 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / June 2005WIFE WANTS MINIVAN HUSBAND WANTS SUV
My husband and I both know that we need another car. We are currently driving a 2000 Mitsu Galant with about 120,000 miles (problem free). We have two car seats in the back and will soon have an 8 year old riding with us as well. So we definitely need another car. The problem is we can’t decide if we want a mini or an SUV. I am with the mini for the lower insurance rates and possibly fewer trips to the gas station. My husband wants the SUV - probably more so for style. We are open to all comments, recommendations and suggestions for a USED vehicle. Thanks. Drive and price a Ford Freestyle, WBMA. It should satisfy both of you. mike hunt > My husband and I both know that we need another car. We are currently > driving a 2000 Mitsu Galant with about 120,000 miles (problem free). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/General-Discussion-WIFE-MINIVAN-HUSBAND-SUV-ftopict122 617.html > Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=596442 > My husband and I both know that we need another car. We are currently > driving a 2000 Mitsu Galant with about 120,000 miles (problem free). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all comments, recommendations and suggestions for a USED vehicle. > Thanks. If you want the safer vehicle, get a minivan. Statistics consistenly show that SUVs are not safer. Plus they get lousy mileage, non-SUV owners hate being behind them, and with AWD minivans out there, they aren't necessarily better in the snow. The Honda Odyssey/Toyota Sienna are always good picks. The Ford Freestyle doesn't look too bad either, though I don't know how it really compares, and I don't think you can get them used. Another thing to consider is that, unless you go luxury SUV, minivans generally have much better rear seating than SUVs. What makes you believe a minivan is somehow safer than an SUV? A report of the drop in deaths and injury rate among properly belted children in motor vehicles, published by the NHTSA in 2004, attributed the reduction to the fact more children are riding in the larger safer SUVs. As to fuel mileage the Freestyle get 27 MPG, which is better than the Sienna. mike hunt > If you want the safer vehicle, get a minivan. Statistics consistenly > show that SUVs are not safer. Plus they get lousy mileage, non-SUV The Freestyle is actually a minvan; basically the successor to the Freestar. It's actually based on the frame of the Five Hundred. SUVs are heavier vehicles and have a higher center of gravity, which makes them more prone to tipping over, and because of Newton's 2nd law, more mass means they are generally harder to stop. There's also the factor that many people get a false sense of security from being in a big vehicle and forget that 4WD/AWD may help you get moving in the snow, but it doesn't do much to STOP you in the snow. > What makes you believe a minivan is somehow safer than an SUV? A > report of the drop in deaths and injury rate among properly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>If you want the safer vehicle, get a minivan. Statistics consistenly >>show that SUVs are not safer. Plus they get lousy mileage, non-SUV You forgot to say in my opinion. The Freestyle crossover is no higher than the Freestar minivan. Nether the Freestar, 500 or the Freestyle have a frame. They are of unibody construction. Perhaps you are thinking the Explorer. Which is even LESS likely to rollover than ANY other true truck based SUV because it has four wheel independent suspension as well as stability control, standard LOL mike hunt > The Freestyle is actually a minvan; basically the successor to the > Freestar. It's actually based on the frame of the Five Hundred. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >>If you want the safer vehicle, get a minivan. Statistics consistenly > >>show that SUVs are not safer. Plus they get lousy mileage, non-SUV The Freestar is a minivan, and thus based on a car frame/chassis/body/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. The Freestyle "crossover" is based on another car frame/chassis/whatever-you-prefer, namely, the 500. But you are correct, the redesigned Explorer is much more stable than many other SUVs because of the suspension and electronic goodies you mentioned. However, it still has a higher CG than the Freestyle or any car or minivn, and is still more prone to roll over than a vehicle with a lower CG. Physics is not an opinion. My only point from the beginning is that SUVs definitely have a higher CG, and thus greater risk of rolling over than a minivan. And while SUVs are improving, they still often have poorer safety ratings than many cars--which is not to say there aren't also cars with poor safety ratings--and minivans still generally have better safety ratings. > You forgot to say in my opinion. The Freestyle crossover is no > higher than the Freestar minivan. Nether the Freestar, 500 or [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>riding in the larger safer SUVs. As to fuel mileage the >>>Freestyle get 27 MPG, which is better than the Sienna. You are free to believe what ever you choose, I'm not here to debate. My Engineering degree is in metallurgy, I worked for thirty years in structural design of motor vehicles. I know of which I speak. The fact remains NO vehicle is PRONE to roll over. The number of rollover accidents that occurred several years ago was the result of a specific Firestone tire, used on specific vehicles that happened to be SUVs. The anti SUV environmentalists attempted to use that to discourage people from buying the large safer SUVs they were buying in ever increasing numbers. Statically only 8% of ALL passenger vehicles will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS, IN THEIR LIFETIME. Only 2% of that percentage result in a rollover. The vast majority of rollover accidents are the direct result of some other force, such had being struck or striking something that cause the vehicle to rollover, not its particular center of gravity. The center of gravity among all passenger vehicles is within an insignificant inch or so, located at a point BELOW the center of the drive line. As to the likelihood of properly belted passenger being injured or killed, one can not beat the laws a physics, the larger the vehicle the lower the probability of injury or death. I.E. A properly belted passenger, riding in a smaller vehicle with a 5 star rating, is more likely to be injured or killed than one riding in a larger vehicle with a 5 star rating. Regardless of the type of vehicle they are occupying at the time.. mike hunt > As to the likelihood of properly > belted passenger being injured or killed, one can not beat the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > mike hunt Now that is not necessarily true at all. N-star is N-star, and just because you're in a larger vehicle doesn't mean you are safer. Mass is absolutely not a factor in survivability, since the earlier cars with heavy steel bodies and such were so rigid that all of the crash energy went to the drivers. It's really all about where the crash energy gets disapated to. The real fallacy is that since an SUV is a larger vehicle, it must be safer than a smaller vehicle. Now, if a 5-start SUV crashes into a 5-star compact car, *now* the likelihood of the compact car driver surviving is less, because a much heavier vehicle with more mass has crashed into it. Myself personally, I don't feel safe in SUVs. They roll in turns more than cars, which feels disconcerting. They have more mass to stop, and are especially scary to me in bad winter weather. 4WD won't do anything to STOP a vehicle. Roll-over incidents as a whole are indeed fairly rare. Physics alone would suggest that a vehicle with a higher CG would be more likely to roll-over than one with a lower CG. My intention is not to say that SUVs are death-traps waiting to roll-over at a moments notice, but rather just to point out that they are not necessarily safer than something other than an SUV. Again I'm not going to debate this and I'm not going to teach a class here. I will simply point out you thinking is flawed. It is not just the mass it is the fact that a larger vehicle albeit it a car, truck, or SUV has more area in which we can build in the crumple zones. With a larger crumple zone the terminal speed of the cabin is reduced, resulting in one organs striking their skeleton at a slower speed. That "Third collision" is what kills or severely injures properly belted passengers. Personally from what I know of how vehicles are constructed and how they handle I would never buy a FWD vehicle of any type or even ride in a small car, simply to save a few hundred dollar a year on fuel. However you apparently are going to believe what you want to believe and that is your privilege. ;) mike hunt > > As to the likelihood of properly > > belted passenger being injured or killed, one can not beat the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > because you're in a larger vehicle doesn't mean you are safer. Mass is > absolutely not a factor in survivability, > Again I'm not going to debate this and I'm not going to teach a > class here. I will simply point out you thinking is flawed. It [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > mike hunt Larger crumple zones don't do any good when the size of the object being hit doesn't change. You are free to believe whatever you wish. ;) mike hunt > > Again I'm not going to debate this and I'm not going to teach a > > class here. I will simply point out you thinking is flawed. It [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Larger crumple zones don't do any good when the size of the object being > hit doesn't change. > You are free to believe whatever you wish. ;) > > mike hunt >>Larger crumple zones don't do any good when the size of the object being >>hit doesn't change. We both are... You posted an opinion I posted what I know to be factual. I must have missed it, in what field did you say you have your engineering degree and for by which vehicle manufacture are you employed? mike hunt > > You are free to believe whatever you wish. ;) > >> Again I'm not going to debate this and I'm not going to teach a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > mike hunt > > mike hunt > >>Larger crumple zones don't do any good when the size of the object being > >>hit doesn't change. > > We both are... > You posted an opinion I posted what I know to be factual. > I must have missed it, in what field did you say you have > your engineering degree and for by which vehicle manufacture > are you employed? > > mike hunt Ph.D. in Advanced Automotive Engineering, and I'm employed by every vehicle manufacturer division that doesn't build SUVs, because I don't like SUVs and hate being behind them, especially the ones driven by women (or men, for that matter) on their cell phones who are more attentive to the conversation than the road. No response necessary, as I think everyone gets the point of all of this by now (at least, I hope so). That is what I thought, bye ;) mike hunt > > You posted an opinion I posted what I know to be factual. > > I must have missed it, in what field did you say you have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No response necessary, as I think everyone gets the point of all of this > by now (at least, I hope so). >My husband and I both know that we need another car. We are currently >driving a 2000 Mitsu Galant with about 120,000 miles (problem free). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >all comments, recommendations and suggestions for a USED vehicle. >Thanks. ================== My wife drives a 96 Dodge Caravan which SHE purchased new.....she loves it... I hate it...! But since I am not the one driving it and she likes it I figure I have absolutely nothing to complain about... Van now has 160,000 miles on it and has been for the most part problem free...of the repairs it has needed nothing was major. I hate the thing mostly because it is like driving my living room. ...it is just way too large "inside" for me .. I just feel like I am at the helm of a cabin crusier out on the bay when I drive it... I think I would feel the same way about a SUV... Bob G. > My husband and I both know that we need another car. We are currently > driving a 2000 Mitsu Galant with about 120,000 miles (problem free). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/General-Discussion-WIFE-MINIVAN-HUSBAND-SUV-ftopict122 617.html > Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=596442 heyhil, After much research, I've decided to replace my 1999 Mercury Villager minivan with a Honda Odyssey minivan--mainly because of the excellent reviews it's gotten. It's pretty luxurious inside if you get the fully- equipped Touring model. They say it drives really nice. Honda has great lease terms because of Honda's high resale value. SUV's do not appeal to me. The appeal seems to be more "style" than substance. Also, there's no disputing that with an SUV's higher center or gravity, they're more prone to roll over. Scott Really? If the center of gravity determined the probability of rollover one would expect to see six wheel trucks rolled over every day. The fact is NO vehicle is PRONE to rollover. The myth that SUVs have a propensity to rollover was a product of the environmental movement after the rollovers cause by Firestone tires, to get buyers to stop buying SUVs. The center of gravity of a comparable SUV is within an inch of a minivan. For a vehicle to roll over it needs to be lifted up over 45%. Next time you see a vehicle chase in a movie, or on TV, using SUVs notice how they spin in circles without turning over. To get one to turn over the stunt team runs them up a ramp hidden behind something so you can't see the ramp. ;) mike hunt > After much research, I've decided to replace my 1999 Mercury Villager <snip> > minivan with a Honda Odyssey minivan--o, there's no > disputing that with an SUV's higher center or gravity, they're more prone > to roll over. > > Scott Given a situation where an SUV is just at the point where it will roll over, if you were to take a car to that exact same point, the car won't roll over as well, unless it has to do with hitting a curb at the right angle. While technically correct that a vehicle must go beyond 45% to roll over, there are many situations that will cause that to happen. Because of the higher CG, if you were to swerve left and then quickly swerve right again at speed, the compression of the right-side suspension in addition to the higher CG and tendency for the vehicle to roll left in a right-hand turn can potentially cause any vehicle to roll-over. There's no doubt, SUVs *have* been getting safer as of late, but the statistics still showed that SUV rollovers generally had more fatalities than car rollover. But it really all comes down to the driver. Given a safe, experienced driver, the likelihood of any vehicle to roll over is low. But the thing with SUVs is that many people get a false sense of security behind them. If you treat an SUV as an SUV, and not a sports car, you probably won't be in much danger. But it's good to know what the statistics are on a vehicles safety rating before making a decision, no? > Really? If the center of gravity determined the probability of > rollover one would expect to see six wheel trucks rolled over [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To get one to turn over the stunt team runs them up a ramp hidden > behind something so you can't see the ramp. ;) That may be what you believe, but the type of maneuver you are referencing, that could result in a rollover of many types of vehicles, has far more to do with the particular vehicles wheelbase than the slight difference in the center of gravity. As to the SUV fatality 'number' vis a v other vehicles, one needs to look at the rate per passenger mile, not raw numbers. The rate for SUVs is far lower. Me thinks you need to expand you search of the sources you are using to get your information. Your current sources are obviously biased against SUVs mike hunt > Given a situation where an SUV is just at the point where it will roll > over, if you were to take a car to that exact same point, the car won't [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > To get one to turn over the stunt team runs them up a ramp hidden > > behind something so you can't see the ramp. ;) > That may be what you believe, but the type of maneuver you are > referencing, that could result in a rollover of many types of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > search of the sources you are using to get your information. > Your current sources are obviously biased against SUVs No doubt *I* am biased against SUVs. As far as "rate per passenger mile", that's just spin. Often times, SUVs are carrying no more or less people than passenger cars, and SUVs, cars, etc are not mass-transit. But this whole line can be summed in like this: some people are biased against SUVs, and others are biased for SUVs. Cars and SUVs alike have for the most part been getting safer, and probably will continue to do so. If you're getting an SUV just to get an SUV, and don't actually need what it offers, that's just the same as getting a sports car and never actually using it for what it is; i.e. a waste of money. You are entitle to you own opinion but I was merely stating facts. I don't own an SUV nor do I need or want one. My personal preference is for RWD V8 powered vehicles. I would not begin to suggest that anybody buy what I buy, or that they do or do not NEED a particular type vehicle. That is their business. When asked, as I often am because of my many years in the business, for my advice on a vehicle purchase I always suggest they buy new vehicles, not used, drive and get a total drive home price, on all of those new vehicles that suit their particular needs. then purchase the one that best suits their budget. From what we see in our business all manufactures today are building good reliable vehicles. Ones change a getting a bad one are rather slim. ;) mike hunt > > That may be what you believe, but the type of maneuver you are > > referencing, that could result in a rollover of many types of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > need what it offers, that's just the same as getting a sports car and > never actually using it for what it is; i.e. a waste of money. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.