How have "wagons" gotten so big?

[darcane]

The other day, I noticed a new Subaru Outback in the parking lot at work as I'm leaving. I pull up next to it and check it out when I noticed something odd... It's nearly as tall as my full sized pickup truck. The wheels are big, the overall height is close to my truck, it's wide, and it has as much ground clearance as my truck.

How is this a wagon anymore?

I got to looking around a little more, and saw an XC70 in the parking lot... sure enough, it's every bit as big. It kinda looks like a wagon, but really these are both more SUV than wagon.

Then I happened to spot this on Yahoo:
The death of the station wagon- Yahoo! Autos Article Page

I guess it's not just me. Real wagons are dying and being replaced by bigger, crossover "wagons".

*sigh*

Mike

[Odin]

I remember crushing a late 60's ford Country Squire at work . 2.5 tons, and that is after a ton of rust fell off so it may be smaller than some but not smaller than the first ones. But isn't the category crossover just to get around fuel economy standards?

[rmay635703]

My guess is inevitably every vehicle will look like the one below. (see attached image)

It seats 8, has plenty of payload, you sit a full 8 feet off the ground, it weighs 26000lbs, has 8 wheel drive all the time with full lockup, 20" tires, can withstand an IED blast and can pull over 200,000lbs.

I have often thought of showing the progression of the Dodge Dakota over the years in an animated gif with this vehicle labled Future?

The sad part is I may not be too far off, throw a bed on there and away you go. It even gets the same 10mpg that a 4wd Dodge usually gets.

[Cd]

I posted a thread earlier about this sort of thing.
all the 'small' cars these days are almost the size of a small SUV.

[bluejoey]

Large cars make perfect sense if the goal is to keep raising the costs of new vehicles by a grand each year without making them any more fuel efficient. Things are a bit different in Europe since gas costs a lot and parking spots are smaller.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

I have often thought of showing the progression of the Dodge Dakota over the years in an animated gif with this vehicle labled Future?

The sad part is I may not be too far off, throw a bed on there and away you go. It even gets the same 10mpg that a 4wd Dodge usually gets.

Yes, and then motorists think "Oh, 14 mpg isn't BAD"... because they are used to getting crap fe and they are driving something the size of their house around now. If people's recollections of the past weren't so faulty they'd remember that ubiquitous Honda bikes in the '60s and '70s delivered over 150 mpg while today the typical bike gets less than 50, and commonly available cars from the '80s- domestic and foreign- delivered 30-50 mpgs while today, of course, U.S. fleet mpgs are well down from that.

[Cd]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

My guess is inevitably every vehicle will look like the one below. (see attached image)

It seats 8, has plenty of payload, you sit a full 8 feet off the ground, it weighs 26000lbs, has 8 wheel drive all the time with full lockup, 20" tires, can withstand an IED blast and can pull over 200,000lbs.

I have often thought of showing the progression of the Dodge Dakota over the years in an animated gif with this vehicle labled Future?

The sad part is I may not be too far off, throw a bed on there and away you go. It even gets the same 10mpg that a 4wd Dodge usually gets.

They already make something like that - and you get a federal tax credit for buying it too.

[Kodak]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Yes, and then motorists think "Oh, 14 mpg isn't BAD"...

I agree fully. I think I posted the Duke University video called 'The MPG Illusion' on here at one point, but it applies again.

They make an excellent point when they assert that mpg is a poor gauge of fuel economy. Gallons per mile is much better because it better shows the difference in consumption (and thus $) when small-seeming gains are made in relatively inefficient vehicles.

If you start with 14mpg and jump to a mere 16mpg, you save .89 gallons of fuel in 100 miles or 8.9 in 1000 miles. Using today's average price of $3.27/gal, that means $29.10 in 1000 miles, or $87.30 at oil change intervals of 3000 miles.

But as the video points out, people don't associate a 2mpg difference with a very drastic improvement in fuel consumption.

My guess is that we mentally categorize the two as 'gas guzzlers' or 'abysmal mpg' without doing any math.

I think it has become somewhat of an arms race for safety too.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Kodak

I agree fully. I think I posted the Duke University video called 'The MPG Illusion' on here at one point, but it applies again.

I think it has become somewhat of an arms race for safety too.

I agree fully with the MPG Illusion, people must figure everyone drove 500ci big block caddies with 3sp transmissions out of tune in the middle of winter during the 70s.

Perceieved safety is important to sales, too bad real safety has nothing to do with it.

[instarx]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Perceieved safety is important to sales, too bad real safety has nothing to do with it.

"Perceived" is right. How ironic is it that the average soccer mom wants her cross-over or SUV because it is big and safe for her children. In fact, because rollover accidents are the leading cause of vehicle fatalities her kids are far less safe in an SUV or truck than in a sedan. The high center of gravity makes them much more prone to rollover, especially when loaded with kids.

When I was on a diesel truck forum that was one of the most often stated reason for "needing" a truck - safety. But you couldn't convince them they were far more likely to be killed in their truck than in a car no matter how much data you posted.