Why did the sedan die?

Sedans have less cargo capacity so they are shit and you are shit for wanting them to be the norm.

Go buy a Honda sedan for 3K then drive into a bridge abutment you mongtarded piece of grabasstic amphibian shit.

>>17684297
The auto companies make a lot more money on those cars than they do on sedans.

>>17684307
while I agree with you, chill, man

>>17684297
what >>17684307 said
our truck got repo'd and we had to buy a sedan instead
despite the maneuverability I miss the times when I wasn't so easily pushed around

File: 1406121779808.jpg (125KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 960x720px

>>17684297
MAKE HATCHBACKS GREAT AGAIN

>>17684297
Move somewhere else.

>>17684297
>How do we make sedans the norm again?
The sedan dropped into the minority of new car sales quite some time ago. As the older sedans disappear off the road, you will continue to see the ratio of non-sedean to sedans increase even faster.

While carrying capacity is one factor, People like the idea of a bigger taller car that can bully the smaller car if there is a wreck. They also don't want to be in a sedan getting bullied by a truck or SUV.

>>17684297

By stopping Americans from getting fatter.

Good luck.

>>17684297
because soccer moms.
Because a suv is a ''status symbol'' worldwide now.
Unless you are a fucking 7 foot basketball player you dont need anything more than a midsize sedan even if all your friends are like that. But then again, people buy a lot of shit just for ''muh emotions''.
You can ask the same question the soccer moms who buy a fucking AMG mercedes G wagon to be a mallcrawler. 1. Why would you need a luxury offroader, not a compact suv or even a sedan? 2. why would you do everything to that car that makes it shit at offroading and pay extra for it? 3. again why did you need that 100k wasted?

>>17685150
pfft, like that'll even be a possibility.

>>17684297

The Sedan appeals mostly the women, who look for bigger and secure cars. What's the point of buying a sedan then, if Suvs are just that, but better?

>>17684297
Because the government is retarded and tried to make cars more fuel efficient by making the regulations less stringent the bigger the car. All this did was encourage manufacturers to make bigger and less efficient cars.

>>17685188
>the suspension bridge collapses and costs a shit ton to repair- the only need for it is to hold the body so high that you can offroad
>one quick wheelturn and you are on your side.
>fuel efficiency, insurance rates etc etc
>I wonder why?

>>17685173

People actually off-road g-wagons?

I was a firm believer it was a status symbol car to compete with Range Rovers and nothing more.

>>17684297
The reason is twofold - it's both a market issue and a legislative issue.

Market issue: Naturally the market will reflect the consumer, and women and their husbands love these cars since they perceive them as being safer right now due to the higher road position. In a collision an SUV/crossover will be more likely to get struck at a lower point in the chassis (where it is significantly more rigid) meaning the passengers are more likely to escape without injury. This phenomenon will only last until all cars are SUV/Crossovers. The higher driving position means that, in theory, the driver will see more of the road and thus be able to react sooner to developing hazards. These "facts" serve as boons for the general motorist. The fact that they look rugged and "off-roady" is also an appealing factor in the purchasing process. This is often why we see so many people speeding or driving like idiots in their SUV/Crossover during adverse weather because they think their vehicle can "cope with it" despite them having no idea that the car has soft comfortable suspension and quiet road tires so that it feels car-like. Retards gonna retard, I guess.

Legislative: SUV/Crossovers represent the manufacturer chasing safety figures and adhering to safety regulations. A manufacturer has to be seen to be making their cars "safer" and what better way to fluff the figures by flooding the market with these cars which, due to aforementioned safety benefits gained purely by their lower market penetration (as of yet, at least). It's a no-effort way to keep up apperances on the manufacturer's part.

>>17685251
used, old stock, esp diesel g wagons, just like any old proper suv- land cruiser/ nissan patrol/isuzu trooper and murican suvs of that era.
Otherwise pretty much yeah, but g wagon is stiff af, I don't get the appeal of it for street use. It's like a wrangler with a bigger engine and leather seats- what's the point of it in the city, range rover or that bentley suv are obviously better- they look more luxurious and are landyachts.

>>17685241

Women don't care about retarded numbers like that, it looks big and safe, that's all it matters.

>>17685280
You are right.
although modern suvs are not rigid to any degree, esp germans. I crashed into a vw touareg in my chrysler and it had it's wheel and wing deformed, my neon had minor damage in that side.- the bumper cracked and the wing came a bit to my side.

>>17685142
>People like the idea of a bigger taller car that can bully the smaller car if there is a wreck. They also don't want to be in a sedan getting bullied by a truck or SUV.
I can kind of see the appeal of people who buy Crown Vics now. They still want a sedan but also want a car that won't get bullied by trucks and will mow down any Civic in its way.

>>17685251

Outside the US, you can still get a G in farm-tier trim levels.

File: IMG_5092.jpg (78KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x640px

>>17685491
I bought my SUV for the cargo. Makes shopping and xport easy. Third row for travel. Bigger. Can stretch my arms.

>>17685280
More legislative: SUVs count as trucks and are not subject to the same emissions standards as cars.

> sitting at a parking lot surrounded by sedans and coupes

HOW DO WE BRING BACK THE SUVS HURRRRRRRR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq1PK09WqPo

>>17685314
have fun getting sued

>>17685173
You know sometimes people want an SUV because they can carry more than a car ever could. And they seat more than 2 people a hell of a lot better than any sedans do as well. Plus they're generally safer than a sedan. Those are all good reasons why someone would want one.

by making them more practical

ie turning them into crossovers

>>17684297
Meh, I still see plenty of sedans. What I'd like to see make a comeback are two-door coupes.

>>17685150
This.

The majority of truck and SUV drivers are elderly or chunks. There's a reason SUV and trucks match the heights of drive-thru windows. That's not a coincidence, it's market research.

>>17684307
I like sedans but
>mongtarded piece of grabasstic amphibian shit
This made me lol

>>17685491
This is one reason I wanted a panther
>>17685530
My mother had one but we would go camping, had two large dogs etc. It made sense to have a large suv the space and size was used

File: lancia-delta-hf-rally.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>17684456
yes

File: Holden-SS-Storm-wagon-6.jpg (50KB, 1140x643px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1140x643px

If only Wagons were the norm instead of SUVs

Same interior space without being fat turds

>>17685530
I would love a third row. I would rarely use it, but I like the idea of taking the whole group in a single vehicle.

>>17689527
But they aren't safe

>>17689527
I've looked up interior dimensions for both crossovers and wagons, and found that crossovers of similar length usually have more space.

>>17691133
yes they are

>>17685308
Sums it up perfectly. People don't care about actual safety numbers. Only what seems safe and feels comfortable.

>>17685241
>>17685308
>>17691290
Studies show bigger and heavier cars are safer.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/dangerous-information-about-crash-safety

>>17691657
>Studies show that bigger and heavier cars have better safety test results.
These studies ignore the fact that all cars doesn't have the same handling properties.