Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
That's as logical as saying "since the Ody has 4 cupholders to the Pilot's 3, you are, in effect, comparing cupholders."
I was comparing weight, mpg and cargo space. It's fairly obvious. Go back and check.
Cupholders have no influence on mpg (unless they are filled with neutron matter). AWD vs. FWD however is what primarily accounts for the mpg difference between Pilot vs. Odyssey (not SUV vs. MV per se, as you are suggesting). Highlander and Sienna are much better comparisons if you just want to compare weight, mpg and cargo space, and leave the AWD vs. FWD influence out of it: Highlander has the same mpg as Sienna when configured with identical drive train according to EPA, and in real life according to everyone I know who have both, Highlander delivers better mpg than Sienna.
So your theory that people buy SUV's in order to avoid mommymobile image doesn wash in my case either.
My theory was not based on you. What in the world would lead you to such a confused conclusion?
And my theory was about the cause of the SUV boom, not "a reason for every SUV purchase". Please try to read more carefully. Your axe-grinding is interfering with your reading accuracy.
What kind of confused logic is this?? You have a theory about SUV buying activity in general, but it does not apply to any specific case?? What kind of general theory is that? A false one. In case you did not go through any formal logic class, to prove a general theory false, one only needs to find one specific case to the contrary. I have been generous, I have given you my own case, my current neighbor's case, and in previous posts over the past couple years the dozens of neighbors in my previous neighborhood and all my relatives who own SUV's; that's been over 40 SUV's and their owners. Not in a single case was the purchase made without a logical transportational requirement. 0% validity on a random sample size of over 40 should give you a pause on your theory.
A further point can be argued that, so what even if people did buy SUV's for image. People buy image at the expense of a few mpg all the time: RSX over Civic, 5 series over Accord, just to name a couple. In reality, buying SUV's for once actually delivers some redeeming transportational value; that's the reason behind the SUV boom. It's just good bang for the buck: image and utility as opposed to image-only as in previous non-plebian car choices (sport coupe, sport sedan, etc.)
Actually, I do like Minivans. If Mazda MPV had more torque and AWD, I would have bought it. We test-drove Sienna AWD, twice! What stopped us were:
(1) the full-size MV is just too long for city parking and for our garage.
(2) AWD and center seat in the 2nd row are mutually exclusive.
Image?? What image, my other car is a station wagon, and I put more miles on the station wagon than on the Highlander.
Out of the three houses on the dead-end street that I live on now, besides ours, there is another Highlander, and its owner's other car is a Ford Windstar M-I-N-I-V-A-N. So I guess, some SUV owners actually buy stationwagons and Minivans, unlike some sport coupe/sedan owners that just talk about them. Speaking of sport coupe/sedan, the third household has two BMW 325i's, and they hide a Kia Sportage in the garage that comes out only on snow days. I guess owners of entry-lux coupe/sedans with sporty pretensions know a thing or two about image maitenance ;-) The Kia is certainly not their image-mobile.
They live in the northeast. Snow storm is a common occurence. At my previous house in central MA, my Saab, which I though was a snow car, got stuck every winter going up our driveway after a snow storm; hence the Highlander purchase. After moving 60+ miles east to Boston suburb this past winter, we went on a vacation in late Feb, and our house sitter's car got stuck in snow, and she had to use our Highlander to get to work. She used to be a rabid anti-SUVer like my wife had been thanks to media indoctrination, now she is looking for a RAV4/CRV type vehicle just like we did last year with Highlander.
We have 2 kayaks and use an Outback roof for transport...it's not as high as an SUV or MV (we use rollers in the rear). Wouldn't that be better? Even has AWD and more GC than a CR-V (8.7 v 8.1).
Outback is classified as an SUV nowadays ("truck" per Subaru's submission to EPA). We actually looked at Outback even before Highlander; it has much less useable space inside despite comparable exterior foot print. Not to mention price: if you want stability control, you have to get VDC, at which point, it's pretty much just as expensive as the top-of-the-line Highlander Limited, for a much smaller vehicle.
1. It _is_ an SUV nowadays.
2. The F-4 version offers next to zero mpg advantage over CRV, which offers much more interior space. The F-4 is so under-powered/torqued for such a heavy car that it can barely get out of its own way; or was it power band and gearing inefficiency? the peak numbers do not reflect real life experience at all.
3. The H-6 and turbo versions, where Subaru thinks the excitement is, offers next to zero mpg advantage over much much bigger SUV's, like Highlander, and are actually worse than some V6 SUV's of comparable size, like the Equinox.
If you think people buy SUV over MV purely for image reasons, then they'd be committing a sin no worse than what car buyers have been doing for years: RSX and 3 series over Civic, 5 series over Accord, for example. More expensive cars with worse gas mileage and less carry capacity.
I further contend that, whereas RSX and 3/5 series offer absolutely no additional transportational value over Civic and Accord (actually often worse: less capable if not down-right dangerous in snow, a common sin of sport coupes and sport sedans), SUV's often offer real transportational values over Minivans: AWD and shorter parking length.
Not at all...you can't type with your nose?
...not what I was talking about. Thought that was clear.
You have a theory about SUV buying activity in general, but it does not apply to any specific case??
LOL. I hope you're amusing yourself, but that gross distortion of what I posted is not worth responding to.
People buy image at the expense of a few mpg all the time...
Well, stop the presses. Who are you arguing with? Are you saying that's a good thing?
They live in the northeast.
So do I. AWD is not needed for the vast majority. Obvious, as most vehicles don't have it. Hence the question. In any case, I was asking saabgirl.
Outback is classified as an SUV...
a), no it's not. It falls under the EPA LTV class for CAFE purposes, but it is a wagon.
b) how would that disqualify it as a choice, I'm wondering?
c) the Highlander is a good vehicle, more like a MV than an SUV...but the context was the kayak and the roof is much higher than the Outback.
Not sure why it's Osama's favorite either. Of course, I doubt it's really the favorite of either.
Yeah, the Outback really sucks. It's so bad, not one buys it anymore.
If you think people buy SUV over MV purely for image reasons, then they'd be committing a sin...
I don't think my POV makes anyone commit any sins, so your "if...then...else" seems wacky.
SUV's often offer real transportational values over Minivans: AWD and shorter parking length.
The vast majority of folks have no real need for AWD and parking length is pretty far down the list of vital factors, so I think your evaluation is not particularly helpful, but you're more than entitled to it!
...downright dangerous in snow?
My RSX handles snow better than my wifes Subaru. I also drove home in an ice storm a couple of winters ago that caused my friends Explorer to slide off the road and roll over. (the same stretch of road and the same time of day)
...so much for your "theory"...I have hands on proof that you're wrong.
...not what I was talking about. Thought that was clear.
AWD vs. FWD accounted for the bulk of mpg difference between Odyssey vs. Pilot. A point that was buried in your SUV vs. MV comparison. If one wants a FWD SUV, like Highlander FWD, the mpg difference to MV counterpart is negaligible, to non-existent in the case of Highlander vs. Sienna.
You have a theory about SUV buying activity in general, but it does not apply to any specific case??
LOL. I hope you're amusing yourself, but that gross distortion of what I posted is not worth responding to.
LOL, you are not able to respond, or even attempt to defend your earlier theory/assertion that the SUV boom is "primarily" (your own word) driven by buyers' need for projecting an outdoorsman image. The theory is invalid in my case, invalid in the cases of both my current neighbors, invalid in the cases of all 30+ of my previous neighbors, and invalid in all 10+ of my relatives who have SUV's. In fact, there is not a single valid case for your theory out of every single SUV owner that I know personally (meaning knowing their living environment and what they need to carry every so often, not just seeing them commuting in one). What do you call a theory that is invalid in 40+ ramdom samples? A false theory.
They live in the northeast.
So do I. AWD is not needed for the vast majority.
Yet, hundreds of thousands do need SUV, just like hundreds of thousands in the northeast do not need car of any sort at all (public transportation). Different people live in different localities. Isn't the answer obvious if someone in the northeast says he needs an SUV (snow)? just like if someone in the northeast says he needs no car at all (public transportation). Where you live needs car (I presume) and does not need SUV, good for you . . . oh, wait, Outback is an SUV!
a), no it's not. It falls under the EPA LTV class for CAFE purposes, but it is a wagon
Chevy Suburban is/was a wagon too. All SUV's are wagons. EPA LTV classification makes a vehicle without cargo bed an SUV.
b) how would that disqualify it as a choice, I'm wondering?
No it does not. SUV's are valid choices as far as I'm concerned. Whether you disqualify SUV's automatically is your own business when choosing your own vehicle; obviously you don't either. There are however better choices than Outback as I illsutrated earlier.
c) the Highlander is a good vehicle, more like a MV than an SUV...but the context was the kayak and the roof is much higher than the Outback.
I actually wish it were more like a MV, like having sliding doors or something (so much for your image theory, huh ;-) I put my kayak inside the Highlander because the front passenger seat can be lowered. It's a perfect fit. The high roof makes putting in and taking out easier. For longer boats, rear door step-up sills that are part of the car (not running boards) make access to roof really easy.
My RSX handles snow better than my wifes Subaru. I also drove home in an ice storm a couple of winters ago that caused my friends Explorer to slide off the road and roll over. (the same stretch of road and the same time of day)
...so much for your "theory"...I have hands on proof that you're wrong.
I never said RSX was downright dangerous in snow. "If not downright dangerous" was more related to the RWD BMW's, and does not equal to "downright dangerous" anyway. RSX with its wider stock rims certainly does not handle snow as well as Civic, which also has better ground clearance. If your point is that a Civic does snow better than a properly functioning AWD Subaru or AWD Explorer, you will have to amuse yourself (as sailor would say). Something is wrong with your wife's Subaru; does it have over 60k miles (where some AWD system start to wear out) or does it have bald/summer tires? Your friend's driving antics have much to be desired.
a) how you figure this is beyond me...first, it assumes that AWD is engaged during the EPA test, which is highly unlikely, and/or second, it can't be the weight of the AWD that accounts for it, since the Odyssey weighs more!
b) even if so, so what? I cited the mpg difference. The reason for is is irrelevant.
If one wants a FWD SUV...
And if one wants a hybrid, the Prius does even better. But I was talking about the AWD Highlander, not either of those.
...you are not able to respond...
Yes, I'm unable. You got me, I surrender :=)
Isn't the answer obvious...
No. And if you don't mind, I'll just wait for saabgirl's response. If that's ok with you.
EPA LTV classification makes a vehicle without cargo bed an SUV.
Um, really. Ok, if you say so. I guess that makes a Miata an SUV since it has no cargo bed. Oh, you meant "with a cargo bed"? Then my RSX is an SUV.
It's not just the cargo bed that makes the LTV classification. And I wasn't talking about CAFE, I was talking about SUV vs wagon categorization.
No it does not. SUV's are valid choices...
My suggestion was the Outback and yes, it's a valid one. It seems you had no point there.
There are however better choices than Outback as I illsutrated earlier.
There are better choices than everything, depending on the requirements you match up to. What's your point here?
so much for your image theory, huh
You're still having difficulty with this. My POV is not based on you or any other individual. It's based on the aggregate of SUV owners. This is not rocket science.
I put my kayak inside...
I wasn't talking about those little river jobs, I was talking about a sea kayak, like mine, which is 17' or my SO's which is 14'. And saabgirl puts it on top, so this is irrelevant to the exchange you are commenting on.
Outback sales is indeed facing problem in recent years.
I don't think my POV makes anyone commit any sins, so your "if...then...else" seems wacky.
Your quoting method is wacky. I hope you are amusing yourself (to use your own choice of verbiage). "a sin no worse than . . ." is not the same thing as declaring something as a sin; in fact, it's a way of saying something is perfectly justifiable. Please do not quote partial sentences to engage in strawman tactic.
The vast majority of folks have no real need for AWD
That is not the same thing as saying the vast majority of AWD owners do not have real need for AWD. Here's a real simple analogy: the vast majority of the world's population has no real need for car at all, as evidenced by car ownership rate, yet that does not mean the vast majority of car owners have no real need for cars at all.
parking length is pretty far down the list of vital factors
Size and parking convenience is a significant factor in vehicle choices, at least in many parts of the country. Camry vastly outsells Corollas by a wide margin nationa-wide, yet in every major metropolis, like NYC and Boston, Corolla significantly outsells Camry. It's not because people in big cities make less money or that they drive more miles; in fact, city buyers of new cars make more money and drive less miles than their country-side counterparts. It's the size and parking length that decide their preference for Corolla over Camry. Popularity of short minivans (what we call SUVs and the rest of the world call MPV's) in cities are due to the same reason.
Here is your quote:
I further contend that, whereas RSX and 3/5 series offer absolutely no additional transportational value over Civic and Accord (actually often worse: less capable if not down-right dangerous in snow, a common sin of sport coupes and sport sedans), SUV's often offer real transportational values over Minivans: AWD and shorter parking length.
It certainly does sound like you're lumping the RSX in with the BMWs...the and gave it away.
:-)
RSX with its wider stock rims certainly does not handle snow as well as Civic, which also has better ground clearance. If your point is that a Civic does snow better than a properly functioning AWD Subaru or AWD Explorer, you will have to amuse yourself (as sailor would say). Something is wrong with your wife's Subaru; does it have over 60k miles (where some AWD system start to wear out) or does it have bald/summer tires? Your friend's driving antics have much to be desired.
My wifes Subaru has 15,000 miles on it.
The problem is that it has all-seasons and my RSX uses snow tires in the winter.
LOL :-)
cheating? perhaps...but it still handles snow better than the Subaru. Not only that, but the RSX only has one wheel drive.
Of course, if I put snows on the Subaru it would be no contest. Maybe you should have tried them on your Saab.
No. The ice storm did not cause the Explorer to slide off the road and roll over. It was the driver. Haven't you guys learned anything??
tidester, host
You're setting a bad example.
:P
BTW, yes...I learned that SUVs are just as vulnerable as cars on ice. In fact I passed 1 SUV, 1 pick up and one Volvo that were all in accidents in a stretch of 2 miles during that ice storm.
Hey, and I didn't pass one minivan.
I guess I can say that Minivans are safer than all other cars right? :-)
(desperate attempt to get back on topic)
Apparently minivan drivers are.
If I had to give up my Outback or minivan, the Outback would be out of here. The only SUV that would be on my radar to replace either of them right now would be the Element or Scion box. Maybe the Freestyle for the versatile seating configurations.
Steve, Host
> during the EPA test, which is highly unlikely, and/or second, it can't be
> the weight of the AWD that accounts for it, since the Odyssey weighs more!
The Aisn-Warner TOD system is where much of the loss comes from. It's always there, fully engaged, partially engaged or simply parasitic loss due to extra spinning gears. As far as I know, EPA did not remove half the drive train duing mpg tests. How do I suppose that's where much of the energy loss comes from? look at Sienna vs. Highlander, where drive trains are identical, there is hardly any mpg difference. That should give you some hint as to whether drive train difference or body style account for more.
> b) even if so, so what? I cited the mpg difference. The reason for is is irrelevant.
Well, if you want to indulge in diatribes against SUV's irrepsective drive train differences, I will contend that sport coupes are the worst mpg hogs because Ferraris Maronello get far worse mpg than my Highlander despite being lighter and offer much much less cargo space.
> Um, really. Ok, if you say so. I guess that makes a Miata an SUV since it has
> no cargo bed. Oh, you meant "with a cargo bed"? Then my RSX is an SUV.
Since when is Miata or RSX classified as a light-truck? Outback is classified as a light-truck according to Subaru and EPA.
> You're still having difficulty with this. My POV is not based on you or any other
> individual. It's based on the aggregate of SUV owners. This is not rocket
> science.
Where are you getting your "aggregate of SUV owners"? Your own imagination? Since when have you done a study, besides your own experience with your Outback as an SUV. If you insist you or your wife bought the Outback "primarily" for image reasons as you don't need it at all, that's only sample of one. I have shown related to you a random sample of 40+ SUV ownerships, none of them fit your theory.
> I wasn't talking about those little river jobs, I was talking about a sea kayak, like > mine, which is 17' or my SO's which is 14'. And saabgirl puts it on top, so this
> is irrelevant to the exchange you are commenting on.
I addressed that as well in the same paragraph, but as usual you like to chop out the relevent portions of the message and grandiosely declare opposing views irrelevent. It's quite easy to access Highlander roof top. Also, presumably Saabgirl currently has a Saab. I have a 9-5 wagon, the longest Saab ever, yet I have found many an item that I used to have to place on the roof now going inside the Highlander thanks to the front passenger seat being able to go down and interior height. In fact, I used to carry my Kayak on the roof of my 9-5 wagon. So there, my comments were quite relevent, and your comments on whether my comments were relevent was not irrelevent but ill-informed.
Steve: Apparently minivan drivers are.
hmmm,....so if a minivan driver is safer than all other drivers then:
stepping out of the Minivan and into a Ferrari...will he still be a safe driver?
Or will his threat to other drivers increase?
If so, then it IS the vehicle and not the driver...true?
Puts a couple of kids in car seats in the Ferrari and I suspect so.
Steve, Host
What they don't realize is that even though they get more traction and go faster than usual with a 2WD, they still have to stop like any other vehicle, 2WD or 4WD. So they get into trouble and end up in the ditch - a very funny sight to behold. One cannot defy the laws of physics!
2WD vehicles tell their drivers of their limits sooner than 4WD, and at a slower speed so there is more time for corrective actions. When a 4WD goes out of control, it is a much more challenging case that most drivers cannot handle with any corrective action.
That's obviously because MV drivers have the good sense to avoid driving in hazardous conditions! If they're not on the road you can't pass them.
tidester, host
One cannot defy the laws of physics!
That only applies to people who actually understand the laws of physics!
tidester, host
Something's fishy about this whole argument.
Steve, Host
I don't do boulder bashing, but many of the spots I enjoy fishing or paddling in CT, NH and ME are best (partially) reached in a vehicle with some space between the ground and working parts. Also, I usually follow the strategy of waiting for the snowplows, but AWD is a plus when I can't. Saabgirl, my missus, and I both own 9-5s. They're terrific on a snowy street or highway, but the low ground clearance up front can make it a challenge to break through the plow-built snow dams that blocks exit ramps built by the snowplows. On occasion, driving my trusty Saab, I've had to go up an exit or two before I found a snow dam low enough that it wouldn't take off my exhaust system.
We have 2 kayaks and use an Outback
I like the Outback, but preferred the CR-V for my purposes. My knees are freakin' shot, and after a few hours in the 'Yak, my legs and back are numb, sore and stiff. So being able to stash the craft inside the vehicle with a couple feet sticking out the rear hatch window is a blessing.
I certainly agree on the spouses front, but...as for vehicles...I guess we're all looking for something different!
Exactamente! I'm afraid we've left the golden age of internal combustion, but the selection is better than ever!
You're one to talk.
Geez. I figured someone would've banned you by now. Oh well. Back to other sane boards where they don't put up with your grandstanding ilk.
I further contend that, whereas RSX and 3/5 series offer absolutely no additional transportational value over Civic and Accord (actually often worse: less capable if not down-right dangerous in snow, a common sin of sport coupes and sport sedans), SUV's often offer real transportational values over Minivans: AWD and shorter parking length.
It certainly does sound like you're lumping the RSX in with the BMWs...the and gave it away.
Okay, let's analyze what I said ;-) "actually often worse: less capable if not downright dangerous in snow" Do you dispute that RSX with its wider stock rims and lower ground clearance is less capable in snow than an otherwise comparable Civic? if not, then we have no real argument.
Of course, if I put snows on the Subaru it would be no contest. Maybe you should have tried them on your Saab.
You know what they say about the word "assume" ;-)
I see.
...AWD is a plus when I can't.
Well, I think awd is overstated for most drivers, but I agree that there are exceptions. My SO has AWD because she spends more time in our Catskills house where the hills are steep and the snow is often and deep and the plows are not always keeping up.
...being able to stash the craft inside the vehicle with a couple feet sticking out the rear hatch window is a blessing.
I can understand that. But I imagine your kayak is a shorter one.
...after a few hours in the 'Yak, my legs and back are numb, sore and stiff.
Sure your foot pegs aren't set too close?
Yeah, it's just big enough for me, a bologna and cheese sammy, some dark chocolate Milky Ways and a couple cans of PBR.
Sure your foot pegs aren't set too close?
I wish. But I just got a new Perception with an inflatable seat back. Seems to be helping. I also gave in and bought a nifty little set of wheels from Hardy Products that attaches to the front of a kayak and eliminates the need to lug it to and from. They're intended for sea kayaks. I hated portaging even when my back was a lot younger.
Yes, it was more or less a soliloquy. I tend to throw ideas out there for people to chew on.
like this:
Consider a Ferrari weaving in and out of traffic, and driving like a maniac. Most would look at him and say he's a dangerous driver...correct?
Now what if when he gets home, he hops in his minivan to pick up his kids at soccer practice. On his way he crosses paths with you and you think why can't more drivers be like this guy....nice and sane.
So is he a dangerous driver only in the Ferrari? The variable (the driver) is the same for both vehicles...what's different?
Would he still be driving the Minvan like he did the Ferrari?
driver or car?
As I said....just something to chew on.
> where the hills are steep and the snow is often and deep and the plows are
> not always keeping up.
I'm glad you at least extend the courtesey of understanding to someone. Now suppose there is a long lost twin of yours, looking at your SO driving the AWD in southern CT or Long Island, where no AWD is required at all, 300 days out of 365, goes on a diatribe against your SO . . . the majority of people in the Northeast do not need AWD therefore he/she should not have one either . . . that your SO is only getting the Subaru Outback in order to project a Paul Hogan outdoorsy image . . . How would you feel about that? That's precisely what the typical anti-SUVers are doing. You track the full vehicle utilization schedule of only one SUV, the Outback, yet somehow come away with the conclusion that most SUV owners don't need SUV's despite the one you keep track of actually is needed. I have tracked sufficient vehicle utilitization schedule for 40+ SUV's, and every one of them is a necessity, although on 250 out of 365 days to a casual observer that may not be the case. It's the remaining 65 to 165 days where the additional utility of SUV's becomes indispensable, hence necessitating the ownership overall.
Most SUV owners have no real requirement for 4WD or AWD. Some do. This is not rocket science.
You track the full vehicle utilization schedule of only one SUV...
This is an illusion that is confusing you. My POV on this subject is not based on any SUV at all, nor is it based on our Outback.
I have tracked sufficient vehicle utilitization schedule for 40+ SUV's...
Well, that changes everything :=)
Please give us the list with proof of claims, thanks.
...to a casual observer...
Very little can be deduced, regarding this requirement (or lack thereof) from casual, or even somewhat more than casual obsevation. My POV is not based on observation, but rather knowledge of general weather and road conditions and deductive reasoning. Of course, if you actually read what I posted with no axe perpetually grinding, you would realize this and stop wasting all this bandwidth on these vitual POVs that you conjure up.
But you know, when one's axe grinding gets obsessive enough, black can become white!
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/allsuv-05.htm
search by make and/or model.
It's not a pick up and it's not a minivan so....
Needless to say, all Outbacks before this year were cars/station wagons. As is your SO's.
So maybe that will keep the trolls at bay.
:-)
(yeah, right)
Next we'll hear that MV transmissions are unreliable compared to SUVs :=)
You seem perpetually confused between the general and the specific yourself. A radom sample of 40+ is a good base upon which to draw some general conclusions. Whereas your sample size is 1, and it is contrary to your theory. So you are more than confused between the general and the specific; you are delving into the illogic.
Most SUV owners have no real requirement for 4WD or AWD. Some do. This is not rocket science.
How did you come up with that conclusion? Many SUV's are actually FWD or RWD only. Besides the obvious obfuscation, are you trying to say that most 4WD/AWD SUV owners have no real requirement for 4WD/AWD?? How exactly did you come up with that conclusion?
You track the full vehicle utilization schedule of only one SUV...
This is an illusion that is confusing you. My POV on this subject is not based on any SUV at all, nor is it based on our Outback.
So how many SUV's full utilization schedule are you aware of, besides your own Outback? None? Are you drawing conclusions based on no evidence at all while excluding the single known case, which is contrary to your conclusion, at the same time? You are very confused indeed.
I have tracked sufficient vehicle utilitization schedule for 40+ SUV's...
Well, that changes everything :=)
Please give us the list with proof of claims, thanks.
1. My own Highlander
2. One of my neighbor's Highlander,
3. My other current neighbor's Sportage, which hides in the garage and comes out only on snow days.
All three SUV's are located on a dead-end street at the entrance of which my house sitter had her car stuck and had to use our Highlander to get to work.
4. My dad's Explorer
5. My mom's CRV
They live on a street that is not plowed.
6. My brother's 4Runner; he got sick of having his old audi buried by city plow trucks every time there was a major snow fall; he also camps and skis a lot.
7. My father in law's Jeep
8. My mother in law's Jeep Grand Cherokee
They own a 100+ acre hill/mountain in VT. The snow got so bad the hired plow guy told them to vacate the house because he could not keep the hill road passable even for the Jeeps as there was no more space to place plowed snow
9. My sis-in-law's Jeep Grand Cherokee; they live on a hill top whose slopes got my Saab stuck two winters ago; I was driving my Highlander while visiting them last winter.
10. My aunt's Outback, which she uses to visit her sis up in VT and ski
11. My bestman's Outback, which he bought after he had a major accident with his car skidding on a patch of black ice on highway commute
12-16. I count five boat owners among my friends, and they all tow with SUV's.
17-40+ In my previous neighborhood, a typical suburban/rural hilly New England neighborhood, there were 28 houses, all except one houshold had SUV's, many with two. My Saab got stuck several times every year going up that hill and entering my drive way, and our house was the first house near the bottom of the hill. The single except that did not have an SUV were a retired couple, and they had a daughter with two SUV's living near-by.
So there you have it, 40+ (if not 50+) SUV's that I know enough about to know that they are must-haves for their owners, without encountering a single case of SUV ownership that is not necessary. Of course, their SUVness look superfluous to a casual observer on at least 250 out of 365 days when there is no major snow condition. General knwledge of weather and road conditonion plus deductive logic can not possibly produce the conclusion that you are reaching without some very faulty assumptions: such as people only drive within their immediate neighborhoods, or somehow, 10% bad snow road condition days in a locale must correspond to 10% SUV ownership; 10% bad snow road condition days, or even 5%, actually lead to 100% SUV desirability if everyone has to go to work; whether that desirability translates into ownership is dependent on income level and affordability.
What per centage of car owners ever go to the hills of central and northern New England? Whether for residence, work or leisure? What is the fudge factor you used there in deducing from road and weather condition in New England to necessity for SUVs? Obviously, the subjective fudge factor you choose is quite faulty. Why would anyone living near long island need an SUV like the Outback? The reason can be quite simple: they have a house in the Catskills. Similarly, someone commuting on flat dry highway on I-90 in a Jeep may need the Jeep beccause they have a house in or need to visit the hills of Vermont from time to time.
Lets do a simple math: if the entrance to a development, like the one I'm living on (and now I live within 10 miles of Boston), is very steep and slippery on snow days, even for only a 20 yard stretch; there are 30 houses in the development, of which let's say 40 vehicles need to commute an average of 30 mile each way every day. That's 2400 miles of necessary SUV driving every day, and 600,000 miles driven each year by these 40 vehicles, all because of a 0.01 mile slippery stretch. Now think how many miles of slippery slopes are there in New England. Would the grandstanding anti-SUVer notice that 0.01 mile slippery stretch that stranded my house sitter's car before launching into a diatribe against the 40 SUV's? Probably not. They have their imaginary deductive logic without realizing that their logic is entirely built on a faulty assumed fudge factor.
All SUV's (and minivans) are technically wagons because of their two-box design. Even Chevy Suburbans are wagons. LTV is a classification for light trucks, i.e. pickups, minivans and SUVs. Light Truck classification is what anti-SUVer's have been railing against for years, with its supposedly inferior mpg and safety standards. Manufacturers can call a vehicle whatever they want, even the Chevy SSR can be called a roadster; Pontiac Vibe has been variously called SUV, wagon and hatchback depending on what the latest catch-word is. It's what classification they submit to EPA that matters. Outback is an SUV because of its light truck classification. In reality, what is a "Sport Utility _Wagon_" anyway? What, it's not a vehicle??
Only if the data is accurate and the sample is representative.
...your sample size is 1...
Ok, I've repeated several times what my POV is based on and you insist on making up something and attributing it to me.
Not interested in any more troll feeding. Have a nice day.
There is no "technical" definition of a wagon, only a convention. OTOH, LTV is a technical term, with a definition associated with certain attributes.
LTV is a classification for light trucks...
Hey, you got something right!
Light Truck classification is what anti-SUVer's have been railing against for years, with its supposedly inferior mpg and safety standards.
Didn't last long :=) There's nothing inherently "inferior" about the mpg of an SUV...it's a HD vehicle for HD tasks. It's only when used as a light vehicle (i.e., only to carry a few bags of groceries and a few adults max) that it's mpg incurs waste and safety standards become problematic.
It's what classification they submit to EPA that matters.
In terms of CAFE? Um, no. It's the EPA's definition of the LTV classification and how the vehicle measures up to it that determines that.
As for the convention (SUV, wagon, MV, etc.), the classification that the manufacturer chooses certainly counts, yes.
Outback is an SUV because of its light truck classification.
Sorry, you're quite wrong. No more than the PT Cruiser is an SUV because it's classified as an LTV. The Outback is a wagon that is classified as an LTV. Complicated, I know. But if you put that axe down a minute and think about it clearly, it will become apparent. I have the utmost confidence in this, since you're such a Bright guy :=)
...what is a "Sport Utility _Wagon_" anyway?
A wagon with some marketing jargon thrown in.
as far as saab's go, worst car i ever have driven in snow. leased one for three years. after the first snow, my wife wouldn't drive it, so i did. she would drive my explorer. hated that car in snow. winter mode was a joke. given any slope, the car wouldn't move from a stop. traction control just crabbed the car from side to side. think alternating torque steer every second or so. i do concede, fwd could get me theres, it was just an ugly way to do it. seeing that mv's have pretty much the same drive systems, i would never get one.
Only if the data is accurate and the sample is representative.
Well, you asked for the list, and you got it. And that's your reponse?
...your sample size is 1...
Ok, I've repeated several times what my POV is based on and you insist on making up something and attributing it to me.
In other words, your sample size is ZERO. Well, actually MINUS ONE because you selectively exclude the one sample you have staring in your face contrary to your theory.
...what is a "Sport Utility _Wagon_" anyway?
A wagon with some marketing jargon thrown in.
Those marketing jargons happen to be "Sport Unility," the magic words that conjures up outdoorsy images like Paul Hogan, and it certainly is a Vehicle. In other words, image considrations have just as much influence on Outback purchases as on other SUV purchases. Comes to think of it, as soon as Paul Hogan stopped advertising for Subaru, Subaru started lagging behind in the market place . . . hmm . . . I suppose some one who owns image and life-style cars like the Outback and RSX can probably pick up on others' vanities better than me, who owns a stationwagon and a short minivan that happens to be classified as an SUV.
Yes. Your list proves nothing, it couldn't possibly, let alone could it refute anything I've said. Most folks that own an SUV have no tow, haul or off roading requirement. The real requirement is to look like AdventureGuy instead of MommyMobileDriver.
In other words...
With any of the words you've posted on this subject, none has honestly considered what I've posted. This is a waste of bandwidth.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Subaru is utilizing a desire to sell vehicles...only, in this case, they have far less of the externalities that SUVs have.
...some one who owns image and life-style cars like the Outback and RSX...
Glad to see you're focused on the topic rather than on me, the true mark of the non-troll. Not.