Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
From where I stand, the brontosaurus was renamed apatosaurus...which has a smaller head. A brachiosaurus is an entirely diff animal with longer forelegs....I think you got your scientific facts mixed up....just like you got the amount of space behind the 3rd row of seats mixed up... :sick: perhaps an example of pseudo facts ????
So, now instead of Fred telling Barney to hand him another bronto-burger....he will have to ask for a bracheo-burger.
should be an apato-burger...
lisailor: No creature was "made up", only a name was.
me: I think you are wrong...just do a search on the science...and you will see that the "scientific" creature that you so cling to was composed of a skull from one dino, and a skeleton of a large plant eater, which had a much smaller skull....when 2 things that do not match are put together and called a single thing...it normally constitutes "made up" .... the name serves no purpose, because there was no such creature/animal, except in the deluded scientists who first coined the name.
sails: "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 "
the bumpers of SUVs will matchup with larger vehicles , and the amount of protection is more.....the armour that protects the passengers from intrusion injuries, etc... But can you please post your data ? I would be interested in it...thanks.
oh, by the way...just a few percentage points deviation does NOT constitute unequivocal proof....
ME: a minivan may have more cargo room, but cannot take 7 adults and all their luggage...
sails: This is a non-starter since the amount of luggage would have to be defined.
come on...just take your regular typical vacationing family...with standard sized suitcases bought from Walmart or Costco or Sears...just have the exact same ones so the comparison would be fair .....and try to pack the families into the minivan and suburban...easy....no sweat...I see no need to over-engineer the problem .... ...
sails : A suburban has more room behind the seats than other vehicles, this is true.
ahh...the first true fact you stated in this paragraph......instead of the brontosaurus facts....
Why is it important ? because Americans move frequently, need more usable space, and travel frequently, and like to travel with others..........
minivans can do the job...and we do sometimes take our friends' odyssey or the sienna, or windstar....but if we need to carpool or save gas and all go in one vehicle and have gear or luggage, we all invariably choose the suburban.....
you may be right that some people may not need all that space, and have all their needs fulfilled by the minivan....but these same minivan families also can take advantage of thier friends' suburbans.....and having all that space means lots of savings overall......
depends on if you need more space or not....the amount of actual floor space is probably greater in the suburban, not the minivan. the SUV also has the ability to get to more remote areas to rescue animals...with less chance of getting stuck.
The suburban has parts that are easily available, and there are not that many problems with the vehicle.....only thing is that gas mileage is lower....about 3 to 4 mpg lower than a comparable minivan, or full sized van.
"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. "
actually, I looked at the whole table that sails posted....Guess what ? it was the same source IIHS....which is entirely funded by insurance companies....and they use these figures to calculate your insurance premiums. Some cars are lower, some higher. The figures also prove that smaller cars always do worse than heavier vehicles.....across all vehicle categories and all body styles....so therefore, like what one chief IIHS chief scientist says: consider weight...heavier vehicles are safer....
Yes, some cars get damaged more easily than others....or get into accidents more frequently than others....some cars do not get damaged easily. Is that why suburban rates are so low ?
A more appropriate metric is driver death rate. From the same source (IIHS), here they are for the vehicles you cite:
Chevrolet Suburban 1/2 ton 4WD ,47,10,36,27 .....
now some rates for minivans are high also...
like for the Dodge caravan: 83, 45, 37, 16
0r for the astro : 66, 43, 18, 6
the first number shows that overall death rate., multivehicle, then single vehicle, then rollover.
note for the Grand Am, a sports sedan, it is 100, 48, 51, 28....
sails: ""The higher damage to the Odyssey probably comes from collisions with Suburbans ""
so you admit that the minivan will not do as well against a larger vehicle , such as a suburban ?!..
so larger SUVs are safer when hit by minivans , right ? that is what you are saying ....thanks....
and probably all the deaths from the suburbans came from cell phone moms cutting off burbs and forcing them to evade and hit trees ? !...
Yes to unpaved roads, but MV's can handle them fine if you drive slow and watch for sudden changes in road levels at three of the intersections. Actually, my Volvo 850 did fine on those roads at low speeds, too.
As far as why we picked what we did:
1. We did not pick an SUV over a MV, we chose the best auto overall for our needs, and it happened to be a SUV (with a lot of MV features).
2. With a $30k budget, the car HAD to have comfortable seating for 2 adults and two kids, and still fit into my garage without rearranging the extensive storage system in there. We also need to carry (about once a week) up to 5 kids, so a third row seat was needed, but it didn't have to be big enough for adults. The second row seat did have to fit adults comfortably for short drives. It had to be a car from a company with proven reliablility since we keeps our cars 10+ years.
3. The following features are listed in order of importantance (things I want to have, but didn't have to have them all):
- back configurable to meet different hauling needs: second and third row split seats, second row seats movable, third row seats fold flat
- enough room for one child to ride in third row on car trips, and still be able to fit two 70 pound dogs in the back (hince the thrid row split seat)
- low enough to easily get stuff on top of the roof at least one a week (boats, bikes, building supplies, etc.)
- high ground clearance for the uneven road changes around here
4. At that point there were still several cars left. The final deciding factor was the fact that the Pilot just felt better. It is easy for all of us to get in and out. The seat belt hits my elementary age children just fine ( many hit them too high), but also fits adults comfortable. Its a little wider than others in its class, so we don't feel cramped with three in the second row. The driver's seat feels great, and the ergonomics are perfectly suited to me. There is plenty of leg room on the front passenger side that I don't feel cramped on long trips.
I hope this helps someone who is actually trying to decide what the best car for them would be.
Yes, I would agree for that other 5% who doesn't want to mess with a cargo carrier or who like to travel in the same vehicle with other families...a suburban would fit the bill better. Though I haven't packed luggage in a suburban, I have packed a Ford Expedition. They are about the same size...correct? I packed our luggage of 4 very easily...did appear to have more cargo room than minivan.Though I stated before, a minivans platform is a lot lower...so one would have more room vertically, though less horizontially.
And I DO appreciate you calling me "misinformed"(on the Bronto business) instead of a liar or an ignoramous.
If I am indeed misinformed...but I doubt it.
Shameless shill!
Women either buy or influence the purchase of 85 percent...
And men do about the same :=)
Sport Waggin'
:shades: Steve, Host
I knew you wouldn't let that one pass :=)
They do not have trunks. The Sub has the most room behind the 3rd seat...I think we know this. If one needs that much room for people and cargo, then the Sub is the right choice...it's basically heavy hauling at that point. The fact is, though, that the vast majority of folks do not have that requirement. In fact, I would judge that most Sub owners do not have that requirement either.
Most large trucks outweigh the largest SUV by many times, rendering bumper heights meaningless. That is one reason why NHTSA stats show that LTVs actually fare worse, overall, in collisions with large trucks than cars.
...can you please post your data ?
I posted it long ago, as you well know, and you ignored it then...what would change now?
I'm sorry, when did we change this topic to small cars? I thought we were comparing a Sub to an Odyssey.
...so larger SUVs are safer when hit by minivans...
Anyone that has given accident data an even cursory look knows that large/mid SUVs fare much better in collisions with car-based vehicles. And the reason is that they steal the crumple zones of the car-based vehicles. IMO, this is an unethical way to obtain safety. That's the point I'm making, FWIW.
What dimensions were problematic?
It's not too surprising that a car-based SUV like the Pilot wound up as the choice when "SUV requirements" were minimal. The difference between those (and others like the Highlander and MDX) and MVs is certainly blurring, and that's a good thing.
Was mpg a factor at all? Emissions?
I hope this helps someone who is actually trying to decide what the best car for them would be.
I think the range of input that helps such decisions is pretty broad.
Hmmmmm...I would still consider that hearsay and anecdotal evidence. After all, they would still be giving their "anecdotes". This is as opposed to evidence based on objective, measurable, repeatable data.
I think this whole discussion is misdirected. The relevant paleontological discovery was the fosslized remains of the Piltdown man in his SUV! :P
tidester, host
The length was the factor - and not really problematic, just ruled out most of the larger cars, which wasn't that big of a loss for us.
MPG was important, but not overriding - this car will get less than 8,000 per year. MPG did take out the Toyota Sequoia and the Ford Explorer from consideration. I was hoping to be able to hold out for the Highlander hybrid, but husband's car just couldn't make it any more and we didn't want to buy a brand new engine type its first year out.
He puts a lot more mile on his car per year than I do (20,000 vs less than 8,000), so we are starting to watch how the larger hybrid sedans do for reliability. We hope to get him in something comfortable, but efficient within the next year.
LOL
Hence the abnormally small head and the extremely large body! :-)
So....for the $60k question...did the "sporty" image of the SUV vs the "MommyMobile" image of the MV play any role in the decision?
Remember, honesty is the best policy. Well, usually :=)
Also, most of my friends drive minivans or bigger, fancier SUVs. They couldn't care less what I drive, except that I can finally carpool! That's been a big issue.
So, I can honestly state that image was not a concern - I'll email where you can send that $60k check - it will let me pay off the Pilot, and replace the Volvo for my husband.
For a great many folks that are considering a family vehicle, that is, when they realize they need a bigger vehicle, and they consider a MV or SUV, a strong factor sending many to the SUV is the "MommyMobile" image of the MV vs the "AdventureGuy" image of the SUV. This is exemplified by the countless exclamations of those saying "I wouldn't be caught dead in a MV".
So...that was my question, whether this particular brand of "image" was a factor.
...you can send that $60k check...
Hey, no worries....it's in the mail!
I was answering to that type of question - no consideration for any type of image sporty or otherwise was important to me. The type of cars I was driving before were given as examples that I couldn't care less about my car image quotient. If the SUV is filled with kids, and since I am the Mom, its really a mommie-mobile, too, as far as I'm concerned.
Unless the kayaks are on top along with the mountain bikes, and the kids are at Grandma's and not in the car - then, I might look sporty...
I want to know what is up. You almost have me convinced a year ago that SUVs were bad MVs were good. Now it seems that SUVs like the RX400h & Highlander Hybrid are god's gift to the planet. How do the "Greenies" figure that? Maybe I should not have sold my Suburban.
Gosh, are you suggesting we shut down IDLSWDY a bit prematurely??
tidester, host
Oh, they're not that unsafe :=)
I am no red neck.
Didn't Nixon say something like that?
I don't think I ever convinced anyone of anything, but...I never even claimed anything like that.
...it seems that SUVs like the RX400h & Highlander Hybrid are god's gift to the planet.
What is it that makes that seem so to you? And who, exactly, has received these divine gifts?
Don't tempt the Forum Gods...imagine the chaos and destruction that would accompany the re-opening of that den of iniquity and perfidy!
My mommy mobile "cool mobile" is a 2005 GTO "Holden Monaro" , family of 4 fits fine. I don't need a big SUV or Minivan. Even with 400 horsepower Corvette LS2 V8 engine it stll gets EPA rated 25 mpg highway, I have gotten nearly 26mpg+ myself !! pretty impressive. It's safer in sense then SUV/Minivans because it handles, brakes, acclerates much better. I can avoid accidents that you couldn't in a SUV/Minivan because of their poorer stopping distances and clumsier handling. Insurance is about the same as minivan/SUV, very low on GTO for some reason. I have towed our jetski with it before as well. The best is when you have to merge or pull out onto a highway, no problem with 400hp. WIth a minivan/Suv, much slower and harder to pull out
Our other car is a 4 door Luxury sedan. The kids and family always want to hop in GTO, wonder why!
so just call it cargo area/rear hatch...
The Sub has the most room behind the 3rd seat...I think we know this. If one needs that much room for people and cargo, then the Sub is the right choice...it's basically heavy hauling at that point.
I agree....and thanks for clearing that up for some of the newcomers ..... It does seem that you can be objective at times...
The fact is, though, that the vast majority of folks do not have that requirement. In fact, I would judge that most Sub owners do not have that requirement either.
maybe you are all knowing, but from what I see, many SUV owners also use their vehicles for weekend getaways, for people hauling, and for solo commuting. IT is the best vehicle choice that they made for themselves. I do not think it is for you to judge....since you cannot objectively or intelligently make such a conclusion. It may be your opinion, which I do respect. However, just like one has a right to buy a relative gas waster like a RSX compared to a Prius, so can one buy a SUV for thier vehicular needs .
if bumper heights are 'meaningless' in your point of view, then why, may I ask, are large trucks trying to lower their bumper heights .....you see some semis with them, if your assertion is correct ? why bother, if bumper heights are meaningless ?
Most people will see that bumper heights are indeed important...and that is why many minivans and SUVs are having their bumper heights lowered . The fact that large trucks outweigh cars or SUVs is true...but in no way does that render bumper heights "meaningless".
I posted it long ago, ....
why not post it again, for the enjoyment of all those who missed your performance.....?!
why not compare suburban with a dodge minivan...which has a worse record ? or astro, which also has a worse record....?
Anyone that has given accident data an even cursory look knows that large/mid SUVs fare much better in collisions with car-based vehicles.
and what kind of vehicles are there more out there ? more cars or more SUVs ? if there are more cars, and the chance of getting hit by a car, minivan, or SUV, is higher, then why not buy the safer one....the one whose crumple zones are a bit stronger than the others.? OF course, you can buy a moped and stop stealing crumple zones of other cars...
And the reason is that they steal the crumple zones of the car-based vehicles. IMO, this is an unethical way to obtain safety.
:lemon:
and The point I am making is that the NHSTA, IIHS, AAA, Dept of Transportation, and Geico , all advise one to consider weight when buying for safety...because the heavier car generally is a lot safer.....and this is supported by the link that sails provided...and it is the conclusion that the chief scientist at IIHS made....
This is not stealing. IT does sound alot like whining.. one has to take responsibility for what one buys...a SUV crumple zone is stronger than a minivan, which is in turn stronger than a RSX, which is in turn stronger than a geo metro, which is stronger than a moped..... When one knows a vehicle is not as safe, then should one buy it ? If you know your vehicle is not as safe, should you knowingly and unethically recommend it to other people ? I would think not .
With all the rush to buy smaller vehicles, some people will get needlessly hurt....all in the name of saving a few dollars....what is more important ? Each of us has to make a hard choice, IMO.
FWIW.
Do I hear teeth gnashing?
(maybe it's just highender about to dig into the Krispy Kremes?)
:-)
BTW, since when is a RSX a relative gas waster? It is EPA rated at 27 city and 34 highway ! Yes the Prius gets 50 and 60 or double, but the Prius can't move out of it's own way, the RSX is quite fast/quick with a combinationi of good gas mileage. Being able to pull out faster/merge better is worth a loss in gas mileage to a certain degree. That said, the RSX or Prius are too small for me.
As far as Suburbans having a poor roll-over record. I have not seen any statistics to back that up. Asian SUVs are known for their top heavy roll-over prone characteristics. You are safest in the Suburban/Tahoe group of SUVs. The only large Asian SUV with a high rating at the IIHS is the Toyota Land Cruiser. They are so over priced I am surprised they sold any of them. The Land Cruiser is also a very big polluter. It's emission rating makes the Hummer2 look like a Prius.
Sorry tidester...I've seemed to have misplaced my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. What is "IDLSWDY"? Code letters into entry of the devils playground :confuse:
We're expecting a new order of the decoder rings ... any day now!
tidester, host
Yes, Asian SUVs roll over more than Suburbans.
LOL
Personally, one roll-over is one too many for me.
Hey Gagrice, weren't you the one touting the great benefits of diesel? What's up with that new Jeep Liberty diesel? 18 mpg and does 0-60 in over 10 seconds?
what a dissapointment that is!! And with diesel prices what they are? ugh!!
Sure it can tow a house, but I personally would NEVER want to tow anything heavier than the vehicle towing it unless the towing vehicle was LOOOONNGG.
Tidester:
dibs on a decoder ring!
:-)
"I am an insecure egotist who is easily influenced by marketing and loves to waste money"
I can imagine then crawling from the overturned semi-upright vehicle in a ditch with that look on their faces.
:P
Say it aint true.
Why? If the choice is stupid and inhumane (dangerous to others), that is only appropriate.
And, oh, yeah, there is this little thing called sarcasm.
Steve, Host
1. Gosh! I never realized there were SO many SUVs out there, especially the larger varieties. Incidentally, most of them were black (some special thing?)
2. In the sample size of about 90-100 SUVs that I carefully observed spanning various times of the day (8-9:30 in the morning, 12-1 afternoon, 6-10 in the night, spread across various days in various durations) exactly 1 SUV was carrying 4 people (an explorer, mom, dad two kids) and that was the highest number of passengers. I would say roughly 60-70% had one driver, and a few had two.
Ok, so it was during weekdays. So essentially, for 70% of an SUVs lifespan (5 days out of 7) it is most likely to carry a fraction of its capacity
3. Almost all the SUVs had their last row of seats up so I am guessing that they were not carrying any significant cargo. I saw 2 towing empty trailers. Most of the trailers in my area seem to be towed by flatbeds.
4. Women outnumber men by a margin when it comes to SUVs. I actually notice more men in sedans than women :-?
5. Going back to the other half of this forum, though not as carefully scrutinized, minivans almost always seem to have kids in them.
6. Amusing incidents :-) Woman in Suburban tries to make a u turn. Vehicle too huge and clumsy so she makes the turn with her rear inside tire all over the divider :-o
Woman in SUburban (again :-) ) comes to park vehicle outside Target. Parking spot is too small and vehicle too big. She puts it in reverse and forward 5-6 times and finally manages to squeeze in. But then there is very little space to open the door. So she slams open the door, thankfully it was only an Expedition on the side :-) (narrowing the space further)
This is an urban area, all paved roads, even the shoulders are paved. Everything is nice and clean.
Ok, ok. I hear you. SUVs are for the weekend. And we have one right here! Have 2 schools quite close to my place where I see a lot of action on Sat mornings. Will stop by there on my way to the games tomorrow morning and check out the type of vehicles, number of vehicles and number of people out there. Should give a rough idea about utilization.
Finally, will be headed for NYC tomorrow evening. That should let me see the 'highway' usage. Lets hope that throws up some better figures!
Have a great weekend. Drive safe. Be considerate (the crash wont kill you but little car people have families too!)
Whats the point throwing random unrelated comparisons. By your point, why not compare an Odyssey 19 (16,2,1) with a Kia Sportage 162 (51,119,100) or a Chevrolet Tracker 183 (86, 90, 80) or an Explorer 187 (52, 145, 122)?
The Odyssey - Explorer comparison would actually make most sense, best selling SUV to one of the best selling minivans!
As sailor said, the on going comparison was between an odyssey (or a sienna) and a Sub. Bringing in other vehicles doesnt serve your cause, trust me. If you believe those numbers (those are nor 'thought up' but compiled data for actual deaths) then 6 out of the 14 worst vehicles with highest rates of death are SUVs. There are 0 minivans there. So?
...and it is the conclusion that the chief scientist at IIHS made....
It is undeniable that greater weight means better safety, in general. However, did you read the entire report?
“Pound for pound across the vehicle types, cars almost always have lower death rates than either pickups or SUVs.
Do you know what that means? You buy a 2 ton car and you buy a 2 ton SUV. Guess which one you'll be safer in?
And trying to be a bit more topical, going back to comparing SUVs and Minivans, read the opening paragraph of the report.
Large cars and minivans dominate among vehicle models with very low death rates. The models with the highest rates are mostly small cars and small and midsize SUVs, many of which also have high rates of death in single vehicle
rollover crashes.
These are the opening words in a report published by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
With all the rush to buy smaller vehicles, some people will get needlessly hurt
A little research on the net showed an thing call 'aggresivity index' for vehicles. What this essentially shows is what happens when two vehicles hit each other. Aso an SUV has a higher aggressivity index, which means it is much more likely to inflict damage on another vehicle when the two collide. What does this mean? This means that even if you dont want to buy an SUV (maybe because you love to drive, thankfully no SUV owner has justified their vehicle saying they enjoy driving it, understandably), you will still be forced to buy one. So basically, the more SUVs that are out there, the more you lose the choice to buy a non-SUV, because you are more unsafe than you would have been had there been no SUVs.
Exactly a point I had made some time back. The 'safety spiral' is caused by the presence of SUVs. If there were non, you wouldn't worry. But now that there are, you need to worry. So you are forced to buy an SUV to protect yourself from an SUV. Is that freedom of choice?
But worry not. Trailers have a much higher agressivity index and can make pulp out of SUVs too :-) (I display here the same glee that SUV owners display wrt smaller cars) So they day you feel things are getting too unsafe in the presence of SUVs, you know what to get ;-) Then you will be at the other end of feeling safe
And isn't it actually the other way around? I thought the rush was currently to buy bigger vehicles