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
jaw, love your point about how almost all vehicles are one-occupant commuters at some point. It occurred to me even as I typed it. But we're talking nights and weekends around here, when I swear the Expedition sells more than Camry, Passat, and Explorer combined. And I do not recall EVER seeing more than two people in the dozens of Land Cruisers that have gone by. What a waste of a beautiful, capable vehicle.
I know many folks who bought SUV's for no practical reason, don't know a single MV buyer like that. In my experience, your guesstimates of % of SUV buyers who are "impulse driven" (to use the kinder of your characterizations) is much higher.
BTW, I don't have a problem with the Suburban. Every owner I've known truly uses many if not all of it's capabilities. But it's one of the few, kind of the anti-Explorer or X5. And I agree with your point about trucks - drive a truck, you're "rugged and versatile"; drive a large SUV and you're Greenpeace's enemy.
If you need an SUV, that's great, there are a lot of good choices. I just don't understand why anyone would plunk down $30-40 grand or more when they don't need it, and could get a sweet car for that price.
There really are many reasons and each buyer (except for the 10% of each group in my opinion) has a valid reason for ownership, it may or may not agree with each of us each and every time, but it exists.
My neighbor has a 97 Chrysler T and C absolutely loaded, 4wd, has it all, he NEVER has more 2 riders and mostly it is just him. Is this any more or less wasteful than anything else?
But you know what, when he's behind the wheel, he's happy, and we all know a happy driver has less rage and may be more courteous and safe.
That dear friends is much more valuable than me deciding that Mr. SUV is evil -- especially when one considers the Same size crew cab truck vs. the same size SUV. No one blinks an eye -- ever. What's up with that? The truck is heavier, get's worse MPG and is less versatile. But not a word.
Double standard? Stigma? Or, do we just not notice this?
Because SUVs are worse, relative to other vehicle classes, in so many areas (fuel economy, handling, etc. etc. etc.), I think a consumer should be determining why or if he/she needs an SUV. The 2 main reasons I see are towing and 4WD capability (for on-road, off-road, or both).
If you do a lot of towing, an SUV may be a good choice. Many SUVs are good towing vehicles, but many are not. And there are other vehicles, primarily pickup trucks, that are even better towing vehicles than SUVs.
SUVs are tough to beat for off-roading. But that capability is rarely exploited by the majority of SUV owners.
But you know what, when he's behind the wheel, he's happy, and we all know a happy driver has less rage and may be more courteous and safe."
Yes, the 1-passenger minivan is also wasteful. Even so, that unibody minivan is far less of a danger to me and to other motorists, no matter what type of vehicle we're in. In addition, it is less of a threat to the environment. There are, of course, diminishing returns. Sure, a midsize car is even less dangerous and wasteful than a MV, and a sub-compact even less. Still, I think the greatest change is going from the stiff frame, 5000 lb+ SUV with mediocre handling and braking to a crushable 4000 lb minivan that has more car-like characteristics.
Technically, with only two kids, we don't really NEED a minivan either. Even so, I am a happy camper daily with the ease of loading and unloading my kids and cargo, and the ease of getting to them from within the vehicle. We also take advantage of the additional cargo space quite frequently. All that said, we often opt to drive the wagon for shorter trips for the same reasons I'd like to see fewer under-occupied large SUVs on the road. For the same reasons, I don't fault monster SUV drivers who do load them up with 8-9 people all the time, do frequently off-road over streams and boulders, or do often tow over 2000 pounds.
This all brings up the posseur SUV topic. What about all those people who NEED monster SUVs, but buy the 4x2 version without the heavy-duty or trailer packages? For some satire, also see:
http://poseur.4x4.org/
You make some great comments and observations. But, I'd like to add a couple myself. I did a comparison (I tried to be fair) and I will post it here later. In any case I looked at weights, quantities on the road, and MPG of classes of autos, I included mid-size cars as a mean, and went up from there. The average difference (and I admit that in the MV category I weighed them mostly with 4WD as that (to me and my usage) was a better gauge, was not significant, in weight or mass, it was (obviously in quantity).
The lack of difference might surprise us -- but perhaps not.
Anyway you made another point, about use of 4WD, I have not had anyone make an argument or statement relative to quantifying use, how many times per year is enough to justify using/owning a SUV. I engage mine at leat 6 to 20 times a year, that is on a per trip basis (so I guess the # might arguably be doubled), I also do some medium hauling and frankly we take a 2week vacation 4 people and all our stuff, kid stuff, clothes, golf clubs bikes etc. I don't like putting stuff on the roof for the long distance trips, I could not do this in my 97 Gr Caravan (we put 4 bikes on a hitch mounted carrier), but in the Sub it is no problem.
Just adding a couple additional points for thought or discussion.
Cheers.
Not suggesting we try it to find out but making a point that may be overlooked.
I think, like the Dukie above, that I have a different perspective, I have owned not only both MVs and SUVs but 2 sizes of SUV. I think that allows me a different (if not better) perspective.
Full size SUVs may not handle great (read like a porsche) but they are respectable, and learning ones boundaries are as important as learning to not tailgate or perform other wreckless acts, that goes for a 5.0 Mustang, a MV or a SUV. It is not mutually exclusive.
Crumple zones and weight are most critical in frontal and frontal offset crashes with another vehicle. The better the crumple zones, the more ride-down time the passengers have and the less energy is transferred to them. While crumple zones are also important in single vehicle crashes with an immovable wall or pole, vehicle weight tends to cancel. In a side impact, the weight of the car being struck is not significant, but the weight and frontal crumple zone of the incoming vehicle are more important.
When that Accord is skewered by a monster SUV, only one vehicle tends to crush well, compared to both vehicles in the crash with the lower and less stiff unibody MV. That's a big advantage (up to twice the ride down time), not to mention that a typical minivan has a lower bumper and about 1000 pounds less weight than the typical large SUV.
In a one car crash with a wall or pole, the stiff truck based vehicle will not crumple well, and more energy is transferred to the occupants. Thus the generally higher fatality rates of trucks and SUVs in single vehicle crashes ( http://www.iihs.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t1.htm ). Of course, that is not really a direct risk to other drivers;-)
Here are some links I believe I posted previously on compatibility of vehicles in a crash. Highly recommended reading if you're sincerely interested in the subject:
http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3409.pdf
http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3301.pdf
http://aceee.org/pubs/T021full.pdf
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/jan02/a2jan02.html
As for handling and braking- if SUV drivers on the whole were far less aggressive in proportion to the capabilities and threat of their vehicles, then perhaps things would cancel. Of course, one could then say that all drivers should be less aggressive regardless of what they drive, and then you still have the large SUVs at a disadvantage.
So, yes, I do think that the unnecessary purchase of large SUVs/trucks is the biggest danger to other drivers, with respect to other vehicle classes. Incompatibility of frames, masses and height are all problems, in addition to lesser crash avoidance capability. If you wish to carry it one step further and claim that minivans are also a risk, fair enough. While MVs don't have the issues with stiff frames, bumper height incompatibility or inferior handling/braking, they do tend to be heavier than all but the largest sedans. In that respect, I agree that we'd all be much safer in sedans and wagons and lighter vehicles than we will be if the trend continues and everyone is driving large SUVs and pickup trucks as their daily drivers.
I cannot offer you much in the one car accidents but I wonder what percent of SUV accidents are one auto vs the percent of other one auto accidents. In other words do SUVers tend to be a higher percent of one car accidents or lower (just by percent)?
I do agree that some SUVers are rather aggressive, but like anything else, it is a percent of a whole and in this case gives the whole a bad name.
I maintain that that there are far more aggressive drivers that are not in SUVs (just by the sheer # of aggressive drivers and the # of cars) and that this non-SUV total actually is higher than all SUVs on the road.
For me it goes back to the stigma associated with a SUV, if was a truck with a cap (it basically is) there would be no issues and no one would really vare), but since it is a SUV (truck with a carpeted, climate controlled bed and sometimes a 3rd row), it is stigmatized.
I think a SUV can be, and is a valuable automobile for many -- most of those who own one. It offers versatility that only a 4WD MV can come close to, if it strictly between these two choices the differences are not significant, nor is the argument.
That does not mean that there is not a % of SUVers who are me tooing or otherwise wasteful, there are, but the % (to me anyway) is too small to worry about, it cancels if we look at the 2 seaters, real sports cars rag tops that are also resource intensive and wasteful.
For what it's worth, this discussion is a good one.
Your best comparison is on features. Having headrests in all rear seat positions is a plus. Having lap+shoulder belts in all rear-positions is a plus. Having as much distance as possible from the seatback to the rear hatch is also a plus. Without studies or rear impact testing, everything else is guesswork.
I am in a dilema whether to go for a Jeep GC or Honda Odyssey. I love the looks of JGC. My need is to take 5 people (may be 6 in 2 years) around california. I dont go offroad or towing, but like driving in moutains. Suggestions appreciated !
Bill
Seriously, my dad visited us last weekend, we went places in our Odyssey b/c of our son and the car seat. My dad is not in great shape, and the sliding door provided easy entry/exit for him. We call our 3rd row seat the grandparent seat -- fold it down to load up and pack for Grandma's house, unload and pop it up for Grandma and Grandpa to go around town with us.
Ths has been a great discussion, thanks jaws for keeping the pro-SUV side going. Weights, accident actuary tables, versatility, etc., aside, there will always be an emotional component to car purchasing (at least in the U.S.). So I feel your pain, jeepvan. My wife and I thought she would look great in an Acura MDX, but went with our heads (and pocketbooks).
If you want to buy a JGC because it's cool, go for it. But it's not a smart choice for your situation.
"...So, yes, I do think that the unnecessary purchase of large SUVs/trucks is the biggest danger to other drivers, with respect to other vehicle classes..."
I've only read through one of your citations, but it seems to suggest otherwise: "...The highest priority should continue to be improving the protection vehicles offer to their own occupants. Such improvements benefit people in most kinds of crashes and would have a much bigger effect on highway safety than compatibility improvements...."
Indeed, according to an analysis in that article, eliminating the lightest cars from the fleet would result in a greater net savings of life than eliminating the heaviest utility vehicles and pickups from the fleet.
Why my opinion differs slightly [in semantics] is that the largest SUVs are a danger to other drivers. The lightest cars are a threat to themselves. If you choose to drive something like a Geo Metro despite the light weight and overall risk, then that is your choice if you understand the risks involved. You are not putting other drivers at risk with your choice, and in fact you may be giving them the advantage. On the other hand, the largest SUVs are not only risks to their own passengers (rollovers, crashes with fixed objects, crashes with other truck-based vehicles), but they are ALSO a serious danger to other vehicles because of compatibility. In addition, the end result is also different. Assume that 20 years from now that the trend is the vast majority driving compact cars, perhaps because of some oil crisis. Or, perhaps the current trend continues and almost everyone has adopted the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mantra and now drives large SUVs. If you then look at overall fatality rates, I have no doubt we'd all be safer with the proliferation of compact vehicles. Less mass on the highway means less energy in crashes. Better handling and braking mean better crash avoidance. As long as you have a wide variety of vehicle types, the extremes will be the "problem" for fatalities. But if the overall trend is one way or another as it has been for SUVs and trucks over the last 20 years, then I'd prefer it to go the other way. This is a bit different than looking at the effect of removing one class of vehicle like the article does, rather it is removing most of the other classes of vehicles. Just for the sake of debate, at least.
Getting back to the article, I also agree that auto manufacturers could make huge improvements to the large SUVs. Better crush zones, wider track for reduced rollover risk, advanced airbag systems and reinforced roof structure for rollover protection, lower bumper height for improved car compatibility, independent suspensions for better handling, improved material selection for weight efficiency, etc. Of course, these cut into the massive profit margins on these vehicles, but they would address most of my concerns and still allow people to buy whatever they want even if they don't actually need it. Vehicles like the 2003 Expedition are a good step in this direction.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article!
Braking distance on DXL 127 ft vs. ODY 141 ft. Edmunds specs.
3rd row safety - I will have 2 kids in the 3rd row seat. Their bodies are just too close to the rear in the ODY (which has about the most room of any minivan I have seen). It made me very uncomfortable. Plus, NHTSA does not rate this rear collision factor. So its up to the consumer to determine. ER docs have documented many 3rd row minivan accidents with injured passengers (check other SUV posts) - injuries in these Subs and the like are nowhere near this.
Even read minivan posts and many say, I would not put my kids in the 3rd row.
There is just more hood in front of you, trunk space in rear (for safety and stuff), and vehicle all around. I have been in a few accidents in different sizes of vehicles. The vehicles that fare better are the larger ones. Their occupants are safer. Just look at the accidents you see on the road.
The Sub/Yuk XL/DXL are nearly as safe as ODY based on rollover ratings per Caviller article.
I understand the environment, other vehicle issues, but as long as these large vehicles are out here, you will be safer in one of them.
I note here that this decision was not between a smaller SUV with a 3rd row - like the Acura MDX. I would never put my kids in a 3rd row here either. The preceding is just to compare the Sub type and the minivan - the ODY in particular.
There are many other points I could make about what makes this vehicle superior but to me and I chose it, however, it seems that safety is a big topic here and so I chose to focus on this. And yes, I will miss having the power sliding doors - but my family's safety is paramount.
Please, if you are in the market for a larger vehicle for your family, do the research but also drive the vehicles on the same stretches of road with your whole family in the vehicle. Then you can decide.
You obviously did your research and chose the best vehicle for your situation. While your conclusion may have been different than mine (which was based on different needs and interpretations), you did thoroughly investigate your options. That's a lot more than many people; some pick one over another simply because it has their favorite color available....
I'm not in a position to tell anyone what vehicle is best for them, or to judge their decision once it is made. In A vs. B type forums, or when asked, I do try to provide as much information as possible to help people make their choice.
Regards!
Now that I travel I95 daily, the amount of truck traffic during rush hours in unbelievable. I'm not driving a large SUV but a Toyota Highlander. I could still drive a Camry but anything smaller than that would make me very uncomfortable. Truck/car accidents are relatively rare but when we have them they are quite unforgiving on those in cars.
If I lived where I didn't have to commute with huge trucks (that continue to grow larger and heavier) I would consider a smaller vehicle. But now, that is not an option I was comfortable with.
From "The Big Chill":
Jeff Goldblum: "Rationalization is better than sex."
Glenn Close: "NOTHING'S better than sex!"
Jeff Goldblum: "Oh yeah? Ever go a week without a good rationalization?"
JEEPVAN -- if you have 5 or possibly 6, there is NO MID SIZE SUV that will COMFORTABLY meet your needs, you should consider a MV -- unless you will off road or need better traction and or room inside (MVs have more space -- but I wonder how much of it is really useable vs. simply greater volume), I had a MV, 97 Gr Caravan, mid size SUV 00 Montero Sport, and now 02 Suburban, and it meets my current needs and some projected ones better than a MV or midsize.
There are always going to be trade offs, if you can only go by the 'cool factor' I'd do anything I could to sway to a MV. If there is no cool factor, then get what suits your needs and wants.
Jaw.
To all, the civility here makes this a great place to share thoughts, viewpoints opinions and occasionally facts, the other sites are more about the last word and/or who can yell the loudest or insult the most people, you are all to be commended.
Enjoy your autos and your summer.
Some snippets from Honda PR ( http://www.hondanews.com/forms/honda/pilot/index_text2.html?KWx=pilottech )
"With safety as a top priority, Honda engineers adopted a number of advanced safety technologies and sophisticated body design features to deliver class-leading levels of crash protection.
The Pilot's advanced safety systems include dual-stage, dual-threshold driver and front passenger airbags; a front passenger side airbag with Occupant Position Detection System (OPDS); and headrests and three-point seatbelts in all eight seating positions.
Internal Honda testing anticipates five-star level safety performance in frontal (NCAP) and side impacts (SINCAP) for all passengers, as well as an anticipated "good" rating in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 40mph frontal offset crash test - the highest ratings achievable. Additional design measures were taken to confirm a high level of safety for third-row passengers in a rear collision, beyond existing safety requirements.
In addition, the Pilot delivers a high level of active safety in its powerful V-6 engine and VTM-4 four-wheel drive system, ABS-equipped four-wheel disc brakes, precise rack-and-pinion steering, four-wheel independent suspension and 282-degrees of outward visibility (best in class). All these features combine to provide one of the most confident and secure driving experiences available in a modern sport-utility vehicle. The foundation for the Pilot's outstanding handling and safety performance is its highly rigid unit body with reinforcing structures and energy absorbing crush zones. The Pilot's structure is designed to deform progressively in front, side and rear collisions.
A highly rigid passenger compartment is reinforced laterally and longitudinally to maintain its size and shape for omni-directional crash protection. A special bracket attached to the vehicle's front frame structure improves compatibility with other vehicles in a frontal collision. The use of high tensile steel in critical areas further enhances body integrity while minimizing associated weight penalties.
The Pilot's four-wheel independent suspension system, specially tuned tires and rack-and-pinion steering system provides the basis for the Pilot's exceptional handling, precise steering control and refined ride quality. The Pilot's chassis also employs fully isolated front and rear subframes for improved refinement and control of road noise, vibration and harshness.
2003 Honda Pilot SUV product highlights include:
-Largest cargo volume in class (90.3 cu.-ft. behind the 1st row seats);
-Anticipated five-star frontal and side crash protection for all passengers;
-Versatile eight-passenger seating capability;
-Outstanding fuel efficiency (EPA 17 city/22 highway);
-Best-in-class acceleration and passing performance;
-Innovative interior with "stuffable" storage areas;
-Full-flat cargo floor with 4-foot wide loading capability;
-240-hp, 3.5-liter, SOHC, V-6 engine with 3-rocker VTEC technology;
-Advanced Variable Torque Management 4WD (VTM-4) with Lock feature;
-Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) status (ULEV in CA);
-Medium-duty off-road capabilities with 8-inches of ground clearance;
-4500-pound boat/3500-pound trailer towing capability (with optional towing package);
-Theatre-style seating (2nd and 3rd row seat raised for comfort and visibility);
-Available factory-installed satellite-linked DVD Navigation System (Navi); and
-Available factory-installed Honda DVD Rear Entertainment System (RES)."
Pilot is based on the same chassis as Odyssey and MDX, sporting a 66.3" track that is wider than all but the largest SUVs. Hopefully, it will achieve the same crash test ratings as Odyssey and MDX. Combined with the advanced safety features, the very flexible seating and cargo area, the reasonable towing limits and good offroad capability, this could be an excellent alternative for those who also want the safety advantages of a minivan or wagon without the image.
BTW, I certainly am not disagreeing with the assertion that LTVs are more dangerous to other vehicles than, say, sedans or minivans with similar weights; nor that the mfgs. shouldn't make some design improvements in them for safety. Indeed, I think things are moving in that direction. The 2001+ GMC large SUVs have collapsible front frame endcaps, designed primarily to make the vehicles less expensive to repair and more reparable overall after front-enders, but which also function to dissipate some of the vehicle's forward momentum in crashes. And the new Expedition seems to have been designed to be have more car-like crash behavior (though I don't know if it was designed with crumple zones at all--not even sure they could, given it's still body-on-frame, I think).
All of which is not to say that I completely agree with you, to the extent that I continue to believe that the issue of risk-transfer, while making sense in a sort of intuitive way, hasn't been shown to me to be an issue really worthy of all the heartburn about it, given the data.
-A 60/40 split fold-flat-into-the-floor third-row seat. With the industry-first power-fold option on the Eddie Bauer model, each section of the third row folds independently with the push of a button.
-An innovative fold-flat-into-the-floor second-row bench seat, split 40/20/40, offering a first-in-segment forward-sliding center section. This seating position is family friendly, allowing easier access to young children in the second row. The sliding seat has secure, convenient LATCH child-seat attachments.
-Second- and third-row fold-flat seats that create a large cargo bay 1.3 inches wider than the previous model. At more than 110 cubic feet, total cargo space is among best in class and equivalent to last year’s model. But unlike competitive-make vehicles, there is no need for the customer to remove any seats to achieve maximum cargo capability.
-The first independent rear suspension on a full-size SUV, providing further refinement for class-leading ride and handling as well as room for innovative passenger and cargo solutions, like fold-flat seating.
-The widest track in the segment at 67 inches front and 67.3 inches rear for a more confident stance and enhanced cornering control.
-Many safety features including the Safety Canopy™ side air curtain protection system with rollover sensors, the Personal Safety System™ and bumper beams designed for compatibility with passenger cars.
-An AdvanceTrac™ electronic stability enhancement system that monitors traction at all wheels and automatically enhances stability while cornering on slippery surfaces.
-An enhanced maximum tow rating of 8,900 pounds, making Expedition best in class.
-A new XLT option, the FX4 off-road model that includes skid-plate protection and many features off-road enthusiasts most desire. FX4 will be available later in 2002.
---------------------------------
It wouldn't be hard at all for Honda or Ford or anyone to make a minivan *look* like a rugged SUV. Refresh the shape with a truck-like appearance, give it a light-duty AWD system and reasonable towing like the Pilot, and presto- you now have something that is the best of both worlds to many buyers. You might sacrifice a mpg or two, but 17/22 mpg is still quite a bit better than, say, 14/18 mpg. You can even keep the handy sliding doors and still get the improved all-weather and light-offroad AWD capability. Seems like a great market segment for someone to differentiate themselves in a crowded minivan market that has seen declining sales.
Just my observations.
Quite honestly, if one made a SUV that was not on frame -- the pathfinder and pilot come to mind, what is the difference between them and the MVs? They have higher ground clearance, more welds (for artificial stiffness (that's a guess), and more heavy duty stuff?
That said is the risk transfer any different? I tend to think that most risk transfer is simple physics (weight of larger vehicle = more risk to smaller one), if the issue of crushability is a factor what is its % in other words how much is transferred to the occupants of the vehicle struck vs. absorbed?
We are having the same debate over SUV/MV at my house. We are looking for more room in our vehicle and have been considering a minivan or SUV (pre-owned or program vehicle).
My husband would like a SUV because it is bigger/tougher. He's tall (6'5") and needs leg/head/shoulder room.
I feel that the minivan is more economical (gas/options for $). I am interested in the Dodge Grand Caravan. We have 2 children (7 & 10months). So you can imagine what we need to haul around. Stroller takes up most of our room in our '95 Lumina. It's a challenge to just get groceries home. We have several friends who have the Caravan and love it.
On the other hand, my husband likes the Ford Expeditions. I have rode in them and like them too and I like sitting up high. I like the feeling of security in the larger vehicles.
I just wonder how practical it will be to get a soon to be 1 year-old in and out and if the 7 yr-old can get in without help. We have family with the Expeditions and they love them, however my cousin said it was tough getting in/out with a baby because of the height.
I will probably keep my Lumina to drive to work and just use the new vehicle for evenings, weekends, and trips. So I am trying to decide if gas mileage is an issue. Price is an issue as well. Don't want to spend 30K on a SUV or MV. Still researching...
Relative safety can be debated indefinitely (re: this board), but bottom line is an MV or big SUV will be among the safer vehicles. So it comes down to getting in and out and $$$ for you.
First - Don't want to sound like a broken record to those who've read my posts, but power sliding doors are awesome if you have infants/toddlers. As jaw2000 pointed out, how long does this convenience matter? Are you going to have more kids? How long will you keep this vehicle? But I think they are beneficial to all ages. Tell your husband I'm 6'10" and love the doors for getting our toddler in and out. He will love them, too. My personal opinion - that cool feeling of driving the Expo will wear off sooner than his sore back from helping the kids in/out LOL.
Cost - If you want to spend <$30K, your SUV options are limited. Even a well-equipped mid-sized SUV goes over that. And I really don't know many folks who consider mid-SUV's a good family car. The '03 Expedition looks great on paper and early reviews, but even the no-frills XLT is going to run low-mid 30's I think. Regarding gas mileage, try Edmunds new cost to own feature. I can tell you our '02 Ody mpg's in town are disappointing (about 16 mpg some tanks) but it runs on 87 octane.
Good luck!
I get (ave) 14.75 (or better) on in town/rush hour driving, and about 18 and change hiwy on the Sub.
I also agree that the doors are good thing potentially at any time, but the convenience vs. cost may be a factor.
Our situation, while not unique offers me a different perspective (I was stupid enough to own a very poor MV, a good mid size SUV -- too small for a family of 4 AND THEIR STUFF) and now what so far seems like a good full size SUV.
Having had all, I can honestly say that each has advantages.
If I did not ever utilize the 4wd system or haul heavy loads the Sub would be harder to justify but I still think the layout and useable space (shape etc) is better than some MVs. If the vehicle was to be strictly a people and their stuff hauler a good MV, the Ody, the Sienna and maybe the new Kia might be fantastic choices.
My advice is STAY AWAY FROM MID SIZE SUV -- (good when the kids are under 5 bad after that) and STAY AWAY FROM CHRYSLER MVs
Any other choice will be a winner.
No offense to anyone who has either -- just my observations based on (only) my experiences.
Any other choice will be a winner.
No offense to anyone who has either -- just my observations based on (only) my experiences." - Jaw
No offence should be taken - that is some sage advice my friend. Just replace Chrysler MV with Ford Windstar and you are right on target. I know you had a bad experience with the Chrysler products, but the new generation seems to be a much better vehicle. The Windstar continues to sell in massive numbers despite having one of the worst powertrains in the business.
A few years ago one of my friends bought a GMC Jimmy because he and his wife just had a child and, according to him, "needed more space". He no doubt needed more space, but he sure wouldn't find it in a mid-sized SUV.
We agree that a mid size SUV is not a good option for a family of more than 3.
We agree (not in so many words) that a MV from the big 3 might not be the best choice from a maintenance standpoint vs. an 'import.'
The Daimers look different, but if the guts are the same then they are really average at best under all the bells and whistles.
Now if you would just realize that a compact truck in crew cab size is not a versatile as meets the eye, we could claim the trifecta.
Not going to happen. Remember, I said that the crew cab compact pickup suits MY needs just fine. I know this for certain.
Two out of three is not bad.
You might be surprised.
In my case insurance for the 2002 Suburban was less than the cost for 2000 Montero Sport.
Go figure.
No I won't.
I've thought about this purchase extensively. If I've left a stone unturned, it's an awfully small, insignificant stone. Keep in mind that my needs (wants?) are nearly satisified by a Quest Van (which I'll keep) and a 1996 Chevrolet Corsica. A compact crew cab pick up truck will represent a major increase in capacity that will more that satisfy my current and future needs.
SUVs might be larger, but only on the outside. A minivan has more room inside than most SUVs.
As others have said, the minivan will be more comfortable and easier to carry people and things around. Plus you will spend less on gas.
In our case, we do not plan on having any additional children.. When the kids reached 2 and 5, we bought a Ford Escape.
It handles much better than any mini-van. Much better performance. Better gas mileage. Much easier in city traffic and parking lots. And is as comfortable on long trips as the mini-van. The overhead video system I installed in the Escape makes the trips even nicer than what we experienced in the mini-van.
We've only had to use the roof rack one time on the Escape (x-mas stuff), so other than that we don't miss the expansive cargo area the mini-van had. Also, the rear seats are slightly smaller than the mini-van, (but about the same size is the older Explorer suv).
Oh, another thing, the class leading mini-suv's (Escape, CRV, etc), tend to have lower prices (by 5 to 7k) than mini-vans for similar options..
"It handles much better than any mini-van."
According to Consumer Reports anyway, the Honda Odyssey did their emergency test maneuver at 49.5 mph and said, "Handling is good, with precise and responsive steering." The Escape did it at 51.5 and they said, "Handling is relatively nimble".
"Much better performance."
The 2001 Odyssey did 0-30 in 3.7, 0-60 in 9.9 and 45-65 in 6.5. The 2002 got a big HP and torque boost, but I don't know how much quicker it is.
Escape was 3.2, 8.9 and 6.0 respectively for the 4WD with the V6 auto.
"Better gas mileage."
Odyssey is listed as 18/25 EPA and rated 12/30 by CR.
Escape is listed as 18/23 by the EPA and rated 12/24 by CR (4WD V6 Auto). The FWD V6 Auto is rated 19/24 by the EPA.
"Much easier in city traffic and parking lots."
Odyssey's turning radius measured 40 feet by CR, vs. 39 ft. for Escape. Escape is 28 inches shorter.
Even so, our reasons for opting for the minivan over the SUVs we considered were for safety features, crashworthiness, lower rollover risk and a 3rd row for when the grandparents are with us.
Our Odyssey LX went for $23,900 (We paid MSRP with no extras). Even the FWD Escape (XLS?) with the V6 was only a few thousand less (street price less rebates) at the time with similar features. I suppose the rebates are bigger now, which may account for the 5-7k difference.
I'm not saying which one is better or starting a flame war, just providing some comparative numbers. I was just about ready to order a yellow 4WD XLT with the auto in late 2000 when my wife 'requested' I investigate minivans in addition to the SUVs I had researched. I did, and quickly became a convert, mostly on the basis of safety. The Odyssey was/is best for our needs, but obviously one size doesn't fit all:-)
Acceleration
While the Escape is a quick SUV, there are a few minivans that are nearly as quick.
Handling
I can't imagine the Escape handles better than most minivans, but I guess that's a subjective measure anyway.
City traffic and parking lots
Agree. The Escape is probably easier to maneuver due to its smaller size.
Fuel Economy
I'm surprised your Escape does better than your old Windstar. My guess is that the V6 Escape has similar fuel economy to most minivans-- better than some, worse than some, about the same as some.
Price
Escape is probably $5-7k less than some minivans, but there are others which are closer in price. We paid just under $23k for our 2002 Kia Sedona. It's not as big inside as the Windstar, but it has dual power front seats, ABS, leather, moonroof, a good-quality stereo with CD and cassette, and plenty of other minivan-type features (storage bins, cupholders, etc.). I haven't checked Escape pricing recently, but I thought the loaded V6 XLT had an MSRP of low to mid twenties. I wasn't aware of much discounting--- isn't demand still pretty high?
Anyway, congrats on actually downsizing to a vehicle that is big enough to meet your needs, but no bigger. Too many people out there are driving Expeditions, Excursions, Tahoes, and Suburbans when they have absolutely no need for a vehicle that big.
The CR 12/30 mileage listing is much more in line with what we have seen than the listed 18/25. Actually, city mpg has been in the middle (about 16), but highway has been near 30 on long trips. We took a trip to western NC (long uphill on I-40 with AC blasting) and still got close to 30 mpg.
worddoc - are you planning any trips soon? My advice is rent an MV or SUV, see how you like it. Caution - to rent a Japanese make, you almost always have to go through a dealer, and you will not find an Odyssey to rent. But if you want DC, they are readily available. A good friend with 3 kids rented an Expedition for a beach trip for this reason, and that helped them make a better decision (they went with an Ody but that is secondary, you may draw a different conclusion). They also tried the Explorer and concluded that it was unacceptable for regular family use, but liked it so much that my friend leased it for his own use. So, yes, he's one of those people I lambasted in posts above.
I think if you are truly uncertain, a $300-400 week rental may be money well spent before plunking down the serious cash.
Our 2001 LX gets right around the EPA numbers. Almost 19 mpg city (Chicago suburbs) and 25 mpg on the few highway only tanks we've had.
Our last tank was over 21mpg city. I went to an old Citgo station I haven't used in years. I have a hunch the pump I used wasn't metered well and put in a couple more gallons than the receipt showed, because my mileage has otherwise been very consistent over the last 1.5 yrs and 17k miles, using a variety of brands and stations. Plus, the last tank was the first I've used A/C this year, which makes those old pumps all the more suspect. I plan to test the theory on my next fill, too. And the next, and the next, and the next.
Relative to renting to help form opinions -- that is always an excellent means to learn. But so too is having the luxury of time and the capacity to test drive anything and everything as many times as is needed. It can be fun too, and you may learn who you want to deal with when part of the experience arises.
Personally, if you never plan to tow anything and you never have a need for 4wd be it for traction in poor weather or off roading, you are fooling yourself if you elect to buy a SUV. They cost more to own, cost more to buy (usually), cost more to maintain, use more fuel, and while they may be safer (some are some are not), they can be more dangerous to things that you hit or that hit you.
Assuming we don't go out to hit others that last point may be moot, but when we are in accidents and do not hit something that gives (like trees), SUVs are much more dangerous to their occupants.
If you only have a need to move people (and not too much stuff) a good MV or big wagon might be just what the doctor ordered.
I wonder if they just made a Suburban sized wagon, kept the traits of SUV-dom (the non wagon non MV stigma here), a ride height between that of car and SUV, and a more carlike 4wd system ala Subaru if we'd not solve this dilemma, a crossover big WUV?
Another huge advantage of the minivans vs mini-suv's is the 3rd row seat..
On the mpg change.. My Superduty is very sensitive to the angle the truck is sitting when I fill it up. If its facing uphill, it will take a few less gallons which will give the impression that you got better mpg's than you really did..
This balances out when the next tank shows worse than normal mpg's because you had less in the tank than you normally do..
Love the WUV concept. Kind of like a Volvo Cross Country but bigger and taller. Current wagons are mostly mid-size sedan based, aren't they? (Passat, Camry, Outback, etc.). Didn't the Buick Roadmaster used to come in a wagon? LOL. Merecedes E-wagon can be had in 4WD (or AWD?), but for that $$$ you could have bess's Escape and his Superduty!