Talk Back Tuesday: The Ridiculous Vehicle Name Game
"I don't care about the latest marketing term -- this thing is a station wagon."
That's what I found myself thinking when I drove the 2008 Saturn Vue recently. Not that it was an epiphany or anything, but there was something about driving the new Vue that particularly drove home the ridiculousness of modern automotive marketing. Everyone knows that minivans aren't cool anymore (except Chrysler, who refuses to let the term die, and with their market share who can blame them). But as the SUV term was tarnished by images of rolling/exploding Explorers and labels of earth unfriendliness all the former minivan-turned-SUV drivers were on the hunt for "the next big thing."
When the Lexus RX 300 hit in 1997 it sort of looked like an SUV, even though the unibody design and front-wheel-drive/all-wheel-drive powertrain made it obvious how serious the vehicle was about going off road. But today, just as the term "crossover" has become a full-fledged movement, the "crossovers" themselves seem more wagon-like than ever before.The Vue, for example, is primarily a front-wheel drive vehicle (even when you get an all-wheel drive version). The XR AWD version has 7.8-inches of ground clearance and a 3,500-pound tow rating. By comparison, a Dodge Magnum SXT (priced within $1,500 of the Vue XR) has 6.6 inches of ground clearance and can tow 2,000 pounds. It's also got nearly identical horsepower/torque ratings, and far more space in the second row/cargo areas.
I raise these points not because I think people should buy a Magnum over a Vue but simply to point out the obvious similarities between these two vehicles. However, while the Magnum still happily embraces the title of "wagon" I'm sure GM reps would seeth at the notion of calling the new Vue a wagon. Same goes for the Audi Q7, BMW X3 and X5, Chrysler Pacifica, Ford Edge, Honda CR-V, Mercedes-Benz R-Class, Nissan Murano (and upcoming Rogue), Infiniti FX, Toyota RAV4 and half-a-dozen others. Once again, I don't mind that these vehicles are wagons, but I find it impossible not to laugh at the automakers who refuse to call them wagons.
BTW, "the next big thing" has already been started by Mercedes-Benz. It ocurred when they decided to call their new CLS sedan
a "four-door coupe." Now the Aston Martin Rapide, BMW CS Concept
(just shown in Shanghai) and the Porsche Panamera are all rushing to create this "new type of vehicle." Yes, this new sedan
.
So, how much do you guys care about these terms? Does an obvious wagon have to be called a "crossover" before you'll buy it?
- Posted by
- Karl Brauer May 1, 2007, 6:00 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Saturn, Talk Back Tuesday
What really irks me is when hatchbacks are called wagons or, worse, crossovers. Examples are Subaru Impreza, Audi A3, Suzuki SX4. The way I personally distinguish between a wagon and a hatchback is by the distance between the end of the roof and the top of the rear seat. On hatches this distance is several times shorter than on true wagons. This metric is what makes the biggest difference in practical terms -- in how much and what kind of cargo you can fit behind the back seats.
The only exception to my rule is 300 Touring/Dodge Magnum due to its unique rear door design that cuts so far into the roof.
I found this body style classification on the web:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/manual_group.cfm?year=2000&datasource=fars2000&tbl=ibody&groupid=B
I guess this is the official classification NHTSA uses.
In modern times the lines are very blurred. There are just so many different kinds of vehicle bodies out there. For example, the first generation Ford Explorer had dismal ground clearance. Was it a wagon? It really was, since to call it an SUV would suggest some type of off road capability. Or take first generation Explorer Sport-Trac, with its ridiculous 600 lbs payload capacity. Sit 4 guys in it and they can't take any luggage with them -- that would exceed the load rating. Was it a pickup truck?! No way. I don't know what it was, since an average compact sedan can carry almost twice as much weight. And so on...
One could classify all vehicles by their shape. If it has "one-box" shape, then it's a van (or mini-van). If it has "two-box" shape, it's a wagon (that would include all SUVs, crossovers, hatchbacks, etc.) If it has "three-box" shape, it's a sedan.
Someone in a Miata forum was arguing that there was no such thing as a modern day roadster, because technically roadsters don't have fixed windshields or windows that roll up - they're all cabriolets. Well, it turns out that technically, a cabriolet is a two-seat, two-wheeled horse-drawn carriage. At that point I decided to be more forgiving about car vocabulary.
I can understand not calling crossovers wagons. They devolved from SUVs back to wagons (in a product planning perspective), rather than growing from cars to wagons, so from an evolutionary standpoint (I hope that doesn't start a political debate here!) they're different beasts. It just happens that fads aside, what American families want to buy has never really changed so everything will converge on that concept.
But it's amazing how many names wagons go by. Some are just the normal term in other countries, like estate (England), kombi (Germany), and brake (France). But then there are made up names to avoid the wagon word: Avant, Outback, Tourer, Touring, SportCombi, Sport Wagon (right...), and I'm sure there are lots more. I wonder if VW is outsmarting everyone by just saying wagon.
vvk, the debate on the definition of "hatchback" versus "wagon" has wagon on for years and I don't think we're going to solve it in this entry (just look at NASIOC.com's craziness on why the outgoing Impreza is called a wagon and the upcoming one a hatchback). Btw, I'm positive I don't have anywhere to hang my gas cap on the fuel filler door. Perhaps we should trade the fuel filler doors of our Imprezas. :o)
Karl, that was a nice mention of the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire fiasco. You should've just called it the Ford Exploder. I have a friend who survived a rollover in one during college when his girlfriend fell asleep at the wheel driving down the 5 from NorCal. He and his girlfriend were totally fine other than a little shock.
Thanks also for trying to put a stop to the usage of "four-door coupe." That's an oxymoron to say the least and the term itself really irks me.
What bugs me is how people care so much about being/looking "cool." The fact that most people use SUVs in the same role as a minivan just doesn't make sense. A minivan or wagon would serve them much better.
:observes a moment of silence for the MY2008 Subaru Legacy wagon which will continue to be produced at Subaru Indiana Automotive's Lafayette, Indiana plant and be retailed in Canada, but not the U.S. for the North American market:
Before you know it, some marketing "genius" is going to start calling sedans sold here in the U.S. "saloons" and/or "limousines."
VVK's comments echo mine - I remember wagons having truck style tailgates with glass, and more cargo space, than Hatches. These days "wagons" and "hatchbacks" are pretty much interchangeable terms.
As for BMW CS Coupe: Isn't the classical definition of Coupe either a car with only 2 doors, or a 4 door without a roof-connecting B-pillar? Does this "coupe" have such a B-pillar?
SubyTrojan: Isn't it a major factor for most car buyers that their ride has "attitude"? In LA I see tons of cars with nothing __but__ attitude.
I am not trying to pick a fight because I don't know for sure, but I was always under the impression that a
Coupe had an internal B-Pillar but that the glass from the rear window and door were either very close or touching when closed. Further, that the rear glass could not be lowered.
A Hardtop was a separate designation that meant that there was no B-Pillar. However, back in the 60's through early 70's several American cars could be purchased with Hardtops in either two or four door models.
A Sedan has a definative B-Pillar that where the doors come together. I was under the impression that you can have two and four door sedans.
Again this was only my two cents, and may be the result of just different people and institutions using different criteria without defining their terms.
kurtamaxxxguy, you're probably totally right. I'm just more of a function over form kind of guy. :shrug: My Scooby is anything but stylish! :o)
A "wagon" and a "crossover" have clearly different body styles.
A Magnum clearly looks like a car, with a wagon back instead of a trunk.
ground clearance: How much ground clearance did you think an Explorer has? A Trailblazer? A Jeep?
Answer: they have 6.4"-8.2" ground clearance.
Car/wagon: 4"-6.6"
crossover/SUV: 6.4"-10"
Is a Trailblazer a wagon then, with 7.8" of ground clearance?
A Liberty a wagon, with 6.4"?
A Suburban, with 7.1"?
An LR3, with 7.3"?
a Grand Cherokee with 8"?
An Explorer with 8.2"?
Yes, the Vue at the top of this post clearly has a "different body style" from a wagon...
My first car was a 1979 Toyota Corolla Station Wagon. Horrible automobile. No performance, no handling and dreadful looks, but you couldn't kill it. Three brothers and sisters later it was still going strong.
Point being the wagon name has visions of Escort, Cavalier, Corolla, Tercel, Civic. Nothing that would make you pay $30K, or even close there to. So I understand them wanting to avoid the wagon term. But a wagon they are.
Whether they are elevated, lowered, RWD, FWD, AWD or 4wd, they are all WAGONS. Even SUV's are wagons, being that they were officially pickups with a covered backseat and cargo area, quintessentially, WAGON. Where do you think Jeep got the name for their first SUV, Wagoneer.
Any "clear" deviations from the wagon concepts are those that make us feel like we are different from a 1979 Corolla Station Wagon. All have five doors, a window behind the C-Pillar and a cargo area that extends to the ceiling.
I should explain myself.
Look at the Sideview of a "wagon" and a "crossover".
If you cover up the rear roof of a "wagon" with your thumb, it will look like a "car".
If you cover up the rear roof of a "crossover" with your thumb, it will look like a... squished, stubby... "car", with a tall, tall roof, deformed. Odd.
"Crossovers"/SUVs have a much different proportion from "wagons"/cars: short, wide, and tall.
Most crossovers/SUVs are shorter than your regular midsized sedans.
You're right. The greenhouse (windows) are usually taller on a "crossover" or SUV than on a sedan-based wagon.
But there are exceptions. Like the Focus wagon. That vehicle's greenhouse is as large as the sedan and coupe version of the Focus, and all those vehicles have big greenhouses. If you cover the back part of a Focus wagon you also get that "stubby" effect.
Maybe that's why they aren't going to offer a Focus wagon anymore. They've already got the Freestyle/Taurus X, Edge, Escape and upcoming Flex. Ford is going "crossover" crazy!
After being asked what my Pontiac Vibe was so many times and not really knowing what to say based on current "marketing buzzwords" such as "4-door hatchback" and the like......I just started saying "It's a little station wagon!".....I think that is accurate
"Whether they are elevated, lowered, RWD, FWD, AWD or 4wd, they are all WAGONS. Even SUV's are wagons, being that they were officially pickups with a covered backseat and cargo area, quintessentially, WAGON. Where do you think Jeep got the name for their first SUV, Wagoneer. "
Actually, the truck version, assuming you remove the back seat and don't provide windows (you didn't specify WINDOWS) is more properly a panel truck. The station wagon version of the same is a sedan delivery. ;-)
That took some digging back in time. The first station'wagon' like vehicles were really the panel deliveries.
"One could classify all vehicles by their shape. If it has "one-box" shape, then it's a van (or mini-van). If it has "two-box" shape, it's a wagon (that would include all SUVs, crossovers, hatchbacks, etc.) If it has "three-box" shape, it's a sedan."
So a truck would be a 'sedan'? I count only three boxes (never mind that the back one is normally open on top).
What fun!
I really have no point other than that I more or less agree with you Karl. But languages change with time. The same thing that applies with slang seems to apply to most things around us. Other than scientifically named things, anyway. And all vehicles can trace their roots back to the old four wheeled horse drawn wagons or carriages anyway, right? So let's just go back to calling them horseless-carriages and leave it at that! :-D