Station Wagon vs SUV

nippononly · January 2003

to distinguish vehicles by ground clearance, when it varies so little between supposed trucks and cars. The Outback has 7.5 inches if memory serves, and I would call it a wagon. The Explorer also has 7.5 inches or thereabouts, and I would call that an SUV.

I have been thinking about it, and I have decided that if I can see over the top of it when standing next to it (5 foot 9 inches tall), it is a wagon, if not it is an SUV. This would again make Outback a wagon for me, Forester also, but my 4Runner would then be an SUV, as would my parents' Explorer.

By this definition the new Volvo XC90 would just barely be an SUV.

But I liked the earlier suggestion to refer to them as SUCs and SUTs, for SUcars and SUtrucks. The Volvo is an SUC.

Of course, it would be anathema for marketers to use the term SUC - it sounds like "suck" when you say it out loud! :-)

paisan · January 2003

As stated by the manufacturers is very very bias. For instance most independent rear suspension vehicles measure "ground clearance" to the rear diffy. which is usually tucked way way up in the vehicle. I like to go by whatever hangs the lowest point, no matter it be a piece of exhaust or suspension or diffy.

-mike

ateixeira · January 2003

Also, in an indy sprung vehicle, when you add weight, say the full payload amount, that reduces ground clearance sometimes by an inch. Not so with a live axle.

The H6 Outbacks have 7.9" clearance, while the Explorer SporTrac has 6.7" or so (IIRC). So ground clearance probably isn't a good judge of what is or isn't a truck.

-juice

rsholland · January 2003

It also depends on what type of IRS (or IFS, for that matter). The Pilot, Explorer and several other use an IRS with lower control arms, which does reduce the ground clearance. The Forester uses a strut-type IRS, which allows for excellent ground clearance. On the Forester virtually everything is tucked up high and out of the way.

Bob

rogertc1 · January 2003

I got tired of waiting for snow. We had a inch (WHo HOO) so I pulled my Suzukie X-90 XWD out today. Havn't used it all year so I'd best exercise it..supposed to be a little more snow tonight. Been a dry winter in Iowa this year.

ateixeira · January 2003

We've had snow about 5-6 times, but usually just a dusting. I think it's only accumulated twice.

Still, it's cool that my wife has driven her AWD in snow half a dozen times already.

-juice

li_sailor · February 2003

Read this in Friday's NYTimes "Escapes" section. Pretty interesting: A Wagon Like Dad's, but Now I'm in Front

stever · February 2003

I saw that article, and we had one or two big honking Buick wagons in my family in the late 50's and early 60's, but I haven't been hiring private detectives trying to find one of my very own :-)

I am trying to buy a friend's Outback, and that's about the closest thing to a SUV you can get and still be driving a wagon.

Steve, Host

ateixeira · February 2003

Go for it. My cousin had a '99 and misses it dearly. 3 kids meant a prison sentence in a minivan.

My dad has a 2000 Limited, and we have a 2002 Legacy L plus my '98 Forester. They are all great.

-juice

stever · February 2003

Thanks Juice - ETA is 6 weeks :-)

Steve, Host

ateixeira · February 2003

Good luck and congrats. Vans aren't so bad! ;-)

-juice

overtime1 · February 2003

I have been thinking about it, and I have decided that if I can see over the top of it when standing next to it (5 foot 9 inches tall), it is a wagon, if not it is an SUV. This would again make Outback a wagon for me, Forester also, but my 4Runner would then be an SUV, as would my parents' Explorer.

By this definition the new Volvo XC90 would just barely be an SUV.

That doesn't make any sense at all. The XC90 is 70.2" tall and a pre-2003 Toyota 4runner Limited 4WD (so bigger tires) is 68.5" tall. How can you see over the XC90 but not the 4runner? Have you seen an XC90 or only pictures of one?

I currently own the 4runner and am awaiting shipment on an XC90. I had them parked right next to each other and the XC90 is slightly but definitely taller. Are you sure you weren't looking at the XC70?

Oh yeah...my opinion on this subject is that there really isn't any real difference between a SUV and a wagon (I also own a 2000 Passat stawag).

OT

stever · February 2003

Yeah, we're keeping the van we have. I suspect the Outback will become the main ride around here though!

Steve, Host

li_sailor · February 2003

Oh yeah...my opinion on this subject is that there really isn't any real difference between a SUV and a wagon...

No? I don't know of any curent model wagon that get 15 mpg ;-) Or even 19. Or even 22.

I don't know of any mid/large SUV that gets 26 mpg. Or even 24. Or even 22 (except the Aztek).

Methinks there's a difference ;-)

li_sailor · February 2003

Yeah, good luck with the Outback...we (my SO, that is) have a Legacy Outback, '97. Great snow car. But...probably not as good as that Ram 1500 4WD that you coulda had ;-)

stever · February 2003

Maybe, but I'm getting an even better road trip out of my deal than yours was. But I'm not saying yet - don't want to jinx the deal. Hopefully the current owner won't get t-boned by an Expedition before we finalize the deal and pick it up late next month :-)

Steve, Host

ateixeira · February 2003

Actually, '97 hits a nice sweet spot. The first Outback arrived in '95, and had the 2.2l engine. The '96 got the 2.5l but required premium fuel and made 155hp.

The '97 got 165hp and from regular fuel to boot. The engine was called the Phase I from that year on.

-juice

overtime1 · February 2003

No? I don't know of any curent model wagon that get 15 mpg ;-) Or even 19. Or even 22.

I don't know of any mid/large SUV that gets 26 mpg. Or even 24. Or even 22 (except the Aztek).

You sure about that statement li_sailor? Here are some numbers going by what Edmunds considers to fall in each class. Since I actually don't see disparate classes this is just arbitrary to me hehe. Keep in mind that if I throw in mini-SUVs the lines blurr even further (no real reason to exlude them but I'll do that for this example).

"Stawags"
W8 Passat 4motion get 18/25
BMW Sport Series 5 wagon gets 15/21
Subaru Outback gets 20/26
Volvo V70 gets 20/26
Volvo XC70 get 18/22
Audi A6 wagon gets 18/26
Audi S6 wagon gets 15/21
Audi Quattro gets 16/22
Saab 9-5 wagon gets 18/26
Lexus IS300 compact wagon gets 18/24
MB E-class gets 19/26

Some "SUVs"
Honda midsized CRV gets 23/28 (quasi-midsized)
Hyundai Santa fe gets 20/27
Nissan Murano gets 20/25
Nissan X-terra gets 19/24
Saturn Vue gets 23/28
Toyota Highlander gets 22/27
XC90 gets 20/25

Some of the wagons are flat out worse than some SUVs and a lot of them are just a smidge better. Lots of SUVs gets like 17/22. The new VW SUV is going to have "very good" gas mileage if you get the diesel version.

Now comes the backpedaling part where you add a bunch of modifiers to your statement. ;-)

OT

ateixeira · February 2003

You're using mostly 4 cylinder 2WD compact SUVs for comparison. Plus they're compacts being compared to mid-size wagons with 6 or 8 cylinders, many with AWD.

A 4WD 5 speed CR-V gets 21/25 mpg, and it's a 4 banger.

A Santa Fe V6 AWD gets 19/23, and it's still kinda slow.

XTerra V6s get 15/19 or 16/18 depending on the tranny, but that's lousy either way. And that's not even the supercharged one, which guzzles premium at a rate of 15/18.

Vue gets 19/25 with a V6 AWD model.

Highlander gets 18/22 with V6 and AWD.

Even then, pretty much all of these except one of two are tall wagons anyway. All are unibodies and none have low ranges.

-juice

li_sailor · February 2003

Now comes the backpedaling part where you add a bunch of modifiers to your statement. ;-)

You make it much easier than that! No backpedaling required. (NBR)

I don't have to "add" modifiers...they were in the original post.

To begin with, all I said was "I don't know of any", not that there weren't any.

But even that's not necessary (much). Most of your examples ignore the parameters I set.

First, I said mid/large. Mini-utes are pretty clearly a separate type...they tow only 3500 lbs, max (as opposed to 5000) and most haven no transfer case. Most of your SUVs are mini-utes.

Second, I gave one mpg figure...which is the average, not city or highway. That drops most of your other citations.

That leaves 4 wagons that get worse than 22:

BMW Sport Series 5 wagon gets 15/21 (8 cyl, the 6 gets 22.5)
The Volvo XC70 gets 18/25, not 18/22, so it squeaks at 21.5
Audi S6 wagon gets 15/21 (8cyl)
Audi Quattro gets 16/22 (8 cyl)

And 2 mid/large SUVs that get better than 22

Toyota Highlander gets 22/27 (2WD/4 cyl)
XC90 gets 20/25 (sqeaks in at 22.5)

Has anyone actually bought a 4cyl 2WD HL? ;-)
The "normal" Highlander gets 20 mpg.

The remaining SUVs in your list are mini-utes.

There are about 40 models of mid/large SUVs...you cite 2.

There are about 35 wagon models. You cite 4, all of which are in the $50K+ range with huge engines. Not exactly typical wagons.

By this, you claim to "refute" my assertion that there is a huge difference in mpg between large/mid SUVs and wagons?

I like you, you're kind of fun. But your pattern of using marginal exceptions to try to prove a generalized case (and that's what your statement "...there really isn't any real difference between a SUV and a wagon..." is...a generalization) is pretty lame.

But we got some good numbers out there for a decent measure of the mpg difference between SUVs and wagons. So...it's all good ;-)

ateixeira · February 2003

Look at where the volume is.

The Explorer, Tahoe, and Grand Cherokee are the 3 best sellers, I believe. Those are the SUVs people think of when you say SUV. MPG is in the 15 range.

When you're talking wagons, Subaru is the #1 seller in the US, and they're all in the 20s in terms of mpg, even the H6 and the WRX (auto gets 19 city).

-juice

overtime1 · February 2003

I was only contradicting the kind of absolute statement or idea that you like to throw out to illustrate a general point. Even if the general point is correct your specificstatements usually are not. So I just wanted to show you were wrong or you didn't know what you were talking about. We can clearly see that that some station wagons get worse gas mileage that some SUVs - even mid-sized SUVs! :-)

That was the ONLY point I was trying to make. I didn't care about things like towing or construction type or cargo capacity or AWD or 4cyl v 8cyl. All I was comparing was some SUVs to some wagons.

I think the general rule that smaller wagons generally get better gas mileage than bigger wagons is kind of obvious. The more weight, faster/torquier engines and higher profile a wagon/suv has the worse the mileage it is going to get (in general).

I never said that the average 'SUV' got better gas mileage than the average 'wagon'. I just said I didn't see a difference between wagons and SUVs beyond size. At some arbitrary size we call them SUVs I guess. Since it was arbitrary I just followed the categories that Edmund's put them in. But whatever...

For the purpose of the larger discussion there there was no reason for me to omit mini-utes. Then we'd see a real blending of gas mileage.

Small wagons to large wagons - the general trend is lower gas mileage as you get larger. I hope that isn't some stunning revelation to people. However, they are all still wagons to me (my original point).

OT

overtime1 · February 2003

I never said I was comparing apples to apples. Wagons span a large range of vehicles.

Sizes range from the WRX to the Excursion. Mileage ranges from the high single digits to the low 30s. Some are best selling and someare not. Towing capacity ranges from none to "a lot". Some have 4wd low and some do not. Some are 2wd and some are 4wd and some are AWD. Some are built on truck frames and some are not. Some are fast and some are not. Some are safe and some are not. Some handle well and some do not. Some have high centers of gravity and some do not. Some are high quality and some are not. Some are luxury and some are not. Some carry 4 people and some carry 9 people and some carry numbers in between. They range from 4cylinders to 10cylinders (i think???). Some are painted in different colors even. ;-)

They're all wagons though.

OT

paisan · February 2003

The only SUVs I've seen discussed in the last bunch of posts is the X-terra. And that is just barely an SUV!!!!!

You guys are a riot.

-mike

ateixeira · February 2003

Well, there's gonna be some overlap if you're allowed to compare a subcompact 2WD sport/cute to a hyper-performance largish wagon like the S6 Avant with Quattro.

My counterpoint is that it's just not a meaningful comparison. Keep it in the same price and size class (plus AWD/4WD), and wagons win easily.

-juice

maurcedes · February 2003

Just this: I know it when I see it.

The gas mileage on all of them sucks. My sister in law is about to have a baby and won't even consider a station wagon because they don't "look sexy". Bah humbug. If an Exploder is "sexy", the world as we know it is in big trouble.

ateixeira · February 2003

An A4 Avant is sexy. An Explorer is porcine next to the Avant, hardly sexy.

-juice

overtime1 · February 2003

My counterpoint is that it's just not a meaningful comparison. Keep it in the same price and size class (plus AWD/4WD), and wagons win easily.

First of all, there is nothing to win. Second of all, that isn't a counterpoint because my only point is that some mid-sized SUVs get better gas mileage than some wagons. We can mix and match features until we are blue in the face but that doesn't change that simple fact.

Bigger cars get worse mileage than smaller cars as a general rule. So as wagons get bigger they'll usually get worse mileage. There isn't some huge obvious dividing line where on one side you have "SUVs" and on the other you have "wagons". Its mostly marketing and where YOU want to draw the line isn't necessarily where someone else will draw the line.

I just happen to see no substantial dividing line in the function of the vehicles. If someone were to press me on where I think the marketing term "SUV" starts to apply I would say any wagon over 3900lbs and 65" tall. However, that is incredibly arbitrary like any marketing tool. :-)

It might be interesting to set up a poll to see how people define an "SUV".

OT

overtime1 · February 2003

An A4 Avant is sexy. An Explorer is porcine next to the Avant, hardly sexy.

So you would buy the A4 for image...

...interesting...

OT

nippononly · February 2003

yup, have stood next to an XC90, have driven it, have looked under the hood, have crawled all over it! Notice that I DID say it was an SUV. My Runner is stock on the 31" tires, and I would have said it was a little taller than the XC, but the numbers tell the story...both are definitely SUVs though - one an SUT and one an SUC - and the XC70 definitely is not.

The misleading comparison of fuel economy above notwithstanding, two advantages of wagons are better handling with the same cargo space, and less of a public liability on the roads due to less weight, lower center of gravity, and less blind spots. Not to mention bumpers that match up to other cars, although SUV manufacturers are starting to address this last point.

I believe the fuel economy comparo to be misleading in the same way it would be misleading to use a corolla to represent sedans and a corvette to represent sport coupes, and make the point that sporty coupes have terrible mileage compared to sedans.

A car like celica or RSX is more typical of sporty coupes, and gets around 30 mpg, and a car like Taurus or Camry is more typical of sedans, with mpg in the low 20s.

When taking vehicles from each class, you have to use vehicles that are at the same point of the spectrum in their respective classes.

ateixeira · February 2003

Sure there is, you "win" with fewer trips to the gas station. Or spend less time filling up while you're there.

I often pull into a gas station with my Miata, and a Suburban is already filling up. I usually leave and they're still filling up! I win! :-)

OT: absolutely not. I just said the A4 Avant was sexy, never did I say that sexiness was the #1 factor for me to buy a car (you assumed that incorrectly).

I'm a very practical person and I'd want a little more space for a lot less money, personally.

-juice

li_sailor · February 2003

You guys are a riot.

Hey, I've got my riot gear on and I'm stockin' up on tear gas. The truth must come out ;-)

overtime1 · February 2003

The misleading comparison of fuel economy above notwithstanding,

How can it be misleading? I wasn't making any general point. I was making a specific point that I think I proved (some wagons get worse gas mileage than some mid-sized SUVs). I can't make it any more clear than that.

yup, have stood next to an XC90, have driven it, have looked under the hood, have crawled all over it!

I you weren't tempted to buy it? ;-) Its gonna be a long wait for it to get here....sigh...

When taking vehicles from each class, you have to use vehicles that are at the same point of the spectrum in their respective classes.

So how precisely would YOU like to define the classes? Wagon? Mini-ute? Mid-ute? Crossover? Large-ute? Truck-ute? Car-ute? Luxury-ute?

Looks like a bunch of marketing subsets of a general class to me.

OT

li_sailor · February 2003

I was only contradicting the kind of absolute statement or idea that you like to throw out to illustrate a general point.

But you didn't contradict it. That's like contradicting the notion that the Mets had a lousy season last year by saying that Alfonzo hit .308.

Even if the general point is correct your specificstatements usually are not.

No, they usually are correct. Your "measurement" of whether mine are correct is usually whether there is some exception or oddball deviation. As it was in this case.

Your generalization (apparently only yours are ok) that "there's no difference between SUVs and wagons" is only supported by fringe examples...the bulk of SUVs and wagons contradicts your generalization. And it's not even close.

So I just wanted to show you were wrong or you didn't know what you were talking about.

I can understand your wanting to...but if you don't actually do it, is it as good? ;-)

. We can clearly see that that some station wagons get worse gas mileage that some SUVs - even mid-sized SUVs! :-)

Yes, but that's irrelevant. We can even more clearly see that almost all SUVs get worse mpg than almost all wagons. And that was the point. you know what a point is, don't you?

I just said I didn't see a difference between wagons and SUVs beyond size.

Actually, you said nothing about size. What was that about backpedaling and adding modifiers? ;-)

For the purpose of the larger discussion there there was no reason for me to omit mini-utes.

Correct. But to refute what I said it was mandatory.

However, they are all still wagons to me (my original point).

And all non-LTV passenger vehicles are cars to me...and everyone else. That doesn't keep me from knowing and referring to sports cars as a distinct category.

li_sailor · February 2003

I wasn't making any general point. I was making a specific point that I think I proved (some wagons get worse gas mileage than some mid-sized SUVs). I can't make it any more clear than that.

Your point is clear. I'm not sure of its value, though. It's obvious that there are exceptions to every trend that every vehicle class has. What value does that conclusion have?

This discussion is a comparison between SUVs and wagons. Clearly, general attributes shared by each class are pertinent. Those attributes are defined by the class as a whole, not the exceptions. The exceptions are worth noting, as are each of the individual models. As long as each is kept in its own perspective.

So how precisely would YOU like to define the classes?

This is not rocket science. You use conventional categories (Edmunds are convenient). You make it
seem like a difficult task.

You make the interesting point that the primary functional difference between wagons and SUVs is size. I agree that's true...but that doesn't make the classification meaningless. You're just making a claim about an attribute of each class. gosh, you made a generalization ;-) In fact, a good one, IMO.

Looks like a bunch of marketing subsets of a general class to me.

Which vehicle classes are not? Really, my point is not to offend you, but...you are stating the obvious.

li_sailor · February 2003

nippononly:
...two advantages of wagons are better handling with the same cargo space...

you:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "wagons generally handle better than SUVs...

Can we get something straight in order to save some bandwidth?

If the statement doesn't say "ALL", then it means generally. That is generally ;-) assumed.

overtime1 · February 2003

You use conventional categories (Edmunds are convenient).

In that case why did you tear apart my list of mid-sized utes? Make up your mind - you either follow Edmund's arbitrary list or you do not. Don't choose whichever definition is most convenient for your argument. This isn't Burger King ;-).

If the statement doesn't say "ALL", then it means generally. That is generally ;-) assumed.

I just disagree. If you had a friend looking for a car would you say, "Don't get an SUV because wagons handle better"? That is essentially what people are saying and that flat out is not true because it depends on the models you are interested in and how the marketing machine behind those models defines their product.

Bigger cars/wagons generally get worse gas mileage and generally don't handle as well as smaller cars/wagons although there are certainly exceptions. The differences aren't radical but instead form a spectrum of MPG and handling performance. There is a lot of 'middle-ground' where the differences really are very small. I don't see what is so complicated about that concept.

OT

ateixeira · February 2003

Most of those SUVs were compacts, not mid-size.

Any how, generally you can say that wagons on average get better gas mileage than SUVs, and they tend to handle better. Stretching to find exceptions only proves the rule.

-juice

li_sailor · February 2003

In that case why did you tear apart my list of mid-sized utes? Make up your mind - you either follow Edmund's arbitrary list or you do not.

I stated why right in my post. Hey, I know I ain't Shakespeare, but at least read the parts where I reply to you ;-)

Most of the mid SUVs you cited did not get 22 mpg average. That's why.

I just disagree.

I don't know what you're disagreeing with...if one doesn't say ALL, you can't assume all.

If you had a friend looking for a car would you say, "Don't get an SUV because wagons handle better"?

But in that statement, you said "an SUV". That's not the same as SUVs. You're trying way too hard not to understand.

That is essentially what people are saying...

No, it isn't at all. But I think this argument about semantics is getting to be onerous. Let's just give it a rest.

Sometimes we discuss generalities and sometimes specifics. If we are careful to distinguish between the two, we should be able to make sense.

Bigger cars/wagons generally get worse gas mileage and generally don't handle as well as smaller cars/wagons although there are certainly exceptions. I don't see what is so complicated about that concept.

I think the point was not that it was complicated but that it was obvious.

Just as non-complicated is that wagons get much better mpg than SUVs, generally. Same for handling. Same for risk transfer. As long as we're comparing general attributes of the classes.

OTOH, SUVs are generally better at off roading, towing, hauling heavy loads and cargo capacity.

overtime1 · February 2003

As long werealize any definitions we make for the various classes are totally arbitrary we are all good. My definition doesn't have to be the same as yours or as Edmunds.

My original list of wagons and SUVs could have listed just one of each to make my point but I wanted to include more to show there really is a lot more to it. I didn't bother to list ALL wagons and ALL SUVs but there are plenty of each type that aren't all the different in MPG. The differences were not great and if I were to graph it there would be a good deal of overlap - or a continuum of models. Of course, I could create the same graph by weight or engine type and get a very similar distribution. Arbitrary.

Where you see black and white I just see shades of grey. But that is just how I see most things in life so its appropriate that I view this discussion in much the same way. A lot of people have a pathological need to pidgeonhole everything into its 'proper place' which is fine except that those types of viewpoints generally lead to intolerance of other people.

OT

stever · February 2003

Someone needs to make a matrix or bell curve and plot all the current vehicles on it. Put something like the Mini at one end and the Hummer H1 at the other. Like those price/performance graphs the pc mags have.

Be useful to throw darts at if nothing else....

Steve, Host

ateixeira · February 2003

The overlap is due mostly to mismatching size (comparing medium to small) and drivetrains (comparing V6 AWD to 4 cylinder 2WD). At a minimum the overlap was overstated.

Keeping things apples-to-apples makes the discussion relevant.

-juice

overtime1 · February 2003

Someone needs to make a matrix or bell curve and plot all the current vehicles on it. Put something like the Mini at one end and the Hummer H1 at the other.

Sounds like a job for one of the hosts. Just limit it to "wagons/SUVs" but make sure to include all trim levels ;-).

OT

stever · February 2003

Yes, I agree. But it has to be a host who understands math and graphing ;-)

I tried to fob it off on Sneakers, but he claims to have his hands full keeping up with the Where are you? map.

Steve, Host

li_sailor · February 2003

My definition doesn't have to be the same as yours or as Edmunds.

Sure. No problem with that...just makes it harder if we make them up.

As long werealize any definitions we make for the various classes are totally arbitrary...

I disagree that they are always arbitrary. They are usually along some functional line, though not always.

For example, IMO the defining characteristic of an SUV (mid/large) is that it is capable of heavy duty tasks (tow/heavy haul) and also of being a family vehicle. That is a functional difference. Now, it turns out that, from a physical standpoint it just looks like they're bigger, but that misses the functional difference...which is not really arbitrary. Wagons are, generally, not capable of heavy duty tasks. Like towing over 3500 lbs, for example.

I didn't bother to list ALL wagons and ALL SUVs but there are plenty of each type that aren't all the different in MPG.

I think "didn't bother" is disengenuous in the extreme. If you had listed them all...at the granularity you dug to (individul trim levels with specific engines) you would find the % of them that opposed the "norm" was tiny. That's effectively saying "I didn't bother...to disprove my claim" ;-)

Out of about 75 models, you found 6 that bucked the trend...but not all trim levels of those 6. Conservatively, there would be at least 300 trim levels for those 75 models.

So...you found 6 trim levels out of 300 that "proved" your point (2%) vs 294 (98%) that proved mine.

Where you see black and white I just see shades of grey.

That's a gross misrepresentation. We both see shades of gray. You're just ignoring the significant patterns and calling it all garbage. Not particularly illuminating.

A lot of people have a pathological need to pidgeonhole everything into its 'proper place' which is fine except that those types of viewpoints generally lead to intolerance of other people.

Like intolerance of the value of others' discussion? ;-)

A lot of people have a pathological need to ignore classification and meaningful patterns as well. Both extremes are bad.

li_sailor · February 2003

I tried to fob it off on Sneakers, but he claims to have his hands full keeping up with the Where are you? map.

Esp since juice asked him to go global ;-)

I like the graph idea...it should plot mulitple attributes, though...one line for each significant one, like weight, cargo capacity, mpg, hp, tow rating, seating, etc.

If I had the data I could do it in an hour.

I'd need a spreadsheet (or any tabular or DB form) with each model/trim, its category and each attribute value of that model/trim.

Say...you guys have all that data here at Edmunds...why not give us access to the data directly? Hmmmm? ;-)

JohnV could just export it to a spreadsheet. Just a suggestion ;-)

ateixeira · February 2003

My bad... LOL

-juice

wws2 · February 2003

One huge difference between wagons and larger SUVs is a third row seating capability.

Ever since passenger side airbags were introduced, younger kids can not sit in the front seat. This means that anyone with a couple of kids and needing to do carpool duty has suddenly outgrown any current sedan or wagon. The only alternative is a van, larger SUV, or some crossover. Yes, some of the high dollar Euro wagons have a jump seat option in the rear. But they only work for small kids (e.g., less than 60 lbs.) And then where do you put all the 'stuff'?

ateixeira · February 2003

Taurus has a 3rd row, but yeah, beyond that you're talking a Volvo V70.

-juice

magnetophone · February 2003

I don't think anyone's arguing the necessity of an SUV or minivan for people with more than 2 kids. But statistics show that the average family now has closer to 1.5 instead of 2.5 kids these days, and a wagon is more than enough for them.

Station Wagon vs SUV

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles