Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
I barely squeaks by the CTS by <2% and you think that makes it a success?
This generation sold <15% of what the TrailBlazer sold in the same amount of time. (Not counting the other SUVs on that platform).
It also has yet to match the yearly sales of the Escalade from 2003-2007, proving that even luxury owners prefer a real SUV.
|
However, the Escalade is being outsold about 3 units to 1 today by the SRX. According to your own logic that would be proof that luxury owners prefer crossovers to SUV's, wouldn't it?
And did you seriously compare the sales of a Chevy to a Cadillac, from a time when the US car market was about 30% bigger, credit was easy, and jobs were reasonably plentiful and secure to ... well, now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
You guys just don't get it. When a bunch of clowns run around telling everyone that fossil fuel is a "bad habit" and then punishing people for using it, the folks are naturally going to migrate down a path that promises no punishment, even if it is less desireable in other ways.
|
What exactly is so great about a body on frame SUV when you a) never go off road; b) never tow anything; c) never haul anything (besides the family)?
Most people who bought SUV's at their peak of popularity didn't really use them as SUV's. Mainly, they liked the size, they liked the look. They didn't like the gas mileage (even at $2.50/gal they didn't like it ... let alone 4 or 5 bucks) and weren't overly happy with the truck-like ride and handling of them either. So, when there are alternative packages that provide comparable interior volume, with the same truck-like appearance, with only a small penalty in fuel economy and handling compared to a large sedan -people
will want them. They actually make
more sense for these buyers than SUVs. They are
better than SUVs for the vast majority of buyers.