Find Reviews by Make:
Before: early pictures of the just-confirmed-for-America Honda Crosstour testing in Britain, via AutoExpress. Early in development, the Crosstour is still just a slightly beefed-up AWD wagon.
After: more recent photos of the Crosstour testing in the US, courtesy of Leftlane. Now it’s a full-blown Crossover. I hope you’re happy, America.
93 Comments on “The CUV Segment Must Die: Honda Crosstour Before And After...”
Read all comments
Version A looks like a Dodge Caliber. Version B rips off the Venza.
When did Honda turn into a company that specializes in half-assed copies of half-assed Toyotas?
I”m confused. Are we getting the top one, or the bottom one?
The thing in the lower photo isn’t a full-blown crossover. It’s just a really odd-looking large hatchback. The more wagonish shape in the top photo both looks better and would provide more utility.
top is awesome. bottom sucks
The US market Accord wagon in the top picture is awsome, in the way that any new wagon in the US would be awesome. But this post indicates that we are getting the Honda X6 knock-off in the bottom picture (really a knock-off of an AMC Eagle coupe knock-off), which is not awesome.
Honda, don’t make an X6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcO4MMzdYE8&NR=1
The top wagon with the now-canceled diesel would have seriously grabbed my attention.
The top one gets my vote. I would guess this is Honda’s reply to the Venza – that it too Pacifica-like for my taste.
Longest. Honda. Rear. Overhang. EVER.
my eyes, my eyes, aaaaahhh
FAIL. so lame.
Call me crazy but I honestly believe that top version would have sold more units than the bottom will. I don’t see enough CR-V intenders picking this thing instead. Meanwhile the Subaru Outback sells fairly well.
Bummer. Coulda been sweet.
Does this mean that we will not see the JDM Odyssey?
Isn’t the top one a EDM Honda Accord Estate? Or wagon to us. The Euro Accord is our TSX or was until we made ours bigger and fatter.
That wouldn’t be a bad looking car if it was dropped about an inch or two, but it has two problems:
* Does Honda expect anyone to change lanes? I ask because I think 80s supercars may have better rear visbility
* The rear overhang is a bit much.
Hondas aren’t often pretty; the detailing is often odd (the last two Accords), and sometimes they’re flat-out bizarre (the last Prelude comes immediately to mind) but they have been sensible. This isn’t sensible, not even compared to the Edge, Murano and Venza. It also has a similar problem those same trucklets in terms of internal cannibalization: it sits right there with the CR-V, Pilot and RDX.
Were I Honda, I would be retrenching about now and thinking about ways to get people who are defecting to Hyundai because of price. I would be very careful about trying to fight Toyota’s model spread.
Can we get wheels no larger than 17″? At least on some lower trim level?
I don’t think that the dubs, which now seem to become a standard, are a good match to the crumbling roads. At least not here, in Midwest.
Isn’t the top one a EDM Honda Accord Estate?
No, the European Accord wagon is our Acura TSX with a wagonback and no increase in ride height. What the above picture shows is our Accord with a wagon back and about two inches of additional ground clearance.
Think “Honda Accord Outback” and you get the idea.
The below could best be described, using BMW’s asinine marketese for the X6, as the Accord Sports Activity Vehicle. Honda is doing this because their marketing department has probably noted—correctly—that not even niche brands like Subaru, Honda and VW can make wagons work in North America. Honda needs volume to survive, and an Accord Outback won’t cut it.
Honda CrossBloat. Great.
I like the top wagon but not the bottom hatchback that looks like it fell off of the ugly tree.
The bottom pic reminds me of the Crossfire. Crosstour, Crossfire? Yuck.
Looks like a mashup of a Prius & 2-Door Accord. Yet another yawner on the road. I bet I’d hit my head on the ceiling in the front seats (let alone the back)!
So what’s with the CUV hate?
“CUV” is just 21st-century jargon for a station wagon (and since “station wagons” haven’t been used to ferry people to and from railroad stations in ~65 years, it was probably about time for a new moniker anyway.)
I get that “car guys” don’t like wagons. Okay, point taken. But the reality is that (a) 99% of car buyers are not “car guys” and (b) a 2 seat sports car with a ragtop and a manual tranny may be the wet dream of lots of “car guys” but for most car buyers (who have families or who regularly carry lots of gear or people) it’s about as practical as a motorcycle.
The bottom vehicle just looks like a big hatchback, so I don’t see the attraction. The top one looks like a nice wagon, a nice alternative to a fugly minivan.
Are the Honda executives slow in the head? Why would anyone want to buy that POS on the bottom? I think it should be dubbed the Honda Accord Maxx, or Maybe the Honda Corsica Hatchback.
I’d buy that wagon, especially with Honda’s diesel engine. So I guess I won’t be buying a Honda anytime soon. I still see the occasional Accord wagon from the 90s driving around, and I don’t get why they won’t sell a wagon over here again. The success of the Jetta wagon should tell other companies that wagons are desirable, at least for some people.
Why the hell can’t we just get a proper Accord wagon? there used to be one years ago! Honda, take note, you deperately need to go back to doing what you do best. Do not copy Toyota’s boring garbage. Build good, fun, unique, reliable cars with bulletproof engines. That’s it.
Who said car guys don’t like wagons? Anyway, that CUV is awful and I hope this trend ends soon. That goes for the Acura variant as well.
I would consider that JDM Accord wagon.
Ah like
big
BUTTSANDICANNOTLIE
This is seriously killing me. I LOVE my 98 Accord daily driver. Love it. I want another Honda. I need one with a little more room. My wife hates the new curvy CR-V. This is the car we’re looking to buy. Why, Honda, why did you have to make it look like…like…THAT?
I guess we have only ourselves to blame, though. That thing reminds me of nothing so much as a fat, waddling, be-fannypacked American tourist, plodding resolutely through say, an art museum, on his way to the food court McDonald’s.
Martin Albright: I can’t speak for all “car guys” but I like wagons. Wagons on stilts (CUVs), wagons as swoopy hatchbacks (this thing) I don’t like so much. If Honda had created the wagon on the top it would be a much more desirable car to me.
We lost both the hatch and wagon when Mazda re-did the 6. When I was looking at the 6 I was interested in the wagon and I would get the stupidest reactions when I told people this. They looked at me like I have 5 heads.
I get that “car guys” don’t like wagons.
Oh, but they do.
But the reality is that (a) 99% of car buyers are not “car guys”
Exactly, which is why automakers keep squeezing out CUVs instead of affordable V70 fighters.
It appears to me that “crossovers” = sedans with a hatchback.
Martin Albright: most commenters on this site do like wagons. What we don’t like are manufacturers so afraid to admit that their vehicles is a wagon that they artificially pump up the ride height and call it a CUV.
I quite like the top photo, actually. The bottom one, not so much.
Exactly, which is why automakers keep squeezing out CUVs instead of affordable V70 fighters.
CUVs sell, or rather, are sold, because you can charge more for them. You could not charge more than a grand over the sedan for a wagon, but you can charge a lot more for a crossover. Honda’s logic is this: if you build what people need, and not what they can be coaxed into, you’d sell mostly Fits, Civic wagons and the occasional Oddyssey, all at a razor-thin margin.
Subaru killed the Legacy and Mazda the 6 Wagon not just because they didn’t sell as well, but because the stole sales from the Outback and CX-7. It’s why Toyota sells the Highlander and Venza instead of the Camry wagon, and has let the Sienna linger on it’s current platform. It’s why Volvo has given up on the V70 and puts more marketing muscle (and more attractive features) into the XC60 and 90.
How well this will work in an era of tighter credit and lowered expectations is anyone’s guess.
I was hoping to trade in my 2006 Highlander for the one in the top picture, but I guess I’ll go for the even uglier 2010 Subaru Outback. Why the hell would anyone want the one in the bottom picture? Honda, you need to take a step back and look at what brung you to the dance. It sure wasn’t bloated, overly featured, poorly made POS’. How about dropping the 190 hp 2.4 or the turbo in the CRV and Element. Don’t let those gems languish the way GM did with the Malibu Max or ford did with the Taurus.
Sajeev
I agree….rear overhang is WAY too much.
Did Nissan create the premium crossover? It seems ever since the Murano debuted, everyone’s been gunning for it.
SUVs have ladder frames, can tow and go off road.
I get the value and keep one around for those exact reasons.
What is it about the “bug on stilts” CUV packaging that enables a premium over the station wagons? Better visibility?
Is BMW the only firm that maintains station wagon/estate margins vs. their similar unibody CUV?
I was hoping to trade in my 2006 Highlander for the one in the top picture, but I guess I’ll go for the even uglier 2010 Subaru Outback.
Speaking of which, I’m surprised there is a CVT option for the 2010 Outback. Then again, not.
re:Martin Albright:
“I get that “car guys” don’t like wagons.”
Your perception could not be further from the truth.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2007/03/2007-geneva-auto-show-2008-bmw-m5-wagon.html
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/2007_frankfurt/2008_mercedes_c63_amg_wagon/index.html
http://www.capriceshop.com/wagons.htm
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/suvs_family_haulers/2009_audi_rs_6_avant_auto_shows
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/2009-honda-accord-tourer-image-galore.html
The anger toward CUVs is because they are not wagons, they weigh more, handle worse, and offer no more utility, not because they are wagons.
Honda – It can’t be this hard. When deciding which car to sell, choose the better-looking car with more practicality. Not the ugly, disproportionate care with less practicality.
I can guarantee you that top car would be at the top of my list, the bottom car… Not so much. (And we are looking to buy near the end of the year, so that actually matters.)
The rules for “car guys” and wagons are very simple.
1. Wagons are great!
2. Never buy wagons. (performance compromised).
3. But everyone else should!
I think everyone is assuming that the top picture was of a
production model. My guess is that it was a
cobbled mule to test the running gear and interior. The CrossTour will use the Accord platform so
it only makes sense to it for testing.
In the end, the current design will appeal to a
larger segment of the market an that’s what Honda cares about.
Top photo: I’ll take one of those with the diesel engine if you don’t mind. Actually, on second thought, I’ll just take a regular Accord wagon chassis with diesel and AWD. If Honda won’t build it, Hyundai will.
Bottom photo: WTF is this crap? A Honda Panamera? An Accord Suburb Sport? A Honda X6? Honda, please kill this abomination before it reproduces.
Honda seems to be whacking almost everything with their trademarked Ugly Stick. Civics, Pilots and Ridgelines were nasty enough, and now they had to pollute the Accord (their only elegant-looking car, even if it’s a little too big) by doing THIS to it!
The horror! The horror!
I had a 2005 Mazda 6 wagon (with a 5-spd) so I put my money where my mouth is :)
Top picture looks like a Passat wagon with the fugly Accord front end. Make it the old TSX front end and we’d be talking.
By the way Honda, your CR-V is as ugly as all of the other CUV’s.
Bottom picture is the Michael Jackson of Hondas – post 6 surgeries. They probably started with something attractive and instead made every part of that thing a styling derivative of either the new Maxima, X6 and their own, homely Civic.
Come on Honda, WTF??? What happened to your greatness? Stop being so lazy and make us something we REALLY want!
What a shame. The top car looks nice. I’d happily buy one with the standard 4cyl and an auto, as would most folks looking for a Honda wagon. I still see the occasional Accord Wagon from the 90’s, and find myself wishing they would bring a new version to the states.
The car on the bottom? Forget it.
Maybe the Honda Corsica Hatchback.
Nice reference. Very fitting.
Just for sh!ts and giggles, any current wagon owners post your ride. Let’s properly document our wagon love!
me: 05 Mazda6 Wagon 5MT
wife: 06 Toyota Matrix XRS 6MT
Say what? The top photo — which you say is an “early version” — looks like it could be a crossover (altho it doesn’t appear to be high enough to qualify). The bottom photo looks like nothing so much as just a largish 4-door hatchback and doesn’t look “crossoverish” at all (again, not enough height). If you recall, Detroit, in the late 1960s actually built a number of 4-door hatchbacks on, by present-day standards, very large platforms. For reasons I can’t explain, when you scale up the 4-door hatchback design, what looks good in a small car looks ungainly in a larger one, which I think is the problem with the version pictured on the bottom. That’s certainly the way I remember the old Detroit iron versions, like the Ford Torino.
There is, of course, a certain illogic to all of this. The BMW 3-series wagon has more cargo volume with the seats up than does the X-3. Same for the BMW 5-series wagon and the X-5. Both cars outperform their respective crossover cousins, by any measurement (acceleration, fuel economy). Neither X-car is suitable for serious off-road use; and both wagons are available in AWD versions, for the snow-challenged. Yet we Americans go for the big crossover every time.
Go figure.
top is awesome. bottom sucks
Yep.
Like the top OK.
Bottom? Fail to see any point in it.
Honda-please send over the Stream.
I will happily beta test a US version and give my impressions. I’m not all that far from your Ohio R&D facility.
Give it a thought?
Bunter
Sorry.
Don’t mean to go against the anti “crossover”
crowd, but I like hatchbacks.
Love hatches!
I like them more than wagons.
And the newest design has me more excited than the samo, samo crossover crap.
Finally, a BIG hatch that’s not an expensive (we hope) BMW!
I like the Mazda3 hatch over the 4 door, and this is much better than the Venza.
@ Sammy B:
wife (family vehicle): 04 VW Passat GLX 4motion
(during childhood, father had ’77 Pontiac Catalina Safari, which of course was a wagon, with factory mag wheels)
carguy622 :
Martin Albright: I can’t speak for all “car guys” but I like wagons. Wagons on stilts (CUVs), wagons as swoopy hatchbacks (this thing) I don’t like so much. If Honda had created the wagon on the top it would be a much more desirable car to me.
I agree, although I would have preferred a more wagon looking wagon. This thing smacks of CUV. I hate CUV. I hate it because it’s ugly (the Murano exemplifies this) and because it’s a stupid meaningless marketing thing, which has to have some ugly highlights to make people think it’s descended from an SUV, instead of simply designing a station wagon.
I guarantee that no CUV is ever going to make it into MoMA.
First there were the new ugly Acuras. The bloated Accrod. Now these two ugly beasts.
The only explanation is that laid-off Bankrupt 2 folks are working at Honda now, bringing with them the “good enough” mentality and exchewing all sportiness and ingenuity of Hondas past.
CUV Shouldn’t Die…
Car-CUV Mutants Must Die!
Look at me! I drive like a car on stilts, I hold no more than a sedan, and I look like Quasimodo! All I can say is Epic Fail for X6s and the like.
Most CUVs are simply minivan-wagon hybrids that work fine. Of course, some enjoy SUV drag, but a lot are happy just being tall wagons. I’m a Ford Flex owner, and most of us think of it as a big station wagon in the International Traveler/Jeep Grand Wagoneer tradition. Big, roomy, and just a tad taller to ease getting people and stuff in and out.
@wallabyguy: agreed, the vehicle in the top picture has the Euro Accord Tourer (wagon) body as camouflage. The tape job around the wheels is because the Euro Accord/TSX body is narrower.
http://www.honda.co.uk/cars/accordtourer/
You could say that the Honda Accord Hatchback, last sold in the US around 1990, has returned. Or that it’s a rebodied Acura ZDX.
Top one is nice, the second is really ugly…maybe it’s some kind of a joke? By the way i’m a hatchback lover
Car guys like wagons. They don’t like CUVs because they have the exact same good properties as a wagon: cargo space, utility, room for kids in back. But they come with a higher ride height because people think higher is better. However, they lack the ability to go off-road, the only good reason to have a higher ride height. And they have a higher center of gravity which equals worse handling and more weight which also equals worse handling and performance.
So car guys hate CUVs because they are wagons that have sacrificed handling and performance for marketing.
Like GrandCharles, I’m a huge hatchback/wagon fan, and yet cannot stand the appearance of the car on the bottom.
The car Sterling sold here? That was similar, yet beautiful. An inch here, an inch there…
I might still consider one of these as a cheaper alternative to an XC70 or same-price to an Outback. See, I live in Idaho and we like to go into the mountains…a little ground clearance is nice. Otherwise I’d be looking for a used 6 wagon.
@Sammy B:
Currently we have a 06 Mazda3 wagon and 84 760 GLE wagon. The 760 just won’t die. I grew up, as well as my wife, with mostly Ford/Mercury wagons. Her parents also had Volvos…I guess I’m stuck for life! And finally, my mom got her E320 4matic wagon in 2002. It’s been great, but it won’t be replaced with another Mercedes. Dad has had Explorer company cars since they live in Park City, UT. The 4matic gets through just as much as the Explorer.
Wife’s parents still have a 96 Sable that is running great, heck I wouldn’t mind taking that over and run it into the ground. They have it because they can fit their tandem bike when they go to their lake cabin on the weekend. Problem is, they don’t know what to replace that Sable with…no wagon on the market is long enough for the bike. And no CUV/SUV sits low enough as they like.
Holy cow! That “car” in the second picture has a huge ass.
@ Micheal: Wasn’t the Sterling a Rover 800…which was essentially an Acura Legend/Honda Accord?
Let’s see here….
Wagon:
-40/80 cubic feet of cargo (rear seats up/down)
-Handles like a car
-Accelerates like a car
-Uses gas like a car.
WIN!
CUV:
-About half the cargo
-Handles like a truck
-Accelerates like an underpowered truck
-Uses gas like a truck
-Tows like a car
-Off-roads like a car.
FAIL!
BTW: What’s this all about:
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2010/featuresandspecs.html
Are we or aren’t we? Part of me hopes Honda doesn’t pull the trigger on a US Accord Wagon (EDIT: the top pic, not the abortion pictured on the bottom), because I would be compelled to wait outside the dealership the night before it arrives and blow loads of my hard-earned cash trading in my Malibu Maxx for one of these. :-)
The Crosstour doesn’t look like a CUV to me. Looks like a good old fashioned lift-back like the Rover SD-1 was:
Unfortunately, where the SD-1 took its inspiration from the Ferrari Daytona, the Crosstour takes it’s inspiration from the Chrysler Sebring. Check out those awkward proportions!
WOW I didn’t think Honda could make the current Accord any uglier… then I see this THING!
I’m a hatchback fan, most versatile car I ever owned was my ’85 Civic S 1500 hatchback.
When we look back its clear Honda lost its mind when the CR-X became the del Sol. Other then first gen CR-V (despite being horribly underpowered), the current Civic Si and S2000 roadster what have then done recently that’s any good? The Ridgeline was (is?) an interesting concept, but way too big for its own good.
It does seem strange that while companies like VW keep the memes (brand design elements) with their volume cars, companies like Honda (and others) are wandering away from successful products and aping other styles.
They are also falling for the “every new version must be bigger than the last” trend that obtains in the US till the inevitable cyclical oil crunch sends everyone running to their small car divisions for salvation. Why is everyone surprised that this strategy (tactic!) can’t deliver.
Is there a Honda family member waiting in the wings to save them from themselves?
No, Andrew got it right. “Car guys” may like wagons, but generally speaking they don’t drive them. They just think other people should.
I guarantee that no CUV is ever going to make it into MoMA.
Wow, there’s a convincing argument for the inferiority of the CUV.
As for CUVs being some kind of marketing ploy – is there anything in the car world that isn’t? People must be buying these things because I see them all over the place.
People here seem to be offended by the way manufacturers use the CUVs “perceived utility” to jack up the price. The argument seems to go “why do so many people buy vehicles with XXXXX, when they never actually use XXXXX and could get along just fine without it?” (For XXXXX you can substitute: AWD, 4WD, higher driving stance, towing capacity, or whatever it is about CUVs that is causing you heartburn.)
But is using the “perceived utility” any different than using “perceived performance?” How many 300 – 350hp cars do you see putting slowly through heavy traffic in the city? Do they really need that much power? We seemed to be able to get along just fine when car engines averaged less than 150hp, and that wasn’t too long ago, so what has changed?
Well, just like the manufacturers can use the “perceived utility” of a CUV to sell it for a higher price than they could a more pedestrian station wagon, they can use the “perceived performance” to jack up the price of the “performance sedan” even though they know that only a tiny fraction of the car’s purchasers will ever take it to the track or to the strip.
Personally, I’ve never owned a sedan or a hatchback (just pickups, SUVs and one wagon) and can’t imagine why anybody else would want one but I wouldn’t project that onto other car owners.
Let’s face it, our economy is based on selling people stuff they don’t need. If every person in America – hell, if ten percent of the people in America – suddenly started living within their means and only buying what they needed, the result would be an economic catastrophe the likes of which none of us have ever seen.
You can blame CAFE for the plethora of CUVs out there. As long as the “truck loophole” exists, it’s advantageous for manufacturers to lump wagons in with their trucks…takes the lower mileage vehicles out of the car category and helps to offset the effects of trucks’ thirst for fuel.
@Pete:
Not sure if he is a Honda, but may be someone close: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=152231
How terribly sad! I like the little “pop-out” towards the rear of the wagon version. The CUV version looks like the bastard offspring of the Accord and Insight. Booooo!
That thing is uglier than my Mother In Law when she’s preaching to me about life.
Re: BuzzDog:
It’s not CAFE, because even something as low as the Dodge Magnum qualified as a light truck under CAFE, even though it was only a Chrysler 300 wagon (it was actually sold as a Chrysler 300 wagon in Europe).
To fit under the looser light truck CAFE standards a car must fit one of these truck standards:
“2) Truck – a 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel drive or is more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR and has physical features consistent with those of a truck); or which is designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) transport more than 10 people; (2) provide temporary living quarters; (3) transport property in an open bed; (4) permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.”
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm
Regular wagons can easily meet (5), as the Magnum wagon and Subaru Outback Wagon do. (5) does not really mean open bed as in pickup truck bed, and folding flat can substitute for removal; (5) is how minivans, 2 wheel drive CUVs, and cars like the HHR and PT Cruiser get classified as light trucks.
Side note: as a light truck the Magnum could have factory dark tinted rear windows, and the Magnum SRT-8 was not subject to the gas guzzler tax, unlike the 300C SRT-8 and Charger SRT-8.
I think psarhjinian unfortunately has it right. Something that looks like an SUV can command more money than something that looks like a wagon. But having a wagon in the same showroom with a more expensive, but not more practical CUV is dangerous.
Anything that changes the current Accord’s bone deep ugly lines is an improvement.
However, they lack the ability to go off-road, the only good reason to have a higher ride height. And they have a higher center of gravity which equals worse handling and more weight which also equals worse handling and performance.
The other “gotcha” that people miss is the high load floor. If you spend time in a modern minivan, a Honda Fit or Euro-Civic, or a whatever-you-call-it like the Mazda5, you’ll note how low the load floor (and, quite often, the foot floor) is. You get a lot of useful space this way, both in raw cubes and in the ability to use an upright seating position and pulling the rows closer.
This is why, in every way, a Toyota Sienna is a better wagon than a Chevy Caprice was. Useful space in a minivan trumps all.
Many modern wagons raise the load floor to level with the rear seats. This significantly compromises cargo space. Crossovers** and SUVs do one worse: they raise the foot floor as well, which makes them not nearly so roomy as the ride height would imply.
** not all of the time do this. The more urban crossovers—the Flex comes to mind—have a nice, low floor.
However, they lack the ability to go off-road, the only good reason to have a higher ride height.
OK, this is not true. I live in Montana where we drive on dirt roads. Dirt roads get ruts. High ground clearance helps keep the bottom of the car from scraping along the ground when your tires fall in the ruts. All-wheel drive helps when there’s snow or when things get muddy when the snow melts. You’re still driving on the road, but you need what crossovers provide. About every fifth car out here is a Subaru. You’ll even see rednecks driving beater subies. The crossover concept is not wrong, it’s the manufacturers’ execution that’s wrong. They’re compromising cargo area by making the roofline coupe-like and over-contenting them to maximize profit. There’s a lot to be said for the theory that wagons eat into crossover profits.
I agree the wagon is better looking. But it’s certainly possible to make a 4-door hatch look good too; Mazda managed it recently with the Mazda 6 5-door (which of course has been discontinued).
What the hell is wrong with Honda? I have always been a huge fan of their cars, even owning two over the years. Now every single stinking car they make is butt-ugly. They ruined Acura’s entire lineup, they ruined the Accord, the Ridgeline has always looked like the slightly-less-ugly cousin of an Aztec, and now this.
re:psarhjinian:
“Many modern wagons raise the load floor to level with the rear seats. This significantly compromises cargo space. Crossovers** and SUVs do one worse: they raise the foot floor as well, which makes them not nearly so roomy as the ride height would imply.”
The load floor issue can be blammed on CAFE’s arbitrary rules, namely, that a light truck:
“(5) can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.”
Ok, just saw on autoblog that the abortion in the second picture is indeed what we get. What a sad day.
What pisses me off is I know the following, what I really want, is possible:
– True wagon variant of a mid-size car
– Fold-flat rear seats
– 75 cu-ft of cargo space w/ rear seat folded
– 30+ mpg highway (not loaded down)
– 225+ ft-lbs torque (bogus high-rev hp ratings are meaningless)
– Rear seating comfy enough for two full-sized adults or three kids
– Sub-$25k sticker price.
BUILD THIS AND I WILL BUY IT!!! I don’t know whether to be more angry at the automakers or at the American people for killing such a useful vehicle.
I guess the Ford Taurus X would come closest…but they’re still a little higher than I’d like.
Higher seating position…but no higher off the ground than a 500/Taurus. Heck of a value new, which is why I’m now starting to see them on the road. I have a feeling the Flex is selling the X.
Top w/ Diesel = Deposit
Bottom = Gai kaken oifen yam
Addendum:
The 2010 Outback is really, really close.
– Starts at $23k
– EPA 29 mpg highway, which probably means 31 or 32 on long trips in real life (imagine if it were FWD!)
– 71.3 cu-ft cargo space
– 4 inches more rear legroom than the old Outback, whose rear seat was more decorative than functional.
However, at that price point and MPG (the 4-cyl), you also get:
-170 ft-lbs torque (good luck powering the AWD carrying a full load with that kinda grunt)
The H6 has way more than enough power, but gets 25 MPG highway and costs $28k. Lower the ground clearance by several inches and drop the diff (what makes a Subaru a Subaru) and you’d bring the MPG up to, and the sticker price down to, what I want. And what most suburbanites actually need. Proof of concept right there.
Maybe Ford will wagon their Fusion someday. That would be perfect.
@TEXN3 :
Taurus X: EPA 24 highway, 19 combined. At those numbers you’re talking about using some 100 gallons/12,000 miles more than what I have in mind. It better be damned cheap before I would consider one as a “wagon alternative.”
2010 Outback, I’ll probably see you in 2016 ;-). Assuming nothing else better comes along in the interim.
Ahh…I forgot about the mileage DECREASE from the Freestyle to the Taurus X due to the larger engine and CVT drop, which was closer to 30 MPG (AWD was 28 I believe).
Maybe the Chinese will lead a wagon rennaisance, unless Hyundai does it first.
Said by Samuel L. Bronkowitz :
July 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
What the hell is wrong with Honda? I have always been a huge fan of their cars, even owning two over the years. Now every single stinking car they make is butt-ugly. They ruined Acura’s entire lineup, they ruined the Accord, the Ridgeline has always looked like the slightly-less-ugly cousin of an Aztec, and now this.
Exactly correct. Leaving the topic of the hideous accord (especially the rear end), why did Acura do what it did to the TL and TSX?
How do decisions to put such monstrosities of grilles (or should I say grillz) on the front of previously fine looking cars get made?
It simply boggles the mind.
I do not at all care for where Honda is headed in terms of steering quality or suspension tuning, either.
My friend had a 1994 Civic EX 5 Speed Manual in high school. Snickety-snick with the shifter, the suspension was about damn near perfect, the chassis was tight as a drum, better ergonomics I would dare you to find, and you’d have to pay up to a BMW to find better steering (if it in fact was).
Give us the Honda of the mid 90s. All will be well with the world again.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Honda_Accord_Tourer_%282008%29_rear.jpg
We’ve driven a ’99 CR-V for 180K miles now. Been A+. We like the slightly higher seating position, have towed plenty of 1500 lb loads, have gone off-road where the trick was not alot of clearance but alot of traction needed (AWD) in TN mud, gravel and dirt. It’s been a very good vehicle.
STILL for our needs a small wagon would be equally useful and equally desirable. Could still tow similar loads which is about all we need to tow. Anything larger and I borrow a truck and/or friend with a truck.
I’d buy an Accord Tourer wagon. I’d also consider a modern version of the Rover 5-door you mentioned. I know where one is about 60 miles from here along a TN country highway that needs some TLC.
What I don’t want is a “poseur” vehicle. Something made up to look bulky or extra butch. A simple CUV (see our ’99 CR-V) or a Subbieroo Legacy wagon AWD or a Jetta Sportwagon with or w/o AWD would suit our needs just fine.
Top pic is okay but too bulky (personal pref) and the bottom pic would be okay if the proportions were tweaked more. Less overhang like so many of you have commented.
I prefer wagons and hatchbacks. CUVs a little less b/c the high clearance isn’t needed at my house. I’d buy our CR-V all over again (new ’99 again) if we could have a sixth gear or a TDI with more soundproofing.
The 2010 Outback is really, really close.
OMG they’ve made that thing ugly, and I actually like the new impreza wagon/hatch. The current legacy is so nicely styled, too. Considering the new one’s sitting in the same ugly tree as the Honda CUV above, we can only hope they don’t procreate.
“Freestyle to the Taurus X due to the larger engine and CVT drop”
During the time when you could buy a Five Hundred with either the CVT or a conventional automatic, the conventional automatic had a slightly higher fuel economy rating. For a 2006 Five Hundred, the fueleconomy.gov listing is 18/25 for the CVT and 19/26 for the 6 speed automatic. I suspect that has a lot to do with why Ford killed the CVT. If a CVT gives inferior fuel economy, what is the point of it?
Axel,
Although the sticker is higher, check out a Saab 9-5 Aero Wagon. 260 HP/ 260lb*ft. Look for a CPO car with 6-year/100K warranty. Nice used examples are going for less than $15K. I get over 30 mpg in my 16-year old 9000 Aero (Same engine design.)
An ’04-’05 9-5 Aero wagon with a stick shift will be my next car.
The top one looks pretty good. The bottom one is seriously ugly.
WTF don’t car companies just make station wagons again? A whole lot easier than an entire line of cars called CUVs.
Do you know what is in demand? Accord and Camry station wagons. Practical as hell and just as reliable without useless 4wd, truck tires, sky high sitting positions and they share most components with the 4 door sedans.
Enough of the CUV stuff.
The top one looks great — it reminds me of a Chrysler Pacifica.
TEXN3 :
July 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@ Micheal: Wasn’t the Sterling a Rover 800…which was essentially an Acura Legend/Honda Accord?
If memory serves, the powertrain was the same, and maybe even the platform, but the Sterling came equipped with all the electrical problems expected of a proper British car from that era. I think the brakes were notoriously bad on them too…
@Sammy B:
’93 Olds Cutlass Cruiser wagon. 25 MPG on the highway, and more cargo room and easier loading (low liftover height) than any CUV, and better visibility than any 21st century car (low beltline, thin pillars, mirrors not positioned to block side view on turns).
I wish I was good at Photoshop; then I would take the second picture and lower the beltline to a horizontal line from the A pillar back, and raise the rear roof to make it a real wagon. I think the result would be a nicely proportioned wagon. The rear overhang is GOOD, people. You can’t have a properly proportioned wagon without it.
This is exactly the kind of crap I try to avoid.
Floaty, cumbersome, jacked sedans.. with a hatch out back, not enough room for a toothpick… yet advertised with an awd unit for the 2% that might travel in the snow.. albiet with the wrong tires.
I grew up with Accords… putting 100k on one in 2-3yrs.
Putting another 150k on another in 5-6yrs.
I wont be buying another…
Not until at least a model change.. cause this is getting nasty.
My only hope..
Civic hatch..
The rest.. is lost.
And I agree..
How in the hell.. did we go from a Accord wagon.. that was jacked.. to a half assed Accord that didnt even involve any extra sheetmetal. If anything.. THEY CUT BACK!
We hauled a new stove home Sunday from 100 miles away in our ’99 CR-V. We could not have done it with a trailer or a pickup because the evening came with a frog strangler rain. Stove was laid on it’s back in the cargo area (seats folded down). The CR-V saved us yet another delivery charge.
I thought about alternatives and really the only thing similar in interior size and vehicle light weight would have one of those boxy mini-wagons from the 80s and early 90s. Most of the Asian car companies offered them at some point. I never liked the looks of those and so we have a CR-V. No real gas mileage penalty. Usable space. AWD for bad weather. Can haul stuff or pull our little trailer. Not fast either but not bad.
The alternatives are bigger SUVs like Saturn Outlooks that belong to family and friends which is EXCELLENT but huge and a pain to park IMHO and which gobbles up every last sq ft of a garage.
Or my Mother’s Envoy. Again pretty big – takes up the entire half of the garage making it hard to walk around and hard to park again. And thirsty. No thanks. I have to live with the vehicle even when I’m not hauling a bunch of people or something big. Not really any faster than my little CR-V unless you want to pay for 12 mpg on a regular basis.
No, I think the CUV is a very useful vehicle for folks who normally haul four or less people. For folks like us who occasionally need AWD or to tow something. It’s not a truck. It’s a heavy duty car.
I’d prefer a wagon but seriously I’d have to buy an E-class Merc to get that much room (the E-class has the width but not the height).
No reason for the American car market to narrow itself down to 3-5 different types of vehicles because certain vehicles are “uncool” according to a certain portion of America. If anything we need MORE variety but not every manufacturer needs to have a product in every class IMHO. I’d prefer to have real choice – do I want a wagon or a CUV or a full EV or a hybrid or a Eurovan/Sprinter style van or a minivan or a customized fullsized van?
What auto manufacturers need to do is learn to build smaller batches of vehicles at a profit so they like Honda could make the CR-V gen 1 and the Element from similar components and still provide the customer with a different product. NOT like GM where the same vehicle gets 6 different names and six different grilles and we are supposed to believe that these are unique vehicles.
AND we the consumer (or auto magazine publisher) need to quit criticizing auto makers for not providing us with a Rolls Royce like product at Aveo prices. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t criticize some of them from time to time but we seem to collectively criticize them ALL the time even when they are making pretty good products.
If you don’t like their products then quietly spend your money elsewhere. I think Detroit is showing evidence that folks aren’t interested in their products, their marketing or their excuses.
We are too quick to complain that a product is a total piece of **** when it does not meet our every last expectations. No – it’s a good product, just not a great product. If the manufacturer says “good enough” then fine they might not get my business at their intended price point.
I’m so bummed I missed this story while it was fresh, so I could boast about pinching off better looking loaves almost every week. I thought the new TSX wagon would’ve been HOT! I was already hurling at the new Accord, but now they do this?! Pathetic…
I chose a pre-owned Lexus RX400 Hybrid. It’s the best of all worlds; AWD, decent mileage, quiet, roomy, tricked out, and cushy beyond belief!
Look at how pretty this looks. Why would you ever change this?
http://tinyurl.com/kmkkcl