A picture is worth a thousand words. Based on the charts I’m going to show you, I’m going to be able to save myself a lot of writing. These are from a Bloomberg article that graphically show the divergence of light truck sales (pickups, SUVs, CUVs, minivans, vans, etc.) from cars (sedans, hatchbacks, coupes, etc.). As you can see, the current reality of light trucks outselling cars is not totally new; during the first big truck boom of 2003 – 2008, that already happened. But not nearly to the extent it has since 2013, when the final great divergence took off. And it shows little sign of ending anytime soon.
Here’s three charts for the Big Three starting with GM, which of course show that their respective share of trucks vs. cars are even much higher than the market overall. No big surprise there. FWIW, GM is the only one of the Big Three that had a substantially higher share of cars to trucks in the early years of this time period.
Here’s Ford, which was significantly more truck-oriented than GM.
And FCA. Not surprisingly, FCA had the highest share of trucks going back to the beginning of this period. Trucks R Us.
Never thought I’d ever say I miss the 2008-2012 period.
I think the Ford Explorer was the “focal point in time product” that marked the beginning of the end for sedans.
Then the Ford* Expedition sealed their death. At the same time, the top-tier Japanese stepped in the water with the Rav-4 (decent) and the CR-V (clever).
Demographics has played a big role–as America has aged in general, and as the age of NEW car buyers/lessees has risen (Buick used to be made fun of in the 1990s for their older buyers—but today’s average buyer is probably like that 90s Buick buyer), ingress/egress has become a factor helping CUVs.
If/when the price of fuel goes up to say, $4,5,or a Norway-like $7, will people stay loyal to “non-cars”? Will they revert to gas cars with low roofs? Or will they migrate toward electric/hybrid CUVs?
*Ironically, but the early/mid 2000s, GM was 5-6 years away from bankruptcy, yet GM’s offerings trounced the Explorer and the Expedition. The Chevy Trailblazer and Tahoe alone outsold the Fords–and that doesn’t include GMC, and long-wheelbase versions.
It was definitely the inflection point for Ford and influenced the market significantly. About the time this chart starts the Explorer replaced the Taurus as their 2nd best selling vehicle and became the #1 selling non-pickup in the US.
The minor uptick/flatline of non-trucks starting Q1 2020 for GM and FCA is interesting. I’m pretty sure that reverses course again in Q2,3,4 though.
It’s too bad they don’t parse CUV sales out the way we would seeing as how they are for the most part used and treated exactly as “cars” once were. And that stuff like the PT Cruiser which really just gamed the regulatory system to be called a truck can’t be or isn’t able to be charted as a car instead of a truck. Nobody bought a PT or buys a RAV4 because they consider it a burly truck, they buy them and use them as a more convenient car that happens to ride a bit higher in some cases. Look at a any new car lot in Dallas for example, it’s relatively difficult to find AWD models of most CUV’s that come both ways. An F150 has zero in common with a Nissan Kicks available only as a FWD, yet they are both in the “light truck” category, right?
You hit on the same point I was making as I was writing my comment below. The PT Cruiser is an even better example than the minivan I was using.
It’s too bad they don’t parse CUV sales out the way we would seeing as how they are for the most part used and treated exactly as “cars” once were.
I get that point. But as I noted in a comment to Jim further down, this is really about the death of the sedan (and its variants). Minivans, MPVs and CUVs have been classified as light trucks going way back, well before 1994, when these charts start.
FWIW, creating another classification would have some benefits for clarity’s sake, but where exactly would the definition between a new category for CUVs and minivans and “real” trucks lie? It would be debatable and arbitrary.
“FWIW, creating another classification would have some benefits for clarity’s sake, but where exactly would the definition between a new category for CUVs and minivans and “real” trucks lie? It would be debatable and arbitrary.”
I do think a line drawn at pickup vs non-pickup would be useful and not particularly arbitrary.
Clearly the non-pickup light trucks have been the big winners in this time frame, but it would be interesting to see how pickup market share has changed in this time frame.
Especially since even within the pickup segment there was a shift that took place in this time range. Mini trucks were still very hot at the time these charts start, but their sales and models offered shrunk for much of the time period covered.
The minor uptick/flatline of non-trucks starting Q1 2020 for GM and FCA is interesting.
Inventory shortages? hard to imagine what else it would be.
I agree, Jim, but to me its not just they are USED as cars, most of today’s “SUVs”, “CUVs and “minivans” ARE cars, IMHO. Unibody, primarily FWD-based and they have virtually no “truck” traits(hauling, towing, real off-road ability) that I see. Just a slightly higher seating position, “aggressive” looking grills and clever marketing.
CUV’s are cars, while the relatively few true SUV’s left on the market are trucks. Jim Klein is spot on above. Bloomberg’s charts are quite misleading.
I think the Ford Explorer was the “focal point in time product” that marked the beginning of the end for sedans.
Then the Expedition sealed their death. At the same time, the top-tier Japanese stepped in the water with the Rav-4 (decent) and the CR-V (clever).
Demographics has played a big role–as America has aged in general, and as the age of NEW car buyers/lessees has risen (Buick used to be made fun of in the 1990s for their older buyers—but today’s average buyer is probably like that 90s Buick buyer), ingress/egress has become a factor helping CUVs.
If/when the price of fuel goes up to say, $4,5,or a Norway-like $7, will people stay loyal to “non-cars”? Will they revert to gas cars with low roofs? Or will they migrate toward electric/hybrid CUVs?
In some ways this discussion has been created by a quirk in the legal and regulatory framework in which American vehicles have been developed – much as how taxation schemes fostered an English auto industry heavily weighted to small cylinder bores and long strokes to compensate for them.
The car vs. light truck debate is really a stepchild of CAFE which created two separate sets of rules for what could be sold. The system encouraged arbitrary classifications, calling some vehicles “trucks” rather than “cars” because safety and fuel mileage regs were less stringent for trucks. The original Chrysler minivan was no more a truck than I am, but Chrysler brilliantly drove through a loophole which has been followed by so many others.
We still have few sedans that are clearly cars and lots of pickups that are clearly trucks. We also have a whole bunch of stuff in the middle that people would probably still car cars, but for some legislation from the 1970s. People are undoubtedly buying a different mix of vehicles than they did ten or twenty or thirty years ago. But whether they are “cars” or “light trucks” strikes me as being more about the definitions of the categories than about the vehicles themselves.
The real discussion, and the real relevance to the industry is that this is all about the death of the sedan, and its variants (hatchback, coupes, etc.). The fact that “light trucks” includes CUVs and minivans has been around since the 1980s. That is what that is, an artifact of terminology. But the death of the sedan is something different. There’s no debate about that. It’s utterly stark.
” this is all about the death of the sedan”
I agree completely. At least about the death of what we has been called a sedan. With a different regulatory history we might well be talking about the death of the sedan in favor of the all wheel drive wagon. It is just that those all wheel drive wagons have been classified as light trucks.
But it is absolutely clear that the traditional sedan is doing horribly right now. It will be interesting to see if the new regulatory environment many see coming (which could include significantly higher fuel prices) will reverse this trend. Everyone’s favorite analytical tool of “all other things being equal” is not a state that actually exists in the real world. 🙂
Well, except for the extra differential, those all-wheel-drive wagons WERE sedans from 1915 to 1948. The only time when low-roof 3box cars truly monopolized the market was 1949 to 1959.
The terminology is pretty important considering the ramifications of it. There is no doubt the rise and embrace of trucks was happening independent of and before CAFE but it’s very plausible that automakers, particularly domestic ones, only used this freer regulatory classification as an opportunity to carve out and pool their resources into what would become the “family suv”. I mean for much of the 60s-70s and into the 80s Trucks and SUVs were lifestyle vehicles, often with only two doors, graphics and some form of open roof configuration, much like Muscle cars before they were regulated and disincentivized out of existence by insurance companies and cost of fuel. As CAFE loomed now just plain old sedans were in a predicament, and they simply faced more daunting targets than “light trucks”.
Had automakers not been disincentivized from putting money into the ever burdensome and harder to sell on sizzle sedans they were used to making for so many years, the SUV craze may not have unfolded in the manner it did. Consumers didn’t create the SUV afterall, automakers did, they sold the sizzle of what were simply shortened pickups at one time, they marketed the seductive outdoorsy lifestyle they could have with them, all while the sedans were now being sold on comfort and various oh so titillating efficiencies, complete with styling clearly compromised by downsizing, engine power and torque clearly compromised by mileage standards, and quality and materials compromised by attempting to maintain profits whilst spending massive sums revamping every segment within their sedan lineups.
Trucks and SUVs never really seemed compromised in the heart of the malaise era, in fact they were arguably hitting their stride, sure the engines were strangled but you don’t need 400 horsepower big blocks to get down a jeep trail, and any change or addition to the Truck/SUV formula didn’t seem like a compromise or sacrifice. A smaller SUV like the Cherokee, Bronco II and S10 blazer wasn’t “downsizing” if anything it was a return to form to many SUV fans, adding 4 doors wasn’t seen as “softening”, it was adding more utility to a vehicle already being sold on utility. SUVs had to hit their own targets but it happened more gradual, to the point of being almost unnoticeable, and what changes that happened were fresh and exciting compared to the transformation of the sedan between 1975 and 1985, and I think that had a profound effect on consumer psychology and the demise of the American sedan.
Consumers didn’t create the SUV afterall, automakers did,
Literally, yes, as consumers are not good at building cars (or trucks) in their garages or back yards.
But realistically, I couldn’t disagree more with this and most of the rest of your statement. As I’ve been saying here like a broken record, it all has to do with the long slow death of the American cars, starting with the big ones, which started in 1958, and then with the smaller ones, starting around 1970 (very roughly).
The baby boomers on the West Coast and soon in other big metro areas saw American sedans (and their body variants) as massively “out”, uncool, and other negatives. This cohort cut their teeth on old VWs, Toyotas, the first Hondas, etc. Anything but an American car.
Except: Jeeps, vans and pickups (domestic brands). These absolutely never fell out of favor, and were always cool. They were cheap to buy used, and cool if you could afford a new one. And of course the imports didn’t offer anything in these classes, except the mini-pickup, which was of course massively cool.
The market diverged away from American mainstream cars into two new streams: imports (including sedans/hatches/etc.) and domestic trucks. This started already in the mid 60s, in certain places.
The folks that started these trends were of course the trend-setters. And the trend-setters were considered cool, because it was new and different, and in the late 60s ealry ’70s, it was all about new cool trends and hating on old, stuffy things the old folks did/bought/wore/drove/listened to.
These two trends, towards imports and American trucks have been THE defining influences in the American market, and have not yet ended. The only thing that has ever come along new and cool since then is Tesla.
Everything that’s happened in the market since the last ’60s to today is the result of these trends.
Yes, I know that parts of America got swept up in broughams and PLCs during this period of time, but that was just a temporary aberration. Some kids were still listening to The Kingston Trio in 1966. It takes time for everyone to get on the bandwagon.
My point is that it the coolest of the coolest were driving Jeeps and vans a very long time ago. Surfers in CA discovered both of them and embraced them back in the 1940s already! Old school buses and woodie wagons, and all sorts of cool vehicles. You can find them in old beach/surfer pictures from CA in the ate 40s and 1950s. This predates the hippies in their VW vans by 10-20 years.
Every trend and fad starts with the rare outsiders who are perceived to be cool,a nd then everyone eventually ends up imitating them. We’re all just imitating the surfers of 1947 with their vans, Jeeps, old school buses and woodie wagons.
But wait: there were even earlier versions of this going back to the 1920s! “Cool” actually started then, with the bohemian movement. Or wait…
I cannot dispute those factors, but there must be more to it than SUVs, Vans, Trucks and crossovers are cool because of the “California dream”, and sedans are uncool simply for not being that. Whether you consider them aberration too or not, ponycars did very well in the 60s, as did some Muscle cars, and the reasons they shined were largely a product of that same Southern California environment (quite a few beach boys songs seem to suggest they were cool anyway) There wouldn’t be hot rodding without it, and that was largely a sedan based movement, it was even fashionable to lower, chop and channel of all those tall 30s-40s to get them looking long and low, and that’s not even to mention lowriders in later years.
I get your point, and agree with most of it but I just don’t think the “why” is quite as simple as Trucks Vans SUVs are unshakably “cool” and sedans aren’t. What puts the former at this inherent advantage? I posit the reason is because the sedan (its variations) get turned uncool. Big full size American cars became uncool for the reasons you’ve thoroughly gone over, but there were many sub-fullsize sedan segments that were at one point also antidotes stuffy big sedans old folks had too, some of which the manufacturers themselves screwed up(growing the ponycars) others regulatory as I talked about earlier. Everything cool you mentioned boils down to one thing, youthful rebellion, Trucks and SUVs were a way of getting around the “rules” imparted on sedans and flaunting it. That moment “everyone eventually ends up imitating them” is when that Midwestern Collonade Monte Carlo owner goes to trade up to a new one in 1978 that they begin to realize that dorky little imitation of their 74 doesn’t seem quite as compelling as that Blazer over in the corner.
The people here are very familiar with the independent brands of the ’50s, and of how they suffered lower sales, in part, because they were “out” choices versus some of the major brands. I wonder if part of the falling sedan sales are, in part, a similar perception that sedans are just “out” cars, versus the CUVs/SUVs/light trucks, so many people don’t even consider the sedans any more. They are some sort of “old man’s car” or “poverty” car, as the ’50s independent offerings were sometimes labeled.
My own reasoning, atleast within the realm of family cars, was that the 60s-70s wagon was a revelation in utility/roominess over the classic fullsize sedan (4 doors as well as 2), then when the minivan came along that was yet another revelation (the fullsize wagon was also deeply uncool by now). Then came SUVs: hey maybe not quite as roomy/useful as a van, but boy are these things COOL. From there it was the logical progression of the attractive SUV shape/idea being optimized for how people actually use them (on road to ferry a modest sized family and/or to commute). Of course some stalwarts with offroad and/or towing capability remained. I am very curious to see what happens next. Paul has talked a lot about how the current CUVs are simply a return to a classic higher hip point and overall shape/stance. Will we stay here a while yet? Will further MPG targets see us go back down low again?
As for the chicken/egg of manufacturers or consumers leading this, I think it’s a bit of both: a manufacturer would take a stab at a new concept (’84 Caravan, ’91 Explorer, ’98 RX300) and when that first foray exploded in sales others quickly followed suit.
The regulatory landscape of CAFE certainly helps shape things: it’s easier to hit MPG targets for a “light truck” with a low slung crossover based on a sedan platform than it is to hit “sedan” MPG targets with a sedan (hence all the crazy aero optimization and tiny turbo engines proliferating)
My $.02 anyways
I have a couple of observations.
The first is that it’s pretty obvious that the death of the B/C body in 1996 was a factor in the switch from cars to light trucks at GM. Even though trucks had been trending upwards, the crossover occurs after the B/C was cancelled and around the time the first Escalade was built. The 1999 Silverado featuring infomercials by Cal Ripken Jr. helped too.
The second observation is Chrysler. I am genuinely surprised that I don’t see a spike in car sales in 2005-2006 when the LX was introduced. I remember those car were very popular when they were released. But it doesn’t seem to have translated into additional sales? Maybe this is why Chrysler is hesitant to introduce new chassis, there doesn’t seem to be a benefit for them to do so in terms of sales volume? I’m sure the profitability per vehicle increases for at least a little while, but at least some of that goes to dealers who charge above sticker for popular vehicles.
The 300C was hot, but Chrysler dropped two models to make room for it, Concorde and 300M. The Sebring also was becoming a hard sale at retail.
The first is that it’s pretty obvious that the death of the B/C body in 1996 was a factor in the switch from cars to light trucks at GM
The B/C cars were an extremely minor player in GM’s passenger car lines at the time. The big volumes were in all the myriad of small, medium and large FWD cars.
The evidence is that there was little specific demand at retail for BOF sedans. Despite consolidating BOF retail, fleet, and livery sales at FoMoCo, there was only a tiny bump in Grand Marquis sales; Crown Vic and Town Car stayed flat. After a few years of flat sales, the Panthers resumed the trend down.
GM probably lost less than 20K fleet sales to free up its Arlington TX plant to run full speed building trucks on two shifts.
Traditional GM retail buyers mostly shrugged and bought Impalas, Le Sabres, Tahoes, and Blazers.
The minor uptick in sedan sales could be inventory related. The trend is clear–and there are no sedans in the pipeline to reverse that trend.
Nothing is in the pipeline because the domestics have concluded it’s not worth it.
The trend toward CUVs is real in Europe also, though much less pronounced, in both volume and physical size of the vehicles.
However, VW, and more importantly, Asian automakers, continue to produce and sell sedans. They can offer them in the US because they have demand in their home markets and their global export markets.
They cannot, and will not, abandon sedans, the way the Detroit Three have.
If the fuel shock I alluded to above happens, I think the Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai will clean up nicely, at the expense of the Detroit three–especially Toyota, which will become number one in the US. If Nissan can hang on, they might even get enough of a boost to get back on solid ground.
And while Ford and….Stellantis (ugh..) have sedans in Europe, the track record for mass-priced Euro sedans in the US has not been good during my lifetime.
However, VW, and more importantly, Asian automakers, continue to produce and sell sedans.
The Passat and Golf have both been cancelled for the US. Let’s see how long the Jetta lasts…
Ok, Ok… VW is a bit player in NA compared to the Asians. In
the current environment, the Jetta is probably on track to join the Fusion and Impala… I thought they still would offer the GTI, didn’t know about the Passat.
However, if any European maker could put a sedan in a US showroom quickly, IMO, VW could put one faster than Ford or Stellantis.
But Toyota and Honda and Hyundai can do better–better suited to NA and more volume. VW’s peak here is 50 years ago.
And I only see this scenario approaching if we have an 1979 (or 1973) style gas price spike, or a big increase in the real cost of fuel.
Perhaps if/when that day comes, GM will have EV CUVs. Toyota already has hybrids. Perhaps sedan won’t come back even then, just more efficient CUVs.
But, IF, sedans come back, TOYOTA, and Honda and Hyundai will benefit. That was my point
The likelihood of a 1979 style gas spike is profoundly low. Ask the oil companies: they know we’re currently at “Peak Oil Consumption”. It is universally predicted to decline in the future. How that would lead to a rapid price spike, especially when we’re the biggest oil producer in the world, and now export oil, is simply beyond me (and undoubtedly, the domestic car makers).
So trying to project what the impact would be and which makers would benefit seems pretty abstract to me.
And keep in mind that light trucks are massively more efficient than they were in 1973 or 1979. Pickups routinely get 20 mpg, or more. CUVs get 30, up to 40 in the hybrid versions. The actual cost to fuel a typical car has to be at or near an all-time low. Not that ong ago we were all paying $3.50 a gallon, and still were byng pickups and SUVs, right?
Toyota and Honda will clearly be last men standing with sedans. But that doesn’t mean theirs will be around forever either. It just depends.
If consumers are more comfortable sitting in upright cars like CUVs, who’s going to still want sedans? Even the young guys who were into sporty sedans/coupes are scarfing up pickups now, because they’re the hot item. And that’s what counts, right?
Camry, Accord, Civic, a few Hyundai/Kia choices, a few Merc/BMW choices at the high end, and that will be it for ICE sedans. But a good batch of choices they are, not a lemon in the bunch.
If there is a spike in gasoline prices, most likely people are going to move from an Explorer or Expedition to an Escape or Bronco Sport. They aren’t necessarily going to seek out a sedan.
People like the ease of entrance and exit provided by a crossover. I drive a 2017 Civic EX sedan, and virtually everyone over the age of 30 who has ridden in it has commented on how low it is.
Many buyers – particularly older ones – aren’t going to tolerate the inconveniences that come with lower height in exchange for 1-2 more miles per gallon.
The rise of the CUV was accelerated by the gas price spikes of the late 00’s as a lot of people did exactly what you noted, move to a smaller size class Utility Vehicle rather than go back to a sedan.
It would be interesting to see Honda or Subaru sales broke out as well. I assume chart would mirror the main chart, but start closer to 100% for cars, and 0% for trucks.
Toyota’s chart may mirror the main chart almost perfectly.
I have a chicken-or-egg question.
Presumably, what station wagons were still available in 1994 were classified in these charts as “cars”. By 1994, the SUV and minivan were well into replacing the family station wagon. I want to suspect that this is somehow relevant to the increase in the trucks:cars ratio.
But did the station wagon die because folks were moving to SUV and minivans, or did folks switch to SUV and minivans because the station wagon was dying?
But did the station wagon die because folks were moving to SUV and minivans, or did folks switch to SUV and minivans because the station wagon was dying?
Station wagons obviously weren’t perceived as “dying” when the shift to minivans and SUVs first started, right? At the beginning of every fad or trend, it’s just a few folks. The impact on the wagon was not perceived until the trend was really getting well under way. So the initial impetus was buyers looking for something else.
And even then, it wasn’t all wagons that were “dying”. It was the traditional American wagon. Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, and other import brand wagons were still very much alive and had a positive image until much later.
The death of the American wagon is totally tied up in the dying image of the traditional American car. It was seen as madly uncool. So buyers moved rapidly to two alternatives: import brands, wagons (or even sedans) or SUVs/CUVs and minivans from the domestic makers. Because these domestic SUVs and minivans were in demand (largely because there weren’t nearly enough imports of them) they were perceived to be cool and acceptable.
I bailed out of cars in 2005 with a Ford Escape. My prior vehicle was a ’97 Camry. The Escape/Mariner/Tribute were one of the few CUVs at the time with a V6 and AWD and I had been transferred to upstate NY. Replaced with a 2012 Escape when I retired.
The Kia Telluride is the current candidate for replacement since its one of the few CUVs with a V6 and 8 sp automatic and traditional floor shift indicator. Sorry, no turbo, nor CVT, nor dials for transmissions for me.
The Dodge Durango is another. Check it out. Don’t jump on the Korean bandwagon so quickly.
I used to work for Dodge.
Don’t buy one.
That Korean SUV has a five year bumper to bumper warranty, too.
Are they that bad? The 3.6 and 8spd seem rather well sorted, have not heard any horror stories since the first few years of 3.6L production back in 2011/2012. But I have heard of ongoing things with the Hemis and cam wear and “hemi tick.”
As time goes on I’m more and more of a fan of the FCA LX cars, and the Jeep GC/Durango. They drive like more expensive vehicles than the FWD-based stuff they compete against for the most part. The Pacifica too feels particularly well screwed together and nice to drive relative to the usual suspects (Sienna/Odyssey), to say nothing of being nicely styled versus the insectoid/attacked-with-a-hatchet Japanese options.
The LX is an antique that drives like a twenty-five year old MB E class.
That’s because it’s based on a twenty-five year old E class.
I drove one 1700 km over the Rocky Mountains. I should have taken the Passat.
Most Chrysler engines are just fine, except the 2.7 V-6. It’s the rest of the car that will fall apart.
The Durango is also an antique.
Sorry, the LX/LY are not 1990s Mercedes just because they have some MB parts bin components.
As the owner of a ’18 Charger RT that replaced a ’14 NAR Passat there is no comparison. The Passat while having a boring but nicely assembled interior was the most boring and unsatisfying car I have ever owned. I felt every expansion joint in the road while it also wallowed over undulations. The interior room was great but that was about it. The charger is much better to drive. Yeah the interior is not as well assembled but the chassis is solid. It does feel heavy and substantial as did old Mercedes and B5-5.5 Passats did. Coming up on 3yeas and 40k with no mechanical or electrical problems. Never had that with any of my previous 5 VWs.
Propaganda! Look, I’ve seen the Jalopnik comment boards and how many willing wallets there are from usernames like SaveStickShiftWagons! and CVTs?_Puhleeeeze…. So I knoew if Mazda just had the guts to release that RWD inline-six Mazda6 wagon, they’d be able to bankroll a hostile takeover of Hyundai/Kia if not Toyota itself. People only buy the CX5 because they stopped making the 6 wagon…
…Whoah! Sorry, I saw the graph and just blacked out, don’t know what happened. Hope I didn’t say anything embarrassing.
It’s interesting, we all knew the tide had shifted but if someone had asked me to breakdown the market share like this I wouldn’t have guessed 80:20. No sign of slowing in that trendline, either. I can understand why Ford and Chevy are stepping away, even though it bugs me that I’m unlikely to see something like my Fiesta ST or a 4-door sedan with backseat headroom again.
I am the only person I know who went out, with his own money, and bought a manual transmission station wagon.
I did, but it was a Volvo 245 in 1985. By the time our third and fourth kids arrived we were in automatic-only minivans. (though somewhat earlier a friend had a manual Dodge minivan).
We bought a new manual transmission wagon (Corolla) in 1993. And now that our kids are grown and gone, we bought slight variant of that packaging, a Golf hatchback which is just about as roomy as a wagon, three years ago. With a manual transmission.
I agree… that surprised me too.
Although there’s a good amount of wiggle room in statistics regarding just what is a light truck. For example, the USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics publishes similar numbers annually, and their most recent estimate shows a 72:28 split for 2019 (the last year for which their data is available). Granted, the ratio likely expanded in the one year to 2020, but still it shows there’s some discrepancy even in thoroughly-researched estimates.
(Incidentally, I checked the DOT report, and their & on vehicle split come directly from Edmunds… I’m surprised that the DOT doesn’t rely on new vehicle registrations for this.)
Another interesting thing to consider is that even within the scope of sedans, manufacturers have raised hip points. I had forgotten all about it now, but when I first tried out the then new 2012 Camry, it felt a bit SUV-ish to sit in, notably higher up than other sedans I was used to at the time. I was reminded of this recently as I have both the wife’s Camry and my ’91 Park Ave parked in the garage. The Buick strikes you immediately as surprising low to the road, I had grown so used to the Toyota. I actually wonder if the seat position was raised as Toyota progressed from the XV30->XV40->XV50 using the same K platform (at a cost of headroom). Need to explore this theory more. One surprising thing about the new 18+ TGNA cars is that the belt line actually seems to have dropped(?), the visibility out the side is fantastic on them.
I find it odd that CUVs et al are so popular in the USA. They are essentially tall hatchbacks and Americans don’t like hatchbacks.
Up until recently, that is.
Many (most) of the passenger cars on the road are being used as Ubers or taxis, which is where egress/ingress should be more important, but where operating costs clearly trump (lower case not upper case 😀). If automakers want to save sedans, can’t they just make them a little taller? Part of the problem is that when automakers tried to eke out mileage gains by making cars even lower, consumers just moved to CUVs. The mileage loss with CUVs is more than just related to height. Why such massive wheels? I, for one, don’t find CUVs/SUVs necessarily easier to get in and out of. Many are too high. I miss the era of sedans: they were quieter and handled better, and you could hide things in the trunk!
Sure Uber and Lyft are popular, but where do you live that “many (most) of the passenger cars on the road are used as Ubers or taxis”? Maybe Manhattan or central London, nowhere else I’ve been recently.
Yeah they’re popular but not that popular, and quite a few Uber/Lyfts, as well as instacart drivers I see have crossovers as well, there’s not really any more favor for sedans I have seen.
But I agree with the last point. I’ve lived with both, and am familiar with the advantages/disadvantages yet I still like trunks better, I like the perceived security of my goods being out of sight. Only reason I’d deliberately pick a hatchback is if I thought it looked better than the sedan (Ford Focus). Big wheels are on everything though, it’s kind of crazy as a child of the 90s 17” wheels seemed almost cartoonish on the sports cars they were exclusively reserved for, now a days a 17” is the space saver size (if the car even comes with one anymore). They allow bigger brakes and a lower sidewall is good for handling, which is good, but at some point that low sidewall is going to be countered by the significant unsprung weight gain of a 20”+ cast wheel, and the looks will soon be thwarted when you parallel park a little too close to a tall curb.
Downtown Toronto.
” it bugs me that I’m unlikely to see … a 4-door sedan with backseat headroom again.”
The aerodynamically sloped roofs irritate me for the same reason, and it’s as boring as too many squared-off ones in the 80’s. Why can’t they try something different?
https://www.burlappcar.com/, where I get my future car news, says that we need to think of sedans as the new coupes. I hadn’t realized that child seat regs helped kill coupes until I read it here.
I’ve been thinking of buying an STS V8 as a better end-of-an-era Cadillac than my DTS, but my 60 y.o. knees haven’t been the same since I went on statins last summer. I haven’t found one yet with cooled seats but no stiff-riding magnetic shocks.
“If automakers want to save sedans, can’t they just make them a little taller?”
Alas, the Ford 500 flopped, and so did the Toyota Venza.
I think Cadillac could sell a lowered (but not slammed) Escalade to replace the CT6. Its optional suspension is supposed to lower a few inches when parking.
The 500/Montego flopped because the 3.0l Duratech wasn’t up to moving it around, especially when attached to the CVT that had minimal impact on fuel economy. Additionally, and probably more importantly, it looked like a 3 year old 4/3 size Volkswagon. When restyled as the Explorer, to look like an SUV, with a 3.5l V6 and 6F50 transmission, sales took off again.
I don’t want to downplay the CUV trend, let alone the personal pickup trend, but have we seen these kinds of shifts before? I’ll admit to being too lazy to research actual data, so the following observations are based on personal observation, which could be biased or outright wrong. In 1965 most people (in the US) drove sedans. Starting that year, Mustangs became popular and within ten years midsize coupes (ie Cutlass Salon) were just as or more popular than sedans as family cars. Notwithstanding Datsun 510’s and Corona’s, the typical small import in 1980 was a hatch (Civic, Rabbit, Datsun 210) but starting around that time, the Accord sedan, Jetta, and then Camry took off making import 4 doors mainstream. Within a few years minivans took off, then Explorers. So I think we’ve seen similar changes before, but definitely not to this extent.
And by the way, though again based on local observations rather than actual data, I’m seeing large numbers of Tesla Model X and Y, recently. When the CyberTruck comes out, Tesla may start showing similar sales curves. But for now, the Model 3 is still bucking the trend as a strong selling sedan. Given that none (few?) go to fleets, I wonder if the Model 3 is the best selling sedan in some US markets.
It may simply be that the Model 3 is the most affordable Tesla, and Tesla is hot right now.
Kinda the way that the CLA-250 is popular with people that aspire to Mercedes.
By necessity I’ve bucked the trend for the past month: my Ascent got taken out by a deer and I’m currently in a rental Fusion Hybrid. Frankly, I’m going to miss the Ford once the repairs are done. It can’t carry as much, of course, which was the whole point of getting the Subaru, but there’s no denying that the driving dynamics of a nice sedan are a pleasant change. Let’s hope a few can stick around; too late for the poor Fusion, though.
The Chrysler brand is struggling and Dodge cars aren’t so hot either.
If you want a grand finally of passenger cars from FCA -PSA, try this:
– Bring back boxy styling with plenty of headroom (front & rear) like the old hip & shoulder styling of the mid 60’s
– Re-establish “Newport” as the rational upscale vehicle (V6 maximum)
– Maintain ‘300’ as the luxury version (V8, all the bells & whistles & tablet screens as possible)
– Re-establish “Monaco” as the service duty vehicle (government car pool, taxi, Lyft & Uber)
– Maintain Charger as the speed demon and patrol car
– Reduce the scale the Challenger to the dimensions of the mid ’60s and make it fun again.
I know, I know……wishful thinking.
However, I just might grab one of the Newports and put it in my time capsule.
My advice: buy one of the current Chrysler 300s while they’re still making them, they’re really spectacular cars IMO.
Have you driven one on a long trip? I have and it was not in any way “spectacular.” My Golf drives a lot better.
You get a very solid longitudinal RWD sedan for Camry money. Yeah I rented one for work (a mid level Touring-L AWD) and came away impressed. FWIW it left more of an impression than the Golf Alltrack AWD (stich shift) that I test drove, which was a perfectly fine car to its credit.
Toyota makes course correction:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-10/toyota-makes-course-correction-in-u-s-with-plans-to-debut-evs?srnd=premium
Toyota Motor Corp. plans to begin selling a pair of battery-powered vehicles in the U.S. this year, revising a wait-and-see approach to gauge Americans’ demand for wholly electric cars and trucks.
The Japanese automaker said Wednesday it will start selling the unnamed EVs and an unspecified plug-in hybrid model, adding to a lineup with several gas-electric hybrids that accounted for almost one-fifth of its total U.S. deliveries last year.
Toyota withdrew from EVs in the U.S. seven years ago when it ceased production of an all-electric version of its best-selling RAV4 crossover sport-utility vehicle. The company sells limited numbers of a fuel-cell-powered sedan called the Mirai, but its executives in the U.S. said as recently as last year that they haven’t seen enough demand to justify a broader lineup of battery-powered models.
The move to expand beyond hybrids represents a reversal of that cautious stance and comes at a time when rivals such as General Motors Co. are planning dozens of EVs and aiming to cease output of gasoline-powered vehicles entirely by 2035.
Toyota said 25% of its new-vehicle sales will be electrified by 2025 — not far from what it expects to sell this year. But it added that the share will rise to almost 70% by 2030. The carmaker is developing a BEV platform called e-TNGA that it can use for multiple models.
The company’s renewed push into all-electrics in the U.S. follows President Joe Biden’s efforts to speed adoption of EVs. Toyota was among the last automakers to withdraw its support for former President Donald Trump’s effort to prevent California from continuing to set its own, tougher, emissions standards.