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.
I listed 40+ SUV owners that I know of, every single one of them having a good reason to have an SUV, like being able to go to work. None of them bought the SUV primarily to look like AdventureGuy because many of their other vehicles are actually MINIVANs and STATIONWAGONs, not your image-conscious "Sport-Utility-Wagons" or pseudo-luxury sport coupes. Obviously, you have not honestly considered what I have posted, and you are an expert at wasting bandwidth with your groundless assertions, assertions that run contrary to your own experience and every single real case we collectively have been able to put together so far (40+ cases from me, and 1 from you).
Glad to see you're focused on the topic rather than on me, the true mark of the non-troll. Not.
The focus of this statement would be?? At least I'm able to supply a mountain of evidence, 40+ real life case studies. You have done nothing other than putting forth groudless assertions and name-calling. Frankly, I'm quite surprised that your content-free trolling posts have not been yanked yet.
I've had two five passenger minivans since 1989. I don't tow and like the room and utility, better mpg and more bang for the buck than any other boxy vehicle out there.
Both were on a few road trips (we more or less lived out of the van for 10 months in '99). I had studs when I lived in Anchorage and didn't have a steep driveway, so got by fine without 4WD. The ground clearance is a problem at times on the forest service roads we like to take, but nothing else handles the canoes and bikes and camping gear (or occasional piece of sheetrock or frig) as well. My other cars during that time were a compact sedan and now an AWD wagon.
If we went back to one car, the minivan would most likely stay. Although we really don't need quite as much room these days, and a few of the crossovers are tempting.
since my suv seems to have a boxed frame and sits higher off the ground than a mv, it seems that it would be safer when hit from behind. we use the 3rd row pretty often.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
are however plenty road conditions (read heavy snow and uphill, for example) that MDX can go but Odyssey can not;
I will take a minivan with snow tires and "spiders" clip-in traction any time over an all-season equipped AWD. Not that I need to: not that I need to. It is usually just a couple of really snowed out trips to Tahoe each year and $300 clip-on traction spiders are all I need if I do not drive my AWD wagon. Set of snow tires mounted on steel rims is $600. And you can changes four wheels ten times in the time it takes to get an "invincible" SUV out of a snowy ditch. AWD does not help much when braking.
The only situation where MDX will go and Odyssey would not involves going over rocks and logs.
it seems that it would be safer when hit from behind.
Statistically, you are several times more likely to get killed in an SUV. No matter how good a driver you are (determined by correlating with preious driving record). Both in a multiple and single car collisions.
Facts are a stubborn little thing. They do not care about our perceptions.
Q. My husband and I want a vehicle that has three rows of seats, that's at least somewhat fuel efficient and that holds its value. One problem: My husband hates minivans. We're open to either new or used. What do you suggest?
A. First, have your husband seek help for his insecurity about the minivan, still the most efficient of family haulers. But if Dr. Freud can't hypnotize him into buying a Honda Odyssey (or a Toyota Sienna), try this bait and switch: the Honda Pilot or its upscale sibling, the Acura MDX. Both are based on the Odyssey platform and share its sterling features – power, comfort, solid handling, impeccable quality and top resale value. You will lose a minivan's sliding doors, but you add AWD, unavailable on the Odyssey, giving you more traction in rain or snow. New or used, they are worthy buys. The MDX is pricier starting at $36970, but it's also more powerful and luxurious than the utilitarian Pilot at $27615. Either one is a perfect compromise. They look like SUVs but are essentially minivans under the skin, allowing your husband to preserve his manhood, and you the marriage.
A good % of collisions are rear end, but a relatively small % of those are fatal, compared to angle and head-on collisions.
About 70% of accidents are collisions and they account for about 40% of accident fatalities.
About 30% of all accidents are rear-end collisions and another 30% are angle collisions. However, those angle collisions account for 22% of accident fatalities while those rear-end collisions account for only 5% of fatalities. Head-ons, while only 2% of accidents account for 10% of all fatalities.
Those figures are for passenger vehicle accidents, not including ped, motorcycle, etc., accidents. So the total fatalities to apply those %s to is 38, 309 in 2003. Total accidents about 6.4 million.
LOL! got me there. i actually did back into my garage door with my suv, but it was not an incident that would have resulted in a fatality(maybe a heart attack). i don't think it showed up in any accident statistics(i haven't fixed the bumper scratches).
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
in response to the much honourable opinions by li sailor :
li sailor: suv is for pseudo macho image
bightness : By the same logic, people buy pseudo-luxury sports cars like RSX because of the fear of projecting PoorSucker image when driving a perfectly utilitarian vehicle like Civic hatchback. How much boy racing can be done on today's highways anyway? not to mention the harm and danger posed to other motorists from boy racing.
People do care about images in choosing cars, whether it's SUV over MV or RSX over Civic hatch. At least with SUV over MV, there's the redeeming value that they are typically shorter and therefore take up less parking space along the curb. I can not think of a single justification of RSX over Civic hatch as far as imposing less on third party is concerned. RSX burns more gas, has less interior volume and take up more parking space than a Civic that can fulfill every transportation requiremnt that an RSX can.
me: LOL...... exactly !!! and all that sports car image is the one being heavily fined and has a high insurance cost.....
since my suv seems to have a boxed frame and sits higher off the ground than a mv, it seems that it would be safer when hit from behind. we use the 3rd row pretty often.
Exactly.....I shared this first hand experience , but Last July 4th weekend, we convoyed up to Redding for a retreat....one Pilot, one Sienna, one cayenne. On the way back, the sienna told me to go first (on all our trips...I am always the last car) ...and he would be last....he had a full load of 7 in his car....and it was rear ended before we even got onto the freeway....and the ford F150 bumper went over the bumper of the sienna, and impacted the rear gate, with the luggage and 3rd road seats all damaged..luckily, the girls in back were fine.... The pilot and cayenne bumpers would have matched up better with the Ford, but sienna did not... another thing to consider when buying vehicles....
This Friday, we will be going up to Redding again, for the same retreat...and needless to say, the Sienna driver said that I can bring up the rear....
yes, I know......
and also don't forget the poseurs who really do not need a car....or could use a electric or a Prius...
I will take a minivan with snow tires and "spiders" clip-in traction any time over an all-season equipped AWD. Not that I need to: not that I need to. It is usually just a couple of really snowed out trips to Tahoe each year and $300 clip-on traction spiders are all I need if I do not drive my AWD wagon.
wow...you really would ? your last sentence states that it costs more, and takes more time, for you to drive the minivan, over your AWD wagon.... seems like the AWD is the way to go.......unless you reallly prefer to spend more time in the mud and snow putting on the chains and stuff....but hey...maybe some people like it....
Set of snow tires mounted on steel rims is $600. And you can changes four wheels ten times in the time it takes to get an "invincible" SUV out of a snowy ditch. AWD does not help much when braking.
again, sounds like you have to spend more money and time and sweat, just to get your minivan ready to do what the AWD could do ...
.When stuck in snow, any SUV with chains beats any minivan with chains .....you must agree, right ?
The only situation where MDX will go and Odyssey would not involves going over rocks and logs.
Here I disagree with you. We have been going up to Tahoe for the past 25 years...and most of the time, when there is snow, the minivans have to stop, and get chains , and have problems.....the AWD and SUVs generally do not, unless the snow really hits the fan.....
Most times the SUV is the way to go , when going up to snow country....of course, you can go in roller skates if you want.....
minivans are in my opinion the same size or close to the same size as compact suv's. I prefer a compact suv that drives well in snow and ice over a minivan. Minivans are good I guess if you have more than 3 kids. A parent with 3 kids or less in my opinion can fit in any car or suv and a minivan is not needed. It depends on the space you need.
"minivans are in my opinion the same size or close to the same size as compact suv's"
Are you aware that a minivan(Ody, Sienna, DGC. Quest, etc) has as much or more usable space than a FULL size SUV, such as an Expedition, Tahoe, or Sequoia?
The usual arguments thrown around for an SUV are space and safety. You get more usable space in a minivan than you would in a full size SUV (as macakava pointed out). On the safety front, you will be SAFER in the smallest minivan than you will be in the LARGEST SUV. (This is a fact, check out the accident death rates for different classes of vehicles in the NTSA report).
So unless you are in it for the image thing, a minivan in a more comfortable and safer option for your family. But if its just for terrorizing (or enjoying the power to terrorize) other people on the road and for projecting an outward image (to compensate for some internal deficiency) then you have no better choice than an SUV. Go for it!
Incidentally, I just came across an interesting statistic. Given that both minivans and SUVs are 'tall', I guess one should expect their tendency to roll over to be similiar. Surprisingly, acording to data, the death rates due to rollovers for full size 4WD SUVs are more than 8 times those for large minivans! Guess the 'Sport' in more in the drivers head than in the vehicle.
The usual arguments thrown around for an SUV are space and safety.
And that is a very valid argument. See below.
You get more usable space in a minivan than you would in a full size SUV (as macakava pointed out).
Not every one wants to deal with 200+" vehicle length. Minivans are hard to parallel-park on the city streets and hard to fit into suburban garages. Mine for one would not accommodate a Sienna, which I seriously considered before buying Highlander (another reason was that Sienna being new at the time, were selling MSRP; I never pay MSRP). People want something between the 15 cu.ft of a sedan's trunk, and the 150 cu.ft of a Minivan cargo space. The mid-size SUV's (in reality nothing more than vertically developed hatchback wagons) with their typical 70-90 cu.ft cargo space fit the bill perfectly. Their sub-189" vehicle length (the same as a mid-sized sedan, the most popular-sized cars out there) make the choice so much easier. For urban dwellers who have to parallel park all the time, having 65+ cu.ft cargo space on a vehicle that's 180" or less is a god-send.
The anti-SUV obfuscators love to make the strawman argument that people buy SUVs for as much space as possible with no exterior limit. Guess what, most people do not need 18-wheeler or minivan space. The "S" and "U" in SUV stands for efficient Space Utilization.
On the safety front, you will be SAFER in the smallest minivan than you will be in the LARGEST SUV. (This is a fact, check out the accident death rates for different classes of vehicles in the NTSA report).
Again, it's a specious argument. Most SUV's are not the largest SUV's. Even in studies done by anti-SUV safety expert, Lexus RX came out statisticly the least fatal per 1000 vehicle ownership, ahead of minivans, ahead of sedans, sport coupes, ahead of everything else. That's why mid-size SUV's from decent manufacturers are the fastest growing segment.
So unless you are in it for the image thing, a minivan in a more comfortable and safer option for your family.
The reason being? Show me the statistic anywhere any Minivan is safer than my Highlander. Show me how to fit a Sienna into my garage. Show me why I have to deal with 20 extra inches of vehicle length every time I parallel park when 80 cu.ft is all the space I need.
As for the image thing, my other car is a Station Wagon. So what do you drive? and what's your other car? As they say, if you want to cast stone against people who care about images, let's see what you have got.
But if its just for terrorizing (or enjoying the power to terrorize) other people on the road
Your comparison of the RSX/Civic is not only inaccurate but off topic.
So is your reponse quote here. You know what they say about people living in glass houses and throwing stones. If you want to attacks others on their image-conscienceness, let's see yours. If you want to strictly stick with the topic of Minivans vs. SUV's, lets talk about vehicle physical characteristics only and leave out speculations about owners and their attitudes. Obviously, anti-SUVers have real difficulty with that. I see the words "image-conscious" and "macho image" in practically every anti-SUVer attack post. That is not a vehicle characteristic; that's an attack on the owners.
The "S" and "U" in SUV stands for efficient Space Utilization.
No. They stand for "Sport" and "Utility" with neither reference to nor indication of space and efficiency. Perhaps we can agree that the "V" stands for "Vehicle?"
Perhaps we can agree that the "V" stands for "Vehicle?"
Certainly that's a point we call all agree on :-) I also agree with you on the technical acronym as marketted by the manufacturers.
In my previous post, I was giving an alternative to some of the less savory acronym expansions ("silly" ones ;-). IMHO, the Utility portion is more on the mind of buyers than "Sport" nowadays. Efficient Space Utilization is at premium nowadays, considering that the latest fashion among new SUVs are interior shelves, cargo tracks, water-proof wells, etc.
You could get a Mazda MPV - it's only 5 inches longer than your Highlander (189.5") and holds about 45 cubic inches more cargo than the Highlander.
I too bemoan the stretching of the other MVs and my '99 is a bit long at 194.8". I miss the 5 passenger versions of the Caravan (I don't need the third row in your Highlander either).
The Mazda MPV was actually briefly on my shopping list. Several reasons eliminated it: (1) It's gas mileage is worse than FWD Highlander. (2) No AWD (3) No stability control (4) The engine has no torque off the line (5) The interior is dated and cheap feeling (6) Ford drive train reliability does not inspire confidence (7) No center seat in the second row (8) We really do not use third row much. (9) 80 cu.ft is plenty for us for now (10) Side airbags are pillar/chamber-mounted not seat mounted (11) No side curtain airbags, which are actually more important than side torsal bags.
It's interesting to note that, "MPV" is a generic term outside North America for all types of vertically developed car-based vehicles from miniature RAV4 to midsized Highlander and all the way to nearly full-sized Mazda MPV itself. It's only in the US that marketting draw such a clear distinction between minivans and SUVs, and triggering such knee-jerk reaction from anti-SUVers, when in reality, they are all MPV's, Multi-Purpose Vehicles.
Yep, my wife sort of liked a '98 Mazda MPV when we were shopping for a new car to replace our aging Voyager. It was really a SUV - 4WD, no sliders. :-)
I've seen a few of those Espace type Euro MPVs - I like the Renault one with the little 14 or 15" wheels.
Oh ya, those sliders. That's what I wish the most after choosing Highlander over Sienna. Somone better start marketting generic MPV's in the US with sliders; make that double-sliders with remote control. My wife wanted the RX330 (only $6k more after $32k for the Highlander Ltd) in order to get the power rear lifet gate, but I really don't feel like driving around in a premium luxury brand.
While we are on the topic of overseas MPV's, I saw a Hyundai "Modern." It looks like a regular minivan on the outside, but inside it has four rows of seat, with the last row folding down into what woud be minivan cargo floor here in the US. The second and third row each seats 2 + 1 fold-down seat into the walk way that leads to the back. Also a middle-seat in the first row. Total of 12 seats in a vehicle not much different from our minivans. Now, that is serious moving power: an entire soccer team plus coach packed into one people mover that can fit into a garage; well, probably not the garages they have over seas :-)
We had it with the Nissan Axxess; if the original Honda Odyssey had followed suit, maybe they'd still be on the market. Plus they had a 4WD flavor. Instead we wind up with an Element with suicide doors.
Although the Element is a nice boxy vehicle and I like the idea of no B pillar -- that might make the side opening big enough for my uses.
Talk about a vehicle ahead of its time (re: Axxess), like the AMC "sport utility wagons." There's hope yet, as the Scion xB grows up in size :-) Sometime I think cars are like evolution: in long periods of warmth and prosperity, existing species just get bigger and bigger. Then every once in a while, there's a catastrophy-induced die-off, eliminating the mega fauna (dinosaurs, mammoth etc.), only to make room for the small species evolve big again in the next cycle.
MPV's make perfect sense in urban setting. Take for example, RAV4, 68 cu.ft cargo space within 167" vehicle length. No other type of vehicle can boast this kind of space efficiency. It might be silly to live in urban environment, with all the pollution and taxation etc.; it might even be silly to own a car at all in urban setting; yet, if you have to own a car in an urban environment, a small MPV (called "SUV" in the US) makes very good sense. That's why people the world over are flocking to this type of vehicle. It's silly to call all of them silly :-)
Sounds like you are heading to the direction of a bicycle for daily use! That's great. It would help to balance those who are using more gas -hungry vehicles. As they say, "Peter pays for Paul"
What I have heard and observed is that the RAV4, because of its size, is a "girlie" car because it attracts a lot of female drivers. The CRV, at about 12" longer, has more usable space and is more attractive to more men. That size vehicle(especially the RAV 4) may be more popular in Europe and Japan because of the $5 - $6/gal gas there. Yes gas is more expensive now than 1 year ago, but people forget and adapt to it. As long as gas is relatively cheaper here, there will not be that push to use these smaller vehicles. But I would not want to get into an accident with those small vehicles with a bigger vehicle. Give me a bigger vehicle any day.
Comments
tidester, host
..actually, I am getting a little bored. Who left the screen door open? It seems a mosquito must have gotten in.
I'll get the Krispy Kremes!
I listed 40+ SUV owners that I know of, every single one of them having a good reason to have an SUV, like being able to go to work. None of them bought the SUV primarily to look like AdventureGuy because many of their other vehicles are actually MINIVANs and STATIONWAGONs, not your image-conscious "Sport-Utility-Wagons" or pseudo-luxury sport coupes. Obviously, you have not honestly considered what I have posted, and you are an expert at wasting bandwidth with your groundless assertions, assertions that run contrary to your own experience and every single real case we collectively have been able to put together so far (40+ cases from me, and 1 from you).
The focus of this statement would be?? At least I'm able to supply a mountain of evidence, 40+ real life case studies. You have done nothing other than putting forth groudless assertions and name-calling. Frankly, I'm quite surprised that your content-free trolling posts have not been yanked yet.
Good point. Will oblige.
Both were on a few road trips (we more or less lived out of the van for 10 months in '99). I had studs when I lived in Anchorage and didn't have a steep driveway, so got by fine without 4WD. The ground clearance is a problem at times on the forest service roads we like to take, but nothing else handles the canoes and bikes and camping gear (or occasional piece of sheetrock or frig) as well. My other cars during that time were a compact sedan and now an AWD wagon.
If we went back to one car, the minivan would most likely stay. Although we really don't need quite as much room these days, and a few of the crossovers are tempting.
Steve, Host
I will take a minivan with snow tires and "spiders" clip-in traction any time over an all-season equipped AWD. Not that I need to: not that I need to. It is usually just a couple of really snowed out trips to Tahoe each year and $300 clip-on traction spiders are all I need if I do not drive my AWD wagon. Set of snow tires mounted on steel rims is $600. And you can changes four wheels ten times in the time it takes to get an "invincible" SUV out of a snowy ditch. AWD does not help much when braking.
The only situation where MDX will go and Odyssey would not involves going over rocks and logs.
Bingo.
brightness04 long rant here is the best proof of that. It is pure image in 99% of the cases.
And in cases when they do take SUV offroad, often a good sedan would do as well. You just need to know how to drive it.
Statistically, you are several times more likely to get killed in an SUV. No matter how good a driver you are (determined by correlating with preious driving record). Both in a multiple and single car collisions.
Facts are a stubborn little thing. They do not care about our perceptions.
Plus "manhood" issues for some/many.
Read on...
Money; 10/1/2004; Ulrich, Lawrence
Motor Mouth
Q. My husband and I want a vehicle that has three rows of seats, that's at least somewhat fuel efficient and that holds its value. One problem: My husband hates minivans. We're open to either new or used. What do you suggest?
A. First, have your husband seek help for his insecurity about the minivan, still the most efficient of family haulers. But if Dr. Freud can't hypnotize him into buying a Honda Odyssey (or a Toyota Sienna), try this bait and switch: the Honda Pilot or its upscale sibling, the Acura MDX. Both are based on the Odyssey platform and share its sterling features – power, comfort, solid handling, impeccable quality and top resale value. You will lose a minivan's sliding doors, but you add AWD, unavailable on the Odyssey, giving you more traction in rain or snow. New or used, they are worthy buys. The MDX is pricier starting at $36970, but it's also more powerful and luxurious than the utilitarian Pilot at $27615. Either one is a perfect compromise. They look like SUVs but are essentially minivans under the skin, allowing your husband to preserve his manhood, and you the marriage.
:-)
About 70% of accidents are collisions and they account for about 40% of accident fatalities.
About 30% of all accidents are rear-end collisions and another 30% are angle collisions. However, those angle collisions account for 22% of accident fatalities while those rear-end collisions account for only 5% of fatalities. Head-ons, while only 2% of accidents account for 10% of all fatalities.
NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2003
Those figures are for passenger vehicle accidents, not including ped, motorcycle, etc., accidents. So the total fatalities to apply those %s to is 38, 309 in 2003. Total accidents about 6.4 million.
li sailor: suv is for pseudo macho image
bightness : By the same logic, people buy pseudo-luxury sports cars like RSX because of the fear of projecting PoorSucker image when driving a perfectly utilitarian vehicle like Civic hatchback. How much boy racing can be done on today's highways anyway? not to mention the harm and danger posed to other motorists from boy racing.
People do care about images in choosing cars, whether it's SUV over MV or RSX over Civic hatch. At least with SUV over MV, there's the redeeming value that they are typically shorter and therefore take up less parking space along the curb. I can not think of a single justification of RSX over Civic hatch as far as imposing less on third party is concerned. RSX burns more gas, has less interior volume and take up more parking space than a Civic that can fulfill every transportation requiremnt that an RSX can.
me: LOL...... exactly !!! and all that sports car image is the one being heavily fined and has a high insurance cost.....
since my suv seems to have a boxed frame and sits higher off the ground than a mv, it seems that it would be safer when hit from behind. we use the 3rd row pretty often.
Exactly.....I shared this first hand experience , but Last July 4th weekend, we convoyed up to Redding for a retreat....one Pilot, one Sienna, one cayenne. On the way back, the sienna told me to go first (on all our trips...I am always the last car) ...and he would be last....he had a full load of 7 in his car....and it was rear ended before we even got onto the freeway....and the ford F150 bumper went over the bumper of the sienna, and impacted the rear gate, with the luggage and 3rd road seats all damaged..luckily, the girls in back were fine.... The pilot and cayenne bumpers would have matched up better with the Ford, but sienna did not... another thing to consider when buying vehicles....
This Friday, we will be going up to Redding again, for the same retreat...and needless to say, the Sienna driver said that I can bring up the rear....
yes, I know......
and also don't forget the poseurs who really do not need a car....or could use a electric or a Prius...
Have a great 4th... !
But I hope you have a great 4th!
I will take a minivan with snow tires and "spiders" clip-in traction any time over an all-season equipped AWD. Not that I need to: not that I need to. It is usually just a couple of really snowed out trips to Tahoe each year and $300 clip-on traction spiders are all I need if I do not drive my AWD wagon.
wow...you really would ? your last sentence states that it costs more, and takes more time, for you to drive the minivan, over your AWD wagon.... seems like the AWD is the way to go.......unless you reallly prefer to spend more time in the mud and snow putting on the chains and stuff....but hey...maybe some people like it....
Set of snow tires mounted on steel rims is $600. And you can changes four wheels ten times in the time it takes to get an "invincible" SUV out of a snowy ditch. AWD does not help much when braking.
again, sounds like you have to spend more money and time and sweat, just to get your minivan ready to do what the AWD could do ...
.When stuck in snow, any SUV with chains beats any minivan with chains .....you must agree, right ?
The only situation where MDX will go and Odyssey would not involves going over rocks and logs.
Here I disagree with you. We have been going up to Tahoe for the past 25 years...and most of the time, when there is snow, the minivans have to stop, and get chains , and have problems.....the AWD and SUVs generally do not, unless the snow really hits the fan.....
Most times the SUV is the way to go , when going up to snow country....of course, you can go in roller skates if you want.....
yes....but you got it wrong,,,,,sigh....as usual...
I never mentioned a civic...it was brightness....
I would prefer (you guessed) a Prius.... :P
Have a great 4th....and get lots of BBQ and sun and fun.... :shades:
And enjoy your "Silly Urban Vehicle"
Happy July 4!
Rather
Semi-Upright Vehicle.
or
Stupid Useless Vehicle
Are you aware that a minivan(Ody, Sienna, DGC. Quest, etc) has as much or more usable space than a FULL size SUV, such as an Expedition, Tahoe, or Sequoia?
So unless you are in it for the image thing, a minivan in a more comfortable and safer option for your family. But if its just for terrorizing (or enjoying the power to terrorize) other people on the road and for projecting an outward image (to compensate for some internal deficiency) then you have no better choice than an SUV. Go for it!
Incidentally, I just came across an interesting statistic. Given that both minivans and SUVs are 'tall', I guess one should expect their tendency to roll over to be similiar. Surprisingly, acording to data, the death rates due to rollovers for full size 4WD SUVs are more than 8 times those for large minivans! Guess the 'Sport' in more in the drivers head than in the vehicle.
I would expect that only if they had the same width. It's the ratio of height to width that matters.
tidester, host
And that is a very valid argument. See below.
You get more usable space in a minivan than you would in a full size SUV (as macakava pointed out).
Not every one wants to deal with 200+" vehicle length. Minivans are hard to parallel-park on the city streets and hard to fit into suburban garages. Mine for one would not accommodate a Sienna, which I seriously considered before buying Highlander (another reason was that Sienna being new at the time, were selling MSRP; I never pay MSRP). People want something between the 15 cu.ft of a sedan's trunk, and the 150 cu.ft of a Minivan cargo space. The mid-size SUV's (in reality nothing more than vertically developed hatchback wagons) with their typical 70-90 cu.ft cargo space fit the bill perfectly. Their sub-189" vehicle length (the same as a mid-sized sedan, the most popular-sized cars out there) make the choice so much easier. For urban dwellers who have to parallel park all the time, having 65+ cu.ft cargo space on a vehicle that's 180" or less is a god-send.
The anti-SUV obfuscators love to make the strawman argument that people buy SUVs for as much space as possible with no exterior limit. Guess what, most people do not need 18-wheeler or minivan space. The "S" and "U" in SUV stands for efficient Space Utilization.
On the safety front, you will be SAFER in the smallest minivan than you will be in the LARGEST SUV. (This is a fact, check out the accident death rates for different classes of vehicles in the NTSA report).
Again, it's a specious argument. Most SUV's are not the largest SUV's. Even in studies done by anti-SUV safety expert, Lexus RX came out statisticly the least fatal per 1000 vehicle ownership, ahead of minivans, ahead of sedans, sport coupes, ahead of everything else. That's why mid-size SUV's from decent manufacturers are the fastest growing segment.
So unless you are in it for the image thing, a minivan in a more comfortable and safer option for your family.
The reason being? Show me the statistic anywhere any Minivan is safer than my Highlander. Show me how to fit a Sienna into my garage. Show me why I have to deal with 20 extra inches of vehicle length every time I parallel park when 80 cu.ft is all the space I need.
As for the image thing, my other car is a Station Wagon. So what do you drive? and what's your other car? As they say, if you want to cast stone against people who care about images, let's see what you have got.
But if its just for terrorizing (or enjoying the power to terrorize) other people on the road
Do you stay up all night dreaming all this up?
So is your reponse quote here. You know what they say about people living in glass houses and throwing stones. If you want to attacks others on their image-conscienceness, let's see yours. If you want to strictly stick with the topic of Minivans vs. SUV's, lets talk about vehicle physical characteristics only and leave out speculations about owners and their attitudes. Obviously, anti-SUVers have real difficulty with that. I see the words "image-conscious" and "macho image" in practically every anti-SUVer attack post. That is not a vehicle characteristic; that's an attack on the owners.
No. They stand for "Sport" and "Utility" with neither reference to nor indication of space and efficiency. Perhaps we can agree that the "V" stands for "Vehicle?"
tidester, host
Certainly that's a point we call all agree on :-) I also agree with you on the technical acronym as marketted by the manufacturers.
In my previous post, I was giving an alternative to some of the less savory acronym expansions ("silly" ones ;-). IMHO, the Utility portion is more on the mind of buyers than "Sport" nowadays. Efficient Space Utilization is at premium nowadays, considering that the latest fashion among new SUVs are interior shelves, cargo tracks, water-proof wells, etc.
I too bemoan the stretching of the other MVs and my '99 is a bit long at 194.8". I miss the 5 passenger versions of the Caravan (I don't need the third row in your Highlander either).
Steve, Host
(1) It's gas mileage is worse than FWD Highlander.
(2) No AWD
(3) No stability control
(4) The engine has no torque off the line
(5) The interior is dated and cheap feeling
(6) Ford drive train reliability does not inspire confidence
(7) No center seat in the second row
(8) We really do not use third row much.
(9) 80 cu.ft is plenty for us for now
(10) Side airbags are pillar/chamber-mounted not seat mounted
(11) No side curtain airbags, which are actually more important than side torsal bags.
It's interesting to note that, "MPV" is a generic term outside North America for all types of vertically developed car-based vehicles from miniature RAV4 to midsized Highlander and all the way to nearly full-sized Mazda MPV itself. It's only in the US that marketting draw such a clear distinction between minivans and SUVs, and triggering such knee-jerk reaction from anti-SUVers, when in reality, they are all MPV's, Multi-Purpose Vehicles.
I've seen a few of those Espace type Euro MPVs - I like the Renault one with the little 14 or 15" wheels.
Steve, Host
We had it with the Nissan Axxess; if the original Honda Odyssey had followed suit, maybe they'd still be on the market. Plus they had a 4WD flavor. Instead we wind up with an Element with suicide doors.
Although the Element is a nice boxy vehicle and I like the idea of no B pillar -- that might make the side opening big enough for my uses.
Steve, Host
Com'n guys,
IT is Silly Urban Vehicle, for crying out loud!
Happy July 4th!
Sounds like a can of packed sardines to me!
Happy 4th!
Probably when fully utilized. Not sure what engine it has . . . It does go to show the need for space efficient vehicles in some parts of the world.
That's great. It would help to balance those who are using more gas -hungry vehicles. As they say, "Peter pays for Paul"
What I have heard and observed is that the RAV4, because of its size, is a "girlie" car because it attracts a lot of female drivers. The CRV, at about 12" longer, has more usable space and is more attractive to more men. That size vehicle(especially the RAV 4) may be more popular in Europe and Japan because of the $5 - $6/gal gas there. Yes gas is more expensive now than 1 year ago, but people forget and adapt to it. As long as gas is relatively cheaper here, there will not be that push to use these smaller vehicles. But I would not want to get into an accident with those small vehicles with a bigger vehicle. Give me a bigger vehicle any day.
In some parts of the world, people sit on the roof of vehicles as well. Think about how many more passengers you can add!
But you would not want to live there.