Sedans Aren’t Dead, American Sedans Are | Hacker News Reader

Sedans Aren’t Dead, American Sedans Are

bloomberg.com

176 pointshoward941366 comments

Any article on why US manufactures of vehicles focus on trucks instead of cars and does not mention the chicken tax [1] has not really done their homework. In 1965 a 25% tax was put on imported trucks due to a trade fight with Europe on chicken imports. This 25% tax is still in effect today. SUVs were also put in the truck category for some time and it is not clear which truck like vehicles will be taxed. This is why almost all trucks and SUVs made by non-US companies are manufactured in the US.

Profit margins on US made trucks have been much larger than autos for a long time(mostly due to this tax) and I imagine that all the marketing of the US auto companies over 40 years to get people to buy them instead of sedans has had quite an effect. Once a large number of people are driving tall trucks and SUVs, driving a car is much less comfortable, as you can't see past the truck in front of you from a low sedan.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

I think cheaper gas and long commutes has way more of an effect for Americans preferring larger vehicles than fewer foreign trucks being available.

Correct, Americans have preferred larger cars for a long time. American cars in the 50' and 60's were quite large, especially luxury brands. For families, the large station wagon with a huge engine to tow a boat on the weekend and weighing over 2 tons were not uncommon[1]. Americans preferred cars over trucks and I image would have continued to do so if a huge amount of marketing over decades was not used to convince people to buy vehicles that were protected from foreign competition with a 25% import tax.

[1]https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1965/787220/ford_coun...

Also for a very long time trucks got to skate on emissions and safety regulations.

I think trucks were also exempted from fuel economy regulations.

This all combined to kill off the station wagon.

Americans being larger physically and more likely to be overweight probably also has a pretty large effect.

Just look at Tom Selleck in Magnum PI trying to drive the Ferrari. They had to take the seat bottom out, and even then he always drove it with the roof off. His knees flanked the steering wheel.

They had a scene once where he drove a jag, and the top bezel around the windshield was right at eye level.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. 6’5” here and I was disappointed that I wasn’t replacing my 1997 Accord with a 2018.

Safety regulations make cars heavier and efficiency requirements make them more aerodynamic. End result is that I cannot physically fit in an Accord without reclining the seat.

How do taller European countries manage with their smaller cars then?

Germans, Dutch, even the Spaniards are taller on average than Americans.

The average US male weighs 195.8lb and is 5'9" tall. The average German male weighs 181.7lb and is also 5'9" tall.

So Americans are either more muscular or more fat than Germans, either of which would make them larger.

Personal anecdote, my 6'3" friends have no problem fitting in my Porsche Cayman with several inches of headroom to spare, and that's about as short as German cars go. I think the Germans just prioritize vertical space in their cabins more than the Japanese.

I'm 5'9" (average height in the US) and normal weight/healthy. I own a Honda Accord and while I love the car, I have to adjust the seat as far back as it will go because I have long legs.

I... what? I fit just fine in my recent accord at 6’5” 240lbs. The seat is far back but not even maxed, I think, and people still fit behind me. It’s a large sedan...

Many of those small cars are boxier. In a Honda example, I fit fine in a Honda Fit.

I don't believe that's the problem. Popular US market cars like the Accord have a few things in common: 1. They have a sunroof/moonroof, which makes the ceiling lower. 2. The larger sedans tend to have very slanted windshields to help with gas mileage. 3. The seats, annoyingly, tend to have a high minimum height "for a more commanding seating position".

Also. You get a big truck/SUV for the same reason people prefer a big TV or a large suburban home than a 2 bedroom condo. Bigger is better, at least in the U.S.

it's also because Americans spend a lot more time in their car than their friends across the pond.

if you're in your car for 2 hours a day commuting, driving the kids around, etc, then bigger is better and more comfortable

A 2003 diesel jetta is way better on the highway than a 2015 ford explorer.

This is an absolutely crazy response. In no world is a 15 year old economy sedan more comfortable for a highway commute than a newer SUV. The only argument you could make is fuel economy.

The diesel Jetta emits way more particulate pollution than a modern gasoline-burning SUV, too. Like over an order of magnitude more.

I imagine the GP was talking about easiness to drive. Low cars are more stable and lighter cars accelerate better (not only on speed-ups, but while breaking too).

Overall, driving a truck is much more stressing than a car.

But we're specifically talking about highway commutes where driving dynamics don't really come into play. IMO, the higher position alone makes driving an SUV superior on the highway but the 2003 Jetta reference is what really makes the comment absurd.

Historically (50's thru early 70's) Americans considered v8 full size cars and wagons the only way to travel the multi thousand mile trips common on the continent. Japanese cars changed all that and their smaller form factor became the norm. Mid sized pickups (Chevy LUV) were unseated by Toyota and other brands and replaced station wagons. SUV and minivans became the norm for families. The high end luxury touring/prestige market remains pretty strong - european brands (even if actually owned by Indians) continue to attract demand. Sedans have increasingly been two door performance vehicles (Challenger, Mustang, Camaro) effectively being full sized sports cars. Only vehicles like the Accord, Camry etc are sold as family vehicles. The exception is hybrids, which IMO are the way forward, replacing the hum drum commuter and family multi use saloons with much greater fuel efficiency. There's a tiny niche market for heavily government subsidized and mostly luxury and status signaling EV's, and this market will almost certainly expand with intense political pressure and Chinese dominance. The challenge is that for decades US unions have protected the jobs around the vast transportation economic ecosphere - parts, infrastructure, design, build. This is all arguably being ceded to Asia with the oligarch pied piper Elon Musk selling the Western dream of cheap ultimately autonomous 'green' transportation. What's missing from the Bloomberg article is that Ford Fusion and Focus are on global platforms and remain very strong in europe and elsewhere.

Hybrids are no longer a category on their own. You can buy a Camry or even SUVs in hybrid, and all the brands are expanding their offer to most of their vehicles.

Your comment that "Ford Fusion and Focus are on global platforms" may explain why the Ford cars were so tiny when I looked at them last year. I felt like buying a Ford, but none of the cars had enough room for my head. I'm sure it helps fuel economy and knocks 1% off the price, and few people will care in South America or Asia, but it was a deal killer for me.

Almost all manufacturers are now using global platforms. But generally sedan designers have killed off a large portion of their own market share by making their cars increasingly impractical and uncomfortable in a misguided pursuit of styling and efficiency.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180423/OEM01/180429992/for...

Are you over 6’6”? I ask because my brother-in-law is, and has driven the Focus wagon we just sold - and owns a 1997 Passat. The key seems to be being able to drop the height of the seat.

Germans are slightly taller on average than Americans, and the Dutch are pretty well-known for it. Both are countries where the VW Golf is the median vehicle, and the Focus is one of its main competitors.

$6-7/gallon gas probably does cause people to put up with stuff that they wouldn’t if fuel were commonly $2.50, though.

I'm just 6'2" but I like to sit up straight. I need to see upward to read signs and watch traffic lights. I don't want to injure my head when it moves to the side, for example by impacting a grab handle or the edge of a roof window.

Worse though, are my tall kids. One is expected to be 6'10" soon. Does he just have to buy a bus? Getting a car would be preferred.

Very tall guys here seem to go for VWs, or Audis if they’re feeling spendy. Another rather tall colleague of mine drives an Auris (Toyota Europe's Corolla equivalent). My 6’1” husband chose a Fiesta, and he’s rather long torsoed, to boot.

Cars that are compact/economy cars on the US market are midsize/midmarket here, and that might be why little things like very height-adjustable seats are in them. The Golf/Focus (plus Auris, Astra) segment is extremely competitive in the EU.

Huh. Just realized that most cars here don’t have prominent grab handles.

I would much rather be low to the ground on the highway than up high. It all comes down to personal preference.

> the higher position alone makes driving an SUV superior on the highway

I've heard this position from a number of people and never really understood it. It's usually related to the ability to see over other vehicles, but in times of higher traffic density where that would be most useful, there are almost always numerous larger vehicles on the road that still significantly limit vision.

I've made cross-country trips in everything from a sports car to a 1-ton van, and definitely didn't find the van's height to be an asset in terms of comfort.

Comfort is subjective. I had a Jetta and found it very comfortable, though most people would have thought it too firm or even harsh.

It's probably because it's smaller and lighther and it tends to bounce more longitudinally in turns. Being used to small cars I also find it confortable. A Passat wagon is more confortable though but the misdesigned a/c and the seats ruin it somewhat.

Anecdotally, I hate riding in trucks and SUVs for long distances. Particularly SUVs. Can't stand those things. Particularly as a passenger in the back seat. The view height out the windshield is wonky and made me motion sick last time I spent much time in one.

I drove a rental Ford Fusion Hybrid and then a Ford Expedition on my trip to Texas this summer.

The Fusion was a joy to drive; the Expedition was a chore. Squishy driver's seat, soggy handling, and of course, three times the fuel consumption of the Fusion hybrid.

If I recall properly, the North American Fusion is a slightly reworked Mondeo, which is considered a nice-ish car over here, and would also explain why I thought it was nice: we have a Fiesta and just sold my diesel Focus wagon.

Sorry to see that just when Ford seemed to have figured out that their European division designs decent small cars, they’ve given up on bringing them into the North American market.

It could also be that Americans are bigger.

(I'm not referring to height)

except, we aren't. people are fat everywhere. we aren't even the fattest country.

What is more relevant here is fatness of population among car manufacturing nations. Not sure that the US wins that either though.

which country is the fattest? I assumed it was here in the US.

In obesity rankings, Pacific island nations tend to top the list. I think Mexico is fatter than the US, as well as the the petrostates in the Middle East.

Not the fatest, but really close. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_ma...

36.2% obesity, 12th place. Beaten mostly by small island nations. It's still the 1st most obese western country.

BMI might not be the best indicator since it also factors in height. If we go by weight only, USA is #3 behind two small island nations.

Americans are big. They also have more fat people than other western nations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9345086/The...

Your suggestion of weight only is even worse than BMI. That's like saying a 15 lb turkey is fatter than 12 lbs of lard.

BMI doesn't account for muscle mass. If you have decent muscle you're overweight according to BMI.

weight only < BMI < caliper measurements

Any article that equates fatness with weight is not accurate.

I guess I'm trying to argue that Americans are more voluminous, and trying to approximate volume through mass since body volume by population isn't a commonly available stat. I'd argue that mass is closer correlated to volume than BMI.

Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps have normal BMIs. BMI is very sensitive and not very specific, meaning that it has few false positives and lots of false negatives, the opposite of what you suggest.

In this article[1] "Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI), Percent Body Fat, and Leptin" you can see this dramatically illustrated in Figure 1 [2]. The upper left quadrant (different colors for men and women) is the most populous. It contains the people who are obese by body fat percentage but not BMI. The lower right is the least populated. It contains the people who are not obese by body fat percentage but who are flagged as obese by BMI.

The small fraction of the population that have devoted such attention to the cultivation of muscle over other goals, such as athletic performance, are surely well aware of their body fat levels and are unlikely to be impacted by this edge case in BMI measurement. (Their excess muscle may also not be healthy for their cardiovascular system.) Dismissing the utility of a easily applied and highly sensitive screen like BMI is a mistake, both for individuals and for public health.

[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=...

But American cars were bigger in the 50s and 60s too. A very brief search shows that Americans were taller than Europeans then, but the same search shows that they are now too. Not the best source. https://ourworldindata.org/human-height

Yes, a big drop in the ranking apparently:

> Men and women in the United States also experienced a growth spurt, but to a lesser degree. In 1914, U.S. men were the third tallest in the world, and U.S. women were the fourth tallest. But despite increases in height of 2.2 inches and 2 inches (6 cm and 5 cm), respectively, U.S. men are now ranked 37th and women are ranked 42nd, the study found.

https://www.livescience.com/55580-tallest-shortest-people-in...

I have a feeling mexico is a huge factor in that, but have never seen height in US broken down to by race/ethnicity.

Asian living in US and somehow we have come to prefer SUVs too and no it is not because we are fat(I used to drive Hyundai i10 in India), it is because at the end of day SUVs indeed are more comfortable. Taking out baby car seats and putting it back is easier in a SUV. Going on 100mile+ drive is easier in SUV. Mother-in-law visiting? - picking her up(with entire family) from Airport is easier in SUV. So on and so forth.

Obviously - one gets used to these things. In India - typically for example whole family does not go to pick one up from Airport. Babies don't have to be ferreted around in cars that much. Furniture delivery is almost always free in India whereas in US either you have to pay extra or pick up.

A minivan serves a similar purpose.

You should try a Volvo V70 or V90, VW Passat Variant or Audi A6 Avant if you still think SUVs are confortable. No more bouncing around at >120 kmh. Toyota probably also has a comparable Auris Touring or those Verso models. And then there's the Mercedes V Class if you have an extended family.

But trucks aren't that much 'bigger' on the inside than sedans. Go sit in a Toyota Avalon and a Tahoe and tell me where you have more room.

The Avalon probably has 80% as much noise on the freeway and if you set the cruise control to 80, the sedan is going to get 2x-3x better MPG and the Avalon costs half as much as the Tahoe.

What's the adage about a fool and their money?

Often for the price of an SUV you could drive a luxury/sport sedan and have better driving dynamics, fit, and finish as well as comfort.

or you have 3 kids and baby and need the space to drive them music lessons and pick up their friends

If it were only about hauling people then isn't a minivan as good or better? But U.S. manufacturers are abandoning minivans even more quickly than sedans-- only Chrysler still makes one, Ford and GM don't.

The chicken tax and the "cool" factor / branding must play a role over and above the raw utility of hauling lots of people, surely?

The minivan-shaped hole in the market is being filled by crossovers.

But really it's a longer story than that. Minivans had previously replaced station wagons, and the crossovers of today tend to look like a cross between a minivan and a wagon.

Crossovers seem to me to be the worst of all worlds. They have poor gas mileage and terrible highway aerodynamics like large SUVs and have limited trunk space while lacking "utility" features such as trailer hitch mounts or 4WD as standard.

Yes, but many, many people have no use for factory hitches, 4x4, or 6500lb towing capacities. What they want is interior room for passengers, high roofline, visibility, and elevated vantage point. As minivans became unhip (& expensive), consumers found these things in SUV's, but didn't like the price, gas mileage, handling, or safety. So SUV's evolved towards hatches & wagons with better aero, car-like handling, and monocoque frames, and the crossover was born.

They get better gas milage than any truck or truck based SUV.

Their aero isn't as good as a car but it's better than a truck based SUV.

Fold the seats and you've got a trunk only slightly smaller than a minivan without the 3rd row.

AWD SUVs are readily available and generally the standard. FWD is generally reserved for people who want to go out of their way to be economical about it.

Trailer hitch is solved with $300 and a trip to Uhaul (or for the mechanically inclined: $120, Amazon and a 30% chance of needing a drill). With modern horsepower and brakes you can comfortably tow some stupidly large stuff with crossovers so long as you've got a weight distribution hitch to take some of the weight off the rear axle.

Crossovers do nothing great but they do everything passably well, just like the station wagons of the 1950s-80s they replaced.

They make different tradeoffs than trucks and truck-like SUVs. You don't prefer those tradeoffs, but plenty of people do.

There's a broad range that meet lots of different needs. I have a '17 Kia Soul Exclaim. 1.6L turbo 5-door crossover. I can haul 4 adults comfortably and the trunk has more space than I usually use for groceries/gear. It does lack the trailer hitch and 4WD of the Wrangler I traded for it, but $100 fixes the hitch and I don't haul enough or go off-roading to need 4WD. I get 30mpg highway and that little turbo engine can really zip around. It's very fun to drive.

4WD w/o a central differential is useless for most people who use their cars on paved roads. AWD on the other hand, especially viscous coupling auto AWD is quite useful. The trailer mount is only useful for a bike carrier or a light semi trailer.

Three-row crossovers are just minivans with different styling. The 2018 chevy traverse only has 23mm more ground clearance than the toyota sienna. If you put sliding doors on it instead of standard rear doors, it would be a minivan.

The current state of minivans is probably as much a fashion thing as anyone else. People not wanting to see themselves as soccer moms.

A lot of whitewater paddling friends actually favor minivans because they find them more convenient for lots of gear and shuttling people than SUV configurations.

We have a crossover and a wagon. I want to get a minivan or a suburban.

Everyone I've ever known with a minivan has had any number of issues with the vehicle in terms of reliability. From the side door track/motors to the undersized/cramped engine with any number of design compromises.

I would NEVER recommend a minivan to anyone, ever.

What else do you pick if you have >=3 kids? Or if you're a travel guide with up to four passengers?

I have two kids, and we're thinking about a third, so we're looking around at options to replace our sedan. Here's what I've decided:

- SUVs with a third row suck for anyone in the third row, and they get horrible gas mileage - few sedans and SUVs are big enough for two car seats and a booster - minivans are expensive and frequently have annoying mechanical issues

I think I've settled on the Mazda 5 because:

- three kids + cargo (fold down one back seat) is doable - reasonable gas mileage - comfortable for six adults (going out with friends with a babysitter at home)

Unfortunately, they aren't making them anymore. I really have driving SUVs and trucks, but sedans are too small for my family now. Minivans, while completely "uncool", are the best option for people who need to haul people and stuff at the same time.

Isn't that just the craziest thing? How can something so useful be so unpopular?

Just in case your family grows like mine, get this: https://www.chevrolet.com/commercial/express-passenger-van

Store extra rows of seats in your garage until you need them.

I don't have a problem with SUVs... frankly, my only opposition to mini vans is the fact that I've never seen one without significant issues in 5 years of ownership or less.

My family got a Toyota minivan in 2003, and I love it. Today, we use it mostly for hauling musicians and their instruments, or for going on longer trips. A couple years ago we rented a giant Ford Expedition SUV, and it seemed like it had remarkably little interior space compared to our van.

I like being elevated from the ground, especially in bumper-to-bumper traffic. It's comfortable to sit up. But it's big and consumes gas, and we also have a subcompact. So the van mainly lives in the garage and we use our bicycles for getting around when we can.

People have told me that they got a "crossover" or SUV because the minivan carries the soccer-mom stigma. But damn, talk about utility.

Soccer moms drive SUVs nowadays.

Indeed, my friend told me she got a Pacifica because she didn't want to look like a soccer mom. She was in fact a soccer mom. And I said to her: "I've got news for you..."

You wouldn‘t have to drive your kids around if your country weren‘t designed primarily for cars.

And this helps the discussion how, exactly?

Sure, but that's so far outside the norm as to be almost irrelevant.

The average family size in the US is a hair over 3 (two parents, one child, roughly). In 2017, light truck sales were roughly double the sales of cars.

"Average" is a particularity bad way to measure this data point. Especially if you have a split distribution with a lot of childless families and lot with a number of children.

You measure average and no one is average.

Sure, but the numbers still fall in my favor. Of families with children in the household (where the mother is near the end of child-bearing age), about ~60% have 1 or 2, ~25% have 3, and the remaining ~15% have 4 or more.[1] Add in households with no children, and the "large family, need a 7-passenger vehicle" demographic gets quite small.

1 - http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-...

By your own numbers, 40% of families consist of 5 or more people. That's a pretty hefty chunk.

And sure, technically you can fit five people in a sedan, but it ain't comfortable in the slightest, especially when you have carseats. An SUV or minivan is much more practical for this 40% chunk of US families.

And as mentioned elsewhere, it's not always just the mom/dad and kids. You might have the family dog, band instruments, friends, non-core-family relatives, a month's worth of groceries, etc.

Plus, even as one person, I've gotten a lot of good use out of my Highlander because I can fold down the seats and haul relatively-large things (like furniture) and keep the seats up and drive people around without having to own two separate vehicles to do it. As a bonus, AWD and all-terrain tires means that I can do these things during snowstorms and/or on unpaved mountain roads with relative safety and ease compared to your run-of-the-mill FWD (or - worse - RWD) sedan (the latter activity is niche, for sure, but the former is typically routine for vast majority of car-owning Americans living north of the Mason-Dixon Line).

40% of families with children. There are plenty of households with no children, single people, etc.

But even those people - as I just described - can still find immense benefit in owning something bigger than a sedan.

So what you are saying is about 40% of families need 5 seats minimum?

And if you want to be able to transport anyone else (kids have a friend coming over, give someone a ride, etc, etc) you need a 7 passenger vehicle?

How is that "quite small"?

In my demographic, it is considered important to have a vehicle that will also accommodate a child's friend or two. Thus, 2 child households with 3rd row vehicles are quite common.

Not disagreeing but in Japan a lot of families handle this with Kei format cars like Daihatsu Tanto. The biggest family car I see in Japan is Toyota Alphard/Vellfire.

Do you know how Japanese norms/laws around child car seats differ?

I feel this is part of what's changed in the US: the 70s station wagon worked for 3-4 kids in a row, but to fit 4 enormous small-person seats you need a minivan.

The Japanese equivalent is four grandparents in wheelchairs. (Kidding!) I don’t have kids, so I’m not sure about child seats. I was doing the mental math on how one couple could produce four kids who need child seats until I remembered twins, triplets, etc.

Kids are required to be in car seats until age 8 in most states.

Yup. If you have a child ever other year (pretty reasonable) and have four kids, the oldest will still be in a booster when the fourth is born.

We have two kids (oldest is four and still in a booster) and we're considering a third, which is also making us seriously consider a larger car. We'll either need a larger car or a smaller car seat because we cannot currently fit three seats in our sedan (or at least, I don't think we can).

I looked it up. It’s the same in Japan. As someone who grew up crawling around in the footwell of a VW Bug at highway speeds, that sounds both exceedingly prudent and a bit unrealistic. You can definitely fit four car seats in an Alphard because it’s a full sized minivan. The kei cars are legally limited to driver plus three passengers anyway, I think.

In Japan it is common to see children walking around inside a car while it is being driven. Seat belts and child seats are seen as optional by some.

Kei cars only seat 4 people, but people do squeeze 5 in on occasion, especially when it comes to kids.

Or buy a 4 child seat.

https://multimac.co.uk/p/multimac_1320_4_seater

Kei cars are also surprisingly roomy inside. I'm 194cm tall, and I fit better in a Suzuki Alto then in the old Volvo 740 (there was a dark spot in the cloth ceiling of our family Volvo where my dad and my heads would rub against it).

Of course the sacrifice is the complete removal of crumple zones...

But if everyone drives lightweight cars, the need for crumple zones is probably greatly diminished, right?

Zoning encourages that large suburban home, by making walkable cities more expensive than they are elsewhere.

So, there are regulations pushing people in the direction of large homes and large vehicles.

> Once a large number of people are driving tall trucks and SUVs, driving a car is much less comfortable, as you can't see past the truck in front of you from a low sedan.

So just don't tailgate the car in front of you and then it doesn't matter. If the only way you're going to be able to stop in time is if you can see past/through the car in front of you then you're not driving safely to begin with.

If you don't sort of tailgate get ready for someone driving an SUV/truck to cut you off. I'm not saying be on their bumper, just close enough to keep others from dangerously cutting in front of you.

That's not a car/SUV thing. That's just a reflection of natural preferred following distance vs minimum acceptable merging space vs amount of available space on the roads.

I honestly don't understand the purpose of this reply in regards to the original post. It literally has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

i think you missed the point, it's not just a safety thing... its annoying as well. even with proper following distance, seeing more than the car in front of you adds to your safety.

> even with proper following distance, seeing more than the car in front of you adds to your safety.

The proper following distance is around 100 yards, and at that distance you should have no trouble seeing around an SUV.

The proper following distance is 2-3 seconds at any speed, not a flat 100 yards. 100 yards would be good at 65mph, but it would be excessive slower than that, and not enough when traveling faster.

That doesn't do a lot when people are passing you and cutting into your lane immediately after doing so. Now you have to slow and and everyone behind you starts doing the same thing. It's irritating and unsafe.

I don't think that the main problem. I drive a sedan, and I have problems:

- seeing around trucks/SUVs parked near an intersection - turning right at a red when there's a truck/SUV next to me - finding parking spots in a parking lot dominated by trucks/SUVs (Costco is the worst) - seeing at night when there's a truck/SUV behind me (headlights)

It's quite frustrating, especially since I'm in a part of the country with tons of lifted trucks and massive SUVs (Utah).

Most manufacturers have already figured out how to game the chicken tax. For example, Ford installs seats that are removed and destroyed after each Transit Connect reaches the US [0]. I've heard other stories about Subaru doing something similar so that their CAFE metrics weren't screwed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Transit_Connect#Tariff_ci....

The story with the Transit Connect is that it counts as a car (for this tax) while it has the seats, but would counts as a truck when configured for cargo.

But if this same tax discourages (say) Toyota from importing SUVs, then they must count as trucks always, even when configured for passengers. So this loophole doesn't help them.

I thought CAFE was a major factor, as (if I understand right) it discourages big powerful cars, but is silent on trucks including SUVs.

I think CAFEs silence on trucks is partially why small 3rd rows have become more popular on crossovers. If there's a third row it qualifies as a truck versus a car or wagon, I believe the same is true of features like 4WD or sufficient ground clearance.

I'm more interested in learning why there's a lacking feedback mechanism for "hey, that's not what we wanted, let's revisit the regulations for what we were trying to achieve".

That was last election/donation's problem.

First we need to put carseat-destroying subsidies in place so that hard-working American carseat-destroyers aren't put out of a job.

Subaru already makes the Legacy/Outback domestically. They just complained justifiably when non-trucks like the PT Cruiser were classified as such for CAFE gaming.

Interestingly enough Donald Trump tweeted about this the other day:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10677911017828311...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10677926101804564...

> Profit margins on US made trucks have been much larger than autos for a long time(mostly due to this tax)

I think it may have more to do with selling fuel efficient compact cars and sedans at a loss in order to sell enough to offset the poor economy of the American Truck™ and meet CAFE requirements.

This is also why the Subaru Brat had rear seats. Because it allowed Subaru to classify the vehicle as a car instead of a truck, circumventing the Chicken Tax.

BMWs largest factory is in Spartanburg, South Carolina and they produce X series vehicles. Mercedes also makes a lot if not all the the GL line in Alabama. They both export out of the US as well.

I suppose it helps American manufacturing and creates jobs. I don’t like “trade wars” but import taxes are not all bad.

In my opinion US trucks are the best SUVs are great but too large for what folks use them for. Japan is good with both cars, suvs, and trucks but they are lackluster on the inside. German cars are my favorite but they are expensive to maintain and unreliable. American cars are terrible unless you like muscle cars.

They killed the Chevy Volt, the only interesting sedan in GM's entire line-up. Incredibly short-sighted. Love it more than any car I've ever driven, despite it lacking in many of the 'creature comforts' of other cars. Fun to drive with excellent acceleration, I drive it 91% electric, and when I flip over to gas it's an excellent performing highly efficient hybrid.

Sad.

EDIT: I should add that really the Volt is not a 'sedan', but a 'liftback'. Far more utility out of the trunk than a typical sedan. My medium sized dog even fits back there.

Even sadder: the Bolt is the affordable electric car that the Tesla Model 3 promised to be but isn't. And yet no one is excited about the Bolt. In fact, probably most people are not even aware that the Bolt exists. Sad indeed.

They made odd choices on the body styling. It's a Chevy Trax but squished horizontally. And the naming sucks. The drivetrain is amazing.

They also just don't seem to want to make enough of them or ship them to markets where people want them. Canada was starved for inventory all last last year. None went to Europe. Asia, where they'd make a lot of sense, got only a smattering. And they don't seem to be improving on this.

The fate of the Volt and Bolt together makes me entirely skeptical of GM's claims to making a transition to EV production. I used to be a big advocate of GM's EV designs -- they're technically excellent -- but I don't think I can get behind the company at all. I'm somewhat tempted to sell my Volt and get a Honda Clarity PHEV.

Ah, the Honda Clarity, the only vehicle uglier than any hybrid or electric that Chevy or Toyota can muster.

(I rather like the styling of the Bolt, actually)

Yeah I'm not pro-Clarity. It's technically inferior to the Volt -- though it has more interior room. It's just that Honda isn't laying off almost 3000 people in the province of Ontario like GM is. I'm feeling a bit nationalist, maybe.

I sometimes wonder if there's a requirement for making electric/hybrid cars "ugly". Like nobody will know you're driving an EV if they don't slap some bizarre styling on it!

The new Prius models look like somebody took a spaceship from an 80's B-movie and decided to model a car from the concept.

The Clarity looks as if they took an Accord but then punched it in the lip. And then they tried to make the back look like a Prius for who-knows-what reason.

The Bolt and the Leaf look like they're just trying to scream "Don't take me on the highway!" at the top of their lungs. But then since that's basically true--they're made to be an efficient commuter car--the styling was probably never going to hide that.

Even the Model 3 has a bizarre look to it, but I'm not sure if it's just because I'm used to expecting the hood to look a certain size which is simply not justifiable if you don't have to fill it up with a gas engine.

Then you get the other end of the spectrum, where they try to retain the styling of the gas equivalent as much as possible, so you've got the Kona EV continuing to have a grill but it's actually closed and painted.

It's probably somewhat lose lose. People are used to styling that makes sense for gas cars and so practical decisions for EVs lead to "abnormal" styling. As they become more popular we'll probably get used to them.

I assume it's function (aerodynamics improving gas mileage) over form. I mean, when a car's selling point is its range, you should do what you can to maximize that within its class.

I don't really find the Clarity or Prius or other EV's offensive looking. They look just as boring and uninspired as most other modern cars to me.

The hybrid Camry looks exactly like the newer gas Camry from the outside.

Its a signaling. Toyota makes a hybrid camray/rav4, that you can only tell by noticing the badge has a blue background.

Prius like shapes are associated with hybrids (they were one of the first), so there is some part of the market that says I want people to know I'm environmentally conscious. Hatchbacks are pretty convenient however...

I figure car companies have a better idea about styles are popular than the rest of us. If EV cars tend to look different, there's probably a reason.

Or the companies are full of people who are just winging it day to day and doing what they think is best. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bolt/Volt teams are full of junior people because GM's management still thinks electric cars are golf carts for sissies.

For the old Leaf, they wanted to maximize aerodynamics above all. I assume costs dictated the rest. The bug eye (which I actually started to like now) is because of that – that, and to reduce noise, which can be quite noticeable when you don't have to hear tiny explosions.

For the other automakers, my cynical opinion is that they dont wan't people to like EVs. "Don't make me change my business model, EVs are ugly. See this EV? Ugly. Buy this beautiful car over here instead, which happens to not require retooling of my production line."

Normal looking hybrids are definitely out there - take a look at Kia and Hyundai. They have several models of hybrids that look just like a regular car. There's a Toyota Avalon hybrid too. I think they are out there, but you don't notice them because they don't look stupid like the Prius or all the EVs.

> They also just don't seem to want to make enough of them or ship them to markets where people want them. Canada was starved for inventory all last last year. None went to Europe. Asia, where they'd make a lot of sense, got only a smattering. And they don't seem to be improving on this.

They lose several thousand dollars on each car, so the reluctance to expand production is perhaps unsurprising:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107604_gm-loses-9k-on-...

Demand exceeds supply and they lose several thousand dollars on each of them? If only there was some sort of market driven mechanism to solve this issue.

They are willing to take the loss because they have fleet wide emissions targets. So they will sell just enough to allow them to sell the SUVs they actually want to make - but no more.

That's the culprit. Fleet emissions targets should allow for credits to exceed targets so you'd get more points for over achievements.

I've heard others (including GM) dispute those numbers. They were very back of the napkin.

Yes, there's no way it's as profitable as a Silverado or Equinox. But the only really expensive part in them is the battery pack, and volume production of that could bring it down.

GM _did_ sign a deal with LG Chem to open a big new battery plant in Michigan. Not sure what the status of that is. I believe battery supply is the fundamental constraint on Bolt production, not demand.

> The fate of the Volt and Bolt together makes me entirely skeptical of GM's claims to making a transition to EV production

Couldn't agree more.

To add - my parents were in the market for electric cars and were evaluating the Bolt as a serious option. GM turned them away, including refusing to take a reservation and said "check again in 6 months when the new model year comes out". Seems like the production was very intentionally capped, and there was little effort to retain their business.

The cars probably lose money by themselves, only being profitable when looking at the big picture. (due to CAFE and similar) They are costly to make and typical car buyers are uninterested.

The cars exist because various governments have made electric/hybrid/whatever quotas that need to be met. The minimum required number will be sold. In some jurisdictions that number is zero. Each one of these cars is sold at a loss, until you consider that the manufacturer is able to avoid fines or being entirely banned from selling vehicles.

Or GM just hates electric cars. Look at what they did with the EV-1, a vehicle they were apparently only making under duress. They had an exit plan in place from day 1, and it did not involve people commuting in electric cars.

When I bought my Volt, I found myself explaining the car to the sales guy. GM/chev did no training of sales and the dealers get far less maintenance revenue.

They also just don't seem to want to make enough of them or ship them to markets where people want them.

The fate of the Volt and Bolt together makes me entirely skeptical of GM's claims to making a transition to EV production

Supposedly, the shutdowns are expressly so that GM can devote more capital to the Bolt & it's future brethren. If they have Bolt supply problems, cutting production lines to free up capital sounds like a good move.

Personally I am excited about plug-in hybrids, but allegedly a lot of the industry is starting to think PIH's will be but a flash in the pan, being totally eclipsed by all-electric by 2025.

The Bolt is in the "awkward middle" compared to the Leaf & the 3. We test drove all 3 and quickly dismissed the Bolt: we'd either buy the cheap car or the best car.

Well sure, but Nissan took shortcuts that I don't think people should live with. Specifically, I am not cool with the lack of battery temperature management in the Leaf. It's basically 'designed' with battery degradation an inevitable outcome for anybody who doesn't live in a mild climate with no serious winters or hot summers. (In other words it's made for California and western Europe.)

They’re changing that this year by the way. Nissan sold its in house battery supplier which lacked thermal management.

There is battery temperature management in Leaf with winter package.

No, he's talking about battery cooling, not heating. Cold may make the car not start at all, but the battery should be otherwise unaffected (given adequate protection from the management system, which I think it has).

Heat will destroy the battery. This is why on the previous generation Leaf the battery temperature gauge was so prominent (I haven't seen the latest one).

He's talking about "serious winters" as well.

From the 2011 keynote:

> .. the package—which includes heated seats, a duct to direct warmth to the back seat, temperature management for the battery pack

Seems like GM just doesn't care about the Bolt. They are not available at all places and they do very little marketing for the Bolt. And finally, I guess it's for cutting costs, the insides of the car seems too "plastic-y".

Yeah, no way I could even buy one outside of California for the first year or so, and there are none available for a test drive anywhere near me.

I don't think GM wants people to like the Bolt, just like they kind of shuffled away their previous EV platform. Not sure why, though—it seems like a pretty nice car, and the few people I know who bought one really like it.

It doesn't have the fandom of the Tesla Model 3, but it's a good little car if you want an EV.

The Model 3 is a bit more expensive but not hugely so, and it’s waaaayyyy better. A lot of Model 3 buyers (myself included) are aware of the Bolt and just don’t see it as competitive.

I don't know about US pricing generally -- but up here it's like a $20k CAD gap. They are not in the same bracket at all. Once subsidies are applied the Bolt and Volt are in the mid-tier middle-class buyer category competing with things like the VW Jetta or Honda Accord, etc. The Model 3 is a luxury car, in the same price range as an Audi A4 or A5, BMW 5 series, Mercedes, etc.

In the US, the Bolt starts at $37,495 and the Model 3 currently starts at $47,200. (You may be slightly behind the times, the $47,200 version just became available in October.) The base Bolt is missing various things I'd consider to be fairly essential that are included in the $46,000 Model 3, such as forward collision warning/avoidance and fast charging, so the Bolt's base price is a bit deceptive.

That might be sticker price, but I'm seeing the Bolt in Massachusetts for more like $32,000 before subsidies with the upgrades you mention:

https://drivegreen.greenenergyconsumers.org/form_cars.php

So after subsidies prices end up at something like $22,000 vs. $37,000 -- it's a real gap.

Interesting, looks similar here in the DC area, if cars.com is to be believed.

Goes to show how much worse (or, at least, less appealing) the Bolt is, if it’s being so heavily discounted and is still barely selling.

Wow the conversation went from "these cars are highly desirable, and GM doesn't want to sell them" to "these cars are shit, but a Tesla". I don't understand Elon musk fanclub

I never said they were highly desirable or that GM doesn’t want to sell them. It’s normal for different people to have different opinions.

Tesla doesn't make ugly as fuck cars. Thats a huge reason I love my Model 3. Best looking car that exists in my opinion. Car companies: stop making disgusting hunks of metal.

GM gave out around 5k$ dealer incentives as bolt subsidy. Please continue ignoring that GM had to subsidize their vehicles and still didn't have buyers, while chastating them. I don't think even Tesla could sell cars if they didn't have Elon musk's culty fanclub

How is that last sentence connected to the rest of your comment?

The Model S launched in Canada at $64,500 in 2012. The cheapest Model 3 is now $60,100.

Agreed. I walked away from my Bolt test drive wondering who it was for. It's ugly and not fun to drive. The base price is low but lacks features that should have been standard 10 years ago (automatic headlights are optional!) Fast charging is an extra $750, and they have basically zero stations. You can't get all-wheel drive. The rear seats suck.

The one feature I was really hoping a legacy car manufacturer would include was a spare tire, and they don't.

Spare tires are so dead on sedans. They're just so bulky and modern tires are so good and roadside assistance is a thing everywhere so they're just not worth it anymore.

I guess so. I ended up with a used Tesla. I remain worried someday I'll end up with a flat too far from help...

35 years of driving, I’m trying to remember the last time I changed a car tire. Oh, I know it happens, I plugged or replaced plenty in my days as a mechanic. But personally? A spare is dead weight. A roadside assistance card weighs a lot less.

the next affordable EV to come to market with be the Kona. While not a sedan independent testers are already seeing 5miles per kwh which is incredible and its price points are very good.

the issue is availability, in the US it is expected to be a CARB state car only for awhile.

When I decided to move from my 2017 Volt to a pure EV I really wanted a sedan which led me to the TM3 I did buy but I did try to give the Bolt a chance but simply put, the killer app of the TM3 is the super charging network. That and i have found the spartan dash has made me rethink the need for dozens of buttons most cars have.

Recent Kona review https://youtu.be/LATZ0g-Sz2s

I question whether the Kona will become universally available. Last time I looked into this it sounded like Kia and Hyundai really have no intention of bringing their next lines of EVs out to anywhere but CARB and incentive states. And since Ontario recently dropped off that list (because of the mini-Trump up here), I doubt we'll ever see it sold here.

If only it had AWD. That's the deal-breaker for me. Too much snow around here to not have that feature.

Out of curiosity: do you use winter tires, is that a thing in the US?

I use all-weather tires, which essentially behave the same as winter tires, but don't require a tire change for different seasons. You can, of course, buy winter tires here.

However, AWD / 4WD address different problems than winter tires do. As I understand it, winter tires are useful for traction on ice or packed snow, but won't help significantly in unpacked snow, where 4WD helps immensely.

Around here, it's hilly and there are many streets which won't get plowed immediately. This makes 4WD pretty vital for getting around sometimes. Plus, 4WD helps with vehicle control at speed in slick conditions.

no, all-weather tires are not the same as winter tires. Proper winter tires will make a huge difference if you have to drive in snow or ice conditions. But you won't want to use them in the summer because they will wear out rather quickly.

Maybe you're thinking of all-season tires? There is a difference between all-weather and all-season. From the information I've been able to find, winter tires are better than all-weather, but only by 10-20%.

It's a thing but many people in the US are very bad at driving [in the snow]... and don't care to use snow tires. They want perfect handling and acceleration in any condition and not having to switch tires or use traction aiding devices. But, it's also a thing of, "I want it just in case..." I've seen enough off-road ready cars here that have never seen anything more intense than a puddle. This is a country that buys Jeeps en masse but they're stuck doing city duty their entire life.

Something fun to read from a few years ago: http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/remembering-snowmageddon-201...

That was from 2 inches (5cm) of snow.

Americans in general don't buy what they need or will use. They buy what they want.

> It's a thing but many people in the US are very bad at driving [in the snow]

Most of those people, like in the Atlanta story, never drive in more than a 1/2in of snow.

> and don't care to use snow tires.

Snow tires are expensive, and usually not worth the expense beyond all-weather tires, especially for people in the south.

> They want perfect handling and acceleration in any condition and not having to switch tires or use traction aiding devices.

Is that not something you'd like from your car? Seems like a nice feature to me, and my car isn't even close to that.

The Bolt still starts at $36,620, according to chevy.com/bolt. It's an amazing car in some ways but doesn't look very good. It's hard to imagine many people choosing it over a Tesla Model 3. Yes, right now you can't get the less-expensive Teslas, but eventually you will be able to.

If GM started the Bolt at $25K and offered nicely equipped ones for $28 or $29K, there would be an interesting competition against Tesla. But they don't.

BTW, like some other posts, I think the Volt is a brilliant car: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/29/steve-levines-the-powerho... and it's unfortunate that it's not proven popular too.

> Yes, right now you can't get the less-expensive Teslas, but eventually you will be able to.

They seem to be in no rush to make it, but seem to be living with the PR that it somehow exists already. That people can make a statement like "why get a Bolt when I can get a M3 for around the same price" is beyond belief to me, considering there is no available configuration of the Model 3 that is anywhere close to $36k.

The M3 is a luxury class vehicle in all actually-existing configurations. The Bolt is available at the price you state _now_.

It's just GM seems entirely unwilling to market and sell it in volume.

Does GM actually make a profit on the Bolt? Or is it a sort of foot-in-the-door car meant to increase mindshare? I ran a search and found this:

https://www.inverse.com/article/32239-why-gm-loses-money-che...

It makes sense that a huge car company would be able to take a loss on an electric vehicle that they don't advertise much but which, by slowly accumulating in the market, convinces people that "GM can build affordable and good electric cars" so that when they do actually market a car they make money on, people will be less skeptical. However, according to this hypothesis, GM doesn't have a serious technical advantage over Tesla - they just have a fatter stack of cash. But sometimes that's enough.

Why rush to get the cheap one out the door when you can still saturate your production capacity selling more expensive ones?

Spending an extra ~25% for a much, much better product isn’t outrageous.

That's because Chevy, knowing they have the only Model 3 substitute product, is charging ridiculous prices for what the Bolt really is.

They're charging the cost of the battery pack + drivetrain. Battery supplies are constrained worldwide. Only Tesla and LG Chem have significant production. Even Nissan is switching to LG Chem.

The Bolt EV is a really nice car; sure, not as nice and definitely without the cachet of the Tesla, but also much less expensive. My SO recently purchased a Bolt and has been very pleased with it- she specifically wanted a hatchback, so it was a perfect fit. The range is pretty great, "range anxiety" no longer affects her.

If you've not been coddled with the "luxury car" interiors, you'll find the Bolt's interior to be perfectly fine. It's not Audi/BMW/Benz/Tesla level, but IMO it's not as "plasticky" as other commenters have mentioned: it's not the 90s Malibu crap that GM pumped out back then. The screen is nice and big (not Tesla-big), and integrates just fine with Apple and Android Auto.

For 90% of the trips made by 90% of the people in the US, the Bolt is a perfectly fine car.

>the Bolt is the affordable electric car that the Tesla Model 3 promised to be but isn't

It has an MSRP starting from $44,000 Canadian Dollars. This is affordable?

Last I looked the Model 3 comes in at north of $60k CAD for all available configurations at this point. The USD $35k model doesn't exist yet.

The Bolt is still $30,000 after tax credits. That's not what most people would call "affordable." It's a car I'd consider, with some reservations, but not at that price.

It does seem amazingly short-sighted. EVs are the future and yet here they are scaling back on them.

It's like the other manufacturers are rushing to cede the entire market to Tesla.

I love my Volt, even having had a Model 3 reservation and done a test drive. I'm not saying it's a better car in any objective sense, but its compromises are areas I'm fine with. Honestly, I can't believe the Volt wasn't more popular. It's probably being due to not educating consumers enough about it, being strange looking, and being a GM.

Yep, just imagine if Toyota had launched the Volt instead of the Prius. Or VW had made a Jetta-class vehicle with the Volt's drivetrain. Assuming they could get the battery supplies, it would have sold like bonkers.

In many ways the Volt is too good to be true, and I think that makes buyers skeptical.

Biggest fault is insufficient cabin space.

Toyota has a plug-in Prius now, the Prius Prime. It isn't selling that well. Kinda like the Volt.

I kind of wanted to get one at the end of 2017 because of the tax credits. However, even with that, the price was higher than I wanted to spend on a vehicle. The reduced cargo space was a slight concern too.

That's because the Prius Prime is lousy. It has less oomph than the standard Prius and is noisy as all get out.

Having just test driven a whole bunch of these cars and just bought a Volt in 2018, I can tell you:

1) The Volt has really good power 2) The Volt is really quiet 3) The Volt has really good range

Nothing else even came close at the same price point.

"They killed the Chevy Volt, the only interesting sedan in GM's entire line-up."

I saw that as great news: moving beyond the hybrid stop-gap towards real electric cars. The Bolt is still for sale and I hope that the platform and their technology move into other GM vehicles.

FWIW, in 30 minutes I will be at the local chevy dealer purchasing a Bolt.

Hey you must be purchasing a Bolt right now, so congrats!

I understand your reasoning for seeing the removal of the hybrid as a good thing, but I can't agree with that. I would much rather see hybrids stay around and see gas vehicles phased out. Gas vehicles and hybrids still have the huge advantage of distribution over electric. It doesn't matter where I am in the US, I know that a gas station will be a common site in pretty much all towns or major roadways. If I need to drive 150 miles in one direction for something and then come back the same day (not uncommon where I live), I don't want to do that in an electric vehicle!

The volt is so appealing because I know it could do that using so much less gas than the average gas vehicle. And for those days I don't leave town, it would be in practice an electric vehicle.

> If I need to drive 150 miles in one direction for something and then come back the same day (not uncommon where I live), I don't want to do that in an electric vehicle!

Why not? One way of your leg should be well within the capabilities of any modern EV(the full trip is even achievable by some). Are you going to go 150 miles and immediately return?

> And for those days I don't leave town, it would be in practice an electric vehicle.

The beauty of the Volt is: you are in an EV all the time. The drivetrain is all electric and it doesn't care where the electricity comes from.

I did that last weekend as a matter of fact. Drove about 160 miles to pick something up, was there for maybe 20 minutes, then drove home. Because I needed that thing that day. Couldn't even wait for overnight delivery.

That's a little extreme, but it's not at all uncommon for me to make the same drive with a half a day or so before I come back. But in general it's too hard to find a place to charge an electric vehicle away from home to really count on it.

I do this for day ski trips all the time in my Volt. Two weeks in a row I drove about 150km, ski'd for 3-4 hours, and then turned around and came home. Neither ski hill had charging stations but even if they did even at 7kw charging (unlikely as most stations are shared @ 3kw) that would likely not be enough to fill the battery enough for a 150km drive in the winter. And the range of a 60kwh battery (350km or so) would be tight with winter driving for that kind of trip -- in winter range is 60-70% of summer range.

> The beauty of the Volt is: you are in an EV all the time.

Not entirely true, though it certainly gives you the impression of that. When out of battery and in Gen 2 especially the combustion engine does in fact transmit power to the wheels in most hybrid driving modes. It doesn't just generate electricity, it also provides motive force.

As an EV owner I think PHEVs are a great fit for a single-car household. I struggle to convince apartment renters or singles to go gas-free.

Keeping the Bolt though.

Horrible blind spot though.

A pillar yes, C pillar is bad but doesn't bother me because the reverse camera is fantastic (for a mid priced sedan). My only complaint is that there aren't turn signal cameras for lane changes.

Agree it's crap, but I've gotten used to it. Every car has its quirks. But not having to pay for gas is a bonus I can't ignore.

The car market in its' totality has always struck me as being irrational.

It takes a large amount of number crunching to determine that an old small Japanese car has the cheapest TCO.

The same follows across the categories (e.g. the article's specific focus on sedans).

A whole bunch of mid-market brands seemingly exist for no reason other than for some groups of not-wealthy people to waste money in an attempt to impress other groups of not-wealthy people.

e.g. the German cars which seem to exist as some sort of indicator that someone can afford to burn money maintaining a depreciating asset.

It's basically the (non-smart) watch market, right. You wear a Casio-level watch if you don't care, a Rolex-level watch if you're signalling, and other stuff is basically an enthusiast market.

Well, this assumes that it’s all about TCO or status.

But have you ever driven a Mercedes, BMW, Porsche or Audi? The driving expierence is superior to everything else! Tesla gets close...but I can’t think of any other brand that does.

Right, that's the enthusiast market.

I bet that you could not pick a BMW or Audi from equally priced car from other companies.

I didn't downvote you, but I bet I could [pick them out]. They just value different things compared to american counterparts, especially in older models.

I (regrettably used to) own a 2002 BMW M3 -- relatively cheap to buy, and compared to anything else in its year or price category was unequivocally better as a "driver's car". But, many people don't really care about a driver's car -- they index higher on other things like electronics, safety, styling, etc. That's fine, it's only preference, but for raw performance nothing similar could compare.

My experience is that a lot of people equate "expensive car" or "german car" with "nice car", and for them "nice car" means something specific other than raw performance numbers, like comfort, safety, features, or Consumer Reports ranking. For enthusiasts, it means something totally different, and those qualities are indexed on by BMW/Merc/Audi (and some rare American and Japanese exceptions to be fair).

I think it's fair to say this falls under grandparent's "enthusiast" category. Nothing wrong with being an enthusiast, but I think the characterization as "irrational" is probably correct.

The top level post was edited to add the line about enthusiasts after this was posted.

Few human decisions are rational if you start taking that approach. You can always live in a smaller dwelling, wear worse clothes, eat cheaper food, avoid all paid entertainment, etc.

It would be better to state that the car market is not primarily based around the simple act of transportation. Which should be pretty obvious anyway.

> You can always live in a smaller dwelling, wear worse clothes, eat cheaper food, avoid all paid entertainment, etc.

Indeed. And the more of these you can check, the happier and more satisfying your life is likely to get. Why maintain an unused mansion when a small, cozy place will do? Why follow the latest fashion trends when your four year old OCBD is in fighting form? Why eat lobsters all the time when beans are so nutrient-dense and cheap?! Why sit on your ass wasting away at the behest of a mediocre film when you could read a book instead?

The other major difference, of course, is that there are few irrational decisions quite as expensive as buying an idiot pickup truck to show off. Maybe a boat or an aircraft, but not much more.

Why have a small, cozy place when you could live in a van down by the river? Why buy clothes when you can drape yourselves in discarded blankets? Why eat beans when you can haunt the dumpsters behind the local restaurants?

Reductio ad absurdum

Yes, exactly. Calling it "irrational" to spend resources on pleasure leads to absurd conclusions. Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.

Of course it's a fallacy. One has to draw a line at some point. To me that line would be a way, way cheaper expense than a big, polluting truck. But it seems that to you, if I can't own a truck, I must go all the way to living in shanties/favelas and dumpster diving.

How do you decide where to draw the line? What’s the rational way to put some pleasures under the “rational” category and others under the “irrational” category?

You calibrate on what people were satisfied with thirty or a hundred years ago, eliminating modern status-seeking. You ask yourself "Would I be horrified to live like that, or do I just think I'm too good for it?" Like there's no way I am going to live as a boarder with another family, but I can definitely make my own lunch.

Why thirty or a hundred? Why not two, or ten thousand?

Life is too short to make saving money the first priority on every decision. Drive whatever you can afford and makes happiest (and makes sense for the use case you have in mind for it, offroad, snow, racing, commute time, etc).

BMW's recent models are mostly a joke in dynamics. See almost any review of many of their new models for further explanation. This unfortunately isn't 2010 anymore.

Mercedes hasn't been kenown for driving dynamics, but perhaps their solidity is great. Porsche is absolutely renowned for the driving experience they provide.

There are plenty that can match these in every class. If you only consider brands based on an overall perception, then sure, maybe not.

The Cadillac ATS and Alfa Romeo Giulia are almost universally regarded as dynamically superior to their 3-series equivalents, for a common example.

Completely agreed. Similarly, most cars in Jaguar's current portfolio have good Dynamics.

The Audis were better than any other Japanese car I test drove.

That's quite reasonable, and I may agree depending on what exact cars you test drove, but that's a rather different statement than the one made in the comment I replied to.

I would believe that for Acura or infinity, but Lexus?

S series yes (have an S5 and an SQ5). A series pretty much drive like a Toyota minus the reliability.

Had a B8.5 S4, now a B9 A5 with sports suspension. The power/transmission leave a little something to be desired, but the A5 is otherwise a very nice ride, and not too wallowy for an Audi. I have also a much more powerful sports car for the weekend, but the A5 has its charms too.

I love the A4 drive as well.

> The Cadillac ATS and Alfa Romeo Giulia are almost universally regarded as dynamically superior to their 3-series equivalents, for a common example.

Exactly, my 2017 Focus RS is so much fun to drive and has a lot more power than any German car of equivalent price. I mean where else can you find AWD, 350 HP and 350 ft/lb torque with a 6 speed manual for under $40,000?

> where else can you find AWD, 350 HP and 350 ft/lb torque with a 6 speed manual for under $40,000?

Not Ford, anymore.

Yea sure, but we all knew the Focus RS was a limited production release and they would only be making it for a couple years.

A used R32 or Golf R and a stage 2 ecu tune (downpipe) will easily do it, and be a better car overall.

I like the RS a lot, but not $40,000 a lot.

Your comparing the price of a used car vs a new car? Of course the used car will be cheaper. A Golf R brand new is more expensive then a new Focus RS. Also I'm a Minnesotan I need a real AWD system not the Haldex system in the Golf R, which is basically FWD unless it detects low traction then it will engage the back wheels. Also the Golf R has only 288HP and 280FT/LB torque compared to my cars 350HP and 350FT/LB torque so I'm not sure why you think the Golf R is the "Better" car.

    > The driving experience is superior

Driving experience only goes so far in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Those aren't cars that people "need". Most lux car owners will also have a "beater" car that they use for real life.

Status is an important motivator and should not be dismissed.

That’s no longer true with the driver assistance systems available now. Some cars provide a vastly superior driving experience in heavy traffic now.

But people don't drive only in bumper-to-bumper traffic. That is the most common use, but nearly everyone has some open road time now and again.

Driven Benz, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Tesla, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc.

No way in hell is a C-Class Benz worth it's price. Tesla drives way better and is much more fun.

I think it's about TCO, status, reliability and maybe fun-factor.

Nobody buys an Audi or Benz for 'fun-factor'. Especially not when they get AMG or i versions.

Nobody buys an AMG for fun?

they mean the majority of people get them for the badging, AMG are definitely the most fun sonically but most people arent bothering with straight piping or any fun performance mods. its mainly a flex

I had driven BMW 3s and Minis via ReachNow. Did not feel anything special vs my Honda, or any rental I had.

none of those cars are supposed to feel anything special, the 3 series is the entry level scrap bmw puts out to get people onto the brand and the newer bmws are last among the germans

mini, owned by bmw, is.. mini.. theyre the car parents get their daughters

I love my Audi S4, but I find the Tesla Model S to be even more fun than my car. Unfortunately it's too expensive.

Is that true in typical urban driving conditions of stop and go, or at least slow traffic? I think the only thing that would help make my driving experience better in this traffic would be radar cruise control that can handle stop/go traffic.

I've found that the best driving experience in my commute conditions is a $500,000 bus because I can get some work done or relax so the length of the commute doesn't mattter so much.

It's bonkers if you take the narrow view that cars are strictly about transportation. But of course people desire and enjoy cars and trucks for all kinds of reasons--including aspirational signaling like you describe, but also the experience of driving or riding in them, or even just an appreciation of artful styling or impressive engineering.

The sales trends observed in the article seem to be explained by a mass shifting of tastes.

I don't know about a taste shift -- as the article said, Corollas and Camrys and Civics have seen no such shift. I personally can't see any reason to take a chance on an (historically bad) American car, even with the "but we've changed!" story, when so much good stuff is available elsewhere.

I know why I drive a Volkswagen - it fits. Every American car I have ever driven doesn't work for my 6'5 narrow frame (I'm also long-legged, short torso). There's also the tendency to load up the dash with every possible piece of information and turn the radio into some kind of Microsoft supercomputer.

It's a car - it needs to get me reliably and comfortably from point A to point B with a minimum of distraction, look presentable and connect to my iPhone for music.

The TCO on VWs, in my experience, is very low, mostly because they don't have complex add-ons that break constantly.

Whenever my wife's Beetle breaks in any way, the repair cost is easily 5-10x what a comparable repair is for my Accord. She's had to do repairs on her car three times since she got it. I've had to do repairs on mine... zero. The cars have been in our possession for about the same time and are almost the same age.

I daresay that the TCO on Volkswagens is higher than "very low."

Completely agreed. Unfortunately when you have to see the same mechanics who also work on Porsche, Mercedes, Audi, and BMW, you get reamed on the repairs. parts are expensive too.

IF you do your own work VWs aren't too bad. Parts are more expensive, but not too much. However you have to know going in that only German car mechanics($$$) will have the tools to work on it, and they are the only ones who won't put in standard anti-freeze (or oil) which work on every other car but will break something in yours.

Some would argue that the extra tools you have to buy is a factor, but you need special tools for every car anyway. So long as you know you need them it isn't a big deal.

I think I can take apart a whole Toyota with an 8mm and 10mm socket wrench.

German cars are odd like that. I know 3 really tall guys; one is 6'8" and the other two are 6'10". They all drive German cars because they FIT. For some reason an A4 and a Golf fit the 6'10" guys just fine; one of whom would look out the REAR side window driving an Infiniti Q45 ("full size" luxury sedan).

There's just something about German car design that is sizing magic. I could even fit behind my 6'10" friend driving his A4, which for all intents and purposes (in the US, at least) is an entry-level/compact luxury car.

Germans are a bit taller than Americans, on average, and Dutch people are even taller. With $6-7/gallon gas, fuel efficient cars that 2m (6’6”) guys can drive comfortably will always be in demand.

I used to notice something similar about Japanese cars and trunk space when renting: It seemed that for a given external size, a Japanese car would always have considerably more trunk space than an US car.

Recently, I started including carplay as a must have feature when renting, and since Toyotas are lagging in that respect, I started looking at US cars again, and I must say that the Chevy Cruze has about as big a trunk for its size as anything I've seen.

I moved to VW from hondas and toyotas. Overall i love the car but i would say that maintenance is much much more expensive than japanese cars. German auto mechanics and VW parts are just so much more expensive than japanese. I have no dealership in my city so I have to see independent mechanics. It's insane how expensive they are!

That and VW's customers in home market (EU) have different expectations WRT the cost and frequency of maintenance. To grossly generalize American consumers want cars that above almost everything else require as little maintenance as possible and use the cheapest parts/consumables.

European customers on the other hand are more likely to think nothing of a car that needs regular care and feeding, including using manufacturer-specific fluids and consumables, in order to achieve higher levels of other things like efficiency or performance.

It seems like 87.4% of this discussion revolves around differences in definitions of "better".

I am 6'8", also long legged with a (relatively) short torso. In general, it holds that the Japanese companies build small cars for small people, American companies build big cars for big people, and European companies build small cars for big people.

Exceptions can be found of course, but this is overwhelmingly the rule. Even Japanese cars that /should/ be big are not made to accommodate larger occupants - see the Lexus LS series for instance, their largest luxury sedan - for some reason the front seat stops well short of sliding back and occupying all the room it could, therefore my knees are crammed up into the dash. Same goes for Toyota Avalon, Sienna, various Acuras I've tried, Honda Accord, etc. etc.

Contrast my experience in Japanese cars with the smaller Audi A4, or my (much, much smaller) 1984 5-series BMW, where the front seats are able to run back as far as touching the back seat, resulting in ample leg room when needed.

For American vehicles, at least when you pony up the $$ for the larger models, you actually get occupant space to match - in my experience all American vehicles based on a half ton or larger truck frame offer ample interior space even for someone of my stature - this is Silverado, Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade, Expedition, etc.

> The car market in its' totality has always struck me as being irrational.

Consumers aren't known for their rationality.

> It takes a large amount of number crunching to determine that an old small Japanese car has the cheapest TCO.

Is there some way to include the environmental cost as well? A 10 year old Honda Civic is going to cost less in that regard than a 10 year old BMW 318. But what about a 10 year old Prius?

Sure; taxation should be pricing in externalities.

Buying a less polluting car that costs more is effectively a charitable donation.

Most individuals don't make charitable donations of $1000+.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons Tesla are so great. It's fun to drive, so the extra cost isn't purely charitable.

You are completely discounting the subjective experience of driving different cars. Some cars are just flat-out much more enjoyable to drive. When people are spending significant portions of their lives driving, getting more enjoyment or comfort out of that time matters to people.

It's completely rational to want to enjoy your time driving a vehicle if you spend a lot of time in the car. Driving a chevy cobalt is just awful compared to driving a higher quality vehicle.

You're also far more likely to be able to avoid an accident when you have better handling and more powerful brakes. Even horsepower/torque can be a safety feature for certain accident avoidance situations.

Can easily get more comfort in a budget car by adding packages.

Comfort, maybe. Driving, hardly. I drive both a Ford Focus and a small sports car. While the Ford Focus, my usual commuter car, is not bad at all, I still take the sports car to work about once a week, and it just doesn't compare.

In some ways, the Ford Focus is more "comfortable", but the control and precision that the sports car offers even when just cruising through normal traffic through the city is amazing. The Ford, again not a bad car, feels like "swimming" in comparison.

This is, to some extent, similar in the difference between, say, driving a Chevy and driving a BMW. Subjectively, one just drives much better than the other one, and given how much time you are forced to spend in a car in the US, why would I not opt for a car that implements the driving aspect better?

I think esotericn is classifying that as the "enthusiast market". "More enjoyable to drive" matters, sure. But for most of us, it's not the primary driver of the buying decision - practicality is.

> Some cars are just flat-out much more enjoyable to drive.

The counterpoint to that is Audi ( A4 in particular ); dreadfully unbalanced whale-like FWD with the engine hanging out over the front wheels. Objectively dynamically inferior to the humble Ford Mondeo. But sold in droves in spartan-spec because of badge cachet.

They have recently started to tidy up their handling but still lag more humble brands.

Don't forget that these cars are a huge pain to maintain.

They're German. Germans expect that you will take care of things on a schedule if you are told to do so. That's why German cars have a much more detailed list of required maintenance than American cars do. The Germans don't think it's unusual.

Indeed, I'm planning to buy a (probably German) used car in Germany around April, and pretty much the first thing I've figured out is you never buy anything that doesn't have its full service history meticulously documented, with receipts.

Come on now, there's a hell of a lot more going on with the reliability of vehicles coming out of Germany than slack maintenance cycles.

It seems it really depends. My '12 Jetta TDI was super reliable, never had a single problem apart from it destroying the earth and lying about it. But other people with the same year, same car, had all sorts of problems. I feel like there's perhaps quality control issues coming off the line in Mexico.

Our new-used '13 Audi Q5 is made in Bavaria. So we shall see how its quality compares. So far no problems.

I remember wanting to buy an Audi during my entire 20s specifically because of the movie Ronin.

The Mondeo/Fusion's F-R balance is actually worse than the A4's.

Since the engine in the Fusion is mounted transversely with an inline transaxle the majority of the weight is in front of the front axle.

The A4 has a longitudinally mounted engine with the transmission and PTU (output to the rear wheels) behind it, which means the weight straddles the front axle.

Audis used to be extremely nose-heavy but their engineers have spent a lot of effort over the past few generations to move the drivetrain's center of mass backwards. They also offer things like differentials with electronically controlled multiplate clutches that allow torque to be transferred to the wheel(s) with the most traction in a matter of milliseconds to improve traction in cornering or in wet/snowy conditions.

So "badge cachet" is definitely not the only difference.

Yeah, but what portion of the market can realistically afford the luxury, and what portion of the market cannot afford it but buy in anyways?

How do you explain away the people like an old high school friend of mine that was so brand loyal to the concept of a european luxury car that they got the only such model they could afford (purely in cap-ex terms) which was aging and constantly being maintained (could have easily leased a late model asian economy car instead, with money to spare) and from which all of the subjective experience features were gone (sounded awful, felt awful, smelled awful, and had little remaining intact interior materials)?

Also, there are cars that manage to have both terrible TCO and lack any positive subjective experience features but manage to make it onto the roadways regardless.

There should be an elastic luxury portion of the market where you have the typical dealership experience -- but it should be a tiny minority. The rest of the market should be very concrete, where you show up and just pay a simple price for a simple commodity vehicle that competes with the others through simple metrics (fuel economy, cargo capacity, crash test performance, power-to-weight ratio, warranty terms, etc.) I get an independent party's TCO estimator where I can fill in my average miles per year, how often and how much I might haul, number of years I plan to own it before selling, etc. and they use past data to project costs of ownership (down to considering things like "this model engine has been in use for many years so we can be very confident about its cost of maintanance) to get a TCO for all the models in this segment to easily consider before ordering, and no grubby salesmen are required -- it's mostly between me and the engineers that conspire to build a reliable machine -- no executives to decide that the model line needs to be segmented in such and such a way to trick me into paying more to get much less with by putting a single economy feature (like durable LED headlamps) in the top of the line model with a bunch of other things I really would rather not have (wood texture details and crap).

Edmunds has good data on TCO.

https://www.edmunds.com/tco.html

Japanese cars annoy the heck out of me. I occasionally (forced to) drive a Toyota Venza. Here my issues:

1. low torque at low RPMs.

2. suspension is too soft.

3. it beeps at me constantly. Lock/unlock door, open door, start car, etc.

4. complicated (too many buttons) screens and radio.

5. doesn't allow me to do things I want: a) open door while in drive, b) turn off all my lights when i turn light switch to off, c) use certain screen functions when i drive.

6. hatch door doesn't open if battery is dead.

I'm sure I'd have more if I actually owned the vehicle. The BMW I own doesn't treat me like an idiot.

VW/Audi group also seems to be designing cars with the 'idiot' perspective now. Rented a 2018 Q5 earlier this year and had same issue with not being able to open door while in drive or reverse (which sucks for checking parking spaces). Our 2013 Q5 we own doesn't do this. My old Jetta liked to lock the doors the moment the ignition turned on, which meant my kids would reach for the door to enter and find it locked even though I just unlocked the doors. Things like that, highly irritating.

Car controls should be predictable and easily accessed through muscle memory.

> a) open door while in drive, b) turn off all my lights when i turn light switch to off, c) use certain screen functions when i drive

As a fellow driver, I wish there were more cars on the road like this.

I would argue that disabling screen functions while the car is moving is more of a safety hazard than not doing so. Unpredictable interfaces are distracting. Would you rather drive next to me while I reach over and adjust the bass on my car stereo or while I spend a few minutes screwing with my car stereo only to learn that I cannot adjust the bass while the car is moving? In many cars, I could simply ask my passenger to adjust the bass. But in my car I will need to pull over on the side of the freeway to adjust the bass and then merge back into traffic from a dead stop. It's a safety feature.

1 and 2 are signature Toyota characteristics, and I'd expect them to be apparent on a big vehicle with little performance emphasis like the Venza. There are a lot of good Japanese cars that have lots of available torque and road-feel. Mazda and Honda feature on just about every enthusiast magazine "Car of the Year" list for good reason.

Um... Honda is the poster child for "virtually torqueless but screams at high RPMs".

Performance Hondas are great cars, sure, but not for low-end torque.

I'm curious how important "6. hatch door doesn't open if battery is dead." is -- I can count the number of times my battery has died in the past decade on one finger - and that time it still had enough power to unlock the doors, it just couldn't start the car. (door not closed all the way all weekend so the interior lights were on)

My car doesn't have an electric-only trunk lock, but if it did, I could just fold the seats down for access to the trunk... and I could crawl in and pull the emergency release if I really needed to open it.

I'm more lamenting the electrification of something that doesn't need to be.

My mother drives the Venza short distances. Since the Venza is so electronic, the battery dies constantly on her since it doesn't charge enough while driving. So much so that I bought an external battery to boost the car for her - probably once a month if I forget to drive it myself (longer distance). Multiple mechanics say battery and alternator are fine.

> I could just fold the seats down for access to the trunk.

In the Venza, the lever to fold the seats is accessed via the trunk. But you can't open the trunk when battery is dead. Luckily the Venza is a station wagon, so I did crawl over back seats to get the battery.

I find japanese products to have excessive electronics, buttons and beeping. I'm happy to pay for a higher priced German car (in response to the lower TCO comment)

Put the car on a Battery Tender. There are quick-connect kits so you can even avoid fiddling with the battery terminals.

It depends on the car. My Honda is super simple, let's me do what I want, and has firm suspension. Even BMWs of the same period were ridiculously complicated and less about being fun to drive. Having all the power high up in the rev range is just something you have to get used to. It's fun.

You think it's all about TCO vs. signaling. The trade space has a lot more dimensions, and you're getting a lot of pushback, especially about the "driving experience" dimension.

I'd like to add "reliability" as another dimension that does not seem to have been mentioned yet.

I just exited a beloved "old small Japanese car" (1998 Civic), partly because parts were starting to break down. Usually it was nuisance stuff, but it takes time to fix. The TCO of the old car was well less than (say) the payment on my new car, but I couldn't deal with the unpredictability and the lost time.

> It takes a large amount of number crunching to determine that an old small Japanese car has the cheapest TCO.

How so? It's trivial to get the average maintenance costs of a car based on model and year. It doesn't take an excel spreadsheet to conclude that something like a 2010 Toyota Corolla would have lowest TCO

Thank you. What you describe is exactly what I've noticed after delving into the car world via rentals.

If you're buying a sedan -- Toyota/Honda/Kia.

If you own a BMW/Audi/Benz, you're not wealthy and you're just signalling to other non-wealthy individuals. It's interesting because most of the BMW/Audi/Benz look terrible and are way cheaper than most expect yet still a terrible, arrogant waste of capital.

Only a few brands don't match this. Tesla and Range Rover. The former for obvious reasons. The latter because no comparable high-end SUV exists.

If you bought a Ford/Chevy, you're asking for reliability issues.

Ford and Chevy are pretty reliable. BMWs are fun to drive. Porsches are a step above BMW in terms of fun factor.

"If you own a BMW/Audi/Benz, you're not wealthy and you're just signalling to other non-wealthy individuals."

Err, the median income of a 2017 Mercedes-Benz E-class buyer was nearly $200,000 [1]. That qualifies as pretty high income. The numbers are similar for BMW and Audi.

You can argue that they aren't "wealthy" (as this isn't a measure of net worth), but people with high incomes are more likely to be wealthy than people without. Someone making $200K a year certainly isn't the stereotypical person "faking being rich" you portray them as here.

"Look terrible and are way cheaper": well, "look terrible" is all about personal taste. If it doesn't float your boat, then fine, but it apparently floats enough boats that the companies sell a lot of them.

"Way cheaper" is almost objectively false. Most reviewers like the cabins of the luxury brands far more than they like the cabins of the non luxury. You may think they aren't worth the extra dollars, but when someone is wealthy, the marginal value of those extra dollars is lower.

[1] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/expert-reviews/powersteering-20...

$200k for a household is not high income by any measure. That sentence explains your entire perspective in your comment.

E-Class = Poor people

If you consider these cars expensive, that’s your problem.

$200k in annual income is nearly four times the US median income. Sure, it's not "ultra-rich", but it the 94% percentile.

Don't know how what you consider "high income", but if "more than 94% of the population of one of the richest countries in the world" doesn't qualify, then there is basically no one who does.

If you want to know what the self-driving truly wealthy drive, in the USA it's mostly Jeeps, Chevy Tahoes, and the like. Sometimes a Land Cruiser or an old Benz, preferably a wagon. Standing out in a fancy vehicle like a lottery-winning rube isn't it.

One point that I'm not seeing clearly articulated in this sub-thread: The US is widely rich. A lot of people can afford to buy things for status-signaling, no matter how silly you and I find it.

You know, there are German cars that are priced competitively.

When I went shopping for a new hatchback moving on from the 20 year old Hold Civic, I did look at Honda Civic, VW Golf and tons of other small hatchbacks and I ended up with the WV which wasn't even the most expensive choice.

A key passage from the article.

"Once Americans began driving Hondas and Toyotas, they discovered that these cars had a lot more going for them than just gas mileage — they broke down infrequently, could last for hundreds of thousands of miles, and were even fun to drive."

If the US sedan makers can't compete then they should deprecate those cars. Why make something that people aren't buying? Cars are too expensive these days to have to pay for frequent maintenance or fit-and-finish issues. Never mind the fact that "American" cars are not as American as they used to be and the Camry isn't distinctively Japanese.

The sad thing is that American automakers can't, even if that is they won't, make good cars. I don't get it. Why can't they make a fuel pump that lasts 100k miles? It's obviously possible since Japan does it. What's holding us back? Is the engineers? Is it the labor assembling things? Why can't we compete? Management being stupid and chasing this quarter's numbers above all else?

The US stock market? How do you plan for purchase horizons of ten to fifteen years and very little maintenance operations in that window, when your shareholders only care about what you did for them for a quarter of a year at a time?

Totally speculating, but from the outside it seems like stagnation & resistance to change. The Corvette still uses leaf springs. All three of the Big Three hung on to SOHC & other relics for far longer than Japan. I also remember as a shade-tree mechanic, Japanese engines were always precise, intricate, and sharp (suggesting computer design & milling) while the Fords of the same decade were not, and frequently the arrangements were irrational. Rangers needed the intake manifold removed to access the spark plugs. This always suggested to me more casting & hand drawing.

American automakers seem to make some great stuff when they are actually pushing the envelope- the EcoBoost line I hear is very solid, and the aluminum frame in the F150 seems to be doing great (notice: lots of FUD when it launched, silence ever since). The Volt & Bolt have had many great things said about them.

Whether it's conservative engineers, or tight purses, or unrealistic schedules, or even just myopic American Exceptionalism, I do not know.

Corvette uses a tranverse leaf spring, which isn't the same as most people expect. Chevy does it because it works well (it's a top handling car, held the lap record at Nürburgring for a while) and allows for extra cargo space in the rear.

IMO it's a combination of multiple factors. Chasing short term profits definitely plays a role, but there are other cultural factors. An adversarial relationship with labor[1]. Over-reliance on inspection processes to catch production issues. Poor engineering culture that focuses on individual issues as they occur instead of taking a systems-level view. Over-reliance on metrics and KPIs. Performance review criteria that incentivize ignoring or under-reporting issues[2].

Also note that fuel pumps may not be the best example. American manufacturing of mechanical components has gotten a lot better over the past couple of decades. But electronic components are the new opportunity to repeat the mistakes of the pasts.

[1] Watch https://youtu.be/qg8bbFwZLMA?t=1760 through about 44:20, which is an decent overview (although the explanation of Kaizen focuses too much on efficiency). Compare the description of the Japanese relationship with labor to how labor is usually treated in the US. Also notice from 36:40 on how much focus is put on technology versus process (although that may be forgiven since it is a TV show).

[2] For example, in theory you may say your employees have the authority to stop production if they notice an issue. But if the line workers are graded on how many parts they produce, and the engineers are graded on how much downtime there is, nobody is going to report anything.

I think the better question is what's so wrong with the SUV/Truck market that they don't have to compete on TCO? That they still rake in so much in year over year maintenance costs? That the purchase horizon for most SUV/Truck owners seems to be ~4-5 years versus the ~10-15 year lifetimes that sedan owners demand/expect?

Isn't doubling down on the higher profit margins of SUV/Trucks an admittance that GM and Ford (and their more powerful shareholders) can't see far enough past the short term to compete in the sedan market? What happens if a correction happens in the SUV/Truck market that the time horizon starts to reflect sedans (again)?

> What happens if a correction happens in the SUV/Truck market that the time horizon starts to reflect sedans (again)?

I guess GM and Ford would just start making sedans again?

They could switch back. A lot of the crossovers are built on lifted sedan platforms anyway.

I think the better question is what's so wrong with the SUV/Truck market that they don't have to compete on TCO?

The chicken tax, as discussed elsewhere in this thread. 25% tariff on imported trucks means domestic trucks have almost no foreign competition.

The one place they do, the compact/mid-size market, is totally dominated by the Tacoma (which sidesteps the chicken tax with domestic assembly), which is coincidentally famous for being an exceptionally reliable truck...

> Once Americans began driving Hondas and Toyotas, they discovered that these cars had a lot more going for them than just gas mileage

This resonates with my experience so much I couldn't help but write this. After my previous Japanese car saved my life in an accident, I went ahead and bought the new model, about a decade later.

I am seriously impressed. Things which were premium a while back are now standard. And the look-and-feel of the car, the comfort and driving feel is just amazing. I could go with a bigger more powerful engine but I mean the mileage is hard to beat. And I won't even mention the abundant safety features (which decreased my insurance premium!).

Although I can afford it, I have absolutely no interest in the premium brands.

It's funny, most of the Japanese sedans that sell well in America do not sell well in Japan, and some of them are not even available to buy there. They were designed for the American market.

Japanese cars became bestsellers because the Japanese automakers started making better American-style sedans than the American automakers.

I can't help but to believe that GM and Ford are making the same mistake they made in the early 70s and the 90s. Piling on the big cars when gas prices are low, then watch their share of the market collapse when gas prices get higher as they always have in the past.

To GM's credit they claim they'll be putting a lot of the short term savings into EVs and AVs, but time will tell.

Japanese sedans are dead too. It'll just take a bit longer.

Sedans simply do not offer enough utility or fun per dollar to stay relevant. In France, where I'm from, sedans have been utterly dead from as long as I can remember. People just buy hatchbacks instead.

Sedans stayed alive in the USA thanks to wider roads, larger parking spots, and a persistent notion that hatchbacks are tiny cheap econoboxes that you wouldn't want to be seen in (which, to be fair, is often the case, even though there are very good hatchbacks like the VW Golf).

CUVs and SUVs have overcome this stigma and are set to accomplish what hatchbacks failed to do in the US market: kill sedans. I expect very few people to go back to buying sedans after having owned CUVs or SUVs, unless it's a somewhat niche sedan like a BMW M3, Mercedes S-Class, Tesla Model 3, etc.

> Japanese sedans are dead too. It'll just take a bit longer.

> Sedans simply do not offer enough utility or fun per dollar to stay relevant. In France, where I'm from, sedans have been utterly dead from as long as I can remember. People just buy hatchbacks instead.

That's one side of the story and France is just a fraction of the market for sedans. The road configurations, parking styles, etc.. probably favors hatchbacks but that's not the case in Canada (for example) and that definitely doesn't mean that sedans will be dead.

Where I'm from, it's the same as France for reasons related to utility and fuel consumption but even so, people who wanted 'fun' went for the German large sedan or for the Japanese small but souped-up sedan.

I agree that France is not very representative of the general automobile market, but in Canada for example I would expect most households to start buying a CUV or SUV as their first car (possibly with AWD).

The point is that a classic three-box four-door sedan is not super practical as your only car, and I believe that's true for almost all markets. Americans still bought sedans because the alternatives (wagons, minivans, hatchbacks) were seen as uncool, but CUVs and SUVs don't have this problem at all.

So, yes, sedans will still exist but with a fraction of their previous market share, and in this sense sedans will be "dead" (since that's how the article uses the word).

I don't think they're excluding hatchbacks/wagons/fastbacks from "sedans" in this article. They really just mean not-trucks/SUVs.

I don’t know, things like the Accord/Civic and Corolla/Camry are very popular in the US. Very low TCO, and they are easy to get used (and cheap if you go 10-15 years old). SUVs require more gas and are more expensive than sedans that do what people need.

Replacing sedans with wagons or hatchbacks would be reasonable, if it existed across the product line. But most of the midsize and larger wagons are unavailable.

If I have five adults/teenagers to fit, there is no hatchback/wagon option that seats them comfortably. I can either spend $30k on a minivan, $30k on a larger SUV, or $22k on an Accord/Optima/Camry size sedan. If they'd box the back of that sedan and sold it as a wagon, I'd buy it.

This also assumes that ride height is not an anti-feature. if you've got elderly or disabled passengers, they aren't hiking themselves into an SUV.

My hard-working parents bought a new Ford during my childhood, in the 1970s. The car was a lemon that broke down a lot, they hated that car. I've never forgiven Ford either, in our extended family today there are no Ford owners and never will be.

American sedans are dead because the Big 3 American automakers never invested in making sedans. They always borrowed tech from other companies.

Just about every Ford sedan platform and engine was built on top of Mazda or Volvo designs. It's not surprising that Ford lost access to those designs when it sold off Volvo and then Mazda.

Similarly, GM designs were from Suzuki and Opel. They've been divesting from Suzuki and Opel for a better part of a decade now. It seems like they also reached the point where they've been cut off from platforms and engines.

Chrysler luckily still has Fiat to borrow car platforms and engines from. They also have partnerships with Hyundai group. So I think they'll keep making sedans, just because they still have access to that tech.

The American sedan is being killed off because they were never American in the first place.

> American sedans are dead because the Big 3 American automakers never invested in making sedans. They always borrowed tech from other companies.

In the 80s a lot of US-Foreign partnerships sprang up as domestic manufacturers scrambled to develop competitive products to compete against the Japanese. But GM had an ownership stake in Opel from the 1960s IIRC (they just recently sold it to the French PSA group) and Ford has been experimenting with bringing over cars designed by Ford Europe since the 80s (look up Merkur).

Chrysler is really no more; the shots are called by FIAT and aside from Jeep and Dodge trucks everything else is an import (the Jeep Renegade and the FIAT 500x are the same under the skin and are built in the same factory in Italy).

Ford made a big bet on "global cars" in the 90s, and we see the benefits of it today. The Escape and the EcoSport were both originally designed for Europe.

GM and Ford did learn to make great cars for the US market, but too late. The Impala & CT6, for example, are on a platform designed for the US/China market (no way the European market would want a car that big that isn't an S-Class, 7-series, or A8). And they're great cars. But as the original article said consumers demand for big American sedans has been in decline for almost 50 years. Ford/GM can't seem to stop skating to where the puck just was.

The Ford Escape might be designed for Europe, but it's still designed on top of Mazda designed platform for the Mazda6, primarily using the Duratec/EcoBoost inline-4 engine that's based off a Mazda MZR engine design. EcoSport uses a Ford designed engine, but it's still using the Mazda2 platform. Ford's been partnered with Mazda from 1974-2015 which predates and outlasted Merkur.

The Imapla is on GM's Epsilon platform, which was originally designed by Opel. CT6 is on a completely homegrown platform, which is probably why it's the last car in GM's discontinuation lineup to be discontinued.

They may have had platforms that were designed for the US market, but they weren't the designer.

How is it that the cycle of cheap gas = people buy gas guzzling SUVs, gas goes up = people go back to gas sipping cars, keeps repeating? I swear in my lifetime I've seen this cycle repeat three times now.

I'm a city boy so mind the ignorance, but who is buying up all the trucks? I get the allure of a nice SUV/crossover, my next car will probably be one since I think the space is useful for when thinking about starting a family, but a truck never seemed that feasible for non-commercial use.

TBH, I think a lot of it is just about presenting an image.

I grew up in a rural area, and a lot of the trucks in town rarely carried anything of note in the bed, because their owners didn't want the paint to get scratched.

I see lots of pickup trucks (which are common in urban Atlanta) slowing to 3mph before a speed bump that can easily be taken at 12 in a sedan. It's obvious that the truck can handle the bump with alacrity, but the drivers are very cautious about risking the slightest damage.

The suspension is much stiffer in an underloaded pickup. That speed bump will launch your head into the ceiling if you take it too fast.

This. Suspensions in trucks aren't as forgiven with their solid axles and all... Bumps are rougher.

So you have to soften the suspension before taking it on a rutted road?

No, you have to drive slower.

I don't get truck owners who don't have a bed liner. It's really a sanity saver if you're ever going to put anything in the bed (And you should, that's the whole point).

Username does not check out. :-)

If you go 60 miles outside a metro area anywhere, pickups start dominating. Southern metro areas have a lot even within the city.

> I'm a city boy so mind the ignorance, but who is buying up all the trucks?

Visit the south and you'll have your aha moment.

I live in what most would consider rural America. Most people are buying the midsized SUVs, not necessarily the full size. Once you leave the city things change... things aren't on top of each other when you leave the city, so driving a big vehicle isn't as frustrating. we have big parking lots(parking spaces are bigger and not full, making it easier to park further out), no underground parking(height isn't an issue), real estate isn't as expensive so developers leave more parking and wider driveways, etc.

I dread taking my truck into the city, but for average day to day life its much better then what id choose as a daily drive if i lived in the city full time. About the only thing a small car has an advantage on is parking and getting into and out of tight places, and MPG.

Pretty much this. I live out in the country and when I mentioned to a suburban friend who owned a Yukon Denali that we were going to buy an F250 (3/4 ton full size pickup), he said, "OK, just tell her that it's hard to find a parking garage it fits in."

My wife's response was "when am I ever in a parking garage?"

Once you leave the city/suburbs, there's essentially infinite free space for vehicles, so these things cease to be issues.

What are you planning to haul that you need an F250 for?

Campers, trailers, wooden planks, dirt or rocks...

... and sometimes "need" isn't the right question... why do people "need" a Tesla model S when a 3 will do just fine (or a Volt/Bolt/Leaf/Fusion!)? Why do people need a Mustang GT when the v6 or inline 4 would be just fine...?

As I commented in a reply to the parent's response, I misread the comment and thought it was someone who lived in the city and was buying an F250 as an alternative to an SUV.

I'd speculate it's probably a typical suburban use case some combination of camper and/or toys several times a year and buying home improvement and landscaping materials the rest of the time. It often makes sense to buy a travel trailer and truck rather than class C camper. Also if you're going to be road tripping it it's usually wise to buy more truck than you need in order to make the road trip aspect more comfortable. As much fun as it is to white knuckle it with 7k behind a Ford Ranger that doesn't make for a fun road trip.

A couple years ago we were camping with my uncle, who drove a semi for many years, and he made the comment that a lot of people who buy the souped up trucks to haul their campers around don't actually have the right setup because the brakes are the most important part of having a truck for towing things. Lots of people (me included) assume you just need a big engine and stiff suspension. Thought that was a nice bit of insight.

A lot the larger-engined trucks out there have braking packages included in the tow packaging, now. Controls right in the dash, sent strait to the trailer plug. I can remember similar trucks of 15-20 years ago didn't have these; trailer brakes were always an aftermarket addition.

I don't even mean the trailer brake / light package. He was referring to the fact that if you are going to be towing heavy things, you need to have much stronger brakes on the truck itself since most of the braking power on a vehicle ends up coming from the front wheels. Being able to stop a heavy thing that is going fast is as important, if not more important, than being able to get the heavy thing up to speed to begin with.

Originally it was to avoid the annoyance of always having to borrow a truck if we needed to tow a horse trailer or the like.

However, it was mainly (a) we needed a truck for general purposes, and at $4,500 for an 8 year-old full size pickup with a massive 7.3L diesel engine, it was a steal, even after putting a few more thousands into it.

That is a good deal. Trucks hold their value remarkably well.

Also I completely misread your comment and thought you were saying you lived in the city / suburbs and were planning to buy an F250 for daily driving.

Once you get out of the city, people actually use those trucks. SUVs may work, but how do you think people get all the stuff home they buy at Lowes/Home Depot every weekend? I know people who drive cars, but have an old beater truck for hauling. It's just a different life style.

Personally, I prefer the room and higher ride of SUVs to sedans, but own a truck b/c no SUV is tow rated high enough to trailer my boat.

The 4-door F-150, and the Tahoe/Yukon Denali/Escalade variants, are the modern American luxury vehicles. They aren't all that much more excessive than the giant Cadillacs and Lincolns that were the standard of American luxury until the 1970s.

A 4 door truck with a cover on the bed is basically a GIANT sedan: Wide comfy back seat with lots of leg room, giant trunk, very luxurious... And handles well in snow!

I have the perception that trucks are better for rough driving (dirt, potentially muddy roads.) I have no idea if this perception matches reality, and would be curious to hear if it's true. I'm always a little jealous when I see a truck tearing up a dirt road when I'm driving forest roads on the way to go hiking.

A lot of people in the country live off dirt roads or have dirt driveways that might get muddy in the rain or when snow is melting, so I imagine that could be a factor too.

It's odd that this article doesn't mention Tesla.

Unclear if this is a joke - tesla’s cost much more than most sedans - the market for most us sedans is not the same.

Not a joke. Tesla is an American car company shipping sedans. The mid-range Model 3 is getting lower in price. While it might not be price-comparable to some of the others mentioned in the article, it's still an American sedan.

Average Transaction Price for "light vehicles" (which seems to include luxury sedans, luxury SUVs, pickups, etc) was was $36,270 in January 2018.[1]

It's not nothing, but a ~$46k medium range Model 3 is not so terribly far from that, and in fact hits that on the nose if you manage to buy one in the next 14 hours in California (or a state with even better state-level incentives like Colorado). :) (Tesla is 'promising' delivery before end of 2018 if you order in November; I only know this because my in-laws are looking at it right now).

[1] https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2018-02-01-Average-New-Car-Prices-...

The ASP for light vehicles is 36k, when including a bunch of expensive vehicle classes, which should indicate what the average low end sedan costs to bring the overall ASP price down:

* ASP for pickup: 47 fullsize, 32 "mid" size

* ASP for an SUV: 60k

* ASP for luxury SUVs 44k for a compact (wtf is a compact SUV?) up to 80k.

* ASP subcompact SUV is 24k

Vs. the low-end cars:

* 15k for a Kia Rio * 19k for a Toyota Corolla * 12-17k for a Nissan Versa * Honda low end 19k, the top end plugin: 33k * Hyundai 16k-22k * Mitsubishi 14.5k * Ford Fiesta 14.2k, taurus: 27.8k * Chevy cruze: 17-24k * Buick starts at 25k

This ignores compacts/hatchbacks which seem to be on average around 5k less.

So a Tesla isn't a few grand more expensive. It's 2-2.5 times more expensive.

But the replacement the US car companies are offering are SUVs, which are more expensive than the sedans they are replacing.

This seems more like the companies saying "What products have the biggest profit margins? Lets just make those."

This is fine so long as the government is willing to say "no" when the next oil crunch happens and people start scrambling for efficient or electric cars instead of big trucks and SUVs and the big 3 find themselves in trouble in exactly the same way the did last time.

Or they'll just blame it on the unions and move everything to China.

Plus Teslas (at least the S) aren't really traditional sedans. They're liftbacks (hatch with a sloping rear window) plus they have a "frunk". And they adhere to the "distinctive styling as signaling" rule of hybrids.

No it's not. They're mentioning companies that can actually ship cars.

Tesla ships more Model 3s than Ford ships Fusions:

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/ford/ford-fusion/

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/tesla/tesla-model-...

It's not an article about luxury cars.

They clearly meant "big 3 automaker sedans".

2 American cars sit in my driveway; a BMW Z3 M Coupe that was built in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and a Tesla Model 3 sedan that was built across the bay in Fremont, California.

Though I will say, I generally hate the sedan form factor (from a styling and practicality standpoint), and of the ~10 or so cars my wife and I have owned, the Tesla is the first sedan.

It really should, because the article states that US automakers are going to concentrate on electric vehicles.

I've driven a Chevy Impala. It drove OK, but it looked and felt really cheap inside. I've owned Chrysler, Chevy, and Ford. It was the Ford product -- that I bought new -- that drove me (in many senses) to the Honda dealer.

I've bought 7 new Hondas since. Why? Every American car I had owned got at least one tow-truck ride to get repaired. The Ford had to be towed to the dealer for service _three_ times.

The Hondas have never left me stranded.

I've purchased several sedans before but will probably never buy another one. Sedans are really miserable for those of us who enjoy outdoor sports. Sure it's possible to use a sedan to transport equipment for scuba diving, cycling, kayaking, skiing, etc but other vehicle styles are far more comfortable and practical.

http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

The above contains relevant numbers.

I'm seeing a lot of cars on the road that fit the wheel-base of a sedan, but are larger. Here are a few models that come to mind: Hyundai Kona [0], BMW X2 [1], Nissan LEAF (though this is an all electric offering) [2], and I'm sure there are more.

My point is, there are vehicles that are roughly the same size that fill the needs of people who would have purchased a sedan.

I'm guessing that if we refactored the numbers in terms of wheel-base and interior volume we'd see people are buying similar wheel-based cars with more interior volume.

[0] https://www.hyundaiusa.com/kona/index.aspx [1] https://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/x-models/x2/sports-activity-... [2] https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf.html

[edit] AND it looks like I missed a crucial piece of the title, so here are some 'murican cars that fit the description above: Chevy Trax [3], Buick Encore [4].

[3] https://www.chevrolet.com/suvs/trax-compact-suv [4] https://www.buick.com/suvs/encore-small-luxury-suv

[/edit]

Agreed. Another way to personalize these data is this observation: 10 years ago, my friends and family all drove cars with separate trunks. Now none of us do.

The article says that Americans never really regained trust in American manufactured sedans since the 60s/70s. But then doesn't explain.. who exactly was buying all those sedans.. while not trusting them? There definitely were a LOT of American sedan sales for a while there.

Federal, state, and local governments. Taxis. Ford Focus did well too.

I grew up in rural Iowa, and the concept of buying something not made by the big three was pretty exotic. The dealerships weren't around, so people didn't even consider them as an option.

Now most of the small town dealerships have gone under as part of the restructuring from the recession, so people are going to cities to buy cars anyway now. When they get to the city, there are dealerships for the foreign car makers, so I'd guess people end up more likely to buy one.

I wonder when the press will realize that there are not just three American car makers anymore.

Looking at the best selling vehicles in the US for October 2018, there’s an American sedan in the top 20, but it’s not made by the Big Three.

I looked at a Fusion a few years ago before deciding to buy an Accord. There was a $10K price differential in favor of the Honda. This was mainly because all American sedans at the same price point had far lower reliability scores and were much smaller cars. There were no "American" sedans other than the Fusion worth considering for reliability and non-shoebox size. The third factor was resale value.

I simply got more for my money buying the Honda. I wasn't the least bit interested in an SUV or pickup truck.

> Meanwhile, the American automakers raced to come out with their own small, fuel-efficient sedans. But their products were often shoddy, poorly designed and technologically deficient

I wonder if this wasn't intentional. That is, were there bean counters at Ford etc. that were worried that sales of the small sedans would cannibalize sales of their higher-margin autos? Seems to be the way of things in the past four decades or so....

It takes years to bring a new car to market. And in the early 70s the Big 3 had zero, zilch, nada in the way of platforms and powertrains suitable for small fuel efficient cars. So the first generations were built in a hurry, and to a price, because the economy was in the toilet. And it showed!

It's also customer service:

I bought a Japanese vehicle that ended up being a lemon. The dealerships were generally polite to me when I brought it in for repairs.

(Against my better judgement) I bought an American plug-in hybrid that randomly stops charging. The dealership is flat out rude and constantly blames my charger. (The charger worked fine for 4 years with my old Leaf)

The last American sedan I owned was a 1974 Dodge Dart. Terrible car, but my sister's 1980 Dodge Aspen was much worse.

I've looked at American cars in the intervening years but I haven't seen anything to change my initial bad impression. They always seem like they're a step below in both form and function.

Sedans Aren't Dead, the market has segmented into sedans and liftbacks/4-door coupe. See BMW 3 and 4 series. It's p much the same car. People prefer for 4 because it's a bit more practical, but 3 series has large marketing so BMW maintain 2 models.

> Of course it doesn’t hurt that most Japanese cars sold in the U.S. are made in the American South.

And it's not just Japan. My 2 most recent "foreign" sedans, one Hyundai and another VW – were manufactured in the US.

What's the difference? Sedans are dead in America, else where Saloon lives on.

I still like my Ford Tempo

If I ever end up in a position where being able to drive and owning a car is feasible for me, I'm going to get a Kia Stinger GT. It tickles my fancy in a way that no other 4/5-door car below $60k does. I can't think of a single American car that even comes close, and good European cars are too expensive (I mean, I wouldn't turn down an Audi S7 if someone gave one to me... but I'd never be able to afford one either).

(of course, there is my pipe dream of importing a mid-'90s Toyota Chaser Tourer V from Japan, but I know that's a pipe dream)

SUVs are a total hard pass for me. I have a bad ankle, and when it's flaring up, there are almost no SUVs I can climb into, not even most crossovers. I have a friend with a 2018 Equinox, and getting into and out of his vehicle was physically painful. The only crossover I've been able to deal with when my ankle is acting up is my coworker's Jeep Cherokee (and from some Googling, it appears the 2WD models of the Cherokee have the lowest ground clearance of any crossover sold in the US).

Because I use Lyft all the time, I have something of an interesting perspective, because I've ridden in a much wider variety of cars than someone who just drives their own car most of the time. I've been in a lot of different sedans and SUVs, and I know what I like and what makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I tend to cancel on pickup trucks nowadays when I get one on Lyft. Even when my ankle isn't painfully flaring up, entering and especially exiting one makes my ankle feel like it's about to collapse. Crossovers aren't quite as bad, so I don't cancel on them unless my ankle is flaring up, but sedans and hatchbacks are far more comfortable.

I'm also afraid of heights, The elevated seating position in SUVs really bothers me. It's not high enough to completely induce a panic response in me, but it's high enough that I'm constantly on edge and nervous the entire time I'm in the vehicle.

The upright seating position really makes me uncomfortable. This is because A) SUV seats are elevated off the ground more than sedan seats and B) the seat bottoms are level in SUVs but tilted back in sedans. I cannot stand sitting upright. I am very uncomfortable sitting unless I'm tilted backwards, and I prefer having my legs splayed forwards instead of hanging down. When I get an SUV on Lyft, I pray it's a fully-loaded model (or a luxury brand) with a 6-way or better 8-way power adjustable passenger seat. The first thing I do when I get one of these is to lower the seat as much as possible and then if it's 8-way adjustable, I tilt the bottom of the seat all the way down. With an 8-way seat adjusted the way I want it to, it feels like riding in a sedan, but SUVs with 8-way seats are extremely expensive and I only see them on Lyft very rarely.

Also, I despise how SUVs are designed to expose valuables to thieves. Sedans have a trunk area that's not visible through any window. If you put valuables in the back of an SUV, they will get stolen because any chucklefuck can see what you have back there and perform a quick smash-and-grab. It's for this reason that unlike most other SUV-haters I'm not fond of station wagons, either. I do love me some liftbacks, though (like the aforementioned Kia Stinger GT), as liftbacks tend to have shelves that slide into place when the hatch is closed, and they serve to obscure the cargo from view (and it honestly pisses me off when someone makes a liftback that doesn't come with a shelf, because it defeats the whole point of having a liftback).

In defense of American cars - the Corvette can't be beat for the price, period.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com