It’s a not entirely inaccurate trope that most auto journos prefer brown, manual, diesel-powered station wagons. Or at least prefer the weirdest version of a mainstream model. Witness my inexplicable preference for old S60 Cross Country. We’re an odd bunch.
Wagons have been seen as the offbeat choice for years in this country. Our question to you today is: Why?
After all, it’s not like they’re a poor selection. Most wagon iterations of a platform are actually more practical than their crossover brethren, which offer fewer cubes of interior cargo space and less fuel mileage.
All-wheel drive? That argument is rendered null and void thanks to the appearance of that feature on certain wagons. Given that an AWD crossover is hewn from the same bones, there is no reason power couldn’t be sent to all four wheels on a wagon variant. We know why manufacturer’s don’t do that, of course — the only people who would buy such a machine are the readers and writers of this site, plus the strange dude who lives downtown and wears wool socks with sandals on a summer’s day.
Is it because a generation of Americans had gas-guzzling, wallowy-handling, behemoth station wagons offered to them three decades ago? Was it Lee Iacocca and his team’s invention of the Magic Wagon (there’s that word again!) originally responsible for the longroof’s demise, only for the wagon to be completely done in by the 1991 Ford Explorer?
Tastes change, I guess. And for every free-thinking individual such as you and I who care not one whit about what our neighbors say of our new vehicle purchase, there are a dozen suburban denizens who care very much what their neighbors think. If Hollywood’s elite suddenly all started driving station wagons, you think their legions of fans wouldn’t blindly follow along? Maybe putting the Prius or Tesla powertrain into a (real) wagon is the answer.
So we put it to you, B&B: why are wagons treated like especially virulent lepers (apologies to any lepers in our audience) around these parts?
[Image: Volvo Cars, General Motors, BMW]
Because they look like they’re for cottage cheese enthusiasts
If TV has taught me anything, wagon buyers are over the hill, got too many kids, lost their independence, are aging fast, live in the suburbs in a boring tract house.
Crossover buyers are young, energetic, pack their trail bikes in their “Sport” “Utility” vehicle and head out to the trailhead to climb cliff faces.
It’s the same car with special badging, an extra inch of ground clearance, and four wheel drive that they never use.
Sell the sizzle, not the steak.
This.
What’s worse is that we all know the truth. The typical CUV/SUV buyers ARE the very thing they are trying to get away from.
Does anyone really believe that Chevy Traverse camping out in the left of the interstate has a basejumping wingsuit hiding out in the concealed storage in the back?
Similarly, when I did school pick up duty in my TSX Wagon, there were always 2 Hummers (granted they were the H2), waiting as well.
Nothing back there but the remains of a Happy Meal, a broken light saber and a Berenstain Bears book.
My son is in his mid 20’s. He and his friends calls SUVs/CUVs “mommymobiles”.
The fate that befell wagons and minivans is coming for SUVs/CUVs.
I’ve heard of JLR working on an electric wagon, something like a more luxurious, electric Outback.
https://www.motor1.com/news/265138/road-rover-rugged-wagon-render/
Not really sure why the stigma has not gone away. The “Everything old is new again” style cycle seems to apply to many things – except station wagons. Fashion especially loves to recycle styles from the 60s, 70s, etc.
I’m seriously considering a Regal Tour X as my next car but first I’ll have to get that idea past my wife. when I told her a few years ago that I thought a Toyota Venza would be a good choice, she looked at me like I had grown a third eye – we didn’t get a Venza.
Looking up third eye, I found “the locus of power and wisdom in the forehead.” You are wise to consider the Regal Tour X.
The TourX seems kind of cool. It’s just a shame it’s a GM product.
People who buy S/CUVs are often people who prioritize safety and/or capability, real or perceived. And a higher seating position “feels” safer and more capable. A wagon doesn’t offer that. Plus, nobody they want to emulate has a wagon, and it’s harder to write ad copy for a wagon that lets you pretend you’re buying an awesome identity.
The height is worth it in the winter.
When there are bad snow years, the plows tend to pile the snow really high at intersections. I hated having to inch my way out of side roads until the nose of the car was really out there so I could see if cars were coming. In those cases, yes I am safer. That couple of inches higher up makes a big difference.
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t any benefits to a higher ride height. There are, however, also drawbacks, like a higher center off gravity that reduces your chances of success in emergency avoidance maneuvers and increases the risk of rollovers. That said, I’m not making an argument for or against SUVs. Everyone can and should be able to choose what works for them.
The funny thing is, cars like the Rav4 and CRV went back down to ground clearance in the 6.5 inch range (increasing passenger space, aerodynamics, handling). So at this point they’re no better in terms of clearance than many regular sedans in the 1980s-1990s. Modern sedans for the most part, generally have in the range of 5.5 inches, but certain marques (GM especially) further add low hanging and protruding bumpers and chin spoilers that make parking up to the curb a bit of an adventure.
I was about to say the same thing. Ad to that low profile tires, and the difference is really mute. I also don’t get the wanting to sit upright in the car. It’s like comparing a living room recliner to a chair around your kitchen table. Why would you want the later in your car?
Emergency avoidance maneuvers are a fantasy. People sometimes drive around a roadkill and think they survived a near-death experience. They have all the time in the world to consider the problem and plan the trajectory. But in a real emergency maneuver, statistically speaking, you’re much better off standing on the brakes and bracing for impact, no matter the performance of the car. The reason is, due to the tunnel vision centered on the hazard, you cannot calculate what’s going to happen in the maneuver.
BTW, my CUV is much better handing than my sedan was in 1997. Has higher performance tires, too. Yet I’m not going to do any of this emergency avoidance thing, even if I have better tools now (and greater experience with performance driving). Seen too many people just completely sucking themselves into the problem – at times exceeding the ability of VSC to keep the car straight.
“Wagons have been seen as the offbeat choice for years in this country. Our question to you today is: Why?”
I think the answer has to do with gender dynamics. I see wagons as a more extreme manifestation of what’s happening to sedans.
Lots of valid answers point to EPA, changing consumer tastes, safety perceptions etc. But I think non-sedans offer women a much better chance to feel safer in traffic. Not from the elements, as is often claimed. From men drivers.
It’s probably why whoever still likes sedans is way more likely to be a man. Ditto wagons. Journalists are overwhelmingly also men. Of course they care about “handling.” It’s a man thing to care about.
Feelings of safety and security? Yes. Women’s issues? No. In the 70s sports cars were very popular and my GF drove a ‘72 Fiat Spyder, having upgraded from a Fiat 850 which was totaled when the semi behind her drove up onto her car when the stoplight changed to green. She felt that the larger Spyder was much more visible to trucks. Now, when I am sandwiched between a new F-150 and a QX80, I want something high, visible and with a bit more metal as protection. Times change and as the other vehicle evolve to bigger/heavier the higher Cubs win out. Interestingly, when I bought my new ‘87 Mercury Sable (Ford Taurus twin) 1/3 of all their sales were stationwagons.
Perhaps it’s because the manufacturers can add about $200 worth of longer springs and cheap plastic cladding and sell the car for $4,000 more than a car/wagon equivalent by calling it an “SUV?” That may be a bit of an exaggeration but it isn’t too far off. Look at an Impreza vs. a Crosstrek or a VW Golf Wagon vs. the Alltrack. Heck, look at any small/midsize Chevy and the Equinox. Anything else in their lineup probably drives better but the Equinox sells like crazy.
Therefore, they don’t want to make many wagons and dealers don’t want to stock them. There have been some really cool wagons available on the market but trying to find one in inventory was near impossible.
There’s way more to XV than just longer springs and struts. The more you bring out that myth, the more people buy CUVs. Did you try to compare steering knuckles of the Imprezza with Crosstrek’s?
This.
The higher margin on SUVs over their sedans/hatchback platform mates means that it’s in automakers’ interest to sell SUVs.
VW even admitted that those margins is what allows them to pour money in EV R&D
It is all perception. As one of the earlier posters mentioned, the SUV and or crossover, is deemed as the adventurous, free spirit, rugged, outdoorsy types.
The wagon is most associated with family. Second only perhaps to a Minivan. So those without families avoid them intentionally and those with families typically need the space of a minivan anyway.
Crossover wagons will help to change that way of thinking, Subaru Outback, Volvo XC60, Regal TourX, etc. But it remains a high hurdle of perception.
That being said, I am certainly eying a V60 for my driveway in the next few years. Love or hate wagons, its difficult to deny the V60 is beautiful inside and out. T6 Momentum with plaid seats? We will see.
I think it’s just consumer tastes. Wagons for many years have been seen as a Family Vehicle, which in-turn, makes them appear un-cool. It’s why the minivan has always had the reputation they do. Now ironically, something like a Honda Pilot is seen to many as something different, even though we all know the purpose of that car is a family hauler. Will these large crossovers become un-cool in the future? Eh, maybe.
To me, the funniest part about wagons is how people do not buy the traditional versions, but add some body cladding and a little bit of height and these “Outback” style wagons are now easier to sell. Odd. I get people like the feeling of height and more practicality, but I’ve never needed more ground clearance in most driving situations.
“… but I’ve never needed more ground clearance in most driving situations.”
I don’t think that they’re any lower under the body where high centering starts and the expensive bits hit but the current CAFE inspired chin fascia is low enough to be a real pain in the ass. For proof look no further than how many of them are scraped up or hanging crooked.
I’d kill for a Volvo V90 CC. I love jacked wagons. Most of the people that I know who own SUVs and crossovers don’t really need them.
Wagons haven’t been the boring family vehicle in approximately forever. The Chrysler K vans took that badge 30 years ago. That isn’t the image that’s keeping them back. SUVs have that association now, have for 20 years, and everybody and his dog still wants one.
No, the negative wagon association isn’t families at all.
It’s you, the reckless driving car snob.
For decades, BMW was seen as the choice of the reckless driving car snob, and now it’s a luxury brand who can get away with selling mediocre FWD crossovers because of that. Porsche hasn’t stooped as far as transverse engines yet, but they’ve followed a similar path.
Right, Ultimate Drivers don’t have to buy a wagon because just buying an angry little European car already makes the same statement. Wagon would be redundant.
So, wait, the reckless driving car snob image isn’t the problem, or it is? When’s the wreckless driver with the phone perpetually strapped to their face (even though they have Bluetooth) unless they’re reaching back to yell at little Jayden and Brooklyn thing going to catch up with the crossover?
Yes, the whole phone on the ear in a 50k car with BT still makes me laugh to this day.
Like playing MP3 format songs on an expensive hadron & wilkinstuff sound system
CUVs have a packaging advantage of growing vertically to increase passenger space while maintaining a smaller car’s foot-print, I think people like the utility of that big tall open space that can transport bulky things in a pinch. People have also realized that they really do prefer to sit up higher off the road, it reduces the sense of speed and just feels like you’re farther away from the scary reality of hurtling along in a metal box.
They certainly aren’t my choice. To be fair, the only way I’d consider a crossover would be if I found myself with kids to transport. If I got a utility vehicle, its far more likely that it would be a truck-based unit with some off-road ability.
I’ve never liked wagons, and the only one I’ve owned (1983 Tercel 4WD SR-5) did absolutely nothing to change that. In fact, in pretty much reinforced my feelings on them.
What is funny to me, is there has always been the camp that thinks SUV=cool, and wagon=lame. But more and more, I see the comments from people that think wagons are for snobs and snowflakes. Like how dare you want a Volvo V60 or Merc E class wagon instead of a XC60 or GLE400! If you pick a Golf wagon instead of the jacked up version, you’re just trying to be DIFFERENT!
Well, I personally don’t have a problem if everyone else wants to drive a clapped out Country Squire, lol. Buy what you want, I’ll do the same. If a station wagon, or a beige Camry, or purple 1996 Grand Caravan makes you happy, more power to you. I may engage in a discussion about why it isnt my choice, but at the end of the day, I don’t have to drive it or pay for it, so I really don’t have a dog in that fight.
I have no problem standing out from the crowd, in fact the only CUV I’d actually lust for would be a Honda Element, although it is a fair bit more utilitarian than your average Escape or Rogue, and isn’t available new. I just don’t like wagons. Well, it would be more fair to say that I don’t like an overwhelming majority of wagons. I get why people do, but it doesn’t work for me.
Friend of mine has an 85 Country Squire. Black, red interior with the wood grain on the sides. It’s amazing how many thumbs up and “cool car” expressions he gets in it.
I love wagons, had two of them. Then we got kids and the low roof took a toll on my back, by having to reach down to buckle the kids every day. Since we got a minivan we’ve really enjoyed the higher seating position. If we had fewer kids we’d probably drive a crossover for the higher seats alone.
I still enjoy driving my sedan though, because I don’t use it for kid duty.
I don’t think anyone is ragging on the minivan for kid duty. They’re built for a purpose, and work well within that realm. The crossover is just a compromise. The lack of useable space, and huge rear doors that are a pain in parking lots amaze me as that alone fails it as a good family hauler.
Someone made a good point not long ago that even a midsize crossover is still a good 8 inches to a foot shorter than a minivan, and about 3 inches narrow. Not trivial. These days, I think of the belly-dragging CRV and Rav4 as being more like small easy to park minivans (with inferior features and packaging, granted), within that context they make a lot of sense.
Upper middle class and high class white women have deemed them unsexy, that is the ABSOLUTE death call for a product.
I drive a 9-3 wagon, fashion be damned. BUT, have to admit, our X3 is a better family vehicle.
Wagon fan here. I had a Volvo 740 back in the day. It was old by then, it really needed an owner who enjoyed getting into the Chilton book and visiting junkyards for parts on their weekends. The same rang true for my 2004 Passat wagon. When it was running I certainly loved it. On the long list of candidates for my next car is the Subaru Outback wagon. We have an outsize representation of Subaru wagons here in the Paciqfic NW. But then again we have a lot of wool socks with sandals types too.
I was walking by my neighbors Audi Q5 yesterday and thinking that it’s pretty much a wagon, without the “stigma”.
I understand some of the advantages of ride height. Easier ingress/egress, all of the other SUVs and trucks’s headlights aren’t blinding you at face level. But you have the constant compromised handling & fuel economy that at least for me aren’t worth it.
I wish Tesla would consider a wagon version of their cars.
It boils down to one word: marketing.
Wagons are not exciting, per marketing departments. SUV/CUV things are higher margin and easier to sell as exciting. So the perception became such. And in image-conscious family America, perception matters.
Doesn’t help that the final American wagon options in the 90s were fairly terrible. Neither the B-body nor the Panther wagons were anything remotely close to cool or interesting. And the same goes for the Accord, Camry, Taurus, and whatever else. Aero blobs for leftover old fogies.
Part of the higher profit margin has to do with SUV/CUV things not having to meet the same (somewhat more stringent) passive safety regulations as conventional automobiles.
It kind of becomes a chicken or egg question. Does no one buy station wagons (or 2-door sedans or convertibles or compact pickup trucks) because there aren’t any good ones on the market?
Or are there no good station wagons (or 2-door sedans or convertibles or compact pickup trucks) on the market because no one buys them?
It’s simple. With roughly 30 years of advertising and marketing showing the “outdoorsy and safety” benefits of SUVs/CUVs, and automakers eliminating most traditional wagons (Taurus, Accord, Mazda6, Legacy, 3-Series, etc..), we’re left with a small sampling of off-beat options that most people wouldn’t be caught dead in.
“Given that an AWD crossover is hewn from the same bones, there is no reason power couldn’t be sent to all four wheels on a wagon variant. We know why manufacturer’s don’t do that, of course — the only people who would buy such a machine are the readers and writers of this site”
Eh, I live in Portland and can’t turn around with seeing an XC-70 (including my own) or an Outback.
(And no matter what Subaru might claim, the Outback is a wagon, just like the XC-70.
“But it’s like two inches taller!!!” won’t make it a “Crossover”.)
Why have station wagons fallen out of favor? My hypothesis is that women prefer the higher ride height of a CUV to be able to see through traffic better and working women have much greater say over how the total family income is spent. I suspect that men were choosing the family vehicle when station wagons were popular.
As someone whose first car was a 1981 Subaru GL wagon in brown with a manual (I hated that color, and the awful orange plaid interior), I used to wonder about this until one day when I saw an old 1970s Buick wagon parked between an Escape and CRV and realized they were all the same height. I think as cars (and seat heights) have gotten lower for fuel efficiency, people still want to sit in a more upright position like the older vehicles had. The CUVs allow that more than cars and wagons.
“old 1970s Buick wagon parked between an Escape and CRV and realized they were all the same height”
Was the Buick sitting on ’26s by any chance?
I don’t know about the rest of them buyers, but I found a couple of things wrong with wagons.
The #1 is, even if AWD is offered, the off-road capability is really bad. What the elitist journos like to harp upon is that you can find a cross-over so pathetic, that a ridiculously expensive, and a much larger wagon, will probably beat it. Then, they point and say “Ah-ha! There’s no point in buying a cross-over! Of any kind!” It’s just dishonest.
Of course these days, there’s no longer Suzuki Grand Vitara on the market with the total ratio of 1 to 22. BMW X3 offers 16.9. Even Jeep Renegade tops at 19.8, thanks to the much-maligned ZP 9sp auto. Still… There’s no way for Ford Flex to reach, say, Victory mine near Gabbs, Nevada. But I could easily make it in RAV4 (from the west side, obviously).
Similar reasoning applies to the #2, “DA PRACTICALITY”. Face it, wagons are very low, and exceedingly difficult to deal with. But once again, autojournos find a CUV that is worse — I’m looking at you, BMW X2 — and then pretend that a generic CUV is worse than wagon. Matthew committed that very sleight of hand in the article, too. Yeah, more cubic feet – because the goddamn butt of your wagon is THIS EFFIN LONG. Try to reach them!
It’s just so much better to have a shorter car that is taller.
Finally, CUVs come with other benefits, which might be insignificant, but they are there. For example, the visibility in the rain is much better. Well, it would be even better if the cab was as tall as on a Freightliner, but still, there’s a significant difference.
A wagon would certainly be a better car for a track day, but then a roadster is even better.
I have a roof rack to carry bikes on my “low” wagon. Mounting bikes on the roof of a CUV would be impractical, and I would probably get a rear bike rack instead.
Anyway, low is a feature for me, not a bug.
This is why there are two of us.
If only ‘low’ was available with adequate suspension travel—
I wonder if it would help wagons to have a left or right-hinged rear gate, as opposed to the top hinge? Seems like that’s the most inconvenient thing about daily usability.
If you see Ecosport sales surging you’ll know you’re right.
I don’t relish banging into my garage door. I’ll take a top hinge.
Jumped ship to a 4×4 CUV from a low-slung euro turbo sedan 6 months ago and the CUV beats the pants off the sedan for comfort and drivability.
I’ll probably go full-on Papaw next time and get the pick-up truck.
Thought about it. The length is a problem for me in a pickup.
So a sport sedan with lower profile tires and sport suspension for better handling is less comfortable than an SUV who’s mission is comfort and higher ride height?
You wouldn’t know it from the previous passage— but, before the sedan I was a wagon person.
PT Cruiser and Volvo 245.
Point being: wagons aren’t available in non-sporting versions anymore. The CUV has taken that place in the market.
Having had the following in our family driveway over the years, 8 minivans(4 Dodge and 4 GM), 3 SUV/CUV’s and the following wagons, Civic AWD, Pinto, Country Squire (2), Fairmont, and VW Type III and Type IV, I can honestly say that in the vast majority of instances that the minivan was the far superior vehicle as far as utility for both carrying cargo and passengers.
Clearance and wheel travel. Your spoiler fears no driveway or parking wheel-stop. Your bump stops fear no drainage dip or pothole, Your high-profile tires and exit door fear no curb. Basically, they let you get away with driving like an inattentive jerk.
No, sir. Stop thinking of others as the enemy. They’re just people living their lives. They’re not out to get you, and they’re not in your way.
The S/CUV allows people of average means freedom-of-movement that low-slung cars do not.
I’m not sure comfort has ever been confused for fashion so errantly as it has within this website’s community. Jogging pants are not a fashion statement. CUVs are jogging pants.
I think it’s an American thing. Similar to Americans not liking car based utes and preferring a boot (trunk) over a hatchback. We like ‘me here.
I’m a pround wagon owner (2011 Renault Megane estate, diesel and manual, but grey, not brown), and I love it.
For me, the only objective advantage of a CUV/SUV is the ease of access for people with disabilities. But for most people, the price difference could be invested in a gym membership instead. Yes, I realize that I am an urban snob, european at that.
The other advantages of the SUV have all to do with perception, ie form over function.
I’d rather be the odd choice out, so it works for me, although I am saddened by the higher fuel consumption of the SUV.
Fun fact one: the share of SUVs/CUVs in market sales in France has reached over 35% last year, from a very low base.
Fun fact two: those vehicules consume more than their sedan equivalent (although it is true that many people “downgrade” from a C-level sedan/wagon to a B-level CUV, for example).
Fun fact three: there are protests planned for this saturday all over France, by people saying they can’t afford gas anymore. Protesters have used the yellow safety jacket on the hood as a signal. Every single one I’ve seen so far has been on minivans, large sedans, monospaces, and particularly SUVs/CUVs…….
Wagons are the Libertarian Rodney Dangerfield of automobiles. They mix the best features of the car/SUV duality, and in most cases a wagon is the logical choice of auto for most people who are truly looking for utility. But they get no respect.
Wagons aren’t cool. SUVs are. Wagons are more expensive than their sedan and SUV equivalents.
It doesn’t matter that wagons look better, handle better, get better fuel economy and are more fun to drive.
Our last purchase came down to a AWD Golf Wagon or a AWD CR-V. We both preferred the wagon, but since our daughter has some health issues and we’ve had to drive through a blizzard to the hospital at least once a winter, we went with the extra couple of inches of ride height on the Cr-V.
Wagon fan here: everything the equivalent sedan offers, plus the extra carrying capacity. We loved the E39 5-series we’d had for over a decade, but when it became time to get something newer this past summer the wagon choices were thin on the ground (and thick on the wallet).
The MB E-class wagon is pricey and drives like a German Buick. The new Volvo is also pricey and just doesn’t appeal. The Caddy is just…no. So we’d come to fork in the automotive road: in one direction lies a sedan, the other an SUV of some kind.
We ended up buying a barely used (4300 miles, CPO) 2018 Audi Q5 with the Prestige package. Not what I’d normally call a driver’s car — but I have a Golf R and an M3 track car for that — but it’s sure nice to travel in. Extremely quiet, very well equipped, tasteful interior, killer B&O stereo, and all the gadgets. And actually it drives better than an SUV should, with minimal body roll and plenty of go. Fuel economy is a few mpg worse than a corresponding wagon would be, but it’s still not bad.
Oh, and @Matthew Guy: what’s ” less fuel mileage”? Is that supposed to mean better or worse?