The crossover– crudely defined as a SUV-styled car– hasn't fared well in the Great Sales Meltdown of 2008. The Wall Street Journal reports that the segment slipped 11 percent from last year. Thanks to a combination of high gas prices, atrocious SUV trade-in/resale values and generally high CUV prices, SUV owners are trading down to cars, rather than across to CUVs. Uh-oh. Carmakers were counting on larger profit margins on those CUV's to keep them afloat in these lean times. Even sales of small and relatively fuel-efficient CUV's (a.k.a. "cute utes") are lackluster. The Toyota RAV4 (12,006) is down 20.7 percent [unadjusted for sales days is how we roll]. Honda's CR-V (17,419) tumbled 15.3 percent. There are a few bright spots in the CUV market: the Nissan Rogue (6,525) and Subaru Forester (5,559). But their combined sales generated about the same volume as the RAV4. The Dodge Journey, at 3,306 sales last month and 26,180 for the year, is already is selling for thousands below MSRP. [BTW, the brand new Ford Flex barely edged its outgoing platform-mate Taurus X, 2,204 vs. 2,034.] Even with gas prices dipping, the CUV genre seems stillborn. GM identified the fourth Lambda-platformed Chevy Traverse (post-Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook) as the only key product launch in North America this fall. Not good on stilts.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
GM identified the fourth Lambda-platformed Chevy Traverse (post-Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook) as the only key product launch in North America this fall.
Ouch that’s going ot hurt, especially since the thing is fugly. They are going to get rid of the Acadia for that ugly mug.
I think we haven’t given the average car buyer enough credit. I think even the average housewife realizes now that a decent HWY MPG number doesn’t help a bit when your longest trip is a couple of miles to the Whole Foods or to the brat’s school. They are looking at the City MPG numbers because they know that that’s what they’ll get 95% of the time, and those numbers are still far worse for a CUV than for even a mid-size car. And when you can get a loaded 4 cyl. Accord/Camry for $25K vs. $30-35K for a CUV, it’s a no-brainer.
The market simply got over-saturated way too fast.
Each brand new CUV has to compete with the heavily discounted SUV and minivan market.
Why do domestic CUVs need to be so large? Even their smallest SUVs are alot larger than the smaller imports. Still wearing out a 1gen CR-V. Wouldn’t mind a new CR-V. Still nice, still durable and the mileage is even a little better.
If you ask me, these CUVs are just more proof of the big three’s (mostly GM’s) reluctance to give up SUVs. When SUVs started to go out of style in late 2005/early 2006, they just decided that they can spur more sales by simply cramming the SUVs even harder down our throats. Then gas went up to $4.00 and the SUV market crashed. So, instead of marketing their cars and building competetive cars, they just built these slightly more fuel efficient “crossovers” – which are still SUVs – and are now cramming them down our throats. BIG surprise here – nobody’s biting.
Can’t the big three just end all of this SUV shit? Just give up the SUVs and go back to building cars like the old days. And maybe if they actually devote more than just a day of planning their cars, maybe they can figure out how to make a profit on them.
I’d have to agree with rodster205 – most CUVs don’t get much better city MPG than body on frame SUVs. What makes matters worse is that many, such as the CX-7 and RDX, require premium gas which makes the cost/utility equation look even worse. Consumers have done the maths and found that, for example, a CX-7 at 16MPG premium gas is not much an improvements over the Chevy Tahoe’s 14MPGs regular gas. If you drive 12,000 miles a year and premium is 20c more per gallon that the differnce is a modest $250 per year in favor of the CX-7 and for that you get less seating, less towing and, you know, less utility.
Richard Chen: The Wall Street Journal reports that the segment slipped 11 percent from last year.
From what I’ve read, their sales are holding up better than the market as a whole, so CUVs have actually increased their market share.
Richard Chen: BTW, the brand new Ford Flex barely edged its outgoing platform-mate Taurus X, 2,204 vs. 2,034.
Considering that the Flexes I’ve seen at the dealer are considerably more expensive than the Taurus X, and I have yet to see an ad for the Flex, I’d say that those figures don’t necessarily reflect poorly on the Flex.
Runfromcheney: If you ask me, these CUVs are just more proof of the big three’s (mostly GM’s) reluctance to give up SUVs. When SUVs started to go out of style in late 2005/early 2006, they just decided that they can spur more sales by simply cramming the SUVs even harder down our throats.
The first CUVs were actually Japanese – the RAV4, the CR-V and the Highlander. The domestic versions were introduced in response to those Japanese entries.
I hardly see CUVs as a domestic invention, or proof of their reluctance to give up SUVs. If anything, the market had been swinging away from SUVs to CUVs long before the recent runup in gas prices, and the domestics responded. Now with gas prices rising faster than anyone – including the Japanese – expected, and the economy in the dumps, their sales are down, too.
Honestly, I don’t blame the domestics alone in this. The market currently seems extremely saturated with CUV’s and people who would really need one either seem to have one, or are stuck upside-down really hard in an SUV.
The point about CUV’s city mileage numbers is valid as well. Most CUV’s get city mileage comparable to an SUV so what’s the point?
What would be nice at this point is an actual wagon version of the Malibu, Fusion, Camry, Accord, Sonata, Optima, etc. Hey, lets make a wagon version of the Impala and give it a third row too!
The big CUVs will start selling later on. Don’t worry about it too much. They need to be large because there are still a lot of families with more than 2 kids and a lot of stuff. Minivans are better, but a lot of people don’t like the styling.
carguy- decent point with premium vs regular, though I’d guess the CX-7 and RDX would be more fun to drive. It might actually be cheaper to run the Tahoe on E85 now too.
Bancho:
What would be nice at this point is an actual wagon version of the Malibu, Fusion, Camry, Accord, Sonata, Optima, etc. Hey, lets make a wagon version of the Impala and give it a third row too!
I’d like that too, but I don’t think we’ll ever see it. A true wagon wouldn’t count as a “light truck” under CAFE, like a CUV does. If they made one, it would be like the PT Cruiser or HHR, jacked up to make it CAFE-friendly.
I think Detroit may have seen the writing on the wall for the true SUV, but thought it would be a slow transition brought on by changing styles and somewhat higher gas prices. CUV’s would’ve been good for that scenario, and for some people they work. For others, they’ll only consider something that gets 40 mpg, which means a Prius or a bike.
@geeber: I usually don’t watch TV, but in my hotel room 2 weeks ago in Philadelphia, Flex commercials were on a few times/hour.
We’ll see how the big CUV’s are holding up later in the year, after the end of leasing. Frankly, I’m surprised how the smallest, most efficient CUV’s are taking double-digit percentage hits.
Yup, that SUV/CUV segment can only shrink. It does leave a void..For instance, where can one get a fuel-efficient hatchback with a high roofline that doesn’t look like a minivan? Perhaps something like the Audi Allroad but with a 3rd row, improved fuel economy and, at a much lower price.
qa :
August 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Yup, that SUV/CUV segment can only shrink. It does leave a void..For instance, where can one get a fuel-efficient hatchback with a high roofline that doesn’t look like a minivan? Perhaps something like the Audi Allroad but with a 3rd row, improved fuel economy and, at a much lower price.
Mazda5, anybody? Sales up 43.7% YTD. A group of us have one in our pool of rental cars at the moment and I’ve been favorably impressed.
@Theodore: it’s not exactly selling like gangbusters, at 1,336 in June and just 13,313 YTD. Here’s what mine looks like with 3 car seats in it, rear visibility out the back is lousy. Usually there’s just one seat in the 2nd row.
Forum here: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=194
’07 CX-7 requires premium, the ’08 does not.
Our Mazda5 is on vacation at the beach right now. Great car for a small family. People simply don’t know that it exists. This car is not promoted. I got a compliment at the liquor store of all places. For my mini-mini van. Yes, it was a sad day.
The days of the Chelsea tractor are over!
I wonder if the original RAV 4 might sell better than the current oversized one. Toyota vacated the original RAV4 niche and replaced it with a vehicle that fills the one the 4runner occupied.
Love that term “Chelsea Tractor”