So I ask, why get an SUV?

[JCE]

Too much caffiene? I'd basically agree with what you said somewhat with exception of all minivans not being fun and the reasoning why people buy them. The Odyssey isn't slow, and neither is the Quest. YES they like all full sized minivans are obtrusive and soccer mom-ish but they do have a purpose. SUVs, and I mean most SUVs will never see a hint of dirt much less tow a boat. Most SUV owners do infact buy them for some of the following:

• To be like the Jones'.
• To be "higher up to see over people" giving the driver a FALSE sense of security.
• To be "cool".
• Did I mention the false sense of security?
• Asthetics please them.
• As a Status symbol.
• Don't want to own a minivan because they feel it's not cool or not fitting of thier lifestyle when infact it would have more practical use than the SUV.

That's the reasons why MOST people buy them, and I'm quite aware of thise since my step-dad has sold cars for over 9 years and I've asked him repeatedly why people buy those ghastly Expeditions and Explorers...so don't dismiss my opinions so easily.

 

[1X83Z]

Too much caffiene?

Haha - wait until you see the reply I left you in the Honda to build plant in US thread. Actually I take that back, the minivan post was way worse.

The Odyssey isn't slow, and neither is the Quest.

Yeah but the Odyssey is quite a bit slower than just about every midsize SUV. In fact, it fails my famous "Odyssey test," the test that determines whether a car is quick or not. (cars that can beat a '99-'04 Honda Odyssey's 7.7-second 0-60 time are "quick" and those that can't aren't - and that's the determinant)

The Quest might not be slow, but requires an area the size of a driving range to turn around. And don't get me started on the interior, though that's been revised thankfully.

That's the reasons why MOST people buy them, and I'm quite aware of thise since my step-dad has sold cars for over 9 years and I've asked him repeatedly why people buy those ghastly Expeditions and Explorers...so don't dismiss my opinions so easily.

I don't agree. Most people buy SUVs because of their all-weather capabilties, period. It snows here, mmmkay?

Furthermore, if not an SUV, what else are people going to do? Minivans are trash as I have clearly proven, and the station wagon is dead. If you want a vehicle that can carry five and gear you're FORCED into an SUV, or an Outback. And the Outback, which formerly offered at least a few reasons for selection over an SUV, now offers very few.

"Looking cool" is a crap reason. If people wanted to look cool, would people really buy the Suzuki Grand Vitara? Height is definitely a reason though.

 

[JCE]

Well I'll assume you agree with at least some of my reasons. People are all different...some people may love how the Vitara looks...it's not for us to judge. I've actually heard a customer on the Honda lot that's said "wow that CRV is better looking than the Trailblazer" which is obviously poppycock. But whatever. Glad we could keep this friendly. 👍

 

[GT4_Rule]

SUVs offer the choices others mentioned here already. They are simply, better than minivans. I'd give up the extra 5mpg if it means I will have the looks, fun, and power.

 

[1X83Z]

Well I'll assume you agree with at least some of my reasons. People are all different...some people may love how the Vitara looks...it's not for us to judge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Vitara_(Old).jpg/800px-Grand_Vitara_(Old).jpg

Wikipedia's picture of the Grand Vitara is an accurate picture on so many levels.

I mean just look at that.

I've actually heard a customer on the Honda lot that's said "wow that CRV is better looking than the Trailblazer" which is obviously poppycock. But whatever. Glad we could keep this friendly. 👍

The first generation CR-V was disgusting. But the current ones are better. And the Trailblazer is becoming more and more outdated. In the right light and with the right color, yeah, I could see myself saying that.

We may have kept it friendly but I imagine the thread starter is going to sing a different song when he sees my post. Or perhaps he won't read it. Either way I'm happy.

 

[Slicks]

Now, I know I'm going to get ripped up here. Oh well.

I present to this thread:
The Chevy Astro.

It is a little down on power, at 190hp/250 lb-ft of torque. It's outdated. It's no longer in production. But it can do the job of any SUV without issues.

It's rated to tow some 5000 pounds, which I can fully verify. My dad's pulled our 5000 pound boat plus a carfull of stuff through the Rockies in the summer, and sleds in the winter (Back when we lived in Alberta). Hell, our van (2wd, may I add), has probably been further offroad than 75% of the SUV's on the road today. It's fast enough to keep up with traffic, and it handles like a truck, thanks to it's body-on-frame construction. But hey, so do SUV's (weird coincidence, eh?). It's cheap to buy, and in my eyes is the second most attractive minivan out there (second to the Odyssey). Parts are a dime a dozen, because the van is a dime a dozen. Plus, it's the only rear-drive minivan I can think of, which some SUV's can't even claim. With the seats out, it's got cargo room out the wazoo. The seats are comfortable for long hauls (Again, as with any car, the back seat less so, but it's nothing to complain about).

Now, it's just a lowly Astro van, but for pure function, it can match a lot of SUV's.

Edit - That said, I wouldn't be caught dead in a Sienna, Caravan, Quest, or anything other than an Astro or an Odyssey.

 

[GT4_Rule]

For the fact that it was built onto a truck frame, wasn't it?

 

[the Interceptor]

I don't agree. Most people buy SUVs because of their all-weather capabilties, period. It snows here, mmmkay?

I don't know if you've heard, but there actually are people who live outside Colorado. They live where it probably might not snow as much or even not at all, or not be as rough, and they still buy SUVs in masses.

Minivans are trash as I have clearly proven

Yeah right, talking about being open minded.

It's perfectly okay to have an opinion on minivans and SUVs, but it's not like your opinion is THE opinion everybody has to have.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Slicks]

For the fact that it was built onto a truck frame, wasn't it?

You've lost me, you'll have to include me in your train of thought.
And it was based on another truck, yes. Probably the S-10, although I'm not completely sure.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Oh sorry about the too-short-post.

You said that it handles like a truck, and I was saying that since probably was because it was based on a truck, I think it was the Blazer.

 

[YSSMAN]

@ Slicks: The Astro is EXACTLY what my father replaced when he bought his Avalanche... Why?

Not enough power (thus can't tow as much, haul as much), better snow/off-road capability in the truck, the truckbed, etc.

Not to say the Astro wasn't a good van, as a matter of fact he had four of them (one a GMC Safari), but it isn't a truck, and thus could never meet his growing needs to buy either an Avalanche or a Silverado 1500 Double Cab.

 

[JCE]

The Astro van FTW! Haha, I NEVER thought that would ever make it in a serious conversation on minivans vs SUVs. No offense but you have to admit 99.8% of the people here probably didn't even know it even still existed. I think it all comes down to PERSONAL TASTE with PERSONAL FEELING. WE may not understand other people's judgement in their personal choice of vehicle...so I say just let them be. We have the right to our opinions just like the owners of the vehicles we don't agree with do. It's just a matter of perspective. Even if you hate SUVs (and I do for the most part) there is still some SUVs that can slip in under the radar.

Case in point one of these is definately one I'd buy:

Along with one of these:

Just a thought...

 

[1X83Z]

For the fact that it was built onto a truck frame, wasn't it?

Yes - the period Chevrolet Blazer's platform (which was also the period Chevrolet S-10 and GMC Sonoma's platform). And by "the period" I mean the early 1980s.

The Astro, by the way, debuted for calendar 1983 and was cancelled in calendar 2005 without a major redesign, though its 1995 restyling did bring it up to date marginally. That made them around 21 years old. Do a search here at GTP for "Chevrolet Astro" - when I was a big poster here it was one of the car I liked to rag on the most because it was so obviously one of the worst cars on sale. However the Astro is essentially a cargo van. Basically, it can tow and it's got AWD however it forsakes every single other thing that both SUVs and minivans consider selling points. Like ride. And fuel economy.

And this.

I don't know if you've heard, but there actually are people who live outside Colorado. They live where it probably might not snow as much or even not at all, or not be as rough, and they still buy SUVs in masses.

Assumably then they buy them for other inclement weather, or due to one of the five other reasons I mentioned.

It snows lots in the following states:

Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Those states represent 60.5 percent of the U.S. population.

Did you ever think that there was a reason that BMW is now coming out with all-wheel drive on each of its model lines?

Or why Infiniti is?

Or why Audi and Mercedes have always?

Or why it's such a selling point with the Ford Five Hundred? And Acura RL? And Pontiac Vibe? And ten zillion other cars that, fifteen years ago, wouldn't have offered AWD?

It's not just because of Colorado, my man. Buyers want security from the elements.

And for the record I was joking about that "minivans are clearly trash" thing. I personally love the hell out of minivans. But when questions like the one in post #1 are posed (especially with the subpar reasoning given in post #1), I get quite irked.

 

[YSSMAN]

Vee-Dub FTW!!!

But, the Vee-Dub is very expensive, and generally speaking has pretty poor MPG ratings compared to it's compeditors. But that doesn't take it off the top of my SUV list.

The Volvo XC90, particularly the new V8-powered model, sits at the top of my list as well. Why? Civility and stealth abilities. Being that it is baisically a tall wagon, it allows it to function both as a car and as a truck, and that is a great thing to have happen, IMO.

But then again, the XC70 is nearly as good as the XC90 as well. It is cheaper (I think), has a similar ammount of cargo space, and it doesn't require a step upwards to get into it. Plus, you have to love the adjustable suspension, but then again, Audi does it better the the Allroad.

...Speaking of the Allroad, thats a good option to the SUV. Too bad it's return is still up in the air at Audi now that the Q5 and Q7 are out. But I'd always prefer the Allroad over those two, always.

 

[JCE]

You forgot Texas, it's snowed here once or twice. Oh and your post reminds me of something.

I'd buy one of these in a fraction of a second:

Good god...am I a hypocrit or what? I hate SUVs but would love to own about 4 or 5 of them because of the way they look and drive. Shame on me...

INFINITI FTW!

 

[1X83Z]

But then again, the XC70 is nearly as good as the XC90 as well. It is cheaper (I think), has a similar ammount of cargo space, and it doesn't require a step upwards to get into it. Plus, you have to love the adjustable suspension, but then again, Audi does it better the the Allroad.

The base XC70 (which is the only XC70) lists at $35700, or $100 more than the base XC90. However, now that Volvo's pulled the idiotic and cancelled the XC90 T6, the base XC90 uses Volvo's 208hp 2.5-liter 5-cylinder turbo, which, as you can imagine, is pretty weak in this application - around 9.2 seconds 0-60 with all-wheel drive. The XC70 also uses that engine but it's notably lighter (3699lbs. vs 4450lbs.) and does the 0-60 run in ~8.6 seconds. The XC90 does, however, offer around fifteen more feet of cargo space and the all-important third row of seats. Plus, the XC90's design is quite a bit newer, with the XC70 running a platform dating back to 2001.

...Speaking of the Allroad, thats a good option to the SUV. Too bad it's return is still up in the air at Audi now that the Q5 and Q7 are out. But I'd always prefer the Allroad over those two, always.

Because you like extremely expensive, outdated poo?

I'll bet you $10 they don't bring the Allroad back. Ever.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Why does everyone seem to like the FX? Am I the only one that hates its styling or what?

 

[JCE]

Why does everyone seem to like the FX? Am I the only one that hates its styling or what?

*gasp* Blasphemy! What about it do you not like?

 

[GT4_Rule]

....everything...

 

[1X83Z]

Why does everyone seem to like the FX? Am I the only one that hates its styling or what?

At least it's not middle-of-the road. I think the real reason everyone likes the FX is that it's basically the sports car of SUVs. There are quicker SUVs, but they're all huge trucks with gigantic engines - like the Cayenne Turbo S which weighs slightly more than Discovery and the Grand Cherokee SRT-8, which weighs slightly less than the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria combined. The FX45 has a relatively compact V8 and is itself a relatively compact SUV with extremely good handling and very good acceleration to boot. Plus it's not very expensive. It's sort of like a better version of the BMW X5.

Styling really does seem to be the dividing line on the car, but I've encountered very few people who dislike it - and even fewer who dislike it once they hear that it does 0-60 in 6.7 seconds. Suddenly it goes from "like an alien" to "aggressive."

My only gripe is that I wish the FX45 had more power, or the FX35 had less power. Right now the only thing that separates the two vehicles is 45hp - that's really not a huge difference, considering that Infiniti wants $10400 more for the larger engine.

 

[the Interceptor]

Assumably then they buy them for other inclement weather, or due to one of the five other reasons I mentioned.

Like I mentioned earlier, the only reason I can agree to is towing capacity and being more stable when pulling a huge trailer of some sort. The rest is just showing off in my eyes, cause everything else is covered by minivans and estates.

It snows lots in the following states:

Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Those states represent 60.5 percent of the U.S. population.

*cough* rest of the world *cough*

Did you ever think that there was a reason that BMW is now coming out with all-wheel drive on each of its model lines?

Or why Infiniti is?

Or why Audi and Mercedes have always?

Or why it's such a selling point with the Ford Five Hundred? And Acura RL? And Pontiac Vibe? And ten zillion other cars that, fifteen years ago, wouldn't have offered AWD?

It's not just because of Colorado, my man. Buyers want security from the elements.

People buy AWD cars for traction (early Audi Quattros and stuff) or prestige (SUVs). Only a small fraction of buyers (worldwide!!!) buy an SUV, cause they actually need it.

And for the record I was joking about that "minivans are clearly trash" thing. I personally love the hell out of minivans. But when questions like the one in post #1 are posed (especially with the subpar reasoning given in post #1), I get quite irked.

Okay, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you there. The reasons for not buying an SUV in post one are perfectly valid though.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Small_Fryz]

My dad owns a 2004 Pajero Exceed Did Deseil.
He has put a 2" - 3" lift kit + Cooper tyres and a snorkel. We have also joined the 4x4 club and gone out 4x4'ing in the country side. Hillclimbs beach driving etc etc. IMHO if your not going off the tarmac why buy a SUV (4x4)? And who would buy a SUV thats only 2WD???

 

[JCE]

IMHO if your not going off the tarmac why buy a SUV (4x4)? And who would buy a SUV thats only 2WD???

Because in America SUVs are more of a status symbol than a real world utility vehicle. The most utility these people are ever going to use them for is hauling kids and groceries...which can be done in an estate or wagon frankly. And the reason 2WD SUVs exsist (in the USA) is it saves the buyer quite a bit of money...4WD here on Fords and Chevrolets (no idea about Dodge) are generally more money.

Oh and I've gone 4x4'ing in my brother's '87 Ford F250 XLT Lariat with a 3-4" lift and 33" tires...it's quite a bit of fun. You guys over there ever go "muddin"? American slang, not sure if you know what that is...if not, it's driving around in some deep mud with the goal of getting your 4x4 as dirty and muddy as possible. At least that was our goal...

 

[ExigeEvan]

SUV/4x4s/Chelsea Tractors are becoming very popular in my area at the moment because of the increase in road 'cushions'.

These little buggers don't half screw your car up[ and require you to go over them at 10Mph when the limit is 30!?

There are numerous letters in the Daily Telegraph motoring supplement of people actually being injured from these humps even when going at slow speed. One even mentioned that someone had broken their neck because of it.

The only way to get over the is with a wide wheelbase, pretty much only available on larger vehicles (Toyota Previa can just about straddle them, Small 4x4s have no problem though).

 

[1X83Z]

Like I mentioned earlier, the only reason I can agree to is towing capacity and being more stable when pulling a huge trailer of some sort. The rest is just showing off in my eyes, cause everything else is covered by minivans and estates.

Look, dude, I'm an American as are all the major posters in this thread and the thread starter. Let's discuss medium-priced SUVs in the US and medium-priced "estates". I'll make it simple. Here's a list of both:

Medium-priced SUVs
Acura RDX
BMW X3
Buick Rendezvous
Chevrolet Equinox
Chevrolet Trailblazer
Chrysler Pacifica
Dodge Durango
Dodge Nitro
Ford Escape
Ford Explorer
Ford Freestyle
GMC Envoy
Honda CR-V
Honda Element
Honda Pilot
Hummer H3
Hyundai Santa Fe
Hyundai Tucson
Isuzu Ascender
Jeep Commander
Jeep Compass
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Jeep Liberty
Jeep Wrangler
Kia Sorento
Kia Sportage
Mazda CX-7
Mazda Tribute
Mercury Mariner
Mercury Mountaineer
Mitsubishi Endeavor
Mitsubishi Montero
Mitsubishi Outlander
Nissan Murano
Nissan Pathfinder
Nissan Xterra
Pontiac Torrent
Saturn Vue
Subaru B9 Tribeca
Subaru Forester
Suzuki Grand Vitara
Suzuki XL-7
Toyota 4Runner
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Toyota Highlander
Toyota RAV4

Medium-priced Wagons
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback

Do you understand?

That should cover the "choices" portion of my list. And if you don't understand the others than what can I do. I mean "size" is the biggest one. Not everyone wants a vehicle that's six million inches in length. By the way in America all we have are full-sized minivans. The Renault Grand Espace is the length of ALL American minivans. Understand? We don't get small minivans here.

 

[1X83Z]

I don't get why everyone is pulling "rest of world" bull**** out. This thread is about the US minivan/SUV market only. It has to be, because rest of world markets are EXTREMELY different than ours - full of minivans of all sizes and mostly of station wagons/estates. In the rest of the world, there are many compelling reasons to buy minivans over SUVs. Not so in the United States. So don't go getting all confused and applying out market logic to your market.

 

[Poverty]

I call BS on the snow argument as in the scandinavian countries they ge just as much snow, if not more, and most people there drive 4WD cars, which are usually diesel. Also if the snow was that bad you'd need a quattro

Why Quattro?

These little buggers don't half screw your car up[ and require you to go over them at 10Mph when the limit is 30!?

Theyre designed so that you have to go over them at 10mph, or otherwise there would be no point in having them.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I don't get why everyone is pulling "rest of world" bull**** out. This thread is about the US minivan/SUV market only. It has to be, because rest of world markets are EXTREMELY different than ours - full of minivans of all sizes and mostly of station wagons/estates. In the rest of the world, there are many compelling reasons to buy minivans over SUVs. Not so in the United States. So don't go getting all confused and applying out market logic to your market.

Read the thread title.

Read the first post.

Now tell me, where does it say this is an American only thread? It doesn't. It does only mention American SUVs/MPV but that's because the starter is American.

There's no reason why no-one else can post about their own area and you never know, get more non-Americans involved in the thread.

 

[Poverty]

Read the thread title.

Read the first post.

Now tell me, where does it say this is an American only thread? It doesn't. It does only mention American SUVs/MPV but that's because the starter is American.

There's no reason why no-one else can post about their own area and you never know, get more non-Americans involved in the thread.

I agree, americans always seem to pull out that card when discussing SUV's. Actually lets rephrase that Blazing Xtreme always pulled out that card, and it scores minus points with me as I find to be a very ignorant thing to say, and it shows that really you know where right, but you dont want to accept it.

 

[Wolfe]

Well, here we go again....

M5Power's post offered a nice structure for this debate, so I think I'll use it. (this isn't a response to his post directly, but rather a response to anyone pro-SUV)

1. ALL WHEEL DRIVE
AWD is not necessary for the mere presence of snow...unless things get really deep, RWD and FWD can do just fine; SUVs and trucks aren't the only vehicles on the road with AWD, and are only necessary compared to AWD cars/wagons when the snow gets really deep; there are tons of SUVs in places that almost never see even one snowflake. Why?

2. SIZE
Minivans offer just as much seating capacity, and often just as much cargo capacity. Some wagons can claim the same. There are even some SUVs that have less cargo capacity than some minivans/wagons; inflating a driver's ego and sense of security are not valid reasons to block other drivers' views of the road and risk the lives of compact-car drivers; the additional cargo and seating capacity that an SUV provides is often not being used by the typical american SUV driver, who instead uses their SUV/truck to commute to work alone. If they have to have something big to haul the family and cargo on long trips, fine, but there are other ways to get to work.

3. POWER
Want speed? Get a sportscar. If you have to haul a lot of stuff, fine, but you don't have to keep up with sports-sedans and entry-level sportscars while doing so. When you speed in your SUV, you just look like a douchebag, anyway.

4. HANDLING
Cars/wagons handle better, and are safer for it. End of story. If you argue with this, you're an idiot.

5. TOWING
Europeans can often be found towing things with -- le gasp! -- CARS. Sure, it isn't the greatest thing you can do to a unibody, but if you don't have much to tow and don't tow very often ("hey, let's dust off that boat of ours and take it out on the lake once before summer ends!"), a big, brawny, body-on-frame SUV or truck is just overkill. And yet again, just because you need an SUV to tow something every weekend doesn't mean you have to use it to commute to work by yourself.

6. LACK OF CHOICES
You'll only see a lack of other options if you fail to open your mind to the possibility that you don't really need all of the "advantages" that an SUV offers. The #1 wasted advantage of an SUV is its ground clearance. Go ahead and look at wagons -- there's plenty of good ones, especially if you look in the used car market.