Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting point, but T&C is a poor example given that was pretty much its last year and there's still the same $10K difference in value as there was brand new. The rates of depreciation are the same.
Not when compared to initial price. Depreciation is significantly higher for the minivan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
The gas mileage difference works out to $1800 in 3 years, which makes the Expedition technically a worse investment in the long run. Starting $10K less also means less taxes, insurance, and finance cost on top of the $1800 gas mileage difference.
Using what price per gallon? That number can fluctuate up or down significantly depending on the part of the country. FWIW, $1800 over 3 years is negligible to me. That works out to $50 a month. Given the other obvious advantages to a more versatile vehicle like a full size SUV, that's a small premium to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
A new Pacifica hybrid tops out at $45K, yet gets a $7500 federal tax credit and up to $2K in state incentives (depending on state) and gets 33 mpg highway. It's a pretty hard business case to beat with any similar SUV when looking at money alone.
But price is not always the only factor when making a decision. In fact, it's not the first factor for me when I consider a vehicle. It's a needs based assessment first, then price comes in after that. A needs based assessment may see the Pacifica or any other minivan fall out of the competition for any number of reasons. I'll share just one of mine next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Also the whole flipping seat thing sucks when car seats are installed. Minivans now flip, slide, pivot forward, whatever you want to get in the back.
A minivan is better with kids (not cooler, just better) and overall cheaper cost to own than an SUV. SUVs pretty much just outclass minivans with style and towing.
Much has been made of cargo capacity or passenger space separately, but nobody yet has mentioned combining the two. This is especially important to me because I have 3 kids and as a family we often run errands together. The combination of passenger room AND capacity in our Sequoia is far better than in the minivan we had. Even with the much touted stow and go seating, we'd still only be able to lower one side of the third row and from there hope that made enough room for whatever we were hauling.
And if we needed to haul something truly big we have a trailer for that. When we've reached that point the minivan is already outclassed anyway even assuming all the seats are down is a non-starter. Not fitting appliances, a few cubic yards of mulch, a friend's entire apartment, or a couple tons of river jack in the back of T&C or any other minivan and you're not towing all that with a minivan either!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
That being said, I'd still go for another SUV. I just know that its technically not the best choice and I'm ok with that.
It was definitely the best choice for us. And it wasn't close.
If we are pitting the Expedition against a Van, lets compare with a Dodge ram 150, short wheel base, in 7 passenger mode, with the 5.9l. The newer expeditions are basically a replacement for the expedition, anyways . Such a contrast against a minivan. We can even compare a Sports mobile to an expedition, comparing girth and 4x4 capabilities.
The problem with current minivans are the low tow rating, soccer mom status, and no 4x4 or v8. Bring back a "Shorty v8" fullsize van, but fit it in a 2x2x3 configuration, with dual sunroof , and normal windows, dual barn doors. unfortunately, this configuration could only be had in a conversion, bay windowed package, ugly and tacky looking.
the first generation, awd MPV, Toyota Previa awd, VW euro van synchro, these models almost had it perfect, most versatile , but no towing. Other countries around the world, have it good, with better selections, more versatile models.
If I can find a triple black, awd astrovan , ala "a-team", with full leather, duak sunroof, with a v8, now we talking a versatile, everyday driver!
Not when compared to initial price. Depreciation is significantly higher for the minivan.
Using what price per gallon? That number can fluctuate up or down significantly depending on the part of the country. FWIW, $1800 over 3 years is negligible to me. That works out to $50 a month. Given the other obvious advantages to a more versatile vehicle like a full size SUV, that's a small premium to pay.
But price is not always the only factor when making a decision. In fact, it's not the first factor for me when I consider a vehicle. It's a needs based assessment first, then price comes in after that. A needs based assessment may see the Pacifica or any other minivan fall out of the competition for any number of reasons. I'll share just one of mine next.
Much has been made of cargo capacity or passenger space separately, but nobody yet has mentioned combining the two. This is especially important to me because I have 3 kids and as a family we often run errands together. The combination of passenger room AND capacity in our Sequoia is far better than in the minivan we had. Even with the much touted stow and go seating, we'd still only be able to lower one side of the third row and from there hope that made enough room for whatever we were hauling.
And if we needed to haul something truly big we have a trailer for that. When we've reached that point the minivan is already outclassed anyway even assuming all the seats are down is a non-starter. Not fitting appliances, a few cubic yards of mulch, a friend's entire apartment, or a couple tons of river jack in the back of T&C or any other minivan and you're not towing all that with a minivan either!
It was definitely the best choice for us. And it wasn't close.
The depreciation works out to the same in terms of actual money. Depreciation is usually described as a rate, but $10k is $10k.
The gas savings might be $50 a gallon but the monthly payment is $150 higher as well.
When compared to the hybrid Pacifica there's another $7500-$10000 left on the table as well and using the $2 a gallon number another $50 a month in gas savings. Theoretically given the mileage difference, tax break, lower price that would be a total of $460 more a month to drive the Expedition vs a hybrid Pacifica. It's about half that for a normal minivan.
Financially speaking a minivan is the best bang for the buck when it comes to capacity. It doesnt tow very much but for people who tow infrequently, the extra savings will easily pay for a truck and a trailer for the rare times they need it.
The loading floor is lower, it's easier for kids and elderly to get in, and the doors are much wider.
There's plenty of room behind the 3rd row.
I can see why somebody would rather have a full size SUV, but image aside, it probably fits the needs of the vast majority of people.
The depreciation works out to the same in terms of actual money. Depreciation is usually described as a rate, but $10k is $10k.
The gas savings might be $50 a gallon but the monthly payment is $150 higher as well.
A rate has to be measured against something otherwise it's not a rate it's a raw number. In that case $10k from the price of a minivan is a lot more than $10k from the initial price of an SUV. I'd be really interested to know what specific depreciation calculator you are using. Sounds like your research could use some peer review. Meanwhile I'd suggest hopping on some of these nationwide car brokers and comparing some actual vehicles rather than relying on a theoretical calculator that likely doesn't even factor in make/model. If depreciation on a minivan works out to be the same as an SUV, then the free market that sets ACTUAL PRICES for these vehicles has a lot of explaining to do. I encourage you to do a casual browse of a few different types of full size SUVs and minivans, but I'll warn you: It'll shatter without mercy your depreciation argument. Especially when you look at T&Cs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
When compared to the hybrid Pacifica there's another $7500-$10000 left on the table as well and using the $2 a gallon number another $50 a month in gas savings. Theoretically given the mileage difference, tax break, lower price that would be a total of $460 more a month to drive the Expedition vs a hybrid Pacifica. It's about half that for a normal minivan.
Over a period of how many months? If I buy a vehicle new I commit to owning it 12 years minimum. I don't analyze the cost of the vehicle based on how much I paid divided by how many months I was paying for it. I do it based on how many months I actually owned it. This is critical because you can walk through any car max lot in the country and see more minivans than SUVs. Generally people keep minivans
for shorter periods, mitigating away any potential cost advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Financially speaking a minivan is the best bang for the buck when it comes to capacity. It doesnt tow very much but for people who tow infrequently, the extra savings will easily pay for a truck and a trailer for the rare times they need it.
Perhaps upon initial purchase, but I believe one gets what they pay for in some cases. Plus I think the minivan's capacity is only fully maximized if there are no passengers in any of the rear seats. When there's a total of 5 passengers you're looking at a roof mounted cargo box for a family vacation. That's a no fly zone for me because the roof is where the kayaks/SUP boards go! I can fit my family and an obscene amount of stuff inside the vehicle. So "capacity" has to be qualified.
but as noted above I suspect you've been very generous to minivans with regard to depreciation. My sequoia is now 7 years old and has almost 120,000 miles on it. About a year ago a letter from Toyota offered me $34k sight unseen for it. A search for similar vehicles with similar mileage puts its value ~$29k. Searches for 2010 era minivans of similar mileage topped out at ~$11-12k, with most being under $10k. Since I plan on keeping this vehicle another 5 or so years it's good to know the higher cost up front has held better value down the stretch.
OTOH to be fair to minivans: Anyone whose wired like me with regard to buying new vehicles and keeping them a long time BUT has a preference for a minivan for his/her own reasons may not actually care as much about depreciation if they know they're going to drive the car for a very long time. Still, even in this scenario if you consider depreciation a proxy for longevity it's a reflection of the vehicle's potential remaining lifespan. And still again, even in that scenario, someone may deem the shorter potential lifespan to be well within his/her tolerances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
The loading floor is lower, it's easier for kids and elderly to get in, and the doors are much wider.
There's plenty of room behind the 3rd row.
I can see why somebody would rather have a full size SUV, but image aside, it probably fits the needs of the vast majority of people.
There it is again. I'm starting to wonder if this forum is home to some underground minivan worshipping cult.
The depreciation works out to the same in terms of actual money. Depreciation is usually described as a rate, but $10k is $10k.
The gas savings might be $50 a gallon but the monthly payment is $150 higher as well.
When compared to the hybrid Pacifica there's another $7500-$10000 left on the table as well and using the $2 a gallon number another $50 a month in gas savings. Theoretically given the mileage difference, tax break, lower price that would be a total of $460 more a month to drive the Expedition vs a hybrid Pacifica. It's about half that for a normal minivan.
Financially speaking a minivan is the best bang for the buck when it comes to capacity. It doesnt tow very much but for people who tow infrequently, the extra savings will easily pay for a truck and a trailer for the rare times they need it.
The loading floor is lower, it's easier for kids and elderly to get in, and the doors are much wider.
There's plenty of room behind the 3rd row.
I can see why somebody would rather have a full size SUV, but image aside, it probably fits the needs of the vast majority of people.
Our SUV is extremely easy to enter and exit because it has retractable running boards. You barely have to step up to get into it. And you'll need to quality the loading being easier. Most are unloading items from a shopping cart. It is much easier to pick up heavier items from a cart and place them laterally into the SUV than to bend down to place them in the van. Further, you'll need to qualify "plenty of room" behind the 3rd row..... A 2016 T&C has 33 cubic ft of cargo capacity behind the 3rd row. Our Expedition has 42.6 cubic ft of cargo capacity behind the 3rd row. I know you may mention that it's an EL... but GM and others also have an extended version that are very common on the road so the comparison is fair.
Let's look at this theoretical $150/mo higher payment for driving the SUV for a moment.
You said that the extra savings for payment and gas would pay for a truck and trailer in the event that someone didn't need towing capacity often. Let's break down some numbers.
$150 * 12 = $1,800
$50*12 = $600
Total = $2,400 per year in savings, right?
Now..... let's look at the initial cost of a trailer. Assuming one doesn't choose those worthless DIY trailers from Harbor Freight and actually buys a decent trailer...
Trailer (5x10) = $700 new
Trailer maintenance (floor replacement, tires, lights, paint) = $50/year
Tag = $30 / year
The cost of ownership of the trailer is about $80/year.
Now... let's add in a decent used truck... I say decent because a cheaper one is going to require more maintenance.
Truck - $6,000
Yearly liability insurance - $960
Yearly tag = $75
If you drove it 3,000 miles in a year at 15 mpg with gas at a steady $2/gal = $400
Yearly maintenance (oil change, tires, etc...) - $600
The total cost of ownership for a year could be $1,635.
Total cost of truck and trailer per year = $2,035. And this assumes no major incidents with the truck or trailer needing major repair. Up front you'd need to spend almost $7k. To recoup that money you'd have to keep the truck for almost 4 years just to recoup the initial cost. Probably longer considering that each year the truck and trailer costs you money just to sit in the driveway when not in use.
Where's your savings? One SUV that covers both duties is far more economical and less work than owning and maintaining two vehicles.
Where's your savings? One SUV that covers both duties is far more economical and less work than owning and maintaining two vehicles.
A great question. If the cost advantage is going to be the crux of the pro-minivan argument then those advocating this option have just undermined their own argument!
If we are pitting the Expedition against a Van, lets compare with a Dodge ram 150, short wheel base, in 7 passenger mode, with the 5.9l. The newer expeditions are basically a replacement for the expedition, anyways . Such a contrast against a minivan. We can even compare a Sports mobile to an expedition, comparing girth and 4x4 capabilities.
The problem with current minivans are the low tow rating, soccer mom status, and no 4x4 or v8. Bring back a "Shorty v8" fullsize van, but fit it in a 2x2x3 configuration, with dual sunroof , and normal windows, dual barn doors. unfortunately, this configuration could only be had in a conversion, bay windowed package, ugly and tacky looking.
the first generation, awd MPV, Toyota Previa awd, VW euro van synchro, these models almost had it perfect, most versatile , but no towing. Other countries around the world, have it good, with better selections, more versatile models.
If I can find a triple black, awd astrovan , ala "a-team", with full leather, duak sunroof, with a v8, now we talking a versatile, everyday driver!
The a team van was a 1983 GMC Vandura cargo van not a chevy Astro van witch was considered a minivan and only had a 4.3 V6 not a V8.
Our SUV is extremely easy to enter and exit because it has retractable running boards. You barely have to step up to get into it. And you'll need to quality the loading being easier. Most are unloading items from a shopping cart. It is much easier to pick up heavier items from a cart and place them laterally into the SUV than to bend down to place them in the van. Further, you'll need to qualify "plenty of room" behind the 3rd row..... A 2016 T&C has 33 cubic ft of cargo capacity behind the 3rd row. Our Expedition has 42.6 cubic ft of cargo capacity behind the 3rd row. I know you may mention that it's an EL... but GM and others also have an extended version that are very common on the road so the comparison is fair.
Let's look at this theoretical $150/mo higher payment for driving the SUV for a moment.
You said that the extra savings for payment and gas would pay for a truck and trailer in the event that someone didn't need towing capacity often. Let's break down some numbers.
$150 * 12 = $1,800
$50*12 = $600
Total = $2,400 per year in savings, right?
Now..... let's look at the initial cost of a trailer. Assuming one doesn't choose those worthless DIY trailers from Harbor Freight and actually buys a decent trailer...
Trailer (5x10) = $700 new
Trailer maintenance (floor replacement, tires, lights, paint) = $50/year
Tag = $30 / year
The cost of ownership of the trailer is about $80/year.
Now... let's add in a decent used truck... I say decent because a cheaper one is going to require more maintenance.
Truck - $6,000
Yearly liability insurance - $960
Yearly tag = $75
If you drove it 3,000 miles in a year at 15 mpg with gas at a steady $2/gal = $400
Yearly maintenance (oil change, tires, etc...) - $600
The total cost of ownership for a year could be $1,635.
Total cost of truck and trailer per year = $2,035. And this assumes no major incidents with the truck or trailer needing major repair. Up front you'd need to spend almost $7k. To recoup that money you'd have to keep the truck for almost 4 years just to recoup the initial cost. Probably longer considering that each year the truck and trailer costs you money just to sit in the driveway when not in use.
Where's your savings? One SUV that covers both duties is far more economical and less work than owning and maintaining two vehicles.
Nlambert, I'm going to use you as an example again just because you have a nice specific circumstance, not because I'm picking on you.
There's a lot of generous numbers being thrown around for large SUV's. A minivan can start just over 20k and go up to low 40's. Meanwhile, so called "affordable" large SUV's, for example the expedition, start in the 40's and can max out over 60k if you want to load it up like the minivan.
Right off the bat, you're talking double the price. Right there, by itself, negates the entire depreciation debate. Even if the Town and Country lost 100% of it's value, you would break even in how much money you lost in depreciation compared to the Expedition.
While marketing departments of car companies tout depreciation rates, what other financial area of your life do you value the rate over the real dollar value of growth or depreciation? For example, would you rather your house have a higher increase in percent of it's value or would you rather see a higher specific value increase? (Or, if the economy crashes again, would you rather have $200k in your investment portfolio that loses 25%/50k or $400k that loses 60k/15%?)
Besides pricing, you still have the ginormousness of the Expedition, the wide turning radius, the high step in (even with running boards, poor grandma can struggle after her hip surgery! ;-) ), the lower gas mileage, the requirement to flip seats to access the back, lower rollover safety rating, lower reliability ratings from JD Power after 3 years ownership, and more.
I still maintain, if you need to tow, you live in hilly/mountainous areas and need awd or 4 wheel drive (if you feel the need to have awd and don't live in hilly areas, you're doing it wrong), and you don't live in a more urban area than the Expedition could definitely be the better option. However, for the vast majority of people the minivan will be better.
Much has been made of cargo capacity or passenger space separately, but nobody yet has mentioned combining the two. This is especially important to me because I have 3 kids and as a family we often run errands together. The combination of passenger room AND capacity in our Sequoia is far better than in the minivan we had. Even with the much touted stow and go seating, we'd still only be able to lower one side of the third row and from there hope that made enough room for whatever we were hauling.
And if we needed to haul something truly big we have a trailer for that. When we've reached that point the minivan is already outclassed anyway even assuming all the seats are down is a non-starter. Not fitting appliances, a few cubic yards of mulch, a friend's entire apartment, or a couple tons of river jack in the back of T&C or any other minivan and you're not towing all that with a minivan either!
It was definitely the best choice for us. And it wasn't close.
What minivan did you have that you could fit more in a Sequoia? The cargo volume on most minivans is much greater than that of the sequoia. With all seats up, T&C has about double the space, and more importantly in your example, if you flip down half the 3rd row, you have far more cargo space. I'm not following.
The items you listed for hauling: appliances, mulch (lay down some tarp first! :-) ), moving a friend, etc can do really well in a minivan, much better than most SUV's. As mentioned many times in this thread, towing will be the weak spot. Although, if you really need to tow more than 3500ish lbs, you can always just rent a uhaul for a day for $30.
What minivan did you have that you could fit more in a Sequoia? The cargo volume on most minivans is much greater than that of the sequoia. With all seats up, T&C has about double the space, and more importantly in your example, if you flip down half the 3rd row, you have far more cargo space. I'm not following.
If by "double the space" you mean 143 ft^3 vs 120 ft^3 then yes, double the space. If comparing ACTUAL ft^3 and not exaggerating or speaking before taking the time to actually look something up, then it's nowhere close to double. With all the seats up and maximizing passenger capacity (8 for the Sequoia, 7 for the T&C) I still have comparable space behind the third row. If I drop one passenger (7 on 7 comparison) I can lower a part of the third row and now have more usable interior cargo space.
Now in my example, if I flip down the 3rd row I don't have a seat for one of my passengers. I can only flip down part of the third row and that cuts significantly into interior cargo space. In my sequoia I can flip down the entire 3rd row for a far more convenient and practical interior cargo space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldwake
The items you listed for hauling: appliances, mulch (lay down some tarp first! :-) ), moving a friend, etc can do really well in a minivan, much better than most SUV's. As mentioned many times in this thread, towing will be the weak spot. Although, if you really need to tow more than 3500ish lbs, you can always just rent a uhaul for a day for $30.
I'm on the fence here. This is so outlandish I'm starting to wonder if this is a troll comment or if my suspicions of some secretive minivan worshiping cult is present here on CD. Keep in mind, the comment to which you're replying cites having a TRAILER for these items. A trailer that when fully loaded with stuff like this would be too heavy for a minivan to pull. Mulch by the cubic yard in the back of a minivan? That's actually comical to think about. It's reminiscent of hearing North Koreans speak of their "dear leader" insomuch as he can do no wrong. Much the way the minivan boosters here seem to think a minivan is the perfect vehicle for everyone all the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm starting to wonder if this forum is home to some underground minivan worshipping cult.
