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.
Technically, you are correct, but I get the impression that question was not about the larger SUVs. Do they even sell that many of the really big SUVs anymore? I don't see as many around as I used to, but I haven't checked.
It all depends on where you live, as to what people drive. In our part of the world, go down to any parking lot and you will find the majority of the vehicles are either middle size or large SUVs or they are 4 door 4X4 pickups.
My wife both in our latter 80s, drive a 2012 Ford Explorer Limited with all the bells and whistles, and a 1999 F-150 Ford Pickup. The pickup is really sharp condition, and less than 100K miles. As is over 11 years old, we have permanent plates, and do not have any annual license renewal We keep the pickup, to haul garbage and trash to the dump as we live across a county road from the best part of the small city and do not have garbage service available, and to use when we need to move something large. We live 50 miles from major shopping, and few things are delivered by the stores that far and if they are it is very expensive. Both vehicles have never had any repair, except replacing a battery when they wear out. Just kept well maintained.
One reason our vehicles have to be large, is I am 6'2" tall with a long body, and cannot even get into or sit up in those smaller vehicles some of you are suggesting.
When the wind blows hard, and the snow is heavy a few times a year, the Explorer with studded snow tires, and the ability to dial in the type of road conditions, so it sets the transmission and brakes for bad snow and ice conditions is something we appreciate. If it gets too bad, I just shift to manual shift mode, so I can control the gear we are in, and shift by pushing a button. When you are getting a 70 mph or higher side wind, and bad snow and ice conditions as we have seen, I never have any problems, while seeing every 25 to 50 feet cars off the road on both sides for one 15 mile stretch on one trip.
I will take the 22 miles average gas millage, for the safety and comfort, plus the go anywhere, any time ability the vehicle provides.
I was thinking of Excursions and Suburban when I think of large SUV. I don't see as many as I used to. You're right though. It depends on where you are.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The Chrysler with Stow and go gives you options to put only some of the seats down in the floor or all, in any combination you want. The rear seat has two parts. You can put on down or both. Same with the middle. Your mother in law could have put down the left part and had plenty of room for everything listed.
No.... she couldn't. She had 6 people in the vehicle. Two in the middle row captain's chairs, and two in the rear seat. She couldn't easily fit everything (we tried) inside the vehicle.
I was thinking of Excursions and Suburban when I think of large SUV. I don't see as many as I used to. You're right though. It depends on where you are.
I think Supercrew/CrewCab PU trucks have taken sales away from those 1/2-3/4 ton 4x4 Full-size body on frame SUV's used for towing/hauling.
Just add a Canopy or tonneau cover to the PU bed and you got pretty much the same unless you need to more then haul more then 5 people and 6 in pinch with front Folding front bench seats.
My wife's entire family went to the beach last week with us. We drove our Expedition, she drove her minivan. We carried our family of 4, plus 2 nephews. We only had to use the single seat in the 3rd row, allowing us to fold the other two down for storage. We carried a beach cart, cooler, 2 large suitcases, 2 small suitcases, 4 beach chairs, a beach tent, two umbrellas, and cases of drinks and boxes of food with us. None of the passengers were cramped or uncomfortable on the trip. My mother in law took two nieces and my brother and sister in law. She packed 3 large suitcases in the rear cargo area, and had to stow the spare tire and one suitcase in an overhead luggage container because nothing else would fit.
Why would she remove the spare tire from the underside of the vehicle to put it in an overhead luggage container? The only way it'd ever not be under the bottom side of the vehicle is if she doesn't have the stow and go and then she's just missing out on one of the greatest advantages of a T&C.
Even still, comparing a minivan to an extended length Expedition is a bit of an odd combination. Still, there's plenty of pos/neg tradeoffs for both.
The Expedition EL is almost 2 ft longer, butthe T&C gets 25% better gas mileage.
Expedition seats 8, but T&C has captain chairs making rear access easier.
Expedition has more room behind 3rd row but the minivan can carry more when all back seats are folded.
The Expedition base price is also a nice used car's price above the highest trim T&C.
Why would she remove the spare tire from the underside of the vehicle to put it in an overhead luggage container? The only way it'd ever not be under the bottom side of the vehicle is if she doesn't have the stow and go and then she's just missing out on one of the greatest advantages of a T&C.
Even still, comparing a minivan to an extended length Expedition is a bit of an odd combination. Still, there's plenty of pos/neg tradeoffs for both.
The Expedition EL is almost 2 ft longer, butthe T&C gets 25% better gas mileage.
Expedition seats 8, but T&C has captain chairs making rear access easier.
Expedition has more room behind 3rd row but the minivan can carry more when all back seats are folded.
The Expedition base price is also a nice used car's price above the highest trim T&C.
The spare tire sits in the rear of her van. Not really an odd combination. We are comparing minivans to SUVs.... the argument was made that minivans are more capable in most cases than an SUV. That isn't necessarily true.
I'll answer these in order.
The T&C gets 24 mpg on the highway. The expedition gets 18. This is assuming there is no added wind resistance from stacking cargo on the roof.
That's 16% the last time I did the math. On a 500 mile road trip, the T&C will burn 20.83 gallons of fuel. At $2 per gallon, that's $42 in gas. The Expedition will burn 27 gallons at a cost of $56. The cost difference is less than $.03 per mile more to drive the Expedition. Not as big of a deal when you break it down.
The Expedition has a feature that completely flips the middle seats forward making entrance to the third row extremely easy. Look it up. It's actually easier to maneuver through than passing between those captain's chairs.
The maximum cargo capacity with all seats stowed on the Chrysler is 143.8 CU.Ft. The max cargo capacity on the Expedition EL with all seats stowed is 130 cu ft. This is not from length, but from height. Realistically, the only way you can make use of the additional 13 cu.ft. is to stack things to the ceiling in the van. Not really all that practical.
The SUV will holds its value over the long run much better than the minivan so the return is a flop in regards to initial cost. Her T&C cost $40k new. The Expedition was $50k. Keep in mind that the Expedition comes with more capabilities and features than the minivan. Let's look at two year old versions.
NADA USED pricing (clean retail):
2014 T&C Limited V6 (what she has) - 60k miles - $22,775
2014 Expedition EL Limited V8 (what we have) - 60k miles - $33,450
Both have their place depending upon a person's needs, but to assume that a minivan is always more practical is a big stretch.
The spare tire sits in the rear of her van. Then she didn't have the stow'n'go seating. All Stow'n'Go T&C's have the spare under the vehicle. She's missing out on the most advantageous designs of a minivan. :-( Not really an odd combination. We are comparing minivans to SUVs.... the argument was made that minivans are more capable in most cases than an SUV. That isn't necessarily true.
It's odd in that your example is much larger and much more expensive. It affects everything from gas mileage to turning radius (4 ft wider) to towing capacity (a plus for Expedition)
I'll answer these in order.
The T&C gets 24 mpg on the highway. The expedition gets 18. This is assuming there is no added wind resistance from stacking cargo on the roof.
That's 16% the last time I did the math. On a 500 mile road trip, the T&C will burn 20.83 gallons of fuel. At $2 per gallon, that's $42 in gas. The Expedition will burn 27 gallons at a cost of $56. The cost difference is less than $.03 per mile more to drive the Expedition. Not as big of a deal when you break it down.
I'm confused as to where the 16% is coming from. Depending on which way you're calculating it, 6 mpg higher is 25% more compared to 24 mpg and 33.3% more than 18 mpg. Even still, using your abnormally low $2 per gallon and your numbers of 18 and 24 mpg (which will vary depending on year), if you drive 12k miles per year, your cost difference per year is hundreds of dollars... and that is just using highway mpg. If you drive more than average or we see gas back up at $4/gal you're now talking thousands of dollars over several years of owning the vehicle.
The Expedition has a feature that completely flips the middle seats forward making entrance to the third row extremely easy. Look it up. It's actually easier to maneuver through than passing between those captain's chairs.
Have you tried the stow n go? One lever can flip the captains chairs forward on the T&C as well... but for kids, the center aisle is easier. This is even more true if you have car seats in the middle row.
The maximum cargo capacity with all seats stowed on the Chrysler is 143.8 CU.Ft. The max cargo capacity on the Expedition EL with all seats stowed is 130 cu ft. This is not from length, but from height. Realistically, the only way you can make use of the additional 13 cu.ft. is to stack things to the ceiling in the van. Not really all that practical.
Did you not stack all that stuff for the beach up to the ceiling? Better yet, we recently moved a full size mattress set w/ a borrowed minivan. Never would have happened with the Expedition.
The SUV will holds its value over the long run much better than the minivan so the return is a flop in regards to initial cost.
Not so. Using a total cost of ownership calculator, such as Edmunds "True cost to own" tool, shows that a T&C is vastly less expensive during a 5 year ownership cycle, even taking into consideration depreciation. There is an even more stark difference if you want to outfit the Expedition with the options that a fully loaded T&C would have.
See my responses in red above.
I'm still not discounting that for some people an Expedition could be the better choice... but for many, if not most, the minivan will be the better option.
Then again, you have some people like myself who have a 60's home where the garage wouldn't really even fit an 18.5 ft long vehicle!
Forgot the most important part... the Expedition is a body on frame truck vs the T&C unibody carlike design. The ride quality and comfort are very different.
The spare tire sits in the rear of her van. Not really an odd combination. We are comparing minivans to SUVs.... the argument was made that minivans are more capable in most cases than an SUV. That isn't necessarily true.
I'll answer these in order.
The T&C gets 24 mpg on the highway. The expedition gets 18. This is assuming there is no added wind resistance from stacking cargo on the roof.
That's 16% the last time I did the math. On a 500 mile road trip, the T&C will burn 20.83 gallons of fuel. At $2 per gallon, that's $42 in gas. The Expedition will burn 27 gallons at a cost of $56. The cost difference is less than $.03 per mile more to drive the Expedition. Not as big of a deal when you break it down.
The Expedition has a feature that completely flips the middle seats forward making entrance to the third row extremely easy. Look it up. It's actually easier to maneuver through than passing between those captain's chairs.
The maximum cargo capacity with all seats stowed on the Chrysler is 143.8 CU.Ft. The max cargo capacity on the Expedition EL with all seats stowed is 130 cu ft. This is not from length, but from height. Realistically, the only way you can make use of the additional 13 cu.ft. is to stack things to the ceiling in the van. Not really all that practical.
The SUV will holds its value over the long run much better than the minivan so the return is a flop in regards to initial cost. Her T&C cost $40k new. The Expedition was $50k. Keep in mind that the Expedition comes with more capabilities and features than the minivan. Let's look at two year old versions.
NADA USED pricing (clean retail):
2014 T&C Limited V6 (what she has) - 60k miles - $22,775
2014 Expedition EL Limited V8 (what we have) - 60k miles - $33,450
Both have their place depending upon a person's needs, but to assume that a minivan is always more practical is a big stretch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote=GoodHombre;48500738]What minivans have and SUVs don't have are the sliding doors. I heard a lot of hype about how important sliding doors are for pregnant women and kids, but I've got no experience.
Previously, I was leaning Subaru Outback. It looks stylish and practical. I'm fine with their not so fancy interiors, but I am not sure how reliable they are.[/quote]
Seriously, are you a troll????
Many of us own Outbacks because they are extremely reliable, go-anywhere, fuel-efficient, practical, fun (yeah, I said fun) and are great for hauling the family, the family dog, and even yes, even plywood, sheet rock, furniture, and almost anything else.
I don't know what you mean by "not so fancy interior" because you can a base 2.5i model or a Limited or Touring model with numerous amenities.
The point is the Outback may very well meet your needs and I would suggest that you do some serious research into owning one.
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.
