Wagons, sparked by ATS wagon speculation

[kevm14]

I love that ATS wagon speculation sparked this entire article about station wagons.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2014012 ... dailydrive

The main reason station wagons were a popular sedan alternative in the pre-SUV era was they offered incredible amounts of usable interior volume, translating into almost unparalleled versatility. They also returned better fuel economy than a truck or van with similar seating capacity -- '90s SUVs offered similar versatility because, even though they generally shared more in common with trucks mechanically, their bodies were basically station-wagon bodies with trucky styling. Open the rear hatch, and you were presented with a station-wagon-like cargo area. There was room for Mom, Dad, the kids and a bunch of priceless Beanie Babies or Pogs or whatever. Gas was cheap, so it didn't matter a Ford Expedition was fuel inefficient. With the SUV filling the station wagon's natural niche, the American station wagon died out, leaving the station-wagon market occupied by small, sporty European wagons -- sport wagons.

Then gas got pricey, and the auto industry responded by building crossovers. The idea was to build a more fuel-efficient replacement for the traditional SUVs Americans clearly still wanted to buy.

With me so far? The author goes on to describe crossovers, hilariously and accurately:

They're basically big, fat cars combining all the biggest drawbacks of some other types of cars. They're about as unaerodynamic as a van, but they don't have as much interior space; they're almost as heavy as an SUV, but they don't have the towing capacity or off-road capability. They're slightly more fuel-efficient than the SUVs whose styling they ape, but not as fuel efficient as a wagon, which could (and used to) offer as much or more interior space.

Crossovers' positive attributes are as follows: 1. They have a high h-point. 2. They look sort of like melted SUVs. 3. They offer more interior volume than a sedan. (That the second attribute is indeed a positive attribute is debatable). Some crossovers are well-executed, but the idea of the crossover is itself basically idiotic.

What about the CTS wagon or Magnum?

This is the part where you point out that previous attempts to sell modern American wagons have been met with praise from the press and indifference from car buyers. I'll concede that point, but I'll also ask you to consider the difference between a modern sport wagon and a traditional station wagon. As much as I loved the Cadillac CTS wagon and CTS-V wagon and as much as I liked the Dodge Magnum, they were sport wagons, not station wagons. Their designers sacrificed interior volume and utility for a pretty, sloping roofline. The CTS station wagon had less rear-seat headroom than a CTS sedan. While that's OK for enthusiasts who need a little extra room, it doesn't work for those who need practical, versatile transportation. In short, they didn't do what station wagons are supposed to do -- what American car buyers need them to do. It's also worth noting they weren't designed or marketed as more fuel-efficient alternatives to crossovers.

There's more so you should probably read the actual article.

[bill25]

I have to admit that I am surprised that the Magnum didn't sell. That was a pretty bad ass wagon in my opinion. It seemed like a decent way for an enthusiast with a family to enjoy the best of both worlds. Some performance since it was based off of the charger and plenty of storage (not sure if it was available with an 8 cyl, and the 6 was weak for that size vehicle). Way better looking than a minivan or crossover (this is obviously an opinion), way cheaper and better handling than a SUV.

If they actually sold, they could have made a more aggressive looking srt version too. I wouldn't be able to afford it until it was like 5 years old, but that's ok.
(looked it up quick - they did do that - nice! )
http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale ... x=10&Log=0

I am usually a GM guy, but I haven't seen a GM wagon that looked better than the Magnum for the price. I am about to read about the cruise wagon...

I agree 100% about the crossover stuff, and hate SUVs, so if I needed the space the wagon would likely be my choice.

[Fast_Ed]

Yep, the Magnum was definately available with a V8. I liked it as well, but was evenutally convinced that it was just too small and expensive for my needs.

Ultimately, I ended up buying my Roadmaster for something less than a quarter of the money that a V8 Magnum would have cost. It needed some work, but that's why we're on this forum anyways, right?

Here's mine doing it's job:

roadmaster towing.jpg

I have never owned or driven a car that got as much attention as this old cruiser, and almost everyone is surprised that it averages above 18 mpg.

I wonder if a Suburban or other proper full framed SUV could be lowered and set up to get that kind of mileage. Still quite expensive to purchase compared to my RMW.

[kevm14]

Well the Magnum was available in all flavors of LX, from the 2.7L, 3.5L, 5.7L hemi and 6.1L SRT-8. Even AWD was available. I think it was more of a midsize wagon. They aren't that long, not all that wide, and the roof is low in the back. That decreases the point of having the wagon in the first place.

For comparison, a Magnum has 27.2 cubic ft cargo space behind the rear seats and 71.6 cubic ft with the seats folded down.
A Holden VE wagon has 31.6 cubic ft cargo space behind the rear seats and 70.6 cubic ft with the seats folded down.

So I guess even a Holden VE is no better than the Magnum with all seats folded down. But perhaps the behind-the-seat space being 16% better would make a difference in day to day use.

[kevm14]

Later model GMT-900 SUVs (and perhaps the 5.3L GMT-800 SUVs) actually get halfway decent fuel economy. But that is moot given the purchase price (they are still worth money).