mmarshall

I don't think they listen to any of the forums......even GM Authority.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/

Toys4RJill

The evidence right now will show that most people are shifting towards crossovers.

peteharvey

Unfortunately, demographers have no agreed international standard for the year of birth ranges for each generation.
There is simply no "consensus" regarding year ranges.

Many consider the Baby Boomer to be a population boom beginning after World War II.
However, other demographers place the beginning of the Baby Boomer Era in the late 1930's, or even during World War II, because that was when the boom in fertility first began.

Likewise, there is no international agreed standard for the year of birth range for Generation X either.
Some say Gen X is between 1965-1976; other say Gen X is between 1965-79.

Try reading the literature - the year ranges for each generation is all over the place unfortunately.

That's why I said - "Basically":
The Lost Generation 1880-1900
The Greatest Generation 1900-1920
The Silent Generation 1920-1940
The Baby Boomers 1940-1960
Generation X 1960-1980
Generation Y Millennials 1980-2000
Generation Z 2000-2020
Generation Alpha 2020-2040
Generation Beta etc.

If we use the system above with exactly 20 year one-generational age spans - because I notice people using 20 year spans for Baby Boomers, with 15 year spans for Gen X, and another 15 years for Gen Y Millennials, but then go back to 20 years for Gen Z - no agreed standard unfortunately.

I wouldn't get too hung up over this matter.
Basically, the age ranges just gives us a "rough idea" of the age ranges and generational gaps for comparison purposes...

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

these age ranges and classifications are pretty ridiculous and even insulting to people’s differences imo.

and a ‘generation’ is not likely to be 20 years with so many having children later than 20!

but the truth is people are born and die every day so it’s just a sliding conveyor belt of people of all ages, people don’t fit into boxes.

reminds me of stock market ‘cycles’ which are also ludicrous because the economic conditions are NEVER the same from period to period.

but some things are generally true...

older buyers will tend to look for function over form, and thus like the cuv/suvs. the supply has responded and offered more and more of them and innovated greatly.

youngers buyers tend to look more at form over function (utility), what something looks like, whether it’s practical or not.

not that there were many available when i bought my first few cars, but i never considered owning an suv until i NEEDED one. i’d moved to a rural area and was constantly driving some distance to get larger stuff from stores and a trunk wasn’t cutting it. I could have bought a truck but my (now ex) already had one, but she needed to drive that. i went back to a sedan now because i’m more in a mode of trying to get rid of stuff now and felt i no longer needed the suv and wanted to try it again, plus my g90 has a huge trunk and interior. still, the other day i bought a small table and we had to pick it up with a friend’s subaru outback, but i digress...

so i’m saying as we get older we usually get more practical and while in times past the sedan was still considered the practical choice (because there wasn’t much alternative!) but now that’s not the case.

and the manufacturers have responded with all shapes and sizes. and many young people have dogs for example, and if you’ve ever tried to put a golden retriever in the back of a 2 door coupe you pretty quickly realize it’s horrible. so you trade it in and get a kia soul or cr-v or rav4 or subaru, etc.

so i don’t think it has anything to do with generations... simply evolving market dynamics and manufacturers adjusting product plans to meet consumer needs and wants.

outliers will continue to be everywhere though... the ‘old’ guy who buys a corvette the young person who buys ford explorer, etc. something for everyone.

Toys4RJill

Great post 👍. IMO, in the midsize category, buying a sedan makes no sense. The new cross overs ride just as fine and have a better view and are now just as fuel efficient. We have been driving a new Mercedes GLC AMG43 for the last week at work on loan as we are doing some work for MB. I think it is a press vehicle. I can tell you as dumb as the idea is of all that power, the vehicle rides smooth, well composed. Handling is great. And there is all this space. Makes no sense to buy a E class at that price point of $80K. Sonata over a Tucson? No chance.

geko29

Depends on how you define "all this space". I can cross my legs in the back seat of an E class. I can't get into the back seat of a GLC without digging my knees into the driver's back.

mmarshall

No they don't....Not in my opinion, though they do, on average, ride somewhat better than they used to. But, in most cases, nothing beats a nice big sedan for ride comfort....especially with taller-profile rubber.

Depends on how you define a better view. The Subaru Outback and Forester, because of their large square windows, are probably the two Kings of outward visibility, to the rear, from the driver's seat.

I won't argue with you there. Some of them are indeed as fuel efficient as sedans. And many crossovers are also available with FWD for better economy.

Toys4RJill

Right. For sure. Space needs to be defined. But there are now crossovers available that will achieve your objective without sacrificing ride or handling etc. Although I really like small cars, I can see a point where crossover makes better sense than a mid sized sedan.

Toys4RJill

Such an outdated viewpoint. Those big sedans are not selling. In fact they are being discontinued. Consumers seem to be rejecting them. The whole large taller profile argument is not relevant anymore. Lots of cars out there with 45 series tires ride great.

mmarshall

No, not IMO. A few vehicles with 45-series tires ride well...at least what I consider well. That is not necessarily outdated thinking....simply my own experience on test-drives and/or ownership.

I agree that large sedans are not that popular the U.S. any more (though they still sell in my area), but their declining popularity is not because of issues of ride comfort. Many buyers simply want more cargo space in the back.

geko29

Oh I know there are, I bought one. But I had to buy a full-size 3-row crossover to get a 2nd row as roomy as a mid-sized sedan. Midsize 2-row crossovers were not even remotely close to adequate. Despite not having a trunk sticking out in the back, our Q7 is a full 10" longer than an E-Class, outweighs it by 1,200 lbs, and gets 15% worse fuel economy. But it does ride just as nice.

mmarshall

That 1,200 lbs. weight-premium, plus the SUV aerodynamics, is probably where at least part of the 15% difference in fuel economy is going. But, my take on it (and this is not directed at you, personally, as an owner).....is that anyone that can afford a Q7 (which is not cheap) can afford to keep the tank full.

I agree with your comments, BTW, on the 2 versus 3 seat space-efficiency.

Toys4RJill

I cant look right now. But what is the rear seat leg room of a Camry V6 vs a HL V6? Then factor the fuel economy? I didn’t know you had a Q7 as the mobile CL does not show signatures.

geko29

You are right on that account, just data points. We were, however, pleasantly surprised that the Q7 gets significantly better gas mileage than the RX350 that it replaced, despite outweighing it by a half-ton and having an additional 60hp/70lbft.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

that just isn't true. check out an RX sometime - tons of rear seat room. the GLC is a compact crossover. and your Q7 of course is yuuuge.

Q7 doesn't have a trunk but it has a large cargo area. it's longer because unlike the E-class, it's 3 row! that space has to come from somewhere. and the weight too, including third row seating, more climate control, more structural stuff, cargo area... hardly surprising at all.

and i was very recently in a brand new e-class (in Paris!). the rear seat was hardly what i would call roomy. i was also in an s-class... much nicer.