AutoblogGreen

No snide remark this time, Jeremy. :) Just wanted to mention that this trend from Detroit is the complete antithesis of the general trend in the market where small cars are outselling large vehicles even when the latter are available in many more models.

http://tinyurl.com/2rmt9l

The automakers just don't get it, do they?

Reply

"There is a cycle in the automotive industry of enlarging cars with each and every redesign."

Yup. People buy them, too. Looks like there aren't enough of us folks who would be satisfied to drive a smaller vehicle to matter much to the auto manufacturers. I was a bit disappointed that I couldn't find a new pickup truck smaller than the 4-cylinder Tacoma. Even the GMC Sonoma has gotten too big, heavy, and gas-hoggish.

Maybe when gasoline hits $6/gallon...

Reply

But does the new Accord use more gas? I don't believe it does. So what's the harm? There are plenty of small cars out there (Rabbit, Yaris). But few would consider a Corolla a small car, but it does almost as good as the Yaris and better than the rabbit.

Reply

Mike Z, the "harm" is that the fuel saving technologies used to maintain the larger Accord at almost the same fuel consumption levels (22 city vs. 23 city in the 4 cyl manual 2007 vs. 2008) could have been used to greatly reduce consumption had the size and weight remained constant. They could easily have decided to make a 30 MPG combined Accord (I believe they now call this a "Civic") and made a real Civic (i.e., one that isn't Accord-sized) in the 34-35 MPG range. The same point needs to be made to Bill Richardson. Simply because we can, through technology, create an SUV that has the same economy as, say, an Accord doesn't mean that it's "okay" for everyone to drive an SUV. They will ALWAYS require about double the amount of energy to propel than a sedan/wagon using similar technologies.

Honda isn't to blame for this necessarily (gov't safety regulations and consumer behavior certainly are co-conspirators), but they do seem to be embracing (if not encouraging) the larger-is-better mentality. Certainly their decision to go for a performance hybrid vs. an economy hybrid in the Accord (and their subsequent decision to kill it) is pathetic and speaks poorly for their judgment in this regard. I'm not a Toyota fan, but at least they seem to "get it" with regard to fuel economy (the new monster Tundra notwithstanding). They let the Camry be a Camry and brought out an Avalon to service the large car market. Honda should have done the same, but their one size (presumably a "biggie size") fits all mentality seems to be contrary to this, and I for one find it incompatible with current reality. Oh, and don't get me started on Acura...

Reply

Fugly Accord

Reply

Fortunately, the new V6 has great mileage. If you look at the mileages, they're impressive for large cars. In fact, i don't think these cars are much heavier, despite their external size. Bigger =! heavier. In japan, a big portion of the nose is hollow, so don't let the size fool you into thinking theres a lot of metal.

I also can't wait for the diesel. Im a proud owner of a fit, but if the diesel gets better mileage, which is possible even for a "large sedan", then I'd get that. Of course, if there are engine swappers to put a diesel engine into a fit...

Reply

It's kind of funny and here I am waiting to get a car smaller than my Aveo.

Reply

Not to mention something capable of better fuel mileage than that archaic 1.6L, Randy. ;)

I like the Accord...but it IS way too big.

Even the Fit is considerably bigger than my '95 Civic hatchback.

Reply

This one is actually fairly obvious. Someone who bought model X from brand Y years ago was happy with it and would like to trade it in for a new car. Where are they going to get the best trade-in price? Correct, at the brand Y dealership. If their needs, preferences or disposable income have changed significantly, they may look at a different model. Otherwise, the default will be to just buy the latest version of the same, trusted model. Inertia beats shopping around.

However, with the passage of time, it is very likely that the customers' needs have changed at least slighty simply because they're older, less fit, possibly a little fatter than they used to be. So they want more space, a smoother ride, lower noise levels. They also have more stuff to lug around. At the same time, if they are still working, their lives have probably accelerated a little, as have those of the Joneses next door. So, they want more oomph under the bonnet. Oh, and more safety. You can never have too much safety. Fuel economy? Well, no worse than before is usually considered good enough. The attention currently paid to MPG/CO2 emissions is atypical.

Throw in that car companies only get one chance every so many years to sell you a vehicle at all and, it becomes obvious why product marketing negates any and all efficiency gains in the drivetrain by increasing vehicle size and gadget count. They want to maximize revenue and profit, which means selling you all the car you need and then some.

One rare exception is the new Mazda2, which is actually lighter than its predecessor. But it's the exceptions that prove the rule.

Reply

Compare the new accord to an accord from two generations ago.
5 speed autos vs. 4 speed autos.
The 2.4 HO of the new accord is probably faster than the V6 of the 6th generation, and it gets better mileage (but the gen. 6 accord should have gotten a 5 speed auto for the 2000 or 2001 model year, not wait under the 2003 model year)

The new 3.5V6 gets good mileage on the EPA test (kind of explains the odd firing 4 cylinder mode), but in the real world will the 3.5 & 5 speed auto be able to run on 3/4 cylinders at or faster than 85mph.
Will it be able to get 25mpg@85mph? 20mpg@100mph?

Honda tacitly makes you get good mileage, because the transmission selector on has D5 D3 2 1. It drones by 50mph if you leave it in D3, so you upshift to D5 to save your sanity.
In grade logic we trust must be honda mantra.

Reply

All the comments are on point I think (especially rgseidl's), but I will throw in others.
1. Car quality has improved. As it improves cars last longer. As cars last longer more and more younger/lower-income buyers buy used cars. Average age of new car buyer in the USA is now 45 (no typo). As age of buy goes up income of buyer goes up and thus demand for bigger car. Note how Toyota introduces Scion and Yaris to "infill" under aging buyer base... if they don't the last person to buy a Toyota will be 97 and it will be the size of a Crown Vic.
2. Americans are getting fatter. Demand for larger cars thus goes up. That may sound flippant, but I have seen too many surveys where car buyers list "ease of ingress/egress" as a key buying factor.
3. The damn law of unexpected consequences in MPG. As MPG for most cars (year-on-year) goes up, the pain of higher fuel prices recedes. If my Bonneville boat got 6 MPG darn tootin I want something smaller. But if even my Camry gets 25, well, not so much pain is there?

But (at the risk -- no, certainty -- of getting horribly flamed) let's face it, the enemy is us, too. It's fun to blame the carmakers but if we really cared we'd all switch to one car per family, make it a used Civic or VW diesel Golf, and cut out the family vacations to the Grand Canyon. There are cars out there right now that get great MPG and are small, but it is easier to blame someone else for our own refusal to buy them. Believe me, if the new long-lower-wider Model X did not sell, while prices of used Aveos went through the roof, the automakers would follow the money.

While I am ranting, this all reminds me of a neighbor I have who wanted to "buy green." He deleted the Prius because the "styling was ugly," the Yaris ditto, the Versa as likely to break (he had had a problem with Nissans before), the old diesel Golf because stations with diesel pumps were too far from his house, etc. etc. Ended up with an Infiniti SUV but had the nerve to tell me "the car companies don't make anything I can buy."

Reply

Like you said, it's a cycle.

As I see it, the person who first bought an accord in the 90's now wants a new car, and if the car served them well, they're going to seriously consider the newer version of the accord.

Now, that person who owned the accord from the 90's probably is older, has a bigger family now, and probably makes more money. Thus, the car will meet the needs of their customer and it is larger, and more expensive.

However, there is always that new car buyer. So of course, there is and always will be a "small" car available. However, the defenition of "small" has gotten a little larger in the past decade or two. But with all these new small cars otu now, I think the market is starting to develope truely small cars. In 20 years, we'll all be reminicing about how small the yaris once was.

Reply

Here's a big issue. The NEED for SUV's/Trucks hasn't gone up drastically since the mid-90's (I quote no source other than common sense), its just that people started to like them more as they became more road-worthy. Then as more were bought, other people started to worry about their safety in their small (in comparison) civics, and decided that a larger vehicle was safer. It became a snowball effect. The more SUV's purchaced, the more people saw how unsafe their cars were and switched to bigger. Also add in the "I've got a big-expensive vehicle, look at me" factor.

If people who don't need their big SUV's switched to Civic-sized vehicles (which fit 90% of the population), the chances of running into SUV's decrease. This would alleviate a big source of CO2, fuel-inefficiency. Then we could look at other factors of global warming. Its not a cure-all, but it helps a lot.

Lets not forget, there are peole who need big trucks/SUVs.

Reply

If everyone paid the real cost of driving heavier cars, the cars would slim down. Not only do heavier cars consume more gas, they are harder on roads. I think cars, trucks and especially SUVs should be taxed on a sliding scale as to how heavy they are, and those funds be used to start rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. They should also be taxed by the gallon at the pump to pay for carbon offset. Then these funds would pay a private company to build artificial trees to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.

As a poster said, people drive SUVs and big cars because they like them. I totally agree with this, I like them too. But part of the reason folks like them is that they're still relatively cheap; the cost being hidden in CO2 emissions and the future damage that can cause.

We could start fixing this problem TODAY with some real leadership based on science, not voter philandering and a hand in the oil lobby's pocket.

Reply

It's amazing that even the small cars of today don't get close to the 51 - 60 mpg that the Honda CRX did some 30 years ago.
There's something wrong with this picture.

Reply

This is one of my pet peeves. A 2008 Accord weighs nearly 1000 pounds, or 40%, more than a 1988. It doesn't hold 40% more passengers or carry 40% more cargo. Yes, it offers more comfort per passenger, although I suspect that the difference is not that great unless carrying the full complement of 5--and I further suspect that people who carry 5 passengers on a regular basis will still want something configured differently than an Accord sedan. And yes, it is safer, although that safety equipment doesn't account for the entirety of the weight gain, as I have seen some people try to argue. Probably most of the gains in safety came with the first 500 lb, by 1998.

As for the argument that repeat buyers may want a larger car, Honda may be forgiven a bit since the Accord is their largest sedan; but Toyota, which has usually sold a larger sedan (Cressida, Avalon) continued to enlarge the Corona/Camry with each generation as well.

And it's not simply a matter of, well, I used to buy an Accord/Camry, but now I should buy a Civic/Corolla. Even the import manufacturers seem unwilling to offer some high-spec equipment on their smaller, or now midsized, models because they assume that people who want to pay for that equipment will want, or at least accept, the larger car.

I fantasize about the technology used to keep the 3.5l V6 delivering acceptable fuel economy while pushing around the excess lard used on a 2.5l V6 in a midsize sedan weighting less than 3000 lb.

And now Mazda has taken the lovely Mazda6 and ballooned it into a mess, festooned with random styling elements borrowed from competitors. People who are satisfied by the driving experience of a Camry are not going to magically consider a Mazda6 just because Mazda makes it longer, wider, porkier, and more generic-looking, and the experience of the similar attempt with the last-generation 626 seems to have taught them nothing. I now dread what may to happen to the Mazda3 when it gets redone. Sigh...

Reply

"There is a cycle in the automotive industry of enlarging cars with each and every redesign."

A cycle reverts upon itself, like during the late 1970s when ever larger cars got a rude awakening with the combined onslaught of an oil crisis and smaller cars from Japan and Europe coming into the North American market.

Either you're right, Jeremy, that this is a cycle and the house of cards will fall again, or if we can expect ever larger cars for the foreseeable future, then the use of the term cycle is not appropriate here than perhaps "trend" or "pandemic."

Reply

>> Honda tacitly makes you get good mileage, because the transmission selector on has D5 D3 2 1. It drones by 50mph if you leave it in D3, so you upshift to D5 to save your sanity.

Even this has an uninteded side effect, in an admittedly small niche market: I know of people who use minivans to tow popup campers who now refuse to buy Honda. D3 is too low a ratio for working up a modest grade while towing; D5 is too high. There is no way to maintain 4th grear (i.e., no D4), so the tranny constantly hunts.

Reply

Exactly Phil L.
I trust my own eyes and brains, more than I do Honda's grade logic.

Shame on them for putting the same BS transmission interface on their 'pickup' the ridgeline, and fit (non sport), and odyssey, and pilot, and CR-V, and element, and civic.

It seems like Honda only give acura the manumatic interfaces. It must be a premium feature to control one's gear selection.

Reply

or you could just buy a manual with better mileage...

but who wants to mess with that silly 3rd pedal nowadays...

Reply