Which SUV?

[PBBPaul]

[quote]Originally posted by Rick Kreuzer: [b]See, I thought the Passports were really Isuzus. Rick[/b][/quote]I believe they are. In fact, I think they're made in Indiana.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

My Nissan Altima was made in Geogria, I believe. I've considered an SUV because it's hard fitting all the family crap in my car, especially when my son was younger and every outing meant packing a stroller and bags of extra clothes and so on. As it is, I don't want to take on a car payment now (the Altima is paid off), so I've blown off the idea for the time being. What I don't understand is why there's such a specific politically correct backlash toward SUVs. If I were to buy an ugly-ass minivan that had the same gas mileagle as an SUV I was considering, no one would give a shit. - Jeff

[Dylan]

Check out a Subura Forester. IMO, Subaru's are the best cars for the money. I have 2 right now (93 Wagon and a 2000 Sedan) that both drive great. I can't tell you how many times AWD saved my ass.

[Boggs]

I was just going to ask what the issue was with "no 4WD..." The Subaru Forester is the best of the breed. All we will own now is Subarus. We have had 3. Great cars. Admittedly, turning all of those gears does have some impact on fuel economy, but the safety and handling aspects of these cars along with their reliability and durability more than makes up for it. They aren't the highest rated for customer loyalty for nothing... Boggs

[phaeton]

[b] What I don't understand is why there's such a specific politically correct backlash toward SUVs. If I were to buy an ugly-ass minivan that had the same gas mileagle as an SUV I was considering, no one would give a shit. [/b] Well said. I believe it is a bit of the "Ignorant Herd Mentality" that seems to strike so many people. You know, all the do-gooders that don't know any better, but if "everyone else says so, it must be true". Hard to say if thier intentions are good or not, but the fact that they go blindly spouting off is dangerous when they get into any sizeable number.

[Dave Pierce]

[quote]Originally posted by SF audio: [b]Thanks for the responses. I'm looking for a car that has space to haul equipmment, and is a comfortable ride (have had enough of the small, cramped cheap cars I used to own). It's gotta be somewhat short too, as I live in SF which parking is a nightmare. So a minivan may be a bit big. I don't want a pickup truck, so it seems that an SUV is a good choice for my wants/needs. A comfortable ride is important to me, as I used to drive for a living as a delivery driver and a taxi driver, so I get REALLY irritated :mad: on the road, and being comfortable eliviates that somewhat....[/b][/quote]I love my Dodge Caravan. Holds a ton of gear! I have the longer model, and it's a bitch to park in The City, but not as bad as a truck. There's a shorter model available though, and it would be as parkable as any SUV, I'm sure. The minivans have two huge advantages over SUV's, IMO: 1) they hold way more cargo, 2) they drive more like a car than a truck. They don't look very cool, but hey -- I'm in a band, I don't need my car to look cool. :cool: Mine's a '94, and the mid-90's models are infamous for transmission problems. And I've had to repair my transmission several times. But I've got 180K miles, and that's the only problem I've had. (knocking on wood) --Dave

[SF audio]

Lots of opinions here!!! I'm now leaning towards a Honda CRV, two wheel drive. Good reputation, gas mileage, and I can afford a used one about 4 years old or so. OK, now tell me why I shouldn't get one!!!

[Gabriel E.]

[quote] What I don't understand is why there's such a specific politically correct backlash toward SUVs. If I were to buy an ugly-ass minivan that had the same gas mileagle as an SUV I was considering, no one would give a shit. [/quote]It's not a "politically correct" backlash, it's a totally reasonable backlash that's long overdue. The reality is that the majority of SUV owners do not need them. They drive them because they want a "rugged" image an/or the feeling of power driving the biggest vehicle on the road. This wouldn't be a problem except that SUV's guzzle gas like the fuel crisis of the 70s never happened (the popular Suburban and Yukon get 13 mpg on the HIGHWAY!) and are a danger to their occupants (normal cars don't roll over if you blow a tire) and to others. People like me get pissed because our lives are repeatedly put in peril by others simply because they have penis envy/manhood issues. Minivans generally get better mileage than comparibly sized SUVs and are safer. The nerd factor also ensures that those who buy them only do so because they really need them. There are other vehicles that get the job done a lot more safely and more efficiently. There's no reason to own an SUV in an urban/suburban environment. They're just plain decadent.

[Wewus432]

Phaeton: If there's any "herd" mentality going on here it's among all the people who are buying SUV's because "everybody else is getting them". I don't get it, for the money you pay for an SUV, which is basically a souped up truck, you can get a luxury car like an Infinity I30 or even a Lincoln Continental, and I don't think SUV's even have that much more cargo space than a comparable car which usually have huge trunks. Auto makers love this trend because I'm sure SUV's are cheaper to manufacture than a comparble car. Here's a little info on [url=http://www.discover.com/apr_01/featnewton.html]SUV\'s[/url] .

[PBBPaul]

[quote]Originally posted by Gabriel E.: [b] [quote] What I don't understand is why there's such a specific politically correct backlash toward SUVs. If I were to buy an ugly-ass minivan that had the same gas mileagle as an SUV I was considering, no one would give a shit. [/quote]It's not a "politically correct" backlash, it's a totally reasonable backlash that's long overdue.[/b] Then why not a backlash against all those '77 Cadillacs out there that get worse mileage and pollute even more? Why not a backlash against pickup trucks? RV's? [b]The reality is that the majority of SUV owners do not need them. They drive them because they want a "rugged" image an/or the feeling of power driving the biggest vehicle on the road.[/b] And that's for you to judge? Personally, I don't see SUV's as "rugged" unless it's perhaps a full-size Bronco or a Hummer H1, both of which are in the definite minority of the market. I drive my Explorer because it pulls my boat, hauls my gear, holds my wife/kids/dog/luggage, doesn't get stuck in the snow, handles the trails and off-road stuff we do occasionally when camping and finally; just to piss off whiny people who feel that they make my choices for me. [b]This wouldn't be a problem except that SUV's guzzle gas like the fuel crisis of the 70s never happened (the popular Suburban and Yukon get 13 mpg on the HIGHWAY!) and are a danger to their occupants (normal cars don't roll over if you blow a tire) and to others.[/b] My SUV gets exactly the same mileage as the minivan I had before. Now, you have a point about roll-overs. There are idiots out there that drive their SUVs like cars. Most SUVs are classified as light trucks for a reason and they have very different driving characteristics than cars. [b]People like me get pissed because our lives are repeatedly put in peril by others simply because they have penis envy/manhood issues.[/b] So... All those soccer moms who drive SUVs have penis envy and manhood issues? Sounds like they need more help than you telling them what vehicle to drive. [b]Minivans generally get better mileage than comparibly sized SUVs and are safer. The nerd factor also ensures that those who buy them only do so because they really need them.[/b] Sorry, you're wrong. There's a wide range of mileage ratings in both SUV's and minivans. As I stated earlier, my SUV gets exactly the same mileage as my minivan. On the other hand, my wife's SUV gets substantially better mileage. And are you calling me a nerd because I used to drive a minivan? [b]There are other vehicles that get the job done a lot more safely and more efficiently.[/b] Such as? While it would be nice to have a nice little commuter car for the ride to work each day, a clean minivan for family stuff, another one for band work, a 4X4 for towing and camping, and a pickup for hauling all the remodeling stuff I've bought lately, I can only afford (and have room for) one car. [b]There's no reason to own an SUV in an urban/suburban environment. They're just plain decadent.[/b] No more decadent than any Lincoln, Cadillac, Jag, BMW, Volvo, Corvette, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, etc. etc. etc. [/quote]

[Dogfur]

[quote]Originally posted by PBBPaul: [b] No more decadent than any Lincoln, Cadillac, Jag, BMW, Volvo, Corvette, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, etc. etc. etc. [/b][/quote]If you saw my previously mentioned Volvo wagon you most certainly would reconsider the description " decadent". :D

[SF audio]

[quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]Phaeton: If there's any "herd" mentality going on here it's among all the people who are buying SUV's because "everybody else is getting them". I don't get it, for the money you pay for an SUV, which is basically a souped up truck, you can get a luxury car like an Infinity I30 or even a Lincoln Continental, and I don't think SUV's even have that much more cargo space than a comparable car which usually have huge trunks. Auto makers love this trend because I'm sure SUV's are cheaper to manufacture than a comparble car. Here's a little info on [url=http://www.discover.com/apr_01/featnewton.html]SUV\'s[/url] .[/b][/quote]About that article on rollovers - that's an eye opener. One thing about the SUV is your vantage point, which is higher than most cars. I like the higher position. But it may kill me.... :eek: Bottom line: while SUV's may be more dangerous from a physics standpoint, if your driving habits are good, you will be OK. There will always be instances in which accidents happen, and people get hurt no matter what car they are driving. If you know your car well and drive it accordingly, you can avoid most possible accidents. Coming from a former taxi driver, you really need to be aware of the road in all directions, even slighly paranoid. If you can avoid any mistakes on your part, you are doing what you can to stay alive....

[Boggs]

The problem with that theory is that you assume nobody else will make a mistake either. The problems with rollovers and accidents occur during evasive maneuvers or mechanical (such as tire) failures. It's not what YOU do as much as what you have to do to avoid someone else's mistakes. They just aren't maneuverable in an emergency evasive maneuver unless you are very skilled (which most drivers aren't). The Forester has a lower center of gravity than most SUVs and even many cars due to their horizontally opposed engine and a lower roll center (a geometry thing), and are probably the safest of the SUV-like vehicles out there. They handle great. Boggs

[SF audio]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boggs: [QB]The problem with that theory is that you assume nobody else will make a mistake either" I assume that every on the road with me is a complete idiot, and with that assumption I am right many times. I agree that you should always anticipate the cars around you as possible driving errors waiting to happen. I know; I've been broadsided by someone going 30 miles an hour, this turkey ran a red light, then had the audicity to challenge it in court (with my testimony he didn't get off). This guy sent a ladie (who was in the back of my cab) to the hospital for a weekend and didn't seem to upset about it....Thankfully everyone was alright.... It felt like getting clocked in the side of the head without seeing it coming.... :freak:

[SFOracle]

I have a 2000 Honda Odyssey, bought it new so I don't know what used prices are like, but it is most practical vehical I have ever owned. We have 2 kids - now ages 2 and 4. We wanted a vehical that had enough room for kids, gear etc., was comforatable to drive and got reasonable fuel economy for a vehical of the size we needed. We looked at SUVs (the direction just about all of our friends went) and eliminated all of them for various reason. The SUVs that had as much usable storage space as the Odyssey were enormous pigs and were incredibly expensive. To get an SUV that can seat 7, and carry all the gear you could want you have to go to an Expedition, Suburban, Sequoia, Land Cruiser etc. Most of these get city fuel mileage in the low teens (12 - 14). The half of mid-sized SUVs (Forerunner, Pathfinder, etc.) are really off-road vehicals. Extremely stiff suspension, manual transmission (I live in SF too and I want my wife to be able to park the thing on a hill). 4WD is a really over rated feature that you pay $3000+ for and 90% of the 4x4 owners never use it. It is also hard to put a toddler in the back seat of a vehical on 34" tires. The rest of the midsized SUVs (Lexus, Acura MDX, etc) are jacked up station wagons are carry luxury model prices. I wanted a base price (new) in the $20-$30K range. The mini SUVs - Rav4, CRV etc. have no practical purpose other than playing around off road. They have the interior room or compact cars, the performace or small pickups and the appeal of a headcold. Advantages of MiniVans and the Odyssey in particular. Note - 1999 Odyssey is not really a minivan, but a large station wagon. 2000 and later models are actually minivans. Base Price (new in 2000) was $23K adding options (alloy wheels, CD player, cargo mats etc.), taxes, dealer fees etc it came in just over $30 delivered. Rear seat of the Odyssey folds to below the floor level in seconds - opening up the cargo space for storage without removing or storing a rear seat. Allows you to go from seating for 7 with decent cargo space to seating for 4 and all the gear you want in seconds. Middle seats remove to allow you to carry a full 4x8 sheet of plywood (have have hauled full sized sheets of sheetrock and can verify this). Side doors allow for easy entry for passengers and gear. Lower (than SUV) curb height also helps. Honda V-Tech V6 engine - 2000 model delivers 210HP (2003 model has 240HP). I drove from SF to Moab (Utah) with 3 adults, 4 bikes and a bunch of gear. Pulled Hwy 80 up to Reno on cruise control at 80MPH the whole way. My friend in a Forerunner was grabbing gears all the way just to keep me in sight. Highway fuels economy is around 26mpg. City is about 19 depending on how you drive. Standard features include A/C, Cruise, PS, PB, power windows + locks etc. Basic package for California. Honda quality and reliability. Forget the flag waving - I think it is actually manufactured in the USA, but designed in Japan. I know of 2 or 3 Caravan owners who have had to put new transmission in before 3 years are up. Ever seen an Astrovan or Villager in good condition? Me neither.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

[quote]Originally posted by Gabriel E.: [b]It's not a "politically correct" backlash, it's a totally reasonable backlash that's long overdue...This wouldn't be a problem except that SUV's guzzle gas like the fuel crisis of the 70s never happened (the popular Suburban and Yukon get 13 mpg on the HIGHWAY!) and are a danger to their occupants (normal cars don't roll over if you blow a tire) and to others.[/b][/quote]Did you [i]at all[/i] read what I wrote? My point was that no one specifically casts blame on other vehicles that get equally bad gas mileage and poor performance in accident situations. Instead, you read one sentence and jumped to a conclusion. Again...please tell me why an SUV that gets 25 mpg is so much a worse choice than a minivan that gets 25mpg. That was my question...I'm still awaiting a response. - Jeff (who drives a small car that gets well over 30mpg)

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

And I did see your reference to minivans, which have been plagued with recall and other various safety problems throughout their existance. Trust me in that I agree that the ultra-huge SUVs are a little silly. There are others that seem to be good cars and get unfairly lumped in with the Expeditions, Excretions and other ridiculous models. - Jeff

[Gabriel E.]

[quote] Again...please tell me why an SUV that gets 25 mpg is so much a worse choice than a minivan that gets 25mpg. That was my question...I'm still awaiting a response. [/quote]10 Years ago, the only people who drove outlandishly large vehicles were people who needed them. And those people drove minivans. Shitty mileage but there weren't that many of them. Fast forward to today when 50% of new automobiles sold in the US are dangerous, high-emmissions SUVs that get shitty mileage. THAT's why SUVs are worse than minivans.

[Dylan]

[quote]Originally posted by Boggs: [b] All we will own now is Subarus.[/b][/quote]Ditto! I drove about every car on the planet before I got my Legacy. It survived getting rear-ended by a brand new Nissan Frontier with just a scratch on the bumper. The Nissan was totalled :eek: .

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

[quote]Originally posted by Gabriel E.: [b]Fast forward to today when 50% of new automobiles sold in the US are dangerous, high-emmissions SUVs that get shitty mileage. THAT's why SUVs are worse than minivans.[/b][/quote]I must be a moron, since I'm [i]still[/i] not getting this! If a person really needs a larger vehicle to transport people or things, what's the difference between the classifications of vehicle in cases where things such as gas mileage and safety are pretty much equal? Truck versus SUV versus minivan versus station wagon...why, oh why, is the SUV more villified than the others? Still can't figure this out. Help me. Shouldn't the people who are vehemently anti-SUV be as vocal in their opposition to the other vehicle classifications? If not, [i]why not[/i]??? - Jeff

[Salyphus]

The worst aspect is that emission laws don't apply to SUVs for the bogus reason that they are considered 'trucks'. Which is doubly ridiculous, since they are obviously not trucks, and there is no reason why trucks should be exempt from emissions laws in the first place. Same applies to Minivans, same complaints from me, it just seems that people aren't buying minivans as much and as for as frivolous reasons. And who decided that Minivans look nerdy and SUVs don't? I find that truly bizarre. Seems to me they are both equally ridiculous.

[Salyphus]

Oh yeah: is it also not true that minivans have a lot more space in them for hauling said gear than SUVs? I think that would be a key difference if they are truly being bought for utilitarian reasons.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Well, since no one cares to answer this mystery for me, I did my own research. [b]Overall Best Mileage Vehicles:[/b] model hwy/city Honda Insight 68/61 Toyota Prius 45/52 Honda Civic HX 44/36 Toyota Echo 41/34 [b]Overall Worst:[/b] model hwy/city Land Rover 15/12 Range Rover Cadillac 16/12 Escalade GMC 16/12 Yukon Denali Lincoln 16/12 Navigator Toyota 16/13 Land Cruiser [b]Best Luxury Cars:[/b] model hwy/city Infiniti G20 31/24 Audi A4 1.8T 30/22 BMW 330ci 30/21 Saab 9-5 Aero 30/21 Mercedes CLK320 29/21 [b]Best SUVs:[/b] model hwy/city Toyota RAV4 31/25 Suzuki Vitara 27/25 Ford Escape/ 28/23 Mazda Tribute Chevy Tracker 25/23 Honda CR-V 25/23 [b]Best Minivans:[/b] model hwy/city Dodge Caravan/ 25/20 Chrysler Voyager Chevy Venture/ 26/19 Oldsmobile Silhouette Toyota Sienna 24/19 Honda Odyssey 25/18 Ford Windstar 24/18 Note that although all of the worst offenders are those overblown, overpriced luxury SUVs, the mileage of the best SUVs are BETTER than the best of the Minivans. So...get out your picket signs and head down to the elementary schools and soccer fields. Let all those Moms know how they're supporting terrorism! Come on! It's your duty as an American! :rolleyes: - Jeff

[Salyphus]

I guess my posts didn't count :confused:

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

[quote]Originally posted by Sal ©: [b]I guess my posts didn't count :confused: [/b][/quote]No, Sal. What I meant was that nothing I saw offered me a compelling argument that showed that SUVs were worse than Minivans in terms of gas mileage. Your points that people bought Minivans for less frivolous reasons was noted, but in and of itself doesn't make Minivans less dangerous to the environment than SUVs. Neither did your point that Minivans can offer more space. My point, which I was over-illustrating on purpose, was that it's easy to let yourself be affected by propaganda. The SUV backlash is known as the Sherlock Holmes effect. You are [i]not[/i] looking for what's [i]not[/i] there. In this case, you are told that a particular vehicle model is bad. You then don't stop to determine just how bad it is versus what else is out there. Again...I'm not defending SUVs, and I don't drive one. But the original poster specifically said he was looking for a 2-door, 2WD SUV. Pointing him toward a Minivan would likely be defeating anyone's purpose of saving the world. Get it? - Jeff

[Salyphus]

I hear ya Jeff. I do think the frivolity is cogent due to the fact that if only people who actually need them buy them it isn't nearly as much of a problem. For example if people somehow started getting the idea that driving Mack trucks around was somehow 'hip' (no more ridiculous than thinking SUVs are 'hip' in my opinion ;) ) then it wouldn't mean that Mack trucks were inherently bad, just that they were being misused to the detriment of all of us. It's just that I myself come to the conclusion that SUVs serve no useful function at all due to the fact that Minivans serve the puropose that they supposedly serve much more effectively, ie, more usable space for moving gear around. I also think they should all be held to higher emissions standards. That's just my opinion of course :D

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by patrick_dont_fret: [b]The Isizu Rodeo (when they were in kahootz with Honda) is a great ride, and can hold a good bit of stuff, not to mention the coolness factor will triple, cause you're essentially driving a Honda.[/b][/quote]Mmm, not quite. Honda didn't want to manufacture their own SUV's, so they repackaged the Isuzu Rodeo and called it the Honda Passport. Passports had a lot of problems. Honda, realizing the mistake that it should not have made in the first place, discontinued the Passport and now sells two Honda-made SUV's, the full-sized Pilot and the smaller Element.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

[quote]Originally posted by Sal ©: [b]For example if people somehow started getting the idea that driving Mack trucks around was somehow 'hip' (no more ridiculous than thinking SUVs are 'hip' in my opinion ;) ) then it wouldn't mean that Mack trucks were inherently bad, just that they were being misused to the detriment of all of us.[/b][/quote]Totally agreed, and great example. Look...all things considered, it might be more convenient for me to own a smallish SUV than my little Altima. If I can feel like I'm driving something that looks cooler than a box on wheels [i]and[/i] I wasn't paying a greater price in gas mileage, insurance or all the other factors, I might be tempted to pick the cooler choice. But I digress... There are pollutant items in use every day that would cause your hair to stand up in horror if you were truly aware of the details. These are things that make the output of every passenger vehicle on the planet pale in comparison. Again...the controversial things that are focused on most are the things that someone out there [i]wants[/i] you to focus on in lieu of doing any serious analysis of what's really going on. I'm no conspiracist...in fact, I'm pretty apathetic and accepting that this is just the way things are. But I don't want to see anyone else get fooled either. You can invest a lot of time, money and emotion into a subject matter that's only there to draw you away from the real culprits. - Jeff

[henrysb3]

Paul, I just bought a '96 Aerostar w/ 85,000 mi. I'll let you know when I'm done with it, which will come undoubtedly will come before I'm done with my tele, which was born many years before that. I've had a whole lot of the vehicles described above, and I guess you could find plusses and minuses in each. As far as the size of a minivan, the shorter ones take up the footprint of a sedan like a Taurus or Camry, as they are usually derived from those designs. They just look a lot bigger. You need to think of the size of what you're carrying, especially the larger pieces. Stack 'em together to get an idea of how much space you might need for cargo. Measure the stack and larger items and take those measurements with you when you go shopping. I also consult Consumer Reports Auto Issue, which comes out in the spring, along with their monthly magazine, which has at least one car review per month. You can find it at your library or possibly at their website. They give you an overall evaluation along with ratings for safetay and reliability. But no vehicle is safe if it's overloaded, especially if that load could come into the passenger area in an accident. When your car hits something and slows or stops suddenly, inertia keeps everything else in motion, so much so that the Kleenex box in the rear window has been known to cause serious injury to occupants. Imagine being cold cocked by a Les Paul going 50 mph. I usually buy American vehicles that have a reasonably good rating from Consumer Reports, though they consistantly rate imported cars higher in quality. It's a help your neighbor kind of thing, but I've had really good luck since the late eighties. From your description, I'd go with something like the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix (twin cars from different mothers) if you're thinking of something new. A PT Cruiser might also fit the need. These new sized Something Utility Vehicles have been described "micro vans". I'm really attracted to the Ford Escape, but its gas mileage is low for its size. Or you could just tell the clubs you're playing what kind of PA setup you want and show up in a BMW Z3. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's the next step. Meanwhile, I'm headed out to my used electric blue Aerostar. Good Luck, Henry

[deanmass]

I owned am Aerostar. It was one of the worst vehicles I have ever owned...Bad mileage, crappy traction in snow, expensive to repair..Aerostar...ack... I also had an early Toyota mini van, and while it ran well, it would not drag it's ass up the hills around Kansas City with my DJ rig.