Am I the only one who thinks the move away from sedans is premature and ill advised. Those who think an SUV is the the only choice might want to think about it unless the space and height are really important. My case for sedans, especially hatchbacks and small wagons: A sedan is nearly always lighter, lower profile, better MPG, better handling and more responsive that the sedan it is based on. And hatchbacks also have a lot of space if the rear seat will fold down flat. Same for small wagons. Oh, and I forgot- less money. Case in point is my Ford Focus hatch. I do admit that we are short. But while an SUV sets higher, one also has to step up. And, how long will gas be "cheap"? No one knows. The issue is also relevant for towing behind a MH because of weight.

IME sedans are always not so much more "fuel friendly" than a small SUV. Some smaller SUV's approach 30 mpg or over. And some sedans do good to get over 25 mpg. They aren't all the same. Bigger SUV's make about as much sense as bigger sedans, unless you need the carrying capacity. And a lower profile means it can be more awkward to get into and out of.Also as the population ages, the small SUV's are easier to get into, and more importantly, get out of than small sedans. The small SUV's are just sedans that have a different shape.There is no "one size fits all".

My wife hauls the kids around in a suburban. I like having them in a big ol protective cage with lots of airbags. I don’t care what kind of mileage it gets, fuel is cheap. I drive a sedan, for no other reason than that is what we have. Not sure if I chose my vehicle what I would get, but fuel economy wouldn’t even be a consideration. Maybe a F350 with the new 7.3 gas motor.

New crossover SUVs are decently efficient. A 2.0L turbo Ford Escape is only a 3 MPG penalty over a 2.0L turbo Focus. What's not sustainable are the higher transaction prices, and the corresponding 7 year loans and rolled over negative equity that people seem to jumping on, in order to afford the monthly payments on something they probably don't really need.

I have one "daily vehicle" and one motorhome. I don't want to have a third vehicle. So having an SUV gives me the ability to tow, carry more than one passenger and carry my two large dogs comfortably, and carry a lot of stuff - even all of those at the same time. With a sedan or hatchback, I may be able to do one or the other but not all at once. And my passengers would have to share space with the dogs.If I were to give up my SUV, it would be for a midsize pickup with crew cab. I'd lose some passenger space but would gain the ability to haul bigger items.I've had a sedan before. It was fine at the time, but I wouldn't go back.Of course my SUV is not a crossover. It's a body on frame midsize SUV. With a crossover, I would not feel such a difference between it and a sedan. The main reason I hear for folks going with a crossover is to get all wheel drive for winter driving.

Well I have a lil different take if you will. My Dad who use to be an exec with his company before retiring always told me to buy the biggest (well car at that time) that you can afford, because:1. More Room2. Rides better3. Safer4. Decent MPG'sIn the event of an accident w/ a large car, odds are in your favor of walking away from it more so than in an econo box. Small cars may be nice for mpg's, but you don't stand a chance against a 3/4-1 ton truck or semi trailer. I don't like to be scrunched up in a small car and when you stop, cannot move your joints. Nor do I like having to lift my legs up and over the rocker panels to get out. I don't care how many air bags a small car has, I want to have the odds in my favor. Most larger sedans will get very decent mpg's on trips. Shoot, we had a '95 Lincoln Town Car w/a 4.6 V8 that got 27-28 mpg while doing 70 w/ A/C on. Never felt cramped up, room to sleep, rode like on a cloud.So while a small sedan may net you good mpg's, IMO at the risk of a lot of factors. Problem is, cannot find a "body on frame" anymore (new wise), so you have no choice but to bump up to a SUV/truck. Add to that, most SUV's are unibody's and if you wanta true body on frame SUV, you'll have to go bigger yet. Thank you tree hugger's.

Sedans, hatchbacks and wagons. | Good Sam Community

Groover
Explorer II
Apr 10, 2019
Lessmore wrote:
Groover wrote:
Lessmore wrote:

Losing the Impala is drastic to me...the front legroom is much better than the Malibu. I'm 6'3" +, 240 lbs...broad shoulders and the Malibu is cramped. In the Impala I can put the seat all the way back, great comfort for me and the Impala at 45 + inches legroom fits me well. The trunk space in the Malibu is less than the Impala , we need lots of trunk space on holidays.

You are making me miss my '72 Chrysler Newport. Once I opted to take the '70 Impala (before downsizing at all) and my wife wanted to know why we took the small car, she wanted more space.
'73 Newport

In 1971 I worked for a guy who owned a small company. He had a 1970 Chrysler 300, with the 440 V8. I drove it once of twice...huge car, but it was beautiful and great seats, very comfortable. Same green colour of the Chrysler as in the link you posted. They were huge cars.

My brother worked in a service station and one of their customers was a little old lady that had a Chrysler 300 Hurst edition. The problem was that she bought it for looks but didn't like to go fast and the engine kept loading up on her. After taking the heads off and cleaning them a couple of times they figured out that all the had to do was get the car on the highway in second gear with the pedal on the floor and after about 20 miles it would be running great. They loved seeing her come in every few months.

My own grandmother had an early '60s Pontiac with I think a 389 in it and had the same problem. Eventually my Dad arrived at the same solution. She thought that the car was pretty and had no idea what was under the hood when she bought it. Their next car was a '64 Belair with a 230 inline 6. No troubles with that one fouling.
wilber1
Explorer
Apr 10, 2019
Lessmore wrote:
Groover wrote:
Lessmore wrote:

Losing the Impala is drastic to me...the front legroom is much better than the Malibu. I'm 6'3" +, 240 lbs...broad shoulders and the Malibu is cramped. In the Impala I can put the seat all the way back, great comfort for me and the Impala at 45 + inches legroom fits me well. The trunk space in the Malibu is less than the Impala , we need lots of trunk space on holidays.

You are making me miss my '72 Chrysler Newport. Once I opted to take the '70 Impala (before downsizing at all) and my wife wanted to know why we took the small car, she wanted more space.
'73 Newport

In 1971 I worked for a guy who owned a small company. He had a 1970 Chrysler 300, with the 440 V8. I drove it once of twice...huge car, but it was beautiful and great seats, very comfortable. Same green colour of the Chrysler as in the link you posted. They were huge cars.

Got a 66 300 convertible with a 440 in my garage right now. It's big alright, as long as the 01 Dodge 3/4 ton short bed I used to have and wider.
Lessmore
Explorer II
Apr 10, 2019
Groover wrote:
Lessmore wrote:

Losing the Impala is drastic to me...the front legroom is much better than the Malibu. I'm 6'3" +, 240 lbs...broad shoulders and the Malibu is cramped. In the Impala I can put the seat all the way back, great comfort for me and the Impala at 45 + inches legroom fits me well. The trunk space in the Malibu is less than the Impala , we need lots of trunk space on holidays.

You are making me miss my '72 Chrysler Newport. Once I opted to take the '70 Impala (before downsizing at all) and my wife wanted to know why we took the small car, she wanted more space.
'73 Newport

In 1971 I worked for a guy who owned a small company. He had a 1970 Chrysler 300, with the 440 V8. I drove it once of twice...huge car, but it was beautiful and great seats, very comfortable. Same green colour of the Chrysler as in the link you posted. They were huge cars.
Groover
Explorer II
Apr 10, 2019
Lessmore wrote:

Losing the Impala is drastic to me...the front legroom is much better than the Malibu. I'm 6'3" +, 240 lbs...broad shoulders and the Malibu is cramped. In the Impala I can put the seat all the way back, great comfort for me and the Impala at 45 + inches legroom fits me well. The trunk space in the Malibu is less than the Impala , we need lots of trunk space on holidays.

You are making me miss my '72 Chrysler Newport. Once I opted to take the '70 Impala (before downsizing at all) and my wife wanted to know why we took the small car, she wanted more space.
'73 Newport
Lessmore
Explorer II
Apr 10, 2019
Dadoffourgirls wrote:
GM is still going to offer the Malibu at this time. I have had a Cruze, Malibu, and Impala. I thought that the Cruze was really too small. The Malibu has plenty of trunk space, so losing the Impala is not that drastic.

I drove my Dad's Malibu from Florida to Michigan a week ago, and averaged over 37 mpg. There were stretches that it was over 40. It was 35 degrees in Ohio and Michigan.

Ironically, I currently have 3 sedans, full-size van and pickup in my personal fleet. All my daughters are driving sedans. I just wished we had more choices in station wagons.

Losing the Impala is drastic to me...the front legroom is much better than the Malibu. I'm 6'3" +, 240 lbs...broad shoulders and the Malibu is cramped. In the Impala I can put the seat all the way back, great comfort for me and the Impala at 45 + inches legroom fits me well. The trunk space in the Malibu is less than the Impala , we need lots of trunk space on holidays.

I've driven GM since '68 , but our next car looks like it will be the Nissan Maxima...also 45 inches of leg room. Sad to say...but if GM doesn't meet our needs...we need to find out what will. With me, my first GM was a '67 Camaro RS coupe, 327 V8, Muncie 4 speed....back in the '60's...I'm a long time Chevy fan and have had many GM's from every division, except Cadillac and Saturn.

One thing I've seen with GM over the years is that they tend to let some models wither and die...no advertising, little stock, people eventually give up on that model. Caprice, Astro, new Impala...when we bought ours new in 2015...we didn't even know it existed.
BenK
Explorer
Apr 10, 2019
Mostly marketing to the public, is on a tear moving to CUV’s (which they confuse with SUV’s)

But...most of these CUV’s are based on ‘car’ platforms. So the OEMs are really still making ‘cars’, but with CUV bodes spot welded onto the old car platform
Grit_dog
Navigator
Apr 10, 2019
I guess, who cares.... Things change. 20-30 years ago there were exactly 4 “SUVS “ available. Blazer, Bronco, suburban and Ramcharger. And no 700hp cars and 1000ft lb 30k towing trucks.
Now there’s millions of those and way less sedans. It’s ok, most of the people that want average sedans (not compact, not super luxury, not high performance) won’t outlive the availability of such cars.
Companies produce what sells and makes them money. I’m in road construction. I don’t produce typewriters. I produce bridges. Typewriters wouldn’t make me money and no one would want them.
Car companies recognized a severely shrinking market and acted on it.
On the upside those of you that like your milquetoast sedans are in luck. They’re a financial bargain comparatively speaking due to low demand.
Dadoffourgirls
Explorer
Apr 10, 2019
GM is still going to offer the Malibu at this time. I have had a Cruze, Malibu, and Impala. I thought that the Cruze was really too small. The Malibu has plenty of trunk space, so losing the Impala is not that drastic.

I drove my Dad's Malibu from Florida to Michigan a week ago, and averaged over 37 mpg. There were stretches that it was over 40. It was 35 degrees in Ohio and Michigan.

Ironically, I currently have 3 sedans, full-size van and pickup in my personal fleet. All my daughters are driving sedans. I just wished we had more choices in station wagons.
jerem0621
Explorer II
Apr 10, 2019
We have three sedans and 1 SUV in the family. Two of the sedans are Fords. A Fusion and a Fiesta, the other is a beater Impala the new drivers get to use and abuse. The SUV is my DW'S.

I prefer to drive sedans. I've never met a SUV that actually got the MPG on the door sticker in mixed driving. The MKC (SUV) Gets about 19- 21 in mixed driving, depending on the weight of the right foot. My Fusion gets 27-28 in the same circuit. To be fair, on long trips the SUV's can get very good MPG.

I like the locking trunk, gear is out of sight and safe.

1,000 lb tow rating on most cars is sufficient for what most home owners actually haul. Plus I think it's kind of a sham. 1,000 lbs is just the industry standard response for a sedan. These platforms could easily handle 2,500-5,000 lbs depending on the Sedan, if the OEM'S would build it.

As far as handling the Sedans win hands down (Normal sedans compared to normal SUVs) and they are much less likely to end up on their tops in an accident. Plus, with better handling you stand a better chance of manuvering around the obstical than plowing through it.

Anyway. When I go to replace this Fusion I will have to shop for a Japanese brand as my Beloved Fords have moved on from Sedans. I did have a nice 2018 Camry Rental. Very nice car.

So, all that to say, yes..I think it's a mistake to drop the Sedans.

Thanks!

Jeremiah
Lessmore
Explorer II
Apr 09, 2019
danrclem wrote:
I don't know but I have a hunch that Ford already has a plan laid out to start building sedans again if they feel that it's needed.

Sort of a good plan for both Ford and GM, maybe. But some customers will be lost to these brands if they can't get a Ford/GM sedan over the next few years and some will go elsewhere...Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc...and if they're satisfied with their new choice...they won't be coming back.

I was a salesman years ago and two sayings pop into my mind from that era that are apropos to the decision GM and Ford have made to discontinue making sedans:

1) You can't sell from an empty wagon. Old saying...dates back to the 1800's.

2) It's hard to get a customer and easy to lose one.