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.
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!
Do what?
Read what you want but a depreciation rate is meaningless. A few years ago a Maybachnhad one of the lowest 5 year depreciation rates at 30%. It was a $300k car, so you would have lost $100k in value. A Smart Car might loose 90%, but you're only out $13k.
Do what?
Read what you want but a depreciation rate is meaningless. A few years ago a Maybachnhad one of the lowest 5 year depreciation rates at 30%. It was a $300k car, so you would have lost $100k in value. A Smart Car might loose 90%, but you're only out $13k.
Need to see the forest though the trees.
And somewhere in the middle, you know, where the vast majority of consumers shop and spend their money and change out vehicles every 4-6 years, is the minivan and full size SUV. Depreciation isn't meaningless here because it affects trade in or resale value. Thanks for the attempt to validate your point with extremes though. I was at least a bit amusing.
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.
Why do you want to own your own trailer? Just rent a Uhaul trailer. You can rent an F250 flatbed from Home Depot for $25.
The retractable steps are a bandaid. My in laws have them and I hate them. I like to step right in, the steps too short meaning you need a bunch of baby steps to get in. Or just leap over them but now the foot on the ground is two feet away and you're trying to get up high. I'd rather skip all that nonsense.
The high loading floor is a nice ergonomic height, I'll give you that.
I get why you want an SUV but no need to stretch the business case to fit. I don't buy minivans either but they they are the best design for most people even if nobody wants to admit it.
And somewhere in the middle, you know, where the vast majority of consumers shop and spend their money and change out vehicles every 4-6 years, is the minivan and full size SUV. Depreciation isn't meaningless here because it affects trade in or resale value. Thanks for the attempt to validate your point with extremes though. I was at least a bit amusing.
You think resell values are linear or something? They're not, they have a 1 yr rate, a 3 year rate, 5 year rate, then a salvage value. The rate is not a guarantee of the future. When gas prices first shot up about 10 years ago, you could get a $100k H1 for $25k.
I'm mearly working with the example given as an arbitrary rate of depreciation is meaningless in the context of indicating a static value. In either case presented, both had lost exactly $10k of value at the same time. Read into it whatever you want.
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.
Okay. I miscounted. I thought you said 5 people. Even so, that one unneeded part of the back bench can go down and open up some more space for stuff.
You think resell values are linear or something? They're not, they have a 1 yr rate, a 3 year rate, 5 year rate, then a salvage value. The rate is not a guarantee of the future. When gas prices first shot up about 10 years ago, you could get a $100k H1 for $25k.
I'm mearly working with the example given as an arbitrary rate of depreciation is meaningless in the context of indicating a static value. In either case presented, both had lost exactly $10k of value at the same time. Read into it whatever you want.
Show me where I said that? Instead I did something crazy: I looked at actual listings of similarly aged vehicles with similar mileage.
If by "double the space" you mean 143 ft^3 vs 120 ft^3 then yes, double the space.
No, I was referring to double the space behind the 3rd row.
I'm not sure what year you have or what kind of minivan you want to compare, but since we're doing 2014 T&C's already, I'll stick with that.
2014 Sequoia:
Cargo Volume to Seat 1 (cu. ft.): 120.1
Cargo Volume to Seat 2 (cu. ft.): 66.6
Cargo Volume to Seat 3 (cu. ft.): 18.9
If you take full space behind 3rd row, add in the volume of 1/3 of third row when you flip the seat down, you come to 34.64 sq ft. (18.9 + ((66.6-18.9=47.7)*.33)=34.64
T&C:
Cargo Volume to Seat 1 (cu. ft.): 143.8
Cargo Volume to Seat 2 (cu. ft.): 83.3
Cargo Volume to Seat 3 (cu. ft.): 33
In other words, you need the 7 passenger set up to match the T&C.
Another scenario:
If you have 3 kids and want to carry the whole fam plus luggage, in 5 passenger configuration for a Sequoia with a bench 2nd row vs a T&C, you'll have 66.6 sq ft for Sequoia vs 33 + 2/3 of third row in T&C which is roughly 54.78+33= 87.78 (you'll have to minus a couple sq ft for the seat folding into floor taking away some space)
T&C has more again.
Quote:
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.
Ha, it was a little tongue in cheek but it is still a legit argument. My buddy picks up mulch in his outlander by putting a tarp down... why not in a minivan? But in all seriousness, minivans are great for picking up appliances and hauling/moving. With the wide/tall cargo area and low loading height, if you're just picking up something off craigslist or whatnot, it's awesome. As I mentioned before, we borrowed a minivan to pick up a full size mattress/box spring. Not doable in any SUV.
It's weird you think there is some sort of cult... it's just a minivan. I just really want people to admit they don't like them because of the image, not because they aren't practical. I'll readily admit that I'd never own a minivan b/c of that... will you?
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.
We just find them more practical for our uses.
