Back before 1980, there were plenty of station wagons. They were family vehicles, great for trips and occasional towing. Then came mini-vans - essentially a logical super-sizing of the station wagon. Finally, the SUVs came in numbers starting in the mid 1980's. I recall around 1987 reading a U.S. News & World Report that Detroit was finally alive and well - thanks to selling more light trucks than cars. Back then, they coined the word "truckoid" as the word SUV was not yet common place. So why doesn't the station wagon and even the minivan meet some of the same hostility as the SUV? Two words: overcapacity and image. Does a station wagon look threatening? Was it built to do anything other than travel on paved roads? You could argue that a packed minivan does the same efficiently, but family shows and family vehicles just don't appeal to many - they want something edgier, attitude. Somehow station wagons and minivans are not sexy, passive, not cool. So Detroit sold SUV's as powerful because of their off-roading capabilities and their large-square shapes (which has nothing to do with what the vast majority of drivers use them for, esp.with the bling-bling wheels). Station wagons don't have four-wheel drive or high clearance - more efficient but "uncool". We can only hope people start to think more rationally, but hopefully the trend will be for vehicles like the Scion xB and somewhat larger without the excesses...the Crossover Utility Vehicle or CUV and use them as needed.
Interesting post, Deltaflyer. Yesterday I rode in a friend's older Toyota Corolla station wagon. It is a very practical vehicle and I imagine it gets decent fuel economy. Another factor is that minivans and SUVs were classified as trucks and did not have to meet the safety and fuel efficiency standards of cars. The feeling of 'safety' in these trucks was the result of marketing and not engineering. Some minivans and SUVs have improved in safety, but not fuel economy. The earlier minivans and many later SUVs have been a tragedy. So many families bought these vehicles because they mistakenly believed them to be safer than cars. These 'trucks' have also had huge profit margins compared to cars, so the manufacturers have reason to want to continue these profits. --Walter Disclaimer: In 1982 I owned a 1962 Buick Skylark stationwagon -- the two bedroom and a sunporch model. On a good day it got 12 mpg. I believe the engine was also used for aircraft carriers. This was a compact car!! I never believed that until I saw a friend's full size Buick of the same year (5 mpg).
The irony of this is that SUVs, technically, actually are station wagons. Yet people drive them because station wagons are uncool. At one point in the late 80s you could buy: Honda Civic Wagon -- 2wd (I've owned two) and 4wd (owned one of those too). This was of the "tall wagon" variety that predated today's (much larger) small SUVs. Honda Accord Wagon. Toyota Corolla Wagon, 2wd or 4wd. Toyota Tercel Wagon, 2wd or 4wd. Tall wagon. Toyota Camry 5door, which was practically a wagon, and like the Accord was a small car by today's standards. Shortly after this point in time the Camry was offered as a true wagon as well. Nissan Sentra Wagon. Nissan Stanza Wagon, 2wd or 4wd. Tall wagon. Subaru DL/GL Wagon, later known as the Loyale, 2wd or 4wd. Ford Escort Wagon. Dodge Colt Wagon, 2wd or 4wd. Dodge Colt Vista Wagon, 2wd or 4wd. Tall wagon. Chevy Cavalier/Pontiac Sunbird/Olds Firenza/Buick Skyhawk wagons. And that's just the smallish wagons. I'm not even counting the Volvos, the GM Celebrity/Cutlass/Pont6000 wagons, the Tauruses and other larger wagons. Small wagons almost completely disappeared during the 90s and have only made a minor comeback so far. Can you buy a Civic or Accord wagon today? Corolla, Tercel or Camry? Sentra or Altima? Sunfire/Cobalt? Only Subaru and Ford (with the Focus up through '07) have kept the faith. OK, I guess the Matrix is basically a Corolla Wagon, so there's one more. It's obvious why most automakers refuse to carry small, practical, efficient wagons. They would cannibalize sales of the "small" SUVS -- RAV4s, Escapes, Elements and CR-Vs -- that young singles and families are instead buying, because the wagons that would better suit them are unavailable. I can't tell you how many times I've walked into a Honda dealer, told them I wish they still made a vehicle like the Civic Wagon, and had the salesdork point to the (oversize, overweight, top-heavy, uncomfortable and automatic-only) CR-V and go "there it is". Ugh. The additional frustration is that most of the foreign companies actually make small wagons. They just don't sell them here. When parking is tight, fuel is expensive and taxes are high, people actually start shopping for the vehicle that packs the most amount of room into the smallest (exterior) package. When I visited Japan 12 years ago I was astonished at the incredible variety of small to midsize wagons on the roads. On my visits to Europe I haven't seen quite as many wagons as in Japan, but still plenty more than here, and the vast majority of vehicles there are either wagons or hatches. The Golf (aka Jetta) Wagon was available throughout the 90s there, as were the smaller VW Polo and Lupo. You couldn't throw a rock in Paris without hitting a small, trunkless Peugot or Renault. And I especially remember seeing 6G Honda diesel Civic 5-door hatchbacks on the streets of Amsterdam when I visisted there in 1998. That was my absolute dream car then, and still pretty close to it today. It absolutely killed me that there was no way in hell I could have one, even though they existed. I hope that we're seeing a little bit of a resurgence. The xB and Toyota Matrix have sold well, and not just here in the Northwest where wagons have always been cool. And the Jetta Wagon was a huge hit for the 5 years that they offered it here.
I remember reading in a New Yorker article a couple of years ago that (at the time) minivans were safer than SUV's (lower injury rates I believe) because most of them were unibody construction, and hence had proper crush zones, etc, whereas SUV's (at the time) were mostly body-on-pickup-frame. My impression is that many SUV's are now unibody (BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota look like they are but I don't know for sure). I've always been a big fan of wagons, got the Outback over the regular Subaru Wagon only because it included some handy extras that were unavailable on plain wagon. My list: 1967? VW Squareback 1985 Honda Civic Wagon (unbreakable!!) 1994 Accord Wagon 2003 Subaru Outback
i have owned 2 wagons: a dodge colt vista 4wd wagon (nice little car, tons of room for 6 people, but no power), and a jeep grand wagoneer. the title and registration say station wagon, so who am i to argue? low insurance rates i still have the jeep, but at 11 mpg, it sits until i need to tow the boat.
What year Grand Wagoneer? I love the old school ones that Chrysler kept making for several years after they bought AMC. Those were very classy in their day, and very civilized and much less offensive compared to today's SUV. They were airy and had a low-beltline, so other cars could still see around/through them. I love wagons and hatches (83 Civic hatch, 91 Civic hatch, 02 Mazda Protege5 wagon, 05 Saab 9-2x wagon, 06 Mazda3 hatch)
Then there's this. And it's got a HEMI. Under the newly designed hood of the 2008 Dodge Magnum SRT8 is the 6.1-liter HEMI V-8, delivering 425 horsepower and 420 lb.-ft. of torque, contributing to a performance roster that includes a 0–60 mph time in the low 5-second range and 0–100–0 mph in under 17 seconds.
lightfoot said Yes, I think even the older minivans were safer than the older SUVs and today many of them are quite safe (e.g. Honda Oddysey). But as of 2002, Dodge Caravans still had a mediocre fatality rate. 2005 report on fatality rate by make and model: www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4003.pdf Some recent SUVs are now safe, but some aren't, e.g., a Chevy Blazer 2dr 2wd has 5 times the fatality rate of a Honda Civic). wriconsult said: "6G Honda diesel Civic 5-door hatchbacks on the streets of Amsterdam". I'd like one with the newest cleanest diesel engine. I like hatchbacks which are having a resurgence (Yaris, Fit, Versa, Aveo, etc.). I think most people who have SUVs would do better with a Civic or Accord size stationwagon. People with big families/dogs/etc. might need something like a Colt Vista wagon (test drove one once, liked it, lots of room). --Walter
aca2983: its an '88. 200,000 on it. fuel injected, lifted 4", 2" oversize tires, homemade double-tube steel bumpers, homemade nerf bars, bullet-hole mags, blah, blah, etc.
More interesting data. Sure the Dodge Caravan was mediocre at a death rate of 83, but the Grand Caravan was only 52, and the comparable Chrysler town and country was only 38, considering that average for all vehicles was 87. A possible explanation, the cheapest entry level vehicle is in the price range of younger immature drivers that don't wear seatbelts? The mercedes E class had the safest record, but the person that can afford the E class isn't kid racer. Surprisingly the dodge dakota seems more safe than my tacoma in almost all cases. Another example of possible owner maturity, a mustang is a 140 and a mustang convertible is a 91, i'd guess it's driver behavior and not structure that makes a convertible more safe. It would take more time than I'm willing to spend but it would be interesting to compare the IIHS safety scores to the death rate to see how well they correlate.
Problem with death rate stats is they don't control for the quality, type, age or any other characteristics of the drivers. Some vehicles (notably minivans) come off as safer than they probably are because their drivers are very conservative, whereas others (notably small economy cars) look more dangerous than they probably are because their drivers have a higher crash rate.
A few of my favorite vehicles that either my family or myself owned were station wagons... We had a 1968 Ford Country Squire wagon that was big enough to fit a queen size mattress in the back end, very well balanced car for driving but was not very good on gas at speed. A 1973 Olds Vista Cruiser wagon, good balance and pretty darn good mileage if you kept your foot out of the 350 cube 4-barrel carb engine. My favorite had to be a 1967 Volvo 122 station wagon with a built 2 litre engine that could take a Datsun 240Z... but yet could deliver about 23-25 mpg towing a loaded car trailer
I too bemoan the relative absence of wagons in the current offerings. As noted earlier in this thread, small wagons especially are missing. What has been appealing to drivers is large, heavy, and with an air-battering shape. I and other Volvo buffs have hauled amazing quantities and impressive sizes of cargo in our old 240/740/940 wagons. I recently used mine to transport a washing machine, with room and weight capacity to spare. I wouldn't be surprised if a respectably large refrigerator would fit. I did a comparison of the '07 Saturn Vue vs. my old Volvo beast. If they instead made a 3030 lb wagon with modernized aero and other features it's FE would far surpass the Vue's. I'm confident that the old Volvo is at least as safe and reliable as the Vue. (Volvo offers fwd replacements for the old rwd wagons but FE is only 21 EPA combined, due largely to vehicle weight and engine hp.) '07 Saturn Vue: 3825 lb curb weight, 1000 lb. payload, 169 hp, 21 EPA comb. '89 Volvo 240: 3030 lb. curb weight, 1200 lb. payload, 115 hp, 19 EPA comb.
