The Sedan is Dying, and for Good Reason: It's Impractical.

"DMCVegas" (DMCVegas) 05/02/2014 at 11:16 • Filed to: None

3

37

As reported in !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , sales stats show that the Sedan is dead. Or at least dying in the way that old folks in nursing homes do: Abandoned and slowly being forgotten until they're gone and no longer a burden. And the truth about the waning interest in the sedan is for one very good reason: They've become the most impractical vehicle on the road today. Now that may seem like a bold statement, especially with Hummers and Bro Trucks rolling around cities with 4 wheel drive and lift kits that are never used save for driving over curbs to get into turn lanes, or brush guards that will never see anything more than a shopping cart. But believe it or not, they're picking up the slack where sedans let consumers down.

Thanks to fuel efficiency and the reduction in size and weight of cars, a modern sedan has been rendered impractical. Why? Two words: Trunk Space !

A small trunk, and especially a small trunk portal is fine on a sports car. Those you use as a commuter, or for recreation. You typically don't have to pack tons of stuff in them for an entire family. But on a sedan it's different. We were spoiled back in the day with our cavernous trunks that had large cargo volume as well as larger portals to insert and remove thing through. Here's an example of what 50 or so some odd years of engineering devolution has done to the Cadilliac:

Look at this! The trunks just keep getting smaller and more impractical. Look, I understand it. As cars have gotten smaller on their !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , trunks and especially trunk lids have become the silent victims. Sure they've tried to work in figures such as "Cargo Capacity" to compensate and offer condolences, but as anyone with a cooler, boxes, or especially a stroller and a child will tell you, trying to get your stuff into a trunk isn't easy any more! Instead of literally throwing stuff into the trunk, you've got to cram it, and figure out a mini puzzle of what angle to slide stuff in, and then how to stack it, and all without scratching and gouging the paint on your bumper in a cruel, twisted version of "Operation". Accidentally nick the paint? BZZZT! That's $200 damage to the finish, and a $1,000 off your resale value. Try again.

Auto manufacturers have tried and tried to make it up to us on the reduced trunk space and trunk openings with fold-down rear seats, and even trapdoors to get those extra long parcels and pieces of cargo in there. But it's still not an easy proposition. Especially with the frame of the car and the rear glass hindering height. Sure you can make that trunk a little longer at the cost of passenger space, but you still can't make it higher for those big boxes.

Hatchbacks, CUVs, SUVs, Minivans, and Pickup Trucks have all come to fill the void. With trucks we have a massive cargo area, and with larger cabs have gobs of enclosed cargo space. With the former on this list, we have giant doors that raise up to give us access to our cargo area that is almost as wide and as high as the vehicle itself. And we still can have a large, secured, and covered cargo area with the correct accessories. Even if we need more room we can fold those rear seats down, or even outright remove them to convert the vehicle into a wagon configuration for those really HUGE items.

Even in modern times of the compact car, we can remove the factors of time, trends, and engineering differences over those spans when we compare the sedan and hatchback versions of the Ford Focus:

Even with the smaller, sub-compact Chevy Sonic, you can clearly see the advantage:

The hatchback clearly is the winner here. With a much wider opening, and a taller cargo area with more cubic space and easier ingress and egress of stowage items, all without sacrificing passenger seating, the fact is clear: A hatchback isn't simply *more* practical than a sedan, it's the accepted standard that renders the sedan impractical.

The only two valid reasons NOT to buy a Hatchback are either it's out of your budget since most manufacturers charge a premium, or you prefer the styling. And that's OK. But it's just not more practical.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:22

2

YES, I've been saying this for a while. Full size cars have slowly withered away, strangled by the weed that is CAFE. I love the trunk in my Grand Marquis because you can actually fit 4-5 peoples luggage inside. CAFE has slowly tricked people into settling for smaller cars as they don't even realize that sedans use to be practical.

RazoE > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:23

0

I love them all. I've had 4 fast backs (240sx and 3 Supras), 1 hatchback (Scion xB, although registration states it's a "wagon") and only now do I have a traditional "trunk" (IS300). I think they all have their advantages/disadvantages.

Nibbles > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:23

1

I'll consider a new hatchback when one can fit a full-size fridge in it. Until then I'll keep my Saab C900, which does indeed fit a full-size fridge.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:24

1

One model I'd like to see return: Business coupes. The advantages of a trunk (isolating cargo from passengers, visibility, while still keeping the wet out) are badly offset with high beltline and short tail styling on typical modern cars - but a short cabin car with a longer tail and real usable trunk would be kind of nice for somebody not needing more than two seats. We pine for the ute, but it's really just a business coupe with an open trunk (and indeed, grew out of them). I understand the market niche is filled by things like the Transit Connect now, but there's a certain level of style and professionalism lost, not to mention MPGs.

Stupidru > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:25

0

Until you physically see a Sonic in the flesh with it's boot open, please do not praise it. I could fit Peewee Herman back there and not a peanut more

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:26

3

The thing about modern sedans is that they don't even really HAVE a trunk anymore. 90% of modern sedans I see have less metal behind the rear glass than old fastbacks had.

Observe:

A fastback.

A Buick Regal sedan.

There is more metal behind the rear window on the fastback coupe than there is on the sedan. What.

Let's compare with just 14 years ago when I could easily put 6 people in my trunk:

IT'S HUGE.

An enormous, gaping hole behind the rear deck that also plunges down to the bumper for low load-in heights.

Look at how much tail there is behind the glass!

I just don't understand why modern cars don't have asses anymore. The roof blends into the rear window blends into the trunk, resulting in tiny trunk lids and tinier storage spaces. It befuddles me.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:28

0

You know, I never thought of the proliferation of crossovers to be related to the shrinking size of trunks, but I think you're on to something...

duurtlang > Nibbles 05/02/2014 at 11:29

2

Those 1980s hatchbacks were quite practical. I once fit a small fridge (the size of a dishwasher) in the back of this, while a part of the back seat was up seating one person. The hatch closed.

Brian, The Life of > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:31

3

It's not the "CAFE diet" that accounts for the surge of SUVs/CUVs that dig into sedan sales. It's the fact that SUVs/CUVs aren't held to the same efficiency standards. CAFE sees them as trucks, not cars. What also "hurts" sedan trunk design are the high beltline designs dictated by crash test ratings. See also: The demise of nice green houses, visibility and sexy hardtops.

Sedans are still a FAR more practical for 95% of SUV/CUV buyers.

Hermann > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:32

0

That has been an argument I've been using for a while to why Sedans aren't relevant anymore.

My mother always preferred Sedans with the argument of larger trunk space. She owned a Chevy astra Sedan. I only convinced her that the Hatchback version was better when I showed her a picture of a friend of mine who owned a Astra Hatchback took his fridge for repair. The caption of the picture on his facebook even was "Who said hatchbacks have less room?".

Another thing. Even with folding seats on sedans, the opening between the trunk and the rear seats is usually a too small to be really useful. The opening may be as wide as you can, but the height is usually 50~60% of the total inner height of the trunk.

duurtlang > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 05/02/2014 at 11:34

1

Well, to be fair to the Regal (read: Opel Insignia), it was designed as a wagon and as a hatchback. However, out of the three body styles available in Europe the US only received one. The sedan.

Notice the rear wiper on the hatch on the latter picture.

Nibbles > duurtlang 05/02/2014 at 11:42

0

I have a picture of the fridge in my Saab somewhere; I'll see if I can dig it up. It did hang out the back a tad, leaving about an 8 inch gap between floor and hatch, but if we had have removed the door handles it would've fit in there like a glove.

duurtlang > Stupidru 05/02/2014 at 11:44

0

At least you can fold the rear seats down. Now imagine it as a sedan.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Brian, The Life of 05/02/2014 at 11:44

1

Well, there's one *extremely significant* point on which the "CAFE diet" has an impact, and that is the 2011 footprint formulas. It makes literally no sense for a maker to offer a car with a real trunk that is thus larger overall when the footprint formula is based on wheelbase X avg. track width. Car shapes with a large size overall, but which work best with a shorter wheelbase related to length - like sedans with a real trunk? They're heavier, longer, a larger vehicle, but according to CAFE they're the same as the much shorter hatch on the same platform, because wheelbase. Why the fuck would they shoot themselves in the face by even offering it - particularly when a tall beltline allows an allegedly almost as large trunk (on paper), and they can then economize on sheet metal (one floor pan for all)? That tall beltline is hard to roll into a long trunk, too, and would make it weigh even more.

Sightlines? Customer preference for a longer, lower trunk? They can both get fucked: .gov and the auto maker are in agreement there on this point.

Side note: this is also why all the long "real wagons" on the market look so damn weird wheelbase-wise.

BadMotorScooter > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 11:53

1

That's why these were so popular. SUVs provide all the practicality of a hatch without the stigma associated with an economy car.

Garrett Davis > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 12:02

1

I agree 1000%.

Also, this:

Wat.

Nibbles > duurtlang 05/02/2014 at 12:04

2

Here it is, as we were loading it. I was able to get the handles underneath the lip and get it back a good bit further; we still had more room to go but the handles were hitting on the sunroof indent

And here's a friend's 900, with an entire 900's interior from headliner to carpet inside.

Brian, The Life of > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 05/02/2014 at 12:08

0

I think it all boils down to: CAFE, while well-meaning, really sucks when it comes to execution.

PushToStart > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 12:11

1

And yet Subaru gives us a sedan WRX/STI only...

/sigh

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Brian, The Life of 05/02/2014 at 12:13

0

I should also remark - if CAFE standards were based on total footprint instead of wheel rectangle, we'd have a chance at land barge convertibles again. 200"+ by 81 1/2", baby.

Alex B > DMCVegas 05/02/2014 at 12:26

1

As they should. I DO NOT like sedans.

ly2v8-Brian > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 05/02/2014 at 13:37

2

And the Blind spots that come from having such a tall rear. I had a Buick LeSabre like the one pictured. Massive trunk, it didn't even have folding seats or a pass through because it was so big. IMHO one of the worst offenders of this is the Ford Taurus. It has a very small trunk for its class and the deck height is so high (combined with ride height, which is again way too high for a car) it comes about halfway up the height of the glass on that LeSabre (the LeSabre has a lower roofline than compacts).

Viggen > DMCVegas 05/03/2014 at 01:04

0

I can still fit two bodies or four, maybe five packed duffel bags in the back of my Mazda6. That's almost as much as my Crown Victoria the Mazda replaced could hold. And it looks better, gets better gas mileage and despite being a four cylinder front wheel drive with an automatic is a lot more fun to drive than that yacht ever was.

Zibodiz > RazoE 05/07/2014 at 03:37

0

The difference between a 'hatchback' and a 'wagon' is based entirely on whether the rear roof slopes off into a faux-fastback or not. If it's got a square rear hind-end, it's a wagon.

If it's curved, it's a hatchback.

Notice that those are the same car ('05 Ford Focus), but one is a wagon, the other a hatch (or 5-door, as they call it in the USA). The difference is the shape of the back side. An xB is clearly a wagon.

bobrayner > DMCVegas 05/07/2014 at 06:31

0

The same push from sedans to hatchbacks also applies in the other 90% of the world where CAFE doesn't apply, so CAFE isn't the root cause.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Brian, The Life of 05/07/2014 at 07:45

0

How is a sedan, with its more difficult ingress/egress and significantly smaller cargo capacity more practical than an SUV/CUV? The only place a sedan is advantageous is in fuel economy, and given the fact that the #1 selling passenger vehicle in the US is a truck that's clearly not a factor.

Don't be "that guy" and try and present your beliefs as inarguable facts.

DMCVegas > Zibodiz 05/07/2014 at 09:03

1

That is correct, yes. Ford still uses this same model design with the modern Focus as well, but the wagon is only for sale in Europe, and they don't call it a wagon, but rather an Estate.

The slope is greatly removed in the back to allow for more cargo space by way of more roof sheet metal, and the car is also lengthened a few inches as well behind the rear wheels to pick up a few cubic inches as well.

I still think that Ford could bring the Estate model above to their Wayne, MI plant that already cranks out the Focus Sedan, Focus Hatch, & C-Max on the same production line. Rebadge it though as a Lincoln with only production variations of the Front clip & the rear trim panel above the license plate needing to be tooled. And maybe some Lincolnized taillights with LEDs. All the rest of the dies and sheet metal have already been engineered and exist. Lincoln also already uses a rebadged steering wheel with the same controls too.

It fits the gap perfectly for the Lincoln buyer who doesn't want an SUV and would prefer a car, but needs cargo space that the MKZ doesn't offer. It's a win-win to expand the brand and keep it going.

RazoE > Zibodiz 05/07/2014 at 09:53

0

so you're saying the IS300 Sportcross (wagon) is not a wagon?

Or the Accord Wagon?

Brian, The Life of > PardonMyFlemish16 05/07/2014 at 10:08

1

Because 95% of SUV/CUV buyers don't need such a large vehicle and NEVER use them at their capacity. They would be far better off with sedans.

Don't be "that guy" and completely miss the point.

DMCVegas > bobrayner 05/07/2014 at 11:04

0

It's rather akin to the microcosm effect which is California.

California was at one point the state that sold the most cars to consumers, and eventually had stringent emissions standards thanks to CARB that forced most other states to eventually adopt standards to become "50-state legal" simply so they could eligible to still sell out in the Golden State. This was furthered even more once other states began to adopt the same emissions standards as well. Something that most aftermarket parts manufacturers also strive for in order to keep their sales open to as many consumers as possible.

The same thing happened with CAFE. Granted there can be subtle nuances regarding foreign models being brought in under domestic badging to meet the requirements. In these cases it was consumer demand rather than government regulation that dictated smaller cars thanks to astronomical fuel prices which led to their designs, absolutely. But still, they get the job done for CAFE standards. Even more so when you figure in global platforms now with drivetrain swaps to match tastes/regulations. But still this is trumped by CAFE standards. Why? Up until recently the United States was the #1 consumer of automobiles. So whatever trends we follow, other countries naturally end up having to follow suit to consume the same things that we do.

90% of the world may not follow CAFE standards, but when your majority consumer of 70%-80% of those products does, it American regulations absolutely affect other countries.

The wild card to all this of course is China. Only recently have they surpassed the US as the #1 consumer of new cars, and their standards don't matter for safety or emissions thanks to a mix of nationalized politics and just plain not caring.

bobrayner > DMCVegas 05/07/2014 at 11:26

0

Actually, most vehicle sales in China do have to follow standards, they're just a bit different to those applied in the USA!

China switched from EURO3 to EURO4 in 2010; then EURO5 starting last year.

There are carbon footprint restrictions which are tied to curb weight, and tend to be a bit harder to meet at higher weights.

bwwooster > DMCVegas 05/07/2014 at 13:17

0

Get a Miata and a minivan— what else do you need?

DMCVegas > bwwooster 05/07/2014 at 14:05

0

At least an extra $80 or so a month for the insurance on two vehicles.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Brian, The Life of 05/07/2014 at 15:00

0

Most drivers don't "need" anything beyond a Toyota Yaris, so why only take issue with SUV drivers? Does an M5 "need" 600HP? Does a LaFerrari "need" a 6 liter V12? But I'm sure you will never question the "needs" of people who buy those cars.

I get the point, actually better than you do. You have beef with people who don't buy cars you don't agree with, but rather than say/accept that, you have to rationalize your bias by selectively determining who should and shouldn't buy cars according to their "needs". Is your car all that you "need" or is there anything about it that is excessive? And if your main concern is "need" why are you on a site that is based around celebrating automotive excess?

Brian, The Life of > PardonMyFlemish16 05/07/2014 at 15:22

1

Based on the fact that you completely glaze over the points of both my comments demonstrates that you are here only to be argumentative. I'm done playing your game; any further efforts on your part to do the same will be dismissed.

PardonMyFlemish16 > Brian, The Life of 05/07/2014 at 16:43

0

What did I miss? You still haven't answered how sedans are more practical than SUVs, and your assertion that SUV buyers should only be able to buy what they "need" could easily apply to luxury cars, sports cars and pretty much anything that is celebrated here. If asking questions = "being argumentative" maybe you shouldn't post things on a public forum

Brian, The Life of > PardonMyFlemish16 05/07/2014 at 17:32

0

At the risk of being remedial, sedans are lighter and more efficient than SUVs and, for 95% of SUV buyers, offer all of the capacity/capability they will ever actually need/use. I am talking about daily drivers, here. Second "fun cars" don't apply because that's not what we put the most miles on.

Sedans are also easier to drive with for other drivers because they are easier to see through/around in traffic. And I don't mean to only put sedans on some kind of pedestal here; if one's needs can be met by a hatchback or a coupe or a even roadster ... same deal. Also, SUVs have a place. I have four kids and we use the crap out of my wife's minivan. If we were into boating, she'd probably be driving a large SUV that could tow it - I'm just saying it'd be nice if folks bought vehicles that better met their practical needs.