Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesda
I'm glad you like your Suzuki, but there's no way in hell I'd buy one because I can afford something nicer. 4-banger wagons are not an alternative to crossovers and utes. They're what people buy if they want to settle for less or can't afford more.
|
Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps the very reason I can afford more than what I chose is that I
don't buy the biggest most expensive vehicles possible. I don't buy in to the bigger is better, debt up to my neck thing that so many others have gotten themselves into with cars and housing (and now expect the rest of us to bail them out).
I played that game with my Bonneville SSEi, and had my fun. Now I'm back to my "roots" with inexpensive wagons and similar cars. I just plain like them and the way they feel and drive --- I love the look of the profile of a small wagon, and I like the utility of a hatch without the 17MPG SUV drivers deal with.
I suppose if I had bought a 4-cyl. coupe convertible otherwise on a very similar platform my car would be "sporty and desireable".
Perception.
However, I think your perception shines some light on why GM's 4-cyl. station wagons dropped off just around the time their SUVs started ramping up. And why we didn't see a 4-cylinder Malibu Maxx. Because GM doesn't want its customers "settling for less" --- or rather, they'd like to get someone who only needs a (mythical) 4-cylinder Malibu Maxx into a more profitable car like a V6 Equinox, or a Trailblazer. Forget that fuel economy drops down dramatically. Profit is the name of the game, and your perception plays right into it.