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
Indeed!
tidester, host
know what? we need a 'nod' graphic.
Absolutely. Obviously, it's clear thinking and correct conclusions. That's what you meant, right?
I still think there's an explorerx4/lonestartj/heatwave3/gagrice/kernick connection, too. A different one, though :=)
Steve, Host
tidester, host
What are you trying to do, encourage us? Are you nuts? :=)
...we'll have to reopen IDLS for a brief reunion.
Now, you've really lost it!
tidester, host
I've subscribed to this topic for a couple of years, but lately, it's been a ghost town, mostly. It can stand a little banter.
Besides, an on-topic contribution would be welcome, looking forward to it.
I agree. Nothing like multiple posts to move a discussion up near the top of the board to get things rolling.
So, hows this 60 degree weather been treating your sailing time?
Hey now, don't go giving away the trade secrets!
I think we made a joke about this one in IDLSWDY one time. I guess the Asteroid will be next.
At least SUVs are in the news; I never read about new minivans anymore. Everyone is into crossovers like the Freestyle.
Steve, Host
to make the group complete we really need harle and pat84.
MS
For someone that needs the practicality of towing a boat or hauling heavy loads, an SUV is more practical. I think he's saying that for his needs, a MV is more practical.
...and thank you for stimulating me.
:-)
(hey it's Friday, I'm drinking my first cup of coffee, and the rain is about to go away up here in the Northeast...life is good)
ENJOY! TGIF!!
Money; 10/1/2004; Ulrich, Lawrence
Motor Mouth
Q. My husband and I want a vehicle that has three rows of seats, that's at least somewhat fuel efficient and that holds its value. One problem: My husband hates minivans. We're open to either new or used. What do you suggest?
A. First, have your husband seek help for his insecurity about the minivan, still the most efficient of family haulers. But if Dr. Freud can't hypnotize him into buying a Honda Odyssey (or a Toyota Sienna), try this bait and switch: the Honda Pilot or its upscale sibling, the Acura MDX. Both are based on the Odyssey platform and share its sterling features – power, comfort, solid handling, impeccable quality and top resale value. You will lose a minivan's sliding doors, but you add AWD, unavailable on the Odyssey, giving you more traction in rain or snow. New or used, they are worthy buys. The MDX is pricier starting at $36970, but it's also more powerful and luxurious than the utilitarian Pilot at $27615. Either one is a perfect compromise. They look like SUVs but are essentially minivans under the skin, allowing your husband to preserve his manhood, and you the marriage.
While the car-based Pilot and MDX are far better choices than the truck-based clod-vehicles that still make up the majority of SUV sales (and less dangerous to everyone else in collisions), they still come with liabilities that their MV brethren do not, particularly in terms of mpg and cargo space:
Odyssey...20/28 (24)...4634...147
Sienna...18/24(21)...4365...149 (AWD)
Pilot...17/22(19.5)...4431...90 (AWD)
MDX...17/23(20)...4504...82 (AWD)
...mpg city/hwy/avg...curb wt...cargo space
A truly amazing fact is that the Odyssey, while a few hundred pounds heavier, gets almost 20% better mpg than those 2 SUVs. And the cargo space advantage is a whopping 65% more than the Pilot and 80% more than the MDX.
But what do I know? USAToday says that SUV sales are down but the former SUV owners are buying big pickups, not RSX's. (link)
Steve, Host
Is it Sadie Hawkins day yet?
I like this quote from the link you posted: Big pickups are the best-selling vehicles in the USA, accounting for about one of every seven new vehicles.
Funny, since cars have almost 50% of the market and are obviously the best selling vehicles. Guess it depends on how you slice and dice :=)
> gets almost 20% better mpg than those 2 SUVs
What's so amazing about FWD cars having better MPG than AWD cars?
> the fear of projecting a MommyMobile image when driving a MV or wagon. The
> ability to project a fake AdventureGuy image, as if they braved the wild on the
> weekends,
By the same logic, people buy pseudo-luxury sports cars like RSX because of the fear of projecting PoorSucker image when driving a perfectly utilitarian vehicle like Civic hatchback. How much boy racing can be done on today's highways anyway? not to mention the harm and danger posed to other motorists from boy racing.
People do care about images in choosing cars, whether it's SUV over MV or RSX over Civic hatch. At least with SUV over MV, there's the redeeming value that they are typically shorter and therefore take up less parking space along the curb. I can not think of a single justification of RSX over Civic hatch as far as imposing less on third party is concerned. RSX burns more gas, has less interior volume and take up more parking space than a Civic that can fulfill every transportation requiremnt that an RSX can.
Title of discussion is SUVs vs Minivans.
Your post sounds like a clear cut attack without any redeeming value to it.
Go to the RSX board if you've got a beef with RSX owners.
I dunno, you tell me. I referenced the heavier Odyssey vs the lighter SUVs, not FWD vs AWD cars. Hard to imagine the source of your confusion.
By the same logic, people buy pseudo-luxury sports cars...
No, that's just as confused. A sports coupe projects an image of driving...a sports coupe.
...a perfectly utilitarian vehicle...
There's no such thing as a "perfectly utilitarian" vehicle, since it's realtive to the purpose required. And the RSX, being a high mpg hatchback is pretty darn practical.
How much boy racing can be done...
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how much, since you seem to be the resident expert.
...a Civic that can fulfill every transportation requiremnt that an RSX can.
Elements of transportation requirements include acceleration and handling. If you think the Civic and RSX are identical in those aspects, you need to do a bit more research.
Not that the RSX has anything to do with this topic.
You know, if I didn't know you better, I'd think you were just coming here, flaming away with off topic blather to be a troll.
Oh wait, I know you pretty well, in terms of posting on Edmunds. Never mind :=)
so do the rsx owners on this thread own a minvan or suv? it's ok for them to post here anyway.
Wot a guy!
...they are averaging 19 mpg with their new gen ody.
I wonder if they'd better 14 mpg in a Pilot.
It appears that most SUVs place their 3rd row in the rear crumple zone (I've looked at a few - Highlander, MDX, etc). The vans seem to have more space at the rear. Just going by that, I've got to believe that the vans will be safer from rear collisions.
Anyone care to disagree?
-TIA
Popular Third-row Car Seats May Kill Your Kids?
and
How safe are third row passengers?
Sorry, no fresh links. Check out Caviller's post #23 in the Third-row Car Seats discussion though.
Steve, Host
Yes, they are the most common but side and head-on collisions are, by far, the most likely to be fatal for fairly obvious reasons.
tidester, host
> Hard to imagine the source of your confusion.
Odyssey is FWD whereas MDX are AWD. Until you can find AWD Odyssey and/or FWD MDX, by comparing the two, you are in effect comparing FWD vs. AWD. If you don't believe me, try comparing Highlander and Sienna for AWD versions, they have the same rated gas mileage (and poorer for Sienna in real life, according to anyone who has both).
> A sports coupe projects an image of driving...a sports coupe.
In other words, image is important, even if it is stuck in commute traffic most of the time.
> And the RSX, being a high mpg hatchback is pretty darn practical.
Not if all a person _needs_ is a Civic. And Pilot/MDX, being a high mpg AWD big hatchback with 90 cu.ft carry capacity and three rows of seats with a center seat in the second row, is pretty darn practical considering there isn't an alternative that delivers AWD, second-raw center seating and three-row with 90 cu.ft cargo space all in less than 190inch parking length.
> Elements of transportation requirements include acceleration and handling.
There is no road condition where RSX can go but Civic can't; no cargo RSX can carry that a Civic hatch can not. There are however plenty road conditions (read heavy snow and uphill, for example) that MDX can go but Odyssey can not; there are also garages and parking curbs too short for Odyssey but not for MDX/Pilot. Being able to go to places and being able to park in crowded area are transportational requirements; being able to accelearate from 0-60 uner 7.5 seconds is not.
> Not that the RSX has anything to do with this topic.
RSX is not the point. The mental process (a valid one I might add) that motivates one to pick RSX over Civic however amply explains why one would pick SUV over minivan. The point is analogizing MDX vs. Odyssey and RSX vs. Civic. That is the best answer I can think of to your question why anyone would pick MDX/Pilot over Odyssey.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how much, since you seem to be the resident expert.
Hardly. I'm not the one who pursues acclearation or handling. Besides my Highlander, my other car is a stationwagon. So your theory that people buy SUV's in order to avoid mommymobile image doesn wash in my case either. One of my two neighbors also has a Highlander, and their other car is a minivan. So another exception to the theory. For what it's worth, the third house on the street, well, they have two BMW's, so you know where their "transportational requirement" and their hearts are ;-)
No such question exists. I suggest you go back and check.
That's as logical as saying "since the Ody has 4 cupholders to the Pilot's 3, you are, in effect, comparing cupholders."
I was comparing weight, mpg and cargo space. It's fairly obvious. Go back and check.
There is no road condition where RSX can go but Civic can't...
Thanks for that insightful contribution. Is it related to anything being discussed here whatsoever?
RSX is not the point.
Agreed, for once. Do you have anything to say on the topic?
So your theory that people buy SUV's in order to avoid mommymobile image doesn wash in my case either.
My theory was not based on you. What in the world would lead you to such a confused conclusion?
And my theory was about the cause of the SUV boom, not "a reason for every SUV purchase". Please try to read more carefully. Your axe-grinding is interfering with your reading accuracy.
I think you're being too literal! I would surmise Bright meant something along the lines of "one is comparing the merits of FWD vs AWD" just as one might compare the merits of 3 cupholders vs 4. Both address the question of one's needs!
tidester, host
Neither merits nor needs was being discussed at all. Saying either was is like saying that my opinion of Dubya is like discussing the merits and the need for the Presidency!
You don't vote based on needs or merit? To each his own!
Happy Father's day to all, btw!
tidester, host
But your argument needs more merit
Speaking of arguments with merit, I Like Minivans, Why Don't You?
That's not an argument. It's an assertion and a presumptuous interrogative apparently intended to provoke a discussion of merit. Run with it!
tidester, host
I didn't say it was, I said I was speaking of them! :P
As for that presumptuous interrogative, it's actually a prelude to a soliloquy. Just like another one that had over 60k+ posts :=)
But I digress (apologies to jipster). Like Mr Springsteen, I was born to run.
So...Minivans...you and them, babe...how about it? (further apologies to Mark Knopfler).
I like them if they are used for their intended purpose! :shades:
Just like another one...
How we long for yesterday ... with apologies to John and Paul.
Seriously, I think most SUVers never tow or offroad and MVs would likely fill their vehicular needs far better.
tidester, host
I wanted awd, a little more ground clearance than MVs have, and a flip up back window for kayak transport when my steenkin knee or back isn't cooperating with hoisting it onto the roof. My missus argued that the kayak might fit into an MV, but I don't want to be trudging around, othen alone, in Northeast congestion in a gormy beast built to haul seven passengers. Bleccchh!
I felt like I was driving a school bus in the MVs, though the larger SUVs didn't feel much better. My SUV is classified by Edmund's as a car-based mid-size, though I think of it as competitive with Escapes and Tributes, which are classed as compacts. MPG is rated at 22/27 on 87, so I'm not giving excessively at the pump.
I agree with the theory that an SUV is often just an acceptable MV for family guys. But I also have to admit that I "don't like" MVs. If I followed the Consumer Report notion that a motor vehicle is a transportation appliance just as a vacuum cleaner is a household appliance, I suspect I might work up an interest in MVs. But I think, like spouses, a vehicle should have some endearing personality traits just to keep your interest. MVs are like mobile living rooms, to me, anyway.
Now who's cutting and pasting? :surprise:
Unlike SUVs, I think most MVers use them appropriately...not to project a cool image, LOL!
We have 2 kayaks and use an Outback roof for transport...it's not as high as an SUV or MV (we use rollers in the rear). Wouldn't that be better? Even has AWD and more GC than a CR-V (8.7 v 8.1).
...ike spouses, a vehicle should have some endearing personality traits just to keep your interest.
I certainly agree on the spouses front, but...as for vehicles...I guess we're all looking for something different! Oh, I guess that goes for spouses, too.
Tidester's a great guy, and my favorite host (well, Steve's a close second, except for that trigger finger on the delete key that sometimes misfires). But...I can handle him (tidester) with both hands behind my back.
Of course, he can handle me, likewise. Works out pretty well :=)
I knew you would appreciate that!
with both hands behind my back.
Your keyboard configuration must be Escheresque! Is that even possible topologically?
tidester, host