Despite the recent arrival of a Tahoe Hybrid (I’m on it), a Chevy Avalanche and whatever the Cadillac version of same is called in my daughters’ PC school parking lot, the death of the full-size SUV has been well-documented and publicized. Less well known: the mid-size SUV is even deaderer (sorry Andrew). Ward’s Dealer Business tells the tale: “SUV sales took a 39.3% plunge, going from 1.91 million units in 2007 to 1.16 million in 2008. Middle SUVs was the biggest segment loser, with sales sinking 45% in 2008. By comparison, midsize cross/utility vehicle sales were off 6.8%. ‘People are moving out of the midsize-SUV market completely and going to CUVs,’ says Matt Traylen, senior director for Automotive Lease Guide. ‘What people don’t want now is anything with ‘SUV’ in the name.'” Thank Got BMW called the honking great X5 and X6 “Sports Activity Vehicles.” And how’s this for a piercing glimpse into the obvious: “They don’t go up mountains or off-roading. They take their kids to school and go to the grocery store,” Matt says. “A lot of people are waking up and asking, ‘Why did I buy this vehicle?’” And then saying “Now what?”
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The Ford Edge has been down 50-60% the past few months.
“A lot of people are waking up and asking, ‘Why did I buy this vehicle?’”
And then with their newfound sense they go ahead and purchase a vehicle with the same weight, dimensions, ground clearance and aerodynamics but none of the offroad capability.
Baaaa, baaaa, baaaa … TTAC really need embedded sounds :). The sheep are stampeding in a different direction.
Many, if not most, of the former SUV buyers were doing the fashionable/trendy thing. Glad to see that one wind down. Now if only the plastic surgeons would go back to helping fire victims ….
@guyincognito: cough, ack, ahem, uh…go Venza!
When I think of “cute-ute”, a car based vehicle the size of the RAV-4 or CR-V is what comes to mind.
And then with their newfound sense they go ahead and purchase a vehicle with the same weight, dimensions, ground clearance and aerodynamics but none of the offroad capability.
…which they weren’t using anyways, but now probably rides and handles a hell of a lot better. Priorities, please.
People don’t wake up. They’re just led in a different direction by the sheepherder.
Hm,
I don’t see any difference here in Chicago. I still see plenty of SUV’s with new plate tags (more than cars, actually).
My wife the other day said for her new car (hers is a compact car), she wants an new SUV in 2009. I told her I might consider a minivan (we don’t have kids).
In her country, SUV’s are VERY expensive & quite prestigious. Almost nobody can afford them. I think that carries over to her living here. Even if everyone has one, she can show her parents when they come visit.
The Ford Edge has been down 50-60% the past few months.
So has just about anything else in this segment. I feel bad for the Venza, launched right into the maw of the recession. Or the Murano, which is dusted by the Rogue in every conceivable way. And then there’s the Kia Borrego, which beats the Flex for the Worst Launch Timing Ever award.
I don’t think Ford is alone in this.
When I think of “cute-ute”, a car based vehicle the size of the RAV-4 or CR-V is what comes to mind.
Agreed. I’d hazard that the RAV barely qualifies as cute. I certainly don’t think about things like the Flex or Traverse.
And then with their newfound sense they go ahead and purchase a vehicle with the same weight, dimensions, ground clearance and aerodynamics but none of the offroad capability.
Well, yes, but at least they get decent ride and handling now. Driving an Explorer and Taurus X (or Highlander and 4Runner) back-to-back makes the crossover’s advantages very apparent.
The problem is over-buying. People bought based on what they might do, versus what they usually do. Rather like buying a huge house to sleep the whole family at Christmas, even though you’re empty-nesters. It’s funny, after years of having people snap at me for daring to tell them what they “need”, that this is coming to the fore. People really need to start thinking about the word “need” and realize that the word they want is “want”.
The deals you can get on certified used Escapes and such are stonking.
No reason to buy one new when you can get one thats 2 years old for 10 grand.
Well, the good thing about this category is that “SUV” and “crossover” are just marketing terms applied to trucks and wagons, respectively. If you want sales in this sector to go up, just make something a little bit different from the current crop of jacked-up family wagons and make up a new marketing term so that people will flock to it.
The original wagon substitute, the minivan, was deemed too motherly. The next wagon substitute was basically a pickup frame with a boxy wagon body on top. When gas went past $3/gal, these family haulers were suddenly murdering polar bears.
The new flavor is the “crossover” basically jacked-up wagon that tries to look like a truck. There have been lowered versions, like the Flex and Pacifica, but if gas skyrockets too much, eventually people will probably go to the good-old fashioned station wagon, stigmas be damned.
Personally, I can’t wait for that to happen. I’m tired of all the people in Jeeps, Xterras, and any manner of “crossover” pretending they need this monstrosity for their “active lifestyle” of idling in city traffic or have to have the AWD because they live up a hill and it rains sometimes.
One issue with crossovers is highway mileage. No matter how small, aerodynamics will hammer highway mileage on a 5 1/2 foot tall bread box compared to a sedan.
I don’t get it. I’ve always thought a cute ute was a compact, “mini me” SUV, not a mid-size SUV. This would include the Escape, CRV, Rav4, Outlander, Forester, and so on. I believe their sales have remained pretty good, with any drops matching the overall market.
redrum, you’re not alone. Cute Utes have almost universally been identified as Foresters, CRV, Rav4, etc. The vehicles this blog seems to refer to are generally known as crossovers (Highlander, Pilot, Edge, etc.).
When minivans get only 2 or 3 MPGs better than a full size SUV then why not get an Expedition or Tahoe. When I did some quick math I figured that most people will only save $400-500 a year. So why not get a SUV that can tow 8000 lbs and hold 7 people.
TEW,
You buy a minivan over a full size SUV because they can carry 7 people plus their stuff comfortably. And people have actual access to the third row. You can buy them for ~$10K cheaper, and save on gas and repair costs.
With the money saved, you can rent a truck for the twice a year you actually need one.
It’s funny, after years of having people snap at me for daring to tell them what they “need”, that this is coming to the fore. People really need to start thinking about the word “need” and realize that the word they want is “want”.
@ psarhjinian : Word. Same here. If anything, the one good thing about the current crisis is that we’re seeing people redefine “need” in a more objective way. I don’t have a problem with people “wanting” stuff they don’t “need”, as long as they’re honest about it. That’ll last a few years until the next bubble…
Don’t forget the other factor that is causing people to “buy down”, which is the credit crunch. Tighter credit is forcing new purchasers to buy vehicles that are sensible, instead of keeping-up-with-the-Joneses lifestyle accessories.
psarhjinian: I agree. However, I don’t think people have really thought about their real needs versus their desires, so much as there are now a lot of vehicles which provide the qualities they never knew they were seeking: High seating position, space for 6, or bulky things, styling that is a bit muscular (for lack of a better word). For some, there will be no substitute for the feeling of power provided by a V8 and 4 tons of steel. Others “discover” that they like crossovers but never rally ask themselves why.
As for the definition of midsize SUV – I’d think we are talking anything that is unibody and available in 4 cylinders. Or is it anything NOT available with 8?
SherbornSean, You could get a Expedition King Ranch that is only a year old and has about 10000 miles for less than a striped odyssey. I was just pointing out that minivans have become so bloated that they get almost as bad gas mileage as a full size SUV. If people really took the time to think they would demand a smaller minivan.
Just part of Trucks & SUVs going back to their historical ~25% share of the market from the 50%+ peak a few years ago.
Many people like the utility of hatchbacks, station wagons and minivans but their ego vetoes them as being “weak” so they purchase a Canyoneo. Cheap gas, strong residuals and incessant marketing all fueled the fire.
Interestingly Toyota just bought back the Camry Wagon (Venza) to the US after after a long hiatus.
@TEW: If you don’t tow jack (like me), why buy more car or truck than you need?
A not-so-stripped, 19mpg (real-world) 8 passenger Sienna similar to the one in our garage is $24k. Dual power sliders make loading/discharging the little kids. Bench seat fits 3 kids in the 2nd row, LATCHed if need be. Ours is usually configured as such with the entire cargo bay ready to pile kids stuff into. A smaller minivan is a doable squeeze but then our Mazda5 has little cargo room with 5 on board.
And what happened to minivans sized in between? Dead in the US market, except for the SWB Kia Sedona which is just as thirsty as the LWB varaint.
For most people CUV= Crossover= SUV, only car geeks notice a difference.
I think the full size SUV will come back before the mid size will.
CUVs (which I assume are unibody SUVs) are a good choice for urban cowboys like me, who outnumber real men by at least 3 to 1.
Our new Santa Fe pulls our camper like a Kenworth, it plows through 3-foot snow drifts like a Sherman tank, and it burns about as much gas on the highway as our old 4-cylinder Altima did. It is also cheap to insure, and after one year of hard use it has yet to generate a single complaint or warranty claim.
How do you argue with that?
I suppose the full size SUV’s are still being sold to those who need them, while a lot of the Tahoe types were more of a luxury buy? Seems logical enough. People worried about the economy, remember the recent gas prices (they will forget soon though), and likely remember the dive in SUV values.
No point in a CUV unless it gets better mileage. In fact, in my opinion, the mileage won’t likely cover the increased depreciation that the CUV’s will eventually see. SUV’s hold their value for several reasons, and on of them is the body on frame construction which lasts as long as you are willing to keep it running.