Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons Station Wagon vs SUV
1426 messages, Last post on Feb 21, 2007 at 8:37 AM
You are in the Wagons Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
|
|---|---|
| I agree with the previous two posts. The lines between wagons, SUV's and minivans is being blurred. If you only look at the black and white of it you could easily cross shop a MB E320 AWD wagon with a Chrysler Town and Country AWD and a Ford Explorer AWD. They all have the same basic features including a tow rating (albeit varied). Things are only going to get more blurred with the influx of crossovers and tallwagons hitting the market over the next couple of years. Personally, I look at it as an opportunity instead of segregation of vehicle types. I can't wait to dump my SUV for something a little sportier with better gas mileage. Bring 'em on. | |
|
An SC1 doesn't match the power or even come close to matching the space offered by the Forester. That's not even apples to oranges, that's grapes to oranges. My 25mpg average is about the same as an SW2 would get. And I have AWD and a bit more cargo space and payload. And it can meet the light duty needs of most owners, like mine. I use it for bike racks and utility trailers, for hauling mulch and wood chips. Subaru owners don't own Bayliners, they own canoes and kayaks. And the LL Bean image is accurate - you don't need a huge boat to go fly fishing. While "trucks" have taken over more than 50% of sales, the one you mentioned, the Vue, is really car-based. So are the Escape, CR-V, RAV4, Santa Fe, and Tribute. So, the reality is that many trucks are no longer trucks in the traditional sense. The only reason they are classified as trucks is the more lax CAFE standard, 20.7 instead of 27.5 mpg. -juice |
|
| It isn't that they do tow, it is that they can tow. The utility part is something people think they might do. Why do people buy more Sedans than Coupes? Because they can carry more people. But five days a week I see people driving to work with one person in the car. On the weekends it isn't much better. If you can afford toys like a boat or camping trailer there was a time when the old wagons were still an option, not today. I am in the market for a new car as we speak. I have looked at wagons and they seem like a pretty good replacement for my sedan. However if I have to choose between something that is in the same price range why not get something that I could tow with if I ever wanted to? I have looked at the WRX but it is too small. The Forrester is still in the running even if you couldn't tow with it. However from looking on Edmunds new car site I have discovered many small to Mid sized SUVs that can do all the Forrester does and tow. The price is about the same and gas milage is within five MPG. Yes, many people don't tow but it would be nice if you could if you wanted to. Most people don't drive in conditions where they need AWD and it uses more gas, but I haven't heard anyone say people shouldn't be offered AWD. Image is important to many people but so is the ability to do something they may never do. | |
|
But people actually use the rear seat, in fact lots of time I'm sure. Towing is comparatively rare. The Forester can tow 2000 lbs, I've hauled about 1500 lbs and it did fine, BTW. I have photos if anyone would like to see it in action. But would you really sacrifice 5mpg for more towing capacity when you might not ever tow? You're talking about higher operating costs and less range between fillups, just for that small possibility? You can always rent a truck from UHaul for $19.99 a day. That's probably less than the gas would cost you over the life of the car. Remember, you're going to pay $200-400 or so just for the hitch package. That could pay for several rentals. I can understand if you own a boat, that you would want something that can comfortably tow a large load. That's different, and that's why there are lots of choices out there. -juice |
|
|
How often do the "need" the back doors. I have seen a report on TV that said that something like 80 percent of the cars on the freeways in my state have one person in them. They could use the back seat in a Coupe just as well. Once I decided to move from my Sedan to a wagon I already was prepared to give up 5MPG. I get 33 MPG everyday in my SL-2. I get 24 in my B-2500 and I get 35-40 in my SC-1. Fuel savings is one of the reasons I looked at a Forrester. Yes I could rent a truck instead of having my own pickup. I could rent one for the difference between what a Forrester and my sedan get in gas every month. Some of the new small wagons might qualify as more fuel efficient but not many. The Matrix or the Vibe might prove to be gas sippers I don't know. There is a reason that they sold 4.5 million SUVs in the US last year. It wasn't because people cared what the minority thought they needed but rather what the buyers felt they needed. No one knows what another person "needs". We should be careful as we decide what cars should not be made. Far more people enjoy their SUVs than sports cars but few of us would ever suggest that people stop buying sports cars just because they aren't "practical" for every day use. Wagons are providing and alternative to moving from a Sedan to a small SUV. If we ever limit what cars should be bought by what some small group feels is "needed" life will be dull indeed. If I were to suggest to some of my sport compact cars friends that the Forrester was a sporty car or one that should set the standard to what they "needed" I would have far fewer friends |
|
|
For me, all the time. Try loading a 40 pound toddler without a rear door - you'll take your back out on the first day. Believe me, it's not just a convenience, it's a necessity. Sedans can't nearly match the carrying capacity of wagons. That's before you even look at the roof rack, which I use often. Wagons are versatile, offer utility, and are far more efficient than SUVs. I'm not saying SUVs should sieze to exist, of course not. There are people that actually have boats, and even a few that really do venture off road. But what I'm saying is that 90% of those buyers would be better served by wagons, or crossovers, or whatever label you choose to put on them. I don't understand your gas mileage argument. A coupe does not meet my needs, not even close. Ever pack for a road trip with a toddler? Even the sedan won't cut it for me. -juice |
|
|
|
|
I'm continually shuttling kids from soccer practice to hockey practice to swimming lessons to/from daycare, etc., etc., etc. I need the seating and storage of a SUV or minivan but, don't like the inability to get excited when I find a road that has lot's of twisties. Personally, I don't want a minivan and only own a SUV because it's a company perk. I'm looking to replace my wifes car within the next year or so and can't wait for the new crop of crossovers. My wife won't drive a minivan or my SUV because the size scares her. I've driven the VW Passat V6 AWD and had a hoot of a time. It's just too small with too few seats. Putting a rocket pack on the roof rack doesn't make for a comfortable passenger seat or help the gas mileage. SUV's are great for the people that NEED them, most of us don't. Most of us need/want a vehicle that seats more than 5 with cargo room for those passengers. The Northeast isn't the only part of the country that gets snow and AWD is nice here in the Midwest also. |
|
| We can agree that wagons have their place. But once again the current crop is between a Sedan and a SUV. Someone mentioned image and that is what will have to change with wagons. The add people are attempting to do just that by calling some of them "sport" wagons. But in the US where we have far more straight highways than we do winding twisting ones straight line power equals sport. With the exception of the WRX Subaru's don't exactly burn up the road. I can list a whole fleet of SUVs that are quicker in the 1/4 mile. The Mountaineer is almost a full second faster according to Motor Trends Road test 15.6 at 85.9 to the outbacks 16.6 at 82. And the outback had a manual. The only quick wagons I have seen are the Saab 9-5 wagon and the Audi All- road Quattro. And maybe the Volvo. The WRX is more like a big hatchback. Neither of which is priced where I am that interested. I was offered a pretty good deal on a Volvo but it was still more than a Durango SLT. By the way, the WRX was slower in the Slalom than even the Legacy GT LTD at 61.4 MPH. I wonder how much slower a Forrester is in the corners? Remember what the masses want drives the market. So if I get a wagon or a smaller SUV I will more than likely keep a coupe or Sedan for my daily driver. I happen to live where there are windy and twisty roads, and I don't drive with a car seat full of toddler in the back when testing out those roads. ( Not saying that anyone of you do.) By the way, when my Son was a toddler I had a van, a swing and playpen would not fit in most wagons with my wife and I and a car seat. You had to fold the back seat down to get the swing in and then there was no place for the car seat. My Daily ride in those days was a Karmann Ghia. | |
|
Re the 1.8t sucking gas. My father has a passat wagon with the 1.8t that has a lifetime average of 32 mpg, and he gets 34-40 on the highway depending on speed. That same car with a diesel engine will average over 45 mpg and get over 50 on the highway. Yes it is not available here, but the Jetta is, and it still has a fair amount of room - back seat room may be a little tight for the average (slightly rotund) person, but cargo space is the same as the outback and more than the matrix. The matrix wagon (I know it tries too hard to look different) also gets very good gas mileage and is quite roomy for people - little light on cargo space. So there are wagons out there that do very well with gas, the Subarus tend to use more gas because they have large engines and AWD. Also speaking of quick wagons how about the jetta with the 180hp 1.8t - quick and economical (0-60 under 7 and over 140mph). Certainly quicker than any SUV(not counting those goofy limited production things). That is another thing that seems funny to me. Some people will say things like I need the extra power of a V-8 so I gotta have a full size car or SUV/truck. They buy a Suburban/F-150/town car that has a huge V-8, but accelerates about as fast as a 4 cyl Accord with an automatic because of all the weight it has to carry, and of course it handles like the queen mary. Mean while an average sized car with a 4 cyl. engine runs circles around them. To me the SUV carries around all that bulk, to be used such a small part of the time (by most people not all - in SD some farmers/ranchers stuff 6-8 people in one, and go 20 miles to the nearest paved road in the winter while towing horses/cattle/hay etc. - now that is using an SUV, and I do not begrudge them one bit). The advantages of a wagon such as better handling, braking, ride, acceleration, economy, manueverability, parkability etc. are used all the time. |
|
|
Forester pretty much leads its class in slalom speeds. You have to keep comparisons in context - try comparing the Escape or CR-V instead. The Legacy GT is pretty sporting. A buddy of mine took one to a "Friday at the Track" event and hit 106mph on the straightaway. With the instructor behind the wheel, they passed a Ferrari Testarossa (with the owner, of course). I have a Miata for the quick errands and stuff like that. But the Forester doesn't penalize you too much, it's the most fun to drive small car-based SUV. In fact that's why I bought it. -juice |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
