bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i don't expect that to happen. i think people might get smaller utes if fuel economy is really an issue, so moving from the crv to the hrv, or from a highlander to a rav4 etc. or more kia soul type vehicles but with the u.s. and canada having an oil and gas boom, it seems unlikely that there will be major oil price pressure any time soon. not to mention that overall fuel economy has gone up a lot meaning less gas is being consumed overall per average vehicle. plus more electrics and hybrids and cng / fuel cell vehicles are no doubt coming.

if you're using all volume inside, maybe but cargo space the rav4 trounces a camry.

camry: 15.4 ft³
rav4: 38.4 ft³, 73.4 ft³ with seats down

mmarshall

A common platform doesn't mean that they are rebadges. Take the Toyota Camry platform, for example....one of the most versatile in the industry. From it, in one form or another, come the Camry, ES, Highlander, RX, Sienna, and Avalon...all markedly different vehicles with markedly different functions. Same at GM.

Johnhav430

It's kind of funny how small large European SUVs are for cargo, pretty sure 73.4 would be more than a X5, Range Rover, etc.....but gone are the days when a full sized American SUV could do 130 cu ft, from memory, the newest Suburban is like 119, barely more than the Chevy Traverse (original) @ 115

Toys4RJill

I don't think it need to get rid of the brands. It just needs to simplify the large car segment GM is currently catering too. The Lacrosse, Impala, XTS, CT6, are too many. I needs one Cadillac branded large car that started at $35K and can be optioned up to $70K

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

cargo volume of a chrysler pacifica though is 140 cu ft and honda odyssey is 148.5 cu ft so there are options with tons of space.

Sulu

You say that people buy crossovers for the space and then you say that if fuel prices go up, people will just buy smaller crossovers.

You have just validated the claim that people are buying crossovers as a fashion statement and not for the space. If you buy for the interior space, you are not going to get that interior space by shifting to a smaller vehicle.

This is not a good comparison. The Camry's cargo space is constrained by the height of the trunk with the lid down; the RAV4's seats-up cargo space is not constrained by the trunk lid so can be loaded to the higher ceiling of the cargo area.

I could make other comparisons between the Camry and the RAV4.

1. Exterior body width

Camry: 1820mm (71.6inch)
RAV4: 1845mm (72.6inch)

The RAV4 is a wider vehicle.

2. Rear hiproom:

Camry: 1384mm (54.5inch)
RAV4: 1242mm (48.9inch)

The RAV4's rear hiproom (seat width) is 6inches less than the Camry's because the RAV4 is built on the compact Corolla platform, despite the fact that the RAV4 is 1inch wider than the Camry. The RAV4 is an inefficient vehicle for passenger space.

3. Curb weight:

Camry: 1467kg (3234lb)
RAV4: 1555kg (3428lb)

The RAV4 is 200lb heavier than the Camry, despite the fact that the Camry is a mid-size vehicle and the RAV4 is a compact vehicle. The RAV4, as is typical of crossovers, is not a very efficient use of materials.

Once fuel prices start going up again (as they inevitably will), consumers will be searching for more efficient vehicles -- vehicles that will offer better fuel economy by offering the maximum interior space, with the minimum exterior footprint and minimum weight.

MattyG

Well, I should clarify in that I didn't mean to say that the platform spinoffs are rebadges at GM, (and I did not say that) but in my post I did say that Holdens are in fact rebadges. But it still creates an impression that GM seems to have sedans that are basically the same thing and it's basically you buy into the branding.

You love Impalas, you'll buy a new Impala. You liked your Malibu from years before, you'll buy a new Malibu. You want a Caddy but don't want to spend the dough, you get the Buick. You want a range of engines: 2.0, 3.6, well that's the main engine family at GM.

Yeah, I think that is what GM should do. Just simplify it all and start looking at ways to innovate more at the top end. They have a history of constantly porking up a lot of the same platforms and then hoping they capture the specific buyers on the basis of old loyalties. Now they did a neat thing with cars like the Regal and the ATS, but they've also had a problem distinguishing these cars in a crowded marketplace.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

not at all (false dichotomy). as we all know there's many factors in purchasing decisions. 'usefulness', style, purchase, and operating costs are typical factors, and they tug at one another, so often if you want more style you have less usefulness or if you want more usefullness your operating costs may be higher. so if a buyer finds higher operating costs to not be 'worth it' for a large vehicle, they may compromise and come down a size. life's full of compromises for everyone. even the wealthiest can't be in multiple places at once, or avoid the 'indignities' of life...

not a 'good' comparison? lol. someone else (LexsCTJill?) said the camry had more space than a rav4 which is ludicrous in terms of useful space, although maybe the camry has a bit more rear leg room i don't know. and the VERTICAL height of cargo space vs a trunk good for pizza boxes and a golf bag sideways is EXACTLY why utes are so useful. standing up suitcases provides immense travel cargo utility.

but i grant you the rav4 isn't great in space efficiency (for a utility) probably because it isn't built on a dedicated platform.

the crv for example is wider, taller, lighter, and roomier, yet shorter, perhaps because it was designed as a ute with a more upright/stubby front end engine config, where the rav4, despite its refreshed 'bulldog' front is still a corolla on steroids.

i can see that but that doesn't mean they'll be buying sedans... in fact i see their options to buy sedans dwindling further (what this thread's about), and utes becoming more efficient... i mean if ford takes what it's learned from building an aluminum f150 in VAST volumes down to a new escape, it could be really great.

i still can't get over the fact that my 4600lb jeep grand cherokee gets much better fuel economy than the 3800lb gs400 i had a long time ago.

mmarshall

Simple-the transmission. Your JGC has several more gears than the old GS400, which adds up to efficiency. Also, no doubt, a more efficient EFI system for the engine.

Toys4RJill

Not if you are carrying four adults. The payload of a Rav4 is 900 pounds which is virtually useless for four regular sized adults for a trip. This leaves not much for cargo and the I4 will barely move it. Its a nice big fad as these Rav4 and CRV are simply overpriced hatches that sit up a little taller. I would really even qualify a Rav4, or RX350 as cross-overs, they are more like tall hatches.

I think the argument that when gas prices go up, people who are buying these small CUVs, will move to cars. Like I said, the new Camry is 11 more miles per gallon on the highway and over 7 more combined compared to a AWD Rav.

mmarshall

Actually, I chose the Buick Lacrosse, in part, because I don't like Caddies. IMO, the suspensions/wheels/tires are too stiff (even with Magna-Ride), the CUE system s**ks, they are overpriced, they tend to have worse-than-average reliability, dealerships are relatively sparse compared to other GM divisions, they have a somewhat loose feel to their construction (similar to some Lincolns), and, by my standards, their controls/video-systems are overly-complex. I simply don't find them very impressive or satisfying to drive....though the ATS does handle quite smartly, if that's one's bag.

chromedome

Maybe Caddy tried to out-BMW BMW, only to focus on the wrong things like harsh suspension and poor reliability. I don't see the point to Cadillac at all when Buicks are more comfortable and a lot cheaper. Even BMW is moving towards old Lexus/Buick dynamics to satisfy new customers who want the badge but don't care about the handling.

As for crossovers, I think they're too heavy and cost too much to buy and run, but they do make sense if you're constantly going on rough trails and need the ground clearance. Ironically most crossovers never touch mud or gravel. Then again, some people also prefer the higher driving and seating position, and sedans are also getting taller. Compare the long and low 7-series and Jaguar XJ from the early 90s with their taller, chunky successors today.

Johnhav430

You know what's interesting, my buddy pointed out that he paid cash for his Navigator, it was a CPO, the rear a/c no longer works so he can't take passengers in the 2nd and 3rd rows since they live in FLA. When a door bezel broke off 2 yrs ago, his girls said dad, you need to buy a new car, this thing is too old (I think it's an '09). Meanwhile, it has 150k and he wants 225k minimum out of it. The other day he told me, I was plush back then so I didn't have a problem with taking 50k out of the bank and buying it. Seems rather foolish in retrospect (and he said go ahead let me have it). btw nothing broke except one thing under CPO, it's after CPO stuff goes....

As far as reliability, my other friend dumped his Odyssey because it had a recall replacing the piston rings? He decided to get a Sienna, now they tell him he needs new runflats after 23k? Costco doesn't carry tires for this minivan? I dunno if newer is no longer bulletproof, can't say as we don't have any car newer than '11....

I get this distinct feeling one no longer buys a new car, and happens to drive it 18 yrs. because nothing seems to be breaking...

mmarshall

Caddy, by doing so, also lost many of the traditional DeVille/DTS buyers....who were probably the company's most loyal fans and core buyer group. Many of them switched to the Lexus ES/LS, the last-generation Buick Lacrosse (the present Lacrosse, except for me, is not selling well LOL) , or simply kept their old DTS and didn't trade in as usual.


The smaller, car-based crossovers, even with AWD often get essentially the same gas mileage as equivalent sedans. And their list prices aren't much, if any, different. The high ground clearance also comes in handy for deeper snow. The main difference between how they drive is that sedans tend to have slightly more stable road manners.

JDR76

It seems like not that long ago, if you went with an SUV over a traditional sedan, you had to make a lot of compromises to get that extra utility. For example, you may have compromises in ride, fuel mileage, passenger comfort/interior, etc.

Over the past 10+ years the SUV/CUV has been pretty remarkably improved, at least in my experience/opinion, to the point that I now feel like the sedan is the compromise. There are obvious exceptions.

From a family vehicle standpoint, I feel like our Highlander has very few compromises over something like an Avalon or Camry. Passenger comfort is great as we have tons of interior room and can seat 7. I get about 28-30 mpg and have a smooth V6. We have the ground clearance and AWD to handle winter mountain driving, and I have tons of cargo room when needed. Car seats are a breeze and it's easy for my kids to get in and out of.

Even one of our best friends, who is single, just traded her 5 series in for a new RAV4, as she wanted better utility and the ability to more easily bring her large dog with her.

It's a trend that I don't see changing any time soon, if at all.