Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 105

Thread: Vehicles we can't buy in Canada

  1. #1

    Default Vehicles we can't buy in Canada

    I am looking for a new car and I find it frustrating that Canadians cannot buy many models here.

    I really like the Subaru Legacy wagon but only the sedan is offered here and to get a wago, I have to go to the Outback. Still a very nice car but also more costly. I was in the Caribbean for two weeks and the number of cars & vans that we cannot get, is astounding.

    Here is a short list
    Toyota Corolla Wagon
    Subaru Legacy Wagon
    Toyota Hiace
    Toyota Noah (Voxy, Esquire)
    Volkswagen Scirocco R
    Honda Type R

    Cars perfect for Canada that we can't buy
    http://www.autofocus.ca/media-browse...at-we-cant-buy

    7 Cars Americans Can Buy That Canadians Can’t

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...anadians-cant/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #2
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  3. #3
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Basically every decent sport wagon. Like a BMW 5 series or an Audi 6 series. There's also some pretty great engines that aren't available here, mostly diesels. Like the BMW M550D: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle...0d_xdrive.html

    They also never made the M5 wagon available in North America, either. The Audi RS6 Avant is another spectacular car that's not available here.

  4. #4

    Default

    Best part about going to Sweden to visit family is to see all the trucks on the road magically get replaced with wagons, including the one sport wagon you actually can get in Canada, the V60 Polestar.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  5. #5

    Default

    damn, the scirocco R looks sweet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...erican_version

    In April 2007, Volkswagen America vice president Adrian Hallmark claimed that Volkswagen preferred not to bring the Scirocco to North America since it could negatively affect GTI sales.[19] It was later stated that the final decision would be made in 2008 by Martin Winterkorn (Volkswagen's CEO), not Volkswagen of America.[20]
    In early March 2008, MotorAuthority reported that, due to the increasing gap between the United States dollar and the Euro, the Scirocco would not be made available for American consumers. "This car would fit the U.S. market but at the current exchange rate we wouldn't make any money," Volkswagen sales and marketing chief Detlef Wittig told Bloomberg reporters.

  6. #6

    Default

    When my 2001 Ford Focus wagon was totaled by a Silverado in 2008, I could not buy a new one because Ford dropped the version so I had to buy a used 2007 and it served me well for 10 years. When I asked my dealer why they dropped the Focus wagon, he was just as upset as I was because he stated that 70% of his Focus sales were the wagon. He told me that they were told to upsell buyers to the Ford Edge or Explorer which cost way more, poorer fuel economy and more expensive to own.

    Same for Subaru, they used to sell the Legacy Wagon but they dropped it so people would buy the more expensive Outback
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 09-02-2017 at 12:09 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  7. #7

    Default

    Saw a lot of small econoboxes and vans in the Caribbean as well. Probably don't meet safety standards or the makers want us to buy big cars



    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I am looking for a new car and I find it frustrating that Canadians cannot buy many models here.

    I really like the Subaru Legacy wagon but only the sedan is offered here and to get a wago, I have to go to the Outback. Still a very nice car but also more costly. I was in the Caribbean for two weeks and the number of cars & vans that we cannot get, is astounding.

    Here is a short list
    Toyota Corolla Wagon
    Subaru Legacy Wagon
    Toyota Hiace
    Toyota Noah (Voxy, Esquire)
    Volkswagen Scirocco R
    Honda Type R

    Cars perfect for Canada that we can't buy
    http://www.autofocus.ca/media-browse...at-we-cant-buy

    7 Cars Americans Can Buy That Canadians Can’t

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...anadians-cant/
    There are lots of Canadian cars you can't buy in those countries as well. Automakers tailor for the safety standards / emissions standards / market. Also some style differences. For example in a lot of countries you see Toyota Fortuners, which are a bit like a 4runnner, but different. They might struggle in Canada as Highlanders are a lot cheaper here than in those countries, and people here like the more truckish look of the 4runner to the fortuner.

    One interesting class you don't see much in North America is MPV, e.g. the Toyota Innova (which is pretty nice I think). Mazda has the Mazda 5 - but it hasn't really done that well, also Kia Rondo. Its not a class people in North America like, would rather have full size van, or an SUV. Toyota would rather sell Sienna's here, more popular, higher price, more profit.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-02-2017 at 12:18 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Toyota Hilux... which is basically the tacoma in diesel. Would love to get a tacoma in diesel.

  10. #10

    Default

    ^I had one of those with a 2.0 liter turbo diesel, manual transmission, in about 1993 in New Zealand, loved it (although it was very slow, and dirty as heck in engine bay like a lot of diesels). It was a Hilux Surf, so more like a 4runner I guess than the small truck.

    Last edited by moahunter; 09-02-2017 at 12:24 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Many jurisdictions have taxes on vehicles based upon their engine displacement, power, fuel economy, emissions, gross vehicle weight or other metric which helps curtail/dampen the desire to get the biggest vehicle possible for money spent.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  12. #12

    Default

    I really wish they sold my car with a manual in North America, versus the 8-speed auto I've got. Paddle shifters just aren't the same.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    We can blame misguided US fuel efficiency standards for banishing practical cars from the North American market. If they had used seating and payload capacity to determine the maximum acceptable level of fuel consumption instead of footprint and an artificial distinction between "cars" and "light trucks", we would be seeing a different mix on the road.

  14. #14

    Default

    ^it won't change anytime soon, the only vehicles that automakers really make profits on in North America are higher priced ones, esp SUV's (some small luxury cars). Smaller cars are more seen as "brand" entry, in the hope people will move up to something larger in time, and to keep dealers happy with all the maintenance and similar.

  15. #15

    Default

    Those vehicles aren't sold here because they do the marketing research and nobody wants them outside a few enthusiasts on forums.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  16. #16

    Default

    ^ disagree. It's not just a market research thing.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ disagree. It's not just a market research thing.
    Of course it is. There are significant costs to launching a model here: training, parts, marketing, etc. If that model won't sell that many units, and other models can fill the gap to some degree, they there's no good reason too. If the market research says it's more profitable to not sell it, they won't.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  18. #18

    Default

    ...says the market research/sales guy.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  19. #19

    Default

    Legislation & taxation inform other locales' taste in automobiles. In Canada there's no disincentive (beyond operating costs) to buy the largest vehicle you can afford, regardless of practicality. Hell, we'll even throw a neighborhood under a bus to accommodate your poor choice in vehicles!

    And who keeps it that way? Domestic automobile manufacturers, through lobbying & threats, both couched & overt.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Legislation & taxation inform other locales' taste in automobiles.
    I don't think its that simple. A lot of cuvy vehicle designs (feminine) that are popular in Europe and Asia are not popular in North America, where there is a preference for more angular / boxy (masculine) designs. There have been a few examples of this, where GM and Ford have tried to bring European designs over, and they haven't been popular. Saturn for example came mostly from Opel (GM Europe). Ford has been trying to land on a balance of designs that can meet global taste, but even they have struggled with the issue. A lot of the vehicles PRT has been posting on here would be called "girl cars", or "chick cars" in Canada or US so would have a very limited market. I'm not fully sure why that is, but it is what it is, and the automakers understand it. Chrysler hasn't much success brining FIAT's over, they did try to masculinize one with the Dart, but being a small car it has limited audience. An automaker like Peugeot or Renault would struggle I think in Canada/US because of the design language, but they can sell sister vehicles that are made more boxy and suited to the north American market via their partner Nissan, so there is no reason for them to enter this market.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-02-2017 at 02:31 PM.

  21. #21

    Default

    To be fair, there are a lot of vehicles available in canada that the US cannot buy

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...buy-in-the-us/


    Some of them were absolute crap and the US was lucky not to get them. The Hyundai Pony was so bad, when I took one for a test drive, the throttle cable broke when making a left turn in heavy traffic. It got real exciting for the salesman in the passenger seat...

    http://autoweek.com/article/classic-...merica-did-not
    http://www.wheels.ca/top-ten/10-cars...s-did-not-get/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  22. #22

    Default

    ^And vice versa. Scion was quite successful in the US, and for some time the vehicles weren't available here. Some of its models only came recently to Canada, and now has been merged into Toyota.

  23. #23

    Default

    Toyota sold 2x as many Toyotas last year as they cumulatively sold Scions during the entire existence as a brand. Hardly successful.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #24

    Default

    Likely because Scion was supposed to be a lower production niche brand.

  25. #25

    Default

    Scion was made to appeal to a younger generation that didn't want their parents toyota...

    scion was always part of the Toyota family...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scion_(automobile)

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Toyota sold 2x as many Toyotas last year as they cumulatively sold Scions during the entire existence as a brand. Hardly successful.
    More than a million sold, and hit a demographic Toyota struggled with (younger people). The idea was those buyers would move to Toyota as they aged. I think Toyota have worked out they can get the benefits through individual model branding without a separate infrastructure though. My point was that for a number of years there were some quite nice Scion vehicles that weren't available in Canada (I know of a few people who went down there and imported them back up). All countries are a little different re the marketplace, even Canada is different from US in that we purchase far more small models (e.g. Honda civic), and AWD is of course more important.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-02-2017 at 04:36 PM.

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Legislation & taxation inform other locales' taste in automobiles.
    I don't think its that simple. A lot of cuvy vehicle designs (feminine) that are popular in Europe and Asia are not popular in North America, where there is a preference for more angular / boxy (masculine) designs. There have been a few examples of this, where GM and Ford have tried to bring European designs over, and they haven't been popular. Saturn for example came mostly from Opel (GM Europe). Ford has been trying to land on a balance of designs that can meet global taste, but even they have struggled with the issue. A lot of the vehicles PRT has been posting on here would be called "girl cars", or "chick cars" in Canada or US so would have a very limited market. I'm not fully sure why that is, but it is what it is, and the automakers understand it. Chrysler hasn't much success brining FIAT's over, they did try to masculinize one with the Dart, but being a small car it has limited audience. An automaker like Peugeot or Renault would struggle I think in Canada/US because of the design language, but they can sell sister vehicles that are made more boxy and suited to the north American market via their partner Nissan, so there is no reason for them to enter this market.
    Meanwhile, those of us who prefer functional, "gender neutral" lines that are neither boxy and angular nor overly curvy have to get nostalgic about the 1990s:





    Notice the amount of glass on the Metro - minimal blind spots and you could actually see while backing up without need for a camera.

  28. #28

    Default

    The Metro was a 3 cyl dog that GM stripped down but I had the 1993 the 2 door Suzuki that was a blast to drive.
    (not mine)
    Great in snow, nimble and great vision all around. My brother had an older Toyota Matrix and that was fun to drive but you could not see out the back of his newer one.

    The new outbacks look great and the 3.6R Touring with a 256 hp engine really is a sweet ride.



    BTW guys, "When it comes to buying a set of wheels, figures show women play a leading role in 85 percent of auto purchases."
    http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456751...executive-jobs
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    ^ I was not a fan of the 3-door Metro, it was 10 cm shorter than the 5-door which all came from between the front and back seats, rendering the latter useless. The 3-cylinder was still a blast to drive though. A unique engine sound and you could drive like a racer without exceeding the speed limit (by too much anyways).

    The new Outbacks are nice, but I prefer the old styling. I don't see the need for the 6 cylinder engine either. I pull a 1200 kg boat with the 4 cylinder and the only place I haven't been able to keep up with traffic is the Coquihalla summit (down to 90 km/h there - about the same as the 3-cylinder Metro). The CVT is great for giving you 100% power at any speed over 40 km/h, with no between-gear flat spots.

  30. #30

    Default

    Any Audi Avant... god why does america hate wagons so much.


  31. #31

    Default

    Looking forward to my trip to visit my wife in 2 weeks, to the land of wagons where a pickup truck is a rare sight!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  32. #32

    Default

    Ford Mondeo Wagon 2017
    Only available in Europe and Australia
    A sharp looking wagon version of the Ford Fusion



    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #33

    Default

    This maybe a bit off topic but , did you know that: since they removed the bench seats in vehicles people are having less sex in our vehicles. We traded in our love cruisers for bucket seats and comfort . It's a darn shame .

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    This maybe a bit off topic but , did you know that: since they removed the bench seats in vehicles people are having less sex in our vehicles. We traded in our love cruisers for bucket seats and comfort . It's a darn shame .
    As a used car buyer...

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kc View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    this maybe a bit off topic but , did you know that: Since they removed the bench seats in vehicles people are having less sex in our vehicles. We traded in our love cruisers for bucket seats and comfort . It's a darn shame .
    as a used car buyer...
    hahaha!

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Ford Mondeo Wagon 2017
    Only available in Europe and Australia
    A sharp looking wagon version of the Ford Fusion






    Gonna say the Mondeo is a Fusion rebranded... but wagon version looks fantastic. God I hate we don't get half of the wagons the ROW gets.

    I blame America and their love of sedans and SUVs.

  37. #37

    Default

    I think the only high performance sport wagon we actually get in Canada is the low-production V60 Polestar.



    I really want one, but will wait for the model refresh that's imminent. I'd get huge brownie points with my father in law, who has a Concours-level early 80s 240 wagon in Sweden.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #38
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Those vehicles aren't sold here because they do the marketing research and nobody wants them outside a few enthusiasts on forums.
    This...

    Demographic analysis, including geography, climate, sparse populations, average road conditions, lifestyles, and anwhole host of other factors play into model choices..

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Legislation & taxation inform other locales' taste in automobiles. In Canada there's no disincentive (beyond operating costs) to buy the largest vehicle you can afford, regardless of practicality. Hell, we'll even throw a neighborhood under a bus to accommodate your poor choice in vehicles!

    And who keeps it that way? Domestic automobile manufacturers, through lobbying & threats, both couched & overt.
    I think you're committing the sin of letting your bias influence this one my friend. There are luxury taxes, gas guzzler taxes, higher premiums, more cost to operate....and yet the vehicles you hate continue to vastly outsell their demand vastly outstrips wagons...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponto View Post
    Any Audi Avant... god why does america hate wagons so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Ford Mondeo Wagon 2017
    Only available in Europe and Australia
    A sharp looking wagon version of the Ford Fusion






    Gonna say the Mondeo is a Fusion rebranded... but wagon version looks fantastic. God I hate we don't get half of the wagons the ROW gets.

    I blame America and their love of sedans and SUVs.
    Sigh.

    I don’t think I am much older than many here...but I remember a time when wagons were EVERYWHERE. What killed them? They were too much of a compromise. Too big to be nimble, too small to be useful as a hauler. I remember road trips in wagons, and they SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED!

    What killed North America's desire for a wagon. Hello minivan...that hated soccer mom driving, emasculating, fugly yet HIGHLY PRACTICAL craptastic compromise eviscerated the wagon. You could haul the kids and the hockey/football/soccer gear with ease. You could haul kids, groceries, and your Hole's bounty with room to spare. The list goes on. When the fugly minivan became passé, the SUV was the evolution.

    Don't waste your time waxing philosophically on European vs NA cars...The automakers do this for you. If wagons sold well in our sparsely populated country, they would be here en masse.

    I find the anti truck hatred hilarious. I know many who laud their Eco friendly car choices, but I get weekly phone calls from people borrowing my truck. Sigh.
    Onward and upward

  39. #39
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I'd get huge brownie points with my father in law, who has a Concours-level early 80s 240 wagon in Sweden.
    Look above when I said trips in a wagon SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED...Dad had this Volvo obsession...and the offensive wagons were 2 240's. 1977 and 1984.
    Onward and upward

  40. #40

    Default

    [QUOTE=RichardS;830145]
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post

    Sigh.

    I don’t think I am much older than many here...but I remember a time when wagons were EVERYWHERE. What killed them? They were too much of a compromise. Too big to be nimble, too small to be useful as a hauler. I remember road trips in wagons, and they SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED!

    What killed North America's desire for a wagon. Hello minivan...that hated soccer mom driving, emasculating, fugly yet HIGHLY PRACTICAL craptastic compromise eviscerated the wagon. You could haul the kids and the hockey/football/soccer gear with ease. You could haul kids, groceries, and your Hole's bounty with room to spare. The list goes on. When the fugly minivan became passé, the SUV was the evolution.

    Don't waste your time waxing philosophically on European vs NA cars...The automakers do this for you. If wagons sold well in our sparsely populated country, they would be here en masse.

    I find the anti truck hatred hilarious. I know many who laud their Eco friendly car choices, but I get weekly phone calls from people borrowing my truck. Sigh.
    Oh i know what killed the wagon....

    But too much of a compromise? Maybe the wagons of the 80's.. but even my current A3 sportback is plenty useful for what I need with city living. I have hauled 4 people with roof box and all our gear to the mountains for snowboad trips, mountain biking trips etc. now with a dog its so much nicer to have the hatch over a sedan. And my A3 and the A4 Avant's I have done road trips in are amazing... but guess thats not a fair comparsion against an old vista cruiser or something lol.

    I definitely do not hate trucks or SUV's they do serve a purpose for sure. If I needed a truck more than 3 times a year I would likely own one lol.

    After my A3 reaches it's end (currently at 215k km on an 07) I will likely be purchasing an allroad. Sure it could have better performance like any of the S or RS avants... but with a tune she will still hit 300hp which isn't bad for a daily grocery getter.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I'd get huge brownie points with my father in law, who has a Concours-level early 80s 240 wagon in Sweden.
    Look above when I said trips in a wagon SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED...Dad had this Volvo obsession...and the offensive wagons were 2 240's. 1977 and 1984.
    Hhaha no wonder your road trips sucked... giant steel box on wheels them volvos... they definitly have an odd cult following.

  42. #42

    Default

    I don't agree RichardS

    Read my post #6

    There is demand for wagons but the automakers drop popular vehicles in NA push us towards more expensive mini-vans, SUV's and trucks in order to make more profit.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    I think you're committing the sin of letting your bias influence this one my friend. There are luxury taxes, gas guzzler taxes, higher premiums, more cost to operate....and yet the vehicles you hate continue to vastly outsell their demand vastly outstrips wagons...
    The emissions-based road tax on a 2500 Ram is ~$3000/year in Sweden & the cost for fuel is 2-2.5x as expensive. Likewise their taxes are higher across the board, plus their insurance is more as well. It costs my wife's boss about 4x annually what it costs my dad for the same vehicle. Same make, model, year & drivetrain. And about 2x more than what my brother-in-law pays for his Audi wagon.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  44. #44
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I don't agree RichardS

    Read my post #6

    There is demand for wagons but the automakers drop popular vehicles in NA push us towards more expensive mini-vans, SUV's and trucks in order to make more profit.
    I call conspiracy theory clouding your post #6. ...and yes, I did read it before responding. I also keep fairly well read on all things transportation for professional reasons.

    Yes..,there is "a demand", but not enough of one. Seriously, the market actually works and automakers can make you a really uber expensive wagon that makes a damn fine profit.

    Not enough people want it...or will PAY for it.
    Onward and upward

  45. #45
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    I think you're committing the sin of letting your bias influence this one my friend. There are luxury taxes, gas guzzler taxes, higher premiums, more cost to operate....and yet the vehicles you hate continue to vastly outsell their demand vastly outstrips wagons...

    The emissions-based road tax on a 2500 Ram is ~$3000/year in Sweden & the cost for fuel is 2-2.5x as expensive. Likewise their taxes are higher across the board, plus their insurance is more as well. It costs my wife's boss about 4x annually what it costs my dad for the same vehicle. Same make, model, year & drivetrain. And about 2x more than what my brother-in-law pays for his Audi wagon.


    Sweden...nowhere as sparse as Canada. SWEDEN...juxtapose with Volvo and of course the car culture that gave rise to that brand. Volvo has a culture all its own my friend. I had it rammed down my throat for years...

    Different market. Different demands. The taxes are there in North America. Just because people on this side eschewed the wagon from 1984 on is just a reflection on this areas market..,
    Onward and upward

  46. #46

    Default

    The automakers have been pushing the "Bigger is Better" mantra for decades

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  47. #47

    Default

    The rise of the truck-as-personal-vehicle, SUV, crossover, minivan et al has a lot to do with the EPA not charging the gas guzzler tax on them in the US, so it's disingenuous to say it's the marketplace solely that shapes the nature of vehicle purchases. In countries where all vehicles are charged equitably based on their characteristics you don't see a preponderance of super large vehicles.

    The Gas Guzzler Tax only applies to passenger cars. Trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUV), and minivans are not covered because these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely used for non-commercial purposes. The tax is collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and normally paid by the manufacturer or importer.
    Critics of the Gas Guzzler Tax contend that the increased fuel economy of the US passenger car fleet observed since 1978 must be considered in the context of the increased market share of mid-size and full-size SUVs. Many consumers' stated reasons for SUV purchase (comfort, interior room, and a perception of safety based on the vehicle's size) also apply to the now-obsolete American full-size car as produced from the 1920s through the 70s; critics contend that the dominance of the modern SUV is a direct result of the Gas Guzzler Tax.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...as_Guzzler_Tax

    Who keeps the laws in check & from applying to the most lucrative sectors (due to indirect subsidies) of the North American auto market? Why, the "too big to fail" automakers & their lobbyists.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #48
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,683

    Default

    The new Volvo V90 looks boss. I'd get one of those.

    Cadillac offered a sport wagon for a while. I believe it was available in the V-spec. I think it's possible to get the E63 AMG wagon over here, but not easy.

    But agreed, overall, I think we need more wagons. Most of our standard and compact SUVS are essentially wagons with heightened cabs.

    Growing up, I don't think we had anything other than a station wagon. Probably at least 7 different types until my dad switched over to the minivan.

  49. #49

    Default

    And back then you had larger families

    How many people need seating for 7 in a large SUV or Mini-van?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  50. #50
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle
    I think the only high performance sport wagon we actually get in Canada is the low-production V60 Polestar.


    There's the Mercedes E400 and E63. But they're much larger and in another stratosphere of price and especially performance in the case of the E63:
    http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2018-mercedes-amg-e63-s-wagon-photos-and-info-news

    Spectacular car, but a) it won't fit in my parkade and b) I just can't justify that kind of money for a car.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 30-05-2017 at 10:08 AM.

  51. #51

    Default

    My bad, I've got a natural blind spot for Benzes, I find their styling to be very hit or miss so I don't generally pay a lot of attention to them. Nice rides though.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    The new Volvo V90 looks boss. I'd get one of those.
    The new 60s are built on the same platform & will share the new brand styling (like the Thor's hammer running lights) with the 90. Geely have done great things with Volvo, hopefully they have the same luck with Lotus.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #53
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    My bad, I've got a natural blind spot for Benzes, I find their styling to be very hit or miss so I don't generally pay a lot of attention to them. Nice rides though.
    Yeah, I've never much liked MB's, have always been a BMW guy. I'm hoping and praying that they bring over the new 535 touring wagon in a year or two. Otherwise not sure what I'll replace my 2010 535 touring with in a few years. The All Roads are okay, I guess. Never been a fan of Volvo, but might have to take a closer look at the V90.

  54. #54

    Default

    I wanna move to a M2 for summer & a V60 for winter/daily/practicality. I've grown terribly fond of my BMW & they've made a customer for life.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    The new Volvo V90 looks boss. I'd get one of those.
    I don't get the sports wagon thing, and the north American market doesn't either (they don't sell). Why would you pay an arm and a leg for one of those, when you can get a larger XC90 (which is similar to a Ford Explorer in terms of underpinnings) for the same money, with a more comfortable / higher seating position? The fuel economy will be the same. If you want a sports sedan, buy a sports sedan, don't hobble it into something its not (a people mover).
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-05-2017 at 10:39 AM.

  56. #56
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Why would you pay an arm and a leg for one of those, when you can get a larger XC90 (which is similar to a Ford Explorer in terms of underpinnings) for the same money, with a more comfortable / higher seating position? .
    Why buy chrylser 200 when you can buy a caravan? In terms of dollars per volume/capacity/value the dodge minivan is probably the best out there. But many don't buy cars on value alone.

    The XC90 is great. I'd get one if they didn't cost 100K. (I see they start at 60, but they go up to 130K)
    Last edited by nobleea; 30-05-2017 at 10:52 AM.

  57. #57

    Default

    I find high seating & high centres of gravity anathema to an enjoyable driving experience. SUVs drive like crap. Crossovers drive like crap. Trucks drive like crap. Heaven forfend I want to go garage sale shopping & have fun getting there.

    Then again, I drive a car with 2 doors that costs more than it's 4-door sedan equivalent. I'm willing to pay more to get what I want & don't automatically think that bigger/cheaper is better.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  58. #58

    Default

    I get the "performance" SUV thing even less. Nothing wrong with the higher seating position for comfort and visibility, but high centre of gravity and pretend off-road tires are pretty much the antithesis of on-road performance. You're complaining about wagons being a compromise but your proposed solution is a worse compromise. Just get minivan already if you feel that seating position and capacity matter that much.

    For city driving I wouldn't want any kind of "performance" car. all that power would just add to the frustration when in heavy traffic and temptation to speed when it's wide open.
    There can only be one.

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    The XC90 is great. I'd get one if they didn't cost 100K. (I see they start at 60, but they go up to 130K)
    XC90 is basically just a Ford Explorer tarted up. They have the exact same underpinnigs from when Ford owned Volvo. I have an Explorer - very happy with it (I like it more than Lexus 400h I used to own). Its your money I guess, but sportswagons are a very niche market, they don't sell well on the new or used market. I struggle with the concept, it you want an awesome engine and sports sedan performance, sticking a long heavy rear end on it doesn't make a ton of sense. If you just want a comfortable and safe ride, its hard to beat crossovers today, like the XC90, Explorer, Highlander, etc, they perform pretty well too, with unibodies (better than many sports sedans of a few generations ago).
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-05-2017 at 11:01 AM.

  60. #60
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    What noodle said. I do not enjoy driving SUV's, trucks, or crossovers. Wagons are nice because you get most, if not all of the practicality of an SUV, without the compromises in terms of driving dynamics, lack of visibility around you in parking lots, etc. You'll find that most "car guys" love wagons for those reasons. I basically have a lineup of guys waiting to buy my current car, because they're hard to find. And when I asked a business associate what they were intending on doing with their 2013 E63 wagon, he immediately laughed and told me to get in line.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    or used market.


    Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Try to find a used A6 or 535 wagon for sale. They don't exist.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 30-05-2017 at 11:02 AM.

  61. #61

    Default

    ^^ Nope, you're wrong. Ford's platform was derived from Volvo's, not the other way around & that platform has already been retired in favour of a newer one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_P2_platform

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D3_platform

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_...oduct_Platform
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.
    Amen, Marcel.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    ^^ Nope, you're wrong. Ford's platform was derived from Volvo's, not the other way around & that platform has already been retired in favour of a newer one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_P2_platform

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D3_platform

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_...oduct_Platform
    Ford took aspects of Rover (AWD system) and Volvo (platform) in the Explorer - but in essence, they are extremely similar.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Try to find a used A6 or 535 wagon for sale. They don't exist.[/COLOR]
    They don't exist because there is no market for them - even in Europe the sportswagons sell in tiny numbers.

  65. #65

    Default

    Ford value engineered the heck outta the P2 platform to make it suitable to crank out cheap North American cars. That platform was then modified to make the Explorer. Your Explorer is an order of magnitude closer to a Taurus than anything Volvo made.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #66

    Default

    ^If you think so Noodle. If you learn a little more about the auto industry though, you will learn that platforms are normally shared developments now. You can get a fancy auto, or a plain auto, on a similar platform. At the end of the day though, while the driving dynamics can be tweaked a bit, the vehicle is essentially the same. Put a Volvo XC90 next to an Explorer, rip off the decals, change the interior and tweak the suspension / engine, and you have the same thing. If you think that's worth a huge premium - go for it. I've learned its not.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    They don't exist because there is no market for them - even in Europe the sportswagons sell in tiny numbers.
    Hahah no. So wrong. This is now in the level of "THE CARBON TAX JACKED MY ELECTRICITY BILL" levels of wrong for you, moahunter.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    They don't exist because there is no market for them - even in Europe the sportswagons sell in tiny numbers.
    Hahah no. So wrong. This is now in the level of "THE CARBON TAX JACKED MY ELECTRICITY BILL" levels of wrong for you, moahunter.
    Watch a top gear review of a sportswagon sometime, a UK show. They all always lament "why does nobody buy them" (its for the reasons I said)? There are very niche products even for BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc, when compared to their sedan, and now crossover, sales.

  69. #69

    Default

    I'm gonna try and remember to take some pictures in the car park at Arlanda next week to show you how amazingly, stupidly wrong you are about the makeup of the automobile market in Europe.

    E: Top Gear? Really? I mean, they're interesting & entertaining but they're hardly the pinnacle of automobile journalism.
    Last edited by noodle; 30-05-2017 at 11:21 AM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  70. #70
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The automakers have been pushing the "Bigger is Better" mantra for decades

    Now now PRT...seriously?

    You grab an iron tank ad from years gone by, and ignore the gaggle of compact cars and compact car ads that came post OPEC??????

    Weak.

    People like bigger. They are catering to that demand. My 5'2" wife used to drive a Nissan...now it is nothing but a 1/2 ton crew cab for her. She discovered the visibility, and the capability, and won't go back. The market is there, and the market is speaking.

    There is also a large demand for compact cars. Canada does well in sales here. It is in the middle and niche markets that we get a dearth of choice...and that is just because of numbers. We are a small small small market.

    Just because some of you have a pet car that you want here...and it isn't...doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy to make you buy something you don't want. We are a small market, with more defined demographics, and little room for experimentation. Automakers are there to make money. I wanted a Holden Commodore at one time...and it came in a Pontiac G8...only to have GM kill Pontiac. Pontiac was GM's darling in Canada. In the US and elsewhere...Buick outsold Pontiac. Merc's Smart Car sells well in Canada, pathetically in the US. Does that matter to the US. Nope. Welcome to Canada. In pure sales numbers, we don't count.

    I see the same market forces in pest control. Many of the items I'd like, I can't get here in Canada. I need to order from elsewhere. OR...you only get their low end model or the uber high end...no middle. We have a small demographic. WELCOME TO CANADA.

    Sheesh.
    Onward and upward

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Welcome to Canada. In pure sales numbers, we don't count.
    Which is why the complete lack of a gas guzzler tax on non-passenger cars in the US shapes Canadian offerings & has contributed to the rise of trucks, SUVs, crossovers et al. Where the US goes, so do we. Turns out the market tends to like indirect subsidies! In other news, water still wet.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  72. #72

    Default

    I won't argue on the market forces, but re that half-ton...
    As Noodle pointed out, those larger vehicles are cheaper than they would otherwise be if "passenger vehicle" fuel efficiency standards applied to all those trucks and SUVs that are really only driven as passenger vehicles.

    You're not the first one to mention visibility as a positive for larger vehicles, but it is worthwhile to note that that visibility is an asset to the occupants of the vehicle but a negative outside. You may have a better view, but you're harder to see around when you're in a bigger vehicle - the 5m from a corner/crosswalk rule is plenty for a standard car, but it's really not enough when the corner car is a truck or SUV - or my minivan. Not to mention the good ol' vehicular arms race - as cars and trucks get better and better at keeping their occupant safe they've remained just as deadly for those on the outside. Sometimes moreso.
    There can only be one.

  73. #73
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    The rise of the truck-as-personal-vehicle, SUV, crossover, minivan et al has a lot to do with the EPA not charging the gas guzzler tax on them in the US, so it's disingenuous to say it's the marketplace solely that shapes the nature of vehicle purchases. In countries where all vehicles are charged equitably based on their characteristics you don't see a preponderance of super large vehicles.

    The Gas Guzzler Tax only applies to passenger cars. Trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUV), and minivans are not covered because these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely used for non-commercial purposes. The tax is collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and normally paid by the manufacturer or importer.
    Critics of the Gas Guzzler Tax contend that the increased fuel economy of the US passenger car fleet observed since 1978 must be considered in the context of the increased market share of mid-size and full-size SUVs. Many consumers' stated reasons for SUV purchase (comfort, interior room, and a perception of safety based on the vehicle's size) also apply to the now-obsolete American full-size car as produced from the 1920s through the 70s; critics contend that the dominance of the modern SUV is a direct result of the Gas Guzzler Tax.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...as_Guzzler_Tax

    Who keeps the laws in check & from applying to the most lucrative sectors (due to indirect subsidies) of the North American auto market? Why, the "too big to fail" automakers & their lobbyists.

    Thanks for citing wiki....

    The reason that the full size car went bye bye is NOT because of the darn gas guzzler tax.

    The larger, taller population prefers to go UP into their car, and slide out. Not drop into the car, and grind yourself up. The SUV/minvan gained popularity because people WANT it...no matter how much you bemoan it. It blows the old Roadmasters, Crown Vics, 300's, New Yorkers, Bonnevilles, Marquis...etc...out of the water in comfort, road visibility, ride, cargo, versatility, and a feeling of safety for better economy than your Dad's Park Avenue. The market speaks, no matter how badly uber socialist Sanders followers and Scandinavian wannabes want to just tax things they don't like out of existence.

    I have a sedan, a couple sports coupes, and 2 trucks. One is a buckboard wagon F350 for hauling crap, the other is a nice riding and comfortable Avalanche LTZ/Z71. If I want to have "fun" going for groceries, garage sales, need a big trunk, etc....the Grand Prix GXP I have will blow the wagon of the road, has a nice V8 rumble, and gets 9L/100km average. If I want to roar, I can with the other cars. Long trips, the Avalanche is extremely comfortable, gets 11L/100km average, and I can haul all the stuff for camping and even pop up the tent in the bed. So, no need for a wagon. Truth be told, if I had to get rid of any vehicles, the Avalanche would be the last to go. I've lost it to my wife for now...and if I need to use "George"...well, wife is unhappy.

    The Volvos, the Audi's, and others here are nice cars, (and dare I say some cited here are great cars) but could we all please stop pretending that some magical force outside preference and capability is driving the SUV/UUV sales? Tax them with a gas guzzler, and they will STILL sell. Wagons...just....don't...sell...here.
    Onward and upward

  74. #74
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Welcome to Canada. In pure sales numbers, we don't count.
    Which is why the complete lack of a gas guzzler tax on non-passenger cars in the US shapes Canadian offerings & has contributed to the rise of trucks, SUVs, crossovers et al. Where the US goes, so do we. Turns out the market tends to like indirect subsidies! In other news, water still wet.

    NO NO NO NO

    Operating costs are huge. Brakes are 30-40% more. Tires are 50% more in many cases.

    The operating costs are far larger than some simple gas gauge. Yet...magically...people buy them more than a wagon. If it was simply a cost game...the SUV craze would be dead, dead, dead.

    Sales speak. You can try to make up more boogyman forces all you want...the cars you crave...just don't sell.
    Onward and upward

  75. #75
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,332
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I won't argue on the market forces, but re that half-ton...
    As Noodle pointed out, those larger vehicles are cheaper than they would otherwise be if "passenger vehicle" fuel efficiency standards applied to all those trucks and SUVs that are really only driven as passenger vehicles.

    You're not the first one to mention visibility as a positive for larger vehicles, but it is worthwhile to note that that visibility is an asset to the occupants of the vehicle but a negative outside. You may have a better view, but you're harder to see around when you're in a bigger vehicle - the 5m from a corner/crosswalk rule is plenty for a standard car, but it's really not enough when the corner car is a truck or SUV - or my minivan. Not to mention the good ol' vehicular arms race - as cars and trucks get better and better at keeping their occupant safe they've remained just as deadly for those on the outside. Sometimes moreso.
    I'll say it again, parts and operations (MRO) on larger vehicles is exponentially larger. Tires for my old Grand Am were about 1/4 of the cost of the Avalanche. So, the costs are there, sans gas tax.

    For seeing around, there are issues there, but the SUV's of today are not a 1976 F150. The hood design allows for much better forward visibility. The high end German SUV's have excellent 360 visibility. Suburbans, Expeditions, etc...I wholeheartedly agree.

    As for the arms race...with the advent of crumple zones the SUV will be exponentially more survivable than a comparable full size of the 1970's. Those steel tanks were just that. Unforgiving. Yet in crash tests...some mid sized cars fair very well against SUV's.

    I am omitting the desire for people to add bull bars, jack their trucks up unnecessarily, change wheel diameter and width, remove mud flaps...and the gaggle of other stupid things people do with their trucks. But...factory delivered...trucks and SUV's are light years better.
    Onward and upward

  76. #76
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Not to mention the good ol' vehicular arms race - as cars and trucks get better and better at keeping their occupant safe they've remained just as deadly for those on the outside. Sometimes moreso.
    OT, but there's a video on youtube of the IIHS crash testing a 2009 Malibu vs a 1959 Chev Bel Air, both in good condition. Off-set frontal crash. The results are eye opening. The two cars are within 200lbs of each other.

  77. #77

    Default

    ^^ I would rate a 1976 F-150 as a better car to see around than a new truck. Those old beasts were square and hard but new trucks are much higher, even stock. Add in crew cabs becoming commonplace and dark tints all around and new trucks are more of a hazard. SUVs are a mixed bag.

    I can't fault people for buying a car that's safer for those inside, 5-star safety ratings and all that, but it's not just about the SUV vs Car collision. Crumple zones don't come into play when it comes to car vs. pedestrian, but bumper height does. Visibility (mostly larger SUVs) is huge. So is the feeling of vulnerability - I would rather bike and walk in a city where drivers don't feel all safe in trucks and SUVs.

    I do see the value of higher cars than the sports wagons we're talking about. You mention access, and while I'm not sure how many actually want to climb up to the seat, smaller SUVs and even the taller cars/crossovers from the Vibe/Matrix to the Rogue make a lot of sense. Not only are they easier to get in and out, but they get the same capacity on a shorter footprint, making parking and handling in the city easier.
    There can only be one.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Not to mention the good ol' vehicular arms race - as cars and trucks get better and better at keeping their occupant safe they've remained just as deadly for those on the outside. Sometimes moreso.
    OT, but there's a video on youtube of the IIHS crash testing a 2009 Malibu vs a 1959 Chev Bel Air, both in good condition. Off-set frontal crash. The results are eye opening. The two cars are within 200lbs of each other.
    The safest vehicles on the road today are crossovers, like the Explorer, Lexus 350, Highlander, etc. They have the handling characteristics of cars (so no real issue with roll overs that the body on frame SUV's have, esp. with stablility control), modern crumple zones, but are heavier and higher. That 2009 Malibu won't do very well against a jacked up F350 slamming into its side, but you might survive in the cross over. Lexus 350's in particular are incredibly safe - have gone entire years in North America with no deaths. That's not the case with Malibu's.

  79. #79

    Default

    Automakers spend lots of money to lobby to make sure the indirect subsidies to non-passenger cars continue & the fuel economy legislations are relaxed to fit their current product breakdown full of larger, less efficient vehicles.

    Guess they're just wasting their money fighting boogeymen?

    Sorry Richard, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. You're saying the market decided but the market isn't a free market & are refusing to acknowledge or accept that.

    After 1978 it became relatively easier for manufacturers to engineer non-passenger cars, as they were beholden to fewer legislated requirements, plus they were easier to sell as they got an immediate indirect subsidy. And as they ramped up in popularity they became even more profitable as economies of scale prevailed. So that's naturally where they made a concerted effort to shift their customers to through advertising & brand messaging.

    Heck, the entire minivan project at Chrysler started as a big wagon that was immediately made uneconomical by the addition of the gas guzzler tax. But a minivan didn't exist in 1978, so it's exempt, making a bigger & less efficient vehicle cheaper to own & operate, being constructed substantially of car parts.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  80. #80

    Default

    I just rented a 2017 Ford Mondeo Wagon for my 30 day european road trip. $750 CDN for a month with this beauty and a 132KW/400Nm (180hp/295ftlbs) 2.0 litre 4cyl turbo-diesel l 6-spd automatic, 5.3 l/100km

    Gobbs of diesel torque for autobahn cruising


    lots of luggage space
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Heck, the entire minivan project at Chrysler started as a big wagon that was immediately made uneconomical by the addition of the gas guzzler tax. But a minivan didn't exist in 1978, so it's exempt, making a bigger & less efficient vehicle cheaper to own & operate, being constructed substantially of car parts.
    That is another aspect, a mini-van or an SUV is exempt from many auto rules and legislation. More the reason why automakers push them on us rather than many vehicles available elsewhere.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  82. #82
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The safest vehicles on the road today are crossovers, like the Explorer, Lexus 350, Highlander, etc. They have the handling characteristics of cars (so no real issue with roll overs that the body on frame SUV's have, esp. with stablility control), modern crumple zones, but are heavier and higher. That 2009 Malibu won't do very well against a jacked up F350 slamming into its side, but you might survive in the cross over. Lexus 350's in particular are incredibly safe - have gone entire years in North America with no deaths. That's not the case with Malibu's.
    I didn't say that the malibu was the safest - nothing of the sort.
    The video was done to show how vehicle safety has progressed in the 50 years that IIHS has been around. They indirectly take credit for driving some of that safety improvement. I'm sure if you took a heavier crossover today and crashed it against something of similar size, weight, and purpose from 50yrs ago, you'd get similar results.

  83. #83

    Default

    Ralph Nader has saved countless lives in the past decades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  84. #84

    Default

    Language trivia, which might be obsolete these days, but at least into the 1970s a US stationwagon was a UK "estate", and a French "brake".
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  85. #85

    Default

    Learned something today. Thx
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Language trivia, which might be obsolete these days, but at least into the 1970s a US stationwagon was a UK "estate", and a French "brake".
    Turns out "estate car" is still very much in use. For example.

    It may be that the French spelling has shifted since the seventies. But "break" is still very much alive. For example.

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Language trivia, which might be obsolete these days, but at least into the 1970s a US stationwagon was a UK "estate", and a French "brake".
    Turns out "estate car" is still very much in use. For example.

    It may be that the French spelling has shifted since the seventies. But "break" is still very much alive. For example.
    Thanks! I wasn't sure about "brake" vs "break". I have some old brochures for the French market with "shooting brake", the idea being that the car was a country gentleman's vehicle for hunting. Picture a place to stack the pheasants you've filled with lead shot. Same for "estate" in the UK.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  88. #88
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Porsche has used "shooting brake" as the name for their upcoming Panamera: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...rake-spy-shots

    Some angles it looks great, some not so much.

  89. #89
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The automakers have been pushing the "Bigger is Better" mantra for decades

    Now now PRT...seriously?

    You grab an iron tank ad from years gone by, and ignore the gaggle of compact cars and compact car ads that came post OPEC??????

    Weak.
    And where are those compact cars now? The Sprint/Metro/Firefly died in 1994 (the bigger, heavier 1995-1999 version with less interior space doesn't count). The Nissan Micra is back in name only, much bigger and heavier than the original (at least on the outside).

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    People like bigger. They are catering to that demand. My 5'2" wife used to drive a Nissan...now it is nothing but a 1/2 ton crew cab for her. She discovered the visibility, and the capability, and won't go back. The market is there, and the market is speaking.
    Visibility? The visibility from pickup trucks is terrible - you can't see a thing within 3 m of the vehicle, especially if you are on the shorter side. Capability? Sure, if you are hauling bulk commodities all the time or need to tow several tons. Otherwise you are paying for capability you aren't using. I get all the capability I need from a Subaru Outback (one of the closest things to a wagon left on the market) and a cheap utility trailer made from an old tent trailer, and I only need the trailer about 5 times a year. The market has been manipulated by marketing departments and poorly designed regulations. I actually want to see Trump kill the CAFE standards so his successor can bring in a replacement that doesn't unfairly favor larger vehicles and promote bloat.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    There is also a large demand for compact cars. Canada does well in sales here. It is in the middle and niche markets that we get a dearth of choice...and that is just because of numbers. We are a small small small market.
    "Compact car" is automaker doublespeak for mid-size. Real compact cars carved out a small niche in the 1980s and 1990s and have since disappeared. Good luck finding a sub-1000 kg car today.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Just because some of you have a pet car that you want here...and it isn't...doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy to make you buy something you don't want. We are a small market, with more defined demographics, and little room for experimentation. Automakers are there to make money. I wanted a Holden Commodore at one time...and it came in a Pontiac G8...only to have GM kill Pontiac. Pontiac was GM's darling in Canada. In the US and elsewhere...Buick outsold Pontiac. Merc's Smart Car sells well in Canada, pathetically in the US. Does that matter to the US. Nope. Welcome to Canada. In pure sales numbers, we don't count.
    I never understood GM killing Saturn instead of Buick. Chevy = value, Cadillac = high end, Saturn = alternative / niche. Wouldn't that have covered the whole market?

  90. #90

    Default

    RichardS

    You may not like my post of the old Oldsmobile ad "Bigger is Better" but you also ignore the land yachts of the late 60s and early 70s. Car makers are highly resistant to change and profit is their only goal. The bigger the car, the bigger the profits. They attacked guys like Ralph Nader because they wanted to make the biggest and cheapest junk and sell it at top dollar. Installing seatbelts added costs so they lobbied against it but public opinion and the Courts won. It took them a decade to make small cars after the 1973 oil crisis and kept up the marketing to make bigger cars popular again. They push trucks and SUVs with $5,000 & $8,000 cash back incentives which clearly show the massive markups. Take a look at what the size of the first Ford F-150 was and the size of a 2017 version.

    As an example of the lack of concern for their customers, the Chevy Cruze ignition switch was a well known problem for 10 years within GM but they saved a few cents per car and rationalized the legal liability costs of deaths cause by a faulty design. 17 people died and many more were injured because of GM's accountants and legal people.

    The reason why I cannot buy a Subaru Legacy wagon here is not because there is no demand but because Subaru made a choice to not make it available here because the make more money on the Subaru Outback. Now that I was unable to buy a Legacy wagon, the bean counters have their vindication, just like yourself, "See! Customers buy the Outback and not the Legacy" a self fulfilling prophecy.

    The classic example in the former East Germany was the terrible Trabant automobile. The thing was absolute junk but the ost popular car in the country. Everyone hated it but the maker said,"why change, we sell every car we make?"


    My original example of the very popular Ford Focus Wagon where Canadian dealers were selling the low cost wagon at rates of 7 to 3 compared to the sedan and hatchback, what model did they drop? The wagon. Dealers were told by Ford to offer the huge and expensive Ford Edge or the Explorer instead. Gas guzzlers that are more expensive to buy and maintain but PROFITABLE.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 31-05-2017 at 07:17 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  91. #91

    Default

    If people think there is this amazing untapped market for vehicles we can't get in Canada, there is nothing to stop them setting up a company and importing them. If there was money in doing that, beyond a tiny niche of enthusiasts, the automakers would be doing it. The harsh reality though, is attempts at that, turn into painful losses. A good example is the Fiat 500 - people were clamoring for that, now its here, it hardly sells. Another example is the Dodge Dart, a small fuel efficient car, its based on a FIAT platform, and its been a total failure (which disproves the auto conspiracy theories - they just don't sell). The only company that's been able to make a go at selling wagons (although they are really almost "crossovers" like the Toyota Venza) in Canada is Subaru - if you want a pure wagon, an outback "legacy", which is just a legacy slightly jacked up, which it what consumers want - the pure legacy wagons didn't sell well in Canada. That's about as close as you can get, and is the model to buy now that the Venza is being phased out (even that wasn't popular, compared to a Highlander or RAV4). Even in Europe crossovers are the fastest growing segment in the market, they combine the best aspects of safety (higher driving position so less likely to die if you are hit by a monster truck), with the convenience of a wagon, but they look a ton better, and have AWD for the snow.
    Last edited by moahunter; 31-05-2017 at 09:39 AM.

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If people think there is this amazing untapped market for vehicles we can't get in Canada, there is nothing to stop them setting up a company and importing them.
    Except, you know, the law.

    Importing vehicles from countries other than the United States

    From Transport Canada, Canada Border Services Agency
    Did you know that most vehicles sold in countries other than the United States (U.S.) cannot be imported into Canada?
    If you are considering importing a vehicle you bought in a country other than the U.S. you need to know that:

    • It is a criminal offense to import a vehicle into Canada that does not meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act). Offences and penalties are described in Section 17 of the Act.
    • Inadmissible vehicles are denied entry into Canada and detained. All storage and disposal fees are the responsibility of the importer.
    Special circumstances allowing imports from outside the U.S. The following circumstances allow people to import vehicles from a country other than the United States:

    • The vehicle is 15 years old or older, based on the month and year of its manufacture, it belongs to a regulated class of vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) and is not a bus.
    • The vehicle is a bus manufactured before January 1, 1971.
    • The vehicle is non-regulated, meaning it does not belong to a class of vehicle regulated under the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations.
    • The vehicle meets all Canadian standards, and was bought NEW as part of a manufacturer's foreign buyer program abroad. The importer must pre-authorize the vehicle's entry with Transport Canada.
    • The vehicle is a returning Canadian-specification vehicle – originally owned in Canada - and it still complies with Canadian standards. The importer can request pre-authorization from Transport Canada for the vehicle's entry.
    • The vehicle meets all U.S. requirements - bought NEW abroad as part of a foreign delivery program - or a returning U.S.-specification vehicle originally purchased or owned in the U.S. The importer must pre-authorize the vehicle's entry with Transport Canada to import the vehicle. It will then have to comply with the Registrar of Imported Vehicles program requirement at its arrival in Canada.
    http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/motorvehicle...-index-446.htm

    99% of the cars people want that aren't sold in Canada aren't sold in the US either, making them completely impossible to import until they're 15 years old. Which some people do, I know a couple of people with Skylines & Sylvias from Japan, all older than 15 years. That being said, it's not for the casual buyer & a 15-year old used car isn't what we're really talking about here.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  93. #93
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    If people think there is this amazing untapped market for vehicles we can't get in Canada, there is nothing to stop them setting up a company and importing them.


    Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Importing new vehicles to Canada is ludicrously expensive. 15-20k per to do all the paperwork and modifications of lights, bumpers etc at a rough guess. It's totally non-viable. I've looked in to it. The only exception is for vehicles 15 years old or older, where it becomes fairly painless. Hence all the goofballs driving around in right hand drive Skylines.

  94. #94

    Default

    The 15-year rule actually impacts Japanese used car prices for certain models, where a car that's 15 years old will be worth more than one worth 12 or 13, as it can be sold to gaijin overseas.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    If people think there is this amazing untapped market for vehicles we can't get in Canada, there is nothing to stop them setting up a company and importing them.


    Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Really? I sold cars as a teenager, and my brother is a self made muli-millionare from exporting / importing cars internationally. But OK, lets play along ... there is huge untapped market for Euro sportswagons per Noodle and PRT and you, but there is this grand conspiracy that stops any existing automaker, or anyone else setting up a company, to import them... (even though, when they have been imported in a way that meets north American auto standards by automakers, they simply don't sell as well as crossovers). Such brilliance you have, but not such brilliance that you can set up an auto company to import them to meet this huge untapped market you imagine exists (because it doesn't exist, oh no, because of the grand conspiracy, got it).
    Last edited by moahunter; 31-05-2017 at 09:46 AM.

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Really?
    Yes. It's a federal law. See my link.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I sold cars as a teenager,
    ...in New Zealand.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    and my brother is a self made muli-millionare from exporting / importing cars internationally.
    But not to/from Canada unless they're either American or >15 years old. Because laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    But OK, lets play along ... there is huge untapped market for Euro sportswagons per Noodle and PRT and you, but there is this grand conspiracy that stops any existing automaker, or anyone else setting up a company, to import them... (even though, when they have been imported in a way that meets north American auto standards by automakers, they simply don't sell as well as crossovers). Such brilliance you have, but not such brilliance that you can set up an auto company to import them to meet this huge untapped market you imagine exists (because it doesn't exist, oh no, because of the grand conspiracy, got it).
    Amazing how someone so filled to the brim with BS conservative rhetoric can't understand the impact of lobbyists on legislation, how that legislation can affect the marketplace & how the invisible hand of the market can be manipulated to ensure profitability for the lobbyist's employers. It's conservative politicking 101.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Really?
    Yes. It's a federal law. See my link.
    So the reason Subaru chooses to sell crossover Outbacks rather than Station Wagon Legacy's is because of Federal Laws, not because consumers prefer crossovers? ********. If there was a massive market there, they would be tapping it, every automaker would, or someone would set up a new automaker to do it. The sad reality is when automakers bring in wagons they sell in thousands not millions, which just doesn't cut it in North America. Even Cadillac tried a few years ago to fill this "niche" with the CTS Sportswagon, it was a financial disaster for them.

    Last edited by moahunter; 31-05-2017 at 10:07 AM. Reason: sell not sounds

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If people think there is this amazing untapped market for vehicles we can't get in Canada, there is nothing to stop them setting up a company and importing them. If there was money in doing that, beyond a tiny niche of enthusiasts, the automakers would be doing it. The harsh reality though, is attempts at that, turn into painful losses. A good example is the Fiat 500 - people were clamoring for that, now its here, it hardly sells. Another example is the Dodge Dart, a small fuel efficient car, its based on a FIAT platform, and its been a total failure (which disproves the auto conspiracy theories - they just don't sell). The only company that's been able to make a go at selling wagons (although they are really almost "crossovers" like the Toyota Venza) in Canada is Subaru - if you want a pure wagon, an outback "legacy", which is just a legacy slightly jacked up, which it what consumers want - the pure legacy wagons didn't sell well in Canada. That's about as close as you can get, and is the model to buy now that the Venza is being phased out (even that wasn't popular, compared to a Highlander or RAV4). Even in Europe crossovers are the fastest growing segment in the market, they combine the best aspects of safety (higher driving position so less likely to die if you are hit by a monster truck), with the convenience of a wagon, but they look a ton better, and have AWD for the snow.
    All conjecture. Using the Dodge Dart or the Fiat, both cars with a seriously bad history before the latest reincarnation, as proof that "disproves the auto conspiracy theories - they just don't sell" does not prove anything.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #99

    Default

    Gotta love how the guy who says increasing taxes & legislation will be the death of us all can't understand how a radically disparate taxation & legislation burden between passenger cars & crossovers might influence the market.

    (Also, cool on you just ignoring how wrong you are & moving the goalposts by being purposefully disingenuous. You're our own little Kiwi Trump/Ezra hybrid. A Kitruzra, which sounds kinda like an ugly little Japanese kei car.)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  100. #100

    Default

    Moa, your opinion is just your opinion and your example of the Fiat and Dodge Dart are blown apart by the facts

    Will Tighter CAFE Rules Bring More Trucks, Fewer Small Cars?


    The entire auto industry was startled when Fiat Chrysler said two weeks ago it would end production of its Dodge Dart compact car and its Chrysler 200 mid-size sedan.
    The company intends to use the plant capacity freed up to build more light trucks, meaning its popular crossover utilities and pickup trucks.


    Coverage of the news immediately questioned how Chrysler would be able to meet increasingly high fuel-economy requirements from now through 2025.


    But an article in last Saturday's Detroit Free Press hints at a different way to arrange the puzzle pieces.


    What if Chrysler has a better chance of meeting Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards precisely by dumping passenger cars and focusing on trucks?
    While the 54.5-mpg fuel-economy average for 2025 got all the headlines in 2012, the regulations are far more complex than a single efficiency number that every vehicle must meet.


    (For the record, that "54.5 miles per gallon" also translates to around 40 mpg on the EPA-adjusted fuel-economy part of any new vehicle's window sticker.)


    The regulations are graded by "footprint," and smaller passenger cars have a more aggressive ramp (5 percent a year) than larger light trucks (at 3 percent a year).
    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...wer-small-cars
    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...or-suvs-trucks

    How CAFE Killed Compact Trucks And Station Wagons

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...tation-wagons/

    CAFE for Decaf drinkersCAFE (industry short hand for Corporate Average Fuel Economy) came as a result of the 1973 oil embargo, as a means to mandate fuel economy targets for cars and light trucks. Over the last four decades, the standards have evolved, with the latest iteration being the targets set for fuel economy in the year 2025. The 2025 targets were released this summer, and comprise a 1,944 page tome full of arcane language and legalese that, while essential for understanding CAFE, are totally inaccessible to the general public. No wonder, as our Editor Emeritus Ed Niedermeyer wrote
    “…only a handful of experts truly understand the details of CAFE compliance, with its complex system of footprint-based categories, formula and credits.”
    One of CAFEs biggest impacts in recent times has manifested itself in how auto makers classify products. Under CAFE, vehicles can be labeled “passenger cars” or “light trucks”, with the latter category required to meet less stringent standards for fuel economy and CO2 emissions. A decade ago, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was the most egregious example of this.

    Despite being based on a Neon platform and retaining the dimensions of a compact car, it was classified as a light truck by NHTSA. The PT Cruiser was designed to meet NHTSA standards for classification as a light truck, for the express purpose of raising Chrysler’s light truck average fuel economy. At the time, the minimum fleet average for passenger cars was 27.5 mpg CAFE, while for light trucks it was 20.7 mpg CAFE. A small, four-cylinder vehicle like the PT Cruiser was effectively a “ringer” for Chrysler’s fleet average. The year 2000 CAFE targets discussed above translate to 21 mpg IRL for passenger cars and 15 mpg IRL for light trucks. A “light truck” like the PT would obviously have no trouble surpassing these standards.
    In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are. A car such as the Honda Fit, with its footprint of 40 square feet, has to achieve 61 mpg CAFE, or 43 mpg IRL by 2025 to comply with regulations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F-150, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFE, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe.
    How the fix is inOn the surface, the footprint requirements can be viewed as logical; a compact, fuel-efficient car like the Honda Fit, should be able to hit tougher targets, by virtue of its small size, aerodynamic profile and powertrain choices. Without any advanced technology like direct-injection, lightweight steel or aluminum construction or even low-rolling resistance tires, it manages a respectable 28/35 mpg IRL, while offering a practical, fun-to-drive package. The Ford F-150 has a very different mission; it must be large, durable, powerful and able to meet the needs of a full-size pickup, and will naturally be less conducive to achieving the kind of fuel economy that a Fit can.
    Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •