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
ba...@kdbarto.org
> On Jun 3, 2023, at 5:12 PM, Alexander Schreiber via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 03:03:43PM -0700, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>>>> 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"?
>
> 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
