4 Jun
2023
4 Jun
'23
4:06 a.m.
The reason for the “station wagon” going ways was the CAFE standards.
The modern SUV is based on a TRUCK chassis, and thus not restricted in MPG ratings from
the US government.
If you have a “station wagon” that is a “car” it is thus subject to CAFE standards.
Ford only makes the Mustang as a car (and that more and more only as an E-car at that),
all other cars are SUV’s.
Look at the car market from the standpoint of CAFE and you see that cars are more and more
based on a truck base
with the fuel economy of a truck. All because the US government is short sighted and
myopic in what may happen if
it choses to enforce some ideas of what fuel economy may be.
Sorry for the rant, and the current ideas of what “cars” are is just beyond me.
David
From a Marketing type:
Don't give me any technical reason why something can't be done.
If you really believed in the product you'd make it work.
David Barto
barto(a)kdbarto.org
On Jun 3, 2023, at 5:12 PM, Alexander Schreiber via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 03:03:43PM -0700, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
So the Mercedes T model was (at least in Germany, the manufacturers country)
never called a "station wagon" because that category name doesn't exist
there. The closest analogue to it in German parlance would be the "Kombi"
class of vehicles. Based upon the more numerous sedan models, but shaped
like a station wagon with a large rear door, a level trunk (usually)
and with the option of considerably expanding cargo space by folding
down the rear seats to provide a flat surface.
And - since demand for that kind of vehicle never went away - there are
still quite a few "Kombi" variants of common sedans. As for why "nobody
makes station wagons anymore, but something like it and calls it a
different name" - I get the impression that station wagons in the US got
a bad rap as "big and wasteful" vehicles. Which is hilarious when you
think about the SUV epidemic that happened (and seems to be getting
worse still) many years later and very much redefined "big and wasteful"
(aside from "silly and dangerous to use due to high center of gravity").
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
> But,
there is another problem.
> None of the auto makers still make "Station Wagon"s!
On Sat, 3 Jun 2023, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Not quite true. VW makes the "Variant"
version of the VW Golf and
Mercedes still makes the "t model" of the C and E class, all of which
are basically station wagons. And I can confirm from experience that
a Mercedes C204 T model fits a complete (fully assembled) IKEA sofa,
so it does have _quite_ a bit of cargo volume (and, once you fold down
the rear seats, a nice long _flat_ loading surface).
Yes, quite true.
As stated previously, that was a gripe about fad terminology.
Note the quotation marks in the original post.
The same as Tony (ARD) being unable to do "Sneaker-Net", due to
unavailability of "Sneakers" within his shopping range of his home.
BTW, the 1992 movie "Sneakers" (was it renamed for UK showings?), with
Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, and James Earl Jones, was one of the first
(if not "The First"), movie to out the existence of NSA.
Many companies make suitable vehicles, but NONE of them are willing to call
them "station wagons". If the Purchase Order explicitly specifies
"Station
Wagon", then will the bureaucrats in purchasing let you substitute a
"Variant", instead of a "Station Wagon"?