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
skimmel, "SUV vs. Minivans
Steve, Host
If I was buying an SUV for a larger family today, it would be the new Tahoe. It is a very fine vehicle, safe, comfortable and affordable. Especially if you encounter snow, ice and large animals on the highway. You cannot be too safe where your family is concerned. The Insurance Institute rates them safer than any of the Japanese SUVs in their class.
I'm certainly ok with putting that decision up to scrutiny if it has a major impact on other people or the environment.
Well, motor vehicle crashes in general are like a plague, at least in terms of fatalties. Whether or not SUVs make up a disproportionate percentage of these fatalties (or consumption of gasoline) is subject to debate.
My opinion is that many of todays SUVs are reasonably safe and almost all of them are improved from previous generations. Back in the 90s, my opinion was much different. Market factors have done a lot for improving safety without any kind of actual restrictions. Perhaps rising gasoline costs may do the same for those that use the most fuel.
Even if that were true it still does not constitute someone deciding what you should or should not buy. I also doubt that you would be swayed by the statement in any case.
tidester, host
I hope not tidester, but you never know what the future holds. Perhaps sailor successfully lobbies to get a bill pushed through Congress one day that requires potential SUV owners to pass a special "needs" test before purchasing. So, as Barney Fife use to say..."We've got to nip it in the bud...nip it! nip it! nip it!"
I also doubt that you would be swayed by the statement in any case.
You would definitely be correct in that assumption Mr. Tidester.
But, for now I am perfectly happy with my Mazda MPV minivan...and isn't that what its really all about?
In some states you do need a special license to drive certain classes of trucks or buses. That can require extra training or cost. The only question is, where should the limit be? Should everyone have the freedom to feel safe and drive 30,000 pound hunks of hurtling iron as they talk on a cellphone without a care? Is the average commuter who sits in daily traffic and never tows, hauls or goes offroad really entitled to the right of purchasing a 6500 pound, 8-cylinder 4WD Ford Expedition when a FWD Freestyle is still way more than adequate for their actual needs? Maybe that depends on what kind of section 179 deductions for the Expedition are still around these days...
Market forces got the Excursion and the H1 without any bills in Congress. Heck, it didn't even take a revised gas guzzler tax that eliminated the loophole excluding trucks and SUVs. Maybe there are more model cuts to come with various political and economical oil supply issues so that sailor doesn't even have to break a sweat on lobbying.
LoL!
"Well, don't just mollycoddle them!"
tidester, host
Who are you to decide what other people "should" be driving?
Who I am has no bearing on the fact that I'm incapable of such powers. OTOH, I am quite capable of stating my opinion on what is "good". Don't blame ME if you are lacking in this regard :=)
...it is the buyers free choice.
Duh. Everyone has the choice to make a stupid decision, true. But that's quite beside the point.
...are any of these really "needed"?
Ah, it's like old times :=) Nothing is really needed, not even one's life. Trite, but true. However, certain vehicles are required to meet certain vehicular purposes. Others are superfluous in that regard. That's the point.
If the answer is "no", then one espouses that only one vehicle should be purchased by everyone. Of course, the prime question would be "safest for the owner" or "safest for the entire system".
In any case, safest would not be SUV...the safest vehicle types, statistically, are the MV and wagon.
Read the post you are responding to more clearly, you are not mentioned anywhere in it.
If you are in favor of severe overkill in vehicle choice, if you think vehicular requirements playing a role in vehicle choice is merely "quaint" and if you think it's just fine to drive a big honkin SUV when all one needs is a car and put everyone at risk in a potential collision (not to mention the gas waste and emissions), then congratulations, you've won Citizen of the Year :=)
But certainly not presumptuous or rude
That said, there are obviously some (we are talking a minority here) of people who live in my area that purchase a large SUV even though they do not have a purpose or reason outside the fact that they desire it.
That is their choice to make, not mine. If they do not mind paying for additional costly parking spaces, very expensive fill ups at the gas pump, higher insurance, and more taxes than the guy who drives a Honda Civic down the road, then that is their choice.
Likewise, if they choose to drive like a maniac in their big SUV or truck, then they are susceptible to our law system (we have something called "aggressive driving" laws in Northern VA that requires them to pay hefty fines, and possible loss of their license). Granted, I have seen a few large SUV's on the road that fit this description (unsafe aggressive drivers). But the majority of aggressive drivers in my area are driving small passenger vehicles (usually modified, think the "Fast And The Furious) and practically race each other on the interstates. Should we outlaw these types of vehicles as well?
Hard to imagine what vehicular purpose (beyond that of a smallish SUV) that H1 is serving
Should we outlaw these types of vehicles as well?
I don't think any of these vehicles should be outlawed. I think folks should make intelligent vehicle choices and consider that driving a large, heavy, stiff-framed vehicle can turn a relatively minor collision into a fatal one. So while it might be "their choice", the consequences are not limited to themselves.
Yet, ironically, section 179 gives the owner of the biggest SUVs a tidy tax deduction and they also get an exemption from the gas guzzler law that applies to cars. At the very least, I think we shouldn't have these incentives for some to keep buying big SUVs rather than cars.
Should we outlaw these types of vehicles as well?
If it is ever shown that some specific type of vehicle is a particularly high threat to other motorists, the environment or whatever, then I think additional regulations should be at least considered. We have millions of laws and debates for this same purpose in all other aspects of life. Why should SUVs or any motor vehicle be exempt from such scrutiny, especially while motor vehicle crashes continue to be a leading cause of fatalties?
I thought that that section 179 only applies to owners of large SUV's for business purposes only? In other words, this section would not apply to the majority of consumers, correct?
I am not in favor of this deduction, but it only seems to apply to a minority of buyers. In addition, this is a one time deduction, and in my county, this person would still have to pay a hefty tax on this vehicle (based on the value of the vehicle and its weight).
"If it is ever shown that some specific type of vehicle is a particularly high threat to other motorists, the environment or whatever, then I think additional regulations should be at least considered. We have millions of laws and debates for this same purpose in all other aspects of life. Why should SUVs or any motor vehicle be exempt from such scrutiny, especially while motor vehicle crashes continue to be a leading cause of fatalities?"
I do not disagree with you, on this, (completely
), and I am sure that this has been debated on many levels already. I think we need to be very careful where and when government can pass legislation, even if the purpose of that legislation is to protect us. My mother-in-law runs an emergency room at a large hospital, and she said that motorcycles pose the greatest risk for severe injury/death as as vehicular crashes go. Granted, motorcyclists. are not at fault for all of the accidents that they are involved in, but I personally (I used to own a sport bike) understand how it is difficult to see a motorcycle and also feel that motorcyclists tend to drive with their own rules (speeding, illegal passing, etc). Personally, I think anyone who drives a motorcycle has a much greater chance for injury or death than your average motorist. But I do not believe that we should outlaw motorcycles. It is a choice and a risk that people have the ability to make.
Not a majority, but certainly to many who don't realize they could qualify. I don't know the current details as I believe the deduction isn't quite as generous as it used to be. That's why I said it only applied for some.
Personally, I think anyone who drives a motorcycle has a much greater chance for injury or death than your average motorist. But I do not believe that we should outlaw motorcycles. It is a choice and a risk that people have the ability to make.
Tobacco is an interesting analogy. Most agree it has a huge cost for society. Yet, despite significant taxes, billions in settlements and strict regulatory actions, it remains legal. Similarly, motorcycles, sports cars and SUVs aren't going to be outlawed, so no one has to panic.
Suppose it was proven that some small segment of motor vehicles did have a major cost to society in the form of injuries, deaths, pollution or fuel consumption. Do we just dismiss any and all forms of action in favor of a personal freedom to express one's character in their choice of transportation? You certainly don't have to ban the offending product, but you could eliminate tax breaks, add new taxes, increase training requirements or take other actions.
Would that really be such a burden if it could be shown to save the lives of thousands of people and hundreds of children each year? How many did it take to get rid of Jarts- an enjoyable backyard past time loved by millions! Well, maybe the infamous Jart tax and Jart training courses weren't promoted well enough to avoid the ban...
In the case of the biggest SUVs, I think market forces would do a fine job on their own if we did away with things like 179 and loopholes in the gas guzzler tax and CAFE requirements. No additional regulations or laws would be necessary at all, just quit giving people and manufacturers incentives that don't apply equally to cars.
Really? I find that shocking to say the least. :surprise:
I am quite capable of stating my opinion on what is "good"
As well as what is "good" for everyone else.
Everyone has a choice to make a stupid decision
Based on the criteria you set forth. Again, how do you get to decide which decisions are "stupid"...because that is what you have done. Your posted rebuttals are stated quite matter of factly. You ever think that it may be your decisions that are "stupid"?
Nothing is really needed, not even one's life.
Say what... you're not one of those Goth people we've been reading about? :surprise:
LOL. In my best Ronald Reagan voice,"Well Skippy...there you go again"
So, one should only buy what one "needs". But, I never see you post on the pick-up truck, sports car, motorcylce, or small car boards. Where does this "need" thing end?
I see you are against "big honkin SUV's", but what exactly are you for? I see only criticisms in your postings, but no solutions or suggestions...other than people in general need to get a brain.
You misunderstand. I said "what is good". Not "good for me". Not "good for you". Just good. Not everything is relative. One can argue about the specifics, but you seem to be arguing for mindlessness...which is what a human becomes if they are incapable of judgement.
me: Everyone has a choice to make a stupid decision.
you: Based on the criteria you set forth.
I'm flattered, but, no. Almost no one on this planet makes decisions based on anything related to me. Hard to understand how you could think otherwise.
how do you get to decide which decisions are "stupid"...
Perhaps you are unable to make the distinction between good and bad, but I am able to, mostly, IMO.
You are confused. I'm not deciding anything for anyone else, just what my opinion of what is good.
You ever think that it may be your decisions that are "stupid"?
Could be. We may not find out in this sub-thread, because you are focused on the fact that I am giving an opinion, which seems to floor you...instead of focusing on the actual issues, which are, of course, debateable.
Some ideas/questions: third rows in SUVs-- how tolerable is it, after a while, having kids have to jump over seats to get back there? Drivability: many say "Mini vans drive better than SUVs" -- given the new SUVs out there, how true is this still? etc..."
Steve, Host
I'm not sure what that means. In context, there are vehicular requirements, which means those attributes that one needs in a vehicle: seats 5, tow 5000 lbs, better than 30 mpg, whatever.
I see you are against "big honkin SUV's"...
Again, you are mis-reading. If one needs to tow 8000 lbs and use that vehicle for family travel (for example), then one may need an SUV to meet those requirements. I'm not in favor of folks that only need a car (for example) having a big honkin SUV.
I see only criticisms in your postings...
I've made thousands of posts here on TH...you're pretty much only commenting on one. I'd say you're a bit misguided there.
Solutions? LOL. In this sub-thread, we're not even on the same page as to the problem :=)
Steve, Host
We owned 4 mini vans (Chrysler T&C and Ford Windstar) from 1988 to 2001, They are GREAT for long trips with passengers! Comfortable with front/rear HVAC and quad-bucket seats. Flexible with ability to take seats out and haul so much! Not bad on mileage (compared to most SUV).
However, mini-vans have some problems. All of ours developed interior creaking noises. It's hard to make a box quiet. At times, they were suceptable to cross winds. They depreciate more-so than most SUV. It's a personal issue, but they lack a real hood (like a car, truck, or SUV).
Since 2000, we've owned 5 SUV (Ford Explorer and Escape and Toyota Highlanders). They have a hood up front! The retain more of their value (less depreciation). They have better traction control (but several mini-vans offer it today). Again, another personal issue, but they just feel better to ride and drive.
The SUV get worse mileage. They normally costs more to purchase and maintain.
Each buyer needs to look at their own requirements and purchase what's best for them. A few months ago, we purchased our 3rd Highlander and are extremely happy with it. We considered and drove a Sienna which was nice, but not for us anymore. To each his own. Good luck!
Yeah...I knew it was just a matter of time. Though I was hoping Tidester would be able to hold Steve-O off awhile while I got the last word in.
The only SUV's with "habitable" third row seats are in the big honkin monsters that we all know and love. The third row seats on most smaller and midsize SUV's are highly intolerable IMO. If I need the use of a third row seat,with all other things being equal, the minivan is definitely the way to go.
When I crossshopped minivan Vs SUV, I test drove the Toyota Highlander. While rated highly by many, I thought the lack of interior space and legitimate third row seating a real drawback. Still a good choice though for a family of 4 or fewer.
last fall we went to the auto show, i sent my kids on a mission: find the suv with the best 3rd row. top 3 were navigator, escalade, and aviator. the aviator is based on the '02-05 explorer. new explorer had less room. the commander was a huge disappointment too.
the only minivan i have sat in for many years is was an '05 freestar. horrible 3rd row for adults.
Fair? I didn't engineer the thing. But, Toyota and it's dealerships sure don't have a problem with throwing out the 3 rows of seating advertisments, which as you implied, is quite a stretch. I suppose a couple hyperactive toddlers wouldn't mind sitting in its third row. Provided they are properly "secured", and/or medicated.
So, when our trusted sedan started having issues we decided it was time for a new vehicle. My wife was pretty adamant that we should get a minivan, and I agreed as long as I did not have to drive it (at this point I thought I could still convince her to get a midsize SUV like the Pilot or Highlander). So, we started researching the Internet and then drove all of the major players (Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Kia). We ended up getting the Odyssey in the end.
As much as I tried to convince myself that the midsize SUV would suffice, I realized that a minivan was just much more practical for our needs. It felt roomier on the inside, the seats easily folded or could be removed, it was much more comfortable (third row in a midsize SUV is a joke), it had power sliding doors, it is lower to the ground and easier to put car seats in, it got better gas mileage, and in the end I felt the Odyssey drove more like my sedan than the SUV's did. I was actually shocked at how well the Odyssey handled and accelerated..
As usual, my wife was right.. The minivan is much more practical for a young family and I do not feel that I compromised too much on getting the Odyssey. A funny thing happened along the way.. I actually prefer driving the minivan to my Tribute.. Now if I can just convince my wife that, now that we have the minivan, it is time to trade the Tribute in on a smaller sporty car (RX-8, 350Z, heck maybe even a Honda Civic SI coupe)....
Eveyone seems to say minivans get better mileage than SUVs. On average that's probably true as the SUV category includes Hummers, Expeditions, etc. but it also includes CRVs, RAV4s, Pilots, etc. And yes, a RAV4 gets better mileage than most, if not all minivans. Oh, and it weighs less, is probably safer to other drivers as a result, handles better and outperforms most minivans. Yet I see people with one kid get minivans. Should we condemn them? Why not get a Highlander Hybrid in that situation? Isn't that the BEST vehicle? Heck, why not just get a sedan?
My point is that this perception that "all SUVs are gas guzzling, overweight, unsafe and overkill is incorrect on its face. True some SUVs fit that statement but why condemn a whole segment of cars. I own two SUVs and feel comfortable that I made a smart choice.
Look, everybody has different needs and wants and it would be a rather sad world if everybody drove minivans. But if somebody is buying a mid or full size SUV because the need for seating and/or storage space, the minivan is a better alternative in many respects. It was engineered and built to be a people mover. I also challenge you to drive the Odyssey and Pilot back to back and tell me which one is faster and handles better. You would be surprised...
Honda CRV
Interior
Front Head Room: 38.9 in. Front Hip Room: 54.5 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 56.9 in. Rear Head Room: 39.1 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 56.5 in. Rear Hip Room: 53.5 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.3 in. Rear Leg Room: 39.4 in.
Luggage Capacity: 33.5 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 72 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 5
EPA=21/26
Toyota Sequoia
Interior
Front Head Room: 41.1 in. Front Hip Room: 59.7 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 62.1 in. Rear Head Room: 40.6 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 62.2 in. Rear Hip Room: 58.3 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.6 in. Rear Leg Room: 38.7 in.
Luggage Capacity: 26.6 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 128 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 8
EPA=15/18
Honda Odyssey
Interior
Front Head Room: 39.2 in. Front Hip Room: 57 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 63.5 in. Rear Head Room: 39.6 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 63.1 in. Rear Hip Room: 64.4 in.
Front Leg Room: 40.8 in. Rear Leg Room: 40 in.
Luggage Capacity: 38.4 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 147 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 8
EPA = 20/28
Toyota Highlander
nterior
Front Head Room: 40 in. Front Hip Room: 55.1 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 57.9 in. Rear Head Room: 39.8 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 57 in. Rear Hip Room: 54.9 in.
Front Leg Room: 40.7 in. Rear Leg Room: 36.4 in.
Luggage Capacity: 10.5 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 81 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 7
EPA = 19/25
Honda Accord
nterior
Front Head Room: 38.3 in. Front Hip Room: 54.6 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 56.9 in. Rear Head Room: 36.8 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 56.1 in. Rear Hip Room: 53.5 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.6 in. Rear Leg Room: 36.8 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14 cu. ft. Maximum Seating: 5
EPA= 20/29
I might condemn people with 2WD Suburbans, Expeditions and the like, especially when no hitch is to be seen and they are sitting in commuter traffic every day in an urban area. I'd have no complaints if they traded in for a Highlander Hybrid...
Nice try.
Anyone for, "You Are What You Drive"?
You will argue, "a minivan is a better choice for those that NEED (or desire) the room" and I would agree. But what about people that just want the extra room? Do we condemn them b/c they really don't NEED that extra room? And what about those that feel they need or desire AWD (and yes I know about the Sienna)? My point is that if people are choosing wisely, they are making decisions based upon their needs and wants. And you cannot tell me that an Odyssey is safer to other drivers than a Pilot (a member of the "evil empire" of SUVs).
I and accept your challenge. I just purchased an 06 Pilot a few months ago after driving the 06 Ody and Pilot back to back. I had my choice of either. I will admit that Ody did handle a bit better but it was close on the 06s. I would not agree that it's faster, I might feel that way but I think they are nearly identical. I preferred the Pilot for AWD (we get snow here), it's shorter length and better sight lines (rear and side visibility is much better on the Pilot). Also, the Pilot did slightly better on crash tests I believe. So I compromised on MPG a bit, on 3rd row room (although the 3rd row met our needs) and a bit on handling. But I got a sportier, safer car in my mind (AWD, sight lines, etc.) that I like driving more. I know that most might choose the other way in my position but I just enjoyed driving the Pilot more around town. No doubt if I took a lot of long trips, the van might have been the better choice. Either one is a great vehicle.
their needs and wants, I just think there are a lot of people who "think" they need a 2WD Suburban for their family of five and did not take the time to look at other options (minivans). Again, this is my opinion and is based off my experiences with friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family...
Honestly, I think more people choose the SUV option over the minivan option not for practical purposes, but because they think that SUV's are "cooler" and minivans are for "soccer moms". I am 34 years old, drove sports cars until a few years ago, and consider myself fairly in touch with popular trends and style. Believe me, I laughed at my brother-in-law when he went from a Porsche to an Odyssey a few years ago. I work with a bunch of yuppie guys/girls and my parking lot at work is full of European sedans, sports cars, and luxury SUV's. I drove the minivan to work the other day, and I received quite a few laughs from some of my close friends in the office.. For the record, most of them are not married and all but one does not have children (he drives an MDX). When I showed my friend with the kid all the features and let him drive it, he completely changed his tune (people usually stop and stare when they see your power doors opening when you are standing ten feet away from the van). As for safety, both the Pilot and Odyssey are very safe vehicles with the Odyssey getting a slight edge: www.informedforlife.org
Look, I understand that minivans are not for everyone, and understand why people buy SUV's. My point is that some people hear the word minivan and seem to associate the term with the original Caravan..
In real world practicality, the minivan is much more practical than an SUV if you do not have to have AWD (although as you eluded to, there are minivans that offer that feature), or towing capacity. A Honda Civic was also more practical then my RX-7 was ten years ago when I bought it, and I will never regret buying that car
Steve, I'm sure Pf-flyer will send you his thanks.
btw Dc_driver, I had an original minivan ('89 Voyager) and liked the body a lot. It was almost as short and roomy as the '69 VW Bus I got to use one year (the original minivan?).
Steve, Host
Times have changed..
For the record, Wikipedia states:
"The original "minivan" was developed by Volkswagen in about 1950 with the Volkswagen Type 2 "minibus" and variants. The VW Type 2 had a rear engine and rear-wheel drive. "
Out of curiosity, do you drive a minivan today? Seems like a lot of folks I talk to have a hard time giving up the conveniences of minivans
Some pics of past cars are available on my CarSpace album.
Steve, Host
Man...that loaded down Quest was something. I don't think I've ever seen anybody load a canoe, in addition to a couple lawn chairs, and whatever else you had up there, on their roof rack. Those suckers(chairs) ever fly off?
That's the good thing about SUV's and minivans with roof racks...the ability to put that extra cargo on top. Don't see them used much though. Saw maybe a handful during last years summer vacation from Louisville to Panama City Beach.
I had five canoes and 4 kayaks on the Voyager one time for a short shuttle and haven't tried to beat that record for a long time....
Steve, Host
Nice try."
It was a fair reply to the previous message. If you need a comparison to a minivan to be forum appropriate, here's a start-
While my minivan seats one less than a 2006 Suburban 1500 4x2, it has more cargo volume, almost 50% better fuel economy, is safer (both for its own passengers and those in other vehicles), cheaper, and probably has better handling, braking and maybe even acceleration. The minivan also has such luxuries for families as power sliding doors, split folding 3rd row seats and 3-row curtain airbags. The Suburban can tow 5000 more pounds and looks rugged. Is some perceived freedom to express vehicular wants really so dear to some commuters that the consequences are deemed insignificant? Maybe it is time to get rid of the CAFE and gas guzzler loopholes to help people make more sensible decisions via the free market rather than regulations.
A handgun can effectively kill someone. An AK-47 looks cooler and might do the job better out in open terrain, but it costs more and tends to waste more bullets. The difference is that one could argue the AK-47 protected by the constitution, while the Suburban is not. The question about the cost to society (if any) of each one compared to the alternatives rage on. If such costs are found, no laws prevent additional taxes or regulations on the Suburban to recoup them.
Interesting that the three models your kids picked out are those offered by the automakers' "luxury" division--Lincoln/Ford, Cadillac/Chevy; given that the Navigator is essentially a fancy Expedition, the Escalade a fancy Tahoe, and the Aviator a fancy Explorer...did your kids not consider their less-luxurious equivalants because those models weren't made available at the auto show? I mean--unless that was the case, I cannot see how the new (i.e. '07) Escalade can have a better third row than that of an '07 Tahoe...given that both SUVs are based on the exact same platform. Now if you're saying that your kids picked those vehicles out because they look/feel/whatever better overall--that's one thing. But you asked them to find an SUV with the best 3rd row; again, unless there just didn't happen to be a Tahoe/Yukon there at the time, can you and/or your kids please explain how an Escalade third row can be better than that of a Tahoe...not unless there were other criteria you had asked your kids to consider and just failed to mention them in your previous post?
Methinks you need to rephrase part of your statement; using the word "any"--as in "than any SUV (compact, midsize, sedan, and full size)"...although I dunno why you listed "sedan" here, as it makes your statement even that much more unclear/confusing...but then listing examples which just happen to have numbers that put your Odyssey in a more positive light sorta paints a picture that the Odyssey is superior to any and all SUVs in just about every category. I mean, why state "any SUV" but then conveniently leave out an SUV such as the Chevy Suburban which--although would clearly lose in the fuel economy category--blows the Odyssey away in the various interior room categories (except for max cargo capacity, and that's only because the Suburban sits on a higher platform than the Odyssey (i.e., shorter distance between roofline and floor).
I'm not arguing that the Odyssey isn't a great minivan--if not great vehicle overall; just that there's no need to skew--unintentionally or otherwise--facts and figures so as to favor the Odyssey.
I honestly was not trying to skew any numbers. I tried to pull a make and model from each SUV category (small, mid, large) and tried to pick from the class leaders as much as possible. The Odyssey is also not the largest minivan in its class, and just so that I am not too bias here are the stats from the Toyota Sienna and Chevrolet Suburban. You will notice that the Suburban is larger in some areas and tighter in others. As a whole, mid to large size SUVs do not appear to have advantages over minivans with regards to interior dimensions, storage capacity, or functionality. The Suburban does not "blow away" the minivan segment as a whole with regards to interior size. (Although it does blow away the minivan with its purchase price, and cost to own/gas pump):
Toyota Sienna LE (8 passenger):
Interior
Front Head Room: 42 in. Front Hip Room: 58.4 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 63.8 in. Rear Head Room: 40.2 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 64.9 in. Rear Hip Room: 67.5 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.9 in. Rear Leg Room: 39.6 in.
Luggage Capacity: 43.6 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 149 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 8
EPA: 19/26
Here you go:
Chevrolet Suburban (2WD)
Interior
Front Head Room: 40.7 in. Front Hip Room: 61.4 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 65.2 in. Rear Head Room: 39 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 65.1 in. Rear Hip Room: 61.3 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.3 in. Rear Leg Room: 39.1 in.
Luggage Capacity: 45.7 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 132 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 9
EPA: 14/19
to me, any vehicle with an inattentive driver or bad brakes or tires is way more of a threat, than a full sized suv without a hitch.
oops, did i just write 'it's the driver'?
Watch out! Plagiarism is a serious charge!
tidester, host
there was no expedition there, although i am not sure about the tahoe. the '07's were not available at that time.
they liked the lr3 too, although 3rd row a bit smaller than what we have. too bad those gm's still don't have the fold flat 3rd row.
we didn't know it at the time, but we met regular edmunds poster british_rover.
to me, any vehicle with an inattentive driver or bad brakes or tires is way more of a threat, than a full sized suv without a hitch.
oops, did i just write 'it's the driver'?
Good point. The driver is always going to be a danger, but moreso behind a 6500 pound, rigid-frame truck than a 3500 pound sedan with superior handling. So perhaps you can appreciate the reasoning that the largest truck based SUVs may merit some portion the additional requirements that apply to 18 wheelers and other commercial trucks, such as taxes, fees, training and licensing? If you can eliminate the unsafe driver element in another fashion, that would work, too.
The alternative is easier, though perhaps less effective. Just put all vehicles that are used primarily for hauling passengers in the same classification with the same rules. The entire light truck classification (which includes minivans) was really a way for Detroit to pump out profits while dodging the same rules that apply to cars.