Wagons are coming back to the US

[Kaido]

I don't know if I trust you anymore. Everyone raves about Honda's CVT.

Maybe they've gotten better. Last Honda CVT I test-drove was when the HR-V came out. Almost as bad as my FCA 9-speed.

 

[agent00f]

I don't know if I trust you anymore. Everyone raves about Honda's CVT.

These guys produce some of the better car reviews on the net, and this is their take on the honda cvt:

https://youtu.be/1HFE2f4eSIs?t=955

 

[Kaido]

These guys produce some of the better car reviews on the net, and this is their take on the honda cvt:

https://youtu.be/1HFE2f4eSIs?t=955

That was basically my experience, it just felt janky. I guess unrefined is a better word. The Nissan CVT (driven several of those) was noisy but smooth. The Subaru CVT is one of the most perfect transmissions I've ever had the pleasure of driving. No weird noises, no power loss, quick off the line, and you basically get power at any speed. I can pull into traffic just fine, I can merge just fine, I can pass on the highway just fine, no complaints.

 

[agent00f]

That was basically my experience, it just felt janky. I guess unrefined is a better word. The Nissan CVT (driven several of those) was noisy but smooth. The Subaru CVT is one of the most perfect transmissions I've ever had the pleasure of driving. No weird noises, no power loss, quick off the line, and you basically get power at any speed. I can pull into traffic just fine, I can merge just fine, I can pass on the highway just fine, no complaints.

I think part of it is that there's no "right" programming for autos and esp cvts which can arbitrarily vary rpm to ratio at a fixed speed. Different drivers have different expectations of what happens when they depress the throttle at differing rates.

For example, in a manual I usually use the low rpm band and the full range of the throttle. So when I "step on it" mostly of the time I don't actually want a downshift. Better transmissions are better at guessing when you want to shift instead of more air to the engine, but some are also better at guessing for certain people.

 

[Aharami]

These guys produce some of the better car reviews on the net, and this is their take on the honda cvt:

https://youtu.be/1HFE2f4eSIs?t=955

production quality is top notch. following them

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I'd consider a wagon. Most people in the US just need to be told that they are cool via advertising.

 

[desura]

Crossover is usually taller and has more ground clearance. A wagon is more like a stretched car.

I had a Mazda 6 wagon for a couple of years. I liked a lot about it but my wife never really cared for it so we traded it for her first minivan. Growing up we had a real wagon with the rear facing bench seat.

Ground clearance is good. It means you can go to more places without your car scraping. And there is no downside to it.

 

[NutBucket]

Except handling.

 

[Kaido]

The V90 Cross Country T6 AWD configurator is up:

http://www.volvocars.com/us/build/wagon/v90-cross-country

HUD is available for $900.

 

[HitAnyKey]

2017 V90 Cross Country is pretty. The problem with Wagon's is the additional space you gain is a bit awkward. And you get that stretched car look that kinda bugs me.
Unless your carrying flat stuff like boards or small boxes, I find an SUV or Minivan more practical and easier to use.

Plus I don't like the fact that wagons make your cargo easier to see than say a Van. But I can see the attraction in some applications.

I remember seeing the 90s Accord Wagon for the first time. Just brutal to look at and I couldn't believe anyone would buy it.

 

[NutBucket]

How is stuff any better hidden in a van? That's ridiculous.

And definitely different strokes as I love the look of early 90's Accord wagons.

And Kaido, definitely sign me for a V90...not a Cross Country though

 

[tsupersonic]

I don't know if I trust you anymore. Everyone raves about Honda's CVT.

I bought a Civic Hatch with a CVT. I have to say, it's damn smooth, especially combined with the 1.5 L turbo motor. Having been in coworkers cars with the latest Nissan CVT (Rogue) and Subaru CVT (Impreza), the Honda just feels a bit smoother.

Anyways, I gotta say, I welcome more wagons!

 

[mindless1]

Doomed to fail, IMO, now that most SUVs aka crossovers are little more than AWD wagons with better ground clearance and visibility. If fuel prices rise enough, then the smaller of the bunch with the best fuel economy may make some traction but those are still competing with hatchbacks. It could make sense for the stereotypical soccer mom, but it always did and nothing has changed today...

 

[Kaido]

And Kaido, definitely sign me for a V90...not a Cross Country though

Hmm...one model X, two V90 CC's, or ten Kia Souls?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

V90 looks so good. And V60 so small. Can't they make a friggin model in between the two? I can't afford the V90 ..... unless I wait a year or two and buy used.

 

[NutBucket]

Have you tried to buy used Volvos? They're not easy to find! Though, it does look there should be plenty of XC90 lease returns in a year or two. I've been seeing a good number of those around.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

No M3 wagon, no care.

 

[ElFenix]

How is stuff any better hidden in a van? That's ridiculous.

And definitely different strokes as I love the look of early 90's Accord wagons.

And Kaido, definitely sign me for a V90...not a Cross Country though

you can close the blinds on a van

 

[NutBucket]

What van comes with factory blinds? And no, a conversion van doesn't count.

 

[ElFenix]

ok, well, what about an old shaggin' wagon that doesn't have windows at all?

 

[agent00f]

2017 V90 Cross Country is pretty. The problem with Wagon's is the additional space you gain is a bit awkward. And you get that stretched car look that kinda bugs me.
Unless your carrying flat stuff like boards or small boxes, I find an SUV or Minivan more practical and easier to use.

Plus I don't like the fact that wagons make your cargo easier to see than say a Van. But I can see the attraction in some applications.

I remember seeing the 90s Accord Wagon for the first time. Just brutal to look at and I couldn't believe anyone would buy it.

A minivan is basically a taller wagon and an SUV a jacked up wagon. The perceived differences are mostly marketing.

Doomed to fail, IMO, now that most SUVs aka crossovers are little more than AWD wagons with better ground clearance and visibility. If fuel prices rise enough, then the smaller of the bunch with the best fuel economy may make some traction but those are still competing with hatchbacks. It could make sense for the stereotypical soccer mom, but it always did and nothing has changed today...

Generally the suv/crossover spots in a manu lineup work by scaling some sedan/passenger platform upwards and pricing it closer to the next sedan platform; which is fair enough given similarities in interior/size. Eg. rav4 closer to camry than corolla, q5 to a6 than a4. So long as there are camry buyers there are probably folks conducive to a differently proportioned/packaged car of similar price level.

 

[Demo24]

V90 looks so good. And V60 so small. Can't they make a friggin model in between the two? I can't afford the V90 ..... unless I wait a year or two and buy used.

Remember the current v60 platform has technically been around for about a decade. A new one is supposedly coming later this year. In the meantime it'd be xc60, which just got unveiled.

 

[HitAnyKey]

A minivan is basically a taller wagon and an SUV a jacked up wagon. The perceived differences are mostly marketing.
.

Your kidding right? The amount you can carry in a Van versus wagon or even an SUV is quite a bit. As I said the Wagon is a decent option and better than a hatchback and more agile than an SUV but it has compromises.

"The 2016 Toyota Sienna has 39.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats, 87.1 cubic feet behind the second-row seats and 150 cubic feet with the third row folded and the middle-row seats removed, which is easy to do."

You can carry your buddies, bikes, and camping gear in a Van pretty easily. Good luck doing that in a Wagon or even SUV. And you get decent gas mileage on the highway. Privacy in van is pretty obvious. You can't peer into a Van as easily as anything else.

Like I said the Wagon is decent for smaller applications, like a quick trip to the beach with board but it just doesn't cut it for trips that need much more space. Volvo has a history with the Wagon but don't expect that many companies to follow suit.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Cadillac brought back the wagon back in 2010. This CTS wagon didn't sell very well, and I imagine the Buick wagon won't either.

When I was a kid, do you know what we called a Cadillac wagon? The answer is, a "Hearse".

If you really want a wagon, here you go http://www.gmfleet.com/cadillac/professional-vehicles/coachbuilder-hearse.html

 

[agent00f]

Your kidding right? The amount you can carry in a Van versus wagon or even an SUV is quite a bit. As I said the Wagon is a decent option and better than a hatchback and more agile than an SUV but it has compromises.

"The 2016 Toyota Sienna has 39.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats, 87.1 cubic feet behind the second-row seats and 150 cubic feet with the third row folded and the middle-row seats removed, which is easy to do."

You can carry your buddies, bikes, and camping gear in a Van pretty easily. Good luck doing that in a Wagon or even SUV. And you get decent gas mileage on the highway. Privacy in van is pretty obvious. You can't peer into a Van as easily as anything else.

Like I said the Wagon is decent for smaller applications, like a quick trip to the beach with board but it just doesn't cut it for trips that need much more space. Volvo has a history with the Wagon but don't expect that many companies to follow suit.

I can assure you it comes as no surprise to anyone that a bigger box can carry more stuff than a somewhat smaller box. But you might also see from the this relationship that this somewhat smaller box can carry more stuff yet than an even smaller one. Given some experience with boxes, you would become aware that their utility function does not scale linearly with size, which is why most of the public is fine with a sedan, therefore somewhat more with that somewhat larger box in a wagon which was the case before they became unfashionable in the US, and so on.