SUV vs Minivans

jipster · August 2005

Get with the times bob. :P Those saftey figures you linked to were from 2002. With vehicle stability control on the newer SUV's... they will be much safer.

Also, do they use the same testing methodology on minivans as they do on SUV's? If a Kia Rio gets a 5 star safety rating...does that mean it's as safe or safer than a minivan or SUV? I doubt it.

bobw3 · August 2005

You're correct in that stability control will improve safefty for BOTH minivans & SUVs.

My point was that the general concept that "of course SUVs are safer" isn't accurate. The fact that a Kia minivan is safer than a Chevy Suburban even in 2002 shows that. At least I have some facts here. I just did a 20 second Google search.

As far as your second part, the Ford Escape is in the same category as the Chevy Suburban and still the Escape gets 5 stars versus 4 for the Suburban, which also shows that a big vehicle isn't necessarily safer than smaller ones in this example.

One problem I've found with these forums is the number of people who think their opinions and personal experiences are more accurate than research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or some other organization, so next time try to get some facts before posting so people don't have to read a dozen posts like yours before finding some useful information.

And to provide more useful information, here is the link to NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/) where you can just put in any car for any year and can compare rankings for yourself, rather then listen to people's personal opinions: http://www.safercar.gov/

gagrice · August 2005

Those tests are good but only relevant if you are to have an accident with a like vehicle. If a Suburban runs into the side of your 5 star minivan you are going to get hurt. Most sights will tell you the bigger the vehicle the safer you are, with exceptions of course.

I am not drawing any conclusions. If you need to haul 6 people and gear, there are some good minivans. If you need to haul 6 or more people and tow your boat. You need a Suburban like vehicle. As good as the safety rating is on my Passat, I get nervous on the Southern CA highways. You get lost in that sea of F350 crewcab PU trucks with 6" lifts. Tires that tower over my drivers window. More F series PU trucks were sold in July than Camry, Accord & Corolla combined. I don't feel safe in most vehicles under those conditions.

gagrice · August 2005

get some facts before posting so people don't have to read a dozen posts like yours before finding some useful information.

What makes your facts more credible than the Insurance Institutes findings on actual accidents. The NHTSA only shows controlled crash testing and rollover. That leaves a lot more questions than answers for most of us. I will take the word of the people that investigate the accidents over some lab technician.

gagrice · August 2005

The fact that a Kia minivan is safer than a Chevy Suburban even in 2002 shows that. At least I have some facts here. I just did a 20 second Google search.

Maybe you should do a longer google search to get the real facts. The Kia minivan in 2002 was WORST of the large minivans. So far behind the Suburban it does not show up on the radar screen. Here are the REAL facts from the people that count the dead & injured bodies in the cars.

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl_wagon.htm

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl_4wd_util.htm

bobw3 · August 2005

Good post. Now people can look at several webpages of facts to compare. Better than opinions. Not that any are more "real" than others.

bobw3 · August 2005

One thing about insurance statistics is that they're not as scientific or objective as NHTSA because it's with different drivers, circumstances, etc, but they're another good set of stats to use. For example if there are a lot of teens driving Civics the fact that there are a lot of teens driving makes the Civic look like a dangerous car if you just look at the insurance stats. But this is just an example. I'd rather not drive a car with a 2 star rating just because a lot of safe people drive it.

highender · August 2005

will likely crush the little prius in an accident..... :-(

as much as I like small fuel efficient cars....they are relatively unsafe on the roadways of america...or elsewhere...

if you drive em....please try to stay away from the large trucks and large cars...

someone here said they could not commute...cause they lived in SF bay area....did this person know that there are relatively many public transportation options in that area ?

drive what you like..but drive safely....!!

li_sailor · August 2005

What makes your facts more credible than the Insurance Institutes findings on actual accidents. The NHTSA only shows controlled crash testing and rollover.

Good grief, the stuff I've been reading here. Yikes.

First the usual silliness about how "it's the driver". Hey guys, when the same driver chooses a MV or an SUV, the difference is the vehicle, not the driver.

Then this gross misstatement about the NHTSA. They have controlled test stats, yes, but the fatality and injury data at the NHTSA is based on FARS data which is an "actual accidents" database. The IIHS data is very similar, but different criteria is used. Both are valid.

The bottom line is that SUVs are safer for their passengers in collisions (because most collisions are with cars, whose crumple zones are stolen) and less safe in 1 vehicle accidents.

li_sailor · August 2005

...small fuel efficient cars....they are relatively unsafe on the roadways of america...

First, this topic is about MVs and SUVs, not small cars. Second, life is full of compromises and many folks only need and/or can afford a small car and that makes it the right choice.

...please try to stay away from the large trucks and large cars...

Right, they should stay home. Good suggestion :=)

bobw3 · August 2005

Again, any statistics using real people are not as scientific as the controlled crash dummy test. All I'm saying is that unless anyone here has dug deeper into the statistics to examine all of the variables, then it's harder to compare vehicles using insurance stats. It's easier to compare vehicles using controlled crash tests, and anyone's opinion here beyond that is just their opinion regardless of the words they use. I'd rather point people to that stats and let them read the facts, but then I'm in the minority on this forum. I'm sure I'll get some replies from people who are convinced one way or another, but that's okay. This is an open forum, but again, trust the facts and just laugh at the opinions you see here. And ignore those who say that these facts are better or worse than those facts, or this is the "real" information, or this is the "bottom line" This stuff is more complicated than these one-liners.

bobw3 · August 2005

Actually, most of these posts sound like (maybe not, but that's what it sounds like to me) people trying to justify their buying an SUV. They're trying to use the "safety" issue as the reason they buy one, so they feel justified when driving it, and they'll only look at the statistics or facts to support their view. But I guess that's the point to this forum...to give SUV owners something to say when they're asked, "Why did you buy THAT" Minivan owners don't get those sort of questions. Or to help SUV owners when they ask themselves, "Why did I really buy this huge SUV?"

ctsang · August 2005

If a minivan runs into the side of your Suburban, you are going to get hurt TOO. Let face, minivan IS safer than suv. Have you finished reading the test results?

occar · August 2005

Has anyone else had problems with the new Mercedes ML 350?
On a pricey luxury suv, I have had white marks on the inside (plastic) door panels that are clearly due to bad workmanship in assembly (stress marks), bad materials or both.

jipster · August 2005

You need to get your facts straight Bob. I never implied that "SUV's are safer". I wrote that in the hands of someone with some common sense an SUV is one of the safest vehicles on the market. Your information about the Kia Sedona being safer than a Chevy Suburban is wrong also. It is my opinion that you may need to read my posts and your own posts/links a little more carefully to ascertain what is fact and what is opinion.

FYI...I own a minivan. :P

gagrice · August 2005

Nice try, it won't fly. If you read the NHTSA test results for the 2005 KIA Sedona with the great 5 star rating, there is a disclaimer. Those frontal test crash results are only valid if the vehicle it crashes into is in the same weight class + or - 250 lbs. The Sedona has a curb weight of 4802 lbs and gross weight of 5959 lbs. The Chevy Suburban 2500 is 6000 lbs at the curb with a GVW of 8600 lbs. No crash tests are done on the 2500 Suburbans so we have no real reference. If you think in a head-on collision that you will fare better in your 5 star Sedona, good luck. To further make my point the Suburban is a light weight compared to the Excursion with a curb weight of 7230 lbs. That is a mismatch of almost 2500 lbs. That is the makeup of road warriors you are competing against for your life.

jipster · August 2005

"....the difference is the vehicle, not the driver."

Do you have a study showing drivers who own both a SUV and a Minivan...and shows that these drivers are more likely to become involved in an accident in their SUV than in their minivan? If not...then it's just another opinionated opinion. We're suppose to only deal in facts here...right bob?

I would say the majority of the difference is.. yes...with the driver. Again...look at how SUV's are advertised as opposed to minivans. What kind of individual does the SUV market go after? The bold ... adventurous types...ones who like a good challenge and meets life head on. Or, that you can become this type of person if you buy an SUV. The message is clear...these SUV's are tough, strong vehicles that can and should be driven aggressively. So, if there is an accident...lets do what everybody else in todays society does, lets be like lil sailor and put the blame somewhere else. Let's blame the vehicle and their manufacturers...not the individual.

Then compare that to the minivan commercials...take it slow, safe cautious...relax...leave the driving to us. People are easily influenced by what they see on t.v and in magazine ads. They see these SUV go over mountains of rock and take corners as if they were sportscars. Oh, the manufacturer will throw in a disclaimer saying these were professional drivers and not to try this at home. But, by that time the prospective owner is already salivating like Pavlovs dog with check in hand.

The SUV "stealing" of crumple zone position is ridiculous.

stever · August 2005

Try the MB M-Class Owners: Problems & Solutions discussion Occar.

Everyone else, it's easy to discuss the merits of the vehicles without having to claim that someone's position is ridiculous.

Steve, Host

tireguy · August 2005

I started reading the first couple pages of this post, back when it was a rational discussion of the pros and cons of SUVs v. MVs. I've got a little time on my hands, deployed on the USS Kearsarge (sound familiar?), but not enough time to read all 969 posts. So I jump ahead a couple dozen pages. My how things have changed. It's gone from a useful comparison to no-holds-barred SUV bashing.
All this talk about SUVs being unsafe is nonsense. How can anyone say that the safety of the mobile population is based on the gross weight of the vehicles on the highway, with drivers of small unibody minivans being the victims and those at the helm of large SUVs the villians? In my garage sits a VW Jetta (my third one), and the biggest 4x4 SUV the General makes. So where does that put me? Am I a safety conscious, tree-hugging philanthropist when I drive the VW and a reckless menace to society when I drive the Yukon XL? No, I'm the same driver, with 20/13 vision, no alcohol on my breath, my seatbelt on, and the situational awareness of a military pilot. I've had to pass an annual flight physical and prove my coordination skills through years of flight training. And I know the performance capabilities of my vehicles. If I run a red light in either vehicle at 55mph and T-bone you, we're both dead, whether you have a VW or a GMC branded in your shoulder is of no consequence. Fortunately I'm a safe and alert driver, and which ever vehicle I'm driving, I will stop. If you think I'm unsafe, based solely on the fact that I'm at the wheel of a 5,500 lb SUV, you're a moron.
I spent a little time in college working in a tire shop (thus the name). During that four-year period I observed quite consistently that people who drive the more expensive, high-performance or high-utility vehicles are passionate about their rides, and take their operation and upkeep a bit more seriously. People who drive lesser throw-away vehicles, with the economy engine, standard wheel package, base trim level... look at their vehicles as a means to get around while exerting as little effort as possible beyond spinning the steering wheel and kicking the pedals. Minivan tires are cheap, but with the MVs' light duty steering components, they're more susceptible to having the alignment thrown off by a pothole. That coupled with front-wheel-drive means tires burn up quickly. Yet most minivan owners (generally not car guys) rarely seem to notice they've been driving on bare shoulders or God forbid, bare steel belts, for months. All the while SUV owners usually replace their tires before they even need to, though their tires cost twice as much. That's because they care about their vehicles and their mechanical soundness, having made a significantly larger investment. These are just generalizations, just like all the posts before. Whether backed up by subjective studies or personal experience, they're equally arguable, and there are always exceptions. Of course the type of vehicle you drive doesn't determine how responsible you are about preventive maintenance. But there are not as many owners of minivans who take such pride in their vehicles, as with SUVs. It's the result of owning a vehicle which is cool versus a vehicle which is not cool.
That's my take on the safety of the drivers. But on the safety of the designs, when you're talking about a vehicle built to transport a substantial payload, rugged and overbuilt is synonymous with safety. You can fit seven people or 150 cubic feet of cargo in either a minivan, or a full-size SUV. The difference is the minivan is now being driven at the limits of its suspension, brakes and engine; whereas the SUV's driver information display is asking "where's the boat?" Now you're talking about a huge safety factor. The minivan now takes twice the distance to stop or get going, bottoms out over large bumps, and the tall body rolls like you disconnected the sway bars. Did the operator think to max out the tire pressure in order to get the maximum weight capacity? With little minivan tires, it's an essential step when the vehicle is loaded to capacity. Almost nobody does it.
In the big SUV you hardly notice a difference. Just load it up, strap it down, and go.
Which brings me to the whole justification argument. So many talking heads in the media and forums like this demand that SUV owners "justify" the purchase of that massive vehicle. Nobody justifies buying an SUV in my world. People who need one, buy one. People who don't, drive cars. People who drive minivans make excuses about how they didn't want or need an SUV, though nobody asked. Why in the world wouldn't someone want a vehicle which has power and capacity to excess, luxury and durability? Maybe if you were spending someone else's money you'd have some explaining to do. But how is the way I spend my hard-earned cash anyone else's business? I hear people who don't have the budget for a new Land Cruiser or Discovery trying to point out how frivolous a purchase it is for one who doesn't venture off the pavement. But you can't tell me a minivan is even comparable to a full-size SUV when it comes to doing the job it's built for--hauling people or stuff, or people and stuff, comfortably.
Big SUVs burn a lot of gas, that's true. Well, if you're able to pay $40-50,000 for a vehicle, it's probably not going to kill you to pay $70 to fill the tank. And as soon as ethanol is available in my town I'll be there filling up with it. GM trucks with the 5.3L V8 are flex-fuel capable. Is your minivan?
And then there's the image thing. Driving a minivan will not improve you image. An SUV will. People are attracted to the image of strength, agility, athleticism and affluence--even if that's not them. So what? That's their right as Americans. Do you have to be Mario Andretti to buy a Porsche? Granted I've seen the people driving H2s in SoCal with the clevis hooks dangling from the bumpers and the dual locking differentials sourced even though they don't even know what they are or what they do. I'd say they over bought, but that was probably intentional. How are they any different from the successful professionals driving Ferraris and Lamborghinis at the speed limit? Those vehicles get the same gas mileage, yet they don't get near the bad press. The vehicle doesn't make the man, but it does play a part. Just like your job, your home, your clothes, your relationships, your religion, etc. all make up who you are. Not the car itself, but the fact that you chose that car, happens to be one of the foremost clues people pick up on when trying to figure out who you are. And everyone knows how important first impressions are.

gagrice · August 2005

tireguy
Where ever you are deployed I welcome you and thank you for your service. I wish you nothing but the best and a safe trip home to your family...

I also liked what you had to say

ctsang · August 2005

I am glad you like what tireguy said. He did not say suv is safer than minivan as you had said.

stever · August 2005

Hey Chris, it was interesting (ok, a bit unnerving) reading your missile post yesterday and then reading the story on the news.

My minivan is sort of comparable to a full-size SUV when it comes to doing the job it's built for--hauling people or stuff, or people and stuff, comfortably. Except I think it drives more like a car, which I prefer. I haul more stuff than people though and my hobby stuff tends more towards bulk than weight.

Good point about having a rational discussion of the pros and cons of SUVs v. MVs, but we've since had some spill over from the I Don't Like SUVs discussion.

Steve, Host

bobw3 · August 2005

Wow...real insight here!

Quoted from above(The Evolution of a Discussion by tireguy):
"Driving a minivan will not improve you image. An SUV will. People are attracted to the image of strength, agility, athleticism and affluence--even if that's not them. "

If there are some scientific tests proving SUVs are safer than minivans, just send me the URL. Until then, keep giving us your opinions because they're pretty entertaining!

tidester · August 2005

Big SUVs burn a lot of gas, that's true.

And one of the reasons the U.S. has a large, powerful, well-equipped Navy with competent personnel is to protect the oil supply and to keep sea lanes open for commerce.

Well, if you're able to pay $40-50,000 for a vehicle...

Thank goodness we're all able to afford that navy and thank you for being willing to serve!

tidester, host

gagrice · August 2005

If there are some scientific tests proving SUVs are safer than minivans, just send me the URL.

The only way I see doing that is to drive your favorite minivan head-on into my favorite Suburban and see how the dummies fare. You want proof that an SUV is or is not safer than a minivan. Too many variables. using the NHTSA crash test results to draw that conclusion is about as unscientific as you can get. Those tests are a comparison of Like vehicles. And meant to be used in that sense. If you feel you want a minivan in the 4500 lb class you can use that set of tests as a good indicator of your chances in a crash. If you are trying to use them as a cross reference you are not reading the disclaimer on every test they have.

Now if you want to compare a Lexus RX330 to a KIA Sedona they are closer in weight. I suppose the minivan may be safer.

More scientific studies from the IIHS:

The 2005 Volkswagen Jetta received the best score ever in a side-impact crash test performed by an insurance group.

In the institute's side-impact crash test, a barrier strikes the car at the height of an occupant's head, which it said simulates the kind of crash that happens when an SUV or pickup hits a car from the side.

The Toyota Camry with a side curtain airbag was the second best car model in the side-impact test, while the Honda Accord with the side air bag was third. The Mitsubishi Galant, also with a side airbag, also got a "good" rating overall in the side test. But the Camry without the side airbag received an overall "poor" rating from the institute's crash test.

bobw3 · August 2005

I didn't see the URL...

stever · August 2005

Berekley Lab Friends of Science (pdf file)

Berkeley Lab Science Beat (text version of above, sort of)

LA Times

Oops, that's three. What was the question again?

Steve, Host

brightness04 · August 2005

"Why did you buy THAT"

Because I did not want the huge minivan. Why should I spend $5000 extra (the difference between comparably equipped Highlander vs. Sienna at the time of my purchase) to get a minivan that is 500lbs heavier than my SUV, and nearly 2 feet longer, getting in the way of parking and garaging. The SUV is perfectly-sized for my requirement.

brightness04 · August 2005

Berekley Lab Friends of Science (pdf file)

Thank you for bringing up that report again. Check out page 28 of that report, the RX300 poses less risk to drivers of other vehicles than any Minivan on page 12; the RX300 posese less risk to drivers in vehicle than any Minivan on page 12. In fact, with the two numbers combined, RX300 is the safest vehicle in that entire anti-SUV report. RX and its platform mate Toyota Highlander combined represents one of the most popular SUV platforms sold today. It goes to show the erring ways of some posters around here who would like to broad-stroke all SUV's as being evil. The term "SUV" happpens to cover a broad range of vehicles. Some are indeed dangerous and fuel guzzling; others are not only among the safest vehicles but also viable economic alternatives to minivans.

brightness04 · August 2005

It may sound counter-intuitive, but increasing fuel economy actually exacerbates foreign oil dependency. The reason why we import oil is not because we do no have enough oil in this country, but because at low oil price point few want to do oil exploration in this country and increase production. The lower priced producers overseas pick up the slack. If fleet fuel economy improve, oil price drop (inflation adjusted), the per centage of import will increase, not decrease because domestic producers will go out of business requiring more importation. That's precisely what happpend in the early 80's, as fleet fuel economy improved, numerous domestic oil companies went out business.

Ironicly, just in keeping with the political tone of your post, as people switched from gas guzzling cars to Civics in the early 80's, domestic oil companies went out business, import per centage rose, and the US Navy indeed underwent the largest expansion in peace time, not to keep the gas guzzler running (as they were being laid up en mass), but to keep the oil at low price point available for the new fuel efficient vehicles.

That being said, of course, there are many selfish reasons for saving fuel: it saves money, for example. And as we know, selfishness is indeed a good thing ;-)

tidester · August 2005

Those tests are a comparison of Like vehicles.

Pop Quiz! Given 100 models, how many vehicles would be required in order that each model be tested one on one with all models?

Bonus! Estimate the procurement cost for the number of vehicles required.

tidester, host

tidester · August 2005

It may sound counter-intuitive ...

You're right, it does sound counterintuitive!

just in keeping with the political tone of your post

And I tried SO hard to make sound apolitical!

tidester, host

li_sailor · August 2005

...any statistics using real people are not as scientific as the controlled crash dummy test.

I'm sure you didn't mean that. Statistics of actual crash results are "real world data". Applying statistical analyses (even quite simple examples) is pure science. I imagine you meant that there were more variables than in a controlled test. True, but OTOH, controlled tests do not reflect real world conditions. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

...it's harder to compare vehicles using insurance stats.

The numbers are just as easy (or difficult) to compare. The context is different and that must be accounted for.

...ignore those...who say that these facts are... the "bottom line"...

I've been analyzing IIHS and NHTSA (and other) data for several years. The "bottom line" I cited is quite accurate. Conclusions from that in terms of SUVs being "better or worse" than MVs is another matter. There is no disputing that SUV occupants fare better in collisions and fare worse in 1 vehicle accidents.

li_sailor · August 2005

Do you have a study showing drivers who own both a SUV and a Minivan...and shows that these drivers are more likely to become involved in an accident in their SUV than in their minivan?

No, but then again, I made no such claim. The point I'm making is that, unless you are trying to assert that there are more "bad drivers" driving SUVs than MVs, then you cannot make the claim that "it's the driver". Real world data shows results that reflect the attributes of the vehicles, not the drivers, because overall, the drivers of MVs and SUVs are pretty much the same. Plenty of good and bad drivers in both.

...then it's just another opinionated opinion.

So is every other post here, including yours.

What kind of individual does the SUV market go after? The bold ... adventurous types...ones who like a good challenge and meets life head on.

LOL! It attracts those that wish to look like AdventureGuy, true. But they aren't any different in their driving abilities, for better or worse.

...lets be like lil sailor...

Please do not butcher my TH name. It's LI_Sailor, thank you.

...put the blame somewhere else.

Vehicles have attributes that are a manifestation of their physical characteristics. One should not get emotional about it.

The SUV "stealing" of crumple zone position is ridiculous.

Really. SUVs fare far better in 2 vehicle collisions. Please explain why this is so. Perhaps it's the driver :=)

li_sailor · August 2005

Well, at least you aren't a proponent of Intelligent Discussion Design :=)

All this talk about SUVs being unsafe is nonsense.

True. As is all that talk that SUVs are safer. Overall, there is not much difference. OTOH, they are much less safe for any collision partner, which is a pretty good reason (IMO) to avoid them when they are not what is needed.

So where does that put me?

If you have no need for a giant SUV but drive it to look like AdventureGuy, then you are putting others at higher risk for a poor reason. Note that I have no idea whether you are or not.

SUV owners usually replace their tires before they even need to...That's because they care about their vehicles and their mechanical soundness...

Yikes! You actually believe this?

...they're equally arguable...

Sorry, but not all theories are equally arguable. For example, evolution is a theory, but a another "theory" that has no basis in science is not equally arguable.

...when you're talking about a vehicle built to transport a substantial payload, rugged and overbuilt is synonymous with safety.

According to this "logic", we should all drive tractor trailors and we would then all be safer. The data does not support this in the slightest. Quite the contrary.

That's their right as Americans.

You're right. We all have the right to make stupid decisions. As well as good ones. I think that right is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the relative merits of SUVs and MVs. Not about "rights".

By the way, I enjoyed all your posts in tires, tires, tires over the years. Keep up the good work.

li_sailor · August 2005

The reason why we import oil is not because we do no have enough oil in this country...

But in fact, we do not have enough. If we only imported oil whose production cost was less, we would use no domestic oil, but we actually supply 40% of our oil wth domestic product. The fact is that we have very little in the way of economically viable oil reserves in the US. This is reality and for this reason, in the long run, greater fuel economy will benefit us in terms of allowing more time for development of alternative fuels.

brightness04 · August 2005

But in fact, we do not have enough. If we only imported oil whose production cost was less, we would use no domestic oil, but we actually supply 40% of our oil wth domestic product. The fact is that we have very little in the way of economically viable oil reserves in the US.

What's the definition of "economically viable"?? 40% of our is domesticly produced because it is indeed less expensive to run existing well facility and pump that oil than, say, purchasing new license from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Nigeria. New exploration however is different. It's extremely expensive to open up new wells in the US. That's why you see a gradual displacement of domestic production by foreign import over the decades, only interrupted by oil price rises, like right now. That's why "economically viable" is not some fixed line, but a movable target based on the current oil price and the cost of foreign alternative source, therefore there is no such thing as not having enogh oil; there is always enough oil at any given price point..

Think of it this way, if you live in a wealthy town, with its own boutique clothing store. The next town, a working class town, has a Walmart in it that also sells clothes, especially to the bargin shoppers in your town. If there's an economic down turn in your town, and the aggregate household clothing budget goes down, do you think sales at the boutique shop will get hurt more or the Walmart? There you have it, aggregate demand going down, but import per centage going up! not down.

brightness04 · August 2005

Sorry, but not all theories are equally arguable. For example, evolution is a theory, but a another "theory" that has no basis in science is not equally arguable.

The inflamatory implications hidden in there aside, I agree with you that not all theories are equally arguable. The presumption that every individual is capable of making sound economic decisions for him/herself has been the cornerstone of economic theories for hundreds of years. What is not equally arguable is the anti-SUVer's presumption that somehow the advent of SUV's has thrown all that age-old economics out the window, suddenly millions of individuals are making irrational choices in their vehicle purchases.

tireguy · August 2005

True. As is all that talk that SUVs are safer. Overall, there is not much difference. OTOH, they are much less safe for any collision partner, which is a pretty good reason (IMO) to avoid them when they are not what is needed.

I've found that oak trees are also very discourteous collision partners, turning Fleetwoods and Rivieras into shiny bananas, without so much as scarring the sapwood. For this reason I try to carry my 18" Stihl wherever I go, just in case a Sugar Maple gets cross with me.

According to this "logic", we should all drive tractor trailers and we would then all be safer. The data does not support this in the slightest. Quite the contrary.

Well, when I make the bi-monthly trek to my parents' house, from NC to PA, I'm only carrying three people, one dog and about 100 cubic feet of luggage. That leaves a little space for my Lab to stand up or lie down, and a spare seat for my wife to sit next to the baby if he starts getting cranky. It's a 550 mile trip which I can make on one tank of gas. In a few years my wife and I plan on adding two more little ones to the family. I think my Yukon's pretty much suited for my needs. I don't think I need a semi any more than you need an SUV. Though I've always wanted a Peterbuilt. Would I need a CDL if I'm only driving it to amuse myself and live out childhood fantasies? It certainly wouldn't fit in my garage, though. Do they make covers that big? Do those things have passenger side airbags or the LATCH system for baby seats? I'd hate to have to use the actual seatbelt to strap the child seat in.

If you have no need for a giant SUV but drive it to look like AdventureGuy, then you are putting others at higher risk for a poor reason. Note that I have no idea whether you are or not.

Well, I pretty much am AdventureGuy. Of course most of my adventures were on ridiculously powerful motorcycles, skis, snowboards, mountain bikes, and turbine-powered helicopters with .50 cal machine guns blazing out the sides, not in my Yukon. Frankly I'm not sure the posh image of my Yukon even represents the reality of my own lifestyle. My souped-up Wrangler is a little more suited to the image I project by just being myself.
But my wife's not AdventureGirl. She's IndoorGirl all the way. Should she be allowed to drive the Yukon or Jeep, or must I restrict her to the VW (my usual car of choice) to avoid confusing minivan drivers? I wouldn't want someone challenging her to explain the limitations of the Soviet SA-7 shoulder-fired missile's 1st generation IR seeker, or what side of a tree moss grows on.

gagrice · August 2005

suddenly millions of individuals are making irrational choices in their vehicle purchases.

I am following another thread that makes me question the rationale involved in purchasing one SUV over another. In this case it is the RX330 vs RX400h. For about 10 grand more you get a hybrid version of the well liked RX300 series CUV/SUV. Why would people spend that much more for so little in return? 2-5 MPG gain is not enough. A little more acceleration when the original is capable of most any speed that is legal. Plus the emissions difference would be hard to measure with current smog tests.

I agree that the Highlander/RX330 would for many be a better choice than a minivan.

brightness04 · August 2005

I was one of those making a decision between RX400H and RX330, and rational decision came down squarely on the side of the RX330; furthermore, I went one step further and got a Highlander, saving another $5k. Most people probably would make the same decision as I did (not necessarily the last step to Highlander, as I have other business and family reasons not wanting to be in the RX at the time), as RX330 clearly outsells RX400H

For some though, the extra accelearation is welcome. Regular V8 commands a price premium over V6 models of many cars and SUVs. There are certainly a lot of cars faster than RX330; why would so many car owners want a vehicle that is capable of faster than "most any speed that is legal"? ;-) With gas price high though, many are going to find out that sticking to legal speed limit, even and especially those insanely low ones, saves gas. One has to make a choice between time vs. money; sometimes even running the risk of being ticketed makes economic sense, other times not.

Half of that $10k difference is due to the difference in product cycle, new vs. old, different residue, hence different up front price, whch may or may not be fully reflected in lease cost. I'm taking a wait and see approach to whether my next vehicle will be something like the RX400H; 30mpg vs. 20mpg is actually much more significant than 50mpg vs. 33mpg. EPA should switch to a gallon/1000-miles system instead of mpg.

I agree that the Highlander/RX330 would for many be a better choice than a minivan.

Thank you.

li_sailor · August 2005

What's the definition of "economically viable"??

Can be produced at a cost that allows a profit.

New exploration however is different.

This is true, but irrelevant. We simply don't have the oil, except for shale, which is expensive to extract. If we switched to 100% domestic oil (for whatever reason), it would simply run out sooner and we'd then be at 100% importation.

That's why "economically viable" is not some fixed line...

I never said it was. Recent oil price rises have obviously changed that line. But as prices go up and shale oil becomes viable, gas starts to cost much more and that gives us another problem. $5+ gas, domestically produced, is hardly something to look forward to as a wonderful solution.

...there is always enough oil at any given price point.

Sure. But after a certain point, almost no one can afford it.

stever · August 2005

the RX300 possese less risk to drivers in vehicle than any Minivan

RX300? That's a tall wagon, right?

All this safety talk is well and good, but from my days hosting over in Vans, most people seemed to be more concerned with DVD entertainment systems for the kids, NAV, and whether they could carry 4x8 Sheetrock in the back with the hatch closed.

Maybe it would help to nominate a prototypical SUV and Minivan and see if we can figure out if there really is much difference in them, other than towing capacity? Say, the Suburban vs the Grand Caravan....

Steve, Host

li_sailor · August 2005

The inflamatory implications hidden in there aside...

If you think the notion that knowledge should trump ignorance is inflammatory, that carries its own message.

...the anti-SUVer's presumption that somehow the advent of SUV's has thrown all that age-old economics out the window...

That's some theory. When and why did you make it up? And what relevance does it have to anything being discussed here?

li_sailor · August 2005

I've found that oak trees are also very discourteous collision partners...

Actually, they are agnostic with respect to humans. But, to your point, (as it were), no one chooses an oak tree to drive that they do not need. As opposed to SUVs.

...when I make the bi-monthly trek...

Excuse me, but I was never speaking of you, particularly. Many folks have vehicular requirements that warrant an SUV. I did, myself, when I owned a Pathfinder for 3 years, to tow my boat. Most folks that own SUVs do not have any vehicular requirements that warrant an SUV. They simply want to look like AdventureGuy. And yes, that is my opinion.

I don't think I need a semi any more than you need an SUV.

Probably accurate. What was the point again?

Well, I pretty much am AdventureGuy.

So am I. But see above, about taking things too personally.

Should she be allowed to drive the Yukon or Jeep, or must I restrict her...

Hmmm, do you let her vote? :=) Hey, in this country, women have equal rights. Until Dubya invades us to liberate us, that is :=)

I think she should allow herself to buy an appropriate vehicle, like everyone else should. Perhaps she already does. Who knows. Not me.

...someone challenging her to explain the limitations of the Soviet SA-7 shoulder-fired missile's...

Did I wander into the wrong topic?

tireguy · August 2005

Hey, in this country, women have equal rights. Until Dubya invades us to liberate us, that is :=)

Good one. Jane Fonda called. She wants her joke book back.

you aren't a proponent of Intelligent Discussion Design

Perhaps not, I'm more of a non-conformist; it's more befitting my adventurist persona. But I am a proponent of dialectic reasoning. The argument is not so much a concern to me as the root of the conflict itself. Where does the anger come from, Sailor? I know you miss your big Peterbuilt-inspired Ram pickup, especially since you now have to bum your buddy's truck to launch your boat. But you don't have to take it out on those who drive big SUVs/trucks, justified or not, just because you had to find a more suitable urban commuter.

Did I wander into the wrong topic?

I think so. This was a comparison of the utility factor of minivans v. SUVs. You seem convinced that a MV pales in comparison to an SUV with regards to usefulness. Yet you argue that we're putting everyone else at risk by driving a large vehicle. But the inherent risk is warranted if you have a good reason to own an SUV (like being a boating entusiast-so now you've REALLY got some momentum behind you). So only active-lifestyle guys like us have a right to drive big trucks. In short, having a hobby justifies putting others at risk (if you agree that by driving a large vehicle you are putting others at risk). I politely disagree.

I do argree with you that conserving oil buys us time to develop alternative fuels. Which is why I kept my 31mpg Jetta 1.8T for driving to work when I bought the flex fuel GMC. Well, that and the selfish motive of having no desire to waste money on gas.

Next time I'm up in the tri-state area we should go sailing. We can talk about the difference between what CNN tells you and what Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Saudis and Emeratis actually think of us and our efforts. Hey, I'll even bring my Yukon to pull the boat! :shades:

brightness04 · August 2005

What's the definition of "economically viable"??

Can be produced at a cost that allows a profit.

Then we have plenty of oil if oil price can stay at $65/barrel. Even more if the price goes to and stays at $00/barrel. The problem is the industry does not believe that oil can stay at such high levels . . . not saying they are correct; they have been skeptic for the last three years.

New exploration however is different.

This is true, but irrelevant. We simply don't have the oil, except for shale, which is expensive to extract. If we switched to 100% domestic oil (for whatever reason), it would simply run out sooner and we'd then be at 100% importation.

Complete nonsense. If you understand oil being a commodity whose production is hinged upon price not absolute availability as you seem to in the paragraph before, then you'd know that there is no such thing as "we simply don't have the oil." At $70/barrel even turning coal into oil becomes profitable if that price point can be sustained! It takes money to setup refineries that turn coal into oil just like it takes money to find new oil, buy land and start drilling, especially in this country. The oil industry has been operating on the assumption of $20/barrle oil; any location that costs more than $20/barrel is being left untouched because there are plenty overseas sources that cost less to develop. A sentence like "if we switched to 100% domestic oil, it would simply run out sooner and we'd then be at 100% importation" makes sense only if you view oil as kind of in a big pool underground with a singular price for extraction. If you understand that at higher price point, more oil becomes available, the sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

If $66/barrel translates into $2.60 a gallon, $70/barrle can not possibly mean $5+ per gallon. At $70/barrel sustained, it becomes viable to set up refineries that would turn coal into oil. There is practically inexhaustible amount of coal in this country; of course, the environmorons would argue that there are actually only 400+ years of coal reserve, what shall we do after that? wtthout realizing that all mineral reserves for only canvassed for a few decades by the industries; beyond, there is simply no interest in finding more. The "reserve" is not some kid of government statistic bureau but simply a way of companies telling their shareholders what the company has; anything that will take more than 30-40 years to develop and extract is completely irrelevent, and that's why "oil reserve" has always been estimate to be 20-40 years, ever since the 1870's. If the world actually ran out of oil in the 1910's as the doomsday prophets who can not read financial statements predicted, we would not have cars as we know it at all. In fact, the prediction was that the world would run out oil because too much oil was being extracted for making karosene lamp oil. Go figure. Some people just never learn.

stever · August 2005

And about as topical as many of the other recent ones.

If someone wants to compare minivans vs SUVs, fine. Otherwise take it to News & Views.

If you need a refresher:

skimmel, "SUV vs. Minivans (SUVs & Vans Boards)" #1, 24 Jul 2001 8:36 pm

Steve, Host

bobw3 · August 2005

It seems like the purpose of this forum is to help people decide if they want to buy a minivan or SUV, not try to make people think that one is better than the other.

SUV are sort of like sports cars. People don't ask why someone bought a sports car, or an ultra luxury car. They know that the answer is for fun, personal pleasure, etc...not for any practical reason. The same is true for MOST SUV purchases. Granted, some people buy them because no other vehicle can tow their boat, or they really do drive off-road, but for the majority you see driving in the cities and on the freeways, people buy them for the same personal reasons that some people buy sports cars, clothes, etc...they like the look, the impression they make, the class of people they think they belong to if they buy an SUV versus a minivan, etc...purely personal reasons not linked to logic but just their own feelings.

Where it gets funny is when people try to put logic behin their choice. You won't find a sports car owner trying to make up logical reasons for their purchase, but you will find the owner of an SUV who never goes offroad, never tows anything, and has two kids trying to use logic for their purchase. It usually seems like that the more a person tries to convince others of their decision (any decision), it really means that they're unsure of their choice and they're looking for others to say "yeah, you're right" to make them feel better.

So enjoy your SUV as your personal preference.

brightness04 · August 2005

You are correct with regard to some SUV purchases. I would not think that's the majority though. There has been dirth of wagons and big hatchbacks in the late 90's and early 00's. e.g. Accord wagon was last sold in the US in 1993 and Cambry wagon in 1995; their replacements, Highlander/RX, CR-V and Pilot/MD-X are some of the best selling SUV's on the market today. Unlike sportscars and sportscoupes that have no rational transportational advantage over their econobox coutnerparts whatsoever, many SUV's do actually offer a significant degree of transportational utility that is absent in their sedan platform-mates. Just to bright the conversation back to SUV vs. MV, they are also significantly shorter than the MV's that share the same platforms, making it easier to park and garage.

SUV vs Minivans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles