thing, foxmouth, etc.
I think you probably have an incorrect view of what manufacturers seek to achieve when certifying and marketing a general purpose aircraft.
Most punters are looking for speed, range, useful load, slick instruments, and a bit of style (note massive success of Cirrus).
Most manufacturers are looking to, meet certification requirements, have a manufacturing cost that allows them to make money and not set landmines to step on and get sued.
Given the certification requirement for crosswind component is a minimum number (i.e. they must positively demonstrate that the average joe can land in a crosswind of 0.2Vso) and almost no one seriously evaluates an aircraft on that number, why would they sweat it to go for a big number.
Now an aircraft marketed as a 'get in and out of the shortest, wildest, boulder strewn mountain strip with radical cross wind and turbulence' may well benefit from a massive maximum cross wind component and obviously rugged gear, but this is marketing as there is no certification requirement for how smooth or rough the landing surface can be.