Indeed! That center airbag is to keep passenger or driver from being displaced as violently by a side impact on the other side of the car from them. Interesting. Very interesting.
Headlights sort of remind me of the Kia Soul, though I'm sure that's just coincidence:
Yeah, they both have that same just-got-a-black-eye look to them. But, despite that not very flattering description, I think the Acadia looks pretty good. FWIW, I always thought the Soul was decent looking too, for that type of vehicle. I always thought it looked better than the Scion xB
The shotgun iin the corner by the door, the cap with the NRA logo, and an odd look in your eyes when he comes in to pick her up will work well toward that goal!
The vehicle of choice for celebrity chauffeuring and after-hours clubbing took a beating in Consumer Reports' ranking. A dismal reliability rating -- surprising for a model that has been in production since the 2007 model year -- a poor road test score, and a surprisingly high $1.41 per mile operating cost leave it in last place behind the Cayenne and the GL450 in the luxury SUV category. At 5,700 pounds, the `Sclade might have fared better if its value were calculated on a per-pound basis.
Nice piece that shows CR still rules at analysis of the spend.
The car testers at Consumer Reports are often caricatured as granola-eating ultra-liberals left over from the 60s who are concerned with just one thing: managing finite resources. In other words -- the cheapest and simplest solution wins, whether it's washing machines, window-cleaners, or cars.
In fact, the Consumer Reports folks are focused on something a lot more important -- value -- and they've come up with an ingenious way to measure it for car buyers. They figure five-year operating costs per mile (depreciation and fuel are the two biggest expenses), add in a road-test score from their own drives, and calculate predicted reliability based on a readers survey. Then they come up with a value score that compares a given model to the average car.
The calculation provides a clear ranking of the best and worst values in 10 categories that is unavailable anywhere else. You can find "best car" lists everywhere. "Worst car" lists, on the other hand, are rare, because nobody wants to offend potential advertisers. But Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertising, so it doesn't run that risk.
In the Consumer Reports universe, small Asian cars score highly because of their better quality and gas mileage, while luxury and near-luxury sedans and SUVs rank much further down. More expensive autos are done in by deep depreciation, skimpy fuel economy, and -- shockingly -- poor predicted reliability. The bottom line is that a status brand and a high price aren't good indicators of value. Consumer Reports' ratings make a convincing case for caveat emptor.
The Escalade wasn't the worst but is up there with Jaguar, Porsche and Mercedes for costly expenditures.
I can't see why anyone would buy a new Escalade - it's seems to be made for people who don't know anything about cars or image or machinery, who just fell backwards into a pile of cash, and want the showiest piece they can find. It makes some of the German [non-permissible content removed]-mobiles look downright elegant.
Still, funny list. "Value" is subjective, and luxury buyers (those who buy new, anyway) don't really seek value.
Any group that places the S-class in the same segment as a Lexus ES should also maybe be seen as suspect. CR is better for mainstream toastercars than specialty vehicles.
There is an argument to be made that if you drive 5-10k miles a year, that $80-160 a month for gas in a full size ext truck or Tahoe is well worth the enjoyable ride and utility. A 6 spd trans and DOD returning 21 mpg hwy from a pushrod 5000 pounder with almost 400 ft-lbs of Torque is the ticket for some. For others it's maximizing efficiency at any cost.
I think the target demographic is the big pro athlete who wants comfort and enough space for their whole entourage, and they could care less about costs.
I wonder if small wagon sales in general are dead, and that's why they don't want to bring it to the US market? Something that small sort of blurs the distinction between hatchback and wagon, in my opinion. Personally, I'd group the Cruze wagon in with the likes of the old Focus wagon, PT Cruiser, Matrix/Vibe, the old Protege5 wagon, Chevy HHR, Dodge Calibre, etc.
The Focus no longer offers a wagon, but does have the 4-door hatchback. The PT Cruiser and HHR are dead. I think the Calibre is hanging on barely, but I'm sure it'll be gone once the 2013 Dart comes out. I wonder how many Matrixes Toyota sells these days? I see Corollas all over the place, but the Matrix seems a fairly rare sight. And now that I think about it, I hardly ever see a Mazda, period anymore, unless it's an older one.
When you get into smaller cars, hatchback/wagon configurations often make more sense than their sedan counterparts, anyway, so I'd think a Cruze wagon, or hatchback (which they also offer in Europe) would be a no-brainer here.
I can't see why anyone would buy a new Escalade - it's seems to be made for people who don't know anything about cars or image or machinery, who just fell backwards into a pile of cash, and want the showiest piece they can find. It makes some of the German [non-permissible content removed]-mobiles look downright elegant.
There is an argument to be made that if you drive 5-10k miles a year, that $80-160 a month for gas in a full size ext truck or Tahoe is well worth the enjoyable ride and utility. A 6 spd trans and DOD returning 21 mpg hwy from a pushrod 5000 pounder with almost 400 ft-lbs of Torque is the ticket for some.
What GM truck/SUV would that be? A 6.2 powered truck or SUV ain't getting 21mpg hwy (maybe at 45mph), the 5.3 has nowhere near 400 ft-lbs of torque, and the hybrid doesn't have a 6 speed.
Most I see driving them around here are wannabe gangstas driving old models bought at the local BHPH lot, trophy wives, and fat conservative old men. Still not groups to consider TCO, I guess.
What is it with the few wagons that are around these days that they always have a roof that slopes to the back, cutting off cargo room? Makes it look like an extended hatchback (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Today I ended up parked next to a real wagon - a Toyota Cressida. A little rust one it but otherwise still a great looking car.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I kind of like the Matrix. The Vibe as well. Gee, I'm looking for a car for my daughter - to replace the Accord which at 240K is now showing its age. I'd just keep driving it myself but other factors may lead to its retirement.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I think another reason that wagon rear-ends slope forward like that is for easier access to the rear. The more vertical the rear, the further back the pivot point on the liftgate/hatch is going to be, so you're going to have to duck more to get back there. Minivans and SUVs can get away with a more vertical rump, because they're taller.
I'm sure aerodynamics might have a little to do with it, as well.
One wagon that really bucked that trend was the 1992-96 Camry. It was a very awkward looking car, but it had more cargo volume than many much larger wagons, and I think it was probably one of the shortest wagons to offer a 3rd row seat. It only had a 103.1" wheelbase.
Back to the Cruze wagon - it appears to have good visibility and nice, big windows.
It has generous glass area, but look closely, and you can see the outline of the actual opening behind the glass. The glass overlaps the actual window openings considerably, so looking out, you're not going to see much. I'd wager that the actual opening in the hatch is maybe 60% of the glass area, at best. And those rear side windows? You probably get better visibility out of the opera window in a '76 Cordoba!
To be fair though, most cars are like that these days. It's happened ever since they started using flush-mounted window glass. It wasn't as bad in the earlier days, such as when the 1981 Monte Carlo and such did it with their opera windows. I remember one major early offender though, was the '87 T-bird.
The rear glass does bubble out a bit and that seems to help. It's not your sister's old Volvo wagon for sure. Oh, that was my sister, the one that wound up with an '05 Forester that's also pretty squared off. :shades:
"Industry sources said that when GM reports fourth-quarter results next week on Feb. 16, GM Europe's loss will be larger than the $292 million (£185m) loss of the prior quarter."
Prestige. The Cadillac brand. But, in reality, it is just a dressed up Suburban.
Black Suburbans have a certain kind of prestige too. Think of the elite federal agents in DC that use these.
When our one and only Suburban was getting old, test drove a new one, looked at the price and decided its utility and hauling capacity was not worth the premium over a Honda Ody, UNLESS one hauls a boat or a smaller horse trailer.
Might be a regional thing. Unless it's brand new, it doesn't carry a ton of cachet in my area, and older ones with bling don't impress. If you want real prestige and a big SUV here, it's Rover or G-Wagen.
Most of those Burbans will haul little more than a couple boxes from a yearly Hope Depot or Ikea visit.
When you get into smaller cars, hatchback/wagon configurations often make more sense than their sedan counterparts, anyway, so I'd think a Cruze wagon, or hatchback (which they also offer in Europe) would be a no-brainer here.
Agree. But, it must be sales or lack of that determine if hatches are offered.
Had a VW Scirrocco years back and the hauling capacity with that hatch was unbelievable. Remember bringing home things such as 40 gallon hot water heater and 7 foot tall book case. Of course parts of these were hanging out the back and the hatch lid was tied down with bungy.
Most of those Burbans will haul little more than a couple boxes from a yearly Hope Depot or Ikea visit.
Had one for many years and besides hauling 4x8 plywood, drywall, it was pretty good in carrying very heavy things such as furniture. Of course it had limitations on the height of things you can carry.
Held onto the Suburban for about 3 years after buying a Honda Ody. We helped move people with both of these vehicles at same time and the Ody minivan clearly had the superior volume and loading capability because of the sliding side doors.
Unless a guy is "afraid" of hurting his manly image by driving it, the minivan (Ody, Mopar, etc) is clearly superior for hauling over the Suburban and similar full size truck based suvs.
Unless a guy is "afraid" of hurting his manly image by driving it, the minivan (Ody, Mopar, etc) is clearly superior for hauling over the Suburban and similar full size truck based suvs.
That would depend on what you're hauling. Plus something like a Suburban or Expedition EL actually offers usable storage space behind the 3rd row.
That's probably the one feature I miss about the my Suburban and why I sometimes wish I would have bought an Expedition EL. I miss the storage room behind the 3rd row.
If you don't haul or tow anything heavy, or need to go off road, a minivan makes far more sense vs a SUV.
A friend of mine, who is quite well off, had an older Suburban that he loved, but it was time to replace. He went to the dealership and, despite his better judgment, let himself be talked into an Escalade. He made it through fewer than 6 months before he sold it (took a bath) and bought a new Suburban.
Funny what features are important to people, but one of his main gripes was that the Escalade doesn't (or didn't then) have a sunroof available. He missed that more than any other feature.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
A friend of mine, who is quite well off, had an older Suburban that he loved
A semi well off friend of mine back in the late 80s took his beloved Suburban, dropped it off at a garage, and got it back some six months later, basically rebuilt. We thought he was nuts to drop ten grand into an old car.
Keep forgetting to ask him, but when I saw him last in '05, he was still driving the dang thing.
Just get out of downtown Seattle...lots of relatively affluent kind of jerky oldsters out there :shades:
You are right about a minivan suiting most of those needs just as well or better...a plain old station wagon could serve the needs of the majority of SUV drivers too, no doubt.
As long as you didn't get the dreaded Volkswagen electrical glitches those were great cars!
Wife and I wanted a small economical "sporty" car and the VW Scirrocco was the best handling, most fun car we test drove. We tried small cars from GM, Mopar, Toyota and Datsun. VW easily beat the American brands for handling and fun.
The VW engine and 4-spd trans were trouble free. Only electrical was a relay that went out and had to have car towed. The only problem, severe, with the VW was extreme rust in the body panels including the floorboard that had a rusted hole starting to enlarge when we sold it.
a plain old station wagon could serve the needs of the majority of SUV drivers too, no doubt.
Problem with a station wagon is the lack of a 3rd row. If you don't need a 3rd row, then a wagon could be a great option. If you have 2 kids or more, a 3rd row is nice to have. Anymore you need need a 3rd row to comfortably and safely seat 6 people or more.
It's not uncommon for each of our kids to bring a friend or two along on a weekend trip to the lake. Add an 80lb lab that comes with and the Expedition gets small in a hurry.
Granted, most people don't use a full-size SUV as I do. But there isn't another type of vehicle out there which can handle more than 6 seating and pull a heavy trailer.
As for the Escalade, the only thing it really has over the Suburban IMO, is the 6.2v8.
Yep, that's why I said the majority. From my experience, relatively few SUV drivers tow big boats, have 6 kids and a horse sized dog, live on a farm, etc. For those others, it's the only choice, more efficient than a two car trip.
I was a bit shocked to see it, but the E class wagon at the DC auto show had a 3rd row. I thought those were extinct!
I forgot the E class wagon had a 3rd row. I just checked out the E class wagon website, and I must say it looks like you won't want to put anyone you liked back there, but yeah, it definitely has a 3rd row;)
Kids' feet are right in the crumple zones. That's why I thought they'd been phased out.
Our Olds Custom Cruiser had a 3rd row like that. It was actually roomy, but you get car sick facing backwards like that, so don't put people back there for too long. :sick:
Yep, that's why I said the majority. From my experience, relatively few SUV drivers tow big boats, have 6 kids and a horse sized dog, live on a farm, etc. For those others, it's the only choice, more efficient than a two car trip.
No question the majority don't have trailers to tow while hauling kids, but it's more common than you likely realize. In my neighborhood of roughly 50 houses. I know of at least 7 boats and 3 travel trailers and we all have more than one school age children.
Go find a lake or a campground and you'll see the majority of full size SUVs and pickups towing something. But I'm sure it's a regional thing too. The midwest seems to have a lot of rv's and boats.
Just travel any odd numbered interstate in the midwest during early spring or late fall. It's one RV after another heading south for the winter and back north for the summer.
The trucks and fifth wheel RV's seem to get bigger every year.
But to your point, I'm 100% with you. For many people a wagon or minivan makes far more sense than a CUV or SUV.
Kids' feet are right in the crumple zones. That's why I thought they'd been phased out.
Our Olds Custom Cruiser had a 3rd row like that. It was actually roomy, but you get car sick facing backwards like that, so don't put people back there for too long. :sick:
Yeah, I agree, no way would I want to sit back there. As a kid, my dad had a '79 Caprice Classic wagon with the same type of seat. Yeah, it was roomy, but sitting backwards is't ideal. I'd probably puke riding like that today;)
Kids' feet are right in the crumple zones. That's why I thought they'd been phased out.
I think those third rows got phased out, simply because bigger wagons in general got phased out, replaced by minivans and SUVs, while smaller wagons never really had enough room in back to offer a third row, anyway.
As for crumple zones, with those old body-on-frame cars, or the Mopar Unibody wagons offered from '60-78, they'd tend to buckle first over the rear axle, so the area where your feet are might not be as dangerous as you'd think. I'd actually be more worried in a more modern car like the Taurus, where it's probably designed to crumple from the back forward, rather than buckling over the rear axle.
I recall riding in the back of a Ford Country Squire wagon where the third row seats faced each other instead of backwards: one on the left facing right and one on the right facing left.
Comments
Indeed! That center airbag is to keep passenger or driver from being displaced as violently by a side impact on the other side of the car from them. Interesting. Very interesting.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I thought it was a way to keep teenage boys away from my daughter!
Yeah, they both have that same just-got-a-black-eye look to them. But, despite that not very flattering description, I think the Acadia looks pretty good. FWIW, I always thought the Soul was decent looking too, for that type of vehicle. I always thought it looked better than the Scion xB
The shotgun iin the corner by the door, the cap with the NRA logo, and an odd look in your eyes when he comes in to pick her up will work well toward that goal!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's a good looking auto, and I hope it sells well. More competition in this price range/type of vehicle only benefits the customer base.
The vehicle of choice for celebrity chauffeuring and after-hours clubbing took a beating in Consumer Reports' ranking. A dismal reliability rating -- surprising for a model that has been in production since the 2007 model year -- a poor road test score, and a surprisingly high $1.41 per mile operating cost leave it in last place behind the Cayenne and the GL450 in the luxury SUV category. At 5,700 pounds, the `Sclade might have fared better if its value were calculated on a per-pound basis.
Nice piece that shows CR still rules at analysis of the spend.
The car testers at Consumer Reports are often caricatured as granola-eating ultra-liberals left over from the 60s who are concerned with just one thing: managing finite resources. In other words -- the cheapest and simplest solution wins, whether it's washing machines, window-cleaners, or cars.
In fact, the Consumer Reports folks are focused on something a lot more important -- value -- and they've come up with an ingenious way to measure it for car buyers. They figure five-year operating costs per mile (depreciation and fuel are the two biggest expenses), add in a road-test score from their own drives, and calculate predicted reliability based on a readers survey. Then they come up with a value score that compares a given model to the average car.
The calculation provides a clear ranking of the best and worst values in 10 categories that is unavailable anywhere else. You can find "best car" lists everywhere. "Worst car" lists, on the other hand, are rare, because nobody wants to offend potential advertisers. But Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertising, so it doesn't run that risk.
In the Consumer Reports universe, small Asian cars score highly because of their better quality and gas mileage, while luxury and near-luxury sedans and SUVs rank much further down. More expensive autos are done in by deep depreciation, skimpy fuel economy, and -- shockingly -- poor predicted reliability. The bottom line is that a status brand and a high price aren't good indicators of value. Consumer Reports' ratings make a convincing case for caveat emptor.
The Escalade wasn't the worst but is up there with Jaguar, Porsche and Mercedes for costly expenditures.
Go Caddy, The "New" Standard of the World.
The 8 that Flunked The CR Value Test
Regards,
OW
Still, funny list. "Value" is subjective, and luxury buyers (those who buy new, anyway) don't really seek value.
Any group that places the S-class in the same segment as a Lexus ES should also maybe be seen as suspect. CR is better for mainstream toastercars than specialty vehicles.
Seems like I've been seeing that for years now. :shades:
link title
They probably think TCO is some new boy band.
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/2012-total-cost-of-ownership-awards/
the Volt's slightly better maintenance figure and huge advantage in insurance costs make it number one in the Electric Car category
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/09/chevrolet-cruze-station-wagon-unveiled-ahead-- of-geneva/
Man, imagine a diesel in that car, sold here...it would quickly build a rabid fan base.
The Equinox is much bigger, so this would make the perfect small wagon for GM.
The Focus no longer offers a wagon, but does have the 4-door hatchback. The PT Cruiser and HHR are dead. I think the Calibre is hanging on barely, but I'm sure it'll be gone once the 2013 Dart comes out. I wonder how many Matrixes Toyota sells these days? I see Corollas all over the place, but the Matrix seems a fairly rare sight. And now that I think about it, I hardly ever see a Mazda, period anymore, unless it's an older one.
When you get into smaller cars, hatchback/wagon configurations often make more sense than their sedan counterparts, anyway, so I'd think a Cruze wagon, or hatchback (which they also offer in Europe) would be a no-brainer here.
I agree 100% and I like full size SUVs.
What GM truck/SUV would that be? A 6.2 powered truck or SUV ain't getting 21mpg hwy (maybe at 45mph), the 5.3 has nowhere near 400 ft-lbs of torque, and the hybrid doesn't have a 6 speed.
Today I ended up parked next to a real wagon - a Toyota Cressida. A little rust one it but otherwise still a great looking car.
Someone brought up Matrix - that's really a 5 door hatch. There is a Corolla Fielder, which is much more wagon-y, if you will.
Big pic so I won't embed, but here's a URL:
http://www.cars-directory.net/pics/toyota/corolla_fielder/2007/toyota_corolla_fi- elder_a1248654866b2914308_7_orig.jpg
I kind of like the Matrix. The Vibe as well. Gee, I'm looking for a car for my daughter - to replace the Accord which at 240K is now showing its age. I'd just keep driving it myself but other factors may lead to its retirement.
I think another reason that wagon rear-ends slope forward like that is for easier access to the rear. The more vertical the rear, the further back the pivot point on the liftgate/hatch is going to be, so you're going to have to duck more to get back there. Minivans and SUVs can get away with a more vertical rump, because they're taller.
I'm sure aerodynamics might have a little to do with it, as well.
One wagon that really bucked that trend was the 1992-96 Camry. It was a very awkward looking car, but it had more cargo volume than many much larger wagons, and I think it was probably one of the shortest wagons to offer a 3rd row seat. It only had a 103.1" wheelbase.
Came close to snagging a Vibe a few years ago; pretty roomy for a hatch. Still rather have something more squared off back there though.
I don't like the newest Matrix, either. The window behind the C-pillar is tiny to the point of be useless.
Back to the Cruze wagon - it appears to have good visibility and nice, big windows.
Even an Outback has a pretty sloped-off rear. It just goes about it in a more angular way than some...
It has generous glass area, but look closely, and you can see the outline of the actual opening behind the glass. The glass overlaps the actual window openings considerably, so looking out, you're not going to see much. I'd wager that the actual opening in the hatch is maybe 60% of the glass area, at best. And those rear side windows? You probably get better visibility out of the opera window in a '76 Cordoba!
To be fair though, most cars are like that these days. It's happened ever since they started using flush-mounted window glass. It wasn't as bad in the earlier days, such as when the 1981 Monte Carlo and such did it with their opera windows. I remember one major early offender though, was the '87 T-bird.
GM is having issues in Europe:
Fears for thousands of jobs at Vauxhall's UK factory as General Motors warns of 'horrendous' losses across Europe (Daily Mail)
"Industry sources said that when GM reports fourth-quarter results next week on Feb. 16, GM Europe's loss will be larger than the $292 million (£185m) loss of the prior quarter."
Prestige. The Cadillac brand. But, in reality, it is just a dressed up Suburban.
Black Suburbans have a certain kind of prestige too. Think of the elite federal agents in DC that use these.
When our one and only Suburban was getting old, test drove a new one, looked at the price and decided its utility and hauling capacity was not worth the premium over a Honda Ody, UNLESS one hauls a boat or a smaller horse trailer.
Most of those Burbans will haul little more than a couple boxes from a yearly Hope Depot or Ikea visit.
Agree. But, it must be sales or lack of that determine if hatches are offered.
Had a VW Scirrocco years back and the hauling capacity with that hatch was unbelievable. Remember bringing home things such as 40 gallon hot water heater and 7 foot tall book case. Of course parts of these were hanging out the back and the hatch lid was tied down with bungy.
Had one for many years and besides hauling 4x8 plywood, drywall, it was pretty good in carrying very heavy things such as furniture. Of course it had limitations on the height of things you can carry.
Held onto the Suburban for about 3 years after buying a Honda Ody. We helped move people with both of these vehicles at same time and the Ody minivan clearly had the superior volume and loading capability because of the sliding side doors.
Unless a guy is "afraid" of hurting his manly image by driving it, the minivan (Ody, Mopar, etc) is clearly superior for hauling over the Suburban and similar full size truck based suvs.
Fat conservative old men? Didn't know that that type of animal existed on the upper left coast.
That would depend on what you're hauling. Plus something like a Suburban or Expedition EL actually offers usable storage space behind the 3rd row.
That's probably the one feature I miss about the my Suburban and why I sometimes wish I would have bought an Expedition EL. I miss the storage room behind the 3rd row.
If you don't haul or tow anything heavy, or need to go off road, a minivan makes far more sense vs a SUV.
Funny!
But yeah, I used to haul beer kegs in my Escort hatch.
Funny what features are important to people, but one of his main gripes was that the Escalade doesn't (or didn't then) have a sunroof available. He missed that more than any other feature.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
A semi well off friend of mine back in the late 80s took his beloved Suburban, dropped it off at a garage, and got it back some six months later, basically rebuilt. We thought he was nuts to drop ten grand into an old car.
Keep forgetting to ask him, but when I saw him last in '05, he was still driving the dang thing.
As long as you didn't get the dreaded Volkswagen electrical glitches those were great cars!
You are right about a minivan suiting most of those needs just as well or better...a plain old station wagon could serve the needs of the majority of SUV drivers too, no doubt.
Wife and I wanted a small economical "sporty" car and the VW Scirrocco was the best handling, most fun car we test drove. We tried small cars from GM, Mopar, Toyota and Datsun. VW easily beat the American brands for handling and fun.
The VW engine and 4-spd trans were trouble free. Only electrical was a relay that went out and had to have car towed. The only problem, severe, with the VW was extreme rust in the body panels including the floorboard that had a rusted hole starting to enlarge when we sold it.
Problem with a station wagon is the lack of a 3rd row. If you don't need a 3rd row, then a wagon could be a great option. If you have 2 kids or more, a 3rd row is nice to have. Anymore you need need a 3rd row to comfortably and safely seat 6 people or more.
It's not uncommon for each of our kids to bring a friend or two along on a weekend trip to the lake. Add an 80lb lab that comes with and the Expedition gets small in a hurry.
Granted, most people don't use a full-size SUV as I do. But there isn't another type of vehicle out there which can handle more than 6 seating and pull a heavy trailer.
As for the Escalade, the only thing it really has over the Suburban IMO, is the 6.2v8.
I was a bit shocked to see it, but the E class wagon at the DC auto show had a 3rd row. I thought those were extinct!
It was tight and when in use you have zero cargo space, but still...
I forgot the E class wagon had a 3rd row. I just checked out the E class wagon website, and I must say it looks like you won't want to put anyone you liked back there, but yeah, it definitely has a 3rd row;)
Our Olds Custom Cruiser had a 3rd row like that. It was actually roomy, but you get car sick facing backwards like that, so don't put people back there for too long. :sick:
No question the majority don't have trailers to tow while hauling kids, but it's more common than you likely realize. In my neighborhood of roughly 50 houses. I know of at least 7 boats and 3 travel trailers and we all have more than one school age children.
Go find a lake or a campground and you'll see the majority of full size SUVs and pickups towing something. But I'm sure it's a regional thing too. The midwest seems to have a lot of rv's and boats.
Just travel any odd numbered interstate in the midwest during early spring or late fall. It's one RV after another heading south for the winter and back north for the summer.
The trucks and fifth wheel RV's seem to get bigger every year.
But to your point, I'm 100% with you. For many people a wagon or minivan makes far more sense than a CUV or SUV.
Our Olds Custom Cruiser had a 3rd row like that. It was actually roomy, but you get car sick facing backwards like that, so don't put people back there for too long. :sick:
Yeah, I agree, no way would I want to sit back there. As a kid, my dad had a '79 Caprice Classic wagon with the same type of seat. Yeah, it was roomy, but sitting backwards is't ideal. I'd probably puke riding like that today;)
I think those third rows got phased out, simply because bigger wagons in general got phased out, replaced by minivans and SUVs, while smaller wagons never really had enough room in back to offer a third row, anyway.
The last domestic wagon I can think of that offered a third row seat was the Taurus (the "real" Taurus, not that Freestyle/Taurus-X Crossover thing). Judging from this picture, it looks like it was a pretty miserable place to sit.
As for crumple zones, with those old body-on-frame cars, or the Mopar Unibody wagons offered from '60-78, they'd tend to buckle first over the rear axle, so the area where your feet are might not be as dangerous as you'd think. I'd actually be more worried in a more modern car like the Taurus, where it's probably designed to crumple from the back forward, rather than buckling over the rear axle.
Why buy a 'Slade???
Regards,
OW