Repair-It

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.

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.

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.