SUV vs Minivans

explorerx4 · May 2006

i understand what you are saying, but i feel i am still here on this earth, along with the rest of my immediate family, because i had one of those large suv's.
i got run into by a 'minivan', other driver totally at fault.
on a positive note, there was only 1 minor injury.
the van was a total loss, i had about 10k damage.
i usually commute among those 18 wheelers in a ford focus.

jipster · May 2006

but I feel I am still here on this earth along with the rest of my immediate family, because I had one of those large suv's

Good point explorer. Poor, inattentive and wreckless drivers are in a far higher % of accidents than those of us here at Edmunds who practice safe driving. So, it is only reasonable that one would want to protect oneself, and family, from those type of drivers as much as possible. As well as from the large free roaming moose another poster has written about.

fred222 · May 2006

I traded in my Suburban for a 2006 Odyssey EX-L last year. The Odyssey is not as massive as the Suburban, but it is close. My Suburban with a full tank of gas (42 gal) and passengers weighed in at just over 6000 lbs. I am sure that the Odyssey similarly loaded would be over 5000 lbs. I have not had the opportunity to haul trash to the dump yet to find out. Our 2005 Pacifica Touring comes in at 5000 lbs with a full tank and two passengers. The Odyssey is a solid vehicle designed specifically with safety in mind and I think that you may be giving up some mass to a Suburban, but you are not losing much in safety. You must then throw in the better handling, stopping and acceleration of the Odyssey as contributing to safety. When all factors are considered, a large SUV and a large well designed minivan have very similar safety levels. Last weekend I took a trip in my Odyssey 233 miles at 27.5 mpg (8.47 gallons). My Suburban would have got 15 mpg for 15.5 gallons. This was 7 gallons of gas that did not need to buy. Money taken directly from Chavez's pockets and put into mine. That is $21 I can spend in America instead of giving to some third world scum bag who hates us. Think about it.

dc_driver · May 2006

Smart move fred222 (trading in the Suburban for an Odyssey if you are concerned about safety and fuel economy).

Checkout: informedforlife.org

The 06 Suburban is ranked in the "highest risk" category based on a combination of government and IIHS correlated safety scores (it scored a 103).

By comparison the 06 Honda Odyssey is one of the safest vehicles on the road and is ranked in the "lowest risk category" with a total score of 57 (lower scores are better).

gagrice · May 2006

The 06 Suburban is ranked in the "highest risk" category based on a combination of government and IIHS correlated safety scores (it scored a 103).

I am not sure who this informedforlife bunch is. They are not even in the ballpark on IIHS ratings for different vehicles. Sounds like a group with an agenda. An agenda to make SUVs and PU trucks out to be unsafe. I happen to own a new GMC PU truck and just sold a new Passat wagon. The Passat has a very high rating with the IIHS compared to say a Camry or an Accord. Yet it was $250 more per year to insure than my GMC PU truck. You know why? The PU truck is rated MUCH safer than any car out there. You go ahead and put your family in a Camry and I will put mine in a Suburban. Every credible entity will tell you the Suburban family is safer.

stever · May 2006

Sounds like one guy who was surprised when his five star NHTSA rated F-150 turned out to have poor ratings from the IHS and decided to compare the available data to get a better overall safety picture. (US News).

The methodology is set out on the site if you want to play with your own assumptions.

Btw, did your insurance agent attribute the lower premiums specifically to lower medical bills or is the GMC perhaps cheaper to repair than the VW?

Steve, Host

gagrice · May 2006

Check out the REAL ratings on safety and risk. The 2WD Suburban is the highest rated Large SUV. That is from the folks that decide how much your premiums will be. Read the small print on that hack site above. They filled in the blanks when they did not have real data to go by. The Internet is a beautiful thing. You can get someone to put up a site to back up what ever you may want people to believe. Here is a good question posed by someone on the IIHS site. This refutes all the phoney data put out by informedforlife website on 2005 & 2006 vehicles.

Q: I'm shopping for a new car. Why can't I find insurance loss data for new models?
A: It takes considerable time to gather and tabulate the real-world data needed to provide statistically significant results for new models. Complete vehicle registration data for each model year typically are released about two years later, and data on fatalities are first available approximately nine months after the end of the calendar year.

SUV ratings

Car ratings

dc_driver · May 2006

It is a nonprofit organization that takes data from both the NHTSA (government) and IIHS (insurance companies), and correlates the two data points together to give you the best overall picture along with actual fatality rates. So you are wrong about not being in the ballpark. If you look at the top ranked vehicles you will notice that there is a mixture of vans, suv's, and cars. There is no agenda. As for large SUV's the highest rated large SUV is still considered medium risk.

In the case of the Suburban, it did not do well in passenger side crash tests and had a tendency to rollover. Per the NHTSA, crashes that involved rollovers resulted in the HIGHEST fatality rate. So go ahead and put your kids in that Suburban and hope that you get hit head on and not on the side and prey that your Suburban does not roll.

dc_driver · May 2006

Go back and checkout the scores. They (informedforlife) HAD data from the NHTSA.

These are not crash test results you posted from the links. These are also older model vehicles. Since 2002-2004 many car manufacturers have included safety equipment such as third row side airbags, traction control, and stability control as standard equipment. Look at the data again..

Here is an example of the Camry you keep talking about:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=291

Look at the side impact scores with a Camry that has side airbag protection vs one that does not. Night and day.

When people think of safety and crashing, it is not always the result of being hit or hitting another vehicle. In 2004 (most recent data compiled by the IIHS) 41% of all fatalities were involved in single vehicle crashes. Here are some fatality stats below:

From the NHTSA:
"Of the nearly 11 million vehicle crashes last year, rollovers accounted for only 3% of the total number of crashes.

However, rollovers accounted for nearly 33% of all deaths from passenger vehicle crashes."

From the IIHS (the very site you keep quoting):
"OVERVIEW:
A total of 31,581 passenger vehicle occupants died in 2004, only 3 percent more than in 1975. However, the distribution of vehicle types among these crashes has changed. Car occupant deaths have declined 21 percent since 1975, while pickup occupant deaths have risen 57 percent and SUV occupant deaths are more than 10 times as high."

"Forty-one percent of car occupant deaths in 2004 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 59 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 65 percent of SUV occupant deaths and 59 percent of pickup occupant deaths."

"Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 49 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2004, compared with 36 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 19 percent in cars."

dc_driver · May 2006

Hey fred222, just out of curiosity, what year was your Suburban that you replaced, and what affect did switching from a Suburban to the Odyssey have on your insurance rates?

For me, I switched from an 02 Nissan Altima (with side airbags), and my rates went up 33 cents per month on an 06 Odyssey.

dc_driver · May 2006

Insurance premiums are factored in a variety of ways (definitely not just based on crash scores):

Quoted from: www.insurance.com

"Insurance premiums depend on several factors, including your age, sex, place of residence, and driving record; the amount and type of coverage you select; and whether you drive your vehicle primarily for business or personal purposes. This explains why one driver might pay a different premium than another for the same make of motor vehicle.

In addition to the factors listed above, insurance companies consider the likelihood that a particular brand of vehicle will be stolen, vandalized, or involved in an accident. They also track the costliness of repairs. Insurance companies obtain their information by consulting various claim statistics. The Highway Loss Data Institute, for example, indexes the amount of money insurance companies have paid out (on average) for collision, injury, and theft claims for various types of motor vehicles. They also rely on their own history with a particular make or model."

01mdx · May 2006

dc,

Thanks for the link. You are right about the Pilot and Ody. I had based my statement on crash test data, where the Pilot scores a bit better given the better rear crash data but I had not taken into account the rollover data.

Now given that the Pilot is AWD and I submit that it has better visibility, I would still say that it's at least as safe in the real world but I understand that's speculation and opinion on my part. In the end, both vehicles are among the best are are good safe choices. I was __ this close to buying the Ody (never even looked at any other minivan) but in the end the Pilot won me over. I could have gone either way and been happy. :shades:

gagrice · May 2006

"Insurance premiums depend on several factors,

I agree that rollover is a bigger hazard with SUVs & PU trucks than it is with cars. That is almost ALL driver error. My gripe with your web site is using an average for a given group of vehicles when actual data is not available. Crash tests are very deceptive compared to actual injury statistics. If a Camry gets hit by another Camry it may be a decent vehicle. If it gets hit by one of the millions of PU trucks on the highways in CA and most of the country, the occupants may not fare so well.

If what you are saying is correct. Why do large PU trucks & SUVs have the lowest injury statistics?

For example the GM 3500 Crew cab gets a 30 injury rating. My 1/2 ton GMC Sierra a 44 rating, and the Odyssey a 69 rating. This is based on actual injuries not speculative data put out by a non-profit with an agenda.

Why is my 2005 Sierra 1500 $905 per year and my sold 2005 Passat Wagon $1210 per year? Both with the same exact $120/$240 deductible. I can tell you two things. It is more likely for me to be hurt in the Passat and it will cost more to repair if I were to have an accident. That is one reason I sold the Passat. I was paying as much for insurance as my monthly gas bill. So I end up with a safer vehicle that costs me less to own overall than a car.

PS
My Passat wagon was rated 56 which is better than any 2WD minivan.

dc_driver · May 2006

I see and understand your point regarding frontal collisions and do not disagree with you (most large SUVs/PUs are very safe with regards to frontal offset). But my point is that there is a lot more to safety/crashes than just a frontal crash

As for rollovers, these can happen for a variety of reasons aside from driver error. Some can occur as a result of being hit by another vehicle, environmental (ice, rain, etc), vehicular (tires, etc), and other means.

Again, there was data available for the 06 Suburban that the website used (NHTSA/government testing). The fact of the matter is that it does not appear that the IIHS crash tests very many large SUV's and does not appear to perform rollover testing. The NHTSA does. Does this make the IIHS 's ratings somewhat bias? Not sure. I also disagree with your statement that this site has an agenda. Again, looking at the statistics, the top vehicles at informedforlife clearly makeup a wide variety of manufacturers and categories of vehicles. I am just not seeing a hidden agenda here. Fine. Don't use the data. Use the government data (safercar.gov)

As my previous post explained, there are a variety of reasons why your Passat is most likely to more expensive insure. Based on my experience (I have owned two pickup trucks in my life) PUs tend to be cheaper to insure than say a European car. If saving money on insurance was a concern for you, you should also look at MPG ratings. I don't have your exact models but I would suspect that your VW got at least 5mpg better in overall MPG. If you average that out over a year the cost savings at the pump should more than makeup your insurance rates.

cpsdarren · May 2006

You are right- there is no agenda at informedforlife.org . They simply take the published crash test results and other factors like weight and rollover rating. They combine the results using straightforward math from published studies. There is no bias or arbitrary ranking like other safety composites often have; it's all by the numbers and completely explained on the website. In the event there is an error or missing entry in the database (i.e car X is shown with a 4-star rating on some test when it actually earned a 5-star rating), you can even input the correct data using their calculator. If someone doesn't like the results, they can't blame informedforlife.org. I guess they could blame the statistics and tests upon which the rankings are based if they are feeling 'uninformed' because their vehicle didn't do so well.

Straight injury and fatality data is corrupted by driver demographics and other factors. To see this clearly, one has only to observe how insurance rates, injury and fatality statistics can vary considerably among corporate "twin" vehicles, like the Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town&Country for one:

http://www.moneycentral.com/insure/autorisk.aspx

http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf

http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html

Identical models should be identical if there were no other factors than crash avoidance and crash protection involved. Instead, twin models vary in some or all of these areas. There is a component of safety involved, but unfortunately there are other variables that make the data less useful. The purpose of informedforlife.org is to combine comparable safety results into a predictive risk rating, similar to the fatality statistics but without the other variables.

fred222 · May 2006

Hey fred222, just out of curiosity, what year was your Suburban that you replaced, and what affect did switching from a Suburban to the Odyssey have on your insurance rates?

For me, I switched from an 02 Nissan Altima (with side airbags), and my rates went up 33 cents per month on an 06 Odyssey.
The Suburban was a 1995 350 TBI 4x4 GMC SLT. Fully loaded and very nice. I know that newer Suburbans get better mileage, but not much. The Insurance question is difficult because I went from no collision /comp on the Suburban to complete coverage on the Odyssey. Still I believe that the insurance only went from about $45/month to about $55 per month. Insurance is a funny thing.
The 2006 Odyssey EX-L is a little less expensive for us to insure than our 2005 Pacifica Touring.
My Odyssey has not had the first oil change yet. I will probably get it changed at about 3500 miles with dino oil and then do another oil change at +3000 miles going to good synthetic. Mobil 1, Amsoil, Redline Royal Purple etc. It will be interesting to see if the mileage changes going from dino oil to synthetic. Hopefully I will have enough info to make valid comparisons.

gagrice · May 2006

Straight injury and fatality data is corrupted by driver demographics and other factors.

How is injury statistics less valid than crash test results. Crash tests are OK, just not real world valid. They are only valuable if you live in a world where all cars are the same size and weight. Give me a crash test where a Suburban gets run into by a a CamCord. That is a more likely scenario than getting hit by a car of equal size and weight. I will likely be one of the last to downsize all my vehicles.

From your link, I think this says it all about smaller cars. I personally think the newer minivans are nearly as safe as truck based SUVs.

Vehicles with high death rates often have high frequencies of insurance claims for occupant injuries. For example, small 2- and 4-door cars typically have high death rates and higher-than-average insurance injury claims experience.

I am looking for realistic ratings, not skewed by those that would like their world to be made up of "one size fits all".

I checked my old Suburban K1500 4WD on the Money Central site you posted. It gets a 40% discount on safety and an A for damage. By contrast the Odyssey gets an A for damage only a 20% discount for safety. An Accord 2door gets a highest damage charge with a horrible E rating and NO discount for being safe. My GMC PU also has a 40% safety discount. I don't see any vehicles that get better than a 40% discount on safety. The insurance companies know what is and isn't safe. They give discounts according to statistics. And statistically a large SUV or PU is the safest thing you can drive.

gagrice · May 2006

I don't have your exact models but I would suspect that your VW got at least 5mpg better in overall MPG.

It was a Passat TDI and got twice the mileage of my GMC PU truck. It handled better, stopped faster and was a better performing car. It was a vehicle I bought to drive for a year and sell at a profit. I did that and do miss the car. I don't need it. It was fun to drive on the back roads of the county. I may get another VW TDI if the prices take a dip.

fred222 · May 2006

Something to read.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P150967.asp

dc_driver · May 2006

Interesting article.. The biggest issue is that both Western Europe and Japan have excellent public transportation systems are not as spacious as the US. It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build said public transportation systems in smaller cities. I would be in favor of no longer classifying heavy vehicles (SUV's, minivans) in the "light truck" category and holding them to higher EPA standards. If a vehicle did not meet the EPA standards then it should receive a large usage tax (20-25% of its value?)

This would force buyers to either buy a fuel efficient large vehicle, buy a different type of vehicle, or pay the tax. The tax money should be used to fund either better public transportation systems or fuel alternatives. I have spend quite a bit of time in Europe, and there are plenty of cars on the roads, they just all have smaller engines, run diesel fuel, and get great fuel economy.

fred222 · May 2006

The decision was made over 30 years ago not to raise the tax on gas. The US could certainly have developed better Public transportation since then.
Also, the article states that the way the US dealt with the oil issue in the 1970's was to initiate the CAFE mileage standards, but then did not apply them to all vehicles so in effect they did nothing. Look at the Ford Excursion as an example 12 mpg!
The market economy works best and if people have to pay a lot for gas, they will demand better mileage vehicles. I do not believe in Government intervention and do not want to pay more for gas, but we will and the way we are going now is jeopardizing the security of this country. We are giving the bad guys around the world our money for their oil when we do not need to.

stever · May 2006

Anybody trying to decide between a SUV and a minivan this weekend?

Steve, Host

explorerx4 · May 2006

wasihngton,dc has a pretty good public transportation system. do you use it?

dc_driver · May 2006

Yes, we have a great system. Lucky for me, I live and work outside the city so I drive. A 20 minute car ride would take about 45-60 minutes betwen the bus and metro.

I do use the metro whenever I go into the city.

explorerx4 · May 2006

this says it all about what anyone pays for insurance: 'They also rely on their own history with a particular make or model.'.
i didn't see anything about credit rating. it can be huge.
my last renewal was switched to another writing company that charges 25% less if you qualify based on your credit rating.
despite that, the most expensive vehicle is the focus and the cheapest is the explorer. the escape and mustang gt fall in the middle of the others.

cpsdarren · May 2006

"How is injury statistics less valid than crash test results."

Reread my last message to find out why injury statistics are less valid. Crash tests eliminate non-safety related variables like driver demographics.

"Give me a crash test where a Suburban gets run into by a a CamCord."

Then give me one where a Suburban runs into a wall, another Suburban, is T-boned or rolls over.

I personally think the newer minivans are nearly as safe as truck based SUVs.

Some may well be even safer, if you take into account handling, braking, crash tests and safety features rather than just insurance rates.

"I am looking for realistic ratings, not skewed by those that would like their world to be made up of "one size fits all"."

That's why you use a composite like www.informedforlife.org instead of just using one particular crash test or weight as a predictor of safety.

"I checked my old Suburban K1500 4WD"

It has an Injury risk of 61 in the IIHS table. The essentially identical Yukon XL has a 52 risk. The results should be identical if there are no other factors than safety. In the Money Central site, compare the four Suburbans to the four Yukon XLs (C1500, C2500, K1500, K2500). Only the K1500 you happened to pick is the same for all the ratings. The other three are not. Why? Look up other corporate twins and compare them for injury, fatality and insurance data as well. Many vary even more than your example. In any case, using your logic and the numbers at Money Central, you would have been just as safe in a Buick Rendezvous or Pontiac Montana.

I'd also be curious to know what happens to the safety of your vehicle if you switch insurance companies and their claims experience gives your model a different rate relative to other models. Perhaps your vehicle magically gains or loses safety when you switchover?

"By contrast the Odyssey gets an A for damage only a 20% discount for safety"

Yet, the IIHS rates the Odyssey much lower for fatality data (19 vs. 47) and similar for injury data (69 vs. 61). The Sienna rated better for both, 32 and 44, respectively. Why do you think insurance rates seem to vary so much from the injury data, fatality data and crash testing? For that matter, why do you think a Corvette convertible has lower injury scores and why does a Camry Solara have lower fatality rates than the 4WD Suburban? Well, no thinking is necessary. I've already given you the answer.

The value of the ratings at informedforlife.org is that they do incorporate weight such that you can compare vehicles across classes. What I don't want is to compare ratings that have significant non-safety related factors in them. YMMV, of course.

"The insurance companies know what is and isn't safe."

No, the insurance companies know what vehicles have higher and lower claims rates. That doesn't mean safe. Knowing their claims history is how they make money and they are very good at it, but actuaries are not safety experts. It can be confusing and difficult to understand because safety does affect claims data along with various other factors. This is why insurance companies commissioned and support the IIHS to do crash testing. Not coincidentally, both the IIHS and NHTSA have correlated better crash test scores to lower fatalties. Poke around their websites and learn about them.

explorerx4 · May 2006

per your suggestion, i went to 'informedforlife'.
didn't bother going past the opening page.
i want to see stats on a per passenger mile basis, like airplanes.
the numbers there are cribbed from the nhtsa studies, that include 'ges'.
sorry, no sale.

cpsdarren · May 2006

"per your suggestion, i went to 'informedforlife'.
didn't bother going past the opening page.
i want to see stats on a per passenger mile basis, like airplanes.
the numbers there are cribbed from the nhtsa studies, that include 'ges'.
sorry, no sale. "

When you find such statistics on a per passenger mile basis, completely compensated for non-safety related variables like driver demographics, please let me know. Extra credit: same statistics available in time for buyers to make a new car purchase, rather than years after a purchase.

Informedforlife is clearly based on NHTSA crash tests, NHTSA rollover ratings, IIHS crash tests, weight and safety features including side curtain airbags and stability control. These are made into a composite based on published studies, presented in a risk ranking in a similar layout as fatality statistics. That you are inclined not to read past the opening page to learn more does not invalidate their results. In any case, no sale is needed. They are a non-profit organization.

tdoh · May 2006

"Poor, inattentive and wreckless drivers are in a far higher % of accidents than those of us here at Edmunds who practice safe driving."

Even moreso than "poor, inattentive and reckless" drivers?

tidester · May 2006

We could definitely use more wreckless drivers!

tidester, host

explorerx4 · May 2006

several times over several years, i have studied the numbers on the nhtsa reports.
based on what i understand about their reporting criteria, i will not be satisfied with anything less than passenger mile statistics. that would be the truth. i also realize it is pretty much impossible to measure, unlike airplanes.
you don't have to 'check in' every time you drive or report how many passengers are with you. it does make a difference in injury/fatality rates, although not necessarily for only the driver.

jipster · May 2006

tDOHH! That would be correct. Inattentive drivers are usually not "wreckless"...but more often than not are reckless...as they "wreckmore" :confuse:

cpsdarren · May 2006

"several times over several years, i have studied the numbers on the nhtsa reports.
based on what i understand about their reporting criteria, i will not be satisfied with anything less than passenger mile statistics. that would be the truth. i also realize it is pretty much impossible to measure, unlike airplanes.
you don't have to 'check in' every time you drive or report how many passengers are with you. it does make a difference in injury/fatality rates, although not necessarily for only the driver. "

I agree. The reporting by NHTSA and DOT in the FARS and WISQARs databases do have significant flaws when trying to correlate them directly to vehicle safety. That's exactly why I prefer more objective information that directly affects safety, like controlled crash testing, weight, rollover risk and safety features. Emergency handling and braking performance and other crash protection/avoidance features are also useful if you can find a good source for comparisons.

dc_driver · May 2006

I agree with you as well. For the sake of the argument, I think we can at least all agree that there is no significant advantage to buying a mid/large SUV over a minivan if you are concerned about safety. Honda, Kia, and Hyundai (Toyota as well if you pay for the right packages) have all seemed to make their minivans their flagships for safety. Things such as complete front and side airbags (for all three rows), traction control, stability control, tire pressure monitoring systems, and backup sensors are all available (most of these items are standard equipment).

I think we can all agree that mid/large SUV's (including the Suburban) have no real significant advantage in terms of storage, interior leg/shoulder room, maximum seating, comfort, cargo capacity, luxury items (NAV, entertainment, etc, power doors/liftgate), gas mileage, performance, and handling, etc. In most of these areas minivans are actually superior to mid/large SUV's.

So it comes down to styling, function (4x4, and towing), and, dare I say, image. Some people simply prefer to spend their money on a big SUV because they feel it looks "cooler". I seriously doubt the majority of folks buy a large SUV exclusively for towing purposes (no doubt there are some, but I doubt most), and there is a need for 4x4/AWD (which some minivans have), but I doubt this is a necessity for most SUV drivers. I think the big issue is that minivans tend to be associated with the "soccer mom" and folks (more than likely most men), do not want to be labeled in this regard. Again, this is my opinion, and one I have personally faced and experienced as someone who is 34 years old and never expected myself to be driving a minivan.

The truth is that minivans have really evolved and are actually ideal for hauling families, or friends. Believe me, when we bought the van it was for my wife, but I find myself driving it more and more and actually prefer it to my compact SUV (Mazda Tribute). So much so that I am seriously considering getting rid of the SUV in the next year or so in favor of something more sporty and gas friendly. I recently read that minivans are huge in Canada (something like 10% of all vehicle sales are minivans).

All I am saying is that if folks are considering buying a mid/large SUV and have no huge need for towing heavy trailers, they should at least look and drive a minivan. You might just be surprised at what you find.

Per Edmunds 2006 most wanted van award:
" The Honda Odyssey's iVTEC V6 propels the van from 0-60 in
about 7 seconds. If you don't think that sounds impressive, keep in mind that a V6 powered Accord does it in 6.9 seconds. The Odyssey is faster than other minivans and is the most fun to drive. We've referred to it as the BMW of minivans".

stever · May 2006

I dunno; I bet there's more women who don't want to be seen in minivans because of the soccer mom stigma than men.

Around here it seems the guys drive the big honking pickups and the women drive the big honking (or the more compact) SUVs, but who knows. I suppose there are some studies out there somewhere. :P

Ours is the only house in our culdesac with a minivan; the three sets of parents have 2 SUVs, 2 trucks, a wagon, sedan and a full size van between them. Naturally we're the ones without kids.

Steve, Host

dc_driver · May 2006

"I dunno; I bet there's more women who don't want to be seen in minivans because of the soccer mom stigma than men.

Around here it seems the guys drive the big honking pickups and the women drive the big honking (or the more compact) SUVs, but who knows. I suppose there are some studies out there somewhere."

You know, you might have something there.. My wife takes my son to a neighborhood play group with other stay at home Mom's, and amongst the group there are 2 Ford Explorers, 2 Honda Pilots, 1 Tahoe, a couple large family sedans, and our minivan.. Not very many pickups here in Northern VA, but a bunch of mid/large SUV's. I am seeing more and more Odyssey's and Sienna's on the road, but amongst our friends in our age group we are the first to buy a minivan...

cpsdarren · May 2006

Very true. I know a number of moms who won't be caught dead owning a minivan. They still all rave about the space and convenience of a minivan compared to their wagon/SUV/sedan. Image and all-wheel drive are big sellers, far more so to most buyers than safety and utility.

My image is already ruined being a stay-at-home dad, so no big deal to me in driving a minivan for the safety and utility. Still, I have to say I was pretty close to buying a Highlander Hybrid, despite the extra cost and feeble 3rd row and cargo space.

stever · May 2006

At least you can say the "Dad" part ... I'm just a stay at home bum. I usually say snowboard bum to try to help the image a little. :shades:

The immediate neighbor/Mom & Dad both work at home and the Dad next to him raises the kids while the wife works (mostly at home). The Mom across from them stays home.

The UPS driver doesn't sneeze on our street without 4 or 5 sets of eyes knowing about it.

Steve, Host

explorerx4 · May 2006

there is a significant segement of vehicle buyers that prefer rwd based vehicles. all luxury cars have this design.
suv's definitly look 'cooler' than minivans, and fashion is a factor is many vehicles purchases. if it was all about function, everyone would be driving extended scion xb's.
from my experience, my explorer is overall the best handling vehicle i have ever had. it doesn't have the highest skipad or slalom numbers, but it can't be tripped up by pot holes or frost heaves, even in the corners.
the 4wd system works great in rain or snow. wheelspin is just about absent unless it is in 4wd/auto.
i've driven through ontario, canada many times, minivans have always been popular there, but they used to be the ford(aerostar) and chevy(astro) varieties back when the rwd/awd versions were available.
i am not against anyone driving a minivan, if that's what they want. to me fwd is ok in a small car, but anything bigger, yuck!

gagrice · May 2006

Ours is the only house in our culdesac with a minivan; the three sets of parents have 2 SUVs, 2 trucks, a wagon, sedan and a full size van between them. Naturally we're the ones without kids.

That is about the mix on our street and most of the neighborhoods around us.

explorerx4 · May 2006

my oldest got their driver's license last month and usually drives the explorer.
after seeing the explorer pulling into the garage;
me: you ok driving the explorer?
kid: yeah. the funny thing is i thought i liked driving moms escape better.
me: liked?
kid: the explorer is easier to drive when i am trying to park it, the gas isn't as jumpy. i just feel more in control.
me: i feel the same way. i have to get used to the gas pedal on the escape.
kid: when i am going onto the highway it is easier too. i can get up to speed and and don't feel like i am pushing it. the other thing is how it turns. i can't believe i could make a u turn without having to back up too.
me: it has a great turning circle.
kid: mom's escape doesn't have the seat that slides back when i open the door and goes forward when i put the key in the ignition.
me: welcome to 'spoiled'.

gagrice · May 2006

All I am saying is that if folks are considering buying a mid/large SUV and have no huge need for towing heavy trailers, they should at least look and drive a minivan.

I have to agree with you on the Odyssey. We even went so far as to go down for a test drive of a Touring model. We sat in it as it was already sold, so no test drive. When I looked at the price and they had added $3000 dealer markup, I about croaked. I have never in my life paid MSRP let alone a dealer markup. I told him if I could buy one at invoice it would be a decent deal. He was quite rude and we left. I was just getting over my horrible experience with a Honda Accord, that I had bought new in 1978. So I guess the next time I talk to a Honda dealer I will be well into my 80s.

Minivans have lots of usable room. I need more place to haul dirty stuff. A crew cab PU, as many people are finding out, is the IDEAL vehicle. You can haul 5 or 6 comfortably and a dozen bales of hay or a load of sand. Perfect, maybe that is why the Ford "F" series is the number one vehicle in sales. More than Camry & Accord combined.

gagrice · May 2006

I have rented several Explorers in Hawaii. One time budget gave me an Escape and said it was the same class vehicle. NO WAY, I took it back and demanded the Explorer I was promised. They got one to me that evening. What a BIG difference. I liked the Explorers I have rented. Also got a Chevy Trailblazer once and liked it. NO mini SUVs for this kid. I'd rather drive a full size car than a small SUV.

PS
Looks like you are going to need a new Explorer

explorerx4 · May 2006

hopefully those explorers were a v-8 with towing package.
if not, it gets better.

i think it is funny my kid(s) like rwd better the fwd. i guess most don't get that opportunity.

we try to provide my kids with a lot of experiences, and let them decide what they like.

dc_driver · May 2006

My first couple cars were RWD, and I liked them, but modern sporty FWD vehicles can be just as much fun to drive.

My first car was a Mazda RX-7 and that car was a complete blast to drive

Hindsight 20/20 I don't know what my parents were thinking.. My son's first car will be something nice and safe (maybe a used AWD Subaru or something)....

cpsdarren · May 2006

When I looked at the price and they had added $3000 dealer markup, I about croaked. I have never in my life paid MSRP let alone a dealer markup.

That's a lousy dealer, unless it was when the new Odyssey rolled out in late 2004. It's not uncommon for any highly anticipated all-new model to command a premium for a few months after it debuts. Today, buyers are paying invoice or much less in some areas. I paid $300 under invoice back when the 2006 was released in October of last year, now I'm seeing people report deals for $1000 or more under invoice.

dc_driver · May 2006

Agreed. I also paid under invoice (about $600) on my Odyssey. The other thing about Honda is that they package their vehicles with many standard features and only have a few different models/packages to pick from. It simply makes shopping easier. By comparison, when we were shopping for minivans, Toyota and Chrysler seemed to have an infinite number of packages and options making it difficult to get exactly what you were looking for.

gagrice · May 2006

Honda can go broke for all I care. Good vehicles or not I refuse to be treated rudely by a lowlife car dealer like Tipton Honda in El Cajon, CA.

I ended up buying an MB Cruiser conversion van. It is built on the Mercedes Sprinter chassis. It is twice the size and gets an Honest 24 MPG. Just got back from a 3000 mile trip through Texas. The nice thing diesel was cheaper than gas. Many Odyssey owners are reporting under 20 MPG which I consider poor. I never got less than 21 MPG with our motor home. Plus it is fully self contained. American and Japanese automakers really need to do something about the lousy mileage in their larger vehicles. If Mercedes can build an 8000 lb vehicle that gets 25 MPG I would think it easy to get 30 MPG from a 6k lb vehicle.

I am leaning toward the MB ML320 CDI when it arrives this fall. When someone brings out a decent midsize PU that is diesel I will sell the GMC hybrid and buy the diesel PU.

gagrice · May 2006

I am sure they were V6 2WD. All I needed was the extra ground clearance for all the gravel roads on the Big Island. I can see why they have maintained a sales position at the top or near the top for many years.

dc_driver · May 2006

I have had many a bad dealer experience in my life as well, and can understand your frustration. The worst dealer experience I ever had was at a Nissan dealer (followed a close second by a Ford dealer and a Toyota dealer). My recent Honda purchase was the easiest and most pleasent dealer experience I have ever had (Hendrick Honda), probably because it was mostly handled over the Internet. This is my first Honda, as I had two experiences similar to yours where I was looking a a brand new model year Honda and the salesman just did not want to sell me one (arrogant). Needless to say, I never even consider going to that dealer anymore.

As for MPG mileage, I have filled up twice now with my Odyssey and am aveaging 19.2MPG in mostly (90%) city driving with the A/C on (and I am not exactly a lightfoot with the gas). We are taking a road trip this weekend so I will see how the van does on the highway but I am expecting 24-26MPG.

Many Odyssey owners are getting the EPA numbers after their vans are broken-in. It also comes down to your driving style. If you drive mostly city and acclerate very quickly (like I do) from stops then getting 19-20MPG is pretty realistic (in any vehicle).

Honda is planning a diesel version of the Odyssey in the near future:
link Future Honda Engines

SUV vs Minivans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles