car so you're not way the fuck up in the air. Of course, like any large vehicles they are stupid commuters or single person transport.

This, so much this. I had a 1983 Volvo 240 wagon and a 1991 Honda Accord wagon, both with manual transmissions. I wish that they still made both. I now drive a 2014 Ford Focus hatchback.

[LennStar]

Just today I read from the IAA (International Clown Car Party) that SUVs are THE thing in China.

USA has 2/3 SUV or pickups or hybrids with that as new cars, but China 3/4!!! Germany is "snail speeding" with "just" 30%!

Every car maker has new SUVs. It is a run not on world market leader but world SUV market leader. (CAR-Direktor Ferdinand Dudenhöffer – Quelle: http://www.mz-web.de/28426726 ©2017)

Those Diesel stinkers who need more then 2 times the fuel then my "Benziner". OMFG!!

[RFAAOATB]

As much as I would like a large luxury SUV or truck for my next car, the small parking spaces in this city would be as big a deterrent as the increased fuel and insurance costs.

[paddedhat]

We would fall into a huge segment of the evil SUV market that gravitate toward compact, fairly economical small vehicles since they are the only real option when it comes to owning the dreaded station wagon. We are on our third CRV, which like the previous versions, had been reliable as an anvil, and cheap to operate, maintain and repair. When it comes to our next one, it will be another version of whatever small four cylinder car has the versatility of a wagon, with four doors, seating for four adults and a large, easily accessible cargo area, with a hatchback. Given the fact that I see about twenty of these on the road, for every Tahoe, Expedition or similar, I wonder how much of the forum drama on the topic is overblown?

[Laura33]

I will say this for station wagons. I am 6'2" with a lot of my height in my legs. The most comfortable car I have ever had for leg room was a 1989 Pontiac station wagon that I bought used (in good condition). I could actually move the seat all the way back and not have my legs touch the gas or brake pedals. Naturally I didn't drive with the seat all the way back but I never had another car with comfortable leg room like that one. Never tried an SUV and I always liked the idea of high mpg cars.

Until I test drove my first MKII Toyota MR2, I'd never driven a vehicle that the seat actually went far enough back for me.  I was astounded that one of the smallest little sports cars out there would actually have the best leg room.  Cars really have to be test fit.  You can never tell from the outside...

This is exactly why my 6'3" (not-remotely-Mustachian) dad drives a Porsche 911.  Back seat may suck, but front seat and headroom can actually fit a large person comfortable.  As compared to the Alfa-Romeo 4C, where our butts literally did not even fit into the seats.  Which probably says something about Italians vs. Germans and Americans, but I'm not going to go there.  :-) 

Onto the more Mustachian world of real cars, I think a lot of the American/European difference comes down to one of terminology.  Here we have a bunch of things called SUVs; there, they have a bunch of things they call something else, but serve the same purpose, like the Ford C-Max (which I have somehow landed every time I've rented a car there).  Is there really any fundamental difference between a C-Max and, say, a Mazda CX-5 or Rav4?

So it's not that they don't have SUVs -- they just tend toward smaller ones that are appropriate for the gas prices, smaller streets, and more constricted city parking.  What you truly don't see are the giant SUVs, like the Suburbans and Escalades.*  OTOH, you also see a lot of Mercedes and Beemers, which aren't exactly fuel-sippers either (and certainly not at Autobahn speeds).  So maybe those with extra money choose to spend it on performance and luxury vs. volume.

* I would be very interested to see the breakdown of the 40% SUVs by size/category, to see if people are actually gravitating toward larger vehicles over time, or conversely whether people are buying more smaller SUVs because now the carmakers are making more smaller vehicles that are called "SUVs" (and not "hatchbacks" or "wagons" as in the past).  I.e., is this a "real" shift or just a marketing-driven one? 

[scantee]

We probably need a more refined designation than just "SUV" to determine whether a car merits clown car status. Small SUVs like the the CRV or CX5 are pretty practical cars for families with children. I don't see how owning one of these is ridiculous but owning a minivan is acceptable, even though minivans have worse gas mileage and many people who drive them rarely use all of that space.

[Travis]

We probably need a more refined designation than just "SUV" to determine whether a car merits clown car status. Small SUVs like the the CRV or CX5 are pretty practical cars for families with children. I don't see how owning one of these is ridiculous but owning a minivan is acceptable, even though minivans have worse gas mileage and many people who drive them rarely use all of that space.

I don't know much about cars, and from the outside everything that isn't a four-door sedan looks like an SUV from Subarus to minivans to Jeeps.  Some are so small they don't seem to serve a purpose while others look big enough to replace locomotives, yet they're all in the same family.

[honeybbq]

So dumb. About 5% of their purchases are warranted, and maybe another 15% are people who need a larger vehicle but a truck, large wagon, or mini van would do the job just as well or perhaps better.

Station wagons are by far the best large vehicles but sadly they are going out of style. I have a 2001 Volvo V70, and used to have a 1992 Buick Roadmaster wagon until it died last year. Wonderful vehicles for lots of cargo, towing, multiple crated dogs, or furniture transportation. Or seven people with seat belts in the Roadmaster. And they drive like a normal car so you're not way the fuck up in the air. Of course, like any large vehicles they are stupid commuters or single person transport.

I'm confused by your post. Are you including the 'smaller' suvs (rav4s, CRVs) in your post or just the giant clown cars?

I have a Honda CRV which has the same drive train as a civic. The clearance is actually lower than many other types of stationwagons like an Outback.  Why is a mini van better than an SUV? My gas mileage is around 25-30mpg.

I am always aghast at people who commute in vehicles like suburbans.

[honeybbq]

I will say this for station wagons. I am 6'2" with a lot of my height in my legs. The most comfortable car I have ever had for leg room was a 1989 Pontiac station wagon that I bought used (in good condition). I could actually move the seat all the way back and not have my legs touch the gas or brake pedals. Naturally I didn't drive with the seat all the way back but I never had another car with comfortable leg room like that one. Never tried an SUV and I always liked the idea of high mpg cars.

Until I test drove my first MKII Toyota MR2, I'd never driven a vehicle that the seat actually went far enough back for me.  I was astounded that one of the smallest little sports cars out there would actually have the best leg room.  Cars really have to be test fit.  You can never tell from the outside...

My spouse had a miata, and he's also tall. It was one of the few sporty cars that fit his lanky body parts.

[bobechs]

We probably need a more refined designation than just "SUV" to determine whether a car merits clown car status. Small SUVs like the the CRV or CX5 are pretty practical cars for families with children. I don't see how owning one of these is ridiculous but owning a minivan is acceptable, even though minivans have worse gas mileage and many people who drive them rarely use all of that space.

I don't know much about cars, and from the outside everything that isn't a four-door sedan looks like an SUV from Subarus to minivans to Jeeps.  Some are so small they don't seem to serve a purpose while others look big enough to replace locomotives, yet they're all in the same family.

It's a bodystyle that got its start called hatchback sedan.  That was what the marketeers said the Pinto, Gremlin, Pacer and some Vegas were.

I believe that GM/Ford/AMC stunk up the name so bad with those cars that when the wheel came back around and they started selling them again, this time with AWD!!, they had to invent a new name, hoping the past was forgotten.

So now every third car you see on the road is a "crossover suv" of the same basic description: a hatchback sedan with minimal front and rear overhang and monster wheelwells to hold the twenty-two inchers with no-profile $500 each rubber.

[ketchup]

So dumb. About 5% of their purchases are warranted, and maybe another 15% are people who need a larger vehicle but a truck, large wagon, or mini van would do the job just as well or perhaps better.

Station wagons are by far the best large vehicles but sadly they are going out of style. I have a 2001 Volvo V70, and used to have a 1992 Buick Roadmaster wagon until it died last year. Wonderful vehicles for lots of cargo, towing, multiple crated dogs, or furniture transportation. Or seven people with seat belts in the Roadmaster. And they drive like a normal car so you're not way the fuck up in the air. Of course, like any large vehicles they are stupid commuters or single person transport.

I'm confused by your post. Are you including the 'smaller' suvs (rav4s, CRVs) in your post or just the giant clown cars?

I have a Honda CRV which has the same drive train as a civic. The clearance is actually lower than many other types of stationwagons like an Outback.  Why is a mini van better than an SUV? My gas mileage is around 25-30mpg.

I am always aghast at people who commute in vehicles like suburbans.

Eh, the small SUVs are still taller.  A 2017 CRV is a good 10" taller than a 2017 Civic, while my station wagon is only 2" taller than a 2017 Civic, and my old hilariously gigantic station wagon was only 1.6" taller than my current station wagon.  The extra height (besides just being annoying to drive) makes them not handle as well (though the SUV rollover problem has been "solved" in recent years as I understand it) and be less aerodynamic.  I've also found (somewhat ironically) that as a tall person, smaller SUVs tend to have less headroom (obviously giant SUVs are not a problem in this area) than smaller sedans.

But that's really splitting hairs.  You're right; smaller SUVs aren't nearly as big a deal as the Suburban/Tahoe crowd; they're just taller compact hatchbacks that don't handle quite as well or get quite as good gas mileage.

[dougules]

One word: marketing. 

[honeybbq]

So dumb. About 5% of their purchases are warranted, and maybe another 15% are people who need a larger vehicle but a truck, large wagon, or mini van would do the job just as well or perhaps better.

Station wagons are by far the best large vehicles but sadly they are going out of style. I have a 2001 Volvo V70, and used to have a 1992 Buick Roadmaster wagon until it died last year. Wonderful vehicles for lots of cargo, towing, multiple crated dogs, or furniture transportation. Or seven people with seat belts in the Roadmaster. And they drive like a normal car so you're not way the fuck up in the air. Of course, like any large vehicles they are stupid commuters or single person transport.

I'm confused by your post. Are you including the 'smaller' suvs (rav4s, CRVs) in your post or just the giant clown cars?

I have a Honda CRV which has the same drive train as a civic. The clearance is actually lower than many other types of stationwagons like an Outback.  Why is a mini van better than an SUV? My gas mileage is around 25-30mpg.

I am always aghast at people who commute in vehicles like suburbans.

Eh, the small SUVs are still taller.  A 2017 CRV is a good 10" taller than a 2017 Civic, while my station wagon is only 2" taller than a 2017 Civic, and my old hilariously gigantic station wagon was only 1.6" taller than my current station wagon.  The extra height (besides just being annoying to drive) makes them not handle as well (though the SUV rollover problem has been "solved" in recent years as I understand it) and be less aerodynamic.  I've also found (somewhat ironically) that as a tall person, smaller SUVs tend to have less headroom (obviously giant SUVs are not a problem in this area) than smaller sedans.

But that's really splitting hairs.  You're right; smaller SUVs aren't nearly as big a deal as the Suburban/Tahoe crowd; they're just taller compact hatchbacks that don't handle quite as well or get quite as good gas mileage.

I like the raised height when you are loading and unloading a lot of stuff. I guess it depends how you use it? But I seriously like not having to bend over so much to pull all our camping equipment in and out. :p  I'd have to check, but I don't think our dog kennels will fit height-wise in our hatchback subaru. They fit easily in the Honda.

But seriously, I feel like my car is 'small' compared to so many of the other vehicles on the road today.

We have each have one car, mine just happens to be the 'trip' car that fits all our crap for our hobbies (ski trips, camping, hauling around dogs, etc). I do sometimes wonder why most people need all the space they have when they don't have similar hobbies. But I don't get out much.

[acroy]

The SUV fad is okay by me. Makes Mustachian vehicles cheaper ;)

[ketchup]

I like the raised height when you are loading and unloading a lot of stuff. I guess it depends how you use it? But I seriously like not having to bend over so much to pull all our camping equipment in and out. :p  I'd have to check, but I don't think our dog kennels will fit height-wise in our hatchback subaru. They fit easily in the Honda.

I really wish I had a picture handy (can't find one; I know they exist), but I would frequently set up four dog crates (standard 36"x24" size) in the back of our '92 Roadmaster wagon with the back seats folded down, with still some space for cargo behind them (or up front).  Good times.

Either way, it seems like you're utilizing the space your SUV offers.  Many would use your same interests to justify a far more ridiculous purchase.

[Car Jack]

I don't know that I'd pine for a Roadmaster.  Back when I was a teenager, our church had a paper drive for the youth group.  We filled my parents' Vista Cruiser and another kid filled his parent's business full sized van.  We brought the papers to the paper company and of course the vehicles were weighed coming in and going out.  The van weighed about 5000 pound.  The Vista Cruiser over 6000 pounds.  Today, my 4 door Jeep Wrangler with an automatic gets just about 20 mpg average.  Back in high school, my 69 mgb with a 4 speed and dual carbs never got close to that.  Maybe 18.  So we're better off than we used to be.  My wife drives a Subaru Crosstrek that gets over 30 mpg average.

I will agree most people don't need an SUV.  I have a large driveway and area that I snowplow.  Sorta hard to do that with a Prius.

[ketchup]

I don't know that I'd pine for a Roadmaster.

I don't so much pine for a Roadmaster, but what could be made as a modern equivalent, if there was demand for such a thing.  Surely with 2017 tech, one could have such a vehicle with a much smaller engine (the V8 in mine only outputted 180hp after all), lighter chassis (my 1992 was 4500lbs), maybe drop the wood-grain paneling, and probably end up at 30MPG highway (vs the 20MPG I was getting on the highway before it died last year at 200,775).

[BFGirl]

I will say this for station wagons. I am 6'2" with a lot of my height in my legs. The most comfortable car I have ever had for leg room was a 1989 Pontiac station wagon that I bought used (in good condition). I could actually move the seat all the way back and not have my legs touch the gas or brake pedals. Naturally I didn't drive with the seat all the way back but I never had another car with comfortable leg room like that one. Never tried an SUV and I always liked the idea of high mpg cars.

Until I test drove my first MKII Toyota MR2, I'd never driven a vehicle that the seat actually went far enough back for me.  I was astounded that one of the smallest little sports cars out there would actually have the best leg room.  Cars really have to be test fit.  You can never tell from the outside...

This is exactly why my 6'3" (not-remotely-Mustachian) dad drives a Porsche 911.  Back seat may suck, but front seat and headroom can actually fit a large person comfortable.  As compared to the Alfa-Romeo 4C, where our butts literally did not even fit into the seats.  Which probably says something about Italians vs. Germans and Americans, but I'm not going to go there.  :-) 

Onto the more Mustachian world of real cars, I think a lot of the American/European difference comes down to one of terminology.  Here we have a bunch of things called SUVs; there, they have a bunch of things they call something else, but serve the same purpose, like the Ford C-Max (which I have somehow landed every time I've rented a car there).  Is there really any fundamental difference between a C-Max and, say, a Mazda CX-5 or Rav4?

So it's not that they don't have SUVs -- they just tend toward smaller ones that are appropriate for the gas prices, smaller streets, and more constricted city parking.  What you truly don't see are the giant SUVs, like the Suburbans and Escalades.*  OTOH, you also see a lot of Mercedes and Beemers, which aren't exactly fuel-sippers either (and certainly not at Autobahn speeds).  So maybe those with extra money choose to spend it on performance and luxury vs. volume.

* I would be very interested to see the breakdown of the 40% SUVs by size/category, to see if people are actually gravitating toward larger vehicles over time, or conversely whether people are buying more smaller SUVs because now the carmakers are making more smaller vehicles that are called "SUVs" (and not "hatchbacks" or "wagons" as in the past).  I.e., is this a "real" shift or just a marketing-driven one?

I love my C-Max hybrid.  I downsized from an SUV which was getting 19 mpg.  I can't fit quite as much cargo as the SUV, but need to transport tables, displays and product a few times a year and have been able to squeeze it all into my C-Max.  If I really need to carry more, I have a soft top carrier for it.  I like it so much better than the SUV.

[dougules]

The SUV fad is okay by me. Makes Mustachian vehicles cheaper ;)

Not sure how it affects the price of bicycles....

[Capt j-rod]

I am the most mustacian contractor in my area... I drive a Toyota Tacoma. I also have an enclosed trailer and a dump trailer. All of the other contractors are 1 ton turbo diesel or 3/4ton vans. Sometimes I make two trips, big deal. If I need a big tow vehicle my neighbor is a farmer, I buy some fuel and a 12 pack and he lets me borrow it. When his furnace breaks I only charge him for parts. I usually get 10 years and 250k miles out of a taco. The wife drives a Subaru out back. Not the most efficient, but at least its not a Tahoe, or expedition. SUV's don't haul anything and get horrible mileage. The best news of this article is that the manufacturers need to meet an average fleet mileage. This means for every guzzler they need a hybrid to balance it out. It will result in cheaper efficient small cars.  I find that being organized and not making 15 trips saves more gas than 40mpg. I always try to carry everything I need to do the job.

[bobechs]

I don't know that I'd pine for a Roadmaster.

I don't so much pine for a Roadmaster, but what could be made as a modern equivalent, if there was demand for such a thing.  Surely with 2017 tech, one could have such a vehicle with a much smaller engine (the V8 in mine only outputted 180hp after all), lighter chassis (my 1992 was 4500lbs), maybe drop the wood-grain paneling, and probably end up at 30MPG highway (vs the 20MPG I was getting on the highway before it died last year at 200,775).

Well that's the Volvo v70 you are describing there.  But they are a bit expensive to buy and keep running.

Biggest selling car model in Sweden for several years running, so there is some demand, somewhere, I suppose...

Now that Volvo is a Chinese car company, everything will change of course.

[LiveLean]

Could it be the 40 percent includes the growing "crossover" category? A lot of SUVs have morphed more into crossovers that dare I say are starting to evolve into (gasp) station-wagon looking vehicles.

As someone who drove a yellow 1977 Pontiac Le Mans station wagon dubbed the "banana boat" in high school 1985-87, I find this amusing.

[ketchup]

I don't know that I'd pine for a Roadmaster.

I don't so much pine for a Roadmaster, but what could be made as a modern equivalent, if there was demand for such a thing.  Surely with 2017 tech, one could have such a vehicle with a much smaller engine (the V8 in mine only outputted 180hp after all), lighter chassis (my 1992 was 4500lbs), maybe drop the wood-grain paneling, and probably end up at 30MPG highway (vs the 20MPG I was getting on the highway before it died last year at 200,775).

Well that's the Volvo v70 you are describing there.  But they are a bit expensive to buy and keep running.

Biggest selling car model in Sweden for several years running, so there is some demand, somewhere, I suppose...

Now that Volvo is a Chinese car company, everything will change of course.

I actually do drive a 2001 V70 now.  It doesn't have quite the sheer physical capacity of a Roadmaster (but is way better on gas).  Maybe the new (special-order-only in the US) 2017+ Volvo V90, but that's like sixty grand (granted my V70 was $40k new in 2001) and won't be in my price range for at least 10-15 years.

[Just Joe]

We would fall into a huge segment of the evil SUV market that gravitate toward compact, fairly economical small vehicles since they are the only real option when it comes to owning the dreaded station wagon. We are on our third CRV, which like the previous versions, had been reliable as an anvil, and cheap to operate, maintain and repair. When it comes to our next one, it will be another version of whatever small four cylinder car has the versatility of a wagon, with four doors, seating for four adults and a large, easily accessible cargo area, with a hatchback. Given the fact that I see about twenty of these on the road, for every Tahoe, Expedition or similar, I wonder how much of the forum drama on the topic is overblown?

If you liked the size of your first CRV then look at the HRV. They are very similar in size. To me it just shows how big the CRV has gotten. Not a bad thing as long as a person buys what they want/need and aren't just being led around by the marketing departments.

How many of these SUVs that folks are complaining about are actually "crossovers"? Some of the crossovers are approaching high 20s MPG on the highway. Even the three row crossovers.

That's better MPG than our small early model four cylinder CRV. 

[sol]

Could it be the 40 percent includes the growing "crossover" category?

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the gas-guzzler tax that is behind this whole trend?

In 1978 Congress passed a tax on personal vehicles that get bad gas mileage.  We still have this tax, but no one pays it.  The reason no one pays it is that it only applies to "cars" and not trucks.  SUVs were invented for the express purpose of getting around the gas guzzler tax, so that American car companies could continue to sell fuel-inefficient personal vehicles.

At first it sort of made sense.  They just converted some of their light weight trucks into people-carriers instead of cargo-carriers, and avoided the tax because they were selling trucks.  Then those SUVs started evolving and shrinking to resemble cars.  In the mid 90s they started producing SUVs based on car chassis instead of truck chassis, and it's all been downhill since then.  These days, every "crossover" SUV on the market is just a big inefficient car that is called a truck to avoid the gas guzzler tax.  It's just how the US automakers circumvent Congress.

So don't be fooled.  If you tried to sell a modern version of the 1977 Pontiac station wagon mentioned above you'd pay an extra ~$2k at the dealership.  But raise the suspension eight inches and remove the lid of the trunk and it looks an awful like any modern crew cab pickup, and now you're free to waste as much gasoline from middle-eastern terror states as you can possibly afford.  America, fuck yea!

The Rav4 and it's mini-SUV siblings are the same joke, just told less well.  They're clearly cars, not trucks.

[ketchup]

Could it be the 40 percent includes the growing "crossover" category?

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the gas-guzzler tax that is behind this whole trend?

In 1978 Congress passed a tax on personal vehicles that get bad gas mileage.  We still have this tax, but no one pays it.  The reason no one pays it is that it only applies to "cars" and not trucks.  SUVs were invented for the express purpose of getting around the gas guzzler tax, so that American car companies could continue to sell fuel-inefficient personal vehicles.

At first it sort of made sense.  They just converted some of their light weight trucks into people-carriers instead of cargo-carriers, and avoided the tax because they were selling trucks.  Then those SUVs started evolving and shrinking to resemble cars.  In the mid 90s they started producing SUVs based on car chassis instead of truck chassis, and it's all been downhill since then.  These days, every "crossover" SUV on the market is just a big inefficient car that is called a truck to avoid the gas guzzler tax.  It's just how the US automakers circumvent Congress.

So don't be fooled.  If you tried to sell a modern version of the 1977 Pontiac station wagon mentioned above you'd pay an extra ~$2k at the dealership.  But raise the suspension eight inches and remove the lid of the trunk and it looks an awful like any modern crew cab pickup, and now you're free to waste as much gasoline from middle-eastern terror states as you can possibly afford.  America, fuck yea!

The Rav4 and it's mini-SUV siblings are the same joke, just told less well.  They're clearly cars, not trucks.

Oh wow, that's madness.  Is that why the only "real" station wagon type cars left it seems like are expensive Euro brands?

[paddedhat]

We would fall into a huge segment of the evil SUV market that gravitate toward compact, fairly economical small vehicles since they are the only real option when it comes to owning the dreaded station wagon. We are on our third CRV, which like the previous versions, had been reliable as an anvil, and cheap to operate, maintain and repair. When it comes to our next one, it will be another version of whatever small four cylinder car has the versatility of a wagon, with four doors, seating for four adults and a large, easily accessible cargo area, with a hatchback. Given the fact that I see about twenty of these on the road, for every Tahoe, Expedition or similar, I wonder how much of the forum drama on the topic is overblown?

If you liked the size of your first CRV then look at the HRV. They are very similar in size. To me it just shows how big the CRV has gotten. Not a bad thing as long as a person buys what they want/need and aren't just being led around by the marketing departments.

How many of these SUVs that folks are complaining about are actually "crossovers"? Some of the crossovers are approaching high 20s MPG on the highway. Even the three row crossovers.

That's better MPG than our small early model four cylinder CRV.

I agree that the CRV is getting oddly larger every time it gets reworked. We had a 2010 to start, and ended up with a  '14, which has a lot more room and usability, and significantly improved fuel economy. The latest version is not only a lot bigger looking but embraces the Japanese "we gotta' get weird" school of design that Toyota has been obsessed with lately. We looked at the HRV and found that the cabin was tight, with a really intrusive full console splitting the front seats, and no real comfort to be found. We also found a deal on our used '14 that was too good to pass up on. We essentially ended with a newer CRV, with 75K less miles, for our old one and $3K.

[TreesBikesLove]

The "millenial" angle was clearly an editorial decision made to increase the circulation of this article. This "study" has no control groups since the only demographics they looked at were percent of NEW cars being sold.

On the SUV trend, it wouldn't be so bad if the price of SUVs actually reflected the damage and negative externalities associated with driving a large truck around. If the gas tax was actually enough to pay for the damage caused to roads, if the gas guzzler tax was actually enforced on trucks, if insurance costs reflected the collateral damage caused by a 2-ton steel car crash, or countless other subsidies that non-SUV tax paying Americans cover for the SUV crowd out of our own generosity.

It is unfair to pay for roads, bridges, freeway projects, etc. from payroll taxes and property taxes. The costs should be levied on the citizens who actually use those services. I do not blame anybody who buys a small SUV because they have assessed the situation and made a rational, economic choice. We can only advocate for changing the economics to reflect the true cost of SUV driving levied on society.

[scantee]

I don't understand the ire in this thread for small SUVs like the CRV. Are there better (i.e., cheaper, more fuel efficient) cars available? Yeah, some. But there are many, many more cars out there that are way worse. The CRV is extremely close to the Accord in fuel efficiency (28/34 vs. 27/36), price ($24k vs. $23k), and body weight (3409 vs. 3387). So why isn't the Accord raising our hackles too?

Most of my ire is directed at the land yachts that are considered necessities by pretty much everyone at this point. The family with two kids that "must" have a minivan. The person with no kids and an 8-passenger SUV. The dude with the enormous truck who hauls things like twice a year.

[Travis]

Most of my ire is directed at the land yachts that are considered necessities by pretty much everyone at this point. The family with two kids that "must" have a minivan. The person with no kids and an 8-passenger SUV. The dude with the enormous truck who hauls things like twice a year.

The Denali owner who no parking space in the US was built for.

[LennStar]

The costs should be levied on the citizens who actually use those services.

Do you ever buy anything in a store? Then you are using those roads. The materials for your house were transported on those roads. Heck even the people who build the drones that will in teh future deliver your Amazon packets use the roads to get to their workplace.

I don't understand the ire in this thread for small SUVs like the CRV.

I can only say from my German perspective: Even the "small" crossovers are bigger then all the other cars. They block sight when driving.  They steal parking space (along the road - 2 crossovers or 3 of my type of car) or make it extremely hard to park in/out at the big parking lots. They do use more fuel and of course more energy and stuff to produce (and production amounts to 30-70% of ressources depending on use). And often the most inept drivers use them, as a sort "counter" I guess, which makes their dangerous overweight (when compared to normal cars) even more dangerous.
There is a reason the youth have named them "Hausfrauenpanzer" - house wife tanks

[TheGrimSqueaker]

The costs should be levied on the citizens who actually use those services.

Do you ever buy anything in a store? Then you are using those roads. The materials for your house were transported on those roads. Heck even the people who build the drones that will in teh future deliver your Amazon packets use the roads to get to their workplace.

I don't understand the ire in this thread for small SUVs like the CRV.

I can only say from my German perspective: Even the "small" crossovers are bigger then all the other cars. They block sight when driving.  They steal parking space (along the road - 2 crossovers or 3 of my type of car) or make it extremely hard to park in/out at the big parking lots. They do use more fuel and of course more energy and stuff to produce (and production amounts to 30-70% of ressources depending on use). And often the most inept drivers use them, as a sort "counter" I guess, which makes their dangerous overweight (when compared to normal cars) even more dangerous.
There is a reason the youth have named them "Hausfrauenpanzer" - house wife tanks

I'm stealing this word.

[mm1970]

I don't understand the ire in this thread for small SUVs like the CRV. Are there better (i.e., cheaper, more fuel efficient) cars available? Yeah, some. But there are many, many more cars out there that are way worse. The CRV is extremely close to the Accord in fuel efficiency (28/34 vs. 27/36), price ($24k vs. $23k), and body weight (3409 vs. 3387). So why isn't the Accord raising our hackles too?

Most of my ire is directed at the land yachts that are considered necessities by pretty much everyone at this point. The family with two kids that "must" have a minivan. The person with no kids and an 8-passenger SUV. The dude with the enormous truck who hauls things like twice a year.

Hey now, no picking on minivans.  I totally want 1, even though I only have 2 kids.  The sliding doors, extra space for their friends, more space to go camping...I mean, have you ever tried to do a long driving vacation/ camping trip in a Matrix with two kids?  Even with the Thule box on top, the damn car is packed and NOBODY is comfortable.

It's probably no wonder that nobody likes road trips but me.  Of course the carsick 11 year old hates them.

[Just Joe]

I can only say from my German perspective: Even the "small" crossovers are bigger then all the other cars. They block sight when driving.  They steal parking space (along the road - 2 crossovers or 3 of my type of car) or make it extremely hard to park in/out at the big parking lots. They do use more fuel and of course more energy and stuff to produce (and production amounts to 30-70% of ressources depending on use). And often the most inept drivers use them, as a sort "counter" I guess, which makes their dangerous overweight (when compared to normal cars) even more dangerous.
There is a reason the youth have named them "Hausfrauenpanzer" - house wife tanks

Around here most parking is defined with painted lines. Even motorcycles get one full parking space if they want one. I don't live in a big city though or park along a street. Love "Hausfrauenpanzer". I'm using that too.

I own several small cars. Even small German cars. We have one "big car" (three row SUV/crossover) and it gets 27 or 28 mpg on the highway. I'm not apologizing for it. ;) We also drive less than most of our peers through careful planning and long term lifestyle choices so technically I could probably still buy less fuel than our peers if we drove a Hummer everywhere.

After many road trips in tiny, noisy cars I'll happily pay to own a "city car" for daily commuter use and something nicer for weekend use.

[honeybbq]

Hausfrauenpanzer - I love it.

I refer to my CRV as my 'mom-mobile' but I like this word better.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Hausfrauenpanzer - I love it.

I refer to my CRV as my 'mom-mobile' but I like this word better.

One of my teammates named my Scion "The Toaster" and it stuck. Except sometimes I want to feel better about it so I call it "The Adventure Toaster" or even "Battle Toaster McToastyface".

[Just Joe]

That's what our kids call them too.

[jinga nation]

I thought about replacing my wife's 2006 Honda Civic sedan with a 3 year old Kia Soul.
Then I realized that in the future I'll probably give my Rav4 to her for school/daycare duties and I'll get back the Civic and have fun college style in an old Honda.
That Honda's going nowhere until it dies on us. It just ticked over 100,000 miles which is the norm.
Daily driving miles may reduce and income will go up if some employer changes happen in the next 30 days.

[alsoknownasDean]

I drove a Ford Kuga as a loan car briefly earlier this year. Didn't like it.

What's with the huge blunt front end? It doesn't make it easy to park, I found myself reversing into the car park because it was just easier to do so. Anything within two or three metres of the front of the car was basically invisible.

And yeah, the article may include the smaller crossover SUVs that have largely replaced station wagons, rather than just the 'super size me' vehicles.

[paddedhat]

I drove a Ford Kuga as a loan car briefly earlier this year. Didn't like it.

What's with the huge blunt front end? It doesn't make it easy to park, I found myself reversing into the car park because it was just easier to do so. Anything within two or three metres of the front of the car was basically invisible.

And yeah, the article may include the smaller crossover SUVs that have largely replaced station wagons, rather than just the 'super size me' vehicles.

Had to look that one up. the latest generation of the "Kuga" is the same vehicle as the "Escape" in the North American market. Not really sure where you are seeing the "huge blunt front end" ? It's a typical compact SUV, just like the other dozen+ in any big market. Lift the hood and there is a tight engine bay, sit up front and there is an adequate amount of legroom, nothing which would make it an oddly oversized, or bulbous outlier in it's class. It's important to understand that a lot of the structure from the windshield forward is needed to pass tough US crash standards. Room for crumple zones, and similar requirements. A few minutes on youtube, watching crash testing of death traps, like the little Mexican Nissan that was built for decades longer than it should of been, really sharpened my priorities. Personally, walking away from a front offset crash at 35 MPH is a hell of a lot more important that satisfying personal tastes, or appeasing the most rigid adherents here, who feel that anything beyond a 25 year old, $500 Civic is ostentatious, and irresponsible.

[Kashmani]

I frankly think that too much is being read into this statistic. It is a logical leap to conclude that Americans are prefer gas-guzzling SUVs. Consider the following:

1) As a result of CAFE, there is a strong incentive to build "light trucks" as opposed to cars. That means that everything that would have been a wagon 20 years ago is now redesigned as a crossover and falls into the "SUV" category. Aside from the Subaru Outback and Volkswagen Golf, there are no non-premium wagons left on the North American market. And one of these is AWD and the other is quite small.

2) As a natural consequence of point (1), families now have no choice but to buy crossovers. A sedan is simply not a suitable vehicle for someone with kids that has to haul stuff. When the two choices are a crossover or a full-size minivan, most families will choose the crossover because it is smaller.

We recently had to replace our 13-year old VW Passat wagon and bought an Outback because it was the most wagon-y vehicle family vehicle left on the market. So now we are "evil" SUV owners. But the alternative would have been a Toyota minivan which (a) costs $7,000 more and (b) is too big for our parking spot. We would have bought a Camry wagon in a heartbeat if such a beast existed. But if the entire market of cars with a decent-sized trunk now consists of SUVs, it is easy to fall into the 40% statistic.

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small.