How the heck did we get here? Most best selling "cars" are now superzied pickups and SUVs.
Supply issues continue to plague the industry, but these are the models that managed to reach the most buyers in 2022.
And I hate their blue-rich eye searing headlights to.
You're viewing a single thread.
Well, we needed a vehicle that could fit two children and related sports gear and, ideally, haul bikes at some point, and the had the cargo capacity for the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family. A small SUV was the winner as no car measured up and a true truck was overkill.
Shocking though it may be, for many, the use case may be valid.
Minivans can carry more passengers and cargo than SUVs.
They can; they can't fit in my garage.
If your oversized modern SUV can fit, any minivan can fit, and the SUV provides less interior space because they universally waste internal space, while vans maximize space, while maximizing stability and safety as much as they can, so the least safe seat is the "navigator's seat," or the passenger seat up front. Other than that particular potential death seat, that I sit in routinely, the rest of the van is almost as well defended as the SUV, the SUV may have better defenses against gunfire.
If your oversized modern SUV can fit, any minivan can fit
Oh? By what numbers, specifically, are you comparing?
The Chrysler Pacifica, for example, comes in at nearly two feet longer than the average mid sized SUV I ended up getting.
Length isn't the limiting factor for most "average" SUVs in getting into a garage. Height and width are the issues. I've never had a garage or carport that I couldn't park my mother's Dodge Ram 3500 15 passenger van in, and that's even longer than the Pacifica. Meanwhile, my friend can't get his Explorer into his garage, cause it will hit the roof.
Length isn’t the limiting factor for most “average” SUVs in getting into a garage.
You seem to be making quite the generalization there - while not actually providing any numbers.
I’ve never had a garage or carport that I couldn’t park my mother’s Dodge Ram 3500 15 passenger van in, and that’s even longer than the Pacifica.
That's awesome. Unfortunately, your experience doesn't change that my garage does not allow for the length of a van.
Indeed, but still they are so gauche lmao
They can carry more passengers OR cargo vs a truck. I love minivans, but the only way you're getting anywhere near a pickup-truck sized bed space is by folding/removing all the seats and making it a two-seater.
And even then, you can't put anything wet or messy back there.
Pickup trucks have their upsides for people who need them.
SUV's don't make much sense to me, other than the case where you need the people space AND you need to tow something heavy.
SUV’s don’t make much sense to me, other than the case where you need the people space AND you need to tow something heavy.
I wouldn't say heavy, but yes, combined people + cargo + bikes space is pretty much it for us.
Minivans can tow light trailers, usually as much as a car. The big SUV's approach 9-10K lb towing capacity.
That said, you can probably get a decent used SUV for less than a minivan.
Cars can easily tow as much as a medium sized truck. Minivans and full sized vans can tow as much or more than a full sized pickup or SUV.
Minivans are DQ'd by another constraint in that they don't fit in my garage thus I cannot ensure full coverage insurance and can guarantee it would sustain significant damage within a few years as my state has the kind of hail-and-tornadoes weather insurance companies know and hate.
They're otherwise amazing especially for cargo capacity. Seeing my auto shop teacher pull two transmissions out of the back of one back in my highschool days... seriously adjusted my opinion of them and their utility.
Oh dang, that's a rough constraint. Is it a length problem? I would think the sliding door would be perfect for a tight garage.
It is a length problem, yes. My Outlander and Volt barely fit lengthwise.
Apparently Iowa home designers had much less grand expectations of garage capacity back in the '90s.
My condolences, that sucks Glad you were able to find something that's worked out for you at least! If you ever need to tow random stuff but don't want to store a trailer, harbor freight makes one that folds in half and stores vertically.
That is extremely good to know - that's going to come in very useful as we start looking around for mower equipment.
Minivans can't keep up with a real truck, but most of the "trucks" sold today have a smaller bed than a 1982 Toyota pickup. They couldn't even begin to compete with a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge pickup of the same era of 1982, where those American made pickups are less than 1/3 the size of the modern US made variants, and can still carry almost 4 times their modern varient.
All that was so that I could say this: modern Sprinter, Transit, and 15 passenger Vans have more passenger and cargo capabilities than any of these so called trucks that cannot carry even 50% of the exact same model trucks that existed 20 years ago, and still couldn't carry more than a 15 passenger van in terms of passengers or cargo.
Minivans have tons of space for 4 people and related sports gear in all by the most extreme cases like 4 kayaks (2 kayaks? Put on roof)
Dirty or wet? Lay down a blanket.
When I say messy or wet I mean a half ton of dirt, a yard full of trees trimmings, a bed full of recently used septic equipment.
Not to mention chemicals you probably don't want to share airspace with. Had a friend with a pool cleaning biz that used a ranger for this reason.
Sorry but I can only laugh. Guys was talking about "two children and related sports gear" and you're off talking about septic equipment instead? Lol. Talk about bad faith discussion.
Yeah, I was pointing out we were talking about different things. It's called communicating.
Good communication is talking about the topic at hand, not going on wild tangents without actually saying so and then only after the fact say you were discussing septic tanks lol. Enjoy your bad faith last word, cheers.
Frankly, I don't see us making use of roof mounts. The older I've gotten, the more I value my back.
Sounds like a normal car with a hitch was the correct choice you ignored.
Not really. We already have a 4-door with about as much trunk space as one can get and it wasn't sufficient.
As a side note, how's the view from that high horse?
Not the poster above, but I used to haul two dirtbikes on a large trailer behind my Ford Mondeo, and I could still fit 5 adults and about a month of groceries in the car. It cost me £350, and I sold it for £200 after 3 years and 65000 miles. Zero problems cruising at 80mph full laden without the trailer or 60mph with.
The guy I sold it to stripped it and used it as a dirt track racecar and it lasted him a whole season.
I'm slightly mystified why anyone would want to throw extra money at SUVs, there's so much more to life.
I feel like it's worth pointing out that the car I drive is labeled as an SUV, and it's smaller and more fuel efficient than a Mondeo.
Not every car labeled an "SUV" is huge three row beast. If your hatchback doesn't bottom out going into a driveway now, we call that an SUV.
If you say you have a SUV in a thread about people having huge vehicles then is it surprising anyone reading that would think you meant you had a full-time one?
Anyway, to answer your question, if what is considered generally to be a small SUV is a Volvo X40, then the Mondeo was equally long but thinner, shorter, and about 2/3 the weight. I also had a 1995 Civic for a bit, which was lighter still and could carry nearly as much, though it couldn't tow more than 500kg.
I didn't actually ask a question or feel surprised about anything, just responding to your comment about "why would anyone buy an SUV".
My car which is sold as an SUV is smaller and more fuel efficient than the car you lauded as an alternative.
I don't want a big car, and I didn't get a big car. A massive Buick station wagon is a big car that isn't an SUV, just like not every SUV is some jumbo monstrosity.
I used to haul two dirtbikes on a large trailer
I have neither the storage options for, nor the interest in owning, a large trailer. I do have the option of selecting a vehicle which best suits my needs while fitting in my garage. I suspect that, were children and sports not part of the equation, I'd be perfectly happy with my Volt.
Oh, I didn't own or store the trailer. I rented it when I needed it and just had a little hitch rack to take one bike most of the time. If I needed to only take two dirtbikes I'd have got a folding bike trailer which takes up hardly any space.
My point was that my midsize hatchback had the same internal space for taking things around as your SUV, just with less weight and fuel consumption. Unless your kids are larger than adult sized and you have five of them?
Oh, I didn’t own or store the trailer. I rented it when I needed it and just had a little hitch rack to take one bike most of the time.
Fair enough.
My point was that my midsize hatchback had the same internal space for taking things around as your SUV, just with less weight and fuel consumption. Unless your kids are larger than adult sized and you have five of them?
I've yet to see this bear out. I have a midsize hatchback - a Chevy Volt - which does not have close to the same space. There is an argument to be made for fuel consumption there, though.
I don't know how big a volt is, they're not sold here. How about if I likenned it to a 1995 Civic 5 door? I had one of those and it could carry nearly as much.
The discussion was about large oversize cars, so that's what I was comparing the Mondeo to.
180.4" L x 71.2" W x 56.4" H.
A small or mid sized SUV usually has cargo space comparable to a hatchback, definitely less than a station wagon.
That guy correctly pointed out your logic is flawed, if you've been convinced by a salesman that the cargo space is something other than what it is, reflecting on that could make you a more informed consumer in the future. Getting annoyed at people commenting because you perceived them to have a 'holier than thou' attitude on it won't benefit anyone.
A small or mid sized SUV usually has cargo space comparable to a hatchback, definitely less than a station wagon.
Having experience with SUVs, hatchbacks, and wagons, I've yet to find that to be the case.
That guy correctly pointed out your logic is flawed
They shared a faulty conclusion they'd already drawn regarding the universal supremacy of one option and universal failing of another option even before truly understanding my use case.
if you’ve been convinced by a salesman that the cargo space is something other than what it is, reflecting on that could make you a more informed consumer in the future
And if you've assumed I had been convinced by a salesman rather than understanding my own use-cases and requirements and selecting a vehicle which meets those needs, not only have you erred, you've disregarded my highlight of having done so in my initial post.
Getting annoyed at people commenting because you perceived them to have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude on it won’t benefit anyone.
My experience has been that criticizing the arrogance and assumptions of those in an ivory tower has been more enabling - indeed, more enabling of more informed discourse - than comments defending the actual arrogance and assumptions of a rando.
A small or mid sized SUV usually has cargo space comparable to a hatchback, definitely less than a station wagon.
Having experience with SUVs, hatchbacks, and wagons, I've yet to find that to be the case.
The problem with making claims like this, without actually having checked first, is how easily refuted they are by someone who has. A quick Google search puts cargo space in an Audi a6 wagon at 30 cubic ft. An Audi q3 (small SUV) has less than 24 and an Audi q5 has 26. This trend is typical for all full sized wagons compared to compact SUVs (many share the same platform). The compact platform is comparable to the 22 cubic ft in a vw golf (small hatchback) - this makes sense as the vw gold and q3 literally share a platform (as is common for small SUVs and hatchbacks across brands). Any claim to have experienced something else is clearly misinformed as demonstrated by a quick Google search.
That guy correctly pointed out your logic is flawed
They shared a faulty conclusion they'd already drawn regarding the universal supremacy of one option and universal failing of another option even before truly understanding my use case.
Aided by a quick Google search I've demonstrated that your claimed experience is flat wrong. You've been misled (or could be knowingly lying, but that is not very likely).
if you’ve been convinced by a salesman that the cargo space is something other than what it is, reflecting on that could make you a more informed consumer in the future
And if you've assumed I had been convinced by a salesman rather than understanding my own use-cases and requirements and selecting a vehicle which meets those needs, not only have you erred, you've disregarded my highlight of having done so in my initial post.
Yes, I've assumed that you've behaved in a way consistent with the overwhelming majority of people. Your claims about cargo space are wrong, so if that's the basis of your use case as described in your previous post and you're honestly representing what you think, you have been misled. With the information presented, knowledge of the vehicles described and a basic knowledge of how marketing works, this seems by a huge margin to be the most likely case.
Getting annoyed at people commenting because you perceived them to have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude on it won’t benefit anyone.
My experience has been that criticizing the arrogance and assumptions of those in an ivory tower has been more enabling - indeed, more enabling of more informed discourse - than comments defending the actual arrogance and assumptions of a rando.
Well, I've now given some informed examples of cargo space so perhaps now that you've been presented with actual numbers (which I'd invite you to check yourself if you think I've invented them) you can now review your assumptions and reflect on how people are manipulated into believing that small/compact SUVs offer better cargo space or are somehow superior to conventional cars, when in fact they are not. To say no car measured up either means you didn't check or you were misled.
The problem with making claims like this is easily refuted they are.
I'm sure this will be entirely genuine.
A quick Google search puts cargo space in an Audi a6 wagon at 30 cubic ft. An Audi q3 (small SUV) has less than 24 and an Audi q5 has 26.
Ah, I see - a $68k car compares ~10% better to that same brand's $37k and $44k small SUVs. This highlights an additional facet to the equation, that of cost-effectiveness. Are you willing to pay 83-55% more for 11-25% more cargo space?
This trend is typical for all full sized wagons compared to compact SUVs (many share the same platform).
If you artificially restrict your comparison to same-manufacturer e.g. Audi, sure, though I'm not sure why anyone would do so.
Any claim to have experienced something else is clearly misinformed as demonstrated by a quick Google search.
My Mitsubishi Outlander clocks in at 64.3ft3 cargo space _as demonstrated by a quick Google search_ - this seems to beat your magical A6's 30ft3 by double. I'm sure there are other small SUVs out there which have similar or better cargo-space. Misinformed, indeed.
Yes, I’ve assumed that you’ve behaved in a way consistent with the overwhelming majority of people.
Thank you for at least in-part owning your error.
Your claims about cargo space are wrong, so if that’s the basis of your use case as described in your previous post and you’re honestly representing what you think, you have been misled. With the information presented, knowledge of the vehicles deacribed and a basic knowledge of how marketing works, this seems by a huge margin to be the most likely case.
I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion as you've demonstrated here a profound myopia regarding available options and fair comparison of those options, but hey. Thanks for re-confirming your flawed assumptions.
Well, I’ve now given some informed examples of cargo space so perhaps now that you’ve been presented with actual numbers (which I’d invite you to check yourself if you think I’ve invented them) you can now review your assumptions and reflect on how people are manipulated into believing that small/compact SUVs offer better cargo space or are somehow superior to conventional cars.
Unfortunately, the errors - in assuming one's use case, in applying flawed logic, in generalizing from artificially-narrow subsets of data, and in riding one's high-horse - are all still yours. I look forward to your correcting yourself.
The problem with making claims like this is easily refuted they are.
I'm sure this will be entirely genuine.
A quick Google search puts cargo space in an Audi a6 wagon at 30 cubic ft. An Audi q3 (small SUV) has less than 24 and an Audi q5 has 26.
Ah, I see - a $68k car compares ~10% better to that same brand's $37k and $44k small SUVs. This highlights an additional facet to the equation, that of cost-effectiveness. Are you willing to pay 83-55% more for 11-25% more cargo space?
Cost was not mention in your claim. You said no car could compete on cargo space. I'm not really interested engaging in a straw man about cost. There are cheaper stations wagons in production, I chose one that was easy to compare.
This trend is typical for all full sized wagons compared to compact SUVs (many share the same platform).
If you artificially restrict your comparison to same-manufacturer e.g. Audi, sure, though I'm not sure why anyone would do so.
I did that for my ease to demonstrate the point. If you want to choose to be wrong and pretend other manufacturers are radically different, by all means do so. If you think I'm wrong, you can spend your own time checking my claim that this is consistent for other manufacturers. I'm not motivated to spoon feed it to you, I think even if I did you'd invent new strawmen or move goalposts to justify your wrong claim above.
Any claim to have experienced something else is clearly misinformed as demonstrated by a quick Google search.
My Mitsubishi Outlander clocks in at 64.3ft3 cargo space _as demonstrated by a quick Google search_ - this seems to beat your magical A6's 30ft3 by double. I'm sure there are other small SUVs out there which have similar or better cargo-space. Misinformed, indeed.
Ah yes, the "small" full sized SUV (literally the largest Mitsubishi on sale in the USA) with three rows of seats. Your post claimed "small" SUV, that implies something like a crv, q3, macan etc. 64.3ft is with seats folded down, so yes a full sized SUV boot + rear seats is often bigger than a wagon boot only (you can usually fold the seats in a wagon as well). Frustratingly I was mislead by your"small SUV" comment above.
An honest comparison is the third row of seats folded down with second row up (presumably consistent with your two children being the car, no?). So 34 odd cubic feet, admittedly higher than the literal first wagon I thought of as a point of comparison for a small SUV. Compared to a full size SUV I don't know offhand if there's a wagon with more space, obviously if you move the goalposts that much it's hard to present an argument.
Yes, I’ve assumed that you’ve behaved in a way consistent with the overwhelming majority of people.
I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion as you've demonstrated here a profound myopia regarding available options and fair comparison of those options, but hey. Thanks for re-confirming your flawed assumptions.
A Mitsubishi outlander is not a small SUV bro. If you go back and read my earlier post you should be able to follow my logic pretty easily, I thought we were talking about something similar to an Audi q3.
Unfortunately, the errors - in assuming one's use case, in applying flawed logic, in generalizing from artificially-narrow subsets of data, and in riding one's high-horse - are all still yours. I look forward to your correcting yourself.
Well, enjoy it. Clearly I was pointing out that a small SUV does not have more cargo space than a conventional station wagon, clearly we define small differently if you think that monster is small....
With only the third row pushed down you do have slightly more space than the audi wagon, though I am still convinced that the station wagon can accommodate kids, bikes and holiday luggage based on the many, many years I used one for exactly that. Since you're committed to claiming that the extra 3ft of storage is make or break then I can't objectively argue the point.
I "will get back on my high horse" and say that the original post misrepresented the vehicle you'd chosen and reaffirm that I believe your insistence that "no car or station wagon" could accommodate your needs, as described above, is based upon being influenced by others and is not based in reality. Thousands of people have used station wagons for exactly that purpose for decades.
Cost was not mention in your claim. You said no car could compete on cargo space. I’m not really interested engaging in a straw man about cost. There are cheaper stations wagons in production, I chose one that was easy to compare.
Not only have you yet to show a car that competes on cargo space, you seem to not understand what a strawman is - I quite clearly stated you bring to focus an additional facet. There is no attack on an argument other than was made
It seems you aren't interested in engaging in the discussion at large if you've this much difficulty paying attention.
Ah yes, the “small” full sized SUV with three rows of seats. Your post claimed “small” SUV, that implies something like a crv, q3, macan etc. 64.3ft is with seats folded down, so yes a full sized SUV boot + rear seats is often bigger than a wagon boot only (you can usually fold the seats in a wagon as well). Frustratingly I was mislead by your"small SUV" comment above.
I'm interested in your apparently-arbitrary definitions of SUV size.
How do you believe the exterior dimensions of the above vehicles compare? Where do you draw the line?
I'm glad you personally feel the CRV is what qualifies as it indicates you have a line somewhere.
The external dimensions of the Honda CRV are 185″ L x 74″ W x 66-67″ H per quick Google. The external dimensions of the Mitsubishi Outlander are 185″ L x 75″ W x 69″ H per quick Google.
Do you truly believe the entire gap between small and large - including an implied medium - lies in the two inches vertical, one inch width, and zero inch length between the two?
Or, are you perhaps talking out your ass once more?
An honest comparison is the third row of seats folded down with second row up (presumably consistent with your two children being the car, no?). So 34 odd cubic feet, admittedly higher than the literal first wagon I thought of as a point of comparison for a small SUV. Compared to a full size SUV I don’t know offhand if there’s a wagon with more space, obviously if you move the goalposts that much it’s hard to present an argument.
That's a fair adjustment. However, there are no moved goalposts - just the unfortunate results of your own assumptions and gaps in awareness.
A Mitsubishi outlander is not a small SUV bro. If you go back and read my earlier post you should be able to follow my logic pretty easily, I thought we were talking about something similar to an Audi q3.
See above. It compares directly with the first of your mentioned "small" SUVs I checked. I would not be surprised if it compares similarly to the others based on your performance thus far.
Well, enjoy it. Clearly I was pointing out that a small SUV does not have more cargo space than a conventional station wagon, clearly we define small differently if you think that monster is small…
Once more, your highlight only compared within the same manufacturer and completely fell apart when comparing across manufacturers.
Once more, you seem to have a poor understanding of SUV sizes.
With only the third row pushed down you do have slightly more space than the audi wagon, though I am still convinced that the station wagon can accommodate kids, bikes and holiday luggage based on the many, many years I used one for exactly that. Since you’re committed to claiming that the extra 3ft of storage is make or break then I can’t objectively argue the point.
I'm concerned you're convinced of a universal truth by nothing more than your own experience.
It's interesting to me that you quibble about rahh honest comparison in other places but here seem to pretend the loss of three cubic feet at the gain of multiple tens of thousands in price is somehow an honest comparison to make.
It's possible the wagon would serve as well to haul things despite its clear loss in vertical capacity. I seriously doubt it, though - you seem to believe raw volume is the only factor.
I “will get back on my high horse” and say that the original post misrepresented the vehicle you’d chosen and reaffirm that I believe your insistence that “no car or station wagon” could accommodate your needs, as described above, is based upon being influenced by others and is not based in reality. Thousands of people have used station wagons for exactly that purpose for decades.
Your poor assumption is in no way my misrepresentation; at least have the maturity to own your mistake rather than seeking to pretend someone hoodwinked you.
You throw not based in reality stones from a rather glass house, friend.
Dude most people do not consider a fucking 7 seater small. I get that you don't like people contradicting your claims but seriously, the fact that you won't even acknowledge that a reasonable assumption for something described is 'small" is that it isn't larger than average makes this entire conversation pointless.
Have a good one, I'm out. Enjoy your SUV, whether necessary or not you clearly have a strong emotional attachment to it, and surely you can agree with me that there is unquestionable value in having things that bring joy.
Dude most people do not consider a fucking 7 seater small. I get that you don’t like people contradicting your claims but seriously, the fact that you won’t even acknowledge that a reasonable assumption for something described is 'small" is that it isn’t larger than average makes this entire conversation pointless.
So, your best response to a direct reference of the physical dimensions of the mentioned vehicles is... "dude just trust me bro"?
It's interesting you criticize claims - presumably, the actual references to the actual physical dimensions of the vehicles - while also ignoring those same facts. I'm sure you don't see the error between larger than the average and your referenced CRV being nearly identical in size - but more glaringly - what dimensions do you define as average? Based on your missing awareness so far, it seems you pull this, too, out of your ass - but I'd be thrilled to see any actual data.
This, aside from how you quibble about assumptions for small despite the external dimensions of my Mitsubishi Outlander being nearly identical to those of one vehicle you highlight as the epitome of small, the Honda CRV. Are you ever going to... say, acknowledge your error?
I note you did not answer those questions, so I once more highlight: How do you believe the exterior dimensions of the above vehicles compare? Where do you draw the line?
I’m glad you personally feel the CRV is what qualifies as it indicates you have a line somewhere.
The external dimensions of the Honda CRV are 185″ L x 74″ W x 66-67″ H per quick Google. The external dimensions of the Mitsubishi Outlander are 185″ L x 75″ W x 69″ H per quick Google.
Do you truly believe the entire gap between small and large - including an implied medium - lies in the two inches vertical, one inch width, and zero inch length between the two?
Are you truly so terrified of confrontating your own errors? That's... kind of sad.
Have a good one, I’m out. Enjoy your SUV, whether necessary or not you clearly have a strong emotional attachment to it, and surely you can agree with me that there is unquestionable value in having things that bring joy.
Unfortunately, only one of us seems to have an emotional attachment to anything and I would suggest it isn't the one directly referencing easily-discovered dimensions for an objective comparison of size. I would also suggest it's likely the person who ignores points and data and seeks to end the conversation when their errors are unavoidably on display.
I do enjoy that the vehicle I've chosen meets my needs, but I don't see the need to prescribe emotions to objects of utility.
Minivan. Or van.
But those are both bigger. Seems odd to be telling a person to get a larger vehicle when we're complaining about vehicles being too big.
Depends on the exact size of the SUV. I think minivans are smaller than most SUVs (all except actual compact SUVs). Minivans are also better for cargo because SUVs ride higher and thus have less space. And sliding doors are better for kids and tight spaces. And better mileage. Etc
I think part of it's that "SUV" better refers to the shape of the car than the size. Same for vans. I've got less experience with minivans, but I'll assume they're similar.
I bought my SUV because it was more fuel efficient and only slightly larger than my old hatchback. But I don't have something like a suburban or whatever.
When I hear "van", I think
Most minivans are roughly the same, but with windows and shorter. (Again, in my experience)
Most of the SUVs I see are what I think would be called "compact crossovers", so that's what I assumed was meant when OP said "kids, cargo and bike carrier".
Suv I think they meant:
Minivan I picture:
Suv I think you picture:
CUV is not SUV.
And see title of thread, best selling is supersize SUV.
Well, tell the people who label the things that a crossover SUV isn't an SUV, since that's not what they're telling people.
Title of the thread reads to me like (super size trucks) and SUVs not (
Super size (trucks and SUVs).
Beyond that, according to the actual article, the best selling SUV is a rav4, which is a compact crossover SUV.
If either would fit in my garage, yeah, they'd absolutely be valid.
the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family
For a once a year event, renting is almost certainly cheaper than using a larger vehicle you don't need for the rest of the year. Another option is driving two vehicles during the trip.
I'm interested in your reasoning behind cheaper.
Your assumption behind don't need the rest of the year - do you believe there are zero scenarios where the wife and I are both out and about? Perhaps... working?
You're correct - we could double the mileage / energy consumption, wear-and-tear, cognitive load, etc. on trips - or, we could not do something so ridiculous.
Your assumption behind don’t need the rest of the year - do you believe there are zero scenarios where the wife and I are both out and about? Perhaps… working?
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I was explicitly addressing road trips, not daily errands. Buy a smaller vehicle for dayly stuff and for a yearly road trip you can rent a larger vehicle than the one you use for daily errands. In the end it will save you money. What is the problem?
I was explicitly addressing road trips, not daily errands.
Feel free to highlight this explicit addressing.
For a yearly road trip you can rent a larger vehicle than the one you use for daily errands, and in the end it will save you money. What is the problem?
Setting aside, for the moment, you've myopically focused on a single facet of my scenario - the road trips -
Do you believe there are zero scenarios where the cost of potential SUV - cost of potential car <= (cost of rental * years of ownership)? Interesting.
Even a little more restrictive - do you believe there are zero scenario where the cost of a potential SUV which meets my feature requirements - the cost of a potential car which meets my feature requirements <= (cost of a rental * years of ownership)?
I am sorry for your limited ability to consider.
Feel free to highlight this explicit addressing.
I invite you to re-read my comment. I don't see how it could have been more explicit:
[You] the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family
[Me] For a once a year event, renting is almost certainly cheaper than using a larger vehicle you don’t need for the rest of the year.
As for the rest, I will be happy to maintain a friendly conversation only as long as you return the favor. I will not get involved in angry internet arguments.
Thank you and have a great day.
Ah, I see your error - you imply the road trip rather than explicitly highlight it.
Fair enough - I had mixed you up with another poster and you did not deserve my frustration. My apologies.
It sounds like something like a Volvo V70 would've been a better fit. Those beats can swallow a house, including its residents, and with a bike rack it can carry the whole neighborhoods bikes.
I don't know where the person you're replying to is from, but in the US Volvo's are very expensive to buy and very expensive to maintain. They are a luxury brand through and through. They're good cars but the average person cannot afford to purchase or maintain one.
I can't seem to find those these days - I see Volvo V60 and V90. The Volvo V60 does have a PHEV variant which does appeal but ultimately it seems to be the same form factor and capacity as a Subaru Outback or Chevy Volt; I've experience with both of those and they has far less usable storage in the back than the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV we ended up with.
As the Volt does, though, this could be a legit option for replacing that for the wife. That said, the price seems ridiculously high - over here, I'm seeing them go for ~52-58k whereas my Outlander was "only" 48.