Crossovers in that zone are a pretty reasonable compromise of cost, handling, safety, and ergonomics. They have essentially replaced station wagons and are mostly built the same way, just a little taller.
I agree that they have replaced station wagons but as a station wagon owner they aren't really even close to interchangeable. I don't know why they replaced them.
Compare my Mazda 6 wagon to the Mazda CX-9 crossover. My wagon is almost 25% more fuel efficient (7L/100km vs 9L/100km) but also has MUCH more space. Minimum cargo space of 506L vs 230L. Maximum cargo space of 1648L vs 810L. It has a shorter wheelbase and smaller turning radius. It does have worse towing 550kg vs 750kg but I almost never see anyone towing anything.
Looking at the current Mazda lineup the replacement for the Mazda6 (29 mpg) is the CX-50 which adds AWD and gets 28 mpg or 38 mpg for the hybrid. I was suprised the Mazda6 would have so much more cargo area but in the spec sheet it lists 22 ft vs 31 for the CX-50. So to me the CX-50 looks like more capacity in about the same physical and carbon footprint, what am I missing here?
In Toyota's lineup the RAV4 is basically a tall Camry, and in Subaru's lineup the Outback kind of just got a bit taller and reclassified as a crossover alternative to the Legacy. Of course these companies all have larger and smaller options, but in general it seems like the adoption of larger vehicles is not because smaller ones aren't available, it's because for various reasons customers want to buy them. In any case worrying about exactly what vehicle mix is selling to me feels like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I don't disagree, but I just prefer compact cars. If I had to buy a new vehicle and there were no compacts available, I'd go for a crossover, but I won't like it.
I prefer to drive smaller cars but with stroller, kids' car seats, etc there are some physical constraints on getting everything to fit in a reasonable way.
