Station Wagon vs SUV

porknbeans · April 2002

I did a quick search in the station wagon using the search tool and there currently isn't a thread for your wagon. I also did a quick visual search through the station wagon section and didn't see anything. So if you want start a new thread and tell all the people your good news feel free to do so. Who knows, there may be others out there who are in the same boat. Good luck and congratulations on your decision.

dudleyr · April 2002

There used to be plenty of nice reasonably sized effecient 4wd vehicles, but they are mostly gone now.

Civic, corolla, tercel, camry, stanza, dodge colt vista. All replaced by thirstier, less nimble and larger, but not necessarily roomier, SUV's.

boaz47 · April 2002

Why did people decide to leave the ranks of wagon owners and flee to the SUV market like lemmings heading to the sea? It has to be more than the coolness factor. The new breed of wagon offers something different from the older wagons and that might be why people are coming back. Wagons do not compete directly with SUVs any more and they are beginning to separate themselves from being nothing more than sedans with a squared off back end. SUV people and Wagon people are two different kinds of buyers. One is a truck person that needs more cab room and a cover for the back end. A wagon person is a car person that needs more room than a sedan but does not plan on ever getting a boat or trailer. It has nothing to do with needs. It has everything to do with wants.

porknbeans · April 2002

I understand your view but I have to disagree. Wagons are starting to compete directly with SUVs. The new generation of wagons tout 4WD/AWD, raised seating positions, seating for 6 or 7, cladding to make them look more "truckish" and they are (generally) physically larger than wagons currently are. Some don't even look like wagons but more like trucks. Some examples that currently are on the market or are soon to be on the market are: Honda Pilot, Acura MDX, Toyota Highlander, Lexus RX300, Ford Crosstrainer, Chrysler Pacifica and Audi Allroad, Volvo XC. People that buy wagons and SUV's are one and the same.

Car manufacturers are playing on the anti-SUV backlash with cars that give the benefits of SUV's with better gas mileage and better ride quality. You are right that you won't be able to pull mountains but you will still be able to pull boats. Wants and needs are subjective to how you perceive them. I would say that as people have become more successful, their kids have grown, activities have increased and their wastelines have widened the additional room of a SUV and the new wagons would be considered a need.

I agree that for me most sedans are too small and that a SUV isn't necessary. However, I take a look at the wagons that currently do fulfill my needs and they are either too expensive, too ugly or too small. I'm excited to see what the near future holds and I'm sure I'll be purchasing a wagon in the not too distant future.

Just MO.

ateixeira · April 2002

Manufacturers saw the trend coming and they invested heavily in their SUVs. They marketed heavily to convince the public that they needed them, and it worked. Big $$$ for development and marketing meant big profit margins. Genius.

Those small wagons were nice, and even had cult-like followings, but they never received the backing from the parent companies, so most had weak 4 bangers and low payloads. Not to mention very awkward styling (remember Tercel, Stanza?).

The new breed of sport wagons is styled better and have bigger engines, so they have a much better shot. I also think consumers are looking for more efficiency in the overall package, and wagons deliver.

-juice

boaz47 · April 2002

I see your point. However,the ones you have mentioned will compete more directly with SUVs and could take a portion of their sales. But they will also take wagon sales. Whatever we want to call them they are far closer to a cross between the original killer of the wagon, the mini-van and the SUV. They are attempting to address the issue of towing and load capacity. I know I have a coastal perspective because of where I am from so my view is slanted to all the water and mountain activity that we enjoy about 300 days a year. Any wagon that cannot tow or haul a pretty good-sized load from the DYI stores will take more from the Sedan crowd than the SUV crowd. A mini-van that has some image and punch will take some of the SUV market but still that market is growing. All that is happening is the filling in of the market between the step between sedan and SUV. Mini-vans held that place once but reached a styling dead end. To tell the truth they also have lacked power. The old VW bus jokes have been passed to Mini-vans heading up hill. I think there is room for all of the new offerings. It will be a big stretch to call them wagons. Even if they do, I have not heard what they will be called yet, they sure will not be like any wagons we have right now. They will also be a lot more capable than the current line of mini-vans. ( I moved from the sedan to the wagon because I needed more room, and I have a truck for hauling. Besides, just like an SUV owner I thought the wagon I got looked cool.:)

ateixeira · April 2002

Most SUV owners do not even tow. I bet most don't even have a hitch, much less actually tow anything.

You have to remember, these are trendy. They used to be bought for the functions they could perform, but lately it's been more about image.

For these, a crossover is probably better suited.

-juice

porknbeans · April 2002

Excellent points with intelligent logical explanations. How you classify the new crossovers/tall wagons/sport wagons coming out blurs the difference between the SUV and the wagon. All of the vehicles I mentioned are either car based or based on a car platform using mostly car mechanicals. To me that makes them a wagon, no matter how you wrap the package.

Now if we could just bring some civility and understanding to the people in some other topics.

pdalpsher · April 2002

I have a Highlander and love it...but I consider it a car more than a truck. I moved into it from a Camry and it is the perfect vehicle for me. I needed a bit more cargo space and I needed better ground clearance than I had in the Camry so I miss fewer work days due to snow (no time off for snow with my job). I hadn't purchased an SUV although I'd test driven them...I didn't care for the truck feel so I'm not an SUV purist.

I have to admit the Highlander is a much more stylish vehicle than the station wagon I borrowed from my mom when I was a teenager! After I test drove it...it was all over for me as I felt it was the vehicle I was meant to own.

This class of vehicle offers a lot of advantages of both SUVs and wagons with only a moderate reduction in fuel efficiency. IMO hese cars will hit the sweet spot with a lot of folks.

porknbeans · April 2002

Thanks for agreeing with my point of some vehicles we look at as SUV's actually being a wagon because of its underpinnings. I classified the Highlander as a wagon/crossover because it is car based. I also agree with your point about how these cars are going to strike a sweet spot with a great number of buyers. This segment of the market is only going to see more action as more and more options enter into it. Bring them on!

I'm ready to go annoy the local car salesmen with my requests for test drives. :^)

ateixeira · April 2002

Good points, but how would you categorize the Rendezvous and the Pacifica? Both are based on minivans, not cars.

The lines have blurred. Those are very difficult to pin into a single category.

Highlander is a Camry wagon in a trendy SUV wrapper, and that's a good thing.

-juice

porknbeans · April 2002

That's a tough question.

If it were up to me to decide on how to classify these two I would again put them under the wagon category and here's why. SUV's are traditionally truck based and generally body on frame. There are instances where they are unibody and it is becoming more and more prevelent. However, they are still targeted at the off-road, towing, tall stance, Testosterone segment (regardless of how you wrap the package). Minivans started as boxes on frames that were smaller versions of their full size parents. However, they quickly evolved to people haulers that were unibody in construction and more car like in their ride characteristics. I don't know this for a fact, but I would feel comfortable in guessing, that there is more swapping of parts between wagons/sedans and minivans than there are between wagons/sedans and SUV's. Minivans are also have a lower riding stance/step in height, generally have less towing capacity and use passenger type tires. To me both the Rendevous and the Pacifica fit more closely into the second category rather than the first.

I realize that there are other more technical considerations for classifying vehicles but this is my opinion. In my state the DOT hasn't even really classified how you should register SUV's. We can register them as cars if we mostly drive them as general transportation. My job really won't let me do that, so mine is registered as a truck but I also use it as a "car".

I think that the bigger question is will the auto industry try to create a new category for these types of vehicles or will they try and classify them into an existing one. The problem is that in recent history calling something a station wagon has been the kiss of death with respect to sales. Maybe we need to lobby Edmunds for a new category?

On another note, I personally think the Rendevous looks good on paper but is a mess in reality.

Sorry for the long post.

ateixeira · April 2002

I'm not sure if they have indy rear suspensions, but that might be a factor to argue they're closer to SUVs.

Look at the Pathfinder - it's a unibody with the VQ series engine from the Altima/Maxima. So that would make it a wagon, except it has a low range and certainly seems to fit the definition of an SUV.

I guess the bottom line is it's hard to categorize them. Matrix ads even make fun of this, though I think the Matrix is very much a wagon IMO, albeit an attractive one.

Automakers? They want to call them trucks. Why? CAFE for trucks is 20.7, for cars is 27.5. So call it a truck and you not only meet the standard, you also help yourself sell more profitable trucks that don't.

It's absurd, but the drop-top PT Cruiser is considered a truck. The four door was because the rear seats were removable (like the RAV4), but Chrysler asked for and got an exception in the case of the convertible.

More and more they are going to do anything and everything to try to call a car a truck.

-juice

porknbeans · April 2002

I agree about the auto industry trying to classify these things as trucks to improve their CAFE numbers.

Although the Pathy is unibody and utilizing Nissans versatile V6 it also markets its towing capacity, raised seating position off-road prowess and "masculine" appearance. All of these attributes go toward a truck. As you said difficult to classify.

ateixeira · April 2002

Highlander sort of meets the same criteria, though. I think Toyota did a great job of not making it look too much like a wagon. They are outselling 4Runners now, by far.

-juice

porknbeans · April 2002

The Highlander is based off of the Camry chasis. Not exactly the same, some modifications, but it is a car platform. The Sienna is built off of the same base platform that is then modified to each specific vehicle.

The new 4Runner is coming out next year and it won't be long before Toyota is offering some pretty heavy incentives to get them off of their lots. Sales on them will still not catch up to the Highlander. The Highlander is what most people want who are looking in this segment.

ateixeira · April 2002

Yeah, but I'm wondering if the Pathfinder was originally based on a car platform, or a clean sheet design, I don't recall.

4Runners already have rebates, $500 I think, and Highlander sales increase while 4Runner sales drop. It's an old model, though. 4Runner did have a high demand and sustained that for several years, so I'd still call it a success.

-juice

porknbeans · April 2002

I don't think that it was a clean sheet design but rather based on the Frontier (or whatever it was called at that time).

Based on the ratio of new SUV's shown during the last round of auto shows compared to the number of wagon/crossovers coming out. I think that the competition and debate over the similarities/differences between the two will continue.

Is anybody else out there cross shopping? Why or why not?

ateixeira · April 2002

Oh yeah, the hardbody pickup. Now I remember. I think the engine was shared with the Maxima family.

My wife will replace her sedan soon, and she wants the look of an SUV, but demands better gas mileage, sporty handling, and easy maneuverability. We're looking at all kinds of vehicles, but a crossover seems likely. Neither of us wants a truck.

-juice

boaz47 · April 2002

Didn't Mitsubishi once make a mini-van wagon thing? Here it was marketed as a Colt Vista or something? It will not be the first time and most likely will not be the last. When I got my first Cherokee it was called a wagon. Today however the CR-V is called a SUV? The PT Cruiser is called a truck. The advantage? A truck doesn't have as strict a smog standard in California as a car does. Plus when you live in a mountain community you get another break on smog requirements. The PT, by the way is a ULEV. We know it is all smoke and mirrors but for some manufacturers these things do work. Remember the Subaru Brat? Came to us with seats bolted in the rear so they could claim it as a SUV, less import restrictions. What they call a vehicle is far more marketing than reality.

fedlawman · April 2002

What, in your opinion, makes the Rendezvous such a mess?

I've put 11,000 miles on my loaded CXL and it's been nothing but a joy to drive and own.

In fact, the only mess I've seen is chocolate milk and cheerios in the backseat!

li_sailor · April 2002

No, the PF was not based on the Frontier. It was a new design...car based, solid rear axle.

That was a big part of its appeal to me...I needed to tow my boat but I didn't want something that handled like a truck. Ok, it's no BMW, but it's far better than the truck based SUVs in its class in that regard.

Yes, it can tow 5000 lbs...it gets its stiffness from a zillion welds instead of a ladder frame...very stiff.

porknbeans · April 2002

fed - My problems have to do with the aesthetic and the engine. I personally find the exterior of the vehicle to have several visual and proportional problems. If you want I can get into specifics but suffice it to say that I don't feel it was well thought out. My other main gripe has to do with the engine that seems week and winded.

All of the goodies that come standard and the dimensional size look good on paper but, IMO Buick wrapped it in a very unappealing package and then took a second tier choice for their engine. My dad owns a Century and he really likes the Rendevous. It's just not my cup of tea, or maybe it's my cup of tea just the wrong cup.

li - It may not have been based on the hard body, but it certainly wasn't car based. I'm pretty sure that the original Pathfinder was body on frame but have been unable to verify this. Nissan did dip into their truck parts bin to outfit the Pathfinder.

li_sailor · April 2002

The term "car-based" gets a little fuzzy sometimes, I guess. First, I'm referring to the 2001/2002 PF, not earlier versions (of which I'm not sure of the design) and when I say "car-based", I don't mean based on a car like the RX300 is based on the Camry...I mean it is not ladder-frame/body-on-frame.

I'm not aware of any truck parts that are used on the current PF, but I could be wrong.

porknbeans · April 2002

We were talking about the first Pathfinder circa 1988. You are correct in that the current Pathy is unibody with a solid rear axle.

I would agree with your statement about car-based. Your example regarding the RX and the Camry is a good one. The flexibility of a vehicles architecture allows manufacturers more options at a lower cost.

fedlawman · April 2002

Thanks for your explanation.

I think your assessment is fair, although aesthetics are highly subjective. Many people (myself included) find the Rendezvous to be attractive overall. Although the rear end is somewhat ungainly, it pays big dividends in space and versatiltiy.

As for the engine, the 3.4L was a logical choice for Buick since the platform was designed for it and it minimized R&D, thereby reducing costs. The engine is a good performer with surprisingly good low-end torque. Although not a quick car, the Rendezvous has completely satisfactory power for it's intended mission.

I agree that the Rendezvous could have been an "outstanding" vehicle had it been outfitted with a multivalve VVT engine. As it stands, the Rendezvous is merely "very good."

Oh yeah, with current incentives, a well equipped AWD Rendezvous can be had for about $26K, which is at least $10K less than a comparable ML320, MDX, RX300, etc. Since the Rendezvous can trade blows with these imports all day long, the Rendezvous becomes very attractive indeed!

ateixeira · April 2002

The Grand Wagoneer? You think they'd call the Grand Cherokee by that name today?

A close friend's parents have a Colt Vista, I liked it then and still like it now. Great packaging and space for its size. Still runs and it must be 15 years old now.

I test drove a Rendezvous and liked it OK. Engine was a little coarse but you have to factor in the price. 3 rows of seats are rare at its price level.

-juice

rbleland · April 2002

on the RDV, but color makes a difference. A friend of mine has a dark blue one and I saw a black one today - both looked fine in the rear. Its the white and lighter ones that look a bit "off" backside-wise (IMO). Just a thought.

fedlawman · April 2002

I agree that black looks best, but unfortunately it's not an option in the Pacific Northwest.

However, I think I might change your mind about white...

http://home.attbi.com/~fishkin1/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html

magnetophone · April 2002

Why is it not an option? I had a black car in Seattle!

fedlawman · April 2002

My wife made it clear that it was not an option. She drives it 90% of the time and knows how diligent I am (not) about keeping cars clean, LOL!

ateixeira · April 2002

I agree - my white Miata is a pain to keep clean. It looks dirty even the day after I wash it.

-juice

rbleland · April 2002

you didn't change my mind about the dark colors looking better than the light in the RDV!! Your pix are good and I'm sure your white RDV is a great car - I hear good reports from my friend w the blue one. Anyway, I'm biased as I have a new Subie 2.5 TS sport wagon in Midnight Black Pearl (a very deep shade of blue). My point was simply that (IMO) the rear lines and interface between the body color and the rear glass works better with the darker color of RDV. Enjoy your ride!!

apatia · April 2002

why is it necessary to login in order to VIEW this discussion?

this is especially annoying given the little blurb on the login page that states that one only has to login in order to POST a message (viewing is not mentioned). Grrrr...

magnetophone · April 2002

Choose automatic login.

revka · April 2002

Thanks for letting me know. Just a little glitch with the access list which has now been corrected. You should now be able to see this discussion even when you're not logged in.

And now back to the subject of Station Wagon vs SUV. Happy motoring!

Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Station Wagons Boards

jscatena · May 2002

I was getting out of my Infiniti QX4 (SUV) but wasn't ready for a sedan. I shopped the entire luxury/sport wasgon category and decided on the Audi S6 Avant. 340hp, luxurious and ALL Audi!

mrnyker · May 2002

porknbeans · May 2002

Awesome ride! Good luck and keep us posted.

ateixeira · May 2002

We ended up with another wagon, a 2002 Subaru Legacy L.

We tried a Highlander, but the rear seat was a park bench, and prices were high ($26-28k the way we wanted it). It was smooth but felt big.

We tried a Camry SE and a Honda CR-V, but it was hard to find a Camry 5 speed with ABS, and the shifter was clunky. The cheapest Honda with ABS was $21,500, and it didn't feel as substantial as the others to me.

Got the Legacy wagon for $17,827, and that's with AWD, ABS, cruise, keyless, A/C, power everything, 4 disc brakes, etc.

The first tank yielded 24.6mpg with the A/C on most of the time, in mixed driving. Not bad. We're totally satisfied with it.

-juice

nippononly · May 2002

My dad bought an SUV because of the high driving position - he is someone who goes to the snow occasionally, which is the only reason he was shopping for an SUV, and something like the Subaru outback would have been cheaper, and would have got better gas mileage and been cheaper to buy. But one thing most of the wagons still do not have is the ride height - people want to sit up high and look down the road ahead, I guess. So he got an explorer.

They have tried to find an in-between with all the mini-SUVs, but then they made them too pricey, like the highlander.

It is too bad, because for most of these buyers, a wagon is all they really need.

tomsr · May 2002

I may be wrong but there is a need for a Taurus
size wagon with power and quality for under
$25000.The Mazda 6 coming soon is a start.Then maybe Honda will follow.The Legacy wagon is a
good choice but it is underpowered and to get the V6 the price goes too high.The Passat is also good but overpriced unless you get the 1.8T.I think the 1.8t wagons sell well and are hard to find, though.

ateixeira · May 2002

It's true, while the Outback is raised a bit, it's definitely not as high as most SUVs are.

The CR-V would have cost us $4 grand more, the Highlander about $8-10 grand more than we spent, so no thanks.

Murano should arrive soon to compete with Highlander, and Pilot too. But I doubt either will be nimble and fun.

Legacy's boxer 4 has 165hp, not bad really. The H6 (not Vee) will make its way into the Legacy line this year, and prices have dropped substantially. I was just shopping these - you can get an H6 sedan for just over $25k, or an LL Bean wagon for about $26.3k. So those might just be the car you're asking for.

The catch is they only come in automatics. Passat wagons are nice but 1.8T manuals are rare, especially in wagon form. With 4Motion the price is way too high for me.

-juice

porknbeans · May 2002

As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see the missed market as a people hauler for 6-7 that doesn't look like a SUV or minivan and rides like a sedan. I think you're right on with the size, perceived V6 power and price point. I just wonder if car companies will be able to give it to us at that price point. With people demanding more safety, airbags, power and amenities it seems the perfect out for car companies to raise prices. They've been subsidizing sales for so long stock holders are going to demand results here soon.

ateixeira · May 2002

I was wrong - you can get an H6 Outback sedan from fitzmall.com for $24,949, under your target price. And that includes leather, moonroof, alloys, ABS, AWD, cruise, keyless, power everything, 6 cylinders, 4 wheel disc brakes, etc.

If you want a wagon, they start at $26,017. The press reviewed mostly VDC wagons, which MSRP for a high price, but the selling point on those is the stability control system that VW doesn't offer yet (Audi does, VW will next year).

The same dealer sells VWs, and 4Motion models start at $30,433.

All prices include freight, too. We bought our Legacy from them and they added only tax.

-juice

porknbeans · May 2002

The boxer can be found for 25k?!?!? Wow, around here they're still pushing 30k. I gotta get out and take another look.

nippononly · May 2002

I hear the new Suzuki Aerio will come out this fall with AWD. Once it does, it will probably be the cheapest AWD wagon out there. I bet it still will not have the height of an SUV though.

Having owned one, I agree that Subaru wagons are not the quickest cars out there, but I would not say they are underpowered either. I do wish the new H-6's had an available manual transmission. And it will be great when they put the six-cylinders in all the legacy models, which I figure they are probably on their way to doing. A Legacy GT wagon with the six sounds pretty cool to me!

Someone told me another reason people buy SUVs as opposed to other cars is the feeling of safety in them - the "tank as a commuter car" mentality. I guess it is pretty hard for wagons to fight that as well.

And by the way, I don't know if the new Mazda 6 wagon, when it comes, will have a V-6 option, but I would be surprised if it were less than (roughly) the price of the H-6 Outback if it does. Of course, if Taurus brought back its wagon, that would have a V-6 and be cheaper...wait, doesn't it still have the wagon? I am sure it does not have AWD available, however, and for that matter, neither will the Mazda 6.

fedlawman · May 2002

When I was shopping last year, the Mazda MPV was a top contender, but it only had a 2.5L engine and didn't have traction control.

The Mazda MPV now has the 3.0L V6 and traction control, not to mention a host of other safety features.

It's a great small people hauler for less than $25,000.

ateixeira · May 2002

I was surprised, too. I remember the media complaining loudly about the concept of a $33k Subaru. There is a $750 incentive right now, plus invoice pricing. Also, the VDC models cost a lot more than the regular H6s.

The Aerio is pretty small, so it's more of a budget alternative to the Matrix/Vibe and Impreza wagons. But the Zook gets 140hp, the Vibe twins just 123hp with AWD, while there is 165hp for the Subie. Or stretch to a WRX wagon and blow them all away.

I like the Mazda 6, saw it in person at the NY show actually. Very nice, should be a hot seller. Wagon and 5 door hatch are particularly appealing. Too late for me, though. 219hp + FWD = torque steer, usually. We'll see. It would really benefit from AWD.

-juice

dudleyr · May 2002

I think Chrysler is going to make a wagon like you described. It is called the Pacifica.

http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_036502

http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_032997

I also love my Oasis (first gen Odyssey) If they still made something like that it would also fit your description. Not quite as minivan like, and seats 7. Much more nimble than current Odyssey as it weighs abut 800 lbs less - really just a tall Accord Wagon.

http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_033650

Station Wagon vs SUV

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles