The front end creates a lower coefficient of drag - which is why even Tesla uses a teardrop shape instead of a van.
Maybe someday, but not any day soon. The problem with the “box on wheels” is that is is terribly inefficient due to aerodynamics. That means it will cost A LOT more to produce because it needs a larger battery (compared to a more aerodynamic vehicle) and perhaps also requires stronger motors.
1 Like
And the customers don’t care one whit. Nonsense uttered by my SUV driving coworkers “I like to sit up high”, “I feel safe in my SUV”. Of course, they cry a river about the cost of fueling the thing, as they poke the remote start button, ten minutes before quitting time, so the car is suitably heated or cooled before they sit their tender backside into it.
What will that ten minutes of heating or cooling time in an EV, while the car sits motionless in the parking lot, do to the battery charge?
Did I ever mention that people are idiots?
Steve
2 Likes
Yeah - but I think that’s wrong. I think it reflects a fairly old-fashioned view of the auto consumer. I think it’s been many decades since most people really prioritized “fun to drive” in vehicle purchasing . People don’t choose between a Civic or an Accord (or a Rav4 for that matter) because one is particularly more fun to drive. One is bigger (more room for passengers and cargo) but more expensive. There’s two models because consumers make different choices between those two things.
As you’ve pointed out upthread, SUV’s have been displacing not just station wagons but sedans writ large - but it’s not because SUV’s are more fun to drive than sedans. It’s because they are practical, roomy, comfortable and are very flexible in what they can be used for. And the main reason that they haven’t replaced sedans entirely is because sedans are still significantly cheaper than SUV’s (other things being equal).
I think you’re completely missing the point of why there are so many model types. It has virtually nothing to do with “fun to drive.” It has everything to do with a balance between what the car is being used for (how many passengers, how much cargo, how comfortable is it to be in the car) and budget/size constraints. Unlike phones, the size and shape of “the box” matters a lot to the core functionality of the vehicle. That doesn’t change if the car drives itself.
Why won’t we just see everyone driving (or being driven in) vans? Because to a first approximation, size = cost. Sedans are cheaper than SUV’s are cheaper than vans. Batteries are also probably going to continue to be expensive enough so that greater wind resistance = cost as well. So while tooling around in a full size van might allow the greatest amount of passenger comfort, that extra comfort will come at extra price. And it’s that trade-off between price and vehicle size that’s driven the segregation of the auto market into different vehicle classes (and thus models) for many, many decades. It doesn’t go away with autonomy.
I would like to see the actual variable cost of building, say, a Ford Fusion, vs a Ford Explorer. I bet they aren’t that different, but Ford can charge more for the Explorer, because it looks bigger, and many people are willing to pay up for the extra bulk, increased price and running costs be darned.
So now, everyone and their cousin is building small and midsized SUVs, so SUVs are now suffering the same margin erosion that sedans saw when everyone made sedans. So Ford is running away from that competitive environment too, to the ultra huge end, where there are fewer players.
Steve
That’s probably wrong. The Explorer doesn’t just look bigger. It is bigger. Significantly bigger. The Explorer is a full six inches wider, eleven inches taller, seven inches longer, and about a thousand pounds heavier - seating seven passengers instead of five with larger interior passenger and cargo areas:
There’s no way it’s the same variable cost to build, even if you were providing comparable trim levels in the two models.
What is the part count? Sheet steel doesn’t cost that much. It’s all the machining, and forming, and assembly, that ramps up the cost. A V6 in a Fusion is going to cost about the same as a V6 in an SUV. That was always the problem the big three had with compact and subcompact cars. They were smaller, but the part count was so close that, if they used the same markup over cost, the compact’s price would be so close to that of the “full size” car, that people would not see the value in the compact. In the teens a lot of companies tried to break in to the low end with “cycle cars”, spindly little things with a capacity, often, of only two or three people. The cycle cars failed, because you could buy a Model T, and get a real car, for the same money, maybe less, thanks to Ford’s volume to amortize overhead.
Steve
1 Like
It makes sense to put seat warmers and seat coolers in every vehicle, even if only 20% of buyers ever use them? And I would be shocked if regulators allowed safety features to be turned off if an owner didn’t pay up. Emergency braking, pedestrian detection, forward collision alerts, you’re going to let Ford install them but not use them if you don’t pay up? Let’s see how long that bright idea lasts.
I’m sure that automotive companies would like to get people hooked on subscriptions, and I suspect they will find a couple (self-driving, probably) that will work, but overall I’m going on record saying this is more talked about than likely to be a major revenue source for the automakers. Heated seats? Ha!
Yeah, and that’s not gonna happen either, as long as we live in a horizontal world. There will be some, sure, just as there is Uber and Lyft (and taxis and busses etc), but most people giving up a personal car? No.
Is that true? I would think a bigger engine with more horsepower (which the Explorer has, compared to the fusion) would need bigger and stronger parts and cost more than a smaller, weaker engine.
The correlation between vehicle size and cost is so strong and persistent across almost every manufacturer that it would be very surprising indeed if smaller cars cost no more to make than larger ones. And it would be very counterintuitive. A larger car needs more of everything - extra steel, extra glass, extra carpeting, a full extra row of seats. No doubt the higher price provides a stronger trunk to hang further price increases on - but I don’t think it’s plausible that the manufacturing costs for two such different sized cars could be identical.
As my good friend Eric Clapton says, ‘ang on, ‘ang on, ‘ang on. Well, he’s saying “hang on” but it sounds like ‘ang on. I digress.
Ever wonder why all white SUVs look similar? It isn’t style. It’s because all car designers own wind tunnels. That shape isn’t for looks, it’s for fuel efficiency.
Probably why that Tesla truck shape looks so bizarre, too. Wind.
I doubt we’ll ever see that box on wheels form-factor again.
Unless wind changes.
2 Likes
Well, we might. That’s the form factor that GM appears to be aiming towards for its Cruise self-driving cars:
But those are intended to be pure robotaxis - so the cost in wind resistance (and increased size and weight) is likely to be outweighed for GM by the benefits of the form factor for running a taxi service. For private ownership, though, those benefits would be far lower - so we probably won’t see that form factor too much for private cars.
If, by “van shape” you mean flat front end, that is pretty terrible for air resistance .
Hmm, lots of misconceptions here.
I doubt you can find any study showing that a minvan like the Honda Odyssey is less aerodynamic than an SUV like the Ford Explorer. In fact, there is evidence that it is the opposite.
Station wagons and minivans were built around efficiency. They were more likely to go on long-distance journeys and offered a smooth ride, regardless. This means that they were more aerodynamic than an SUV. Why Do All SUVs Look The Same? (Like Station-Wagon Minivans!) | Motor & Wheels
This is the reason why SUVs are increasingly looking like minivans.
Nope:
Cost . On average, minivans cost less than 3-row SUVs. https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/suv-vs-minivan/
For most people a cost/benefit analysis between an SUV and a Van will favor the Van. The only reason people who don’t do a lot of off-roading choose an SUV over a van is marketing.
But here’s the thing, once you get rid of the ICE engine, there isn’t any reason for SUVs to have a hood and elongated nose. Remove those and you have the shape of a Van. That’s the shape of future electric SUVs.
Not completely flat. Like a Honda Odyssey.
1 Like
Well, for example, a 2020 Fusion in most trims, had a 1.5 or 2.0 turbocharged 4. while a 2023 Explorer in most trims, has a 2.3 turbocharged 4. Yes, the Explorer has a larger displacement engine, producing more power, and sucking more gas, but it is the same form factor, hence same part count. Being a newer design, the Explorer has a 10 speed transmission vs the Fusion’s 6 speed. I learned a trick about those high gear count transmissions at the Aisin booth at the show several years ago. While a 6 speed will have 6 clutches and gear sets, a 9 or 10 speed will have gear sets to give high and low range, for the other gears, so a 10 speed can have high and low range gear sets, with 5 gear sets, for a total 7 vs 6 for the older trans, so, again, not much difference.
Going down the line, a Fusion SE and the Explorer XLT have just about the same features.
Edmunds gives 5 year total cost to own of the two, using an AWD Fusion SE to cancel out the AWD on the Explorer, because, somehow, the industry has convinced people they “need” AWD to drive on paved, suburban, streets.
Fusion: $46,262
Explorer: $61,078
Of course, what it actually cost Ford to build each is a deep, dark, secret, because Ford wants to propagate the narrative that they can’t make any money on passenger cars, rather than, potentially, gouging the daylights out of people on SUVs, while being forced to accept a thinner margin on a passenger car. (of course, now, Farley is admitting they can’t get the margin they want on midsize SUVs either, anymore, so he wants to abandon that market too)
Steve
Van. Not minivan. You were talking about vans, which are typically bigger and taller than minivans or SUV’s (on the whole). And more expensive. Bigger = more expensive. Minivans tend to be the same size as SUV’s and have the same footprints as sedans - just styled differently, with the primary difference being the seat configuration and sliding door. Vans are bigger vehicles - longer and typically much higher than minivans. The Cruise Origin is more of a van body type (with a height of more than 80 inches!) than a minivan.
Maybe. But most future electric SUV’s are likely to have more highway driving than vans (not the Honda Odyssey - that’s a minivan, and has the same elongated nose and hood as SUV’s), so wind resistance and it’s effect on fuel economy is still going to be a factor.
Some of us remember the derisive laughter when GM pasted big, boxy, front ends on their minivans, to make them look like SUVs. Now, seems the surviving minivans are going that way, because people seem to want, or have been convinced, they want big, big,BIIIIG.
Except, again, it’s a much bigger vehicle. More steel, more glass, more carpeting. It has an entire extra row of seats. Given the vastly higher weight, it’s going to have a different (and bigger and more expensive) suspension and braking system, bigger wheels and tires, etc. All of that adds manufacturing cost.
As noted before, the cost of commodity materials is not that great. It is the fabrication that rings up the costs.
Yeah, but you still need to fabricate the larger product. A bigger tire costs more. A bigger brake rotor costs more. Adding two additional windows, or going from two rows of seats to three rows of seats isn’t just a “commodity materials” increase - you’re adding more stuff to the car. More outlets, more seatbelts, more cupholders, more everything - and the stuff that isn’t more is bigger.
This isn’t a conspiratorial Ford thing - every auto manufacturer charges more as you step up in the size of the vehicle class. The Explorer costs more than the Fusion, but an Accord costs more than a Camry.
Moving up the value/cost ladder makes for better profit margins, so this is not to claim that Ford’s motives are saintly. But it’s just kind of implausible that Ford’s manufacturing costs for a vastly larger vehicle would be the same as the smaller one.
I’ve explained this at least once previously, either in this [long] thread or in another discussing EVs. There is a big difference between ICE and EV when it comes to efficiency -
- For ICE, lower efficiency simply means that the customer needs to spend more on gasoline.
- For EV, lower efficiency means two things: 1. Manufacturer needs to spend more on batteries, meaning that vehicle will be more expensive, and 2. Customer needs to charge for longer periods of time and pay for more electricity.
No, I don’t think that a minivan is much more aerodynamically efficient than a similar sized SUV. But that wasn’t what I understood and replied to - I understood your assertion to be that almost all consumer vehicles, sedans, coupes, small SUVs, etc will transition to more boxy vehicles that are mostly autonomous. And my reply is that there will still be a place for sedans in that world due to higher efficiency (in EV-land, that means “smaller battery”).
Now that I think about it, 90+% of my uberlyft rides have been in sedans, and only a few of them have been in SUVs, and only once a minivan. If you’re wondering why, it’s because the uberlyft driver wants to spend less on fuel. When I was in SF a few years ago, the most common uberlyft vehicle I ended up in was a Prius!
1 Like