Crossovers Disappoint Detroit

[b4z]

Like Ming said.
Build more station wagons. Not a thing wrong with a station wagon from a styling standpoint.
In Europe they are everywhere.
The only thing that is stopping me from buying a G8 to replace my SRX is the extra carrying capacity.
G8 Sportwagon anyone?

And finally when is weight going to become important to the auto industry?
500lbs off of a Tahoe would do wonders for it's gas mileage.
And it would do great things for the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook/Traverse too.

[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.

[jbartley]

this article is crap! this person did not do their homework...

[strider]

Yep, like has been said, Station Wagons. Why I got a Magnum, didn't want a tall wagon, but needed a family hauler.

/puts on flame retardant suit

[kmacleod]

The Vue is nice, but that is not what I am interested in. Bring on the Cruze Wagon, Astra Wagon, and unaltered AURA(INSIGNIA) wagon.

I'm ready for a competent 4 cyl. wagon that balances fuel economy and utility......

[Koasterking]

Originally Posted by kmacleod

The Vue is nice, but that is not what I am interested in. Bring on the Cruze Wagon, Astra Wagon, and unaltered AURA(INSIGNIA) wagon.

I'm ready for a competent 4 cyl. wagon that balances fuel economy and utility......

Plus, they should make all the Chevy Trios; Beat, Groove + Trax.

[1487]

the problem isnt with crossovers, its with the lack of equity people have in their existing vehicles. This idea that people dont want crossovers because they are buying Fits is garbage. As the article says, people cant afford the expensive crossovers because their current vehicle isnt worth much. Also, why does the article title mention Detroit when the Pilot and Highlander are doing worse than their American counterparts? Why is that fact buried near the end of the article?

[jzEllis]

Originally Posted by tgunnd39

"Even though the segment continues to outperform vehicle sales in general, and despite car companies' big hopes for crossovers, auto makers have been forced to scale back production plans as sales of crossovers have missed the mark."

If you read between the lines, as I like to think I do, you will see that even though this article attempts to paint a doom and gloom scenario for crossovers, the truth is, the entire auto industry, with the exceptions of Honda and Mini at the moment, is in a slump and this includes the vaunted Toyota. The proof that crossovers are performing is contained in the statement, "the segment continues to outperform vehicle sales in general," and can only lead to the logical conclusion that perhaps crossovers are not as bad off as the WSJ would have us believe?

Seems to me that the attempt to mislead the reader has fallen flat with the above statement. Maybe they will couch their bias more carefully next time.

My .02

as soon as i read that line i thought the same thing. but oh well, it's the general consensus right now that the U.S. economy is going to hell in a hand basket, and $4 gas is the devil....so it's in line with PERCEIVED reality, i guess.

now i'm not saying the auto industry in general is not taking a hit, i'm just saying that in the grand scheme of things it's not all doom and gloom.

for instance, they just reported the other day that U.S. unemployment was is at the highest it's ever been at 5.7%. but roughly 14 years ago, 5.5% unemployment was considered FULL employment for the U.S., and that was in a economic upswing.

it's all based on consumer "confidence" and perception.

[neshapop]

Hybrid SUVs and crossovers are "diet coke" solution.

GM, sit down, you failed again. The market asked a question "Do you have fuel efficient cars?"

[Koasterking]

Originally Posted by 1487

the problem isnt with crossovers, its with the lack of equity people have in their existing vehicles. This idea that people dont want crossovers because they are buying Fits is garbage. As the article says, people cant afford the expensive crossovers because their current vehicle isnt worth much. Also, why does the article title mention Detroit when the Pilot and Highlander are doing worse than their American counterparts? Why is that fact buried near the end of the article?

Yeah, it's weird, I see more of the GM CUV's than I do the new Pilot and Highlander; probably because their butt ugly.

[jzEllis]

just another reason why the G8 wagon needs to get here like RIGHT NOW!! i hate SUVs and was so excited when the prospect of a sexy G8 wagon sitting in my drive way was all but reality. then Mr Lutz announced that wagons don't sell well and instead we are giving yall the G8 truck thingy! WHAT!?!? (i actually love the G8 sport truck by the way)

how does GM justify what will obviously be a 5000 a year if that seller, but can't justify a fullsize wagon?!?!?!?! shshshshsheeeeeeeshshshsh!

[camaro_freak]

Originally Posted by joshls

Why is the G8 Wagon not coming here again????

exactly my question I was going to ask. Wagons are the future SUV and we'll be full circle again...

[Ming]

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.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by JeffInDFW

I wish Chevrolet would do a Malibu Maxx on the new redesigned Malibu. I know a lot of people liked the package of the old Maxx, but the styling was soooooooo bland they could not get around that. Right now would be an awsome time to come out with it.

That, and they never offered a 4-cylinder. I find it hard to believe that the longer wheelbase made putting a 4-cylinder in there impossible.

It did exist in some weird fleet only thing in an ordering guide that apparently never actually happened at the factory. I'm sure it was that "Americans didn't want 4-cyl. Malibu Maxxes, only fleets concerned with funny things like affordability and fuel economy."

Even if the fuel savings was just a few miles per gallon in city or hwy, I would have bought a Malibu Maxx 4-cyl. in white with dark tinted black windows. And others who don't share GM's "Value V6" philosophy would have bought them, too, I'd wager.

The paranoid side of me has long thought that GM's hate-affair with 4-cyl. wagons begins and ends over profit. And because such cars don't rake in the profit like SUVs, they get denied any advertising dollars as well. And typical of the convoluted logic, they'll chicken-egg you into thinking that "Americans don't want" this type of vehicle, while simultaneously advertising and incentivizing SUVs and large Crossovers out the wazoo.

Logic dictates that if SUVs and Large Crossovers were so naturally desireable, that they wouldn't NEED the advertising of the mountain climbing and the other image commercials --- they'd sell themselves. You'd be forced to advertise your slow selling vehicles, like the Chevy Colorado, instead of the non-stop Silverado advertising.

It's speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and I hope GM stops it and give me (at least) more of what I want. Or I'll go to Suzuki or whoever else to get it.

Modern styling (no PT Cruiser clone because you think that's the only palatable form a wagon can be sold in) in a 4-cyl. utilitarian (hatch of some sort) vehicle with a price tag that is reasonable for what you get. Is that too much to ask for?

[88Fiero]

Despite what mr ming says we are selling acadias and they seem to be the only truck that is selling. Suzuki = GM??