There are certain types of vehicles that we will likely never drive between now and forever.
As an American stuck in the bureaucratic mess that is federal safety regulations, I will likely never have a kei car or an Ariel Atom in my garage. Europeans, in turn, may never enjoy the wonders of the last generation Ford Taurus X, or the non-pedestrian friendly Lincoln Town Car with its bulbous instead of flattish bumper.
Then we have those motorized chariots that many believe should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Environmentalists are stereotypically considered to be hateful of SUV’s. Young folks can often times hate the full-sized boats of the modern day. Elderly folks are considered to have an aversion towards hard riding sports cars. And though plenty of convertibles are available in today’s market, precious few folks ever put one anywhere close to their shopping list.
Sometimes it’s hate. Other times it’s a practical concern. Then there are those market segments that have been crossed off our list due to innumerable years of torturous experiences.
So let me ask you, what market segment could you live without?
Note: For those who have asked other writers and editors at TTAC, I can be reached directly at steve.lang@thetruthaboutcars.com .
CUV’s. And now that my wife no longer does real estate, SUV’s. Also, classic full-sized American cars (including the Chrysler 300/Dodge Daytona, which is what passes for the genre today).
CUV’s. And now that my wife no longer does real estate, SUV’s.
+1 Long live the Station Wagon!
+2 on crossovers.
Minivans are more practical and space-efficient. Some are available with AWD too, negating the major “selling point” of a crossover.
There are those who will whine “but minivans are uncool”. And crossovers are?! Forget about it.
More ground clearance on a crossover? Only a slightly, and for 98% of the buying public, it won’t matter. The remaining buyers who actually need ground clearance should get a real SUV – with a low range transfer case – like a Tahoe, 4Runner, or Wrangler.
Compact Crossovers are potentially on my list, because:
– I don’t need the rock-crawling, big-towing or gas-sucking features of a “real” SUV or truck.
– As I frequently drive poorly-grated gravel roads, and poorly-plowed winter roads, I could actually use the ground clearance. It’s not a factor most of the time, but when it is, you wish you had it.
– I don’t need the 7+ passenger seating of a minivan.
– In the U.S., we don’t have a lot to pick from for wagons. Even fewer if you’re looking for AWD.
– Compact crossovers have gotten better for fuel economy in the last few years. A 2012 CR-V’s EPA score beats out a 2008 Accord. A CX-5 beats out a 2008 Mazda3.
Besides, the only minivan I can think of is the Mazda5. The others are just FWD or AWD vans. They’re huge and they weigh more than 2 tons. Our 2012 CR-V AWD gets over 29 mpg on the highway and in the low 20s in Charlottesville’s traffic-calmed, stop and go, fuel wasting, dystopian quagmire of a road system.
Me too. CUVs. No need and I honestly prefer a minivan. AMerican or rest-of-the-world varieties. Specially dislike suck things as BMW X whatever.
Like Zackman below, oversized wheels. Hate them! Would like a Mini except for the wheels and pizza platter thing inside.
Like others mentioned, things like X6, Accord Crossthing.
what about that Ssangyong Actyon? FEIO DEMAIS PQP
I don’t get the CUV hate. I occasionally have to deal with snow and unimproved roads, and the extra clearance does make a difference. And for normal driving, it rides, parks, and handles pretty much like a normal car. All vehicles are compromises, the CUV isn’t great at anything but it does a lot of things pretty well, and for those of us who can’t afford to keep a stable of vehicles that’s a plus. I’d rather see soccer moms piloting CUVs instead the full size SUVs they were all driving a decade ago.
+1 @Russycle
I find the CUV a great answer for people needs and WANTS. My mother who has back problems hated getting out of our low Civic. A full size minivan was too big for her needs & a CUV is just so easy to get in & out of.
I’ll take a minivan over a Mazda 5. A Sienna is nice to ride in. The Mazda 5 is not as refined as a good van. I live where parking is not an issue and the Mazda has nothing over vans & SUV’s in terms of MPG or price. It does have a manual.
We cannot tell the market to like or dislike something. I like a wagons like others here on TTAC. The public seems to ignore the segment & see that it is the perfect car. Can’t win them all.
Agreed on all. Especially 2WD SUV’s. What is the point?
“2WD SUV’s. What is the point?”
Boat towing. The SUV provides interior space for the family and RWD is better for getting traction to pull the trailer up the boat ramp. Driving in deep snow is a non-issue for at least half of the US population. 2WD saves money at purchase and at the fuel pump.
Absolutely love the picture. Then again, I’m a sucker for kittens.
How about the “I’m not a SUV or CUV, but I’m sporty or something” class.
You know, like the BMW X6, Infiniti FX, etc. Actually, I’d put the Accord Crosstour in there as well (in an even less desirable class).
Agreed. IMHO, these vehicles have no redeeming qualities and are therefore a pure waste. They are a waste of engineering and design resources, a waste of natural resources, a waste of space, and a waste of money. That said, I don’t begrudge those who buy them – it is a free market after all.
Segment I would ever absolutely never buy?
A pickup truck.
I have no use for one.
I could live without CUV’s/SUV’s if there were more wagons with 7+ passenger seating (are there ANY?)
I could probably also live without an auto trans existing, although my wife couldn’t :-). I’ve met very very few auto trans I’ve actually liked.
I could probably also live without an auto trans existing, although my wife couldn’t
+1 (but in my case fiance)
I used to think that too many people drove a pickup for no good reason. Now I want one. As a home owner and a father there are so many times where it would be great to have one in my life.
Some Volvo wagons could seat 7 with rear-facing seats in the cargo area. It’d be a tight squeeze but I’ve seen 7 people fit in one with that configuration.
You can reportedly buy an Atom: http://www.arielatom.com/buy_an_atom.php
And in CA, you can reportedly buy a rolling chassis, put your own engine in it, and have it registered street legal! http://sector111cars.com/ariel-atom-3-roller/
As for vehicles? 80% of the SUVs and 80% of the pickups: The owners would be better served with minivans or station wagons, except that these more efficient vehicles are deeply uncool…
As a motorcyclist I’d love to have an Atom. I just can’t afford a 40 grand 2 seat toy, so instead I bought a used Miata. I wish I had gotten one a couple decades ago. Even in winter, the top was down most days.
But back to the original question, I could live without CUVs. Not enough of an improvement in mpg over a minivan and far less interior space.
“…so instead I bought a used Miata.”
I think the S2000 is the closest a four wheeled, mass produced car can get to a motorcycle. Especially when the revs rise and it really starts to sing.
S2000 feels so big. The hood is muscle car size.
The S2000’s amazing. I’ve driven an AP2 that belongs to a friend and it’s amazingly precise compared to anything else. A BMW M3 feels like an overweight boat with a truck-like gearchange compared to the S2000
+1 for those posters who have already called them out: the CUV/SAV/POS. Long live the wagon and minivan!
Although 90% of buyers of traditional SUVs and pickups don’t need them, they do serve a towing/hauling purpose and for that reason, the segment itself is not totally useless, unlike crossovers which are vanity purchases, pure and simple.
The crossover. Am I the only one tired of looking at these things? Why is it so difficult to decide between an SUV or wagon? Personally, I miss wagons. They seem to be making a comeback – thankfully.
In future automotive era’s, the crossover vehicle will be remembered as a desperate industry folly.
Some CUVs are okay, like the Mazda CX-5, but I’d do away with the 4000+ lb. boats like the Ford Edge. It’s almost immoral the way Ford markets this 17-mpg pig to young singles. Oh, and count me in for nuking the Honda Crosstour and Toyota Venza, and while I’m deciding the fate of the automotive world, I might as well nix any Acura with the ugly chrome grill.
The Venza is actually a pretty good vehicle. If you put aside the bling-grade rims—which afflict everything from the Chevy Sonic on up—it’s actually fairly well-packaged.
Just rode in one recently. Really cheap interior and the ride was actually quite rough and not that quiet. I blame the 20+ inch rims for it’s “clomping” ride quality. The steeply raked windshield made the dash huge and the close roof made me feel like I was wearing a baseball cap pulled down. Pretty disappointing overall.
The Venza is a pretty nice, proper wagon. Not a fan of the grille, though.
The Venza is not a “proper wagon” by my definition. A proper wagon would simply be a Camry with a wagon rear instead of a trunk, not this thing.
I was at a local auto show about a year ago. I had fun referring to the Venza on display as a “nice station wagon”. The reps cringed every time I said it, but that just encouraged me more.
But, when you get right down to it, aren’t most CUVs little more than tall satin wagons?
It is a wagon, and not a bad one at that.
For what it’s worth, tall cars are not a new phenomenon. Before the mid-50s nearly everything had chair-height seating, upright seating and near walk-in roof height. It was the long-low-sleek of the following era, where cars stopped being designed for people and were designed for designers instead, that established the low-roofer as the norm.
SUVs, and then CUVs, and now tall sedans, are only bringing back the kind of car that people actually like to be in…
…except for the rims, and that’s designer wankery at work again.
@ Felix Hoenikker
When the original Highlander came out my old boss called it a “Camry on Stilts”. The CUV’s are all tall wagons with all the good & bad that brings.
Like TTAC Haters.
I would like to see an honest comparison of a Venza to a 1992-96 Camry wagon and tell me what the Venza does better. The huge wheels of the Venza reduce the cargo area and, as pointed out, make the ride harsher. I don’t really understand why any passenger car needs wheels bigger than 15 inches, maybe 16.
Motorcycles.
In theory, I understand why people buy them and why they would be fun, but they have no use to me and I’ll never get one. Therefore they are only really a nuisance to me….there’s at least 10 times a day where some asshat has to rev his Harley or modified-exhaust crotchrocket down my street. I could do without that.
And of course the useless CUV, that segment really needs to die…it exemplifies everything that is wrong with cars today, and none of the good stuff. I’d have a more live and let live attitude about them if it wasn’t preventing us from getting actual wagons, but it is. I have to admit, I lose just a little bit of respect for anyone when I find out they drive a CUV.
I enjoy motocycles and I ride them. However, I don’t understand why such obnoxious, loud exhausts are legal. I have a neighbor who has an old CBR with some insane aftermarket pipe. Just cruising down our street it is well over 100db, and makes my 2-year-old hold her ears and cry. It’s not cool or badass or intimidating, it’s just inconsiderate. For what? Maybe a couple horsepower gain?
If anyone else did anything that loud in public, they’d surely be in trouble with police. Not sure why bikes get a free pass, and I’m wholly unconvinced of the “straight-pipes-save-lives” argument. That said, I wouldn’t nix bikes as a whole… But I’d be okay with a 100db limit at WOT.
Yep, that’s pretty my thinknig too….the unnecessarily loud noise and having to deal with it multiple times a day gets annoying.
And like I said, I have nothing against bikes otherwise. I can definitely see the appeal. But in the spirit of “If I’m not doing it then it must be stupid”…I could live without motorbikes.
“I’d have a more live and let live attitude about them if it wasn’t preventing us from getting actual wagons, but it is.”
Actually its not. If U.S. consumers would buy wagons instead of CUVs that’s what manufacturers would sell. There’s only a small fraction of the car buying public willing to put their money where their mouth is. This is why there’s a decrease in the number of wagons available and why models previously offered here aren’t any more
Sure they do. The majority of people out there don’t really think about car purchases as obsessively as you or I might so they put more emphasis on what the neighbors are driving. They look around and see what others are driving, and start looking at those choices too. The more CUV’s that are out there, the more they become the norm to buy. CUV sales are negatively affecting wagon sales, as they would be what a lot of people would go for if they weren’t around.
And the less wagons that people buy, the less wagons to choose from because manufactures dont want to fill the segment, and then the less money going into wagon development…leading to even fewer wagon choices.
It’s a death spiral of doom….just like with the the manual transmission. Good luck trying to find a wagon with a stick these days!
What’s sad about it is that CUV’s are just raised hatch/wagons anyway….just with more weight and poorer driving dynamics and sometimes fuel economy.
I don’t buy this arguement. It is a chicken and egg situation in the US. There are virtually NO station wagons available to buy in the “normal” price ranges anymore. So how can consumers choose wagons if there are none to choose? Automakers figured out years ago that people would pay more for SUVs when that fad hit. And since the the choice is to pay more and still get wagon functionality or do without, people paid it. Then add the extra dig of CAFE to it (wagons are cars, SUVs are trucks, different rules) and there is that much MORE incentive to nuke wagons from orbit. Now with the runup in gas prices, instead of going back to wagons we are getting “SUV-lites”, aka CUVs, which truly ARE just wagons, but 500lbs+ too heavy with 30% extra drag-inducing frontal area. Both most excellent for fuel economy…. And then finally, for those wagons that ARE still on the market – how much marketing money gets put to them? None. Zip, zilch, nada. I have NEVER seen an ad for the BMW 3-series wagon, but you see them all the time for the X3. I cannot count how many folks have told me they have no idea that my 3-series wagon existed.
And note that in the one case I can think of in the “normal” price range where a maker sells both a wagon and a CUV, I believe the wagon outsells the CUV. That would be VW with the Jetta Wagon vs Tiguan.
Lets face it, the average consumer is a sheep, and buys what they are told to buy.
@krhodes1 — as a datapoint, the Mazda6 wagon was cancelled in the US because the wagon and hatchback combined made less than 10% of sales. The Focus wagon was a similar disaster when it was introduced in ’00.
As for “same model” comparisons, you could add the Ford Edge and the Freestyle/Taurus X, which overlapped for a while. Ford sold more Edges in the last two years than they sold Freestyles in the full 5 year run. Trust me, they would have loved to sell more of them.
A big factor in this is psychological — a lot of buyers (particularly women) prefer the “command seating” of a CUV. They like sitting higher up. Enthusiasts may not share that preference, but it’s real, and drives the product mix.
Or to put it another way: a lot of potential wagon buyers will buy a CUV, but a lot of CUV buyers would never consider a wagon. So long as that’s the case, wagons are going to remain scarce in the US market.
i have disdain for those useless cars out there… the Murano convertible, the high performance SUVs like X5M and the X6Ms
High performance SUVs FTW, X5M and the AMG versions of the M-, GL- and G-class being the worst offenders. Nothing says “Maybe driving my $100,000 twin-turbo SUV to the Short Hills Mall at 25mph will make up for the gaping hole in my heart from marrying a pudgy managing director at Goldman Sachs who I never see anyway” like a G55 AMG.
Murano CrossCabrio not that gr8. Range Rover Evoque drop top is all there.
The Evoque does indeed take the cake along with the Murano convertible. Saw them both the other day within a 5-car distance from each other at our Neiman Marcus parking structure. Jaw-dropping for all the wrong reasons.
SUVs. I hate the way they block my vision in traffic and in parking lots.
CUV is too easy, and besides they ARE functional. I’m going with 2-door front-wheel drive “coupes” that have no performance upgrades to justify the loss of sedan functionality. They are the modern equivalent of chest wigs. Accord Coupe, base Civic Coupe, Elantra Coupe, etc…. I’m looking in your direction.
Is the Chevy Monte Carlo still in a segment? I’ll call it “Large 2-door non-sporty coupes.” (That way we steer clear of the Mustang with this classification.) There used to be lots of these, like the Olds Cutlass Supreme of the early 80s. Basically, I don’t get why anyone would want a sedannish car that lacks rear doors. Accord and Altima are probably in this group. If you’re going to drive a car that fits two people comfortably and not much cargo, why not get something sportier? Or go the other direction, add a couple of doors and get something more practical.
My segment is similar to yours, don1967, but I’d allow the C-class cars (Civic, Elantra) to exist because there are some people who want a small car for 1 or 2 people most of the time. Still not what I would choose, but the coupes can sometimes be cheaper, plus some people like the way they look.
They used to refer to that segment as a ‘Personal Luxury Coupe’. Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass, Riviera, Lincoln Mark Series, larger T-bird and Cougar all used to be classified as such (at one time or another). I would classify Mustang and the like as pony cars.
“Basically, I don’t get why anyone would want a sedannish car that lacks rear doors.”
Speaking as someone who is into the PLC segment, my thoughts are why would I want a sedan unless I want to move passengers around. Personally I don’t want a sedan at all, it feels too ‘family’. I want a coupe which is roughly the size of a normal car but gives me a little bit of sports flair.
I’d have gotten the sedan if the EX-L was still available with a manual. As it is, I have zero regrets about getting the coupe. Over 90% of the time it’s just 1 or 2 people but the back is very comfy when the kids do ride. And the trunk is great, unlike the shoebox of the Altima.
As a tall person whose rear seat is used a handful of times a year for people-carrying, I lament the loss of the personal luxury segment. Easier ingress/egress, better side visibility, and much easier to throw a briefcase in the back (no need to open two doors).
I can in no way justify any recent Monte Carlo, though. What a disaster.
the oxymoronic “4 door coupe” segment. yes the Merc CLS is a sweet looking car, but everyone has tried to immitate it with prety much widespread failure (except the VW CC). They combine miserable rear visibility with miserable rear head room, and cram it all under a ba-donk-a-donk butt on the car. It’s like someone said that if we take all the worst aspects of a sedan and mix them with all the worst aspects of a hatchback, maybe people will buy them instead of wagons.
Just give the friggin wagon back, already. BMW has admitted it’s a mistake, everyone else should on it, too.
Agreed. Damn it! If it has FOUR doors, it is not, and never will be, a coupe.
Agreed.
I second the motion regarding 4-door coupes — IMHO they don’t even look good.
I’m going to disagree. The Mercedes CLS, Audi A7/S7, VW CC and BMW Gran Coupe are all attractive, at least to my eyes. They give up some back seat functionality but for most it wasn’t really needed in the first place.
I’m also a fan of the “four-door coupe” styling genre. But I also agree that referring to a four-door anything a “coupe” is silly.
I suppose there is a need for all types of vehicles, but a “segment” I can live without? Here goes:
1. Obscene-looking/out-sized wheel makers and rentals.
2. Stick-on portholes, B pillar/C pillar/plastic triangle/wheel well chrome manufacturers.
3. Pine-tree-shaped mirror hanger air fresheners.
4. “Fart can” muffler makers.
5. Cheap, ill-fitting aero-style bumper covers/air dams/rocker panel moldings and all other boy-racer garbage makers.
6. Multi-thousand-watt sub-woofer makers.
7. All other car-related junk that ticks me off.
yeah, what he said.
Also, get of my lawn!
Dear God, I saw someeone put a set of portholes on a ’96 Regal last week.
I suppose that’s a bit more “correct” than the ones I saw on a Jeep Grand Cherokee (at least the former was a Buick) but having owned a ’96 Regal GS, that car was not designed to wear them.
Geez.
I’d have to say every segment except commercial trucks, commercial vans, wagons, hatchbacks and compact trucks should be outlawed.
So that means no more mommy vans, SUVs, CUVs, useless sedans and full size pickups owned by people that don’t need them. I’m sure a lot of commenters will disagree with me, but people used to get by with a lot more basic transportation in the olden days and things worked out okay. I’m substituting modern hatchbacks instead of sedans because they’re much more practical than sedans.
Those ginormous “luxury” SUV’s like Escalade, Navigator, Armada, etc. They always seem to be driven by skeletal suburban hausfraus who have no one else in the vehicle with them. They are rolling odes to wretched excess.
Yes, the full-size SUV and its additional-manufacturer-profit cousin, the luxury SUV are first on my list to eradicate.
Eliminating this segment would also eliminate the ugliest vehicle roaming the roads today–the vomit-inducing QX56.
+1 and get rid of small women driving large suvs! you would think the insurance industry would be all over this
How about just subjecting all these types of transportation (SUV/CUV/Crossover/Whatever) to existing CAFE and crash-test requirements? These vehicles are predominantly used as passenger vehicles therefore they should be classified as such.
Such a move would doom these scourges of the road. :)
It’s the illusion of safety that appeals to these “keletal suburban hausfraus”. They are tall so they can see everything (except when they’re surrounded by other hausfraus in SUVs), and they are big so everybody but them has to suffer the consequences of their bad driving.
They can see everything but the pedestrians, the motorcycles and the compact cars around them… I really hate those things and I don’t care if they can afford to buy/fuel/repair them, it’s a waste ‘casue they are generally alone. 6,000 lbs of vehicle and 350HP to haul a sub-130lb human.
Why can’t they have an itch to drive tiny roadsters? I’d feel alot safer.
Fullsize Crossovers (Crosstour, Enclave, Traverse, etc). Even if you like crossovers, these are pretty hard to love.
And the rear visibility sucks. Worse than the minivans I have driven lately. Saturn Outlook – I’m looking at you.
I don’t see the point of any 4-door car with a snug backseat. What practicality is there in a Cruze or a Fiesta or a Charger if you have to bump your head getting into a backseat that forces your knees in the air and jammed into the back of the front seat while your head hits the headliner at every bump?
@getacargetacheck just for fun try to get into a Hyundai Volester back seat. Then try to get out. @6’2 I had to laugh at myself.
The dreaded crossover is the one I can live without. They seem to have been made with one goal in mind — to NOT be a minivan or wagon.
A CUV is not as road-capable as a proper car. It is not as off-road capable as a proper SUV. Its cargo area is tall, not long, so it’s less practical than a traditional wagon. It is less family friendly than a boxy minivan.
It excels at nothing except sales. It is a Phil Collins tune.
But, the backseat is spacious in some of the crossovers. They are the answer to the lack of fullsized stationwagons. That’s the problem I have with some sedans. Cramped rear seat area. Pick some generous interior dimensions and then design the exterior around it rather than the opposite like some vehicles seem to demonstrate.
I rode in a full sized Chevy pickup 4-door this weekend. I was surprised to see that the Chevy was wider but honestly, I didn’t have any more knee or leg space in back than some of the smallish Honda/Toyota CUVs. The seat itself wasn’t any more comfortable either.
In other words, I can haul my family in a four cylinder CUV to grandmas house or away on vacation and skip the idea of a huge pickup for interior space.
Those weird crossover thingy abominations like the X6, Crossturd and ZDX. They are nonsensical. A friends wife has a ZDX. First of all it is ugly. Secondly, it is rediculously impractical, actually hard to get in and out of. Oh, and did I mention that it is ugly? I will never forgive BMW for starting this Frankenstein segment with the equally awful X6. Shame on them.
I’ll say supercars. They are fun to look at and I’m sure they are a blast to drive. That said, most of us will never own or drive one and if the segment disappeared we wouldn’t miss it.
Last month I’d probably agree with you to some extent. Then I happened to find myself in Maranello, and I happened to rent a 458 Italia ($150 for 20 minutes of Italian countryside driving….who am I to say no??). Jesus Jones was that a mind-altering experience….honestly one of the best moments of my life. Sheer intoxication. If the only reason for super cars to exist would be to blow your mind and shatter every memory of every other car you ever drove before, I’m for them.
The only problem is having to drive any other car ever again. I thought I was happy with a Cayman….it feels like a Ford Focus in comparison. And I just know I will never ever own something as awesome as a 458, which is downright depressing.
So you know what, maybe you’re right. Supercars needs to die……if only to make us feel better about ourselves.
I knew there was a reason to read my way to the bottom instead of just hitting reply. If you’re going to make the practicality argument about any other segment (like those idiotic BMW X6 things), you have to make it about supercars as well.
Maybe we don’t wipe the whole segment, but there’s no way they need to be crash certified and street legal. Sell ’em to the trackday guys with cash and trailers and keep ’em off the streets.
Convertibles! I’ve never understand their appeal. Why pay more for less? You’re riding around in them and your head’s exposed to the harsh sun’s ray, dirt, dust, and you’ll be inhaling exhaust smoke. Plus it’s noisy as hell. Wind in your hair? I don’t see its appeal at all. To me it seem to be as appealing as feces in your face.
Plus fabric roof are unsafe and unsecure (thieves can just slit them open to get to your stuff inside), and does not last long. folding metal tops are complicated, expensive and heavy. Neither solution is good. I thought they’re supposed to be extinct with the 1976 Eldorado. Sad to see them dinosaurs still roaming around today.
BTW Supercars are a close second.
Yes, let’s all drive a Camry. Really, anything fun to drive should be eliminated immediately because how dare they not drive a toaster on wheels!
In reality, I highly recommend you go and drive a Miata of any generation. Then you will get it. I had a Miata for 5 years and it was by far the most fun car I ever owned. And I rarely own boring cars.
You seem to say that I am against fun cars. Miatas are great because of how they drive, not because they’re convertible. If I ever had a Miata, it would have the optional hard top permanently installed. And I wish they make a permanent hard top miatas (possibly for lower price). Saves weight without all the fabric roof hardware.
Convertible is not always equal to fun. In fact being convertible has nothing to do with driving fun. The 1976 Cadillac Eldorado convertible I mentioned is an example.
You cite inhaling pollution and being burned by the sun. True — I had a Miata as my only car for 4 years, and I know the drawbacks well.
But don’t forget that there are also drives where you’ll be inhaling the smell of fresh-cut hay as the shadows grow long and the swallows zip and cheep just above your head.
When conditions and roads are just right, a convertible is very, very good for the brain. And the smaller the car, the better.
I bought my 03 miata last year. To the other poster, the hard top they sell for miatas won’t provide any roll over protection, neither will the PHT’s. It’s a great little car. It’s a great antidote to my 01 camry.
@MrWhopee…..Love your idea. Stop making them today….In ten years my Mustang drop top will be worth a fortune.
The segment that I detest?….Large CUV’s!/crossovers. All of them. Even the GM’s. The big monsters bring to mind the “Homermobile”..They are not a truck,or a Station wagon,certainly,not an offroader. If you have kids and dogs,and all that stuff. Buy a minivan.
I if I wanted, or needed something that big. Give me a Yukon or a Tahoe.
Wow – never heard anyone state a dislike for a convertible. I don’t like a convertible in metro-area type traffic nor do I like them at 75 mph on the interstate but there is no better way to do a sub-50 mph wander through the mtns or along the coast on a two lane road. I’ve driven convertibles really hard too. There are certainly better kinds of track cars but as we all know any vehicle is a compromise.
Tough for a person with a mere mortal budget to have highly specialized vehicles for every occasion. Big vehicles for big cargo, small cars to save gasoline, trucks for any towing, track cars for track days and luxury sedans for a night out with the wife. Consequently my family hauler is used to tow my utility trailer and carry us out into the boonies on dirt roads and ford creeks. My little convertible has been known to carry project supplies home from the hardware store. Ever seen a roofrack on a convertible? I’ve got one. Perfectly able to carry 100 lbs of lumber for the distance I need to go. I really need to put a trailer hitch on it so I can tow our utility trailer in case my wife has the other car.
Maybe you aren’t an outside person? I know people like that. They don’t like to be hot or cold or get their hair messed up. Insects of all types are unwelcome all the time.
They cost more b/c they are more complicated to build. and are generally made in smaller quantities.
The modern convertible is much quieter and comes with all the creature comforts like a/c and good heat to lessen discomfort of the lousy metro-type commute. Go ride in a 50s or 60s British roadster. Big difference. ;)
I would argue that the modern convertible is almost as nice as the modern steel top car and for those folks who don’t like soft tops, there are always the impressive retractable hard tops sold by most of the lux brands. I really like the VW Eos and the VW Golf convertible sold in Europe. Restyle it slightly – wheels and some trim details and I’d be plenty happy driving it. Six speed manual please… Over here though of course it is generally equipped to be bland-bland-bland to appeal to the mall dwelling women.
We have kids so our convertible choice was a big compromise – safety (rollbar, airbags, ABS), reasonable backseat, easy on fuel and cheap(ish) to buy – consequently we own an old Cabrio. Not the manliest car but still capable of doing what we want a convertible to do.
Most larger SUVs and pickups. I do realize some people actually need them for work but leaving 2-3 models and eliminating everything else should do it.
Then there is the Prius. Specifically Prius drivers. Can we eliminate them along with the cars?
I saw an ariel atom in downtown Chicago last week, so it’s more an issue of money and taste rather than big bad government. I’d say the majority of SUVs, CUVs and the like that are vanity pieces for the owners but a real hazard for traffic due to their mass in collisions and the inability to see around or through them. Though the way most new cars are built you can’t see through them anymore, either.
Every segment but the segment(s) that hold the car(s) I currently own, or want to own in the future, because I have no understanding that others could possibly want something different than what I have chosen.
Small cars designed to be hatchbacks shaped and shifted to become odd looking sedans (the Fiesta, Echo, and Versa come to mind)
Jacked up trucks made for the desert or mud bog (Ford Raptor)but their natural home seems to be in the city.
Whatever you call the Crossturd, the ZDX, The X6, The 550GT, etc I can do without.
To me they represent the nadir of modern car design.
“Jacked up trucks made for the desert or mud bog (Ford Raptor)but their natural home seems to be in the city.”
Seems to me your fight should be with the owner of said vehicle, not the vehicle itself.
@T.W
You mostly see Raptors and jacked up trucks in the city because you hardly ever hang out in the desert or mud bog. I mostly see seagulls in the mountains because I hardly ever go to the sea. See?
First off, love the photo. Don’t usually see a cat doing that, but a dog? definitely.
That said, I’m a sucker for most hatchbacks and 3 door wagons, just because. :-) Actually, hatchbacks to me are the best of both worlds, they tend to handle better than most wagons, but retain most of the utility of a wagon – often at a price that is less than most wagons in a model range.
I can do without sedans, but I see why they exist, to be more “traditional” I guess.
But really, I would love to see the CUV and all larger SUV’s go as they are simply too big, too much of a gas hog and most people don’t really need anything that huge anyway. Most can get away with something more along the size of an earlier Explorer and be more than fine.
I would love to see the huge jacked up trucks become outlawed as street vehicles and I mean, jacked up so the frame is level with the tops of some cars! I once saw a Hummer (the big assed one) which was jacked up so high that it almost towered over my 2WD Ranger – in the freeway no less!
Definitely keep a small truck like the Ford Ranger as its size can come in handy for many things where a full sized is too much. In fact, I can see it being a great backroads traveler, especially if the road isn’t paved and you need something with sturdy wheels and tires, that’d be it, with a canopy so you can lock your camping gear in the back for security.
And finally, the CUV, it’s a mashup of several types of cars and I don’t see it being all its cracked up to be. The Flex, the Edge never did appeal to me, but the original Explorer, that did impress me when I loaded a love seat into one back when they were new while working at a furniture store that was closing.
I would love to see the overly large wheels go as they tend to make any car look overwrought and clownish. The Chrysler 300 being a great example where it not only sits low, but the huge wheel wells just look out of proportion to the car’s overall design, which then requires overly tall side panels to compensate, no wonder it tends to look semi gansta.
SUTs – a four door SUV with a bizarrely small (and usually completely clean) truck bed squeezed in at the back. No style and no reason.
Agreed. You beat me to it.
Amen- Truckettes with 4ft beds are just ridiculous.
+1. As much as I hate full size SUVs, I can think of hardly any situations where you can’t get more utility out of a SUV than an SUT.
Hey those 4ft trucklets can haul alot of camping gear or alot of junkyard car parts including engines and transmissions. Also, hardware store trips where 4×8 panels of building materials isn’t the goal. Use a trailer for those occasions and all the other occasions – like hauling bags of flower bed stuff (shrubs, pine bark, flowers) – perfect for a small truck. Big 5 gals of paint. A new grille. A new TV. Lawnmowers.
The need for a small truck has not diminished, just the number of people who want one. You think the small beds are goofy looking? I think a dually hauling 300 lbs of hardware store stuff is goofy. It’s all back at the tailgate too b/c nobody can reach over the sides of the bed to move it to the front.
Point the first..
I disagree, I actually like truckletts.
But sadly this brings me to, point the second..
The SUT segment is already long, long dead.
It’s not a market segment but an automotive segment: Oil-smoke belching monsters. I saw a pick-up yesterday spewing a big cloud of brown-gray smog. That one vehicle probably ate up the last 20 years worth of incremental emission controls of about 10,000 cars.
Yes, drive a diesel if you want but keep your freaking injectors tuned and keep up on the basic maint. so you don’t spew black smoke everywhere you go.
If you drive a gas car with an issue that causes stinky oil and unburned gas in the exhaust, well I hope your economic situation improves so you can fix it or junk it.
Any segment a Ferrari or Maserati are in!!!!
I mean, come on…what are these and when will we ever experience them?
They won’t even let me sit in one at the auto show without a portfolio review!
“I mean, come on…what are these and when will we ever experience them?”
In other words if I can’t have any fun neither can you.
That’s pretty much the entire point of this thread…
so many people voted for CUVs and SUVs so I’d vote for compact sedans. I don’t see a point in having cars with enough boot space but no passenger space, such as the Fiesta sedan, Versa and others.
here in Brazil Chevrolet sells not only one or two but FOUR compact sedans (Classic, Prisma, Cobalt and Sonic) and I can’t think of any word to describe it but NONSENSE. and the Sonic is even marketed as a premium product…
THANK YOU! Finally. Someone singles out the bloody sedan. And as a matter of fact, I say all sedans can go.
They are comfortable, but so are wagons and CUVs. The ones that are comfortable usually don’t handle much better a CUV or wagon anyway. They can do anything useful beyond taking four passengers, which every other segment can do with ease. We don’t target them because we are used to them.
I knew this was going to be one big CUV bitching fest though. Seriously. I love how we can all hate of them whilst failing to recognize why they are so popular.
The appeal of the trunk is that you can just toss stuff back there and not have to deal with smelling it or hearing it shake and rattle all over the place.
But the tiny trunk openings on modern cars leave something to be desired.
Whatever segment the BMW 5 Series GT belongs to… I am not sure if that is even a segment.
Any vehicle segment that’s a compromise between two other segments, but is inferior to both, and costs more to boot.
I’m not sure I get the full-size crossovers. Does the CX-7 qualify? Or the Honda Ridgeline? They still get bad gas mileage, they’re underpowered, they can’t tow or carry much. Why not just buy a damn truck?
I had the pleasure of borrowing a 2010 F-150 FX trim truck and it was wonderful; plush ride, great, visibility, 20 MPG no matter how I drove it; it carried and towed things; huge back seats; massive options list. If I weren’t a “car guy”, I reckon I’d get me one ‘them trucks.
I know that there is a lot of CUV hate out there, but I would rather see these on the road than huge SUVs. Plus CUVs are as close an many auto makers come to making a wagon. I agree that luxury crossovers are silly. The BMW X things and Infiniti FXs do not really serve much of a purpose. At least BMW makes a midsize wagon, these are a lot more practicle for most people than an X5. it would be great if the Infiniti G came in a wagon(I don’t mean the EX). But I do not understand the disdain for the Honda Crosstour and Toyota Venza. They gets decent fuel mileage, they do not need to take up two parking spaces, they don’t block your line of sight if you are behind one, and they seem to be practical family cars. If I were in the market for a midsize car the Crosstour would be at the top of my list.
The market segment that I and 99% of people can live with out are the $120,000 plus luxury sedans and sports cars.
I have to pile on the CUV-bashing bandwagon. I just had a two day rental of a Chevy Craptiva. While it was not terrible, it was not much good either. And 22.5mpg in ALL HIGHWAY driving. That is patently offensive, and about what I would expect my pig of a WJ Jeep Grand Cherokee to achieve on the same drive. And the Jeep actually will go off-road and tows a 5500lb boat!
But a close second goes to pickup trucks that are used as cars. Utterly pointless.
Yep. A full-size truck can easily stay within an MPG or two of 22 mpg. Pointless.
@krhodes1
Trucks get used as cars partly because it’s still cheaper than owning/licencing/insuring/maintaining one vehicle instead of two. This assumes you frequently use the truck for work, play, Home Depot or dump runs. Most assume that is never the case since they’re only going off a snap-shot in time.
Even if it is the case, so what? It’s a muscle car with a huge open trunk. Current muscle cars are also getting over 20 MPG hwy. That’s darn good and totally worth it.
I don’t think all CUVs are as bad as the Craptiva. Otherwise they won’t be so popular. Experiencing the worst of any vehicle segment will probably make you feel negative about the segment (or the brand.) That’s why I am somewhat confused with the existence of this rental-only duds. Won’t that lower overall perception of GM cars? It’s not like people are going to check out the Equinox after driving the Craptiva… Thank God OUR Captiva is the European version, not the US rental-grade one. Checked out one the other day, it’s pretty nice, especially by our lower standard.
Show me a car with real elbow and shoulder room, big glass, an upright seating position. Show me a full width car at all.
Show me a car that doesn’t make every posted speed limit in this country outright punitive.
Show me a car with the hood at deer level instead of the windshield.
Show me a car I can ignore potholes in, or take over a median with a ditch to get out of a traffic jam.
Pointless? Outside of street parking and winding roads a truck is a nicer car than a car.
Cross dressers and cute utes as they are often refereed to in slang. Bring on the wagons, 2 door coupes and mid to full size sedans.
Anything from a bailed out automotive manufacturer….
4 door, quad cab plus, long box, dually diesel pickups. For the win.
Dare to be different. I welcome as much choice and diversity when it comes to body styles/classes/sizes… whatever.
Heck, I’d even say, we need more. I may not see any sense in/despise a key car now, but in 10 years I may like/need one, who knows? Let them be!
Sedans, especially with the mail slots that pass for trunk lids these days.
Don’t forget the fact that a lot of them have absolutely useless visibility all round.
Full size SUVs gotta go. Bring back the station wagon in its most splendid glory. A Chevrolet Malibu wagon. A Toyota Camry wagon. A Honda Civic wagon. Bring them back.
Two-seater hybrid – which I guess only one car belongs to, the Honda CR-Z. Can anyone tell me what the point of this thing is? It’s not particularly practical, fast, or efficient. I’m baffled as to why someone would even buy it over a Fit, let alone the numerous other cars in its price range. The CR-Z was DOA when it launched, and the Prius c has truly stuck a fork in it.
The CR-Z takes heat because it’s not a CRX. I get that. When I bought mine last year, I knew it offered a package of compromises: efficient, but not a Prius; grippy, but not fast; modern, but not whiz-bang. A lack of popularity was not lost on me: I’ve seen 6 in New England in the past year. And Honda served up the EX to me for the cost of the base.
After 27,000 miles, here’s what I learned. It’s fun. I’ve gotten 48.2mpg over the car’s life, can fit more in it than the 2000 Civic coupe I had for years, it’s quieter than our TSX was, and I enjoy with it both long commutes and moderately twisty roads.
It’s noteworthy that Marko mentions the Fit. That’s our other car (but it’s not nearly as fun to drive)… Suum cuique!
Stick? I have championed the CR-Z to folks who are looking for a sporty commuter for under $20k.
But most of the time I do, I either get a “That’s nice.” Or a rolling of the eyes.
Given that I drive around in a two-seater… most of the folks probably assume that my prejudices are obvious.
Well. They are. So be it.
Although they were my favorites back in high school, small trucks need to go. There is simply no room for a vehicle that when compared to it’s full-size brethren offers:
less utility
similar fuel economy
usually much worse interiors
only slightly less expensive
Eliminate all the hybrids. I just don’t understand how anyone could justify the complexity and costs that go along with them. Fill the roads with F450’s, Excursions, Escalades, QX56’s, etc. The bigger the better!
Let’s not think of things that don’t need to exist. Let’s put down the categories that should exist instead:
FWD Sedan. Because I need to economically drive to work, and occasionally must tote children/clients in the back.
RWD Sports Sedan. Same as above, but I want it to be fun.
Wagon/hatch. Same as above sedan, but it’s because I haul stuff for kids, pets, etc.
Minivan. Because holy crap do you see how much family and kid crap you can fit in there? And they have AWD if you can’t figure out. snow driving with just the front wheels.
RWD Sports car. For Fun. because racecar.
Jeep. You know I mean wrangler. because rock car.
Pick-up truck. Sometimes you need to pick stuff up.
Van. Because that stuff I picked up needs to be inside.
I’m not counting hybrids, because they all just fit into one of the above categories. Except the CRZ. Because that one is dumb.
So looking at everything above, the only outliers are the SUV/CUV. I can make a small allowance for the full size, because of the 3-kid family that happens to have a boat that needs towing too, but how much of the market is that?
CSB time:
My wife’s car got hit a week ago. We brought it to the body shop and got her a rental. All they had was a Chrysler Town&Country. We don’t have kids yet, but I looked at the space, the size and all the features of the thing, and I’m thinking “holy crap this thing is sweet!” My wife is mortified to drive it. She hates minivans that much, even though she willingly admits there is NO other vehicle that is that capable for a family with 3 kids. She still refuses to ever entertain the idea of owning one even though she agrees there is nothing that touches them utility-wise. Thankfully we’re far enough off from needing something like that so I don’t have to try and convince her.
Duffman I like the way you wife thinks, we need more women like her. Remember NO MA’AM? I want to start NO VA’NS.
Anything that goes over 100mph.
stupid fat fingers. ignore this one, read next one.
Anything that goes grossly over the highest legal speed limit in a given country. Even given some margin for two-lane passes, etc, there is no reason a U.S. vehicle should have the ability to go over, say, 90mph.
Is there a single new car sold in the US that can’t exceed 90mph? This requirement would effectively eliminate all cars currently available!
Additionally, the speed limit is 80mph on certain roads in Texas.
Cloth-top convertibles.
(MMH: My 77 horsepower Mercedes can just make 95. But it’s also ridiculously slow to get to 60, and can make merging or freeway driving on a steep incline less than pleasant.
Without limiters – that anyone can disable, in practice – you can’t have reasonably zippy under-90-some performance and lack a “too high” top speed.
Besides, note that 85mph limits are not unknown in the US, and there are these things called “race tracks” where it’s legal to go roughly as fast as you bloody want.
Is there really that much of a reason to remove that “ability”? Are we plagued with massive death and destruction from people going over 90? And to the extent that happens, aren’t they the same people who’d illegally remove a limiter if they were mandated?)
My vote goes for full- size luxury SUVs/ luxury pickups. Specifically, I mean all versions of the Caddy Escalade, the Lincoln Navigator and (thankfully deceased) Mark LT/ Blackwood, the new Bentley SUV that’s on the way, and the entire Range Rover line. If you need the capability to haul people or stuff that these full- size vehicles are capable of hauling, you can get a Chevy, GMC, or Ford version that will do it better. You can tick the option boxes on any of those “normal” versions to load them to the gills with all of the (exact same) luxury accessories that the premium brands have.
People who really need the capacity of a full- size SUV or pickup buy the regular brand. You’re not going to sink $70K on an Escalade EXT instead of $35K on a Silverado and then use it to haul fence posts or manure around the back 40 of your ranch. People who buy the luxury version are paying for status, not capability or “need.” It’s vulgar, IMO.
Four-door “coupes.” It’s not only a bastardization of the word (I don’t give a crap if Rover did it way back when) but they also compromise on both ends resulting in a vehicle that can’t do either the coupe or the sedan part very. Just give me a proper sport sedan with rear head room/access and a trunk, and call it a day. If I wanted a coupe, I’d buy a coupe.
(That said, I’ll admit I like the CC’s profile and rear quarter.)
Pickups and full size suvs; there are a small minority of drivers who use these as they were intended, most are simply fashion statements.
A big part of their appeal is the plush ride. Full size trucks are surprisingly luxurious inside.
Big SUVs and CUVs. (REal CUVs like the Murano. The Forester is a station wagon.)
OH, and pick-up trucks.
Whatever the hell the Acura ZDX and BMW X6 are classified as (CUV I think?). Rides like crap, handles even worse, can’t sit in the back (unless 5’6″ or less), can’t TOW anything, horrible blind spots, horseshit fuel economy AND an approximate $10k premium compared to comparable SUVs (which you can tow with and sit in back if an adult).
Whatever designer thought CUVs would be a high volume seller needs their IQ checked. Or, even better, take that diploma from whatever Ivy League reeducation center they got it from and use it as ass-wipe, because that’s all that is worth.
With respect to convertibles: I think there would be a market for large modern convertibles that were actually family-size, something like the Sebring/200 if it were a good car. Maybe even a bit larger. The larger the vehicle, the more trunk space would be available when a top (cloth or metal) is folded.
I admit I’m somewhat nostalgic for the peak years of convertible offerings. Pontiac in 1967, for example, had the full-size line in two wheelbases (Bonneville and Bonneville Brougham, 124″; Grand Prix, 2+2, and Catalina, 121″) as well as the Tempest, LeMans, and GTO convertibles (116″) and the Firebird. Nine different models in four different sizes for Pontiac alone!
I have two
1) crossover vehicles – they don’t do anything better than station wagons, minivans, or SUVs, and generally look worse
2) luxury trucks – if your pickup has chromed wheels, heated and cooled leather seats, thick carpets, power running boards, and a short bed with a hard cover, it can’t really be used practically for any of the things a pickup truck is designed to be used for, so why bother.
I’m not the target demographic for a lot of vehicles out there, but for most of them, I can understand why different people in different situations would go for a particular type. These are the two that I can just never understand at all, no matter how hard I try.
Anything I can’t look through the glass and down the road and get a gauge on what traffic is doing. I like to plan rather than react and given the aggressive nature of the srivers in my area, maintaining a following distance great enough to see around every monster truck and secret service minivan is a non-starter as well as I would continually have adjust my speed downward ( dont we all hate the prick doing 45 in a 65) to maintain that distance as vehicles cut into the open space.
wabbout this ? Outlaw any car that cannot be maintained by its owner? I see some cars and just shake my head. But I’m old and my ways aren’t mainstream. I drive 2 ratty 1988 BMW 528es. Latest addition to the stable is a 1994 Ranger extended cab, 4 liter push rod V6 4wd 5 speed. It is my household/ gardening/ firewood/ dump run/ weekend project/ snow / beach/third vehicle. It replaces my last in a 20 yr affair with Jeep Grand Wagoneers. To each his own. Cars can be statements,or fashion accessories. Like shoes. Anybody wanna ban high heels?
CJinSD-I think Charlottesville hires the worst traffic engineers in the world and then beats them in the head with 2X4s.
I drive an Escape and my grandma can get into it easily and without pain. Pops her butt on the seat, swivels her legs in and doesn’t have to bend her arthritic knees. I know the best and brightest doesn’t worry about trivial things like that.
Lots of hate on here, I think the diesel 6mt station wagon legion is out in full force
With a SUV/CUV you still get ride height of a truck. With gussied up trucks that means you DON’T have to haul stuff to the job site but still need to get through the muck of a job site.
Never mind, I’ll just decide between aiming my headlight at the drivers mirror or your rear view mirror.
Also, most of this is backwash from the SUV’s are evil movement
Exotic sports cars. Even if I could afford a Ferrari, I’d rather own a luxury car for prestige and a much less expensive performance car to drive hard.
George and to shut people up. All the yahoos saying I gotta a….. You could just look at them and go I have a Ferrari. Argument ends right there
EV’s. They’re intended to be the anti-SUV, and for the most part they’re just another image vehicle and equally if not more pointless than an SUV the size of a motorhome. No vehicle on the road, not a supercar, not a foreign exotic car, not a custom car not a luxury car can top the EV for its one and only statment about its owner “I’m better than you.”
The same can be said of most new technologies. Imagine what the first ever car owners where like!
EV’s are as new as tiller steering and carbide headlights. The attitude does not come from the technology being new but that the owner cares more than the rest of us.
Other than the Europeans, where are these secret parking lots full of station wagons?
They are parking lots outside of Detroit brand factories who build station wagon versions of the sedans we get here and then export every last one of them.
Saw a rest-of-the-world Chevy Cruze wagon and it looked good. Of course Ford and GM both sell sporty looking wagons in Europe but not here. Focus wagon anyone?
Bastards…
That’s about right, build wagon version of models you sell here and then not make them available here.
The chrome on chrome full size SUV’s could go away in my book. While some don’t like pickup trucks a stripped down small one as an extra vehicle gets decent mileage, is inexpensive, has utility, and is different then all the jelly bean cars out there.
There’s very little more useless in my book than a compact sedan.
I have a 178 inch long sedan and I can parallel park where a Panther wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance of hell of getting in and out.
But what else can it do? Can it tow? Can human adults fit in the backseat? Can it carry any sort of cargo larger than laptop bag?
The little tiny cars, the ones that I call “Penalty boxes”, that nobody should be forced to drive. I have a friend who loves them, he’s so big that when he gets out of his car, you’re waiting for the other clowns to come out. At least they aren’t as slow as they used to be. They still suck to be in, let alone drive.
I am sure many people that drive those tiny cars, them “penalty boxes” drives them because circumstances forces them to. Not because they like them. Would they be better in an S-class? Obviously, but who’d pay for them? Even the most socialist of socialist countries do not include a provision for subsidized large, comfortable full-size sedans for everyone.
There are many rich people in this country that drives small cars.
Why?
1. They want to be able to park at the tiniest parking spots.
2. They are not interesteted in cars. The car is just a necessary appliance to get from a to b.
3. They want to be political correct.
Any pretentious vehicle that is purchased because the owner doesn’t want to be seen in a minivan or wagon while falling well short of a minivan/wagon for their needs.
Premium luxury cars.
-Offer no more real luxury than a Buick Lacrosse
-Difficult and expensive to repair
-More unreliable than the Buick
Supercars
-Less reliable than a 24 Hours of Lemons car
-Will never be used for their intended purpose
-Will seldom be used, period
On the topic of CUVs..
How much of a CUV’s ‘superior ground clearance’ comes not from lifted suspension, but from deleting the aerodynamics kits the OEMs like to put on the car-version to help meet CAFE?
How much of the desire for a CUV’s ‘superior ground clearance’ comes from an unreasonable fear on the part of the car-buyer that they’ll scrap-off a chin-spoiler or side-skirt on an ‘aerodynamically superior’ new Passenger-Car?
How much of the above-mentioned unreasonable fear is a result of new ‘aerodynamically superior’ passenger-cars not having as much visible open-space under the car as cars of the 70s (which are becoming fashionable again) had?
As for my own vote for a market segment that needs to go away…
FWD Luxury Cars!
Really, the only legitimate reason to make a car FWD is because..
A) You’re making something small…
or
B) You’re making something Cheep…
Neither Small nor Cheep should be in any way used as adjectives when describing a Luxury car.
The short list:
Dodge Nitro and all equivalent gym-junkie chariots.
Tiny all-wheel-drive nasties like the X3, X1 and Suzuki SX4
Anything that resembles a Citroen C3.
Boxes – Toyota Rukus, Nissan Cube, Kia Soul, etc.
Absolutely any sedan that costs more than $140K.
All of these are unnecessary and some are just idiotic.
I actually see a need for UNDER-powered cars.
When I had teenagers at home I had a a Buick Skylark around for their use. Iron Duke 90hp 4 connected to a slushbox transaxle.
The thing could barely spin tires on ice! Ran out of breath at 65
Hyundai Accents and Kia Rios have 110= horsepower, nowadays. Where are the modern “training wheels” cars?
Good point Zenith, my father had a similar viewpoint in my first POS. I suspect moving forward your up and coming three cylinders will fit the ‘underpowered’ bill.