Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

SUV vs Minivans

2456737

Comments

  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    I am very glad we didn't buy the Odyssey we had put the deposit down on. It was nice, but we would have needed a cargo trailer to go on any vacations, and we don't have room to park a trailer where we live.

    Not saying I disagree (since I've never tried to load up either one) but I'm wondering about your assertion that the Suburban holds more than the Odyssey. They are spec'd at about the same space (Sub at 138 cu ft and Ody at 146). I realize that the shape of the area is a bit different, but when I pack to the gills, I use all the height as well. Granted that pulling a trailer gives that advantage to the Sub, obviously...but that didn't seem to be your point.

    I'd really like to know how you evaluated them cargo-space wise. I have a Pathfinder now and I consider the Odyssey a very practical vehicle. Someday, I won't have to tow anymore.

    thanks,
    Tom
  • cavillercaviller Member Posts: 331
    "I'm not sure that getting car seats in and out of the third seat in any car is really a breeze. That is just something that has to be put up with for a few years. There are other more important (imho) factors to consider."


    As you said, each family has different needs. IMHO, the most important thing for my family is safety and that includes seatbelt systems and easy access for proper carseat installation every time. Motor vehicle crashes ARE the #1 cause of death for ages 1-14. Also, while the big SUVs can accomodate 1 more passenger than most minivans, keep in mind that many DO NOT have a lap/shoulder belt in the rear center seat. Such a position is unsafe for kids in boosters and adults, and is only useful for a harnessed carseat.


    We find the cargo space in Odyssey very similar to Expedition and the eariler Suburbans (don't know if 2001/2 has more room than the 2000).


    No need to restate the other points that have already been stated regarding safety, but here's some more food for thought:


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/

  • kingwkingw Member Posts: 6
    With respect to cargo room, I only know that the Suburban "seems" to have more cargo room. It probably isn't as "tall" of a space, but it is deeper and wider. That works better for me for loading groceries and things like plants. You can't stack them.

    The earlier Suburban was bigger. At least ours was. It was a 94.

    With respect to seat belts, I agree that a lap/shoulder belt in all positions is ideal. I would definitely like to see that. We do use the center seating positions some, but generally every child is in a shoulder belt. Four kids, four shoulder belts in back. I've got one large enough to sit up front now too. I do think about all of those things... there's a lot to consider. I remember obsessing over cargo flying around in an accident when I was told that a person had been killed in an accident by a flying kleenex box(?). A person could go crazy trying to prepare for every possible hazard in an accident. You have to do the best you can with the information and other assets that you have (i.e. $)

    I personally would like to see bigger mini-vans. They are well thought out, well designed(usually), but just not quite big enough. I don't even like how close the rear seat passengers are to the rear bumper on a mini-van. I've been rear-ended a few times in my life, but never been in a roll-over accident. I have seen a mini-van that had been rear-ended. The hatch door was up against the back seat. My husband and I both cringed when we saw the relatively small distance between the rear passengers and the rear bumper on the Honda Odyssey. Everyone has their perspective.
  • kingwkingw Member Posts: 6
    I do want to add that I think rollover resistance ratings are an issue. NHTSA is a great source. Safety is the most important issue when carrying your family. The Suburban gets three stars, the Odyssey gets four. The Dodge and Chrysler mini-vans get three stars. I am not sure that those statistics indicate that the Suburban is much less safe rollover-wise that mini-vans in general (The Venture gets three stars, the Sienna, Windstar and Villager get four stars) but it could do better. They all could. They should all be getting five stars. Heck, we put our most precious cargo in them... The fact that stands out when reading the stats on rollovers, is that the cars that most of us put our kids in (vans and suvs) are a lot more likely to roll than a sedan or traditional station wagon. It's kind of scary.
  • UNC81UNC81 Member Posts: 1
    My wife uses a scooter and wheelchair for mobility. The chairs are placed into the rear of our minivans ('94 Villager and '00 Sienna) by Bruno lifts. This system works well in both. However, the Sienna's rear opening (41") is just tall enough.

    We would like the option of a luxury SUV. Unfortunately, few SUV's have rear openings of 41" or more. The Toyota Sequoia's (a favorite of mine) opening is 38 1/2". The Lexus RX300's opening is much shorter.

    Our problem could have been solved by a true luxury minivan. Mercedes had one planned, but it was killed by the merger with Chrysler. To my knowledge, no luxury manufacturer has such a minivan planned. Hybrids and SUV's are the luxury vehicles of choice. I do believe that there is a market for such a luxury minivan. The minivans' idea of luxury is video entertainment systems for kids. D.I.N.C.'s and empty nesters do need to haul antiques, fertilizer, camping gear, and suitcases. We need a wheelchair. Why is there no option of a such minivan?

    In addition, SUV's and hybrid's with larger openings would also offer more options for hauling objects.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    What about the minivan based SUV's such as the MDX, Pilot, and Rendezvous?
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    1999 GC Sport with 29N

    30K summary

    Miles Covered: 29,913
    Running Cost : $2,767.49
    Running Cost per mile: 9.25 cents

    Gas consumed: 1,460 Gallons
    Cost of Gas: $2,030.57
    Average Economy: 20.5 MPG
    Best: 28.1 MPG
    Worst: 13.4 MPG

    Maintenance Cost: $736.92
    Maintenance Cost per mile: 2.1 cents

    Gas Cost: $2030.57
    Gas Cost per mile: 6.8 cents

    Miscellaneous costs: 0.35 cents per mile

    (Still working on Total Cost of Ownership with depreciation and insurance)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Those are among my favorite types of posts. I need to update my spreadsheet - it's been 15,000 miles since I last played with my TCO :-)

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • mendez1mendez1 Member Posts: 4
    In 1996-2000 I owned a Ford Explorer and presently I own a Dodge Caravan SE. Of the two, the caravan wins. The dodge fits my babies child seat and her baby bag. My wife's belongings (pulse, jacket etc. The dodge also has enough room to fit five more people comfortable. Let's not forget that the mini drives is smooth and isn't as noisy as a big Suv. Also the mini doesn't need a ladder to get into it. OH, it won't cost you alot in gas. My friend bought the big Lexus 470 and he pays between 300-400 dollars a month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "There's just no beating a minivan when it comes to getting the most comfort and utility for the money."

    Choices are diverse for still-popular style

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    I had a 97 Gr Caravan, it was garbage. SPent more than 4 mos in the shop in less than 2 full years, lost arbitration, finally traded it in at a significant loss because I did not feel that my family was safe in this automobile.

    Today I have a 02 Suburban, it is safer, larger, holds as much or more, does more, the kids, my wife and I all like it, it is safer in the 3rd row seats. I can go on but won't.

    I will say it cost more (how much is relative to bells and whistles) for the 4wd, insurance is similar (more but not by much), and fuel costs are greater for me.

    But I will trade the added safety of my Sub and the versatility of it, and its added quietness (that may since have been refined in the MV), for the extra cost of gas.

    The rest is a wash, in my book that is. By the way, my resale is higher (by a lot) and the auto may last significantly longer too, but that may also be attributable to the individual.

    Look at the Edmunds cost to own data and if memory serve me, the MV is 3 cents per mile less?

    Just some data/details that you may not have been aware or cared to show some other readers/posters.

    By the way, Steve, you wouldn't be piling on, when a person shares you worldview would you?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    If I was "piling on", I would have posted this story from the Auto Headlines instead. Only thing else SUV or MV related today was Saab's decision not to make a SUV.

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    By the way, even Consumer Reports states something to the effect the Suburban carries more than most Mini Vans.

    They must have cornered the ping pong ball market.

    And, SAAB is just making that decision for now. You know if anyone out there was really smart they would take the best out of the MV, the SUV and the Large Wagon and market them to the masses. Not like the Mercedes or BMW types but as a safe, versatile, similar -- can do type vehicle.

    Too bad the Madison ave types added to the designers prefer to stick with what got them to the show rather than improving on it once there.

    You know despite my experiences with my MV, the creation of them was a gutsy move, now they need to address the versatility of the MV/Wagons with the features of the SUV and take it to the next level.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    By the way what might have happened had they victims been in anything else?

    If not at least as big (or bigger) than the MV?

    Gee, I'd hate to see this article posted on the other forum! It could prove the argument of the day, that these boxes might just be kinda safe afterall.

    Also funny that the model and size of the SUV was not named. Heck it coulda been a CRV -- smaller and lighter, hit, rolled and no major injuries, what if it ahd been a NEON, then 2 dead people?

    Or it could have been a Suburban, (how it would roll is beyond me though), but again safety wins.

    Or it could just be that being t boned in a SUV lets the SUV victims have the protections that they paid for (or thought they paid for).

    GeeZ! It rolled and no one was seriouly hurt when the evil MV transferred risk to it by broadsiding the innocent SUVers.

    Nah, I must be dreaming.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Which article? (I hope I'm not repeating myself ).

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    By the way, even Consumer Reports states something to the effect the Suburban carries more than most Mini Vans.

    Suburban: 138 cu ft

    MVs
    Chevy Astro...170
    Chrysler T&C...168
    Chevy Venture...156
    Chrysler Voyager...147
    Honda Odyssey...146
    Pontiac Montana...141
    Toyota Sienna...134
  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    Well, I'll be...er, darned.

    When I first clicked on the "headlines" link, I got a list and the one I was referring to was the one about "Why Folks buy SUVs" ( I forget the exact title). But when I just clicked on it now, I got a different list...so...never mind.

    I'm deleting the post since it's wrong...
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    The one linked as 'story'.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    While Consumers did not provide the Data for the Astro or its Safari twin, the following was provided:

    Suburban
    Cargo volume, cu. ft. 77 Max. load, lb. 1,610
    Town and Country
    Cargo volume, cu. ft. 73.5 Max. load, lb. 1,150
    Chevy Venture
    Cargo volume, cu. ft. 75.5 Max. load, lb. 1,365
    Honda Odyssey
    Cargo volume, cu. ft. 67 Max. load, lb. 1,250
    Toyota Sienna
    Cargo volume, cu. ft. 63 Max. load, lb. 1,160

    Looking at the differences in cargo volume one must assume that the vehicles, if used for one of their intended purposes the Suburban beats all the others in both volume and weight tests.

    Steve how come the Consumer's numbers and the Edmund's numbers are so different?

    Is it that built in pro-SUV bias Consumers has?
  • cavillercaviller Member Posts: 331
    Today I have a 02 Suburban, it is safer, larger, holds as much or more, does more, the kids, my wife and I all like it, it is safer in the 3rd row seats. I can go on but won't.


    I can go on a bit-


    There's rollover risk, and the extra energy absorbed by the passengers when a rigid truck-based vehicle hits another truck-based vehicle or a wall or a pole. There's also the inferior handling and braking, and the lack of side impact and offset crash tests (and the mediocre offset performance of Ford/GM full-size pickups which have been tested) for large SUVs. Don't forget about the severe danger they pose to compact cars. You mention Consumer Reports, they have an ongoing preference against truck-based SUVs. (Most recently, see the sidebar on p. 55 of the May, 2002 issue)


    You might consider some of the links at the bottom of this page before assuming a large, truck-based SUV is safer than a top minivan:


    http://www.car-safety.org/family.html



    "By the way what might have happened had they victims been in anything else?


    If not at least as big (or bigger) than the MV?"



    Keep in mind the minivan is lower to the ground than an SUV and would be more compatible with a passenger car. With a unibody frame, it will also tend to crush better in a crash. Mass does not play a significant factor in side impacts as it does in frontal impacts, and that is one reason why you can compare side impact results across weight classes. I suspect a mid or large sized passenger car with decent side impact ratings would fare at least as well, primarily because it would have much less risk of rolling.


    I'd much rather have my family in a Windstar, Sienna or Odyssey than any SUV. Of course, I don't do serious towing or off-roading.


    Cheers.

  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    Just trying to add some missing information to the picture. If you prefer the MV good for you, I have had both and I don't.

    In this side impact mass clearly did play a role, the crush zones you speak of are in the front and rear, not the sides (to my knowledge), and bumpers have been significantly lowered in most if not all SUVs (late/new models) my bumpers meet my wife's (hers is a 00 Accord), fianlly, in the case of one auto accidents, I have not seen enough evidence of the statistical significance of the SUV in this type, in other words if memory serves, the once car accident is usually NOT a SUV, so the point while never moot, may be less of a concern.

    The MV has a 3 star rollover rating (most of them anyway) the Suburban does as well.

    The Suburban received 4 stars to both front passengers.

    The Suburban, Yukon XL, and Land Cruiser are the only full sized SUVs recommended by CR.

    The Suburban has some kind of crush cap (similar to to a cumple zone in the currrent model.

    I am not stating that one is the only way to go, there are many factors, I have had both, I will not return to the MV, it does not meet my needs, wants or planned uses as well as the full sized SUV.

    Just a few more cents for anyone looking for more information and a fuller picture (clarity does not come from me) it must be determined by those making decisions.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    Do you live in an area where snow prevents you from getting milk and other provisions for the kids, I do. The 4wd is a blessing under those conditions. We also use it to fish at the beach (Delaware).

    Remember I am making a case primarily for versatility, and not trying to wage war with someone who happens to prefer something else. That is your choice, if you are happy then so am I.
  • cavillercaviller Member Posts: 331
    In this side impact mass clearly did play a role, the crush zones you speak of are in the front and rear, not the sides (to my knowledge),

    I assumed by 'broadsided' the article meant a T-bone. Front of MV struck side of SUV. In this case, the SUV is lucky it was struck by a minivan; the unibody minivan would crush in front, while a ladder-frame SUV would not have crushed as easily and more energy would have been transferred to the SUV being struck.

    In this crash, the vehicle being struck is not moving toward or away from the oncoming vehicle, so it's mass would not be as significant a factor as it would be in a frontal crash. Of course, the mass of any steel in the doors where it is being struck would be important, as would their design. Unfortunately, most SUVs don't have side impact crash ratings for comparison...

    I encourage you to read the FAQs about crash testing at the NHTSA and IIHS sites, as well as the statistical links on the page I provided as a background.

    The MV has a 3 star rollover rating (most of them anyway) the Suburban does as well.

    The Suburban received 4 stars to both front passengers.


    Incidentally, the MVs I mentioned, Sienna, Windstar and Odyssey all have 4-star rollover ratings, 5-star frontal crash test ratings, 4-5 star side crash ratings and "Good" IIHS offset crash ratings. With the exception of the Acura MDX, which shares the wide 66" track of the Odyssey, you can't buy an SUV with a 4-star rollover rating. Also, you can also check the rollover risks in the Kimmel index ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mauto695.htm ). Suburban is indeed among the better SUVs in this index, but still not as low as Odyssey or Windstar...

    The Suburban, Yukon XL, and Land Cruiser are the only full sized SUVs recommended by CR.

    CR produces a separate Safety Assessment (4/02 edition, pps 15-25). While Odyssey, Windstar and Sienna get "Excellent" safety ratings, many larger SUVs are unrated, partially because no offset or side crash tests have been performed.

    Incidentally, in my April, 2002 Consumer Reports, the Suburban did not get a "Recommended" overall rating. The Land Cruiser was the only one (p.25) that did. The June, 2000 issue also has some comments about CR's preference for minivans and SUVs, starting on p. 50.

    Remember I am making a case primarily for versatility, and not trying to wage war with someone who happens to prefer something else. That is your choice, if you are happy then so am I.

    Each person has their own definition of versatility. I prefer the large doors, easy step in height, flexible seating and easy 3rd row access of a minivan. You need serious off-road capability, fair enough. On the other hand, you did specifically mention safety in your previous post, so I responded with my opinions.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Member Posts: 1,081
    I'm sure you didn't make those numbers up. To some degree, it's a problem of different sources measuring different things.

    Those look like "volume behind the 2nd seat" numbers...as opposed to total volume.

    C&D gives the following for the Sub:

    • to Seat 1...138.4
    • to Seat 2...90.0
    • to Seat 3...45.7

    I think Consumers does its own measuring (the ping pong balls) so their numbers are a bit different. I think most (if not all) other sources (like Edmunds) give a govt standard measurement.

    Which is more accurate or more reasonable, I don't know.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    budmelon "Mazda MPV 2000+" May 9, 2002 8:05am

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • bob57bob57 Member Posts: 302
    I don't remember if I posted this or not but on the local TV news a while back they had a short thing about SUV's, safety, etc. The closing sequence was a young woman (~18) standing beside her (?) rather large SUV saying, "This thing weighs 6000 pounds - NOTHING can hurt me".

    Excuse me but that has very little to do with it. Yes, the heavier vehicle may come out better versus a Yogo or something but I got the impression she (and others her age) now think they are impervious with a large SUV.
    Are we giving the children the impression that you are now safe and will endure zero injuries driving a monster SUV built for invading small countries? I've seen more SUV's stacked up in crashes than MV's but that could be due to more SUV's on the road - or are we thinking impervious again?
    Just a thought...
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    You are seeing much of what you want to see. On another board here the SUV injury/fatality rate is a bit (insignificant) lower than the % of SUVs. While the injury/fatality rate of small cars is more than double the % of small cars.

    THis suggests many things among them that SUVs in general large ones in particular are safer than most others on the road.

    By the way, USA today had an article in March? that stated that the safest 3rd row occupants are in full sized SUVs. They specifically mentioned the Suburban as an example. The death rate of 3rd row occupants in rear-end collisions (what speed I have no idea) in MVs is about 75%. In the Suburban it is 0 -- at least that is what the article said.

    Just more fodder for the cannon.
  • cavillercaviller Member Posts: 331
    Good point. Bigger, heavier vehicles do fare well against small, light compact cars. Of course, they often do so by slaying the passengers of those cars. Unfortunately, they fare poorly against other rigid trucks and in single vehcle crashes against walls, poles and rollovers.


    The biggest fallacy is that we are not all safer by driving massive vehicles. Yes, drivers of the big vehicles do gain an advantage against smaller vehicles in the transition. But when the vast majority have adopted big trucks, we are all worse off than had we not given into the trend. More mass and stiffer frames means more energy in crashes and less ability to absorb that energy in the frame.


    Incidentally, here are the death statistics. Note that minivans do very well:

     http://www.iihs.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t1.htm


    Here is the article on 3rd row safety:

     http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002/03/01/third-row.htm


    Some additional reading:


     http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3409.pdf

     

    http://aceee.org/pubs/T021full.pdf

     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/

     http://www.aps.org/units/fps/jan02/a2jan02.html

     http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/suv980622.html


    Jaw2000-


    No offense or intention to wage war as you put it. I understand there are various reasons that large SUVs are a good choice. I don't feel that safety is necessarily one of them, at least compared to some of the top minivans, sedans and wagons that may serve the purpose for many people who don't ever use their large SUV for serious off-roading or towing.


    Cheers!

  • stacystacy Member Posts: 91
    I am one of those struggling with the decision - Ody or Denali XL(basically a Suburban w/ AWD which the Ody is lacking). I read your thoughtful and extremely informative posts AND links and I just about decide to get the van and then worry - although I am well aware of your viewpoint and reasons. I'm still undecided. Basically, because of the 3rd seat so close to the glass. My two eldest will be sitting in that backseat, ages 2 and 6. I will check out the above sites soon but I had a moment and wanted to tell you that I appreciate your posts and they really are helping us.
  • cavillercaviller Member Posts: 331
    Extended wheelbase minivans do have reasonable room to the rear hatch. Not as much as the biggest SUVs, but certainly more than smaller minivans and midsize SUVs with a 3rd row of seating.


    Rear impacts are not very common according to the statistics (Crashtest.com and NHTSA FARS database). Severe rear impacts that cause seat failure are even more rare. The problem with 3rd row seats would be compounded if you frequently have multiple heavy adults in the rear that would further load the seat back, especially if they are seated in a position without a shoulder belt and/or headrestraint (which isn't safe anyway).


    Kids in harnessed carseats have an advantage in the third row. They are much lighter, and won't load the seat back as much. Plus, a 5-point harness is going to prevent ejection even if the seat back does fail, and that was a major concern of the author. Finally, the shell of a high-back carseat will provide protection from intrusion and whiplash. All in all, I'd be much more hesitant to put a 2-3 adults back there than small kids. Here are some more threads for reference on this issue:


     http://boards2.parentsplace.com/messages/get/ppcarsforthefamily37/5.html


     /direct/view/.ef08e67


    Another link that might be helpful:


    http://www.car-safety.org/carguide.html


    Hope that helps!

  • pilkopilko Member Posts: 22
    I currently have a Dodge Caravan and have to go on family trips with two adults (including myself), one baby in car seat and a 70lb dog.

    For safety reasons I do not like the dog unrestrained in the vehicle. ( For anyone worried about third row safety, have you also thought what happens when a 70lb dog goes flying around in an accident?) I can either use a dog safety belt or keep the dog in a cage behind the rear seat. If I use the safety belt on the third row then the luggage space is tiny. Even in the Grand Caravan the luggage space is not large. I don't consider the portion of the luggage space that is higher than the rear seat of any use, again because of flying objects.

    We always go to Michigan for Thanksgiving and Christmas. This is a 300mi drive for us and we practically always see snow. Emotions at those times probably mean it is difficult to make the right decision if conditions look bad. For this reason we would really like 4wd when we go.

    Two of the vehicles that come to mind are the Suburban/Yukon XL and the Dodge GC AWD. I don't really like large SUVs because of the excessive weight/height and truck based structure compromises but it would have much more useful luggage space and the depreciation on a GC AWD is just terrible.

    I know access to the third row of the Suburban has been critisised by many, is it any better if you get the 2nd row bucket seats?

    Anyone care to comment on how they transport a dog on family trips?
  • stacystacy Member Posts: 91
    Access to 3rd row of Sub is much better w/ capt. chairs. The only way to go, if you dont need seats for 8. Regarding the dog situation - I used to show a Rott and ALL the show people use cages to transport their dogs in their vehicles. Many of these dogs are worth a living to these people so I think you ought to put the dog in a cage and be safe and strap the cage to the trunk space as best you can. Good luck.
  • dplachtadplachta Member Posts: 109
    I just played around with Edmunds new Total Cost to Own feature and was amazed at the total cost difference between a minivan and SUV.

    I compared a Honda Ody to a Chevy Trailblazer EXT. 34,342 vs. 51,043. $16,000!!!

    That's a lot of cash to throw around if you're just looking for a family vehicle.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    Because when I did the same with the Suburban vs. Chrylser T&C it was pretty close.
  • rudy2000rudy2000 Member Posts: 32
    True, MV's and SUV's seat 5 to 8 people, but that's the only similarity. MV's relate to station wagons and SUV's relate to crew-cab pickups. Some people buy a MV to haul people and cargo with an easy to maneuver and park platform. While still other people buy an SUV to haul people and cargo into rough terrain. To compare the two is likened to apples and oranges. I bought a MV because I live in the city with lots of traffic and tight parking spots. I have no need to take my MV off-road or into rough terrain. Besides, I dislike SUV's. If I needed to get into rough terrain, I would buy a crew-cab pickup. Rudy
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    Why the crew cab pickup vice the SUV? Cost is similar, and the SUV might have lower fuel costs (I can't figure out why), but most are lighter than their truck siblings, and lower ins costs as well.

    By the way, having owned both (MVs and SUVs) I will say that MVs maneuver better than SUVs -- those of comparble size, it is still poor when compared to sedans. So even that trade off is not enough for me.
  • ody01ody01 Member Posts: 100
    Odyssey 7 adult more comfort Trailblazer 5 adult. Odyssey more space luggage 7 adult than Trailblazer 5 adult. Odyssey much better gas mileage 18/25, Trailblazer 16/22 (15/21 4WD). 3rd row seat difficult access any SUV.
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    My opinion: you can't make a rational comparison between an Ody and a Trailblazer. Ody is kiddie van, Trailblazer is macho machine--takes 7 qts. of oil and accelerates by wire!!
  • tj_610tj_610 Member Posts: 132
    Don't know if this has been addressed, I'm new to this board and just read the last 20 or so posts. But the biggest difference between MV and SUV for us is the power sliding doors. Until the kids can clamber into seats on their own, nothing beats them. Haven't seen an SUV with this feature, and probably never will.

    Regarding the weight issue, the false sense of invincibility is definitely a concern. I live in central NC, and we don't get snow often, but have had a few large storms in the last few years. Lots of SUV's driving too fast, IMO. But a fact is a fact - vehicle mass is a major factor in crash outcome. But most MV's aren't exactly lightweights.

    jaw2000 - Your Cost to Own comparison of Suburban to T&C isn't fair. Edmunds had to factor in the cost of a new Chrysler transmission every three years LOL. OK, just kidding, no flame wars, please. I'm just a happy Odyssey owner who still lusts after a loaded Limited T&C every now and then.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    I had a Grand Caravan and never lusted after any other MV, and now owning a Suburban I am glad I do.

    If I had to own a MV it would be the Odyssey (there is no other competitor as far as I am concerned).

    My youngest is 3, 4 in mid September, she who is of averager size for her age, can and does get her own door, in fact she gets upset if we get the door for her (entry only BTW).

    I like the idea of auto open/close doors, but that, to me is a short lived convenience. On the other hand since I never had the pleasure of having it (were not available when I had the MV), I may not be a good judge.

    But I can say, if the cost comparisons are that close, and the other issues are strictly of convenience, I'd choose the versatility of a SUV over that of a MV 7 days out of 7.
  • dplachtadplachta Member Posts: 109
  • tj_610tj_610 Member Posts: 132
    I think your last sentence is on to something. It's convenience vs. versatility. I like convenience. Of course, everyone's concept of the two terms will differ. Regarding versatility, our MV handles our "off-roading" just fine - occasional unpaved roads and rare accidental trips onto the shoulder LOL. And we don't tow.
    But I THINK (no proof here, just perception) many people have needs that would be suited just fine by a MV, or even a regular sedan, but get an SUV for "image". Not you, jaw2000, it seems like the Sub is right for you. But I see a TON of single-occupant Expeditions, 4Runners and even Land Cruisers around here without a scratch on them and with like-new, untouched trailer hitches on them.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    You are joking right?

    I can carry 8 adults, and at least 8 medium sized suitcases (with none on the roof), I can take my SUV to the edge of the continent (4wd on the sand, in DE I do this at least 6 times a year and yes I have permit to do so), I can take my family (4 of us) on a 2 week vacation and all our stuff (and with 2 youngsters) of which there is ALOT, and not one thing goes on the roof. I can go to the store when it snows to get necessities. I can carry all the supplies I need to build a fence (including bags of concrete for setting the posts) all in one trip -- and if needed with 4 people in the car and not overload it. I can tow about 3k lbs more than with any MV -- except the Astro.

    This is just for starters.

    Look I had a 97 Gr Caravan, so I am not making any of this stuff up. Every thing that I have noted I have done (ok I only took a total 6 folks), but I did have my old dog with us -- half golden half yellow lab, weighs about 120 lbs.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    You are quite perceptive. I see them too, in fact I am one of them almost everymorning. I can't afford one car for commuting and another for all the other stuff we do. But in the same vein, you also see (sheer numbers here) just as many 1 person, pickups, and MVs and other big vehicles as well as many full size/mid size vehicles that have just 1 person in them. I make the assumption that they use these autos to satisfy numerous things that I may not (or may) see depending on where I am and the time of day.

    It comes down to stigma and double standard if you want my opinion. Here's what I mean, I could buy a Silverado loaded, crew cab, put a shell on the back and the differences on the outside will be pretty minor, but with my Suburban, I have a carpeted sound improved bed and a 3rd row of seats (that by the way, according to USA today is far safer for the occupants if we are rear ended than any MV and most other 3rd row SUVs). In the other hand, the truck weighs more and gets poorer MPG. But the truck is looked at no big deal, and the SUV -- that is the more versatile of the 2 for a family, is looked at solely as a image gas hog thing.

    Go figure.
  • cavillercaviller Member Posts: 331
    "I can carry 8 adults,"

    I hope, for their safety, that all have a lap+shoulder seatbelt and head restraint.

    "You are quite perceptive. I see them too, in fact I am one of them almost everymorning. I can't afford one car for commuting and another for all the other stuff we do."

    Again, you appear to be the rare exception. I see countless one-person monster SUVs in our area; many don't even have a towing hitch. At $35-50k+ for these loaded 4x4 Suburbans, Land Cruisers and Excursions, I suspect the majority could indeed afford two more suitable (if less trendy) and safer vehicles for their actual needs. For most, those needs don't include off-roading or towing. Even our modestly equipped Odyssey LX and Subaru Outback combined cost less than some of the largest SUVs.

    We could have purchased a trendy monster SUV, but opted for a MV since we don't tow or do serious off-roading. A FWD minivan with traction control is more than suitable for bad weather conditions in urban areas, and with a good set of snow tires it's probably as good as most 4WD SUVs.

    Plus, according to the crash tests, we have a vehicle that gets 5-stars in every frontal and side impact test and a "Good" rating from the IIHS. Combine that with a crushable unibody frame which provides better ride-down time, and I'll take my chances with our minivan over any SUV in any frontal crash, which are far more severe and common than rear-enders. Granted, our MV does have lap+shoulder belts and headrests for all third row passengers, which mitigates the risk of 3rd row seating according to the author of the same USA Today article you mention. That's also an advantage for rollovers, though our MV is less prone to rolling than any SUV. The LATCH system was also a big advantage for us, and most SUVs didn't have it for 2001, though a few more do in 2002.

    The sliding doors and wide openings are ultra convenient for loading kids (and adults), especially in parking lots. The folding and moving seats provide great cargo flexibility and access to all rows. The great turning radius and reasonable handling make driving in town a relative breeze compared to the large SUVs. We get almost 19mpg city, which is not only better for the environment, but easier on the pocketbook especially with Memorial Day gas prices.

    For us, these were the important convenience issues. Granted, our vehicle is a kid hauler, grocery getter and home improvement center cargo carrier. For the once every year or two we might need to do towing or serious off-roading that are beyond the limits of our vehicles, we can rent or borrow a suitable vehicle. Obviously, your mileage varies, and you bought the best vehicle for your needs. I don't wish to force a MV or other vehicle on someone who truly needs a monster SUV, I only wish that people would put a lot more consideration into their choices based on their needs. The proliferation of monster SUVs is not a good trend for highway fatalities. Higher weight, stiffer frames, inferior handling, braking and rollovers all will logically lead to a trend of increased deaths and injuries when these become the predominant type of vehicle on the road. If they are only purchased by those who genuinely need them, or have no other option, then this won't be a problem and everyone will be happy:-)

    As a side note, you again bring up the USA Today article on 3rd row safety. Did you really find a statistic showing how much safer any particular large SUV 3rd row is compared to a minivan? If so, for what years and models was the comparison? If you cite fatality statistics, were the passengers properly restrained with seatbelts and head rests? These variables are rather important before making a blanket statement about 3rd row safety without any crash tests to back it up.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    I have not seen any -- other than what the article stated. If memory serves, it discussed the proximity of the 3rd row to the rear door/glass, and that in a rear end collision the seat would almost certainly fail and passengers would be exiting their MVs and smaller SUVs via the rear glass/doors. As no seatbelt will function properly without the seatback in correct position.

    The Suburban (which I had already purchased incidently) was noted as safe due to the space between the rear seats and the door/glass.

    I did not (and probably would not) make my choice based on this information.

    What I find shocking is that the fatality rate (again if memory serves), desite the rarity (another caveat) of this type accident was nearly 100% for the MVs and smaller Utes.

    On the subject of full size Utes, or any for that matter, I am a believer that folks mostly buy what is a good fit, that does not mean that there are not about 10% of a population that do solely what they want or are impulse driven or simply put stupid. That said I would agree that about 10% of the SUV population are in that category (read 2% of all suvs) with SUVs about 20% of the population.

    Now back to the full size thing and proliferation. It may be something where you are but it is, again from memory, about 5% of all SUV sales, with the vast majority in the cute and mid size range.

    Interesting discussion, too bad it is not doable on the I hate SUVs.... board over there it is about the indivual being right etc etc.
  • jaw2000jaw2000 Member Posts: 133
    6 with head restraints, and shoulder harnesses

    all 8 with lap belts
  • cavillercaviller Member Posts: 331
    "I have not seen any -- other than what the article stated. If memory serves, it discussed the proximity of the 3rd row to the rear door/glass, and that in a rear end collision the seat would almost certainly fail and passengers would be exiting their MVs and smaller SUVs via the rear glass/doors. As no seatbelt will function properly without the seatback in correct position."

    The main risk is seatback failure causing ejection and/or impact with the rear. Headrests, shoulder belts and distance to the rear can all add protection for passengers in this mode of injury. Of course, some crashes are unsurvivable, though serious rear-enders are fortunately very rare.

    "The Suburban (which I had already purchased incidently) was noted as safe due to the space between the rear seats and the door/glass."

    True, it was mentioned as having 3 feet to the rear. Extended wheelbase minivans have about 2 feet. Even so, the article did focus on smaller SUVs with a few inches to the rear, and did not have any comparative statistics.

    "What I find shocking is that the fatality rate (again if memory serves), desite the rarity (another caveat) of this type accident was nearly 100% for the MVs and smaller Utes."

    50% for MV. I had some correspondence with the author about this. The statistic was from a Ford study, and while somewhat dubious, it may be accurate. It sounded unbelievable to me. Even if true, the data needed to support your claim is a comparison between extended wheelbase MV and large SUVs, and that was not provided by the article.

    "On the subject of full size Utes, or any for that matter, I am a believer that folks mostly buy what is a good fit, that does not mean that there are not about 10% of a population that do solely what they want or are impulse driven or simply put stupid. That said I would agree that about 10% of the SUV population are in that category (read 2% of all suvs) with SUVs about 20% of the population."

    I have no statistics, though my guess would that over 75% of midsize and large SUV owners could serve all their needs with a minivan, wagon or full size sedan. The other 25% would be in your category where they regularly tow over 2000 lbs, frequently do serious off-roading, or must often carry 8-9 passengers in one vehicle. In fact, I'd sat it's close to 90% in my area (Chicago suburbs), though I could easly believe it's closer to 50% in other areas. An SUV may be a good fit, but I think there's another option that may be better for them and their families if image is not involved;-)

    I don't hate SUVs, which is why I don't bother to visit those types of discussions. I just think that too many people love them without realizing that there may be better/safer options for them. Fortunately, there appears to be a new breed of SUVs (like the Acura MDX) which might appeal to many of these people, and still provide a high degree of safety, fuel economy and flexibility without having the poor image associated with wagons and minivans. The 2002 Explorer and 2003 Expedition are also great steps in the right direction (for safety at least).

    Incidentally, our MV seats 7, all with lap+shoulder belts and head restraints. Of course, positions with lap-only belts and no head restraints may be perfectly suitable for young children in harnessed carseats.

    Regards!
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    And civil, too! Just caught up on the previous 99 posts. More comments soon...
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    You said "too many people love [SUVs] without realizing that there may be better/safer options for them."

    Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly.

    As for the percentage of SUV owners who don't truly need an SUV, I'd say it's upwards of 90%. I see 2 main reasons to buy an SUV instead of some other vehicle (sedan, hatchback, station wagon, minivan):

    1. Towing capability
    2. Off-road capability

    You could make an argument for excellent poor-weather on-road performance as reason #3, but many non-SUVs have traction control and/or some sort of all- or 4-wheel drive system.
Sign In or Register to comment.