So I ask, why get an SUV?

[Dave A]

Not if they're fatalities have increased but just not as much as everyone elses .

 

[1X83Z]

Did I even dig up the figures showing that in accidents between Car's and SUV's, 98% of fatalities occur in the Car?

Ha! Yet another reason to get an SUV.

I'll reply to the rest of this drivel at a later time. For now, B9 Tribeca will be doing the talking for me.

If you think SUVs are pointless, I will swallow you whole. Grrrrrr...

 

[Onikaze]

The B9 Tribeca is cute in the same way a chubby girl is, it's a minivan for god's sake.

Though the angular bits on the back are kind of neat for a second, wasted styling in my opinion.

We wen't from 5th in least Auto Fatalities, to 9th, since SUV's became popular.

So no, that isn't good.

I wouldn't be caught dead driving an SUV, so I have the choice of safety and peace of mind, while becoming something that I hate, an SUV owner who will never use it for anything but commuting, or face an ever rising, needlessly inflated, risk of death in a car I love.

If everyone would trade down to a midsize/crossover SUV except the people who actually NEED a full size SUV, the roads would be safer, we'd use less gas, and I for one would be happy as a clam.

 

[Slicks]

Okay, so fatalities have gone down. But have the total number of accidents gone up in relation to the number of vehicles on the road?
I'm going to go so far as to say yes. Again, it's always better to avoid the accident, which is something that more nimble, smaller vehicles (Read: Not SUV's) are better at.

 

[Famine]

We wen't from 5th in least Auto Fatalities, to 9th, since SUV's became popular.

Can you spot the word you missed out first time round?

Incidentally, you've also gone from 5th least to 9th least "Auto Fatalities" since Martin Lawrence has been alive. Kill Martin Lawrence!

(actually, that's a good idea...)

If everyone would trade down to a midsize/crossover SUV except the people who actually NEED a full size SUV, the roads would be safer, we'd use less gas, and I for one would be happy as a clam.

And who are you, exactly, to say what people NEED?

If we got rid of all motorcyclists, the roads would be safer - and who exactly NEEDS a gas tank on wheels?

If we got rid of all supercars, we'd use less gas - and who exactly NEEDS a 200mph car?

 

[Casio]

And who are you, exactly, to say what people NEED?

The majority of people don't need them. Hypothetically, lets take price out for a second, how many people need an X5 3.0i over a 530i Touring?

The 530i is actually bigger, has a larger boot capacity, smaller turning circle, tows 2000kg braked (2700kg for the X5), or exactly the same unbraked (750kg), faster, and uses less fuel.

Hell. Lets bring price back in, the X5 4.4i is only ~$8000 AUD less then the 530i. The 530i is still bigger, still has a larger boot capacity, still has a smaller turning circle, still tows 2000kg braked (2700kg for the X5), or exactly the same unbraked (750kg), is still faster, and uses even less fuel.

Yet in the US 2003, BMW sold 29,392 5 Series Tourings, and 105,554 X5s. In 2005 BMW SUVs (X3, X5) were the next most popular model after the 3-Series.

 

[Famine]

The majority of people don't need them. Hypothetically, lets take price out for a second, how many people need an X5 3.0i over a 530i Touring?

I'll ask the same question - who are you, exactly, to say what people NEED?

If you're asking who needs an X5 when they could get a spankier 530i, who needs a 530i?

 

[Casio]

I'll ask the same question - who are you, exactly, to say what people NEED?

I'm Casio. I drive a purple Cordoba. Therefore people should listen to me.

If you're asking who needs an X5 when they could get a spankier 530i, who needs a 530i?

I was just directly comparing the BMW range, since BMW/Porsche SUVs are the ones that are probably the most useless purchase to be made. How many X5s/Cayennes have seen a dirt track?

But you're correct, no one does need a 530i. However, they make a whole lot more sense then buying a $111,500AUD X5, which is inferior in every way which I stated above, then a $119,100 530i.

 

[Famine]

How many X5s/Cayennes have seen a dirt track?

About three. But why does that even matter? As it is X5s are "toff-roaders" anyway - they'd get stuck in a blob of fly spit - but why does owning any SUV carry a requirement that the owner takes it onto rough stuff at least once?

But you're correct, no one does need a 530i.

Precisely. As soon as you start talking about cars "needs" do not come into it. After all, who really needs a car at all? They want one, so that they can do the job they've chosen to do, run an errand that they chosen to run, live where they've chosen to live and go where they choose to go. Needs are bottom of the list.


So why do "needs" enter into any argument about SUVs? They always seem to, for some reason.

However, they make a whole lot more sense then buying a $111,500AUD X5, which is inferior in every way which I stated above, then a $119,100 530i.

Is an X5 really $7,500 worse - or to put it another way, is the 530i really worth the extra $7,500? Certainly not to someone who wants to tow that extra 1,500lb...

 

[Casio]

About three. But why does that even matter? As it is X5s are "toff-roaders" anyway - they'd get stuck in a blob of fly spit - but why does owning any SUV carry a requirement that the owner takes it onto rough stuff at least once?

Because otherwise there is not one single reason to get one.

Is an X5 really $7,500 worse - or to put it another way, is the 530i really worth the extra $7,500? Certainly not to someone who wants to tow that extra 1,500lb...

<Generalisation Alert> I don't think an X5 has ever been used to tow anything ever. The people who buy X5s are Suburbanites who don't use it for anything other than picking up kids and food </Generalisation>

Chances are, if you're the type of person in the market for a $111,500 X5, the first question wouldn't be "how much it can it tow"? Chances are no one would even ask. But yes, I'll concede the point for those staggering amounts of people who use their X5 to tow Caravans around.

 

[Famine]

But why does that even matter? As it is X5s are "toff-roaders" anyway - they'd get stuck in a blob of fly spit - but why does owning any SUV carry a requirement that the owner takes it onto rough stuff at least once?

Because otherwise there is not one single reason to get one.

So you're basically saying that the X5, X3, Frontera/Monterey, HR-V, Cayenne, Explorer, Blazer, Tahoe and every other similar "toff-roader" have no reason to exist because they are no better off-road than an average car?

Seriously, you think that in order to justify having an SUV the owner must take it off road at least once? Why? Must a supercar owner take it to a track to justify owning one?

That's, honestly, bonkers.


I'd like to call up an example here. My dad, because I like using him as an example as he's somewhat of an odd-bod (used to do amateur rallying and play in goal at hockey (field) before they had body armour).

He doesn't haul stuff. He doesn't tow stuff. He doesn't go off-road. He doesn't even carry passengers that often. Would you say he has no reason to own an SUV?

<Generalisation Alert> I don't think an X5 has ever been used to tow anything ever. The people who buy X5s are Suburbanites who don't use it for anything other than picking up kids and food </Generalisation>

Chances are, if you're the type of person in the market for a $111,500 X5, the first question wouldn't be "how much it can it tow"? Chances are no one would even ask. But yes, I'll concede the point for those staggering amounts of people who use their X5 to tow Caravans around.

But is it $7,500 LESS car than the alternate 5-series you suggest? Would someone who just wanted a big, comfy jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none want to shell out $7,500 more for the wagon? Sales figures would suggest not.

 

[Casio]

So you're basically saying that the X5, X3, Frontera/Monterey, HR-V, Cayenne, Explorer, Blazer, Tahoe and every other similar "toff-roader" have no reason to exist because they are no better off-road than an average car?

Seriously, you think that in order to justify having an SUV the owner must take it off road at least once? Why? Must a supercar owner take it to a track to justify owning one?

That's, honestly, bonkers.

Why is it so bonkers?! That's what off-roaders were designed for. Off-road! If you start making them less and less off-roady, then they turn into oversized cars. In which case, you can buy a large car or wagon, which will out perform the SUV in almost every single way.

Same deal with Supercars. Anyone that buys a 200mph+ supercar, where in Australia at least, it is illegal to go over 65mph, is, honestly, bonkers. (Yes. I know that it's delimited in the desert, anyone who takes a Enzo to the Australian outback is bonkers also). But yes, if they did have access to a track, where it could be used for what it's designed to do, it's different. If you actually buy a 4WD for going offroad/towing caravans, etc. Then sure, I don't have a problem.

I'd like to call up an example here. My dad...

...He doesn't haul stuff. He doesn't tow stuff. He doesn't go off-road. He doesn't even carry passengers that often. Would you say he has no reason to own an SUV?

He has no reason to own an SUV. Did the higher chance to roll over, increased fuel costs and awful turning circle appeal to him?

But is it $7,500 LESS car than the alternate 5-series you suggest? Would someone who just wanted a big, comfy jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none want to shell out $7,500 more for the wagon? Sales figures would suggest not.

$7,500 is probably negligable for someone looking at buying a $111,500 vehicle. But I'll give another example. The X5 4.8is vs the 530i Touring Sports. The 530i Touring Sports is still bigger, still has a larger boot capacity, still has a smaller turning circle, still tows 2000kg braked (2700kg for the X5), or exactly the same unbraked (750kg), is barely slower to 100km/h (It actually has a higher top speed), and doesn't average an amazing 18.7L/100km around town. (Where most X5s are driven).

Yet. The 4.8is is $156,500. The 530i Touring Sports is $125,300. Why would any shell out $31,200 extra for something that again, is inferior is almost everyway?

 

[Famine]

Why is it so bonkers?! That's what off-roaders were designed for. Off-road!

And the SUVs I mentioned which have less off-road ability than your own feet?

He has no reason to own an SUV. Did the higher chance to roll over, increased fuel costs and awful turning circle appeal to him?

Increased fuel costs compared to what?

The fact that, with his arthritic hips, an SUV was the only thing he could get into and out of, and sit in, without pain (the automatic gearbox - uncommon in the UK - helped in that respect too), the higher driving position so that he could see much further down the road and allow him better anticipation while driving and the comfort (when driving on Britain's awful pitted roads) and relatively sedate pace he required after his second heart attack were what appealed to him. Rolling over wasn't really on the cards as, at his age, most of his driving is done in towns at 30mph or less, and the vehicle's size and apparent boatlike turning circle did not seem to hinder him.

No other option but an SUV suited him - and no other option but an SUV was available in his price range.


But you're right. He should have stuck with his faster car he couldn't get out of without considerable pain.

$7,500 is probably negligable for someone looking at buying a $111,500 vehicle.

Ah! The usual argument proposed for income tax.

Why are better-off people assumed not to care about money? Surely the way they GOT better-off was by caring about it? $7,500 is an awful lot of cash to anyone.


Still, is the X5 3.0 $7,500 worse car than the 530i wagon?

 

[Dave A]

If your really want to be picky why not just get a horse and ride that, you have zero emissions it won't cost as much as a car or have starter motor trouble, you won't need an MoT or services every x miles, you'll just have to feed the horse. It'll take you where you want to go. So screw owning a car, own a horse instead. But then you don't need a horse either. The bottom line is, you don't need a car, you might put yourself in a position where a car becomes useful but you, me, Famine, M5 Power etc don't need cars, we NEED, bread and water we don't need a nice house, we don't need a TV, we don't need a PC or the internet, we don't need cars, but it's nice to own one. People buy things they like, what more reason does somone have to have to justify buying an SUV other than the fact that they want one? If it uses more fuel they have to buy more fuel, if they never go off road, so what, if they never tow anything, so what.


You go on about people spending more than they have to, well everyone does on some things, I spent a lot more than I had to on a house, but I wanted this house in this area. I didn't need this house, I could have got on just a big for half the price or less if I decided to live in the-middle-of-knowhere-ville (I wouldn't have needed that house either), I don't need to live where I do in the house I do but I paid for it with my money. So my question is this, what right do you or anyone else have, to tell me or anyone else how we should spend our mone?

And for the record, no I don't like SUV's but I wouldn't think badly of anyone that did.

 

[Casio]

And the SUVs I mentioned which have less off-road ability than your own feet

Which was my point in how usless they are...

That's what off-roaders were designed for.

Now, the large majority are designed for nothing but carrying a mum and 2 kids around in. A job which cars are also designed for and perform the task much better and efficiently.

Increased fuel costs compared to what?

Compared to the equivalent car. Back to my previous example. The X5 4.8is used 18.5L/100km in the city, the larger spaced 530i Touring Sport used 12.5l/100km.

No other option but an SUV suited him - and no other option but an SUV was available in his price range.


But you're right. He should have stuck with his faster car he couldn't get out of without considerable pain.

On the information you gave me when you asked me the question. " He doesn't haul stuff. He doesn't tow stuff. He doesn't go off-road. He doesn't even carry passengers that often. Would you say he has no reason to own an SUV?" Then my point still stands. However, there are obvious exceptions like in your fathers case. But I'm not going to assume that every single person who drives an SUV as arthritic hips.

Why are better-off people assumed not to care about money? Surely the way they GOT better-off was by caring about it? $7,500 is an awful lot of cash to anyone.


Still, is the X5 3.0 $7,500 worse car than the 530i wagon?

Is the extra 700kg braked towing ability of the X5 4.8 worth $31,200 more then the bigger, larger boot capacity, smaller turning circle, more fuel efficient 530i Touring Sports?

 

[Famine]

Which was my point in how usless they are...

Now, the large majority are designed for nothing but carrying a mum and 2 kids around in. A job which cars are also designed for and perform the task much better and efficiently.

Full circle! If they are now NOT designed to go off-road, why must the owners take them off-road to justify owning them - what you suggested in the beginning? An X3 owner doesn't need to take his SUV off-road to justify owning it, because it's not designed to go off-road!

Not that he would have to anyway - it's just to justify it to you, it seems.


Now, if they're designed for carrying a mum and 2 kids around, why suggest a 5-series wagon as an alternative, when they could get a Honda Civic to perform the same task cheaper and more efficiently?

Compared to the equivalent car.

He didn't have "the equivalent car" prior to the SUV. His fuel costs went DOWN - and have subsequently gone up again with the purchase of a Jaguar S-Type R.

On the information you gave me when you asked me the question. " He doesn't haul stuff. He doesn't tow stuff. He doesn't go off-road. He doesn't even carry passengers that often. Would you say he has no reason to own an SUV?"
Then my point still stands. However, there are obvious exceptions like in your fathers case. But I'm not going to assume that every single person who drives an SUV as arthritic hips.

No - you're going to assume that they don't need one and can afford to throw $7,500 away when you see them driving past, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Is the extra 700kg braked towing ability of the X5 4.8 worth $31,200 more then the bigger, larger boot capacity, smaller turning circle, more fuel efficient 530i Touring Sports?

I thought you were comparing "the equivalent car"... Though you certainly aren't answering the question.

 

[Dave A]

But I'm not going to assume that every single person who drives an SUV as arthritic hips.

I'm going to start assuming every time I see one person in a car that they're wasting resources, space and their money, they should just get a bike and pedal about town, they don't need the car.

 

[the Interceptor]

Full circle! If they are now NOT designed to go off-road, why must the owners take them off-road to justify owning them - what you suggested in the beginning? An X3 owner doesn't need to take his SUV off-road to justify owning it, because it's not designed to go off-road!

Not that he would have to anyway - it's just to justify it to you, it seems.

The point Casio is trying to make is this in my eyes: A BMW 5-series is a large vehicle with enough space for people, luggage and sufficient towing capacity. An X5 is exactly the same, it only has a higher suspension and different wheels. The conclusion: it has everything the 5-series has, garnished with some offroad capabilities. But if you never intend to take if offroad, why don't you buy the 5-series then?

Now, if they're designed for carrying a mum and 2 kids around, why suggest a 5-series wagon as an alternative, when they could get a Honda Civic to perform the same task cheaper and more efficiently?

Agreed, but if a Mother wants an X5 for her family, cause she needs the space and the safety, she wouldn't consider taking a Civic instead, would she?

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Dave A]

The point Casio is trying to make is this in my eyes: A BMW 5-series is a large vehicle with enough space for people, luggage and sufficient towing capacity. An X5 is exactly the same, it only has a higher suspension and different wheels. The conclusion: it has everything the 5-series has, garnished with some offroad capabilities. But if you never intend to take if offroad, why don't you buy the 5-series then?

Because they preffer to X5, that's all the reason they need.

Agreed, but if a Mother wants an X5 for her family, cause she needs the space and the safety, she wouldn't consider taking a Civic instead, would she?

She probaqbly wouldnt consider one, no, but a Civic can still carry a family around in comfort. The point is, no-one needs acar, so arguing why somone needs this, or doesn't need that is pointless, we don't need any of it, but if I liked BMW X5, and went out to buy one because I thought it looked cool and liked the interior ect, then thats all the reason I need to justify buying one.

 

[Famine]

The point Casio is trying to make is this in my eyes: A BMW 5-series is a large vehicle with enough space for people, luggage and sufficient towing capacity. An X5 is exactly the same, it only has a higher suspension and different wheels. The conclusion: it has everything the 5-series has, garnished with some offroad capabilities.

That AND it's apparently $7,500 cheaper.

But if you never intend to take if offroad, why don't you buy the 5-series then?

I thought we'd agreed that it has precious little by way of off-road ability. As for why, the answer is the same for any person buying ANY car.

They WANT it.

Agreed, but if a Mother wants an X5 for her family, cause she needs the space and the safety, she wouldn't consider taking a Civic instead, would she?

Just as she wouldn't consider the 5-series, as it appears smaller. She sees "big", thinks "semi-truck" and comes to the conclusion "safe". Some station wagon or other wouldn't even reach the back of her retinas.

 

[Ä&#321;P&#296;&#1049;&#931;]

um... X5 for mum & kids??? don't think dad would be happy if kids dirted up a &#163;50,000 SUV

she would be crazy to get an X5, if she was sane she would get a vauxhall Zafira or Mariva or something like that

 

[Casio]

Full circle! If they are now NOT designed to go off-road, why must the owners take them off-road to justify owning them - what you suggested in the beginning? An X3 owner doesn't need to take his SUV off-road to justify owning it, because it's not designed to go off-road!

Not that he would have to anyway - it's just to justify it to you, it seems.

Let me start again. 4WD's were originally designed to go off-road. In the past decade people have decided it'd be fun to drive a fuel-hungry, high COG 2000kg around the streets. The less people are taking their 4WD's off-road, the less need they have for it. If you're going to buy a vehicle that's never going to be taken off-road, why buy an off-roader Which it still is Regardless of the fact that car-makers are now making 4WD 'off-road' vehicles to designed never really go off the road. (Granted. The X3 would still have more off-roading ability then the 3-Series)

Now, if they're designed for carrying a mum and 2 kids around, why suggest a 5-series wagon as an alternative, when they could get a Honda Civic to perform the same task cheaper and more efficiently?

I was comparing the 'equivalent car' again. The mum with a spare 120k to spend on a SUV isn't going to be looking at a Honda Civic. I personally would never buy an expensive 5-Series Wagon, but say I won a choice between a 5-Series Wagon and a $31,500 more expensive X5, I'd take the wagon every time.

I thought you were comparing "the equivalent car"... Though you certainly aren't answering the question.

The $7,500 difference was equivalent on price. The $31,500 difference on the was equivalent on specs. So you can spend $111,500 on one, or $156,500 on the other, and both will be far inferior to the $119,100 Wagon.

 

[Ä&#321;P&#296;&#1049;&#931;]

It seems that the only reason to get an SUV is because it's "Cool".

SUV's are NOT cool

unless it's that SUV tuned by that program on discovery channel, Overhaulin'

 

[the Interceptor]

Because they preffer to X5, that's all the reason they need.

She probaqbly wouldnt consider one, no, but a Civic can still carry a family around in comfort. The point is, no-one needs acar, so arguing why somone needs this, or doesn't need that is pointless, we don't need any of it, but if I liked BMW X5, and went out to buy one because I thought it looked cool and liked the interior ect, then thats all the reason I need to justify buying one.

That said, we've reached the point the thread starter was trying to make in the initial post:

It seems that the only reason to get an SUV is because it's "Cool".

I understand Famines point as well, regarding his father. On the other hand, my uncle has a similar problem (problems with the back), and he bought himself an A-Class. He sits higher, can get in and out easily and has enough space, cause he usually drives mit 2 people at most. It doesn't have to be an SUV then.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Famine]

The A-Class wasn't available at that time, and would have been, to steal from Doug, prohibitively expensive.



He bought &#163;8k of 3 year old Ford Explorer.

Casio - how is a 4.4V8 X5 equivalent in specs to a 3.0 530i?

The mum with a spare 120k to spend on a SUV isn't going to be looking at a Honda Civic.

And if she's using it to spend on an SUV, she won't be looking at a 5-series wagon.

Let me start again. 4WD's were originally designed to go off-road. In the past decade people have decided it'd be fun to drive a fuel-hungry, high COG 2000kg around the streets. The less people are taking their 4WD's off-road, the less need they have for it. If you're going to buy a vehicle that's never going to be taken off-road, why buy an off-roader Which it still is Regardless of the fact that car-makers are now making 4WD 'off-road' vehicles to designed never really go off the road. (Granted. The X3 would still have more off-roading ability then the 3-Series)

So, where do you stand on the Lancer Evolution, Impreza, Legacy, FIAT Panda and so on? They're all 4WD vehicles - the first two being directly derived from nearly the most extreme application of 4WD?

The Citroen 2CV was originally designed to drive over ploughed fields with boxes of eggs. Don't see you lambasting 2CV owners for not off-roading.

I have a "sporty" Mazda. The main thing I use it for is driving to and from work - 12 miles a day - on town roads. I often use it to go shopping, and carry (relatively) lots of stuff. I rarely use it as it was intended - pants down, tackle out, slapping the lion in the face. Should I be stripped of my car and made to drive a more economical, cheaper saloon/hatchback Mazda instead?

What a car is or isn't designed for has little bearing. What a car is or isn't needed for has little bearing. What people WANT does. People who buy SUVs WANT to drive SUVs. Manufacturers who want to sell cars to these people make SUVs for them - and have recently been making car-like SUVs to accommodate some of the issues with SUVs these people have bene reporting.

Why this is so hard to grasp I don't know.

 

[the Interceptor]

People who buy SUVs WANT to drive SUVs.

Yes, but why? An estate will do the same things, and most of them even better.

 

[Famine]

Because they WANT SUVs.

 

[the Interceptor]

Because they WANT SUVs.

And apart from people that really need it, like your father, I only know one reason why somebody would want an SUV:

It seems that the only reason to get an SUV is because it's "Cool".

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, but why? An estate will do the same things, and most of them even better.

Maybe it is hard for Europeans to understand how the American psyche works. We buy SUVs because they are functional, as a matter of fact, more functional than the majority of estate/wagons sold in the US. Why? Pricing for one, added to that the truck-based SUVs that most of us drive can be used for things other than transportation. We regularly use our Chevrolet Avalanche to pull down trees, move rocks, tear out bushes etc on our 4 acre plot of land.

For sake of arguement, let me compare a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe against the 2006 BMW 530xi Wagon and 2006 Mazda6 Grand Touring Wagon...

Pricing:
Tahoe: $37,665

530xi: $51,400

6 Wagon: $27,160

Power:
Tahoe: 5.3L FlexFuel V8, 320 BHP, 15/21 EPA

530xi: 3.0L I6, 255 BHP, 20/27 EPA

6 Wagon: 3.0L V6, 215 BHP, 19/27 EPA

Seating:
Tahoe: 5/8 depending on options

530xi: 5 passengers

6 Wagon: 5 passengers

Space:
Tahoe: Front Headroom 41.1 inches, Front Legroom 41.3 inches, Rear Headroom 39.2 inches, Rear Legroom 39.0 inches.

530xi: Front Headroom 37.6 inches, Front Legroom 41.5 inches, Rear Headroom 37.6 inches, Rear Legroom 36.0 inches.

6 Wagon: Front Headroom 38.7 inches, Front Legroom 42.3 inches, Rear Headroom 38.6 inches, Rear Legroom 36.5 inches.

Payload and Towing:
Tahoe: 1776.0 lbs (Payload), 8200.0 lbs (towing)

530xi: Not Rated

6 Wagon: Not Rated

-----

Clearly, it all depends on what you need when you will chose one. Me? I'd probably be more apt to go for something like the Mazda 6 Wagon or VW Passat 2.0T Wagon, but that is because I live in the city and generally do not have a need for AWD capability and 8000+ lbs of towing capacity.

As for my Father, he did. Thats why he bought the Avalanche (GMT800-based, actually bigger than the Tahoe mentioned, that GMT900-based). He uses it to haul the wife and kids (all six of them), a bed full of junk for the beach, and they are off to Aunt Tenley's beach house for the weekend.

 

[331 Boss]

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.
.

HAHA! My grandpa has one of those. It's got a 4.3 in it, it hauls arse!
He has the awd version and we got all 4 to spin!
Only cool van I ever seen. Lotsa room hauls ass, and well it can do a 40 ft burnout in awd... nuff said
as for towing, yeah the 4.3 is good for that, but after awhile it will start ti kill that engine. It's only a 6er. Tho it' is inreality a 350 with 2 cylinders cut off the front...