highender, Good to see you again. I try ;-) Some humility and introspection, with a little reduction in self-righteousness, can do the world a lot of good.
I agree that some SUV s have less cargo space than MV.....
but you have to take into consideration that minivans cannot carry 7 people and all the luggages and equipment and stuff that a family needs on trips....
frequently they (MV) have to sacrifice seat space for cargo space...
in the large SUVs, that is not the case....my suburban can carry seven people and all their luggage to the airport....a feat that cannot be done in any minivan (unless you make 2 trips) .
minivans are nice...but not what many people want or need.....
it does not fulfilll people's " vehicular requirements ", to paraphrase another anti SUV ers common excuse for himself...but it is not something he is willing to give another fellow american.....the right to choose what is right for one self...
how about this.....let ANTIs choose the vehicle for the Pro-SUV ers...(ok , they point to minivans)
then let the Pro-SUVers choose a vehicle for the Antis.....( kia ? Atos ? GEM? bicycle ? ......
Herc...you get a GEM electric vehicle....that way you wont pollute and save gas etc...
Going back to the initial topic, there are minivans in the sub-190 inch range with almost twice the space efficiency as the Highlander. . . T&C . . G-Caravan, Sienna . .
Now I see, indeed you don't read specs yourself. None of the minivans you mentioned are sub-190". There is only one Minivan currently on the market that is sub-190" in length. That's the Mazda MPV, and I have already given the reason why I did not buy that. For what it's worth, it weighs more than the Highlander (hence more dangerous to others) and burns more gas than Highlander in comparable configuration, so for the anti-SUV crowd, sticking out for MPV against Highlander only goes to show the illogic behind the whole argument: simple word matching "SUV" "MV," never mind the particulars of specific vehicles.
good to see you too.... I saw and understand what you are pointing out....and I think most people would understand that....
IIt is funny how people like to inject their own prejudices onto others....
but let's stick to the car....the driver is responsible for the accidents anyways...
if people like MV..then stick to MV....if they like SUV...then stick to SUV...
I once had a SUV, a MV, a 4 door sedan, and a 2 seater convertible, all at the same time.....
guess which one we got rid of first ? the minivan !!! cause it did less than the suburban....while the other cars all served its special purposes....the minivans capabilities were LESS than that of the suburban....MV only did a subset of the things that the suburban could do.....
of course, each person has his own needs and wants.....therefore some may just prefer MV....but the pracitcal choice for us was the SUV....
but all the MV drivers ask to borrow the suburban when extra room is needed....
I know some people still do not understand this....but it is a practical fact...
science is sometimes just made up pseudo facts that are made to "look " like science....
Sorry for off-topic comments, but 'science' is just made up of pseudo facts? I am not a scientist but I have a degree in engineering and studied a good amount of science. So as per you, Newton's law is something just made up of pseudo facts! (Yes, it is a simplification which does not take relativity into account, but it is pseudo?) I know what is meant by putting forward a hypothesis and working around facts to prove the hypothesis (a malady plaguing the research community today) but there are scientific facts which are just so. They are not the basis of hypothesis but completely repeatable and replicable experiments, which is why they are laws and not theories.
There are new age 'sciences' like psychology, sociology, and more traditional ones like medical sciences and evolutionary sciences where there are no clear results and lots of confusion. On the other end of the spectrum, there are physical sciences (on the practical aspect of which engineering is based) which are based on tested, proven, repeated observations.
And if you believe what you just said, then for the love of god do not drive any automobile or ever fly on a plane. Everything, from the controlled internal combustion, to the structural design and reinforcements, to the material selection and processing, to the electronic control and microprocessors to the design of the jet engines is based upon "made up pseudo facts". You surely do not wanna risk your and your families lives on that?
Coming back to FWD/RWD, I did not dismiss either as useless or superior. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and they are agreed upon by people from both ends of the spectrum. Then there are physical facts. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a FWD will come off better. Now if you get some crappy FWD from sometime in the 70s and compare it with a modern state of the art RWD with traction control, the comparison is void.
...science is sometimes just made up pseudo facts...
Um, no...that would be...psuedo science.
As for the Brontosaurus, the dinosaur certainly existed, the name and classification was problematic. This is hardly a failing of "science".
...recent top news stories ...and you will notice that up to 50% of researchers...
I think you are fudging your data :=) You seem to be pursuing a nihilistic attack on science itself. Science is largely responsible for our current quality of life and health...being in the health field, you should know this.
Living in a world of delusional fantasy may be fun, but once in a while we may need to step out and smell the air. There are always numbers out there to say something. Of course, one recourse may be to call the numbers 'lies/fake' or denigrate the generator of the numbers as 'anti-/obfuscator' or plain discard them. However, here are numbers again along with the reference qouted, and these are not some random thoughts or plainly ungrounded prophetic definitions or statement, plain and simple facts.
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.
Once again, I would love to know what that was based on! Four trips to Europe and if anything, I believe they get more of the stop and go. And then again, somewhere on this forum someone said
..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...
20 posts back MPVs are nirvana for urban life in America, just like the world over (of course under the unfounded thoughts that MPVs are somehow the same as SUVs) and now they do not make sense! To what extent of 'illogic' will we have to traverse into, straddling both sides of an argument only to justify an SUV?
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.
An SUV lover and RWD lover posted,
luxury vehicles use rear wheel drive, because it is superior to front wheel drive.
To which my post listed out both the advantages and disadvantages of a RWD as opposed to a FWD. I never called either better . And the best part, my car is a FWD!
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.
Hmm. Thats a Freudian slip. Does that actually show a flicker of guilt at owning the other vehicle, an SUV (I hear things about pollution and all). Thats interesting....
Some humility and introspection, with a little reduction in self-righteousness, can do the world a lot of good.
Sample a few things a certain poster said: "You are as confused..." "You are very confused indeed,..." ".. how detached from reality the whole train of thoughts really are..." "... Do you stay up all night dreaming all this.."
Considering that the same author's own statements were random ungrounded musings, who needs humility and introspection over here?
By the way have SUV owners ever thought about why they are the target of quite a popular anti movement? Why do we have forums called "I don't like SUVs, why do you"? We do not have forums calls "I dont like sports cars why do you?" It cannot be due to aspirational value, if people said "I dont like ferraris why do you" one would understand that maybe it was due to the sour grapes thing. Thats not the case with SUVs, anybody's mom can by an SUV. Its not even the size of the SUV market, light trucks outsell SUVs by a margin, yet they are not mostly the center of discussion. Have you ever thought why?
I there are a few reasons (just my thoughts, no external sunstantiation here). The first is that SUVs have clearly completely diverged from the original purpose and are now forcefully justified towards a use they were never meant for. Second, most obvious, is the fact that they seem to be very visibly hogging all common resources, be it gas or space.
Bust most importantly, I think it is the self indulgent disregard of SUV owners for all other people. No other class of vehicles make owner associations which singly opposes progressive measures like emission control. You do not have sports car owners bawling over how they will lose all the power in their cars and henceforth the thrill. However, the SUV owners believe that they should not be effected from continued indulgence in their vehicles, irrespective of what happens all around. It a wierd sense of entitlement forcefully put across. If an SUV is an an alternative for a sedan, why should common regulations / restrictions not apply? All cars sold in the states need additional reinforcements in the structure to meet crashworthiness guidelines. Sports car owners can argue over the fact that it diminishes their utility by burdening the vehicle with additional weight and thereby demand an exception. Strangely, I havent heard of that. Isn't there something seriously on with SUVs to elicit this sort of response?
Anyways, I believe its a temporary phase. People pay $6 a gallon in Europe. My business contacts in India / China tell me that the PPP adjusted price of gas out there comes to around $18 / US gallon. No wonder they use the 'meaningless powerless' vehicles over there. Given that we are the champions of a free market and not really an oil producer, there is no way price of oil will not head off in the direction of what the rest of the world pays. It is not as if gas is actually cheap over here anyways. Add the price of the war and the massive presence we have to maintain to ensure out energy supply to the gas bill, and it isnt really all that cheap. But that is anyways distributed amongst all tax payers. But there is just limit beyond which the price to be paid will start to pinch. And it is already showing. It is not that with the slowdown in the sales of SUVs peoples daily transportation needs have vanished. Neither is it that the people in the rest of the world do not manage to reach the airport with their bags, in spite of the fact that there is no profusion of mega size SUVs over there. Its just a matter of time!
I agree that some SUV s have less cargo space than MV.....
but you have to take into consideration that minivans cannot carry 7 people and all the luggages and equipment and stuff that a family needs on trips....
First correction, all SUVs have less cargo space than the large minivans (source: edmunds.com, check specifications page of individual vehicles to see maximum cargo space. A Sienna has i think 15 more cu ft than a suburban).
To your second point, a Sienna/Quest would seat the seven people and leave more cargo room than a Suburban. Additional cargo space can always be had with a $300 luggage carrier (this logic was actually forwarded by an SUV owner on this very forum, where he was pointing out why the extra cargo space in a minivan over his explorer was useless as he could anyways purchase the above mentioned carrier. I argue in reverse). Once again, I do not see how that justifies the SUV.
minivans are nice...but not what many people want or need.....
Why do they not need it and why do they need an SUV? One owner says it is too big and one doesnt need so much space (though he has not been made aware of similiarly sized minivans). You say they are too small and do not have sufficient space. One SUV owner argued that MPVs donot have any cargo space. When offered the alternative of a minivan, he said he dint need al that extra space and could use a carrier if he needed space. Safety numbers show similiarly sized minivans to be safer than similiarly similiarly sized SUVs (complete list posted down below). As far as ride comfort is concerned, all reviewers give minivans better ride comfort. Minivans are nowadays available with AWD and traction control. We have spoken about urban environments over here, not muddy marshes somewhere in the wild. So what is it?
BODY STYLE AND SIZE Driver death rates by size and body style group overall Cars MINIVANS AND STATION WAGONS 65 small 47 midsize 42 large
SUVS 4 WHEEL DRIVE 102 small 67 midsize 52 large 103 very large 2 WHEEL DRIVE 121 small 114 midsize 70 large
I stand by my comment that science is sometimes made of pseudo facts...and it is in the news recently...
have you ever heard of a brontosaurus ? they told us kids that it was what walked the earth....it was actually taught in schools....yet it was now proven to be a made up creature.....
reading about stats and other numbers require the proper context, or else the real meaning may be obscured.....
a minivan may have more cargo room, but cannot take 7 adults and all their luggage to the airport, unless they resort to the troublesome luggage rack.... which takes some time.....and wastes more gas...
I think you understand what I am saying, but you are trying to extend it to say all science is false...which is NOT what I said...
As for the Brontosaurus, the dinosaur certainly existed, the name and classification was problematic. This is hardly a failing of "science".
nope....better check your pseudo science... they found a skull and body from different dinos, and combined the two unrelated sets to make up your brontosaurus.......
the proper name is now apatosaurus....no such thing as a brontosaurus...well, unless you are one of the Flintstones....
"I think you are fudging your data :=) You seem to be pursuing a nihilistic attack on science itself. Science is largely responsible for our current quality of life and health...being in the health field, you should know this.
nope...it was in the news and on yahoonews. THere are tons of data fudging .....egg is bad...egg is good,....egg is ? I am surprised that you missed this info....
LOL......you don't know that we are just rehashing a previous point that the ANTI s had to conceed....
Have you ever seen a suburban ? I drive one. I also have friends who caravan with us on long trips....in nissan quest, sienna (old and new models) and odysseys. After seating seven people...the rear trunk of a minivan has maybe 2x4 feet of area ....barely enough for any large suitcases...and definitely not enough for 7 people's luggage. The rear trunk of a suburban , after seating seven, has maybe twice the area of a MV....lots of room for larger luggage....
minivans may have more cargo volume....but much of it is in the upper area , maybe the 7 passengers have more head room? but less room for luggage.....and that is why the suburban can out carry the minivans....
tell you what ,I could be wrong; so maybe you get into a suburban and a minivan...take a look , measure the back trunk/cargo area....then come back here and post. I just took 2 families to the airport in the suburban, because their new odyssey would not fit ....oh, and no using trailers or luggage racks....we are talking interior real world practical usage here...and of course, the suburban has luggage racks and can outtow a minivan, if you want to talk about outside cargo capacity....IMO.
naw...its a clone of chrysler and MB....made up of 2 entities....
yes,,,we did comparison shop a minivan vs SUV.....
we had a Toyota Previa...lot more room than the dodge and quest and windstar and sienna....but it carried less compared to the suburban, in real life situations. The SUV also allowed us to go up to Tahoe with less worry about traction and weather conditions, though braking still must be done carefully. I have the M+S tires on....and chains in the cargo area..jsut in case....
The new generation crossover sport utes are even more sportier...they have the positive attributes of both a minivan and a sports car in one vehicle.....
Well, first you state that a minivan cannot take 7 "people" and their luggage...now it has become 7 "adults". Talk about your voodoo science. Most 7 "people" families(adults, teenager,children, toddler) could fit their luggage in any minivan(Ody, Sienna, Quest,T&C)...if they pack half way reasonably that is.
Now 7 adults in a minivan is about as rare as that brontosaurus you guys have been talking about. If all 7 adults were men, the luggage would fit easily. With room to spare for a couple coolers of brew.
We checked out the Toyota Highlander while shopping for minivans. It had no more space than a mid sized station wagon. Second row comfortable for only 2...third row seating a joke. Minivan platform being much lower than SUV allows for more upward packing of luggage.
Also, the creature they thought was a brontosaurus was really a bracheosaurus. So, now instead of Fred telling Barney to hand him another bronto-burger....he will have to ask for a bracheo-burger. :P
I stand by my comment that science is sometimes made of pseudo facts...
Well, you were willing to "stand behind" your comment that SUVs fared better in large truck collisions than other vehicles, which was completely refuted by NHTSA data, so why should I be surprised :=)
Science is not made up pf pseudo facts, pseudo science is. But this is pseudo-topical anyway, so how about we stick to MV v SUVs, eh?
a minivan may have more cargo room, but cannot take 7 adults and all their luggage...
This is a non-starter since the amount of luggage would have to be defined.
A suburban has more room behind the seats than other vehicles, this is true. What your point is, I don't know...the % of prospective buyers that have such a requirement is dwarfed by those that don't.
For anyone looking to buy a large vehicle for hauling lots of people and luggage, the Suburban is a much better buy right now than the Odyssey EX. My Honda dealer thinks they can add $3k to MSRP. If given a choice between a Suburban LT and an Odyssey EX either for $35k, I would choose the Suburban every time.
As far as safety the Ody is good, not as good as the Suburban according to the Insurance Institute. They use real science to decide how much they will charge you for insurance.
....we are talking interior real world practical usage here...
is justified by SUVs? I mean how many times do you actually haul 7 people and their crazy amount of baggage to the airport every year (unless you are a chaffeur at a Disneyland hotel or for a football team).
And you know what. Three months back I and my friends went on a road trip and guess what we had to use? A RV (a motorhome to be more precise). Show me one SUV which allows 6 people and all their gear to travel comfortably, to sleep peacefully on a bed while traversing long distances on the highways and to take a leak or a shower whenever needed without stopping... just ONE.
I think by the standards of "interior real world practical usage we should all be driving RVs (ya ya.. their mileage is in single digits but who cares!)
I'm the one that has the animal rescue..what is the safest largest SUV? In looking for Suburbans I've seen over 10 flipped one's for sell on eBay and locally..they would be my top choice. Also, which one has lower maintenence? thanks Kim
That's what high demand does. In this case, based on superior build quality and delivered functionality. However, I agree that if your requirement is heavy hauling, a truck is what you want.
As far as safety the Ody is good, not as good as the Suburban...
You are making the classic error of using insurance rate data as a safety metric. The vast majority of insurance claims are based on vehicle damage, not injury or fatality.
A more appropriate metric is driver death rate. From the same source (IIHS), here they are for the vehicles you cite:
(vehicle, overall rate per million vehicle years, multi vehicle rate, single vehicle rate, rollover rate)
Honda Odyssey,19,16,2,1 Chevrolet Suburban 1/2 ton 2WD ,73,29,48,45 Chevrolet Suburban 1/2 ton 4WD ,47,10,36,27
Obviously, the Odyssey's numbers are vastly superior.
The higher damage to the Odyssey probably comes from collisions with Suburbans :=)
I found my answer It is an original article published in the NYT. I am not saying anything, neither are "anti-SUV" people. These are market research organizations employed by the very manufacturers of the SUVs, based on which they design the vehicles and their features, and then they target their marketing!! No questions and doubts about science here - these are results of surveys (the second half of the article has some views of a consultant who works with auto companies and has an impressive resume. You may discard his talk as mumbo-jumbo but the rest of it is all data - real responses from real people !). And the best part, manufacturers actually use this data to influence their marketing - they know who to narrow down to and which instincts to appeal to. I didn't even think it was so deep. You must absolutely read the article. It is a true eye opener. Happy reading!
You can look up the NYT website www.nyt.com for the entire article. The title of the article is "Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?"
Mr Ed, I hadnt posted the entire article the last time either (it was less than half) but I appreciate the copyright concerns. I had actually pulled it from the the website of a social sciences department of a university. Nonetheless, what is posted here is just a fraction of the entire article. Hope thats fine.
"...Of all the mysteries facing automakers in recent years, few have been so engrossing as how families choose between minivans and sport utility vehicles..."
"...research by automakers is finding that buyers of these two kinds of vehicles are very different psychologically. Sport utility buyers tend to be more restless, more sybaritic, less social people who are "self-oriented," to use the automakers’ words, and who have strong conscious or subconscious fears of crime. Minivan buyers tend to be more self- confident and more "other-oriented"—more involved with family, friends and their communities. ..."
"...minivan buyers tend to be more comfortable than sport utility buyers with being married; sport utility buyers are more commonly concerned with still feeling sexy, and like the idea that they could use their vehicles to start dating again, said David P. Bostwick, DaimlerChrysler’s director of market research. ..."
"...Minivan people want to be in control in terms of safety,....S.U.V. owners want to be more like, ‘I’m in control of the people around me.’..." Fred J. Schaafsma, a top G.M. vehicle development engineer"
"...Sport utility buyers are much more concerned with their vehicles’ external appearance, while minivan buyers are more interested in the vehicles’ interiors and practicality, said Thomas Elliott, Honda’s executive vice president ..."
"...survey this spring that sport utility buyers placed a lower value than minivan buyers on showing courtesy on the road...."
""It’s not safety as the issue, it’s aggressiveness, it’s the ability to go off the road..."
Look at the IIHS link in my post before this to Gagrice. That will provide the "safety" data you're looking for AFAIK. As for maintenance, looking at Consumer Reports would work well, but you have to pay for a subscription.
I agree that there is a great deal of denial and defensiveness on the part of SUV owners on TH forums when it comes to the shortcomings of SUVs. Not that they do not have their applications, they do: towing, heavy hauling and off roading.
I've found (and I've been involved in one or 2 discussion in other TH topics on this subject ) that exposing the one area where SUVs excel in the safety area causes the most angst and denial: in collisions with cars. When the ethics of stealing the crumple zones of cars is pointed out, folks squirm a bit. Hopefully, some folks that have understood this have decided to make another choice. Sadly, many just thing "tough darts, deal with it".
When writing of psychological profiles..."minivan people" VS "suv people"...I'm sure many of our members think that the word "men" could be used instead of suv people and the word "women" could be used instead of "minivan people". SUV representing power, control, appearance. Minivans representing saftey, practicallity, socializor.
So, unless Freud was trying to get in touch with his feminine side...he was definitely a SUV kind of guy. :surprise:
"...The typical minivan or sport utility purchaser is most often a fairly affluent married couple in their 40’s with children. And while minivans are sometimes labeled "mom-mobiles," the principal drivers of minivans, like sport utility vehicles, are actually a little more likely to be men than women...."
Never said it wasn't. Though many more times a car is more than just a car. Status symbol to many. Even amoung the various classifications you hear...i.e "my Ody has more power, more size, more features than your Sienna" Are SUV owners more likely to suffer from low self esteem...and get the bigger, cooler ,more powerful vehicle to overcompensate?little sailor? I can see no practical use for a small or midsize SUV over a minivan...other than image. Which is fine if that is what they want.
Most men are the principal drivers of minivans because generally speaking the man drives the family vehicle whenever taking the family out. We bought our minivan for my wife...but I'm the principal driver. Would like to see some hard statistics though instead of "many" and "most". The major force behind minivan sales is likely to be the women...the man for SUV. I don't know many single men without a family that would buy a minivan. The image being somewhat like eating at a restaurant all alone.
And some would say the major force behind US car sales period is women - "Women either buy or influence the purchase of 85 percent of all new cars and trucks sold in the United States today." link
And it's LI (as in Long Island) Sailor, as I suspect you know.
In our house, I am totally responsible for picking out and buying the cars, in exchange for which my husband takes complete care of them. And we both think we got the better end of the bargin.
Anyway, I've been following the "debate" on the merits of SUV's verses vans. Based on a sampling of antidotal evidence (not statistical, just observations among about 15 friends and neighbors) the following is true:
1. Everyone has different needs - please stop making assumptions about someone else's motives. In fact, considering how much my friends and I are alike, its amazing how different our criteria are for the cars we choose. 2. This could be a very informative debate for people truly trying to pick which way to go IF more facts were used about the different merits.
We just picked the Honda Pilot verses a minivan, because it combined the features of a minivan that were important to us, as well as driving features for my daily drive to work.
Does that mean I want or need everyone to go buy the same as me? NO! (Because then, I couldn't find my car in the parking lots filled with other Pilots. )
Does that mean I think less of my friends who drive bigger SUV's or minivans? No, in fact, they still get to drive when a group of adults go out.
Everyone has different needs - please stop making assumptions about someone else's motives.
Thats the whole point ma'am. No one is 'assuming' motives. These are factual outcomes of marketing research surveys. Neither is it some one 'anti-SUV' guy attacking the SUV owners. These are the 'manufacturers' themselves. Their marketing heads. Their chief engineers. They are the people who design an sell these vehicles to the owners. They are the ones responsible for packaging the vehicle.
The comments included seior guys from Chrysler, Honda and GM. Here's what Martin Inglish, a senior executive had to say in one of his speeches where he referred to the above article (from Ford's media site):
"...Drivers feel empowered when they drive an SUV. This sense of confidence stems from the higher seat position and improved road visibility. But it also emerges from a psychic sense of exerting control - feeling more secure..."
"...For example, when we asked college students to envision the vehicle they would be driving in five years, many named an SUV. Why? Because, even if they had children, they perceived an SUV as the sporty alternative that would "keep them in tune with their youth." ...."
These are not the words of some SUV hater. These are guys whose bread and butter depends upon the sales of SUV. I dont think they have any reason to lie!
"Women either buy or influence the purchase of 85 percent of all new cars..."
Thats an awfully broad statement that doen't really mean much at all...if anything. A women can tell her man to buy the powder puff blue Town & Country(after he had decided on a T&C) and that would be influencing the purchase.Anytime a couple purchase a new vehicle there is going to be influence going back and fourth. If I didn't know better I would think that data came from Consumer Reports and not Edmunds.(or, used to support and article written by an Edmunds editor) To say that car and truck sales would be down 85% if not for women is a bit ridiculous.
I suspect some women love their trucks/SUVs for the same reason many men do. I recall asking a young lady friend of mine many years ago why she had purchased a small pickup truck instead of something more practical that fit her needs. Her response was...,"It's cute"
Yes, some times a truck is just a truck. But, sometimes it's more than that.
just me, but what i really value on any forum like this is personal experience, not posting someone else's opinions or studies. i try to post based on my own experience. to me this is the real value of a site like edmunds. others do not have to agree.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
"I love driving the truck. I feel very safe sitting up higher — the 20-inch wheels lift the car considerably from the stock version. You can see several cars ahead of you in traffic so you can brake early and avoid accidents. I have big dogs and they love riding in the truck. Mine has the sliding rear window which provides them with a safe place to stick their heads out, but the opening is too small for their bodies to fit, so I don't have to worry about them jumping out.
"I also notice that people tend to move out of my way when I want to move over.
Hmm. Nice reasons. But the problem is, the feeling of safety, the feeling of height and the ability to see far ahead (and people moving out of the way, of course) are because there are still small car people out there. What happens when ALL the cars become the same size (You drive a dodge ram, I'll drive a hummer and my grandma will drive an excursion). The rate at which the market share is growing, I see us reaching there pretty soon. What next? Trailer Utility Vehicle? Armoured tank utility vehicle?
We just picked the Honda Pilot verses a minivan, because it combined the features of a minivan that were important to us, as well as driving features for my daily drive to work.
These are exactly the trade-offs which members of this forum would want to understand. It would also help confused people looking to go either way. It would be great if you could enlist the research and the specific driving features for your drive to work that swung the SUV in your favor.
I'll take a guess. You live in a rural township and the ride to work isn't exactly along paved roads. So an SUV would ride through it and a minivan wouldn't. Right?
Posting factual studies and opinions broadens our knowledge and keep us from geeting cooped up in our own world, perception and beliefs. I, for one, did not know the exact merits and demerits of FWD/RWD, did not know about the NHTSA crash rate study, the IIHS insurance cost of death rate study, the SUV buyer physchology study, the existence and features of MPVs or the actual numbers and features of quite a few SUVs and minivans out there before I got involved with the forums. That, to me is the real value of a site like edmunds. I know a lot more.
Those weren't my assumptions, unless I am a senior executive at one of those auto-manufacturers masquerading under an assumed name in edmunds forums tying to discredited SUVs, so that my company loses all its business, we get taken over and I get transferred to Italy to oversee the design and manufacturing of some exotics ;-)
Bait? What can I ensanre the editor in chief of this whole place into
But I would definitely like to know if he thinks that SUVs are a sign of success all those opposed to them are failed penniless people who have no money, so pay no taxes and envy the SUV people for their luxury and glitz. If he does, well, then I'll have to rethink whether all those comments on other matters I so truly believed in were actually objective (not that it would matter either to him or anyone else), but still.......
the data juggling was admited by many of the researchers... ...
and Like I already said....I had 2 families with kids and all their luggage, in the burb...something the new odyssey could not handle( ok, like you said..if they pack reasonable small bags...like carry on sized Good of you to try to cover your loose end tail...
like you said....most minivans are filled with families..most families have lots of gear and stuff....and minivans hold less than the suburban....hands down. Or , if you don't believe me...check it out yourself....I will do it this Friday, and actually measure the minivans that my friends have, and report back here.
check out a trunk of a minivan and suburban ..... do it....just do it.... :lemon:
I think you are misinformed ...the so called skeleton of the infamous brontosaurus was actually made up from a large skull of another dino, plus a large body skeleton....then they determined that the skull of that body should have been smaller....and thus no such thing as a brontosaurus....
Comments
Good to see you again. I try ;-) Some humility and introspection, with a little reduction in self-righteousness, can do the world a lot of good.
I agree that some SUV s have less cargo space than MV.....
but you have to take into consideration that minivans cannot carry 7 people and all the luggages and equipment and stuff that a family needs on trips....
frequently they (MV) have to sacrifice seat space for cargo space...
in the large SUVs, that is not the case....my suburban can carry seven people and all their luggage to the airport....a feat that cannot be done in any minivan (unless you make 2 trips) .
minivans are nice...but not what many people want or need.....
it does not fulfilll people's " vehicular requirements ", to paraphrase another anti SUV ers common excuse for himself...but it is not something he is willing to give another fellow american.....the right to choose what is right for one self...
how about this.....let ANTIs choose the vehicle for the Pro-SUV ers...(ok , they point to minivans)
then let the Pro-SUVers choose a vehicle for the Antis.....( kia ? Atos ? GEM? bicycle ? ......
Herc...you get a GEM electric vehicle....that way you wont pollute and save gas etc...
Now I see, indeed you don't read specs yourself. None of the minivans you mentioned are sub-190". There is only one Minivan currently on the market that is sub-190" in length. That's the Mazda MPV, and I have already given the reason why I did not buy that. For what it's worth, it weighs more than the Highlander (hence more dangerous to others) and burns more gas than Highlander in comparable configuration, so for the anti-SUV crowd, sticking out for MPV against Highlander only goes to show the illogic behind the whole argument: simple word matching "SUV" "MV," never mind the particulars of specific vehicles.
good to see you too.... I saw and understand what you are pointing out....and I think most people would understand that....
IIt is funny how people like to inject their own prejudices onto others....
but let's stick to the car....the driver is responsible for the accidents anyways...
if people like MV..then stick to MV....if they like SUV...then stick to SUV...
I once had a SUV, a MV, a 4 door sedan, and a 2 seater convertible, all at the same time.....
guess which one we got rid of first ? the minivan !!! cause it did less than the suburban....while the other cars all served its special purposes....the minivans capabilities were LESS than that of the suburban....MV only did a subset of the things that the suburban could do.....
of course, each person has his own needs and wants.....therefore some may just prefer MV....but the pracitcal choice for us was the SUV....
but all the MV drivers ask to borrow the suburban when extra room is needed....
I know some people still do not understand this....but it is a practical fact...
highender:but let's stick to the car....the driver is responsible for the accidents anyways...
You're always contradicting yourself.
or are you just thinking out loud? Have you aver won any of the arguments that you have with yourself?
:-)
Sorry for off-topic comments, but 'science' is just made up of pseudo facts? I am not a scientist but I have a degree in engineering and studied a good amount of science. So as per you, Newton's law is something just made up of pseudo facts! (Yes, it is a simplification which does not take relativity into account, but it is pseudo?) I know what is meant by putting forward a hypothesis and working around facts to prove the hypothesis (a malady plaguing the research community today) but there are scientific facts which are just so. They are not the basis of hypothesis but completely repeatable and replicable experiments, which is why they are laws and not theories.
There are new age 'sciences' like psychology, sociology, and more traditional ones like medical sciences and evolutionary sciences where there are no clear results and lots of confusion. On the other end of the spectrum, there are physical sciences (on the practical aspect of which engineering is based) which are based on tested, proven, repeated observations.
And if you believe what you just said, then for the love of god do not drive any automobile or ever fly on a plane. Everything, from the controlled internal combustion, to the structural design and reinforcements, to the material selection and processing, to the electronic control and microprocessors to the design of the jet engines is based upon "made up pseudo facts". You surely do not wanna risk your and your families lives on that?
Coming back to FWD/RWD, I did not dismiss either as useless or superior. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and they are agreed upon by people from both ends of the spectrum. Then there are physical facts. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a FWD will come off better. Now if you get some crappy FWD from sometime in the 70s and compare it with a modern state of the art RWD with traction control, the comparison is void.
Indeed!
tidester, host
Sure they can. Unless the 7 "people" are all women. If that is the case... they invented something called a roof rack and cargo carrier.
Um, no...that would be...psuedo science.
As for the Brontosaurus, the dinosaur certainly existed, the name and classification was problematic. This is hardly a failing of "science".
...recent top news stories ...and you will notice that up to 50% of researchers...
I think you are fudging your data :=) You seem to be pursuing a nihilistic attack on science itself. Science is largely responsible for our current quality of life and health...being in the health field, you should know this.
oh....and minivans are nice...
Ah, we found some topicality!
Living in a world of delusional fantasy may be fun, but once in a while we may need to step out and smell the air. There are always numbers out there to say something. Of course, one recourse may be to call the numbers 'lies/fake' or denigrate the generator of the numbers as 'anti-/obfuscator' or plain discard them. However, here are numbers again along with the reference qouted, and these are not some random thoughts or plainly ungrounded prophetic definitions or statement, plain and simple facts.
Chrysler Town and Country Length 189.1
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/chrysler/townandcountry/100385037/specs.html?tid=edmunds.- - u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Chrysler*
Dodge Grand Caravan Length 189.1
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/dodge/caravan/100505851/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.l- - eftsidenav..6.Dodge*
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.
Once again, I would love to know what that was based on! Four trips to Europe and if anything, I believe they get more of the stop and go. And then again, somewhere on this forum someone said
..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...
20 posts back MPVs are nirvana for urban life in America, just like the world over (of course under the unfounded thoughts that MPVs are somehow the same as SUVs) and now they do not make sense! To what extent of 'illogic' will we have to traverse into, straddling both sides of an argument only to justify an SUV?
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.
An SUV lover and RWD lover posted,
luxury vehicles use rear wheel drive, because it is superior to front wheel drive.
To which my post listed out both the advantages and disadvantages of a RWD as opposed to a FWD. I never called either better . And the best part, my car is a FWD!
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.
Hmm. Thats a Freudian slip. Does that actually show a flicker of guilt at owning the other vehicle, an SUV (I hear things about pollution and all). Thats interesting....
Some humility and introspection, with a little reduction in self-righteousness, can do the world a lot of good.
Sample a few things a certain poster said:
"You are as confused..."
"You are very confused indeed,..."
".. how detached from reality the whole train of thoughts really are..."
"... Do you stay up all night dreaming all this.."
Considering that the same author's own statements were random ungrounded musings, who needs humility and introspection over here?
By the way have SUV owners ever thought about why they are the target of quite a popular anti movement? Why do we have forums called "I don't like SUVs, why do you"? We do not have forums calls "I dont like sports cars why do you?" It cannot be due to aspirational value, if people said "I dont like ferraris why do you" one would understand that maybe it was due to the sour grapes thing. Thats not the case with SUVs, anybody's mom can by an SUV. Its not even the size of the SUV market, light trucks outsell SUVs by a margin, yet they are not mostly the center of discussion. Have you ever thought why?
I there are a few reasons (just my thoughts, no external sunstantiation here). The first is that SUVs have clearly completely diverged from the original purpose and are now forcefully justified towards a use they were never meant for. Second, most obvious, is the fact that they seem to be very visibly hogging all common resources, be it gas or space.
Bust most importantly, I think it is the self indulgent disregard of SUV owners for all other people. No other class of vehicles make owner associations which singly opposes progressive measures like emission control. You do not have sports car owners bawling over how they will lose all the power in their cars and henceforth the thrill. However, the SUV owners believe that they should not be effected from continued indulgence in their vehicles, irrespective of what happens all around. It a wierd sense of entitlement forcefully put across. If an SUV is an an alternative for a sedan, why should common regulations / restrictions not apply? All cars sold in the states need additional reinforcements in the structure to meet crashworthiness guidelines. Sports car owners can argue over the fact that it diminishes their utility by burdening the vehicle with additional weight and thereby demand an exception. Strangely, I havent heard of that. Isn't there something seriously on with SUVs to elicit this sort of response?
Anyways, I believe its a temporary phase. People pay $6 a gallon in Europe. My business contacts in India / China tell me that the PPP adjusted price of gas out there comes to around $18 / US gallon. No wonder they use the 'meaningless powerless' vehicles over there. Given that we are the champions of a free market and not really an oil producer, there is no way price of oil will not head off in the direction of what the rest of the world pays. It is not as if gas is actually cheap over here anyways. Add the price of the war and the massive presence we have to maintain to ensure out energy supply to the gas bill, and it isnt really all that cheap. But that is anyways distributed amongst all tax payers. But there is just limit beyond which the price to be paid will start to pinch. And it is already showing. It is not that with the slowdown in the sales of SUVs peoples daily transportation needs have vanished. Neither is it that the people in the rest of the world do not manage to reach the airport with their bags, in spite of the fact that there is no profusion of mega size SUVs over there. Its just a matter of time!
but you have to take into consideration that minivans cannot carry 7 people and all the luggages and equipment and stuff that a family needs on trips....
First correction, all SUVs have less cargo space than the large minivans (source: edmunds.com, check specifications page of individual vehicles to see maximum cargo space. A Sienna has i think 15 more cu ft than a suburban).
To your second point, a Sienna/Quest would seat the seven people and leave more cargo room than a Suburban. Additional cargo space can always be had with a $300 luggage carrier (this logic was actually forwarded by an SUV owner on this very forum, where he was pointing out why the extra cargo space in a minivan over his explorer was useless as he could anyways purchase the above mentioned carrier. I argue in reverse). Once again, I do not see how that justifies the SUV.
minivans are nice...but not what many people want or need.....
Why do they not need it and why do they need an SUV? One owner says it is too big and one doesnt need so much space (though he has not been made aware of similiarly sized minivans). You say they are too small and do not have sufficient space. One SUV owner argued that MPVs donot have any cargo space. When offered the alternative of a minivan, he said he dint need al that extra space and could use a carrier if he needed space. Safety numbers show similiarly sized minivans to be safer than similiarly similiarly sized SUVs (complete list posted down below). As far as ride comfort is concerned, all reviewers give minivans better ride comfort. Minivans are nowadays available with AWD and traction control. We have spoken about urban environments over here, not muddy marshes somewhere in the wild. So what is it?
BODY STYLE AND SIZE
Driver death rates by size and body style group
overall Cars
MINIVANS AND STATION WAGONS
65 small
47 midsize
42 large
SUVS
4 WHEEL DRIVE
102 small
67 midsize
52 large
103 very large
2 WHEEL DRIVE
121 small
114 midsize
70 large
you missed my sarcasm.... ! remember how antis blame everything on the vehicle ??!!
It is not contradictory at all....we are all for giving credit where credit is due...and not blaming all problems under the sun on SUVs.... :P
how is your nonpolluting vehicle doing ? :P
have you ever heard of a brontosaurus ? they told us kids that it was what walked the earth....it was actually taught in schools....yet it was now proven to be a made up creature.....
reading about stats and other numbers require the proper context, or else the real meaning may be obscured.....
a minivan may have more cargo room, but cannot take 7 adults and all their luggage to the airport, unless they resort to the troublesome luggage rack....
which takes some time.....and wastes more gas...
I think you understand what I am saying, but you are trying to extend it to say all science is false...which is NOT what I said...
nope....better check your pseudo science... they found a skull and body from different dinos, and combined the two unrelated sets to make up your brontosaurus.......
the proper name is now apatosaurus....no such thing as a brontosaurus...well, unless you are one of the Flintstones....
"I think you are fudging your data :=) You seem to be pursuing a nihilistic attack on science itself. Science is largely responsible for our current quality of life and health...being in the health field, you should know this.
nope...it was in the news and on yahoonews. THere are tons of data fudging .....egg is bad...egg is good,....egg is ?
SUVs are nicer.... :P
That's a Ford, right?
Anyone here actually comparison shopping a minivan and SUV?
Steve, Host
Have you ever seen a suburban ? I drive one. I also have friends who caravan with us on long trips....in nissan quest, sienna (old and new models) and odysseys. After seating seven people...the rear trunk of a minivan has maybe 2x4 feet of area ....barely enough for any large suitcases...and definitely not enough for 7 people's luggage. The rear trunk of a suburban , after seating seven, has maybe twice the area of a MV....lots of room for larger luggage....
minivans may have more cargo volume....but much of it is in the upper area , maybe the 7 passengers have more head room? but less room for luggage.....and that is why the suburban can out carry the minivans....
tell you what ,I could be wrong; so maybe you get into a suburban and a minivan...take a look , measure the back trunk/cargo area....then come back here and post. I just took 2 families to the airport in the suburban, because their new odyssey would not fit ....oh, and no using trailers or luggage racks....we are talking interior real world practical usage here...and of course, the suburban has luggage racks and can outtow a minivan, if you want to talk about outside cargo capacity....IMO.
yes,,,we did comparison shop a minivan vs SUV.....
we had a Toyota Previa...lot more room than the dodge and quest and windstar and sienna....but it carried less compared to the suburban, in real life situations. The SUV also allowed us to go up to Tahoe with less worry about traction and weather conditions, though braking still must be done carefully. I have the M+S tires on....and chains in the cargo area..jsut in case....
The new generation crossover sport utes are even more sportier...they have the positive attributes of both a minivan and a sports car in one vehicle.....
Now 7 adults in a minivan is about as rare as that brontosaurus you guys have been talking about. If all 7 adults were men, the luggage would fit easily. With room to spare for a couple coolers of brew.
We checked out the Toyota Highlander while shopping for minivans. It had no more space than a mid sized station wagon. Second row comfortable for only 2...third row seating a joke. Minivan platform being much lower than SUV allows for more upward packing of luggage.
Also, the creature they thought was a brontosaurus was really a bracheosaurus.
So, now instead of Fred telling Barney to hand him another bronto-burger....he will have to ask for a bracheo-burger. :P
No creature was "made up", only a name was.
I stand by my comment that science is sometimes made of pseudo facts...
Well, you were willing to "stand behind" your comment that SUVs fared better in large truck collisions than other vehicles, which was completely refuted by NHTSA data, so why should I be surprised :=)
Science is not made up pf pseudo facts, pseudo science is. But this is pseudo-topical anyway, so how about we stick to MV v SUVs, eh?
a minivan may have more cargo room, but cannot take 7 adults and all their luggage...
This is a non-starter since the amount of luggage would have to be defined.
A suburban has more room behind the seats than other vehicles, this is true. What your point is, I don't know...the % of prospective buyers that have such a requirement is dwarfed by those that don't.
As far as safety the Ody is good, not as good as the Suburban according to the Insurance Institute. They use real science to decide how much they will charge you for insurance.
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm
PS
If you have a travel trailer forget it with a MV.
is justified by SUVs? I mean how many times do you actually haul 7 people and their crazy amount of baggage to the airport every year (unless you are a chaffeur at a Disneyland hotel or for a football team).
And you know what. Three months back I and my friends went on a road trip and guess what we had to use? A RV (a motorhome to be more precise). Show me one SUV which allows 6 people and all their gear to travel comfortably, to sleep peacefully on a bed while traversing long distances on the highways and to take a leak or a shower whenever needed without stopping... just ONE.
I think by the standards of "interior real world practical usage we should all be driving RVs (ya ya.. their mileage is in single digits but who cares!)
That's what high demand does. In this case, based on superior build quality and delivered functionality. However, I agree that if your requirement is heavy hauling, a truck is what you want.
As far as safety the Ody is good, not as good as the Suburban...
You are making the classic error of using insurance rate data as a safety metric. The vast majority of insurance claims are based on vehicle damage, not injury or fatality.
A more appropriate metric is driver death rate. From the same source (IIHS), here they are for the vehicles you cite:
(vehicle, overall rate per million vehicle years, multi vehicle rate, single vehicle rate, rollover rate)
Honda Odyssey,19,16,2,1
Chevrolet Suburban 1/2 ton 2WD ,73,29,48,45
Chevrolet Suburban 1/2 ton 4WD ,47,10,36,27
Obviously, the Odyssey's numbers are vastly superior.
The higher damage to the Odyssey probably comes from collisions with Suburbans :=)
You can look up the NYT website www.nyt.com for the entire article. The title of the article is
"Was Freud a Minivan or S.U.V. Kind of Guy?"
Mr Ed, I hadnt posted the entire article the last time either (it was less than half) but I appreciate the copyright concerns. I had actually pulled it from the the website of a social sciences department of a university. Nonetheless, what is posted here is just a fraction of the entire article. Hope thats fine.
"...Of all the mysteries facing automakers in recent years, few have been so engrossing as how families choose between minivans and sport utility vehicles..."
"...research by automakers is finding that buyers of these two kinds of vehicles are very different psychologically. Sport utility buyers tend to be more restless, more sybaritic, less social people who are "self-oriented," to use the automakers’ words, and who have strong conscious or subconscious fears of crime. Minivan buyers tend to be more self- confident and more "other-oriented"—more involved with family, friends and their communities. ..."
"...minivan buyers tend to be more comfortable than sport utility buyers with being married; sport utility buyers are more commonly concerned with still feeling sexy, and like the idea that they could use their vehicles to start dating again, said David P. Bostwick, DaimlerChrysler’s director of market research. ..."
"...Minivan people want to be in control in terms of safety,....S.U.V. owners want to be more like, ‘I’m in control of the people around me.’..." Fred J. Schaafsma, a top G.M. vehicle development engineer"
"...Sport utility buyers are much more concerned with their vehicles’ external appearance, while minivan buyers are more interested in the vehicles’ interiors and practicality, said Thomas Elliott, Honda’s executive vice president ..."
"...survey this spring that sport utility buyers placed a lower value than minivan buyers on showing courtesy on the road...."
""It’s not safety as the issue, it’s aggressiveness, it’s the ability to go off the road..."
I've found (and I've been involved in one or 2 discussion in other TH topics on this subject
SUV representing power, control, appearance. Minivans representing saftey, practicallity, socializor.
So, unless Freud was trying to get in touch with his feminine side...he was definitely a SUV kind of guy. :surprise:
Steve, Host
But an SUV is never just an SUV. It's a statement. It says....."DEAL WITH IT"
OTOH, sometimes a curmudgeon is always a curmudgeon.
:=)
"...The typical minivan or sport utility purchaser is most often a fairly affluent married couple in their 40’s with children. And while minivans are sometimes labeled "mom-mobiles," the principal drivers of minivans, like sport utility vehicles, are actually a little more likely to be men than women...."
Steve, Host
Who writes that artcile, BTW. He refutes someone else's points, not fun if someone doesn't pick out the holes in his B-)
Steve, Host
Never said it wasn't. Though many more times a car is more than just a car. Status symbol to many. Even amoung the various classifications you hear...i.e "my Ody has more power, more size, more features than your Sienna" Are SUV owners more likely to suffer from low self esteem...and get the bigger, cooler ,more powerful vehicle to overcompensate?little sailor? I can see no practical use for a small or midsize SUV over a minivan...other than image. Which is fine if that is what they want.
Most men are the principal drivers of minivans because generally speaking the man drives the family vehicle whenever taking the family out. We bought our minivan for my wife...but I'm the principal driver. Would like to see some hard statistics though instead of "many" and "most". The major force behind minivan sales is likely to be the women...the man for SUV. I don't know many single men without a family that would buy a minivan. The image being somewhat like eating at a restaurant all alone.
Truck Tales — Why Today's Women Love Their Trucks
And some would say the major force behind US car sales period is women - "Women either buy or influence the purchase of 85 percent of all new cars and trucks sold in the United States today." link
And it's LI (as in Long Island) Sailor, as I suspect you know.
Steve, Host
Anyway, I've been following the "debate" on the merits of SUV's verses vans. Based on a sampling of antidotal evidence (not statistical, just observations among about 15 friends and neighbors) the following is true:
1. Everyone has different needs - please stop making assumptions about someone else's motives. In fact, considering how much my friends and I are alike, its amazing how different our criteria are for the cars we choose.
2. This could be a very informative debate for people truly trying to pick which way to go IF more facts were used about the different merits.
We just picked the Honda Pilot verses a minivan, because it combined the features of a minivan that were important to us, as well as driving features for my daily drive to work.
Does that mean I want or need everyone to go buy the same as me? NO! (Because then, I couldn't find my car in the parking lots filled with other Pilots.
Does that mean I think less of my friends who drive bigger SUV's or minivans? No, in fact, they still get to drive when a group of adults go out.
OK - just had to get that off my chest.
Thats the whole point ma'am. No one is 'assuming' motives. These are factual outcomes of marketing research surveys. Neither is it some one 'anti-SUV' guy attacking the SUV owners. These are the 'manufacturers' themselves. Their marketing heads. Their chief engineers. They are the people who design an sell these vehicles to the owners. They are the ones responsible for packaging the vehicle.
The comments included seior guys from Chrysler, Honda and GM. Here's what Martin Inglish, a senior executive had to say in one of his speeches where he referred to the above article (from Ford's media site):
"...Drivers feel empowered when they drive an SUV. This sense of confidence stems from the higher seat position and improved road visibility. But it also emerges from a psychic sense of exerting control - feeling more secure..."
"...For example, when we asked college students to envision the vehicle they would be driving in five years, many named an SUV. Why? Because, even if they had children, they perceived an SUV as the sporty alternative that would "keep them in tune with their youth." ...."
These are not the words of some SUV hater. These are guys whose bread and butter depends upon the sales of SUV. I dont think they have any reason to lie!
Thats an awfully broad statement that doen't really mean much at all...if anything. A women can tell her man to buy the powder puff blue Town & Country(after he had decided on a T&C) and that would be influencing the purchase.Anytime a couple purchase a new vehicle there is going to be influence going back and fourth. If I didn't know better I would think that data came from Consumer Reports and not Edmunds.(or, used to support and article written by an Edmunds editor) To say that car and truck sales would be down 85% if not for women is a bit ridiculous.
I suspect some women love their trucks/SUVs for the same reason many men do. I recall asking a young lady friend of mine many years ago why she had purchased a small pickup truck instead of something more practical that fit her needs. Her response was...,"It's cute"
Yes, some times a truck is just a truck. But, sometimes it's more than that.
Yes, Li Sailor...sorry you missed the pun.
"I also notice that people tend to move out of my way when I want to move over.
Hmm. Nice reasons. But the problem is, the feeling of safety, the feeling of height and the ability to see far ahead (and people moving out of the way, of course) are because there are still small car people out there. What happens when ALL the cars become the same size (You drive a dodge ram, I'll drive a hummer and my grandma will drive an excursion). The rate at which the market share is growing, I see us reaching there pretty soon. What next? Trailer Utility Vehicle? Armoured tank utility vehicle?
These are exactly the trade-offs which members of this forum would want to understand. It would also help confused people looking to go either way. It would be great if you could enlist the research and the specific driving features for your drive to work that swung the SUV in your favor.
I'll take a guess. You live in a rural township and the ride to work isn't exactly along paved roads. So an SUV would ride through it and a minivan wouldn't. Right?
Oh, I doubt that Karl is going to rise to your bait on your post on his blog discussion, but my thinking has been wrong before, lol.
Steve, Host
The best antidote to evidence it better evidence!
tidester, host
Bait? What can I ensanre the editor in chief of this whole place into
But I would definitely like to know if he thinks that SUVs are a sign of success all those opposed to them are failed penniless people who have no money, so pay no taxes and envy the SUV people for their luxury and glitz. If he does, well, then I'll have to rethink whether all those comments on other matters I so truly believed in were actually objective (not that it would matter either to him or anyone else), but still.......
the data juggling was admited by many of the researchers... ...
and Like I already said....I had 2 families with kids and all their luggage, in the burb...something the new odyssey could not handle( ok, like you said..if they pack reasonable small bags...like carry on sized Good of you to try to cover your loose end tail...
like you said....most minivans are filled with families..most families have lots of gear and stuff....and minivans hold less than the suburban....hands down. Or , if you don't believe me...check it out yourself....I will do it this Friday, and actually measure the minivans that my friends have, and report back here.
check out a trunk of a minivan and suburban ..... do it....just do it.... :lemon:
I think you are misinformed ...the so called skeleton of the infamous brontosaurus was actually made up from a large skull of another dino, plus a large body skeleton....then they determined that the skull of that body should have been smaller....and thus no such thing as a brontosaurus....