U.S. sales of utility vehicles increased 16 percent last year. Amidst the modest decrease in volume reported by the industry in January 2016, U.S. sales of SUVs and crossovers jumped by more than 6 percent.
Yet even with drivers enjoying truly low fuel prices, we have not seen a return to the days of full-size, truck-based, body-on-frame SUV dominance in the modern SUV/crossover sector. In fact, U.S. sales of the 10 full-size SUVs which use full-size pickup truck platforms as a foundation collectively declined 2 percent as America’s auto industry soared to record highs in 2015.
And 2016 begins similarly. Two Chevrolets, two GMC, two Cadillacs, and individual nameplates from Ford, Lincoln, Nissan, and Cadillac tumbled 9 percent in January.
Of course, we’ve long since passed the days in which we expected General Motors to sell 200,000 Tahoes per year plus another 150,000 Suburbans, nearly 90,000 Yukons, 70,000 Yukon XLs, and 50,000 Escalades thrown in for good measure. In 2015, GM sold 249,000 full-size SUVs in total.
The glory days are over. That much we know.
But in concert with the launch of an all-new fleet of GM brutes in early 2014, the segment surged. Sales of the four highest-volume nameplates — Tahoe, Suburban, Expedition, Yukon — jumped 19 percent two years ago. In 2013, the core group of seven “mainstream” brand full-size SUVs had already jumped 10 percent.
Surely a higher-volume market for new vehicles, one driven largely by increased interest in utility vehicles, low fuel prices, and investment in new product would propel the category to something resembling the pre-recession glory days.
Apparently not.
Sales are slightly south of flat. (Accounting for the shorter sales month in January 2016, the daily selling rate was down 2 percent, matching the decline from calendar year 2015.)
Three key factors stand out for the lackluster performance: positioning, priorities, and personnel.
POSITIONING
The base price of the category-leading Chevrolet Tahoe now tops $50,000 in four-wheel-drive form, or 40 percent more than the base price of a Tahoe 4×4 in 2002. A base Cruze sedan is only 17 percent more now than the Cavalier was then; a base Malibu is only 23 percent more now than it was then.
These full-size SUVs moved upmarket, forsaking any notion of the concept of an entry-level full-size SUV. The benefits? The potential for profit when selling a $50,000 version of what is essentially a sub-$30,000 pickup truck is tasty. Seven of these vehicles wear decidedly common logos on their grille, but nearly four out of every ten Yukons in stock sticker at more than $70,000. Fewer than 40 percent of the Tahoes in stock cost less than $60,000.
This isn’t the positioning of alternative family transport. These are luxury SUVs which, for the most part, lack the second-row comfort of crew cab pickup trucks.
PRIORITIES
As for the degree to which demand for utility vehicles has increased, and the degree to which demand for these full-size SUVs hasn’t, remember how much the rest of the sector has changed. As recently as 2006, the best-selling SUV in America was still a body-on-frame ess-you-vee, the Ford Explorer. Yes, the market for “SUVs” has improved markedly over the last few years, but the improvement has little to do with strikingly inefficient vehicles.
In 2015, the five top-selling utility vehicles in America were all on the smaller end of the ledger – CR-V, Escape, RAV4, Rogue, Equinox – and claimed close to a quarter of all utility vehicle sales with average AWD/4-cylinder highway fuel economy of 30 mpg. (In 2006, the five top-selling passenger cars averaged 33 in their most efficient forms, all with front-wheel drive.)
Not only are these efficient utility vehicles by far the most popular utility vehicles, but 20 percent of the growth in the SUV/CUV market in 2015 came as a result of all-new subcompact utilities that might have made us snicker a decade ago: Renegade, Trax, HR-V, CX-3, 500X.
In other words, even with improved V-8 (and EcoBoost V-6) fuel economy from full-size SUVs and lower fuel prices, it’s not difficult to see that much of the strength in the sector is derived from vehicles without any SUV fuel economy penalty.
PERSONNEL
Full-size SUVs based, even loosely, on full-size pickup truck platforms remain sufficiently popular to merit their presence in their respective automakers’ lineups, particularly at General Motors and Ford. Volume is down sharply, nevertheless. But the rise of big crossovers has enabled these vehicles to fill a different spot in the batting order.
At General Motors, where sales of their six full-size SUVs fell by 160,000 units between 2005 and 2015, General Motors added 276,000 Lambda platform crossovers since 2007. Not to mention, 2015 was a record year for the Acadia and Traverse, the second-best year ever for the Enclave, and a record year for the platform as a whole.
Undoubtedly, the removal of big crossovers from GM’s lineup wouldn’t result in a 276,000-unit improvement in full-size SUV sales at GM. But there’s also no doubt that automakers have altered their lineups, and there’s a whole flock of alternative utility vehicles stealing sales from traditional body-on-frame full-size SUVs.
Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.
I’m starting to see ’15 Ecoboost Expedition XLT 4wds on sale for about $35k with 30-40k miles, that strikes me as a pretty good deal, albeit these trucks don’t have leather seats or anything. On the flip side, they have rationally sized rim/tire packages. I don’t think you can touch a Tahoe or Sequoia for anything close to that, and I find the interior packaging of the Ford to be superior. Lightly used decked out Armadas are the other budget option, but man that 5.6L is a thirsty bugger.
Most Expeditions have 18s. Which is completely reasonable for a vehicle of that size. If Expeditions have gotten that low, I may have to look at one of those instead of a used ’15+ Navigator.
Wow didn’t realize those are 18s, the huge Ford makes them look like 17s! All I care is that the sidewall is nice and tall. I can see myself in one of these once I have a few little ones. Would be a good towing platform for either a small camper, boat, or some sort of offroad toy, while fitting the family, dogs, and all of our things. I’m partial to the Sequoia in this segment (has that favorite roll down window of mine) but they hold their value a bit too well it seems. The low hanging front spoilers on the domestics drive me nuts, the one on the Expedition would be ripped off within a mile of driving down my favorite not-so-gnarly two track by my parents’ farm but they do seem to help in highway driving, and can be removed if needed.
At least the front spoiler on the Expedition is sort of hidden. The front lip on the Tahoe is ridiculous.
@bball, the optional “snow plow prep package” will extend the lip to the pavement so you can assist your local highway department in keeping the roads clean.
The GM SUVs of Metro Detroit already help clear the snow down to 3″ or so. Might as well do the rest.
Heck I don’t care that it’s hidden, it’s still way to low for an SUV with at least nominal rough road (if not offroad) aspirations. The other issue is that the FoMoCo IRS design on their BOF SUVs (Expedition and 3/4 gen Explorer) were not designed with serious offroad use in mind anyways, the lower control arms where the lower shock mounts are located are very low hanging. Offsetting any advantage an IRS rig would normally have as far as having a clearance advantage over a SRA truck near the axle. Take a look at the IRS packaging of a fullsize Montero, or even something like a R51 PAthfinder, much tidier and less low hanging stuff to get caught on a rock or log.
Right. The IRS on the Expedition is not designed for primarily off road use. The hourglass frame and IRS exists in current form for passenger comfort and interior room. Those are two strong points of the Expedition.
gtem, you are an SUV guy, I am a pickup guy.
What is it about the Expedition that appeals to you more, over say a crew cab F150, to tow a camper with a family? Likely they could both do the same job with equal aplomb.
(Serious question, just trying to see what appeals to people in terms of large utility vehicles)
I like having everything covered, and in particular the case of 2 parents+ 2 kids+ 2 dogs, having everyone inside is a plus. The possibility of third row seats in a pinch is likewise nice. Wheelbase/overall length is another concern for me, even a shortbox quad cab is longer than the SUV variant. That’s it really, although I could see myself really enjoying a SuperCrew Raptor or Sequoia crewmax. Hell modern day quad cabs can probably fit 2 kids and 2 dogs in the back no problem with the dogs on the floor and kids in car seats. I guess that overall, for my purposes an SUV has more utility, but part of that is simply familiarity.
Nice analysis, thanks. For me, kids and dogs aren’t a consideration, so the crew cab for group trips combined with the cargo versatility of an open box with a hard tonneau ticks the right boxes for me.
I’m a pickup guy as well. I have 2 sons 12 and 14 yrs old and up until a few years ago had 2 labrador retrievers. I have the 40/20/40 front bench so I can haul 6 in a pinch.
The beauty of the truck is that you can separate cargo from the passengers. I had a Chevy van for a few years and used it like a truck. The interior always smelled like my last cargo. That was okay if I had hauled lumber but sucked if I was out for a hike and my 2 dogs were in a swamp.
The Expedition bothers me in base trims. It just looks kinda sloppy. Limited or King Ranch or nah! Point taken on used pricing vs. competitors. I don’t particularly like the current Sequoia. I liked the one pictured, which was sorta LC-lite. The new one has a very plastic interior.
Funny to think they’re still dropping that Nissan 5.6 into sedans to this day. I haven’t driven one, but I can’t imagine it offers good smoothness and quiet driving.
Also, I was just checking out used prices RX vs. LX. Seems that due to the enormous popularity of the RX (looking MY 11-13ish) there’s not a big price difference between them. Maybe $5k. That makes the used GX a considerable value over a used RX. Plus the GX actually has a nice interior, and the Rx is pretty mehhh (the door panel design really bothers me, and half of them don’t have nav).
If I’m buying an Expedition, I would greatly prefer King Ranch trim with two tone paint (Bronze Fire + Caribou FTW).
I knew you would understand!
Who am I kidding though. It’ll be a Navigator. Gotta wait until 2017/18 though. Need the new Navi to drop. I can find 14s in the low-mid 30s now. I am hoping the same thing happens to the current version.
Just wait a bit more.
Fleet & individual sales of even pickup trucks are flat, and will be in decline YoY soon.
There’s a strong contraction in credit & a reversal of the business cycle (after a 7+ year expansion fueled by extremely cheap debt) on the horizon.
Just look at the high-yield credit market and massive corporate slowdown in capex as two solid indicators that the credit & business cycle expansion is coming to an end soon.
Large SUV and pickup truck sales (the lifeblood of Ford, GM & FCA) are going to slow rapidly shortly, and their will be major price cuts.
Janet Yellen is on Capitol Hill giving a speech right now about how rate increases are in the near future.
Escape/MKC is more profitable than SuperDuty. Ford will be fine.
I can’t decide if they are trying to truly wreck things in an “election” year or if its just all smoke and mirrors as it had been for the past six years.
DeadWeight, has there ever been a time when you haven’t been predicting an imminent economic contraction or collapse?
I agree that we’re about to enter a period of anemia, but I don’t expect any price cuts, let alone “massive.”
What kills me is that it could have been a real two tone. Since moving from MAP to it’s rough landing at KTP, it could have easily followed the same routing as the tutone P473. Alas, that is no more – as they now have their own brand new 3-wet paint shop.
You are right. Instead of the cladding, real two tone would be much better. Personally, I think all Ford truck and SUV trims should have a two tone option. Ford should two tone all the things.
I love tutone. My truck is sterling silver with ingot silver. It seems that every 3rd F150 is Sterling Silver so it is nice to have something slightly different.
I’m the opposite, where I see these trucks as true utility vehicles and I don’t want to pay for all the gingerbread that will get scraped up or will glitch out and fail. However heated leather seats are a really nice and actually practical feature. Yeah those first gen Sequoias are actually a very interesting proposition to me. More affordable and roomier than a Land Cruiser, and they have the roll down rear window. They actually remind me more so of a third generation 4Runner, enlarged about 35%. Lots of ground clearance, solid rear axle, Toyota’s familiar dual wishbone front end, selectable part time 4wd with low range. Largely reliable aside from the early run transmissions, and air injection pump systems on the last few years (easily bypassed/disabled). 4.7 V8 is adequate in this application, and owing to their lower weight and available 2wd mode, these do a bit better on gas than an LC100. My biggest qualm is their build quality, particularly in terms of interior and trim. They are nowhere close to a 4Runner, or especially a 100 series Land Cruiser!
You do realize you’re at the rarified side of the SUV buyer spectrum, right?!
Oh I’m very aware. I’ve been drooling over rust free 1st gen (WD21) Pathfinders on the Houston craigslist, just goes to show how off in the head I am!
https://houston.craigslist.org/cto/5424717863.html
Oh my, slat-grille Pathfinders are mostly long gone years ago! That one seems priced a bit high though, considering the miles? $3k would seem more in line.
I’d rather have a two-tone gold badges QX4 with those 3-spokes. :D
Yeah $3k would be more like it. But boy having a rust free frame on one of these is priceless! That and not having to bust out a torch or angle grinder any time you do suspension work. These WD21s are absolute brick sh*thouses, I’d argue moreso than my 4Runner even. Full of nifty thoughtful touches too check out the back seat with Mercedes-like rear seat pocket netting, and neat little rear armrest ‘wings’ outboard of the rear seat!
@gtemnykh I bought a ’05 Sequoia exactly because it is like a 3rd gen 4Runner – same design language, about the same build quality, and can be had in MY newer than 2002. The current gen is too big, too thirsty.
They tried to introduce the Suburban in Australia in the late 1990’s. People were interested, but the poor build quality and the fact that it does not actually go Off Road( like saying it had a dead body in it) killed any enthusiasm
Don’t blame the truck. Your the one that bought a hammer the you needed a saw. On your next purchase try and educate yourself a little on the product your buying, You’ll get better results.
Gtem you are planning your next vehicle purchases like Eisenhower invading Europe. I’m not hating though, I love reading your insanely detailed analysis of every awd or 4wd vehicle on the market.
I can relate to his devotion to details. My personal bias has me hoping it isnt a Toyota, but my quirky nature has me hoping/considering for a 1990 Toyota HiAce 4wd CrewCab Diesel 5spd for myself!
I realize the hard suspsnsion isnt ideal for serious off roading, and thrle 90-100 hp Toyota non-turbo diesel isnt suited well to American high speed highways, but where I am and for what I want/need from it, I think it’ll work just fine. I dont need serious off road capacity and most of the roads around this area are 55-65 mph.
Ill probably settle for an American truck for cost reasons, and in doing so, would probably be better off in the long run repair/parts wise. But Id still love to get that cabover pickup. They have a Mazda 1-ton (dual rear wheel) 2.2L 4×4 cabover, but it is a single cab and i feel the crew cab is a better choice due to being able to store cargo in the back seat that isnt all-weather safe, or as a 6 passenger (total) capacity vehicle. I really wish the Mazda was a crew cab.
Well yea when the same equipment that costed $32k(after discount) in 2003 now cost $68k(before discount) in 2016, well no @&$! they aren’t selling. Doesn’t help that they no longer look capable, even the Z71 is a joke. GM is basically the only company that sells an actual SUV with a SRA-basically the only competitive FS SUV manuf, but if we get FCA to finally offer a FS Ram based SUV maybe it will finally create enough competition for GM to act like the truck company it is.
MSRP of the Chevy Tahoe in 2003 was about $34K. That’s $43K in 2016 money.
You could get a lot of options for $32k in 03 after they slapped on $6-8k discount.
That’s true. However, along the way, GM and Ford figured out that it was better to sell a few less BoF full size SUVs while raking in similar profits. The profit margin on these vehicles is obscene.
FCA needs to be in this market yesterday, they should use the same running gear options, same suspension (since it’s already coil over) same sheet metal, same interior, same options as the Ram pickups. Tack on $3k to the base 4 door pickups and watch the sales roll in. There will be no stopping them if they get these to the market under $30k (at least after discounts if not before).
I agree that FCA should have had an entrant in this field years ago. They shouldn’t have a problem selling enough to justify it’s existence.
ASPENNNN
Oh nooooo
No like a real entrant, not that half butt travesty of a waste.
I mean an early GMT800 suburban copy, the same exact everything as the pickup plus a covered bed with more seats. Keep costs low which make both the pickup and SUVs cheaper to sell.
Plus you guys would finally have the diesel full size SUV you always pine for.
I have the feeling that Ford will beat them to the diesel FS SUV game, but we’ll see.
Ford and diesel still leave a bad taste in my mouth, Plus I can’t imagine Ford actually giving all they have toward creating a solid competitor in this category.
Not to mention a diesel Ford would be strictly for fuel economy and have no extra towing capability, unless again, Ford was serious and brought back the SRA.
It would definitely not be geared towards people that go offroad. It would be Range Rover/Escalade like competitor.
Could FCA get away with 3/4 ton SUVs? And for how long before selling one, promoted enough backlash to kill the HD pickup loophole as well? They already have enough CAFE issues without another Hemi powered, 15mpg, 1/2 ton. A Power Wagon SUV would certainly be “capable” enough.
Apparently that stuff has changed but if they could get a 3/4 suburban-esque vehicle (GVWR > 8500 lbs) that gets 14+ MPG AVG I’m led to believe it would be one of the more efficient vehicles in the 3/4 segment and help bring up the avg Econ for FCA there.
Honestly 14-15 MPG is perfectly fine with me it’s cheap enough that you don’t think twice about gas at $4 gal, and if designed properly downright amazing with fuel at $1.60 we’re at now.
@stuki: Both Chevy and Ford tried with the Suburban 2500 and Excursion, respectively. The market for full-size SUVs is so small that 3/4 tons being a fraction of that meant they apparently couldn’t sell enough to make it worthwhile, even if 90% of the tooling was shared with other models.
The Excursion did plenty well and still hold their value really well, the suburban 3/4 died when the only engine left was weaker than the engine in the Denali 1/2.
The Excursion seems to have done better in the 10 years since its discontinuation than it ever did in its 5 years of availability.
“The market for full-size SUVs is so small that 3/4 tons being a fraction of that meant they apparently couldn’t sell enough to make it worthwhile”
Yearly American sales[edit]
Beginning in 1999, GM re-branded the GMC Suburban as the Yukon XL.
Calendar Year Chevrolet Suburban GMC Suburban Yukon XL Total U.S. sales
1996[144] 94,010 43,161 – 137,171
1997 99,068 43,137 – 142,205
1998[145] 108,933 42,423 – 151,356
1999[145] 138,977 44,886 1,857 185,720
2000[146] 133,123 4,776 47,016 184,915
2001[146] 154,782 94 70,706 225,582
2002[citation needed] 151,056 – 67,556 218,612
2003[citation needed] 135,222 – 70,887 206,109
2004[147] 119,545 – 65,917 185,462
2005[147] 87,011 – 53,652 140,663
2006[148] 77,211 – 45,413 122,624
2007[149] 83,673 – 45,303 128,976
2008[149] 54,058 – 26,404 80,462
2009[150] 41,055 – 16,819 57,874
2010[151] 45,152 – 23,797 68,949
2011[152] 49,427 – 25,223 74,650
2012 48,116 – 23,427 71,543
2013[153] 51,260 – 31,258 82,518
2014[154] 55,009 – 29,752 84,761
2015[155] 50,866 – 31,334 82,200
Maybe small market, but respectable sales numbers.
Small in comparison to what it used to be in the early-00s. But yes, I wouldn’t be complaining if I was still selling 82K a year.
“GM is basically the only company that sells an actual SUV with a SRA-basically the only competitive FS SUV manuf”
Toyota discontinue Sequoia, Land Cruiser, or 4-Runner?
FS – fullsize, so no 4 runner comp, the Land cruiser is $85k so that’s where “basically” comes in, and I was under the impression the Sequioa had moves to IRS.
Which after further reading, I believe the Sequioa is in fact IRS, I challenge you to check out any of these IRS SUVs towing for reason why they are beyond worthless, no tires should have to toe that much.
Sequoia seems to have gone IRS from my two minutes of searching.
For the price GM wants for some of these SUVs, you might as well pony up for the Land Cruiser.
I can’t argue on that point
It’s too small for anyone contemplating a Suburban. And has already run out of gas again, by the time you get back out of the gas station after having paid for the last fill.
Why does the IRS Expedition have better towing than the SRA Tahoe?
Regardless of what the numbers say (though I’m pretty sure it’s in the SRAs favor) the toeing of the rear tires is in no way safe over long period of time. Tires aren’t meant to have that much weight being put onto edge of the tire, the weight is meant to be evenly distributed across the tire surface which none of these IRS SUVs are able to do by what I see on the highways. Additionally having your tires toed out, isn’t safe when towing at highway speeds.
Expedition with Max Tow Package: 9200 lbs.
Tahoe with Max Trailering Package: 8600 lbs.
I asked the question not because I think IRS is better at towing, but because I wanted to know if anyone knew why the Expy’s numbers are more even with IRS.
“The base price of the category-leading Chevrolet Tahoe now tops $50,000 in four-wheel-drive form, or 40 percent more than the base price of a Tahoe 4×4 in 2002. A base Cruze sedan is only 17 percent more now than the Cavalier was then; a base Malibu is only 23 percent more now than it was then.”
So at a conservative 3% inflation per annum Tahoe has kept pace with USD devaluation since 2002 while Cruze and Malibu have actually gotten cheaper with inflation by a value of 3*14=42 -17 OR -23 = 25 OR 19 thus you are getting 25% MOAR Cruze or 19% MOAR Malibu than you did from the J-body Cav or N-body Malibu in 2002. Yes we can!
Buyers who care about fuel costs have abandoned these things.
Those who don’t care about fuel prices and are willing to put their money where their mouths are (or flush it away on fuel) are willing to spend more if given the opportunity. So it makes sense to position the product so that they will pay more.
Voila, higher prices. Those who want to spend less can get a less thirsty crossover, which is what those who want to spend less would have chosen, anyway.
When these vehicles cost 70% as much in 2002, they were already among the most profitable vehicles sold by the UAW-3. They’re pricing them off scale now and leaving sales on the table because of CAFE. That’s what they get for supporting fascism.
I noticed that the CAFE targets actually change depending on what your mix of products are, i.e. No small cars, no high target, on the reverse lots of small cars, high targets. Basically FCA is already well prepared for the CAFE standards, and GM could be too if it would cut out a couple of these low selling microcars.
FCA is not well prepared for the CAFE standards. They have been buying CAFE credits.
That’s true, I’m not really sure why that didn’t pop into my head when I read The info I previously posted.
While the CAFE targets are lower for large vehicles, which is why the Civic now has a longer wheelbase than my Dad’s TSX, the targets are still high. It isn’t easy to meet them with the technology that made big SUVs so profitable, which was essentially 1950s technology plus modern engine management. FCA sells big vehicles, which everyone will be doing thanks to CAFE, but they aren’t the light-weight, Rube-Goldberg powered ones that are called for by increasing fuel economy targets.
CAFE is fascist? Wow, I’ve heard criticisms of Gerald Ford before, but this is rough!
Only the Democratic portion of CAFE is fascist. Ford, Reagan and the Bush duo had the freedom™ version of CAFE.
Carter sported the rare malaise edition of CAFE.
It’s a government program, designed to indirectly alter people’s purchasing choices and behavior via influencing large, nominally private and “independent” organizations. While rewarding those who play along with the state, by keeping potential upstart competitors at bay. Pretty much textbook Mussolini.
Stuki- except no one disappears into a Ford Falcon never to be seen again.
Wasn’t aware Ford Falcons featured in fascism’s defining creeds.
@stuki
He’s thinking of the Argentina “Death Squads”, pretty much “secret police” who went around killing or taking political enemies. Almost always driving a green colored version of the most popular car in Argentina: Ford Falcon.
This was an updated version of the early 1960s US Falcon with a more robust suspension (similar to the US’s V-8 Falcon/Mustang gen 1) and an Inline 6 engine. I am very interested in these cars, sold in Argentina until 1991 I believe.
@John Taurus
The last Ford Falcon to be built here will have a 450hp version of the Barra six
http://www.motormag.com.au/news/1602/ford-falcon-sprint-revealed/
JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N – correct. IIRC there was a torture chamber set up in a Ford factory in Chile. The Falcons for the most part were given to the Chilean government. The CIA even funneled funds through the Ford Foundation.
fascism……….
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
UAW and any worker’s collective by definition is socialist.
Revisionism is the last defense of people repeating documented atrocities. The parts about government ordered economies and intolerance of dissent are playing out every day. If any of you wonder whether you’d have been a fascist had you lived in a fascist country in the ’30s, you have your answers.
CJinSD
So what do you call the USA involvement in overthrowing democratic countries and installing dictatorships that were “pro- capitalistic” but suppressed and repressed and tortured and murdered the people” which by definition is Fascism?
Thanks for pointing out revisionism.
Iran and Chile come to mind….
Oh and Operation Condor.
The irony is that the right conveniently separated torture and murder and oppression from the capitalistic process.
One could not happen without the other.
The torture and murder and oppression was the only way they could hand over a country’s wealth to a chosen few and to multinationals.
Oh and WTF did your comments have to do with large SUV’s?
Can you imagine anyone ever marrying that guy?
Jesu Cristo, every blessed dinner conversation…
“The irony is that the right conveniently separated torture and murder and oppression from the capitalistic process.”
Capitalism is just a term used by aspiring totalitarians to describe the private property rights that are the foundation of all real freedom. If you can’t own what you earn or create, then you’re just a slave. Campus radicals are smart enough to realize that selling serfdom is hard without vilifying the alternative. Are you?
CJunSD- Yes take property from the masses and hand it to corporations or the ruling elites. Colonialism wad replaced by capitalism.
Statistically the Rebublican’s largest support in the USA other than the business and banking elites are male white uneducated rural and Christian.
Death and education are shrinking the white and male part. The trend to urbanization is shrinking the rural part. The influx and rapid growth of the Hispanic community is shifting the Christian side of the equation away from them as well.
I wonder where you fit in that demographic?
Which is slightly ironic, given how the general Catholic background of the Hispanic population could’ve netted the GOP guaranteed votes for X years had they not been so hardline anti-immigration.
“CJunSD- Yes take property from the masses and hand it to corporations or the ruling elites. Colonialism wad replaced by capitalism.”
You’re describing fascism, not capitalism. While I only have a BA, your education was nothing more than an indoctrination so the mistakes that killed over a hundred million last century can be repeated in this one. Of course the people holding your strings know that the only mistakes were the ones that caused the killing to stop.
“Yes take property from the masses and hand it to corporations or the ruling elites. Colonialism wad replaced by capitalism.”
You’re describing fascism, not capitalism”
Chile – the USA has a financial plan developed and ready to go along with the installation of Pinochet. The same thing occurred in other South American countries.
The USA/Britain installed the Shah into Iran’s government all to continue unfettered access to those country’s resources all in the name of capitalism.
The US in its foreign policy cares more about unfettered corporate access to riches than it does of human rights or democracy.
“Indoctrination” ROTFLMFAO……….
I started out life on the right and the more I read into history as well as sorting out the “religious” right’s anti-gay rhetoric and the more I read the more contradictions I saw.
I have 2 college degrees. Critical thinking was a huge part of the second one!
But hey, It is all Obama’s fault.
“(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.”
That’s just post WW2 hyperbole. Pre WW2, The Left and Right in Continental Europe, had both degenerated into government apologists. And Fascism was seen as just as legitimate as Socialism. Both put the government at the center. The main differences between the two, was that 1)The fascists wanted to nominally retain the institutions of the ancien regime, churches, private companies, guilds, as long as they were strictly subordinate of the state, while the socialists wanted to transfer nominal, not just defacto, control to the state as well.
And 2)Socialism was explicitly radically international, while fascism was nationalistic, another throwback to the past.
Politically, both ideologies had the same, childish notion that the government was some sort of useful institution, that needed to be in control. The Axis losing WW2, kind of made explicit fascism very un-PC, but the tenets lived on largely unaltered in Western European Social Democracies. Where they, interestingly enough, outlived their once victorious socialist opponents to the east.
If you want a society free of both socialism and fascism, you want one where individuals and non government organizations have real power. As in, a real, de facto veto over whatever lunacy the government cooks up at any given time. The west hasn’t had that since the Catholic Church became subordinate to local potentates centuries ago. The US second amendment ought to have provided a meaningful bulwark, but by the end of the War Between The States, and certainly by the end of WW2, all that had gone the way of do-do.
So now, we’re all “happy” fascists, waving flags, worshiping government hacks and institutions who “do” something; all while decrying fascism….
Stuki- gotta luv Wikipedia.
Oh and like I asked CJinSD…..
WTF does any of this have to do with large BOF SUV’s????
Everything looks related if your tinfoil hat is far enough over your eyes.
Drzhivago138 – why don’t you look up Chile, Pinochet, CIA, Chicago school of economics for a start or was your comment aimed elsewhere?
I was using the ambiguous “you,” not the second-person you. “Everything looks related if one’s tinfoil hat is far enough over one’s eyes,” and it was in answer to your question on how any of Stuki and CJ’s statements had anything to do with BOF SUVs.
Drzhivago138 – sorry about the accusatory tone.
It has to do with BOF SUVs, because those things are fairly simple to build. Hence are a viable point of entry for a small automaking startup. As well as a place where a developing world factory could bring in a viable vehicle for a very competitive cost. Even if said manufacturer is not yet ready to compete effectively in other automotive segments.
Now, freed, by a government operating along textbook fascist principles, from having to deal with the increased competition; entrenched, well connected makes, are extracting massive, unearned, rents for the few models they do sell in that space. Kicking some of that back to their masters via lobbying, etc.
Government and the entrenched and well connected benefiting, at the expense of the less connected and the buying public.
stuki – that is why the USA and others ousted Democratically elected governments and installed Dictators. It is much easier to make disappear all of those pesky unionists, priests, and other assorted individuals more interested in the collective good. Those types have a way of interfering with profits. It is also much easier to hide from culpability when you install a dictatorship.
Why do you think China has been such a favourite place to set up shop?
It isn’t for the love of democracy.
They got a billion peons to draw from so who cares if unsafe work conditions and pollution kill a 100 million of them off.
You make your profits and blame the rest on the commies……
win win for everyone.
Not a lot of competition in this segment, and I bet the people who are interested either got a new GM SUV, or are waiting on the sidelines to see what Ford, Toyota, and possibly FCA have to offer.
If you see Ford and Toyota price entry-level Expeditions and Sequoias well below 50K, then you can sure bet GM will pile on the incentives.
Its not just the fuel economy, its the packaging of the product. The FS SUVs just don’t have increased interior room to justify their bulk. In the 10 years since the “glory days” of FS SUV sales, our cities and suburbs have gotten noticeably more crowded. In my part of L.A., people prefer a smaller size vehicle for its ease of maneuvering and parking at the mall and in crowded urban areas. Another reason is the price. FS SUVs have soared in price in the last ten years. Is the 5 seat Tahoe really in the same $50K luxury class as Lexus, BMW, Audi (since most of these are leases, compare monthly payments, not sticker prices.)???
“The FS SUVs just don’t have increased interior room to justify their bulk.”
I think that our 2015 Sequoia is way more roomy than a Tahoe or Yukon, and has more usable space and better lay-out on the inside than a FS Suburban or Yukon XL.
My wife’s dad had a 2013 Suburban so we had something to compare against when he bought his daughter that 2015 Sequoia as a business vehicle.
The Sequoia is better for rear passengers than the Tahoe/Suburban. It basically has the wheelbase of the Suburban with the exterior dimensions of the Tahoe.
We sure like the ride! Cruises smoothly and quietly at 85+ mph.
My father-in-law’s 2013 Suburban was like driving a big noisy box with all the wallowing handling qualities of a brick.
The Sequoia, Armada, and Expedition are all excellent highway cruisers.
Yessir.
“The Sequoia, Armada, and Expedition are all excellent highway cruisers.”
No complaints about my 2007 ‘Hoe. Super comfortable to drive on long road trips.
The Tahoe is fine on the freeway. The longer wheelbase and IRS of the Expedition/Sequoia make them better.
“The Tahoe is fine on the freeway. The longer wheelbase and IRS of the Expedition/Sequoia make them better.”
The electronic dampening on the Tahoe really makes it ride/handle better than it should for what it is. Downside is it’s big bucks to fix one it’s worn out.
At 122″, the Sequoia pretty much splits the difference between the Tahoe and Suburban, as does the Armada.
You are right. The Suburban has had a 130″ wheelbase forever. The longer wheelbase and IRS of the Sequoia still makes in a more comfortable place for passengers than the Tahoe. The real comfy place to be is in the back of a 131″ `Navigator L with captain chairs.
Aside from a little extra girth, it’s a lot easier maneuvering a full-sized RWD Murican SUV than it is an AWD East Asian appliance.
I’m trying to read between the lines in the article because it wasn’t very clear. Are you saying in the “glory days” (2005?) GM sold 560K Tahoes/XL’s/Burbs/etc.?
If they’re currently selling at a pace of 250K BOF SUV’s, and they’re now selling 276K Lambda based fullsize crossovers, that stacks up to almost the same total “fullsizers” at 526K, a respectable amount.
The stat not mentioned in this article, how many prior Suburban/Tahoe drivers have moved onto the new suburban dad mobile: The Crew Cab fullsize truck?
But the lambada are car based and I can’t imagine anyone calling one of those “full size” they’re much too small.
Unfortunately for the moving to pickups argument, GM sold ~935,000 pickups in 2005, down to ~ 825,000 in 2015.
interesting, thanks for the truck #’s.
To most buyers, I’d think the Lambda trio, and all of their fullsize crossover competitors, do everything that a large portion of previous Tahoe/Suburban drivers used to buy those vehicles for a decade+ ago.
I’m using the “fullsize” term to represent a vehicle for those who just want a truck like thing that hauls 7 that isn’t a minivan, GM gladly will show them into a Traverse/Acadia/Enclave. (i.e. not a smaller CUV ala Equinox/CRV/X3or5 etc.)
Just search Silverado Wikipedia page and it shows the combined Silverado and Sierra sales, it got down to about 450k units in between that 10 year gap.
Interior wise, they’re definitely roomier than a Tahoe. A Traverse has 116 cu ft with both rear rows folded, 70 cu ft with the third row folded, and 24.4 cu ft with the third row in use. Those are excellent numbers, in part because Lambdas are big, long cars.
For comparison, a Tahoe has 94.7 with all rear seats folded, 51.7 with the third row folded, and a piddly 15.3 cu ft with the third row in use. The Tahoe’s numbers actually dropped significantly with the latest generation because GM used the absolute laziest approach to a fold flat third row. They simply jacked the floor of the trunk way up. I’d honestly rather be able to remove the third row seats entirely and stow them in my garage.
“GM used the absolute laziest approach to a fold flat third row. They simply jacked the floor of the trunk way up. I’d honestly rather be able to remove the third row seats entirely and stow them in my garage.”
I wouldn’t call it lazy, the reality is there isn’t any room to have it fold anywhere else unless you go to an IRS. But I agree it’s hokey and prefer the removable seats in my GMT-900 Tahoe. It will be interesting to see if GM moves to an IRS with the next generation.
I miss the removable seats. If I had a Tahoe, those seats would just be in my basement or garage.
Lambda is larger inside than Tahoe. Not as capable in terms of off-road or towing, but certainly more useful for the cast majority of uses.
Of course, you also had the GMT3xx cars (TrailBlazer, Envoy, 9-7X, etrc,,,) back then, and their extended-wheelbase variants.
Most people don’t want to deal with truck-like ride, handling, and interior packaging when they can shop around and find a vehicle with more interior room in a smaller exterior package, more comfortable ride, better handling, and better fuel economy to boot. For the majority of customers, a BOF vehicle makes zero sense compared to a well-designed crossover on a unibody platform.
These are great vehicles for the people who actually use them to tow or go off road with any real frequency, but most customers don’t use their family-sized SUVs for either of these things. They’ll continue to go more niche as better large CUVs keep coming out. The next generation Traverse and Enclave, for example, should further marginalize the Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban.
I’m in the market for these vehicles and a Traverse (or similar competing product) isn’t on the list. Why? I want RWD, lots of room behind the third row, real 4×4, and a V8. These aren’t negotiable for me. I really really wanted to like/buy the Dodge Durango and I test drove several times. RWD V8 crossover with a Jeep 4×4 system? Too bad its too damn small. Needs to be 5″ wider and a foot longer. That I would buy. I can see the Tahoe get marignalized perhaps, the Suburban far less likely. It cannot be effectively replaced with any CUV currently on the market if you actually use all three rows and the storage behind the third row. A Silverado CCSB makes more sense than a Tahoe.
This. The only reason the big SUVs sold before was because the only CUV choices were tiny jokes like the original CR-V and RAV-4. Now that most CUVs have become normal-sized sedans just with a higher ride height (= better visibility) sales have taken off, while true BOF SUVs are losing ground. Pricing them at over 40K hasn’t helped either.
When I ask people who own SUVs or CUVs why they bought them the answer is almost always – “It’s so easy to get into” and “I can see everything on the road” and “I feel safer”. So as mentioned these folks aren’t buying SUVs for towing, off roading or even hauling lots or large stuff around. Occasionally I get “we need space for the kids or dogs” but its not the main reason people give me for buying these things.
I miss those “jokes” of original compact SUVs. The old CRVs and Rav4s had pretty impressive ground clearance and good approach/departure angles. The Rav in particular impressed with its full time 50/50 AWD system and optional rear LSD, a true billy goat. We had the original Sportage and spunky Tracker/Sidekicks, genuinely offroad worthy little trucklets with BOF construction, real transfer cases, and solid rear axles.
I’m planning a honeymoon to Costa Rica right now and am absolutely making sure that our rental car will be a Suzuki Jimny. I’m disproportionately excited for that aspect of the trip LOL
Tahoe’s, Suburban’s, and Escalade’s are everywhere here in southern Nevada. I see lots of them with California plates too. Many are probably lease vehicles and of course many are in limo service, but I’d say sales are on the upswing in CA & NV. What I never see is an Expedition or Navigator.
“Tahoe’s, Suburban’s, and Escalade’s are everywhere here in southern Nevada.”
Not just NV. They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere! In TX, NM and AZ they blot out the sun on the roads.
Saw my first brand new Suburban with an MSRP over $74K yesterday. So in spite of all their old-tech and sea-sickness inducing ride&handling faults, they’re still much in demand.
IMO, the Expedition and Navigator cater to a specific Ford-fan niche, whereas the Tahoe and Suburban, Yukon and XL have a much broader appeal, with one reason being that the US government and law enforcement buy them specially-equipped in bulk.
The Escalade versions are a niche all their own. Regardless, if they could make more of all versions and trims, they still would sell all of them.
I think the Exp/Nav has appeal issues because they are both outdated (they’re from 2007 still), and Ford has taken too long to throw money at the problem.
Additionally, the styling revision for 2007 has never been popular. The Expedition fared okay but the Nav was downright awkward. The plain Jane roots show through too much all over the Nav. That’s not the case anymore with the Escalade version.
You know, I never considered that they both were outdated (by comparison). And I think you are right!
The 2015 refresh of the Navigator makes it much better. However, it still can’t hid it’s roots. I like it better than the Yukon for a number of reasons, but I completely understand why someone would buy a Yukon.
For one, the Navigator is more quiet on the inside than the Tahoe or Yukon – much like an Escalade in that comparison.
If Ford were to put Bilsteins or Ranchos proportional self-adjusting shocks into the suspension, it may improve the ride.
OTOH, the Sequoia is deathly quiet on the inside, like a Lexus LS460, and that can be disconcerting because it’s like riding in a tomb.
Love this kind of analysis! It’s easy to see what is gaining and losing, but it’s way more insightful to talk about who is taking from who.
Not a day goes by when I don’t see one of the GM full size triplets. Tahoes, Escalades and Yukon’s are literally everywhere in Upstate, NY and the thruway is littered with them. Conversely Navigators and Expeditions are few and far between not that one can tell a 2015/2016 from a 2008!
You work at a Chevy dealership. Of course you see GM vehicles at a GM dealership.
I see them all the time here in Chicago; but they either say “Chicago Police” or have a “Livery” license plate.
Is that why Ford keeps Chicago Assembly around? Fleet sales in Chicago, Cook County, and the State of Illinois?
Full size SUVs don’t offer the same levels of refinement to the average person that the CUV does.
People do tow, but how many and how large a load do they tow?
SUVs make ideal family vehicles, but at an added cost compared to the CUV.
The CUV so far has become the ideal vehicle concept that fulfills that suits the majority of vehicle owners.
As much as I like pickups, I do foresee pickups heading down the path of SUVs. Large vehicles are great, but most who want large vehicles remain the baby boomers. As the baby boomers age you will see an even greater change in vehicle sales.
The average family size has shrunk, there are many more older people out there retired. Why do they want or need a huge SUV or even pickup for that matter.
Most can get by with a small to midsize CUV.
Agreed. IMO we are better off now than we were 5-10 years ago in regards to vehicles that meet peoples’ needs. Because those who want an SUV but don’t need an SUV for any reason can get a CUV that’s more efficient. Those who still need an SUV can get one of the few that are left, which are themselves better now than 5-10 years ago.
Don’t over think this by getting into innate qualities of the cars.
SUV sales are soaring because gas is cheap and another $80 a month on the car note instead of the pump lifts a lot of people out of the cars which they otherwise would have settled for. Tahoes and Yukons don’t get this bump because they’re $65,000 and sell to people to whom $80 a month isn’t even noise.
This isn’t a real SUVs against CUVs thing. Expensive CUVs like the GL and Q7 are flat too. Down one size class the ML/GLE and Lexus RX are doing no better.
The BOF 4Runner just had its best year since 2006 and the BOF Wrangler just had its best year ever.
I finally rode in some GMT900 vehicles for the first time last year. For all their exterior massiveness they sure are cramped inside. I was really surprised.
It’s the live axle that eats up all the rear space.
People all drove these beasts during the first SUV craze. Many of them realized they don’t like driving something that’s enormous, hard to see out of, and has the driving dynamics of a Chris-Craft. Been there, done that.
The people who continue to buy these things are fewer in number but also somewhat more likely to actually use their unique capabilities (basically, towing or light off-roading with lots of people/dogs aboard). Although there are still plenty of buyers like my sister-in-law, whose Suburban has never done anything a Traverse couldn’t, but who lives in Texas and feels she has an image to uphold.
Like I’ve said before if you aren’t hooking something to the back of a FS BOF SUV heavy enough to require tandem axles on a somewhat regular basis your wasting a perfectly good truck.
I’d argue good visibility is actually a reason to keep buying pickups and SUVs with upright greenhouses!
But less upright with every refresh. Contractors driving pickups with a windshield more raked than some ’80s Ferraris.
MWolf’s conclusions on why big SUV’s aren’t flying off lots:
1: Price. These things being sold under names like Chevy and being sold at a price like a luxury import is NOT helping anything.
2: Most the mid-sized options abandoned BOF construction. People would still be buying BOF mid-size SUV’s if they still could. Mid-size fits most budgets and needs. The Suburban feels like a livingroom on wheels. I don’t need that. I might WANT it, if the price was justifiable for me. But it’s not.
3: I still remember close to $3/gallon for regular. It was very recent. It could easily happen again, since gas prices seem to be driven by politics and paranoia.
Nissan just showed off the new Armada. Apparently it’s basically a slightly modified Patrol. It looks infinitely nicer than the old model, but I’m not sure anyone is looking to spend that kind of cash for a truck/SUV with a Nissan badge on it. The Landcruiser at least has an established sub brand/model as a Toyota.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/10/2017-nissan-armada-chicago-2016-photos-video/
I like the interior on that Patrol. But I’m not down with the cheapo wheel arches trim (borrowed from the XD) – nor am I a fan of the backside, which looks like a Saturn Outlook.
The Infiniti badged edition stickers from the mid 60s, unless that one’s going away the Nissan version would have to top out around there. I’d expect most of them to come in in the 50s ala Expedition and lower end Tahoe. A $55,000 car in a subprime showroom strikes me as wrong too but so do the $40,000 Maximas and $45,000 Pathfinders. This is still a long, long way from a $85,000 Land Cruiser.
Other than the grotesque rear bumper I like it quite a bit. Big upright glass, a big V8, a little center console, and no dozer blade under the chin. Can this really be a 2017 vehicle?
This could be a fantastic value-laden option in the fullsize SUV segment, I’ll be keeping an eye on these!
Pretty obvious what’s going on here. Price of new FS BOF SUVs, popularity of crew cab 1/2 ton PU’s and a change/shift in the market. It isn’t the 90’s anymore and cheap gas isn’t gonna change that.
Plus GM and Ford realized that they could make more money by selling people Lambdas and D-platform CUVs for the old BoF SUV starting prices and the BoF SUVs at higher prices.
“Pretty obvious what’s going on here.”
Those still with a slice of the pie are armoring up.
I wanted a 15 Tahoe. I went to the dealer and tried to make a deal for a base model 4WD. The pricing was outrageous. GM, I may be wealthy, but I am not stupid. For that price, Chevy can stick those up its tail. I bought a new Pilot for 60% of the Tahoe price. I made an attempt to buy American.