Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Not saying I disagree (since I've never tried to load up either one) but I'm wondering about your assertion that the Suburban holds more than the Odyssey. They are spec'd at about the same space (Sub at 138 cu ft and Ody at 146). I realize that the shape of the area is a bit different, but when I pack to the gills, I use all the height as well. Granted that pulling a trailer gives that advantage to the Sub, obviously...but that didn't seem to be your point.
I'd really like to know how you evaluated them cargo-space wise. I have a Pathfinder now and I consider the Odyssey a very practical vehicle. Someday, I won't have to tow anymore.
thanks,
Tom
As you said, each family has different needs. IMHO, the most important thing for my family is safety and that includes seatbelt systems and easy access for proper carseat installation every time. Motor vehicle crashes ARE the #1 cause of death for ages 1-14. Also, while the big SUVs can accomodate 1 more passenger than most minivans, keep in mind that many DO NOT have a lap/shoulder belt in the rear center seat. Such a position is unsafe for kids in boosters and adults, and is only useful for a harnessed carseat.
We find the cargo space in Odyssey very similar to Expedition and the eariler Suburbans (don't know if 2001/2 has more room than the 2000).
No need to restate the other points that have already been stated regarding safety, but here's some more food for thought:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/
The earlier Suburban was bigger. At least ours was. It was a 94.
With respect to seat belts, I agree that a lap/shoulder belt in all positions is ideal. I would definitely like to see that. We do use the center seating positions some, but generally every child is in a shoulder belt. Four kids, four shoulder belts in back. I've got one large enough to sit up front now too. I do think about all of those things... there's a lot to consider. I remember obsessing over cargo flying around in an accident when I was told that a person had been killed in an accident by a flying kleenex box(?). A person could go crazy trying to prepare for every possible hazard in an accident. You have to do the best you can with the information and other assets that you have (i.e. $)
I personally would like to see bigger mini-vans. They are well thought out, well designed(usually), but just not quite big enough. I don't even like how close the rear seat passengers are to the rear bumper on a mini-van. I've been rear-ended a few times in my life, but never been in a roll-over accident. I have seen a mini-van that had been rear-ended. The hatch door was up against the back seat. My husband and I both cringed when we saw the relatively small distance between the rear passengers and the rear bumper on the Honda Odyssey. Everyone has their perspective.
We would like the option of a luxury SUV. Unfortunately, few SUV's have rear openings of 41" or more. The Toyota Sequoia's (a favorite of mine) opening is 38 1/2". The Lexus RX300's opening is much shorter.
Our problem could have been solved by a true luxury minivan. Mercedes had one planned, but it was killed by the merger with Chrysler. To my knowledge, no luxury manufacturer has such a minivan planned. Hybrids and SUV's are the luxury vehicles of choice. I do believe that there is a market for such a luxury minivan. The minivans' idea of luxury is video entertainment systems for kids. D.I.N.C.'s and empty nesters do need to haul antiques, fertilizer, camping gear, and suitcases. We need a wheelchair. Why is there no option of a such minivan?
In addition, SUV's and hybrid's with larger openings would also offer more options for hauling objects.
30K summary
Miles Covered: 29,913
Running Cost : $2,767.49
Running Cost per mile: 9.25 cents
Gas consumed: 1,460 Gallons
Cost of Gas: $2,030.57
Average Economy: 20.5 MPG
Best: 28.1 MPG
Worst: 13.4 MPG
Maintenance Cost: $736.92
Maintenance Cost per mile: 2.1 cents
Gas Cost: $2030.57
Gas Cost per mile: 6.8 cents
Miscellaneous costs: 0.35 cents per mile
(Still working on Total Cost of Ownership with depreciation and insurance)
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Choices are diverse for still-popular style
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Today I have a 02 Suburban, it is safer, larger, holds as much or more, does more, the kids, my wife and I all like it, it is safer in the 3rd row seats. I can go on but won't.
I will say it cost more (how much is relative to bells and whistles) for the 4wd, insurance is similar (more but not by much), and fuel costs are greater for me.
But I will trade the added safety of my Sub and the versatility of it, and its added quietness (that may since have been refined in the MV), for the extra cost of gas.
The rest is a wash, in my book that is. By the way, my resale is higher (by a lot) and the auto may last significantly longer too, but that may also be attributable to the individual.
Look at the Edmunds cost to own data and if memory serve me, the MV is 3 cents per mile less?
Just some data/details that you may not have been aware or cared to show some other readers/posters.
By the way, Steve, you wouldn't be piling on, when a person shares you worldview would you?
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
They must have cornered the ping pong ball market.
And, SAAB is just making that decision for now. You know if anyone out there was really smart they would take the best out of the MV, the SUV and the Large Wagon and market them to the masses. Not like the Mercedes or BMW types but as a safe, versatile, similar -- can do type vehicle.
Too bad the Madison ave types added to the designers prefer to stick with what got them to the show rather than improving on it once there.
You know despite my experiences with my MV, the creation of them was a gutsy move, now they need to address the versatility of the MV/Wagons with the features of the SUV and take it to the next level.
If not at least as big (or bigger) than the MV?
Gee, I'd hate to see this article posted on the other forum! It could prove the argument of the day, that these boxes might just be kinda safe afterall.
Also funny that the model and size of the SUV was not named. Heck it coulda been a CRV -- smaller and lighter, hit, rolled and no major injuries, what if it ahd been a NEON, then 2 dead people?
Or it could have been a Suburban, (how it would roll is beyond me though), but again safety wins.
Or it could just be that being t boned in a SUV lets the SUV victims have the protections that they paid for (or thought they paid for).
GeeZ! It rolled and no one was seriouly hurt when the evil MV transferred risk to it by broadsiding the innocent SUVers.
Nah, I must be dreaming.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Suburban: 138 cu ft
MVs
Chevy Astro...170
Chrysler T&C...168
Chevy Venture...156
Chrysler Voyager...147
Honda Odyssey...146
Pontiac Montana...141
Toyota Sienna...134
When I first clicked on the "headlines" link, I got a list and the one I was referring to was the one about "Why Folks buy SUVs" ( I forget the exact title). But when I just clicked on it now, I got a different list...so...never mind.
I'm deleting the post since it's wrong...
Suburban
Cargo volume, cu. ft. 77 Max. load, lb. 1,610
Town and Country
Cargo volume, cu. ft. 73.5 Max. load, lb. 1,150
Chevy Venture
Cargo volume, cu. ft. 75.5 Max. load, lb. 1,365
Honda Odyssey
Cargo volume, cu. ft. 67 Max. load, lb. 1,250
Toyota Sienna
Cargo volume, cu. ft. 63 Max. load, lb. 1,160
Looking at the differences in cargo volume one must assume that the vehicles, if used for one of their intended purposes the Suburban beats all the others in both volume and weight tests.
Steve how come the Consumer's numbers and the Edmund's numbers are so different?
Is it that built in pro-SUV bias Consumers has?
I can go on a bit-
There's rollover risk, and the extra energy absorbed by the passengers when a rigid truck-based vehicle hits another truck-based vehicle or a wall or a pole. There's also the inferior handling and braking, and the lack of side impact and offset crash tests (and the mediocre offset performance of Ford/GM full-size pickups which have been tested) for large SUVs. Don't forget about the severe danger they pose to compact cars. You mention Consumer Reports, they have an ongoing preference against truck-based SUVs. (Most recently, see the sidebar on p. 55 of the May, 2002 issue)
You might consider some of the links at the bottom of this page before assuming a large, truck-based SUV is safer than a top minivan:
http://www.car-safety.org/family.html
"By the way what might have happened had they victims been in anything else?
If not at least as big (or bigger) than the MV?"
Keep in mind the minivan is lower to the ground than an SUV and would be more compatible with a passenger car. With a unibody frame, it will also tend to crush better in a crash. Mass does not play a significant factor in side impacts as it does in frontal impacts, and that is one reason why you can compare side impact results across weight classes. I suspect a mid or large sized passenger car with decent side impact ratings would fare at least as well, primarily because it would have much less risk of rolling.
I'd much rather have my family in a Windstar, Sienna or Odyssey than any SUV. Of course, I don't do serious towing or off-roading.
Cheers.
In this side impact mass clearly did play a role, the crush zones you speak of are in the front and rear, not the sides (to my knowledge), and bumpers have been significantly lowered in most if not all SUVs (late/new models) my bumpers meet my wife's (hers is a 00 Accord), fianlly, in the case of one auto accidents, I have not seen enough evidence of the statistical significance of the SUV in this type, in other words if memory serves, the once car accident is usually NOT a SUV, so the point while never moot, may be less of a concern.
The MV has a 3 star rollover rating (most of them anyway) the Suburban does as well.
The Suburban received 4 stars to both front passengers.
The Suburban, Yukon XL, and Land Cruiser are the only full sized SUVs recommended by CR.
The Suburban has some kind of crush cap (similar to to a cumple zone in the currrent model.
I am not stating that one is the only way to go, there are many factors, I have had both, I will not return to the MV, it does not meet my needs, wants or planned uses as well as the full sized SUV.
Just a few more cents for anyone looking for more information and a fuller picture (clarity does not come from me) it must be determined by those making decisions.
Remember I am making a case primarily for versatility, and not trying to wage war with someone who happens to prefer something else. That is your choice, if you are happy then so am I.
I assumed by 'broadsided' the article meant a T-bone. Front of MV struck side of SUV. In this case, the SUV is lucky it was struck by a minivan; the unibody minivan would crush in front, while a ladder-frame SUV would not have crushed as easily and more energy would have been transferred to the SUV being struck.
In this crash, the vehicle being struck is not moving toward or away from the oncoming vehicle, so it's mass would not be as significant a factor as it would be in a frontal crash. Of course, the mass of any steel in the doors where it is being struck would be important, as would their design. Unfortunately, most SUVs don't have side impact crash ratings for comparison...
I encourage you to read the FAQs about crash testing at the NHTSA and IIHS sites, as well as the statistical links on the page I provided as a background.
The MV has a 3 star rollover rating (most of them anyway) the Suburban does as well.
The Suburban received 4 stars to both front passengers.
Incidentally, the MVs I mentioned, Sienna, Windstar and Odyssey all have 4-star rollover ratings, 5-star frontal crash test ratings, 4-5 star side crash ratings and "Good" IIHS offset crash ratings. With the exception of the Acura MDX, which shares the wide 66" track of the Odyssey, you can't buy an SUV with a 4-star rollover rating. Also, you can also check the rollover risks in the Kimmel index ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mauto695.htm ). Suburban is indeed among the better SUVs in this index, but still not as low as Odyssey or Windstar...
The Suburban, Yukon XL, and Land Cruiser are the only full sized SUVs recommended by CR.
CR produces a separate Safety Assessment (4/02 edition, pps 15-25). While Odyssey, Windstar and Sienna get "Excellent" safety ratings, many larger SUVs are unrated, partially because no offset or side crash tests have been performed.
Incidentally, in my April, 2002 Consumer Reports, the Suburban did not get a "Recommended" overall rating. The Land Cruiser was the only one (p.25) that did. The June, 2000 issue also has some comments about CR's preference for minivans and SUVs, starting on p. 50.
Remember I am making a case primarily for versatility, and not trying to wage war with someone who happens to prefer something else. That is your choice, if you are happy then so am I.
Each person has their own definition of versatility. I prefer the large doors, easy step in height, flexible seating and easy 3rd row access of a minivan. You need serious off-road capability, fair enough. On the other hand, you did specifically mention safety in your previous post, so I responded with my opinions.
Those look like "volume behind the 2nd seat" numbers...as opposed to total volume.
C&D gives the following for the Sub:
• to Seat 1...138.4
• to Seat 2...90.0
• to Seat 3...45.7
I think Consumers does its own measuring (the ping pong balls) so their numbers are a bit different. I think most (if not all) other sources (like Edmunds) give a govt standard measurement.
Which is more accurate or more reasonable, I don't know.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Excuse me but that has very little to do with it. Yes, the heavier vehicle may come out better versus a Yogo or something but I got the impression she (and others her age) now think they are impervious with a large SUV.
Are we giving the children the impression that you are now safe and will endure zero injuries driving a monster SUV built for invading small countries? I've seen more SUV's stacked up in crashes than MV's but that could be due to more SUV's on the road - or are we thinking impervious again?
Just a thought...
THis suggests many things among them that SUVs in general large ones in particular are safer than most others on the road.
By the way, USA today had an article in March? that stated that the safest 3rd row occupants are in full sized SUVs. They specifically mentioned the Suburban as an example. The death rate of 3rd row occupants in rear-end collisions (what speed I have no idea) in MVs is about 75%. In the Suburban it is 0 -- at least that is what the article said.
Just more fodder for the cannon.
The biggest fallacy is that we are not all safer by driving massive vehicles. Yes, drivers of the big vehicles do gain an advantage against smaller vehicles in the transition. But when the vast majority have adopted big trucks, we are all worse off than had we not given into the trend. More mass and stiffer frames means more energy in crashes and less ability to absorb that energy in the frame.
Incidentally, here are the death statistics. Note that minivans do very well:
http://www.iihs.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t1.htm
Here is the article on 3rd row safety:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002/03/01/third-row.htm
Some additional reading:
http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3409.pdf
http://aceee.org/pubs/T021full.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/jan02/a2jan02.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/suv980622.html
Jaw2000-
No offense or intention to wage war as you put it. I understand there are various reasons that large SUVs are a good choice. I don't feel that safety is necessarily one of them, at least compared to some of the top minivans, sedans and wagons that may serve the purpose for many people who don't ever use their large SUV for serious off-roading or towing.
Cheers!
Rear impacts are not very common according to the statistics (Crashtest.com and NHTSA FARS database). Severe rear impacts that cause seat failure are even more rare. The problem with 3rd row seats would be compounded if you frequently have multiple heavy adults in the rear that would further load the seat back, especially if they are seated in a position without a shoulder belt and/or headrestraint (which isn't safe anyway).
Kids in harnessed carseats have an advantage in the third row. They are much lighter, and won't load the seat back as much. Plus, a 5-point harness is going to prevent ejection even if the seat back does fail, and that was a major concern of the author. Finally, the shell of a high-back carseat will provide protection from intrusion and whiplash. All in all, I'd be much more hesitant to put a 2-3 adults back there than small kids. Here are some more threads for reference on this issue:
http://boards2.parentsplace.com/messages/get/ppcarsforthefamily37/5.html
/direct/view/.ef08e67
Another link that might be helpful:
http://www.car-safety.org/carguide.html
Hope that helps!
For safety reasons I do not like the dog unrestrained in the vehicle. ( For anyone worried about third row safety, have you also thought what happens when a 70lb dog goes flying around in an accident?) I can either use a dog safety belt or keep the dog in a cage behind the rear seat. If I use the safety belt on the third row then the luggage space is tiny. Even in the Grand Caravan the luggage space is not large. I don't consider the portion of the luggage space that is higher than the rear seat of any use, again because of flying objects.
We always go to Michigan for Thanksgiving and Christmas. This is a 300mi drive for us and we practically always see snow. Emotions at those times probably mean it is difficult to make the right decision if conditions look bad. For this reason we would really like 4wd when we go.
Two of the vehicles that come to mind are the Suburban/Yukon XL and the Dodge GC AWD. I don't really like large SUVs because of the excessive weight/height and truck based structure compromises but it would have much more useful luggage space and the depreciation on a GC AWD is just terrible.
I know access to the third row of the Suburban has been critisised by many, is it any better if you get the 2nd row bucket seats?
Anyone care to comment on how they transport a dog on family trips?
I compared a Honda Ody to a Chevy Trailblazer EXT. 34,342 vs. 51,043. $16,000!!!
That's a lot of cash to throw around if you're just looking for a family vehicle.
By the way, having owned both (MVs and SUVs) I will say that MVs maneuver better than SUVs -- those of comparble size, it is still poor when compared to sedans. So even that trade off is not enough for me.
Regarding the weight issue, the false sense of invincibility is definitely a concern. I live in central NC, and we don't get snow often, but have had a few large storms in the last few years. Lots of SUV's driving too fast, IMO. But a fact is a fact - vehicle mass is a major factor in crash outcome. But most MV's aren't exactly lightweights.
jaw2000 - Your Cost to Own comparison of Suburban to T&C isn't fair. Edmunds had to factor in the cost of a new Chrysler transmission every three years LOL. OK, just kidding, no flame wars, please. I'm just a happy Odyssey owner who still lusts after a loaded Limited T&C every now and then.
If I had to own a MV it would be the Odyssey (there is no other competitor as far as I am concerned).
My youngest is 3, 4 in mid September, she who is of averager size for her age, can and does get her own door, in fact she gets upset if we get the door for her (entry only BTW).
I like the idea of auto open/close doors, but that, to me is a short lived convenience. On the other hand since I never had the pleasure of having it (were not available when I had the MV), I may not be a good judge.
But I can say, if the cost comparisons are that close, and the other issues are strictly of convenience, I'd choose the versatility of a SUV over that of a MV 7 days out of 7.
But I THINK (no proof here, just perception) many people have needs that would be suited just fine by a MV, or even a regular sedan, but get an SUV for "image". Not you, jaw2000, it seems like the Sub is right for you. But I see a TON of single-occupant Expeditions, 4Runners and even Land Cruisers around here without a scratch on them and with like-new, untouched trailer hitches on them.
I can carry 8 adults, and at least 8 medium sized suitcases (with none on the roof), I can take my SUV to the edge of the continent (4wd on the sand, in DE I do this at least 6 times a year and yes I have permit to do so), I can take my family (4 of us) on a 2 week vacation and all our stuff (and with 2 youngsters) of which there is ALOT, and not one thing goes on the roof. I can go to the store when it snows to get necessities. I can carry all the supplies I need to build a fence (including bags of concrete for setting the posts) all in one trip -- and if needed with 4 people in the car and not overload it. I can tow about 3k lbs more than with any MV -- except the Astro.
This is just for starters.
Look I had a 97 Gr Caravan, so I am not making any of this stuff up. Every thing that I have noted I have done (ok I only took a total 6 folks), but I did have my old dog with us -- half golden half yellow lab, weighs about 120 lbs.
It comes down to stigma and double standard if you want my opinion. Here's what I mean, I could buy a Silverado loaded, crew cab, put a shell on the back and the differences on the outside will be pretty minor, but with my Suburban, I have a carpeted sound improved bed and a 3rd row of seats (that by the way, according to USA today is far safer for the occupants if we are rear ended than any MV and most other 3rd row SUVs). In the other hand, the truck weighs more and gets poorer MPG. But the truck is looked at no big deal, and the SUV -- that is the more versatile of the 2 for a family, is looked at solely as a image gas hog thing.
Go figure.
I hope, for their safety, that all have a lap+shoulder seatbelt and head restraint.
"You are quite perceptive. I see them too, in fact I am one of them almost everymorning. I can't afford one car for commuting and another for all the other stuff we do."
Again, you appear to be the rare exception. I see countless one-person monster SUVs in our area; many don't even have a towing hitch. At $35-50k+ for these loaded 4x4 Suburbans, Land Cruisers and Excursions, I suspect the majority could indeed afford two more suitable (if less trendy) and safer vehicles for their actual needs. For most, those needs don't include off-roading or towing. Even our modestly equipped Odyssey LX and Subaru Outback combined cost less than some of the largest SUVs.
We could have purchased a trendy monster SUV, but opted for a MV since we don't tow or do serious off-roading. A FWD minivan with traction control is more than suitable for bad weather conditions in urban areas, and with a good set of snow tires it's probably as good as most 4WD SUVs.
Plus, according to the crash tests, we have a vehicle that gets 5-stars in every frontal and side impact test and a "Good" rating from the IIHS. Combine that with a crushable unibody frame which provides better ride-down time, and I'll take my chances with our minivan over any SUV in any frontal crash, which are far more severe and common than rear-enders. Granted, our MV does have lap+shoulder belts and headrests for all third row passengers, which mitigates the risk of 3rd row seating according to the author of the same USA Today article you mention. That's also an advantage for rollovers, though our MV is less prone to rolling than any SUV. The LATCH system was also a big advantage for us, and most SUVs didn't have it for 2001, though a few more do in 2002.
The sliding doors and wide openings are ultra convenient for loading kids (and adults), especially in parking lots. The folding and moving seats provide great cargo flexibility and access to all rows. The great turning radius and reasonable handling make driving in town a relative breeze compared to the large SUVs. We get almost 19mpg city, which is not only better for the environment, but easier on the pocketbook especially with Memorial Day gas prices.
For us, these were the important convenience issues. Granted, our vehicle is a kid hauler, grocery getter and home improvement center cargo carrier. For the once every year or two we might need to do towing or serious off-roading that are beyond the limits of our vehicles, we can rent or borrow a suitable vehicle. Obviously, your mileage varies, and you bought the best vehicle for your needs. I don't wish to force a MV or other vehicle on someone who truly needs a monster SUV, I only wish that people would put a lot more consideration into their choices based on their needs. The proliferation of monster SUVs is not a good trend for highway fatalities. Higher weight, stiffer frames, inferior handling, braking and rollovers all will logically lead to a trend of increased deaths and injuries when these become the predominant type of vehicle on the road. If they are only purchased by those who genuinely need them, or have no other option, then this won't be a problem and everyone will be happy:-)
As a side note, you again bring up the USA Today article on 3rd row safety. Did you really find a statistic showing how much safer any particular large SUV 3rd row is compared to a minivan? If so, for what years and models was the comparison? If you cite fatality statistics, were the passengers properly restrained with seatbelts and head rests? These variables are rather important before making a blanket statement about 3rd row safety without any crash tests to back it up.
The Suburban (which I had already purchased incidently) was noted as safe due to the space between the rear seats and the door/glass.
I did not (and probably would not) make my choice based on this information.
What I find shocking is that the fatality rate (again if memory serves), desite the rarity (another caveat) of this type accident was nearly 100% for the MVs and smaller Utes.
On the subject of full size Utes, or any for that matter, I am a believer that folks mostly buy what is a good fit, that does not mean that there are not about 10% of a population that do solely what they want or are impulse driven or simply put stupid. That said I would agree that about 10% of the SUV population are in that category (read 2% of all suvs) with SUVs about 20% of the population.
Now back to the full size thing and proliferation. It may be something where you are but it is, again from memory, about 5% of all SUV sales, with the vast majority in the cute and mid size range.
Interesting discussion, too bad it is not doable on the I hate SUVs.... board over there it is about the indivual being right etc etc.
all 8 with lap belts
The main risk is seatback failure causing ejection and/or impact with the rear. Headrests, shoulder belts and distance to the rear can all add protection for passengers in this mode of injury. Of course, some crashes are unsurvivable, though serious rear-enders are fortunately very rare.
"The Suburban (which I had already purchased incidently) was noted as safe due to the space between the rear seats and the door/glass."
True, it was mentioned as having 3 feet to the rear. Extended wheelbase minivans have about 2 feet. Even so, the article did focus on smaller SUVs with a few inches to the rear, and did not have any comparative statistics.
"What I find shocking is that the fatality rate (again if memory serves), desite the rarity (another caveat) of this type accident was nearly 100% for the MVs and smaller Utes."
50% for MV. I had some correspondence with the author about this. The statistic was from a Ford study, and while somewhat dubious, it may be accurate. It sounded unbelievable to me. Even if true, the data needed to support your claim is a comparison between extended wheelbase MV and large SUVs, and that was not provided by the article.
"On the subject of full size Utes, or any for that matter, I am a believer that folks mostly buy what is a good fit, that does not mean that there are not about 10% of a population that do solely what they want or are impulse driven or simply put stupid. That said I would agree that about 10% of the SUV population are in that category (read 2% of all suvs) with SUVs about 20% of the population."
I have no statistics, though my guess would that over 75% of midsize and large SUV owners could serve all their needs with a minivan, wagon or full size sedan. The other 25% would be in your category where they regularly tow over 2000 lbs, frequently do serious off-roading, or must often carry 8-9 passengers in one vehicle. In fact, I'd sat it's close to 90% in my area (Chicago suburbs), though I could easly believe it's closer to 50% in other areas. An SUV may be a good fit, but I think there's another option that may be better for them and their families if image is not involved;-)
I don't hate SUVs, which is why I don't bother to visit those types of discussions. I just think that too many people love them without realizing that there may be better/safer options for them. Fortunately, there appears to be a new breed of SUVs (like the Acura MDX) which might appeal to many of these people, and still provide a high degree of safety, fuel economy and flexibility without having the poor image associated with wagons and minivans. The 2002 Explorer and 2003 Expedition are also great steps in the right direction (for safety at least).
Incidentally, our MV seats 7, all with lap+shoulder belts and head restraints. Of course, positions with lap-only belts and no head restraints may be perfectly suitable for young children in harnessed carseats.
Regards!
Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly.
As for the percentage of SUV owners who don't truly need an SUV, I'd say it's upwards of 90%. I see 2 main reasons to buy an SUV instead of some other vehicle (sedan, hatchback, station wagon, minivan):
1. Towing capability
2. Off-road capability
You could make an argument for excellent poor-weather on-road performance as reason #3, but many non-SUVs have traction control and/or some sort of all- or 4-wheel drive system.