Given that you out carried out so much research and optimized everything, good choice! However, the vehicle you got does not even command a double digit market share within the SUV segment. The Explorer alone sells more that the Toyotas put together (I posted the numbers on another forum, cant do all the online research all over again!)
Incidentally, the space issue is not brought up by 'SUV obfuscators' but SUV supporters themselves! Read the post I replied to :
"minivans are in my opinion the same size or close to the same size as compact suv's"
But as you pointed out, they are actually bigger than mid-size SUVs like yours. SUVs on the face of it are seen as having more room but the SUV lobby themselves. And once again, SUV stands for Sports Utility, unless some recent renomenclature was carried out. It does not definitely stand for space utilization because a similiarly sized minivan offers more space than an SUV.
I would love to know who an anti-SUV safety expert is (!!) May because the findings of the expert did not match the expectations and beliefs of SUV supporters, he was labelled anti-SUV?
Your arguments are more specious. "Most SUV's are not the largest SUV's." Eh? I have numbers to prove otherwise. The two largest selling SUVs themselves are full-size (Explorer and the second is some GM monster). And as far as the numbers go, firstly, on which parameter is the Lexus RX300 representative of the SUV segment? I might argue that the Explorer (on the basis of being the largest selling SUV) is more representative and it has amongst the worst safety ratings! And while we are still at it, the Merc E class is actually rated as the safest vehicle (since you brought up the being safer than anything on wheels argument).
And statistically speaking, the Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey, Toyota RAV4, Lexus RX300, Toyota 4Runner, Volkswagen Passat, Mercury Villager and the Toyota Camry Solara are all equally safe (The confidence interval around the mean value overlaps to a great extent for all these vehicles). I cannot produce data for the Highlander here becasue it was not listed in the 2004 NTSA report (however, I would be surprised if it were very different from the other Toyota SUVs mentioned above).
SUVs exist as a vehicle class to serve certain needs and towards that end, their utility is immense. I have friends who are into serious off roading and mountain biking who own SUVs (one owns a Land Rover Discovery and the other owns a Jeep Grand Cherokee). I swear by those vehicles and would not drive anything else in the places that they end up being driven. However, I do not understand the single driver monstrosities I find packed on the road to and from work everyday.
As this forum was about minivans vs. SUVs, I made the argument than for the typical family hauling purposes that these vehicles are typically bought, a minivan makes a better choice on both the aspects that SUV owners say SUVs trump. Unfortunately, there are no comparably sized good minivans to the mid-sized and compact SUV segment so the argument does not hold much over there. But in the large SUV segment (which is where a good deal of the SUV sales are) there are some very nice minivans which trump the SUVs on the aspects of safety as well as space (still stand by that, backed by statistics). So the image thing is what holds over there, definitely.
As far as the staying up and dreaming thing is concerned, the terrorizing is a sad reality that non-SUV people have to live with at the glee of the SUV ones because one statistic is undeniable, in a multi vehicle collision, an SUV would come off better. I live through the winters constantly going off the road to let some SUV driving tailgaters by who live in the belief that their vehicle makes them immune from the effects of rain, sleet, ice or snow and somehow the laws of physics are inapplicable to them. Good luck to them. Maybe when I have taken enough from them, I'll buy a monster truck or a hummer or something like that. Then I'll have the fun the other way round.
As far as the image thing is concerned, I'll take that on another post. And in case you already are not a member, see what the your ilk have to say on important isssue at www. suvoa.com (SUV owners assocuation). I can point out all the cracks in their FACTS but sample this gem. The California Law Board want to pass a law to restrict CO2 emissions from ALL vehicles. However, the only people bawling about is are the SUV ones. See the doomsday predictions of how all UTILITY will be lost and the there will be a carnage on the roads. Of course, who cares two hoots about the environment and crappy stuff like that. I guess all there emissions laws which were passed were all trash, by the arguments presented here.
"...
So, California bureaucrats decided on a clever strategy that forces CO2 reductions, knowing the only way it can be accomplished is by huge increases in fuel economy for SUVs and light trucks. At today's prices, saving fuel sounds great - until inherent draconian side effects are factored, such as much higher sticker prices, reduced consumer choice and, most important, many more highway deaths and injuries because of the resulting smaller vehicles.
The intent? Force SUVs and other light trucks to be drastically downsized to meet the CO2 reduction requirement. The result? Smaller engines; less utility and towing capacity; higher prices for consumers and as history has shown, diminished occupant safety as vehicle size shrinks. But since there are no motor vehicles made in California, there are no immediate political or economic ramifications and consumer backlash would not be faced for a decade or so - - after it's too late.
With the super sizing of minivans, I suppose we could be comparing crossovers to small and mid-size SUVs then. Crossovers should be less tippy, but I'm not sure how much more (any?) fuel efficient they are.
People continue to have trouble classifying them too:
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadnt checked that aspect out. It appears that minivans typically have a height/width ratio of ~ 0.9. The same figure for large SUVs is ~ .99. That would definitely drive part of the higher rollover rates. Whether 8 times or not may be debatable but it is definitely a factor.
Given that you out carried out so much research and optimized everything, good choice!
Thank you for your compliment. The same deference should be extended to many other SUV owners, IMHO, and many owners of other types of vehicles. Cars are not cheap or disposable, yet, so it is only natural to assume that people have given considerable amount of thought before making their choices, instead of out-right dismiss others as "stupid" an "silly" as many of our anti-SUV friends would like to do. Such dismissiveness is not only arrogant but also "stupid" and "silly."
Even the Explorer has a very strong case in terms of cost of acquisition. There is no minivan that offers AWD and mid-row center seat in the lower $20k range.
Incidentally, the space issue is not brought up by 'SUV obfuscators' but SUV supporters themselves!
What space issue are you talking about?? You argued that minivans offer more space than SUV's. I simply replied not everyone need as much as space as minivans, nor the 200+" length of typical minivans to deal with. You are as confused as the confused words you quoted from another poster.
You are very confused indeed, upon further reading of your post. Explorers are by no means "the largest SUVs" Nor is E class the safest vehicle, being a low riding car and all. . . Obviously, you are new to this pro-/anti debate. This time last year on "I-Don't-Like-SUVs-Why-Should-You" there was a favorite vehicle fatality study quoted by anti-'s. The author's was labelled anti- because his stated thesis was SUV's were not as safe as cars. Yet in his data, RX was shown to be safer than any and all cars. In case you did not know, RX share platform with Highlander, which is one of the top selling SUVs that have seen sales growth in recent months, unlike Explorers which have seen decline.
I have friends . . . However, I do not understand the single driver monstrosities I find packed on the road to and from work everyday.
This is the common logical farce a lot of anti-SUVers engage in. They can see the particular in the right light, but fail to generalize; worse, then they proceed to generalize in the opposite direction as the particulars that they are familiar with. Lets say, you have a lost twin who does not know your friend, but shares your passion against SUVs, wouldn't he be raging against your friend when he sees your friend commute in the SUV? Now knowing your friend's good use for the vehicle, wouldn't you have to conclude that your twin is being a bit prematurely judgemental? Now, how do you know all those SUV's on the road have their good uses, whether off-road and occasionally deal with snow covered roads. Most of the time, SUV capacity is not needed, nor is 5-passenger seats in a sedan, but it's the occasional requirement that makes the vehicle good choices.
I made the argument than for the typical family hauling purposes that these vehicles are typically bought, a minivan makes a better choice on both the aspects that SUV owners say SUVs trump.
No, you haven't. You have not argued why people need to haul 200+" vehicle length around, when obviously, mid-sized 170-189" vehicle length, that of the mid-sized cars, being the most popular vehicle length on the road. As for safety, I don't see any study showing me minivans being more safe than the RX/Highlander twin. The one single "minivan" that comes close in length not only comes with worse gas mileage but also several safety difficiencies in comparison.
As far as the staying up and dreaming thing is concerned, the terrorizing is a sad reality
How is Minivan any better? A 4500lb Sienna will probably cream a 2800lb Civic even worse than a 3800lb Highlander will. If anything, shorter and lighter miniature minivans (called SUV's in this country) should make the roads safer than the otherwise would be there big minivans.
Maybe when I have taken enough from them, I'll buy a monster truck or a hummer or something like that. Then I'll have the fun the other way round.
See, this whole "macho image" accusation is nothing more than projecting your own repressed aggressions. I don't think anyone who buys SUVs for images and get aggressive on others will really enjoy their ownership for long. People like myself, who buy vehicles after much thoughtful studies, are the ones who will enjoy the ownership and go back for another SUV in the long run :-)
. . . your ilk . . .
Is that the politically correct terms for SUV owners nowadays? :-) I see, anti-SUV postering is nothing more than a form of projecting one's own pent up aggression.
It took half a century for the industry to come back around to what the people really want: a 15.5 ft long, 5.5ft high two-box wagon design. That was the dimension of the original Station Wagons back before WWII, the quintessential family vehicle, a size that today would be called SUV's. In the 50's, GM came up with the image marketting theme, and started making cars "lower, longer and wider" in order to have a sleek image for cars and differentiate car and truck markets to maximize profit. It took half a century for cars (personal vehicles) to become more of a utility item than an image possession, naturally coming back to the dimensions that are truely comfortable to use and versatile; who really wants to bend down and crouch into or step up the ladders into their sportscars and big trucks anyway. The exact name of this type of comfortable and versatile vehicles has been Station Wagon, SUV, and now emerging use of the term "cross-over" at various times, whichever is more fashionable and less staid at the time. The name itself probably probably carries more image-conscienseness than the vehicles themselves.
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 :-)
Inappropriate comparisons. Two levels of fallacy here. The first one "SUV = MPV" and the second one, "RAV4=MPV". Read from the Toyota website "On or off the road, in or out of town, the RAV4 is the distinctive 4x4 sports utility vehicle." And this is not Toyota US, it is Toyota UK. And they do make a very clear distinction between an MPV and an SUV. The RAV4 is clearly classified as an SUV and not a MPV.
Read the wikipedia definition of an MPV :
"MPV is short for Multi Purpose Vehicle. The term is popular in Europe and elsewhere but not generally used within North America; minivan is the nearest equivalent. An MPV is a passenger carrying vehicle based on a car platform, and is generally a one box design - neither a distinct bonnet (US: hood) nor boot (US: trunk), but rather a maximised interior space. MPVs generally have a flat floor and removable seats except for the front row, and give great flexibility of seating arrangements and cargo capacity. They usually offer around five to seven seats. The Renault Espace, launched in 1984 was the first MPV available in Europe.
The North American concept of a "minivan" is very similar, except that the minivan classification implies a certain vehicle size while in Europe, MPVs vary in size quite a bit. Some MPVs are produced on quite small car chassis while others definitely fit within the minivan class. "
And now take a look at the MPVs below. Please do not use the word "MPV" so loosely to describe SUVs. If still in doubt, check out this MPV shootout http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/grouptest/1647/mpvs.html This is an edmunds like site in UK. Clearly, SUVs do not have the same DNA as MPVs. Minivans are closer. So hence, given the forum's title "Minivans vs. SUVs", and given that you accept that MPVs are highly versatile and sensible in the modern urban environment and given that minivans are closer to MPVs, you accept that minivans make more sense than SUVs. Exactly my point. Thank you!
And ya, which leaves us with the fact that SUVs will remain "Silly Urban" vehicles because they dont make sense in the urban landscape.
Here are some of the MPVs being sold in other markets. Do they look like V8 Ford Explorers? (The largest selling SUV out here). Each of them offers awsome space utilization and will fit in any garage and park anywhere. The only problem I forsee is whether the typical "SUV" consumers will buy four-bangers with displacement in the teens and fuel efficiency in the higher 30s. You see, anything less than a V8 is powerless
the only problem with those mpv's is that it would take me 2 trips to my one in my explorer. they might have passenger room, but not much cargo room. i also prefer, as do a lot of people, rear drive. put about a thousand miles on my explorer this weekend. in a couple weeks more, two thousand.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Going back to the forum's topic. let debate SUV vs. Minivan (the MPV issue was brought up by another SUV owner who pointed out that they had awesome cargo space efficiency, by which he intended to say mid-size SUVs have awesome space efficiency, an innacurate asertion since SUV not equal to MPV).
Nonetheless, lets see on important metrics where the explorer stands against a minivan (let say the Sienna). We'll use cargo area / surface area covered as a measure of space efficiency (seems to make sense, how much can you carry for the amount of road space u take up, I open to a more meaningful metric).
Explorer (4 dr 4WD) Sienna Absolute Cargo Space 82 cu ft 149 cu ft Space Efficiency 0.86 1.39 Crash Death Rates 56 32
Both available with AWD.
In a stretch sense, the Sienna may be classified as an MPV.
explorer is still rwd until you need awd or 4wd. it's also way smaller and can hold 7 passengers. if you need more cargo capacity spend 300 bucks on a cargo carrier. if you are into toyotas, how many of the top of the line lexus models are fwd? there is a reason for this. 'the relentless pirsuit of perfection'.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Everytime I see the thread title A Civil Comparison, I think we are comparing SUVs to Honda Civics. A good alternative to what some people are driving I suppose.
How about just getting a full size van? A Chevy Astro has an AWD flavor and holds 170 cu. ft. of cargo. And it's just a smidge less than 190" long. If you want to go anywhere with a 4WD, then add a Quigley conversion.
the most broken down vehicles i saw on my loop this last weekend were astro's. it may be a backhanded compliment, since i guess it was good news that there were still some on the on the road. they were a workhorse vehicle.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
drove my father in laws '84 olds rwd wagon in snow last year. it drove better than my wife's saab 9'5 or my focus (both fwd). maybe it's local conditions. my explorer is so much better than any of those, it's a joke. let me put it this way, i could control the sliding better with the olds. the explorer does not slide under the same conditions.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Ok last post for the time being. Holiday is over and this finding factual data all over the net is time consuming. Pardon my confusion, I plan to join the SUVOA to attain divine enlightenment In the meantime, some attempts by a confused soul to explain to few things
What space issue are you talking about?? You argued that minivans offer more space than SUV's. I simply replied not everyone need as much as space as minivans, nor the 200+" length of typical minivans to deal with.
My line of argument - most SUV owners believe that their vehicles offer more space than anything else. Not all optimize around their requirement. If they did and absolute space (and not usable) was the requirement, they would buy minivans. Check out a post above to show the space requirement. And the SUVOA reasons for having an SUV:
- SUV owners who may commute alone during the workweek may be hauling a soccer team, boat, home improvement materials or supplies for a local charity during the weekend.[7] - About half of the respondents in a scientific R.L. Polk poll use their SUV regularly to haul bulky items[8] that just won’t fit into cars. - Today, less than 6% of passenger cars can tow more than 2,100 pounds, so Americans rely on SUVs and other light trucks to tow almost 24 million boats, ATVs, horse trailers, RVs, snowmobiles and off-road motorcycles.[9]
Given such immense requirements, I believe a minivan serves their purpose better. You seem to be pushing your reuirement and optimization as that of SUV owners in general. I believe that the above organization reflects the view of a much broader population. Hence I argue with respect to their views.
Explorers are by no means "the largest SUVs" I said largest selling. A little more attention while reading
Nor is E class the safest vehicle,
www.ntsa.org First entry on the first table: safest car - Merc Benz E Class. I base my statements on data, I would love to know how you arrived at the above conclusion.
RX was shown to be safer than any and all cars Once again, E-class, Passat, 4Runner were better. Facts.
Q1 05 sales figures: Highlander+RX300+400h = 56,000 Explorer = 63,000
On the issue of safety, the NTSA report gave combined death rates for each class of vehicles taking number sold etc all into account. Lets look at the results (My confused mind tells me that the RX300 and Highlander should fall in the realm of mid-size SUVs. Please correct me if wrong).
Midsize 4-dr cars: 76 (deaths per million vehicle years) Midsize luxury cars: 41 Midsize minivans/wagons: 47 Midsize SUV 2WD: 114 Midsize SUV 4WD: 67
Facts, once again. I'm drawing no conclusions.
.. some twin/friend example.... Ahem, one of my friends uses a Carolla to commute. One look at the other's SUV and you would know where all it has been (and no, its not the spray on mud thing that is available for SUV some SUV owners in a more macho light). A look around at all the SUVs parked all around neighborhood and at the office parking lot (and talking to quite a few of the owners) reveals that the most off-roading their vehicles have ever done is getting onto the shoulder. And trust me, your Highlander was not even designed for serious off-roading. The designers know that those vehicles would seldom, if ever, be taken off-road. Driving on snow doesn't need awesome offroading capability. I drive a 2-dr coupe and do just as fine as all the other SUV owners around me!
BTW, I love the Edmunds summary of the highlander. "The Highlander, in contrast, is meant for people who like the image and versatility of an SUV but prioritize the ride, handling and comfort of a sedan. Think of the Highlander as a kind of oversize Camry wagon that went clothes shopping at REI, and you've got the general idea.
Once again, thats not the confused me but some pretty experienced auto editors. Even they bring out the image thing. What can I say?
How is Minivan any better? A 4500lb Sienna will probably cream a 2800lb Civic even worse than a 3800lb Highlander will.
Completely agree. But somehow the minivan drivers do not have the drive to show off that they are the kings of the road. They seem to believe in the limitations of their vehicle and drive more appropriately (a generalization, exceptions will exist). I, once again in a state of confusion, attribute this to the positive selection at the buying step itself. All the macho and agressive types would automatically move away from the minivans, thu automatically filtering down the more sober kinds towards minivans (Please notice that I mentioned that there is positive selection towards minivans, I did not say anything about negative selection towards any other vehicle type.)
If anything, shorter and lighter miniature minivans (called SUV's in this country)
Incorrect. The RAV4 is not called a minivan or an MPV by the manufacturers themselves anywhere in the world. It is very much an SUV (Though one I have nothing against it. I think its a good vehicle.)
See, this whole "macho image" accusation is nothing more than projecting your own repressed aggressions.
Ha Ha. At least I'm not the one taking this out on the roads! However, I believe sooner or later, all people have to start doing so. Look at the argument for ever bigger vehicles - if you are in a small vehicle and you hit a big vehicle, you will be toast, so get a big vehicle. Nowhere in this logic is it mentioned that if there were no big vehicles, then everyone would be safer. So given that SUV owners are campaigning for no pullution restrictions, bigger engines, bigger vehicles etc etc, someone who keeps using a low polluting vehicle with a smaller engine is essentially on the losing end. Kind of like gun control. Argument put forward is that some people have guns, so others are unsafe, so they should get guns. If noone had them, it wouldnt be a concern. But now, the ones who dont believe in guns are at a disadvantage!
I see, anti-SUV postering is nothing more than a form of projecting one's own pent up aggression.
You clearly avoided responding to the content of the website and instead chose to attack the intentions of the poster. See, there is only that much others can take. So SUV owners want no limits, bigger engines, more gas, more towing, more space, more everything. Great! Its a free country - anyone can get what they want. Just dont frown at others when they get even bigger stuff in response (Ah.. I can visualize a black hummer riding on huge floatation tyres and massive coils.. and the Yukon lady who almost rear ended me in the snow last winter rite in front of me in the snow.. divine retribution.. ecstasy....) My best instincts tell me I should do otherwise, which is why I dont already do that stuff, but there is just that much more one can take......
Thats all for now. Adios. I need to take a break from this posting mania.
if you need more cargo capacity spend 300 bucks on a cargo carrier.
I could argue the same for the MPV vs. Explorer thing that you brought up. You said
they might have passenger room, but not much cargo room.
I guess the $300 cargo carries could also be bought here! And it all loops back
but could they actually carry it? where i drive 75-80 mph is the norm on highways. i prefer to spend my time at my destination rather than getting to it. there is a point where the payload can overwhelm the mule. also wher i live, urban roads are made up of one tar patch after another. my suv handles it better due to the suspenson travel than my focus.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I would expect that only if they had the same width. It's the ratio of height to width that matters.
Certainly, that ratio is far more meaningful than simply height. However, it's not that simple, either. The distribution of the vertical COG is important. A 6' high vehicle that has most of its weight at 2.5' is more unstable than one that has most at 2'. SUVs, with their higher ground clearance and heavier 4WD, have their weight distrubution higher than MVs. This is the reason they rollover far more than MVs.
Not every one wants to deal with 200+" vehicle length.
Not everyone needs a large vehicle, but when they do, it's a logical tradeoff.
The mid-size SUVs (in reality nothing more than vertically developed hatchback wagons) with their typical 70-90 cu.ft cargo space fit the bill perfectly.
A vehicle that has approximately the space required but also has unneeded weight (to handle heavy duty applications like towing and heavy hauling) and other attributes that make it less safe is hardly "perfect". Wagons have that same cargo space without the negatives of the SUV. And those that need more passenger and cargo space than a wagon have those requirements better met with a MV.
The anti-SUV obfuscators...
Weak arguments seem to always require denigration of some kind. Funny, isn't it?
... the strawman argument that people buy SUVs for as much space as possible with no exterior limit.
I would agree, that's a strawman argument. I've never heard anyone make it.
If you want to attacks others on their image-conscienceness...
I have cited a reason for the popularity of SUVs. Try to deal with it on an objective basis. You can agree, disagree or ignore. Saying what amounts to "your mother wears army boots" is puerile. Try to keep it relevant.
...lets talk about vehicle physical characteristics only and leave out speculations about owners and their attitudes.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think the reasons folks buy the vehicles in the topic is relevant. You can just ignore my posts, no problem.
Hmm, that's what I call it when I'm just about ready to pull into a car dealer. Do I really have the energy to face it? Usually I come to my senses and keep driving down the road.
The Spotlight Ad here this week is the Madza5 - a Multi-Activity Vehicle. A M-AV. Or MAV. Maybe the hyphen is to try to keep the soccer MA element of the name since that's the horrific image that people want to stuck MVs with.
The Spotlight Ad here this week is the Madza5 - a Multi-Activity Vehicle. A M-AV. Or MAV. Maybe the hyphen is to try to keep the soccer MA element of the name since that's the horrific image that people want to stuck MVs with.
I checked into this Mazda5 while doing my car shopping a few weeks ago. I liked the sequential shift auto, and the size of it (not too big), but was dissapointed with the mediocre engine ( 2.3 liter 4cyl ). The vehicle weighs 500 lbs more than my RSX and has the same horsepower rating. I'm afraid it would be bordering on "dog-like" when trying to accelerate.
From experience, my opinion is that a vehicle needs to accelerate form 0-60 in less than 10 seconds to qualify for "being able to get out of it's own way"
my guess is that not too many are cross shopping rsx and maz5. maybe crv and maz5.
LOL No I suppose not! I was just doing a comparison of engines/HP/0-60 ratings. The HP in the Mazda is the same as the RSX and since the Mazda is heavier, it's obviously going to be slower. I don't expect it to compete with an RSX as far as performance goes, but it should (any car should in my opinion) be able to handle 0-60 in less than 10 seconds...and the Mazda doesn't.
What a colossal waste of time. You spent hundreds of lines on attacking a strawman who buys cars/vehicles without checking specs. Whether an SUV or a minivan has more space takes only a quick check at any spec sheet, which is presumably what most people do before spending $25k+. By the same token, there are plenty people like myself who do not want to live with the exterior length of a minivan and find the interior volume of an SUV like Highlander perfectly adequate.
Where does Edmund's comment "The Highlander, in contrast, is meant for people who like the image and versatility of an SUV but prioritize the ride, handling and comfort of a sedan. . . . " imply people pick Highlander over Minivan because of image?? It reads to me like Highlander buyers prioritize ride, handling and comfort of a sedan, all of which the minivan Sienna fails because of the extra two feet length. For what it's worth, Edmund's next sentence "Think of the Highlander as a kind of oversize Camry wagon . . ." is head on in my case. My other car is a station wagon. So much for your image being the prime driver argument.
Midsize SUV 2WD: 114 Midsize SUV 4WD: 67
Facts, once again. I'm drawing no conclusions.
Lies, big lies and statistics. Obviously, you statistic does not sperate car-based vs. truck-based SUV's, which makes all the difference in the world, even according to anti-SUV studies. Oh, by the way, in the NHTSA, Explorer is considered a mid-size SUV, contrary to your earlier assertion that it's one of the largest SUV's.
Ha Ha. At least I'm not the one taking this out on the roads! However, I believe sooner or later, all people have to start doing so.
Nonsense. People buy whatever best suit their own requirement and economic means. Your comment on guns goes further to show how detached from reality the whole train of thoughts really are. First of all, ownership of guns, legal and illegal is reality, whether you outlaw it or not; likewise, big behemoth, 18 wheelers, RV's and trucks are reality, plenty dangerous to low-riding cars, whether there are SUV's or not. Secondly, what's happening in Britain, where private gun ownership is outlawd, the latest government study concluding kitchen knife being the dangerous, should give a hint where this anti-gun and anti-SUV logic is really headed: endless government intervention on what you should and should not own.
but could they actually carry it? where i drive 75-80 mph is the norm on highways. ....
These cars are actually sold mostly in countries with speed limits similiar to or higher than ours (France/UK/Italy - 80mph, Spain - 75mph, Germany - No limit unless posted compared to US 55-75mph, these are speeds on motorwars or interstates, as we call them). Unless an average person in our country weighs twice as much as there, or somehow has super-human cargo needs, I do not see how the same vehicle would be useless here!
the only problem with those mpv's is that it would take me 2 trips to my one in my explorer. they might have passenger room, but not much cargo room. i also prefer, as do a lot of people, rear drive. put about a thousand miles on my explorer this weekend. in a couple weeks more, two thousand.
Cargo space wise, these MPVs are not too short (~ 70 cu ft) as opposed to Explorer's 88. And using your logic, one could easily buy a carrier for the extra 18 cu ft. If the 70 is not killing the vehicle, the extra 18 wont Plus, in terms of space efficiency, these vehicles are waaaaay up there. These are the vehicles to be called the "Space Utilization Vehicle", not the other ones which want to wrongfully usurp that title!
And the best part, all these vehicles have a combined fuel efficiency in the upper 40's and a highway efficiency in the 50s !!! Gasp.. even our hybrids dont give as much!!!
I live an hour from the beautiful West Virginia mountains and an hour from Virginia beach, along with a few wonderful camping sites around. If there were to be all the "weekend towing" stuff, I thnk I should be able to see it (and I am a frequent traveller, my year and a half old car has 35k miles on it). However, it may be some wierd conincidence but 90% percent of the SUVs I see being driven around are not towing anything (correction, I'll make that 95%). Within the city its just single people driving around, on the weekends on the highway, people and their luggage are neatly tucked inside and nothin is overflowing. I have some difficulty in understanding the mythical 'yatch-towing" capability 95% of the owners believe they require when no more than 5% ever utilize it!
On the face of it, extreme space utilization, good people carrying capacity, command seating and host of safety features (traction control and all that jazz) is what most people ultimately end up needing. These MPVs provide all that and then there is the killer mileage. And if you need to haul crazzy stuff once in a while, the friendly rental company has all the SUVs/Trucks you need. I am sure that works out to be a more economic proposition too!
However, I know that these vehicles will never sell here. They will be perenially be classified as 'under-powered' coz people here have been spoilt with low gas prices and monster engines for way too long. At the end of the day, these cars maintain 75 mph on the highway and are highly capable. They will only take 2 seconds more to get there. But that does make a whole world of difference, doesn't it?
ps. Gas headed for $3/gal and rising. We are all waiting to see what happens!
sounds like an 'mpv' is a good choice for you. i'll stick with my suv and am pretty happy with it. i just tried to buy a bigger one, but it didn't work out. back when fwd only was availble in a low torque/skinny tire vehicles, maybe they were better in snow. that is not the case anymore.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
i'll stick with my suv and am pretty happy with it.
That is the ultimate logic and nothing comes up against it. As a matter of fact, it kills the need for any logic
I have nothing for FWD cars and prefer RWDs because of the natural oversteer you can get, which makes corners so much more fun. All the same, FWDs do remain a better option in snow (AWDs are best with electronic power distribution are the best, but thats not we are discussion right now).
Once again, before expressing ungrounded opinion, it might be helpful spending 5 minutes on an extremely powerful tool - the internet. Most of us are not automobile engineers over here and none of us would necessarily know the exact details (neither do I). Here's what the fact are. Hopefully this closes the debate. And it has nothing to do with then and now.
Rear wheel drive Advantages - Better handling in dry conditions - less force is applied to the front wheels, allowing more of their friction to be used to steer the vehicle and allowing more power to be applied through the rear wheels, which are unburdened by steering. - Less costly and easier maintenance - No torque steer. - Drifting - Even weight distribution - Towing - Rear wheel drive puts the wheels which are pulling the load closer to the point where a trailer articulates, helping steering, especially for large loads. - Weight transfer during acceleration
Disadvantages - More difficult handling on low grip surfaces (wet road, ice, snow, gravel...) as the car is pushed rather than pulled - More difficult to master - While the handling characteristics of rear-wheel drive may be useful or fun in the hands of someone who knows how to use them, in the hands of most drivers, having the rear wheels move about is unintuitive and dangerous. Rear wheel drive rewards skill, and punishes the lack of it. Other layouts are much more forgiving, but don't offer the same rewards in handling. - Decreased interior space - This isn't an issue in a vehicle with a ladder frame - Increased weight - Higher purchase price - Probably due to more complicated assembly
A site to promote the use of RWDs. Its understandably not quite as explicit as the previous website (wikipedia.org) about the disadvantage (for example, even FWDs come with traction control these dats), but even they agree to it
So why do automakers use front drive cars? - Traction in Snow and Ice. When not under hard acceleration front drive cars have more weight over the front wheels. This gives more traction for acceleration in very slippery conditions. This is the biggest perceived advantage to a front drive car. However, today's rear wheel drive cars with traction control and independent suspension do very good in the snow. For areas that have extreme amounts of winter weather this may be enough to justify a front wheel drive car.
Me: The two largest selling SUVs themselves are full-size (Explorer and the second is some GM monster).... You:Explorers are by no means "the largest SUVs"... Me: I said largest selling. A little more attention while reading ... You:Explorer is considered a mid-size SUV, contrary to your earlier assertion that it's one of the largest SUV's....
For the N+1 th time, I said "largest selling" as in "number of vehicles people bought", as opposed to "largest in dimension". Please let me know if you still dont get it.
Whether an SUV or a minivan has more space takes only a quick check at any spec sheet, which is presumably what most people do before spending $25k+.
I seriously doubt that. If that were the case, there are some serious pieces of trash which are consistently rated as such in all surveys which still sell a large number of pieces. There are companies which are almost universally condemned for churning out trashy and unimaginative vehicles (except for the occasional gem) with questionable build quality and reliability which still sell more than double the number of vehicles than some of the most admired companies. In light of that, I would not necessarily forward that logic.
Going back to the initial topic, there are minivans in the sub-190 inch range with almost twice the space efficiency as the Highlander. And they have been overall given higher ratings (which I belive take a holistic view and do not harp on just one aspect) by the edmunds.com editors (Highlander - 7.6, T&C 8.4, G-Caravan 8.2, for comparison only Sienna 8.8). Not being a professional car tester, I will agree with the opinion of the experts. So I will definitely question that logic.
At the end of the day its your money, your choice. You are free to buy whatever you want. I have tried to forward lots of logic and facts but whenever they don't suit you, you dismiss statistics as lies or the work of anti- people (incidentally NTSA is a govt funded agency, I didn't create those statistics). On the other hand, you use the same statistics to prove that the RX330 is the safest thing on the planet. And you consistent believe that the other person is 'confused', 'detached from reality' and 'dreaming'. At the same time you forward unfounded 'facts'. So good luck, happy driving and be safe!
..endless government intervention on what you should and should not own.
Completely offtopic but I agree with you. I demand abolition of all government impositions like air bags, seat belts, minimal structural reinforcements, emission controls and catalytic converters (I will buy that stuff if I can have the money and feel like it). I also demand that possession of pot, crack cocaine, heroin and meth be made legal. Its none of the govt's business, rite?
unlike some, i don't believe eveyrthing i read on the 'net. i base my opinion on my experience. i understand that experience is very subjective. it does work for me. i drove a vw thing, in vermont, in the winter. i have a convertible, but try to never put the top up no matter how hot it is. i think those 2 are somehow related. :confuse:
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I do animal rescue and need a larger vehicle. I had a 1994 Plymouth Grand Voyager which was great. A mechanic stuck the dipstick through the van while rebuilding the trans. I started the vehicle and it blew the headgasket from overheating. I've got to get another vehicle! I want an SUV but the rollover factor scares me. I will have to get a used whatever I get. I wanted a Suburban..my daughter wants me to get one. She's 12 and doesn't like the looks of the minivans as that's all I've had as a daily vehicle since she was born.
1) What vehicle is the safest with the best warranty? Thanks for any help or ideas.. Kim
Seems like you need quite a good amount of space. One of the minivan trios (Odyssey, Quest, Sienna) should serve your purpose very well. They have more cargo space than the largest SUVs, are much more reliable, more comfortable, relatively fuel efficient and much better in terms of safety (at least the crash death rate study by NTSA says so).
The SUV which would come closest in terms of providing similiar amounts of cargo space is the Excursion (146 cu ft to the 149 on these minivans). Expect terrible mileage (thirsty V8 and V10 engines), a harsh ride (its truck based), great towing capacity, Ford reliability (whichever way you prefer to see it) and lower safety. However, if you intend to take on some rough terrain then this is definitely you better bet. However, dont expect the comfort on the road!
science is sometimes just made up pseudo facts that are made to "look " like science.... I remember the brontosaurus as a very good example of a made up fact.
this is coming from a scientist...!!
look at the recent top news stories ...and you will notice that up to 50% of researchers said that they did some fudging on the data to make the facts/data support the hypothesis/conclusion.....
some scientists work backwards......pretend/reach the conclusion first, then find data to support it....that's the way to get grants and generate media attention and get tenure.....well...it certainly does help those who need to get ahead but do not have a head...
sorry this is offtopic, but it is important to point out this phenomenon.
oh....and minivans are nice....we may even trade in the suburban for one....my son would like a minivan...and doesn't mind driving one , he says.
oh...btw...the suburban was used to bring 8 people and luggage to the airport....small suitcases...but definitely would not fit in any of the minivans that you suggested....
I like the suburban/SUV for its versatility in utility without compromises....disadvantage is higher gas bills....but the ride is great ( ok,,,I have special shocks) and it handles great...
I think most people will disagree with you on the lower safety....the SUV goes out and steals it from other vehicles... so it has more safety than the MV..
""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?? ""
so the ice storm did cause the the explorer to slide off the road...and also caused the other cars .......Hurricaine Dennis also causes cars to slide off roads....and you don't even need a driver inside.....
I think that maybe careless driver did not think about all the factors of driving, and did not slow down and drive as the conditions warrant....or just get out of the car when conditions become really unsafe...
oh...its you tides...oh well...you know what I mean....
Me[hercules00]: The two largest selling SUVs themselves are full-size (Explorer and the second is some GM monster)....
For the N+2 th time, Explorer is not a full-size SUV.
I just love your diatribe on people keeping buying your so-called "trash." Haven't you ever considered pricing?? At some price point, even a used Kia Excel gets sold, despite the fact that it isn't very safe, doesn't go fast, doesn't carry much, doesn't ride smoothly, isn't reliable, etc., etc.. I tend to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to judging others in their spending habits, the presumption of sanity, if you will . . . I suppose, the inner-dictator in some of us can't stand others buying anything to their own liking at all; do you happen to believe forcing everyone buy black colored cars will enormously improve the efficiency (read: saving material and fuel) of automobile distribution?
And the best part, all these vehicles have a combined fuel efficiency in the upper 40's and a highway efficiency in the 50s !!! Gasp.. even our hybrids dont give as much!!!
Those numbers are Imperial Gallons, which are much larger than US Gallons. There is no way any conventional vehicle today with 70 cu ft cargo space can do 50 mpg unless the number is Imperial Gallon, and the fuel is diesel, which has its own nasty problems.
However, it may be some wierd conincidence but 90% percent of the SUVs I see being driven around are not towing anything (correction, I'll make that 95%). Within the city its just single people driving around, on the weekends on the highway, people and their luggage are neatly tucked inside and nothin is overflowing. I have some difficulty in understanding the mythical 'yatch-towing" capability 95% of the owners believe they require when no more than 5% ever utilize it!
Not utilizing something 95% of the time is not the same as no more than 5% _ever_ utilizing it. In fact, you can have a situation where 100% gets utilized 5% of the time each, yet 95% of casual observations yield non-utilization vehicle-moments.
However, I know that these vehicles will never sell here. They will be perenially be classified as 'under-powered' coz people here have been spoilt with low gas prices and monster engines for way too long.
Vehicles like RAV4 and xB are selling quite well. American demand for torque (not power, small engines can generate power, just not enough low-end torque) is largely the result of the way our roads are laid out. Grid patterned stop-and-go traffic needs low-end torque to get vehicles started. There's hardly any round-about turn-circles outside the northeast corridor. They are every where in much of the rest of the world where small displacement cars are popular.
I have nothing for FWD cars and prefer RWDs because of the natural oversteer you can get, which makes corners so much more fun.
If you will take a moment out of your self-righteous sermon against SUV's, you may want to notice that your fun very much comes at the expense of drive train efficiency. The additional weight and parasitic loss inherent to RWD (in other words, the same danger to others and pollution arguments), compared to the efficient FWD layout, may rankle someone else just as self-righteous as yourself. For what it's worth, besides my Highlander, my other car is a FWD stationwagon, the paragon of efficiency if you will, if I ever want to feel morally superior to others.
Comments
Incidentally, the space issue is not brought up by 'SUV obfuscators' but SUV supporters themselves! Read the post I replied to :
"minivans are in my opinion the same size or close to the same size as compact suv's"
But as you pointed out, they are actually bigger than mid-size SUVs like yours. SUVs on the face of it are seen as having more room but the SUV lobby themselves. And once again, SUV stands for Sports Utility, unless some recent renomenclature was carried out. It does not definitely stand for space utilization because a similiarly sized minivan offers more space than an SUV.
I would love to know who an anti-SUV safety expert is (!!) May because the findings of the expert did not match the expectations and beliefs of SUV supporters, he was labelled anti-SUV?
Your arguments are more specious. "Most SUV's are not the largest SUV's." Eh? I have numbers to prove otherwise. The two largest selling SUVs themselves are full-size (Explorer and the second is some GM monster). And as far as the numbers go, firstly, on which parameter is the Lexus RX300 representative of the SUV segment? I might argue that the Explorer (on the basis of being the largest selling SUV) is more representative and it has amongst the worst safety ratings! And while we are still at it, the Merc E class is actually rated as the safest vehicle (since you brought up the being safer than anything on wheels argument).
And statistically speaking, the Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey, Toyota RAV4, Lexus RX300, Toyota 4Runner, Volkswagen Passat, Mercury Villager and the Toyota Camry Solara are all equally safe (The confidence interval around the mean value overlaps to a great extent for all these vehicles). I cannot produce data for the Highlander here becasue it was not listed in the 2004 NTSA report (however, I would be surprised if it were very different from the other Toyota SUVs mentioned above).
SUVs exist as a vehicle class to serve certain needs and towards that end, their utility is immense. I have friends who are into serious off roading and mountain biking who own SUVs (one owns a Land Rover Discovery and the other owns a Jeep Grand Cherokee). I swear by those vehicles and would not drive anything else in the places that they end up being driven. However, I do not understand the single driver monstrosities I find packed on the road to and from work everyday.
As this forum was about minivans vs. SUVs, I made the argument than for the typical family hauling purposes that these vehicles are typically bought, a minivan makes a better choice on both the aspects that SUV owners say SUVs trump. Unfortunately, there are no comparably sized good minivans to the mid-sized and compact SUV segment so the argument does not hold much over there. But in the large SUV segment (which is where a good deal of the SUV sales are) there are some very nice minivans which trump the SUVs on the aspects of safety as well as space (still stand by that, backed by statistics). So the image thing is what holds over there, definitely.
As far as the staying up and dreaming thing is concerned, the terrorizing is a sad reality that non-SUV people have to live with at the glee of the SUV ones because one statistic is undeniable, in a multi vehicle collision, an SUV would come off better. I live through the winters constantly going off the road to let some SUV driving tailgaters by who live in the belief that their vehicle makes them immune from the effects of rain, sleet, ice or snow and somehow the laws of physics are inapplicable to them. Good luck to them. Maybe when I have taken enough from them, I'll buy a monster truck or a hummer or something like that. Then I'll have the fun the other way round.
As far as the image thing is concerned, I'll take that on another post. And in case you already are not a member, see what the your ilk have to say on important isssue at www. suvoa.com (SUV owners assocuation). I can point out all the cracks in their FACTS but sample this gem. The California Law Board want to pass a law to restrict CO2 emissions from ALL vehicles. However, the only people bawling about is are the SUV ones. See the doomsday predictions of how all UTILITY will be lost and the there will be a carnage on the roads. Of course, who cares two hoots about the environment and crappy stuff like that. I guess all there emissions laws which were passed were all trash, by the arguments presented here.
"...
So, California bureaucrats decided on a clever strategy that forces CO2 reductions, knowing the only way it can be accomplished is by huge increases in fuel economy for SUVs and light trucks. At today's prices, saving fuel sounds great - until inherent draconian side effects are factored, such as much higher sticker prices, reduced consumer choice and, most important, many more highway deaths and injuries because of the resulting smaller vehicles.
The intent? Force SUVs and other light trucks to be drastically downsized to meet the CO2 reduction requirement. The result? Smaller engines; less utility and towing capacity; higher prices for consumers and as history has shown, diminished occupant safety as vehicle size shrinks. But since there are no motor vehicles made in California, there are no immediate political or economic ramifications and consumer backlash would not be faced for a decade or so - - after it's too late.
"
People continue to have trouble classifying them too:
Upcoming Wagons & Crossovers
Hyundai Tucson vs other Crossovers/SUVs?
Steve, Host
Thank you for your compliment. The same deference should be extended to many other SUV owners, IMHO, and many owners of other types of vehicles. Cars are not cheap or disposable, yet, so it is only natural to assume that people have given considerable amount of thought before making their choices, instead of out-right dismiss others as "stupid" an "silly" as many of our anti-SUV friends would like to do. Such dismissiveness is not only arrogant but also "stupid" and "silly."
Even the Explorer has a very strong case in terms of cost of acquisition. There is no minivan that offers AWD and mid-row center seat in the lower $20k range.
Incidentally, the space issue is not brought up by 'SUV obfuscators' but SUV supporters themselves!
What space issue are you talking about?? You argued that minivans offer more space than SUV's. I simply replied not everyone need as much as space as minivans, nor the 200+" length of typical minivans to deal with. You are as confused as the confused words you quoted from another poster.
You are very confused indeed, upon further reading of your post. Explorers are by no means "the largest SUVs" Nor is E class the safest vehicle, being a low riding car and all. . . Obviously, you are new to this pro-/anti debate. This time last year on "I-Don't-Like-SUVs-Why-Should-You" there was a favorite vehicle fatality study quoted by anti-'s. The author's was labelled anti- because his stated thesis was SUV's were not as safe as cars. Yet in his data, RX was shown to be safer than any and all cars. In case you did not know, RX share platform with Highlander, which is one of the top selling SUVs that have seen sales growth in recent months, unlike Explorers which have seen decline.
I have friends . . . However, I do not understand the single driver monstrosities I find packed on the road to and from work everyday.
This is the common logical farce a lot of anti-SUVers engage in. They can see the particular in the right light, but fail to generalize; worse, then they proceed to generalize in the opposite direction as the particulars that they are familiar with. Lets say, you have a lost twin who does not know your friend, but shares your passion against SUVs, wouldn't he be raging against your friend when he sees your friend commute in the SUV? Now knowing your friend's good use for the vehicle, wouldn't you have to conclude that your twin is being a bit prematurely judgemental? Now, how do you know all those SUV's on the road have their good uses, whether off-road and occasionally deal with snow covered roads. Most of the time, SUV capacity is not needed, nor is 5-passenger seats in a sedan, but it's the occasional requirement that makes the vehicle good choices.
I made the argument than for the typical family hauling purposes that these vehicles are typically bought, a minivan makes a better choice on both the aspects that SUV owners say SUVs trump.
No, you haven't. You have not argued why people need to haul 200+" vehicle length around, when obviously, mid-sized 170-189" vehicle length, that of the mid-sized cars, being the most popular vehicle length on the road. As for safety, I don't see any study showing me minivans being more safe than the RX/Highlander twin. The one single "minivan" that comes close in length not only comes with worse gas mileage but also several safety difficiencies in comparison.
As far as the staying up and dreaming thing is concerned, the terrorizing is a sad reality
How is Minivan any better? A 4500lb Sienna will probably cream a 2800lb Civic even worse than a 3800lb Highlander will. If anything, shorter and lighter miniature minivans (called SUV's in this country) should make the roads safer than the otherwise would be there big minivans.
Maybe when I have taken enough from them, I'll buy a monster truck or a hummer or something like that. Then I'll have the fun the other way round.
See, this whole "macho image" accusation is nothing more than projecting your own repressed aggressions. I don't think anyone who buys SUVs for images and get aggressive on others will really enjoy their ownership for long. People like myself, who buy vehicles after much thoughtful studies, are the ones who will enjoy the ownership and go back for another SUV in the long run :-)
. . . your ilk . . .
Is that the politically correct terms for SUV owners nowadays? :-) I see, anti-SUV postering is nothing more than a form of projecting one's own pent up aggression.
Inappropriate comparisons. Two levels of fallacy here. The first one "SUV = MPV" and the second one, "RAV4=MPV". Read from the Toyota website "On or off the road, in or out of town, the RAV4 is the distinctive 4x4 sports utility vehicle." And this is not Toyota US, it is Toyota UK. And they do make a very clear distinction between an MPV and an SUV. The RAV4 is clearly classified as an SUV and not a MPV.
Read the wikipedia definition of an MPV :
"MPV is short for Multi Purpose Vehicle. The term is popular in Europe and elsewhere but not generally used within North America; minivan is the nearest equivalent. An MPV is a passenger carrying vehicle based on a car platform, and is generally a one box design - neither a distinct bonnet (US: hood) nor boot (US: trunk), but rather a maximised interior space. MPVs generally have a flat floor and removable seats except for the front row, and give great flexibility of seating arrangements and cargo capacity. They usually offer around five to seven seats. The Renault Espace, launched in 1984 was the first MPV available in Europe.
The North American concept of a "minivan" is very similar, except that the minivan classification implies a certain vehicle size while in Europe, MPVs vary in size quite a bit. Some MPVs are produced on quite small car chassis while others definitely fit within the minivan class.
"
And now take a look at the MPVs below. Please do not use the word "MPV" so loosely to describe SUVs. If still in doubt, check out this MPV shootout http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/grouptest/1647/mpvs.html This is an edmunds like site in UK. Clearly, SUVs do not have the same DNA as MPVs. Minivans are closer. So hence, given the forum's title "Minivans vs. SUVs", and given that you accept that MPVs are highly versatile and sensible in the modern urban environment and given that minivans are closer to MPVs, you accept that minivans make more sense than SUVs. Exactly my point. Thank you!
And ya, which leaves us with the fact that SUVs will remain "Silly Urban" vehicles because they dont make sense in the urban landscape.
Here are some of the MPVs being sold in other markets. Do they look like V8 Ford Explorers? (The largest selling SUV out here). Each of them offers awsome space utilization and will fit in any garage and park anywhere. The only problem I forsee is whether the typical "SUV" consumers will buy four-bangers with displacement in the teens and fuel efficiency in the higher 30s. You see, anything less than a V8 is powerless
Honda FRV
VW Touran
Renault Scenic
No sliders. They may be MPVs but they aren't minivans. :-)
I'd say those are crossovers. Or leftover Dodge Colt Vistas. Or gasp, wagons. Pardon my NA-centric definitions.
Steve, Host
Nonetheless, lets see on important metrics where the explorer stands against a minivan (let say the Sienna). We'll use cargo area / surface area covered as a measure of space efficiency (seems to make sense, how much can you carry for the amount of road space u take up, I open to a more meaningful metric).
Explorer (4 dr 4WD) Sienna
Absolute Cargo Space 82 cu ft 149 cu ft
Space Efficiency 0.86 1.39
Crash Death Rates 56 32
Both available with AWD.
In a stretch sense, the Sienna may be classified as an MPV.
I wont draw any conclusions. Draw your own!
if you are into toyotas, how many of the top of the line lexus models are fwd? there is a reason for this. 'the relentless pirsuit of perfection'.
In a FORD? We all know the 2 famous definitions for it.
Great slang like "Quality is #1"
You must be kidding!
How about just getting a full size van? A Chevy Astro has an AWD flavor and holds 170 cu. ft. of cargo. And it's just a smidge less than 190" long. If you want to go anywhere with a 4WD, then add a Quigley conversion.
Steve, Host
It depends on the driving conditions. In ice and snow, I would take FWD over RWD anyday for the superior traction.
I enjoy driving under adverse weather conditions of ice and snow where I can run circles around RWD vehicles with a FWD.
What space issue are you talking about?? You argued that minivans offer more space than SUV's. I simply replied not everyone need as much as space as minivans, nor the 200+" length of typical minivans to deal with.
My line of argument - most SUV owners believe that their vehicles offer more space than anything else. Not all optimize around their requirement. If they did and absolute space (and not usable) was the requirement, they would buy minivans. Check out a post above to show the space requirement. And the SUVOA reasons for having an SUV:
- SUV owners who may commute alone during the workweek may be hauling a soccer team, boat, home improvement materials or supplies for a local charity during the weekend.[7]
- About half of the respondents in a scientific R.L. Polk poll use their SUV regularly to haul bulky items[8] that just won’t fit into cars.
- Today, less than 6% of passenger cars can tow more than 2,100 pounds, so Americans rely on SUVs and other light trucks to tow almost 24 million boats, ATVs, horse trailers, RVs, snowmobiles and off-road motorcycles.[9]
Given such immense requirements, I believe a minivan serves their purpose better. You seem to be pushing your reuirement and optimization as that of SUV owners in general. I believe that the above organization reflects the view of a much broader population. Hence I argue with respect to their views.
Explorers are by no means "the largest SUVs"
I said largest selling. A little more attention while reading
Nor is E class the safest vehicle,
www.ntsa.org First entry on the first table: safest car - Merc Benz E Class. I base my statements on data, I would love to know how you arrived at the above conclusion.
RX was shown to be safer than any and all cars
Once again, E-class, Passat, 4Runner were better. Facts.
Q1 05 sales figures:
Highlander+RX300+400h = 56,000
Explorer = 63,000
On the issue of safety, the NTSA report gave combined death rates for each class of vehicles taking number sold etc all into account. Lets look at the results (My confused mind tells me that the RX300 and Highlander should fall in the realm of mid-size SUVs. Please correct me if wrong).
Midsize 4-dr cars: 76 (deaths per million vehicle years)
Midsize luxury cars: 41
Midsize minivans/wagons: 47
Midsize SUV 2WD: 114
Midsize SUV 4WD: 67
Facts, once again. I'm drawing no conclusions.
.. some twin/friend example....
Ahem, one of my friends uses a Carolla to commute. One look at the other's SUV and you would know where all it has been (and no, its not the spray on mud thing that is available for SUV some SUV owners in a more macho light). A look around at all the SUVs parked all around neighborhood and at the office parking lot (and talking to quite a few of the owners) reveals that the most off-roading their vehicles have ever done is getting onto the shoulder. And trust me, your Highlander was not even designed for serious off-roading. The designers know that those vehicles would seldom, if ever, be taken off-road. Driving on snow doesn't need awesome offroading capability. I drive a 2-dr coupe and do just as fine as all the other SUV owners around me!
BTW, I love the Edmunds summary of the highlander. "The Highlander, in contrast, is meant for people who like the image and versatility of an SUV but prioritize the ride, handling and comfort of a sedan. Think of the Highlander as a kind of oversize Camry wagon that went clothes shopping at REI, and you've got the general idea.
Once again, thats not the confused me but some pretty experienced auto editors. Even they bring out the image thing. What can I say?
How is Minivan any better? A 4500lb Sienna will probably cream a 2800lb Civic even worse than a 3800lb Highlander will.
Completely agree. But somehow the minivan drivers do not have the drive to show off that they are the kings of the road. They seem to believe in the limitations of their vehicle and drive more appropriately (a generalization, exceptions will exist). I, once again in a state of confusion, attribute this to the positive selection at the buying step itself. All the macho and agressive types would automatically move away from the minivans, thu automatically filtering down the more sober kinds towards minivans (Please notice that I mentioned that there is positive selection towards minivans, I did not say anything about negative selection towards any other vehicle type.)
If anything, shorter and lighter miniature minivans (called SUV's in this country)
Incorrect. The RAV4 is not called a minivan or an MPV by the manufacturers themselves anywhere in the world. It is very much an SUV (Though one I have nothing against it. I think its a good vehicle.)
See, this whole "macho image" accusation is nothing more than projecting your own repressed aggressions.
Ha Ha. At least I'm not the one taking this out on the roads! However, I believe sooner or later, all people have to start doing so. Look at the argument for ever bigger vehicles - if you are in a small vehicle and you hit a big vehicle, you will be toast, so get a big vehicle. Nowhere in this logic is it mentioned that if there were no big vehicles, then everyone would be safer. So given that SUV owners are campaigning for no pullution restrictions, bigger engines, bigger vehicles etc etc, someone who keeps using a low polluting vehicle with a smaller engine is essentially on the losing end. Kind of like gun control. Argument put forward is that some people have guns, so others are unsafe, so they should get guns. If noone had them, it wouldnt be a concern. But now, the ones who dont believe in guns are at a disadvantage!
I see, anti-SUV postering is nothing more than a form of projecting one's own pent up aggression.
You clearly avoided responding to the content of the website and instead chose to attack the intentions of the poster. See, there is only that much others can take. So SUV owners want no limits, bigger engines, more gas, more towing, more space, more everything. Great! Its a free country - anyone can get what they want. Just dont frown at others when they get even bigger stuff in response (Ah.. I can visualize a black hummer riding on huge floatation tyres and massive coils.. and the Yukon lady who almost rear ended me in the snow last winter rite in front of me in the snow.. divine retribution.. ecstasy....) My best instincts tell me I should do otherwise, which is why I dont already do that stuff, but there is just that much more one can take......
Thats all for now. Adios. I need to take a break from this posting mania.
I could argue the same for the MPV vs. Explorer thing that you brought up. You said
they might have passenger room, but not much cargo room.
I guess the $300 cargo carries could also be bought here! And it all loops back
I could argue the same for the MPV vs. Explorer thing that you brought up. You said
they might have passenger room, but not much cargo room.
I guess the $300 cargo carries could also be bought here! And it all loops back
but could they actually carry it? where i drive 75-80 mph is the norm on highways.
i prefer to spend my time at my destination rather than getting to it. there is a point where the payload can overwhelm the mule. also wher i live, urban roads are made up of one tar patch after another. my suv handles it better due to the suspenson travel than my focus.
Certainly, that ratio is far more meaningful than simply height. However, it's not that simple, either. The distribution of the vertical COG is important. A 6' high vehicle that has most of its weight at 2.5' is more unstable than one that has most at 2'. SUVs, with their higher ground clearance and heavier 4WD, have their weight distrubution higher than MVs. This is the reason they rollover far more than MVs.
It is very comical to see some SUVs fitted with over sized tires that make them a foot or more taller.
I enjoy it when they try to follow me fast around corners! I can easily outcorner a standard SUV - a raised one makes it more thrilling to see.
Not everyone needs a large vehicle, but when they do, it's a logical tradeoff.
The mid-size SUVs (in reality nothing more than vertically developed hatchback wagons) with their typical 70-90 cu.ft cargo space fit the bill perfectly.
A vehicle that has approximately the space required but also has unneeded weight (to handle heavy duty applications like towing and heavy hauling) and other attributes that make it less safe is hardly "perfect". Wagons have that same cargo space without the negatives of the SUV. And those that need more passenger and cargo space than a wagon have those requirements better met with a MV.
The anti-SUV obfuscators...
Weak arguments seem to always require denigration of some kind. Funny, isn't it?
... the strawman argument that people buy SUVs for as much space as possible with no exterior limit.
I would agree, that's a strawman argument. I've never heard anyone make it.
I have cited a reason for the popularity of SUVs. Try to deal with it on an objective basis. You can agree, disagree or ignore. Saying what amounts to "your mother wears army boots" is puerile. Try to keep it relevant.
...lets talk about vehicle physical characteristics only and leave out speculations about owners and their attitudes.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think the reasons folks buy the vehicles in the topic is relevant. You can just ignore my posts, no problem.
It's called "moment of inertia!"
tidester, host
Hmm, that's what I call it when I'm just about ready to pull into a car dealer. Do I really have the energy to face it? Usually I come to my senses and keep driving down the road.
The Spotlight Ad here this week is the Madza5 - a Multi-Activity Vehicle. A M-AV. Or MAV. Maybe the hyphen is to try to keep the soccer MA element of the name since that's the horrific image that people want to stuck MVs with.
Steve, Host
I checked into this Mazda5 while doing my car shopping a few weeks ago. I liked the sequential shift auto, and the size of it (not too big), but was dissapointed with the mediocre engine ( 2.3 liter 4cyl ). The vehicle weighs 500 lbs more than my RSX and has the same horsepower rating. I'm afraid it would be bordering on "dog-like" when trying to accelerate.
From experience, my opinion is that a vehicle needs to accelerate form 0-60 in less than 10 seconds to qualify for "being able to get out of it's own way"
"A replacement for the MPV is needed; the minivan is too small to be competitive in the hotly contested U.S. people-mover market"
Mazda Planning Crossover for U.S. in 2008 (Inside Line)
Steve, Host
LOL
No I suppose not! I was just doing a comparison of engines/HP/0-60 ratings. The HP in the Mazda is the same as the RSX and since the Mazda is heavier, it's obviously going to be slower. I don't expect it to compete with an RSX as far as performance goes, but it should (any car should in my opinion) be able to handle 0-60 in less than 10 seconds...and the Mazda doesn't.
Where does Edmund's comment "The Highlander, in contrast, is meant for people who like the image and versatility of an SUV but prioritize the ride, handling and comfort of a sedan. . . . " imply people pick Highlander over Minivan because of image?? It reads to me like Highlander buyers prioritize ride, handling and comfort of a sedan, all of which the minivan Sienna fails because of the extra two feet length. For what it's worth, Edmund's next sentence "Think of the Highlander as a kind of oversize Camry wagon . . ." is head on in my case. My other car is a station wagon. So much for your image being the prime driver argument.
Midsize SUV 2WD: 114
Midsize SUV 4WD: 67
Facts, once again. I'm drawing no conclusions.
Lies, big lies and statistics. Obviously, you statistic does not sperate car-based vs. truck-based SUV's, which makes all the difference in the world, even according to anti-SUV studies. Oh, by the way, in the NHTSA, Explorer is considered a mid-size SUV, contrary to your earlier assertion that it's one of the largest SUV's.
Ha Ha. At least I'm not the one taking this out on the roads! However, I believe sooner or later, all people have to start doing so.
Nonsense. People buy whatever best suit their own requirement and economic means. Your comment on guns goes further to show how detached from reality the whole train of thoughts really are. First of all, ownership of guns, legal and illegal is reality, whether you outlaw it or not; likewise, big behemoth, 18 wheelers, RV's and trucks are reality, plenty dangerous to low-riding cars, whether there are SUV's or not. Secondly, what's happening in Britain, where private gun ownership is outlawd, the latest government study concluding kitchen knife being the dangerous, should give a hint where this anti-gun and anti-SUV logic is really headed: endless government intervention on what you should and should not own.
I prefer that my neighbor does not maintain a nuke arsenal in his basement ... and that we try not to stray too far off topic!
tidester, host
These cars are actually sold mostly in countries with speed limits similiar to or higher than ours (France/UK/Italy - 80mph, Spain - 75mph, Germany - No limit unless posted compared to US 55-75mph, these are speeds on motorwars or interstates, as we call them). Unless an average person in our country weighs twice as much as there, or somehow has super-human cargo needs, I do not see how the same vehicle would be useless here!
the only problem with those mpv's is that it would take me 2 trips to my one in my explorer. they might have passenger room, but not much cargo room. i also prefer, as do a lot of people, rear drive. put about a thousand miles on my explorer this weekend. in a couple weeks more, two thousand.
Cargo space wise, these MPVs are not too short (~ 70 cu ft) as opposed to Explorer's 88. And using your logic, one could easily buy a carrier for the extra 18 cu ft. If the 70 is not killing the vehicle, the extra 18 wont
And the best part, all these vehicles have a combined fuel efficiency in the upper 40's and a highway efficiency in the 50s !!! Gasp.. even our hybrids dont give as much!!!
I live an hour from the beautiful West Virginia mountains and an hour from Virginia beach, along with a few wonderful camping sites around. If there were to be all the "weekend towing" stuff, I thnk I should be able to see it (and I am a frequent traveller, my year and a half old car has 35k miles on it). However, it may be some wierd conincidence but 90% percent of the SUVs I see being driven around are not towing anything (correction, I'll make that 95%). Within the city its just single people driving around, on the weekends on the highway, people and their luggage are neatly tucked inside and nothin is overflowing. I have some difficulty in understanding the mythical 'yatch-towing" capability 95% of the owners believe they require when no more than 5% ever utilize it!
On the face of it, extreme space utilization, good people carrying capacity, command seating and host of safety features (traction control and all that jazz) is what most people ultimately end up needing. These MPVs provide all that and then there is the killer mileage. And if you need to haul crazzy stuff once in a while, the friendly rental company has all the SUVs/Trucks you need. I am sure that works out to be a more economic proposition too!
However, I know that these vehicles will never sell here. They will be perenially be classified as 'under-powered' coz people here have been spoilt with low gas prices and monster engines for way too long. At the end of the day, these cars maintain 75 mph on the highway and are highly capable. They will only take 2 seconds more to get there. But that does make a whole world of difference, doesn't it?
ps. Gas headed for $3/gal and rising. We are all waiting to see what happens!
back when fwd only was availble in a low torque/skinny tire vehicles, maybe they were better in snow. that is not the case anymore.
That is the ultimate logic and nothing comes up against it. As a matter of fact, it kills the need for any logic
I have nothing for FWD cars and prefer RWDs because of the natural oversteer you can get, which makes corners so much more fun. All the same, FWDs do remain a better option in snow (AWDs are best with electronic power distribution are the best, but thats not we are discussion right now).
Once again, before expressing ungrounded opinion, it might be helpful spending 5 minutes on an extremely powerful tool - the internet. Most of us are not automobile engineers over here and none of us would necessarily know the exact details (neither do I). Here's what the fact are. Hopefully this closes the debate. And it has nothing to do with then and now.
Rear wheel drive
Advantages
- Better handling in dry conditions - less force is applied to the front wheels, allowing more of their friction to be used to steer the vehicle and allowing more power to be applied through the rear wheels, which are unburdened by steering.
- Less costly and easier maintenance
- No torque steer.
- Drifting
- Even weight distribution
- Towing - Rear wheel drive puts the wheels which are pulling the load closer to the point where a trailer articulates, helping steering, especially for large loads.
- Weight transfer during acceleration
Disadvantages
- More difficult handling on low grip surfaces (wet road, ice, snow, gravel...) as the car is pushed rather than pulled
- More difficult to master - While the handling characteristics of rear-wheel drive may be useful or fun in the hands of someone who knows how to use them, in the hands of most drivers, having the rear wheels move about is unintuitive and dangerous. Rear wheel drive rewards skill, and punishes the lack of it. Other layouts are much more forgiving, but don't offer the same rewards in handling.
- Decreased interior space - This isn't an issue in a vehicle with a ladder frame
- Increased weight
- Higher purchase price - Probably due to more complicated assembly
http://www.rearwheeldrive.org/rwd/rwdbenefits.htm
A site to promote the use of RWDs. Its understandably not quite as explicit as the previous website (wikipedia.org) about the disadvantage (for example, even FWDs come with traction control these dats), but even they agree to it
So why do automakers use front drive cars?
- Traction in Snow and Ice. When not under hard acceleration front drive cars have more weight over the front wheels. This gives more traction for acceleration in very slippery conditions. This is the biggest perceived advantage to a front drive car. However, today's rear wheel drive cars with traction control and independent suspension do very good in the snow. For areas that have extreme amounts of winter weather this may be enough to justify a front wheel drive car.
Steve, Host
You:Explorers are by no means "the largest SUVs"...
Me: I said largest selling. A little more attention while reading ...
You:Explorer is considered a mid-size SUV, contrary to your earlier assertion that it's one of the largest SUV's....
For the N+1 th time, I said "largest selling" as in "number of vehicles people bought", as opposed to "largest in dimension". Please let me know if you still dont get it.
Whether an SUV or a minivan has more space takes only a quick check at any spec sheet, which is presumably what most people do before spending $25k+.
I seriously doubt that. If that were the case, there are some serious pieces of trash which are consistently rated as such in all surveys which still sell a large number of pieces. There are companies which are almost universally condemned for churning out trashy and unimaginative vehicles (except for the occasional gem) with questionable build quality and reliability which still sell more than double the number of vehicles than some of the most admired companies. In light of that, I would not necessarily forward that logic.
Going back to the initial topic, there are minivans in the sub-190 inch range with almost twice the space efficiency as the Highlander. And they have been overall given higher ratings (which I belive take a holistic view and do not harp on just one aspect) by the edmunds.com editors (Highlander - 7.6, T&C 8.4, G-Caravan 8.2, for comparison only Sienna 8.8). Not being a professional car tester, I will agree with the opinion of the experts. So I will definitely question that logic.
At the end of the day its your money, your choice. You are free to buy whatever you want. I have tried to forward lots of logic and facts but whenever they don't suit you, you dismiss statistics as lies or the work of anti- people (incidentally NTSA is a govt funded agency, I didn't create those statistics). On the other hand, you use the same statistics to prove that the RX330 is the safest thing on the planet. And you consistent believe that the other person is 'confused', 'detached from reality' and 'dreaming'. At the same time you forward unfounded 'facts'. So good luck, happy driving and be safe!
..endless government intervention on what you should and should not own.
Completely offtopic but I agree with you. I demand abolition of all government impositions like air bags, seat belts, minimal structural reinforcements, emission controls and catalytic converters (I will buy that stuff if I can have the money and feel like it). I also demand that possession of pot, crack cocaine, heroin and meth be made legal. Its none of the govt's business, rite?
i drove a vw thing, in vermont, in the winter. i have a convertible, but try to never put the top up no matter how hot it is. i think those 2 are somehow related. :confuse:
1) What vehicle is the safest with the best warranty? Thanks for any help or ideas.. Kim
The SUV which would come closest in terms of providing similiar amounts of cargo space is the Excursion (146 cu ft to the 149 on these minivans). Expect terrible mileage (thirsty V8 and V10 engines), a harsh ride (its truck based), great towing capacity, Ford reliability (whichever way you prefer to see it) and lower safety. However, if you intend to take on some rough terrain then this is definitely you better bet. However, dont expect the comfort on the road!
science is sometimes just made up pseudo facts that are made to "look " like science.... I remember the brontosaurus as a very good example of a made up fact.
this is coming from a scientist...!!
look at the recent top news stories ...and you will notice that up to 50% of researchers said that they did some fudging on the data to make the facts/data support the hypothesis/conclusion.....
some scientists work backwards......pretend/reach the conclusion first, then find data to support it....that's the way to get grants and generate media attention and get tenure.....well...it certainly does help those who need to get ahead but do not have a head...
sorry this is offtopic, but it is important to point out this phenomenon.
oh....and minivans are nice....we may even trade in the suburban for one....my son would like a minivan...and doesn't mind driving one , he says.
I like the suburban/SUV for its versatility in utility without compromises....disadvantage is higher gas bills....but the ride is great ( ok,,,I have special shocks) and it handles great...
I think most people will disagree with you on the lower safety....the SUV goes out and steals it from other vehicles...
:P
so the ice storm did cause the the explorer to slide off the road...and also caused the other cars .......Hurricaine Dennis also causes cars to slide off roads....and you don't even need a driver inside.....
I think that maybe careless driver did not think about all the factors of driving, and did not slow down and drive as the conditions warrant....or just get out of the car when conditions become really unsafe...
oh...its you tides...oh well...you know what I mean....
For the N+2 th time, Explorer is not a full-size SUV.
I just love your diatribe on people keeping buying your so-called "trash." Haven't you ever considered pricing?? At some price point, even a used Kia Excel gets sold, despite the fact that it isn't very safe, doesn't go fast, doesn't carry much, doesn't ride smoothly, isn't reliable, etc., etc.. I tend to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to judging others in their spending habits, the presumption of sanity, if you will . . . I suppose, the inner-dictator in some of us can't stand others buying anything to their own liking at all; do you happen to believe forcing everyone buy black colored cars will enormously improve the efficiency (read: saving material and fuel) of automobile distribution?
Those numbers are Imperial Gallons, which are much larger than US Gallons. There is no way any conventional vehicle today with 70 cu ft cargo space can do 50 mpg unless the number is Imperial Gallon, and the fuel is diesel, which has its own nasty problems.
However, it may be some wierd conincidence but 90% percent of the SUVs I see being driven around are not towing anything (correction, I'll make that 95%). Within the city its just single people driving around, on the weekends on the highway, people and their luggage are neatly tucked inside and nothin is overflowing. I have some difficulty in understanding the mythical 'yatch-towing" capability 95% of the owners believe they require when no more than 5% ever utilize it!
Not utilizing something 95% of the time is not the same as no more than 5% _ever_ utilizing it. In fact, you can have a situation where 100% gets utilized 5% of the time each, yet 95% of casual observations yield non-utilization vehicle-moments.
However, I know that these vehicles will never sell here. They will be perenially be classified as 'under-powered' coz people here have been spoilt with low gas prices and monster engines for way too long.
Vehicles like RAV4 and xB are selling quite well. American demand for torque (not power, small engines can generate power, just not enough low-end torque) is largely the result of the way our roads are laid out. Grid patterned stop-and-go traffic needs low-end torque to get vehicles started. There's hardly any round-about turn-circles outside the northeast corridor. They are every where in much of the rest of the world where small displacement cars are popular.
I see you are keeping up the defense of freedom and liberty for all, and prejudice for none....
If you will take a moment out of your self-righteous sermon against SUV's, you may want to notice that your fun very much comes at the expense of drive train efficiency. The additional weight and parasitic loss inherent to RWD (in other words, the same danger to others and pollution arguments), compared to the efficient FWD layout, may rankle someone else just as self-righteous as yourself. For what it's worth, besides my Highlander, my other car is a FWD stationwagon, the paragon of efficiency if you will, if I ever want to feel morally superior to others.